Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hunting Dog Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates Class D5 dog-training licenses and scope of out-of-state training; amendment considered
Summary
Lawmakers discussed House Bill 450 addressing Class D5 licenses for training hunting dogs and whether to limit nonresident training dogs on Montana public lands; the committee considered an amendment to require reporting of nonresident trainer activity but hearing transcript does not record a final outcome on the amendment.
Committee members debated House Bill 450, which concerns Class D5 licenses for training hunting dogs and nonresident trainer activity in Montana. A motion to amend (hb450 b dot1.1) was offered and put to a roll-call vote during the meeting; committee members expressed concern about the scope of out-of-state trainers, numbers of dogs and whether the department should treat private and public lands differently.
Why it matters: Witnesses and legislators described reports of many dogs and handlers coming to Montana for extended training periods, sometimes on public lands. Members asked for baseline reporting and data so the department and legislature can assess whether additional regulation or limits are needed. Vice Chair Koehner argued that collecting basic data on the number of dogs and duration of stay would help craft policy responses.
Discussion points centered on whether state rules can or should distinguish private land owned by nonresidents from other ownerships and how limits on dogs per license would affect landowners and trainers. Staff clarified the existing bill text does not distinguish public from private lands, and the department indicated different standards can apply by landownership, but the transcript does not record a final committee decision imposing specific limits or operational distinctions.
Ending: The committee considered the amendment in a roll-call vote; the hearing transcript records extensive roll-call dialogue but does not clearly record a clerk-certified outcome for the amendment in the published excerpt. Members noted that more study and reporting would likely be needed to set durable policy.
