Legislature looks at bill to allow nontribal hunting on tribal land

The Montana Legislature's Fish, Wildlife and Parks House Committee during a hearing Tuesday had a lengthy, contentious look at a bill that proposes allowing hunting by nontribal members in the exterior areas of Montana reservations regardless of tribal regulations.

The bill says the Fish and Wildlife Commission may not prohibit hunting on fee lands owned by a nontribal member with the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation.

The bill, House Bill 241, is sponsored by Rep. Joe Read, R-Ronan. who described it as a effort to ensure the maintenance of land owners' private property rights.

"This is truly just a private property ownership bill," he said, "and in no way shape or form was it ever meant to infringe on tribal property, to usurp the rules and regulations the tribe has."

He said he thinks the time is ripe to establish that all land owners have the ability to hunt and harvest game on their own private property and reduce habitat damage caused by an overpopulation of predatory animals.

Proponents of the bill who spoke at the hearing were mostly land owners in the Flathead reservation area who said they were frustrated by an inability to hunt on their own land, which they deemed unjust.

Many introduced them selves as many-generational Montanans.

"This is wrong, we are tax payers like everyone else," said Rick Schoening a former game warden in Lake County.

Schoening spoke as a proponent of this bill which he said is the result of a grassroots movement that has collected over 1,000 signatures.

He said he witnessed the injustice of this tribal policy when he had to issue tickets to people for shooting elk on their own land.

He also claims he spoke with a tribal elder of the Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribe who told him that, "this rule is obviously a white man rule. No Indian would ever ask to have this done."

Opponents of this bill who spoke at the hearing dwarfed proponents and were almost exclusively tribal members or their direct decedents.

Schoening's son Brendon also spoke in favor of the bill saying he was issued a citiation by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for killing a white-tailed deer on his property which was confiscated and given to the tribe.

He said he believed he was within his legal rights to do this and risked a loss of business, reputation on the decision to kill the deer which his wife did not support.

He claimed he was being discriminated against because of where he lived.

Another proponent David Allen, claims FWP has violated its purpose to protect public health, safety, welfare, resources, and the protection of property rights by allowing this state of affairs and claimed opposition to this bill is purely political.

He said the FWP Commission is appointed, not elected which makes their opposition a political issue and argued that because tribes are reliant upon and created by the federal government they are subject to federal law.

He ended his presentation by presenting the committee with a book titled "American Tribal Tyranny: ... how federal Indian policy secretly monies up elected officials and forces American taxpayers to fund all annual operating affairs and 574 wealthy tribal governments."

Committee Member Rep. Seth Berglee, R-Joliet, stopped him and said racism of that kind is inappropriate in the hearing and the matter that the book appears to discuss is irrelevant.

Six other proponents expressed similar concerns as those who previously spoke.

More than 20 people spoke in opposition to the bill, many of them tribal representatives and nearly all of whom made the argument that the bill was an assault on Montana tribes' sovereignty and right to self-determination.

Fort Peck Tribal Councilman Jestin Dupree said the bill was disrespectful to the rights his people fought and died for and threatened to take away control from the relatively small pieces of land Native Americans have left.

"The U.S. Government placed our tribe on plots of land no one else wanted and if this bill is passed we will progressively lose the rights to what little we have left," he said.

Charles Headdress, a colleague of Dupree, said his people were provided these rights in exchange for vast swaths of land being given to the federal government.

He also said the tribes have robust systems of conservations that fit each reservation's needs for natural resources and the argument that the bill would prevent negative impacts on the environment is not sound.

Headdress also said the bill would be a nightmare scenario for the jurisdictional boundaries between federal, state and tribal entities.

He also objected to Allen's presentation of the book earlier in the meeting.

"All you have to do is read the Dawes Act to understand tyranny," he said.

Former Chairman of the Crow Nation Darrin Old Coyote said Native Americans have faced a tremendous amount of loss via warfare, assimilation, modern systemic racism and, most recently, COVID-19 and this bill would effectively reduce tribes' ability to hunt of sustenance.

Crow Nation of Montana Chairman Frank Whiteclay said the bill would not just cause confusion but increase animosity between state and tribal governments, which is not something anyone in Montana needs.

Many succeeding speakers agreed with Whiteclay and Headdress.

Blackfeet Nation Secretary Lauren Monroe also said the bill was created without any communication to tribal nations.

Rep. Jonathan Windyboy D-Box Elder, said House Bill 608 that passed in the 2003 legislative session necessitates that state policy that directly affects tribes must be made in consolation with them.

Read agreed later in the hearing that he had failed to consult with the tribes.

Monroe raised concerns that the bill and the ensuing influx of hunting would destabilize the reservations' ecosystems, and he's not confident the state would be able to properly address it.

"We question whether the state government has the resources to manage seven new, sizable hunting areas," he said. "We also question whether the state has sufficient knowledge of these areas to effectively manage nonmember hunting."

The legal counsels to many tribes spoke at the hearing as well, calling into question the legality of the bill, arguing that it violates federal treaties that established the right of the tribes to regulate hunting on their land.

Many, including John B. Carter who represented the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in the case, also argued that the bill is an attempt to address the ruling in State v. Shook which established that hunting is not a constitutional right.

Legal Counsel to the Blackfeet Nation Evan Thompson said the bill, if passed would open a floodgate of litigation.

Montana FWP Deputy Director Dustin Temple said the legislation would effectively prohibit regulation of hunting by non-tribal members on fee lands that are part of a reservation.

He also concurred with previous speakers that it disregards effective and long-standing relationships between the state a tribal governments.

Political Director of Western Native Voice Keaton Sunchild said his organization also opposes the bill and he doesn't understand why its an argument that is even being had at this point.

He also argued that proponents seemingly leveraging how many generations they've lived in Montana is a bad idea.

"If that's the argument they want to make, fine," he said, "because the people on reservations have been here far longer than that. ... It doesn't seem to be a winning argument."

Sam Forstag of the Montana ACLU said his organization also opposes the bill.

The in-person testimony was followed up by more than 20 people who spoke remotely including Fort Belknap Tribal Council President Andy Werk Jr. who said he respectfully disagrees with Read and said this is a matter of jurisditition not private ownership.

He said the Fort Belknap constitution gives the Fort Belknap Indian Community the ability to regulate its lands.