Protect hunting, fishing heritage

Threats to Montana's hunting and fishing heritage are likely to come from urban areas outside the state.

Some voters may scratch their heads and wonder why they should support a constitutional amendment to protect hunting and fishing in Montana.

It would be difficult, after all, to find a person on a Montana main street who is hell-bent on ending hunting and fishing rights. The absence of a formidable anti-hunting constituency is one of the main official arguments against Constitutional Amendment 41.

But we think the lack of a threat in Montana misses the point. Threats to Montana's hunting and fishing heritage are likely to come from urban areas outside the state. And these threats should not be lightly dismissed, because animal-rights groups have become more organized, with more supporters and more active across the country over the last decade. We fully expect that trend to continue.

Those who doubt the threat of anti-hunting forces might be surprised at the efforts they pursue in state capitols across the country.

The New Jersey Assembly, for example, is currently considering bills that would outlaw bear hunting, proposing some form of sterilization as an alternative to managing bear numbers. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has petitioned to ban fishing in Louisiana's state parks, and for the past two sessions, bills have been introduced to criminalize the act of killing animals in that state.

More common, though, are political and legal campaigns aimed at curbing hunting and fishing in a piecemeal fashion.

That's why seven states have passed constitutional amendments with language to protect hunting and fishing and that's why eight more - including Montana - are considering similar amendments.

The official argument against C-41, laid out in Montana's voter handbook, basically dismisses the amendment as an unnecessary measure because hunters represent a majority view in Montana.

"If we come to a time when the majority of Montanans do not want to allow hunting or fishing, this proposal will not protect the hunter and angler," the argument against C-41 states.

Oh yes it will. The entire idea behind a constitutional amendment is to protect minorities from the whims of majorities. And even in Montana, hunters and anglers make up just 40 percent of the state's population, a percentage that is declining.

C-41 bolsters hunting and fishing as traditions that are part of the state's rural heritage. It will provide insulation from those who don't give a rip about that heritage and those who don't care that Montana's hunters and anglers are the people who have paid for wildlife management and conservation efforts for the last century.