Generally revise wildlife location data subject to public information requests
HB 264 revises Montana law governing wildlife location data and telemetry frequencies held by the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. The bill generally prohibits the department from releasing location data or telemetry frequencies for hunted or trapped animals, whether the information was collected by the department or is otherwise in its possession, subject to several exceptions.
The bill allows release of wildlife location data one year after completion of a study if the data was used in a study with a completion report, or one year after collection if the data was not used in a study. It also permits disclosure for environmental permitting activities and allows the department to share data with project partners and other government agencies through data-sharing agreements, so long as the timing restrictions are respected. In addition, the bill amends Montana’s public information law to add a specific exception for wildlife location data and telemetry frequencies, and clarifies that the department and its data-sharing partners may not release that information except as authorized.
HB 264 also makes a related change to the public records statute, MCA 2-6-1003, by inserting wildlife location data into the list of information that may be withheld from public disclosure under the new exception. The bill preserves the general rule that public information is open to inspection, but carves out this narrow category of wildlife data from ordinary public records requests. It also retains existing language on safety-related withholding, historical society donor restrictions, and litigation-related disclosure.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears generally supportive, as reflected by strong passage in both chambers and unanimous concurrence in the House on the Senate amendments. The bill moved through committee and floor votes with clear majorities, though not without some opposition, especially in the Senate where the concurrence and third-reading votes were closer. That pattern suggests broad agreement on the need to protect sensitive wildlife location information, paired with some concern about limiting public access to government-held data.
The main point of contention is the balance between transparency and confidentiality. Supporters appear to favor restricting release of telemetry and location data to protect hunted or trapped animals, reduce misuse of sensitive wildlife information, and preserve the integrity of research and management activities. Opponents likely focused on public records access and the risk of creating a new exemption to Montana’s open-government laws, particularly because the bill also restricts downstream release by agencies and partners who receive the data under sharing agreements.
HB 264 amends Montana’s public records and wildlife management laws by creating a new statutory restriction on the release of wildlife location data and telemetry frequencies held by the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and by entities that receive the data through authorized sharing agreements. It adds a specific exception to the state’s public information statute, MCA 2-6-1003, and codifies the new rule in Title 87 governing fish and wildlife, thereby narrowing public access to a defined category of sensitive wildlife data while preserving limited exceptions for studies, permitting, and intergovernmental coordination.
The bill appears to have been viewed favorably overall, with strong committee and floor support in both the House and Senate and final House concurrence on Senate amendments. The vote margins show broad bipartisan acceptance, though the Senate votes were more divided than the House votes, indicating some reservations about the scope of the public-records exemption. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record suggests general support with some measured dissent rather than a highly contentious debate.
The central controversy is whether wildlife location data should be treated as sensitive information exempt from ordinary public disclosure. Supporters likely argued that releasing telemetry and location data for hunted or trapped animals could harm wildlife management, research integrity, or animal safety, and that limited confidentiality is necessary for environmental permitting and agency collaboration. Critics likely objected to expanding exceptions to Montana’s public records laws and to restricting not only the department but also partner agencies from releasing the data, raising concerns about transparency and the breadth of the new exemption.