Bill would add teeth to criminal trespass for commercial shed-antler theft; committee hears mixed views

Representative Jill Cohenour presented House Bill 354 to the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee on Feb. 4, 2025, characterizing it as a response to widespread trespass tied to a growing market for shed antlers. The bill would elevate certain trespass conduct related to hunting, fishing, trapping or collecting antlers so that convictions could carry mandatory loss of hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for up to 24 months in the most egregious or repeat circumstances.

Why it matters: Witnesses described a commercial market for shed antlers that creates incentives to trespass on private land and wildlife management areas. Joe Konour and others described repeat and organized trespass to collect antlers, sometimes involving long drives and coordinated drop-off/pick-up tactics; Ron Howell, chief of law enforcement for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, cited local examples where defendants took roughly $1,900 in antlers and paid a $185 trespass fine.

Proponents — including Montana Conservation Society, Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Stock Growers Association and Trout Unlimited — argued stronger penalties and judicial tools are needed because the current fine regime does not deter repeat offenders. Howell explained that current criminal-trespass fines are often $185, judges can impose larger fines or jail in some cases, and existing fish-and-game statutes commonly use a 24-month revocation standard for certain privilege losses.

Opponents and skeptics urged caution. The Outdoor Heritage Coalition and other witnesses questioned vague language around "attempting to shed hunt" and the scope of mandatory revocation; they asked whether the bill would inadvertently sweep in low-risk recreational activities (for example, inadvertent crossings or young people at a fishing-access site outside posted hours). Howell and committee members discussed posting requirements, proof of "knowingly" entering unlawfully and the role of the wildlife violator compact (Howell: loss of privileges is reciprocal with other Compact states, cited as 48 states in testimony).

What the committee heard but did not resolve: Debate centered on whether revocation should be mandatory ("must") or discretionary ("may") and on drafting clarity for "attempt" and posting standards. Witnesses and members suggested an educational/enforcement period, clearer statutory definitions, and that judges retain some discretion for non‑egregious cases.

Ending: The committee closed the HB 354 hearing after extended questioning; no vote was recorded at the hearing.