Montana’s right to know is a cornerstone of our state’s democracy, guaranteeing access to public documents. But every year, the Legislature debates the contours of that access — what should and should not be open to public inspection. One of the quieter but still consequential examples this year is House Bill 264, which revises Montana’s right to know laws to exempt certain wildlife location data from public disclosure.
Signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte this spring, HB 264 was sponsored by Rep. Jonathan Karlen, D-Missoula. The bill amends Montana Code Annotated § 2-6-1003, which governs exceptions to public disclosure, by adding language that prevents disclosure by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks of the location data or telemetry frequencies of hunted or trapped animals.
Fish, Wildlife and Parks is now authorized to withhold certain GPS or telemetry data that could be used to track the movements of hunted or trapped species. House Bill 264 revises Montana law to provide explicitly that Fish, Wildlife and Parks may not release precise wildlife location data, whether collected or held by the department, for one year after the department collects or acquires the data. Precise telemetry frequencies may never be shared.
The bill creates special exceptions to its prohibitions, allowing for this location data to be shared with research partners or other government agencies pursuant to a data-sharing agreement. It also allows the data to be shared for environmental permitting purposes.
The intent is to protect wildlife from poaching, habitat disruption and overexposure. Conservation groups supported the revision, and the bill received bipartisan approval in legislative chambers.
However, the bill implicates important transparency questions. For journalists, researchers and the public, this could mean new barriers to accessing information that may be critical to understanding wildlife trends, agency decision-making or the ecological impact of development projects. While HB 264’s goal is laudable, the bill adds another carveout to Montana’s promise of transparency and works against the constitutional presumption that information held by state agencies is baseline publicly accessible.
Bill amendments show legislators considered potential constitutional hardships. While the original draft proposed a three-year prohibition on the release of wildlife location data, the final draft was amended to prohibit such data’s release for just one year after it is acquired or collected by Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Montana’s right to know must constantly balance public access with legitimate privacy and safety concerns. But each exception added to the law chips away at the presumption that public data should remain public. House Bill 264 highlights the need for continued scrutiny, accountability, and perhaps future refinement.
As with all legislation affecting transparency, how HB 264 is implemented will determine its true impact. We will be watching closely.
Addie Slanger is the vice president of the Montana Transparency Project.