Democrats in the Montana Senate on Tuesday lined up in solid opposition to a proposed constitutional referendum to make hunting, fishing and trapping a right in the state, indicating the bill is unlikely to receive enough lawmaker support to appear on the 2018 ballot.

The Senate voted 30-20 in favor of Senate Bill 236, proposed by Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls. The bill proposes a substantial change in the state constitution’s language currently defining those harvest activities as an “opportunity.” Fielder and some sportsmen’s groups that favor the bill argue that stronger language is needed to ward off future attempts to limit hunting and trapping — specifically, Initiative 177, the ballot measure to ban trapping on public lands which was handily defeated by Montana voters in 2016.

“Have you ever heard of a ‘constitutionally guaranteed opportunity’ to anything?” Fielder asked during the Senate’s floor debate Monday. “What does that mean?”

Democrats called the proposed constitutional amendment unnecessary and insufficient to prevent future anti-trapping or anti-hunting groups from pushing similar efforts in the future.

After Fielder noted that I-177 failed 63 to 37 percent last November and was rejected in 55 out of 56 counties in Montana, Sen. Mike Phillips, D-Bozeman, said the broad statewide support for trapping is evidence the bill is not needed.

“It’s not going to stop future attacks. You know why people are frustrated by trapping; it doesn’t have anything to do with what our laws say or what our constitution says,” Phillips argued.

He contended that the proposal “oversimplifies management of fish and wildlife resources” and could complicate the state’s ability to manage non-game species.

Jill Cohenour, D-East Helena, joined her colleague on the Senate Fish and Game Committee in opposition, noting that the proposed language was largely re-written during the panel’s executive action, after wildlife and sportsmen’s groups had weighed in on the original bill.

Sen. Chas Vincent, R-Libby, was among several Republicans backing in favor of the bill. He argued that allowing the Legislature to put the proposal to a vote gives lawmakers a say in the process, rather than letting voters or private groups take it into their own hands.

“At the minimum, if this doesn’t meet the two-thirds vote we’re going to have language at the end of this that a group could take and put forward to a vote in the initiative process,” Vincent said.

Legislation proposing a constitutional referendum requires a two-thirds majority by the combined members of the House and Senate to appear on the ballot, meaning it would need 70 representatives in the House to vote in favor of the bill.

Reporter Sam Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.