Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hunter Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana sponsor seeks mandatory hunter reporting to modernize FWP data
Summary
Rep. Marilyn Marler proposed HB 564 to require self-reporting of hunter activity and harvest beyond species already covered, saying phone surveys undermine public confidence; Fish, Wildlife & Parks staff described implementation options and timelines and cited mixed compliance in other states.
Representative Marilyn Marler, D‑Missoula, asked the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee on May 20 to require broader mandatory hunter reporting to give Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) more reliable data for season setting and allocation decisions. "More data, less voicemail," Marler said, arguing the current telephone survey system is outdated and inconveniences hunters while failing to capture some hunting effort and success details.
Marler said Montana already requires self-reporting for mountain goats, bighorn sheep and mountain lions and that HB 564 would extend mandatory reporting to deer and elk. As written, the bill previously paired reporting with a bonus‑point incentive and a possible fee for noncompliance; Marler said a friendly amendment before the committee removes the fine and keeps the license‑blocking requirement — hunters would need to self‑report before buying next year’s license.
Dozens of proponents — hunters, conservation groups, tribal representatives and county officials — outlined support in person and online. Zachary Van Niman said mandatory reporting ‘‘increases transparency’’ and helps FWP paint a better picture of statewide wildlife. Tribal testifier Patch Kawaki said tribal harvest data are important for co‑management and that tribal programs already collect harvest and disease testing information.
FWP officials described implementation and fiscal consequences. Lina Havron, FWP chief financial officer, said the department would request an updated fiscal note if the amendment is adopted and indicated the department expects a one‑time cost to build or adapt an online reporting system. Ken McDonald, chief of the wildlife division, reviewed compliance levels in other Western states and told the committee that Washington and Idaho show roughly 50–60% compliance under mandatory systems and Nevada’s higher fees correlated with higher compliance in the 90s in one example.
Committee members pressed staff on costs, how long the department would retain phone surveys, where the data would be stored and the deadline needed for the information to be useful for season setting. McDonald said that to inform season setting the department would prefer most data by about April, and that a February 15 deadline (in the sponsor’s draft) was suggested so harvest and effort information can be analyzed in time for June season decisions. He explained the department would likely run phone surveys in parallel while the new system scales up and could continue follow‑up phone interviews for noncompliant hunters.
FWP licensing chief Emily Cooper said current mobile app tagging data are captured when hunters record a harvest, but HB 564 aims to capture all hunting activity (days hunted, effort) whether an animal was taken or not. Cooper described options for online, paper and in‑person reporting at license vendors to ensure access for hunters who do not use the app.
No formal action was taken on HB 564 during this hearing; the sponsor said she looks forward to collaborative amendments and to working with the department on design and outreach.
