Montana committee hears bill to shift hunter-orange rules to Fish, Wildlife and Parks commission

Representative Gary Perry introduced HB347 on the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee floor, saying the bill would repeal the current statute on hunter orange and give the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission authority to set rules tailored by season and species. "This bill would simply repeal the current statute relative to Hunter Orange and give the Fish and Wildlife Commission the authority to set those rules," Perry said, noting the current Montana standard requires 400 square inches of orange above the waist during firearm seasons.

Proponents — including Rob Arnaud, executive director of the Montana Conservation Society, outfitters, former wardens and hunter-education instructors — told the committee the bill would preserve safety while allowing the commission to craft rules that reflect different hunting contexts. Arnaud said the bill “places the decision-making process closer to the hunters and outfitters and hunter education structures to help the agency make these decisions.” Will Israel of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association said commission meetings and species-specific input would permit sensible adaptations without eliminating hunter-orange protections.

Opponents, including Wade Cooperrider, a retired FWP hunter-education instructor, and several hunter-safety instructors online, urged caution. Cooperrider said Montana’s historical data show a sharp drop in mistaken-for-game incidents after orange requirements took hold and warned that because Montana relies on county reporting the department may not fully capture incidents. "The hunter orange is by far the most effective color out there to be seen," Cooperrider told the committee, and he predicted giving the commission broad regulatory authority could increase mistaken-for-game incidents over time.

Quentin Kujala, chief of conservation policy for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, appeared as an informational witness and said the department provided background and studies but was not advocating for or against the bill. Kujala cited an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife study presented in 2010 that the department reviewed; he summarized that multi-state studies found moving to hunter-orange requirements was associated with roughly a 22% reduction in incidents and a 40% reduction in fatalities per 100,000 hunters on average.

Committee members questioned the science underpinning color perception and species differences in vision and asked whether commission rulemaking could create confusion in overlapping seasons. Representative Kevin Farron and others cautioned that archery and other exemptions already exist and asked why the legislature should repeal the statute rather than allow the commission or a subsequent bill to make changes.

Perry closed by stressing the bill does not prohibit wearing orange and that the intent is to permit the commission to address season- and species-specific nuances. The hearing was closed without a committee vote; the committee moved on to other bills on the agenda. The Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission and FWP were cited repeatedly as the intended implementers of any new rules.

Next procedural steps: HB347 was heard and closed; the committee will consider it further in executive action at a later date if members request it.