Kitty-Killers & Waste-Pond Beavers
Montana’s absurd hunting & wildlife laws.
Wildlife regulations in the state of Montana have been piling up since the territorial legislature first convened in Bannack in December 1864. At that session, the legislature prohibited fishing for trout with anything but “fishing tackle, consisting of a rod or pole, line and hook,” and declared that “said hook shall not be baited with any drugs or substance poisonous to any kind of fish.” The legislature later added to its wildlife-management statutes with rules such as the 1883 enactment of bounties for killing predatory animals. Bears and mountain lions were worth eight bucks, wolves were worth a dollar, and coyotes netted 50 cents.
The Montana Code still authorizes county governments (upon the request of the county’s livestock owners) to adopt a bounty program for the killing of predators. Until recently, the Code specified that counties could pay up to $100 for each wolf or mountain lion killed, $20 for each wolf pup or mountain-lion kitten, $5 for each coyote, and $2.50 for each coyote pup. In other words, the Montana Code authorized Montana counties to pay people to kill kittens. The explicit targeting of kittens was deleted from the Code in 2017, but any kittens guilty of depredations on livestock remain at risk. As absurd as this might sound to cat lovers, it doesn’t even approach the absurdity of several other wildlife statutes on the books.
Any good citizen of Montana could be justifiably outraged that the Montana Code criminalizes the failure to report the capture of wild tigers, yet allows the scofflaws who capture gorillas, hippos, or crocodiles to do so without giving any notice to FWP.
Under Section 87-6-701, for example, anyone who captures a “bear, wolf, tiger, mountain lion, or coyote” must report the capture to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks so the animal can be tattooed for future identification. Any confusion as to what the legislature intended concerning the capture of wild tigers in Montana was addressed by the department’s administrative regulations, which clarify that a “tiger” is a “member of the species Felis tigris,” i.e., the very large cat with orange and black stripes that is not ordinarily found roaming the Montana countryside.
Any good citizen of Montana could be justifiably outraged that the Montana Code criminalizes the failure to report the capture of wild tigers, yet allows the scofflaws who capture gorillas, hippos, or crocodiles to do so without giving any notice to FWP.
Montana law also includes extensive statutes and administrative regulations regarding “exotic” wildlife, defined as any species not native to Montana. Montanans are free, for example, to keep two-toed sloths and wallabies as pets without asking permission. But a wallaroo (bigger than a wallaby, but smaller than a kangaroo) is deemed too dangerous to keep without a permit. A headline from a 2021 story in the Daily Inter Lake highlighted the danger presented by wallaroos: “Wallaroo at large after grizzly kills llama near Whitefish.”
Any Montanan unable to capture a tiger in the wild can still own a tiger by obtaining a permit to operate a “wild animal menagerie” under Section 87-4-801. This allows for the keeping of one or more bears or large cats, including cougars, lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, pumas, cheetahs, or ocelots. Montanans wishing to keep caribou, moose, mountain goats, or reindeer, on the other hand will need a permit for an “alternative livestock ranch,” pursuant to Section 87-4-406.
With great foresight, the legislature has prevented any bickering at the site of a beaver dam over who has to go get the dynamite.
Another dubious wildlife provision is found at Section 87-1-224, which explains what to do if a beaver dam obstructs a stream into which “sewage of a town or city is dumped.” Leaving aside the dumping of sewage directly into Montana streams, the statute goes into great detail about whose responsibility it is to destroy the offending beaver dam. Should the landowner refuse to take action, for example, the Department of Environmental Quality must step in.
The problem of sewage backing up against a beaver dam is an inherently local issue, so the DEQ obviously shouldn’t have to foot the entire bill. In order to keep things fair, the statute says: “The department shall furnish all labor needed to blast out or otherwise remove the beaver dams. Necessary explosives must be furnished by the county in which the beaver dams are located.” With great foresight, the legislature has thus prevented any bickering at the site of a beaver dam over who has to go get the dynamite.
Ah, what a state we live in!
Alex Roots is an attorney with Planalp & Roots, P.C. in Bozeman.
