Standing with sportsmen

by Rep. Wayne Rusk, House District 88

Candidate for Senate District 44

Once again I must take in hand some misinformation that appeared last week in regards to the proposed constitutional amendment. Amendment HB372 had the potential to compromise property rights and to create endless legal uncertainties for both the legislature and the agencies tasked with regulating hunting, fishing and trapping.
We already have a constitutional amendment safeguarding these rights (Article IX, Section 7) and, interestingly, it was authored by the same lobbyist who has now decided that it won’t do.

Their argument for the Preservation of our Harvest Heritage (passed in 2004) was that it strikes a “great balance”—which it did—and is why it passed both legislature and ballot box in overwhelming and bipartisan fashion (see Ballotpedia C41 2004)
https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Right_to_Wild_Game_Hunting_and_Fishing,_C-41_(2004).

Now it seems they have turned on their own achievements and deemed them “very weak.” The truth is, if this bill had passed, lawyers would have been busy for many years litigating the meaning of some of the new constitutional language – something that has long been settled with the existing constitutional provision (and giving yet more power to the courts). In particular, the definitions of “present means and methods” and “necessary” provide the potential for a large number of lawsuits because their meanings will determine the relationship between the “right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest” and the power of both the legislature and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to modify that right. For example, if FWP changes any “means and methods” for harvesting a particular species, there would likely be litigation over whether the change was “necessary” for the management of the species involved or whether it was even a “present” means or methods in the first place.

It is asked why I voted HB372 out of committee before ultimately determining it was not going to achieve the ends for which it was drafted. There was a space of 5 days between the committee vote and the hearing on the House floor in which time I learned of its failure the two sessions before, and came to better understand the concerns of opponents.
I did not make deals with anyone to kill 19 amendments as was asserted. Only six even made it to the House floor — the others having lost support before they could get that far. I own these votes outright and they were taken consistent with the constitutional conservatism upon which I campaigned, and I have gone to the people to sustain me in them.

While we’re on the subject, I would also point out that I did not deprive the electorate of a chance to decide the issue because these amendments did not originate with the people; they were rather, in this and other cases, the offerings of longtime lobbyists, and they are therefore vetted through the legislature.

In sum, the high bar of two thirds to amend a governing document (constitution) was established in order to transcend partisanship and achieve consensus. While we had the “letter” of the law met (supermajority), we still lacked the “spirit” of the law (consensus). This, together with the fact that nothing was to be gained for sportsmen obliged me to lay aside partisanship and stand upon the airtight amendment already passed by both parties, in both places (legislature and electorate). For more information visit my website (waynerusk.com) where my constitutional conservative position on many of these bills is explained under the voting record heading.

As a sportsman and gun owner I will always be found preserving, protecting and defending our sporting traditions and second amendment rights consistent with our constitutional system. Reach out anytime, 1-406-370-8486.