Committee hears House Bill 450 to require bird‑dog trainers to list number of dogs on licenses

The House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee on May 20 heard testimony on House Bill 450, a department bill that would require bird‑dog license applicants to report the number of dogs they intend to train and print that number on the license.

The bill sponsor opened the hearing saying, "4 50 is a bill from the department, and what it does is regulates non mainly nonresident license holders for dog training, where the applicants have to put the number of dogs on. And it's gonna be printed and issued by the department." Emily Cooper, licensing bureau chief for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, told the committee that HB 450 "amends 87 3 6 0 2 by adding the requirement of bird dog license holders to report the number of dogs that they're training when purchasing their license." Cooper said the department recommends a do‑pass.

Why it matters: proponents argued the change would give resource managers and wardens basic data to address localized strain on public lands. Callie Michaels of the Montana Bull Growers Association described what she called a growing problem in eastern Montana: "Over the past 10 years, Eastern Montana has seen a vast increase in the amount of dog trainers using public lands and many of these trainers are coming from out of state to train dogs as part of a commercial business." Michaels said groups sometimes arrive with "10 to 30 dogs, sometimes more," camp on public lands and that the resulting activity has disrupted grazing, introduced noxious weeds and stressed livestock.

Ranchers and local lessees echoed those concerns. Alicia Nave, calling in from Daniels County, urged the committee to give wardens administrative authority to verify the printed dog counts on licenses and to provide enforcement tools: "I would really encourage consideration for is perhaps allowing the game wardens to have the administrative authority to check the validity of that information as it is printed on the licenses." Nave described instances of mixed herds and reduced breeding rates she attributed to training activity on adjoining state leases.

FWP acknowledged both the practical limits of enforcement and the value of better data. Captain Phil Kilbreath said the reporting requirement "would definitely help gather more information on dog training. And, it would allow our wardens to look at the number of dogs they have on a license," but cautioned that wardens sometimes encounter trainers camped off‑site or rotating dogs and that current statutes do not always provide a simple enforcement penalty for misreporting.

Committee members pressed for specifics: Cooper confirmed the current proposal does not set a numeric cap or technical field limit, and that the license costs "$5 a license," not per dog. Cooper and Kilbreath said numeric limits, seasons and per‑license parameters are matters better set by the Fish and Wildlife Commission through rulemaking (the bill amends provisions at 87‑3‑602 and references related rulemaking authority in 87‑3‑604). The sponsor said the committee should gather data first and consider numeric limits or pricing after one or two seasons of licensing.

No formal committee vote was taken on HB 450 during the hearing. The sponsor closed by urging the committee to treat the bill as a data‑gathering step; chair closed the public hearing and moved on to executive action.

What comes next: HB 450 was heard in committee and proponents and agency staff indicated support; the committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing and did not adopt any amendments. Further legislative action — potential amendment language on enforcement, numeric limits or explicit warden authority — would have to be introduced in committee or on the floor in later stages.