Revise shed hunting requirements
HB 353 would overhaul Montana’s rules for collecting “sheds,” meaning naturally shed antlers or horns of elk, deer, and antelope. It creates two new license classes: a $10 resident Class F-1 shed-collecting license and a $50 nonresident Class F-2 license. The bill also exempts landowners, their immediate family, and landowner employees from needing a license while collecting on the landowner’s property. In addition, it gives the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks explicit authority to regulate shed collection through rulemaking and to manage access to department-controlled areas for this activity.
The bill amends multiple sections of Montana law to integrate shed collecting into the state’s licensing and wildlife enforcement framework. It adds “shed” to the statutory definitions, makes a conservation license a prerequisite for purchasing or applying for a shed-collecting license, and updates criminal provisions so unlawful possession, transport, sale, purchase, or exchange of sheds or antlers attached to skulls from animals that died of natural causes are treated as lawful only under the new rules. It also clarifies that the department may regulate collecting and possessing sheds, while preserving existing protections for mountain sheep and other wildlife laws.
A notable feature is the nonresident waiting period: on department-controlled lands with date restrictions, residents with the new license would be allowed access eight days before nonresidents with the comparable license for shed collecting. The bill also preserves the department’s general wildlife management authority and amends related statutes to ensure the new shed-collecting licenses fit within Montana’s broader hunting and conservation licensing system.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote history appears mixed to negative. The bill received a 12-8 vote in the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee on a motion to table, and it ultimately died in process. That suggests there was meaningful support for the concept, but not enough to advance it. Because there are no committee transcripts provided, the specific arguments for and against the bill are not recorded here.
The main points of contention likely centered on access, regulation, and fairness between residents and nonresidents. Supporters may have viewed the bill as a way to manage increasing shed-hunting pressure, reduce conflicts on public lands, and create a licensing system for enforcement and revenue. Opponents likely objected to adding fees and restrictions to a long-standing outdoor activity, especially the nonresident license cost and the eight-day resident preference on certain lands.
HB 353 would amend Title 87 of the Montana Code Annotated to create a formal regulatory and licensing structure for shed hunting. It adds new resident and nonresident shed-collecting licenses, requires a conservation license for participation in most cases, defines “shed” in statute, and authorizes the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to adopt rules governing collection, possession, transport, and access. It also revises criminal and possession statutes so that naturally shed antlers and antlers/horns attached to skulls from animals that died naturally are lawful only when collected under the new framework, while preserving existing exceptions for landowners and protections for mountain sheep.
The bill appears to have generated divided sentiment. The committee vote to table it failed 12-8, but the bill later died in process, indicating it did not secure enough support to move forward. The available record suggests some lawmakers favored formal management of shed hunting, while others were not persuaded by the added licensing, enforcement, and nonresident restrictions.
The likely areas of disagreement were whether shed hunting needed new state regulation at all, whether the new licenses and fees were justified, and whether the bill unfairly limited nonresident access. Another likely point of contention was the eight-day resident-only head start on department-controlled lands, which favors residents over nonresidents. Landowner exemptions and the scope of the department’s rulemaking authority may also have been debated, along with whether the bill would improve wildlife management or simply add bureaucracy to a popular outdoor activity.