WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HJR 195

Proposes a constitutional amendment on wildlife enforcement, conservation commission and department of conservation agents ability to enter on privately owned property and makes the rule promulgation subject to the requirements for executive agencies under general law

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Matthew Overcast

Shifts wildlife enforcement authority to the Conservation Commission, adds due-process protections, limits warrantless land entry, and subjects regulations to general-rulemaking ov

Referred: Emerging Issues(H)
#conservation #departmentof
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJR 195

Overview

  • Bill: HJR 195
  • Session: 2026 | Jurisdiction: Missouri
  • Type: Joint Resolution proposing a constitutional amendment
  • Purpose: Reorganize and constrain wildlife enforcement powers, require judicial/process protections, limit warrantless entry onto private land, and restore legislative oversight of enforcement regulations while preserving the core authority of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Conservation.

What the bill would do

  • Repeal and replace Section 40(a) of Article IV of the Missouri Constitution with two new sections (40(a) and 40(c)).
  • Establish that the control, management, restoration, conservation, regulation, and administration of wildlife resources and related properties are vested in the Conservation Commission.
  • Require that all rules and regulations promulgated by the Conservation Commission be subject to the general-law requirements that apply to executive agencies (i.e., general-law rulemaking oversight).

Key provisions and changes

Section 40(a) (new)

  • Transfers authority over bird, fish, game, forestry, and wildlife resources (including hatcheries, sanctuaries, refuges, reservations, and related property) to the Conservation Commission.
  • Adds that rulemaking and regulations are subject to general-law executive-agency requirements.
  • Establishes a four-member Conservation Commission appointed by the Governor with advice and consent of the Senate; term lengths are six years and arranged so that some terms overlap in a staggered manner.
  • Members must have knowledge/interest in wildlife conservation, and may not all be of the same political party.
  • Members receive no salary but are reimbursed for necessary travel and related expenses.

Section 40(c) (new)

  • Defines terms for purposes of wildlife enforcement, adjudication, and due process:
    • “Actively hunting” – specific conditions involving pursuit, intent to harvest, and possession of a weapon; excludes merely standing near a vehicle, moving equipment near a vehicle, or mere possession of a lawful weapon without pursuit.
    • Definitions for Commission, Department, Protected Private Land, Retention, and Seizure.
  • Clarifies that seizure remains allowed incident to lawful enforcement; seizure does not automatically constitute forfeiture.
  • Sets procedures relating to citation payments, retention periods, court authorization for extended retention (beyond 72 hours), and burdens of proof.
  • Requires written notice to the owner at the time of seizure with specified content; failure to provide notice creates a rebuttable presumption against continued retention.
  • Allows owners to file for an expedited judicial hearing with a five-business-day deadline to set the hearing; Department bears the burden of proof at the hearing.
  • If retention is unlawful, the court must order immediate return or monetary compensation; attorney fees may be awarded in limited circumstances.
  • Prohibits entry onto protected private land for investigation/enforcement without a warrant or owner consent, with limited exceptions for exigent public-safety threats or certain noninvestigatory activities authorized by law.
  • Reinforces that the Open Fields Doctrine does not justify warrantless entry for wildlife enforcement.
  • Evidence obtained in violation is inadmissible in related proceedings.
  • Clarifies that nothing in the provisions diminishes poaching penalties, the Commission’s constitutional authority, or creates new private causes of action beyond existing remedies.

Who would be affected

  • Missouri Conservation Commission and the Missouri Department of Conservation (on their authority, rulemaking, and enforcement practices).
  • Private landowners, particularly those with “protected private land” status, due to restrictions on warrantless access and new procedural protections.
  • Individuals involved in wildlife enforcement, default seizure procedures, and due-process rights.
  • General public, via the potential impact on how wildlife regulations are promulgated and enforced.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • If approved by voters, the amendment would be submitted at the next general election after the first Monday in November 2026 (or at a governor-called special election).
  • Upon adoption, the constitutional change would take effect as specified by the amendment (subject to the language of the final text and state constitutional process).
  • The bill includes explicit timelines for notices, expedited hearings (set no later than five business days after filing), and handling of retention and potential forfeiture matters.

Summary of potential impacts

  • Strengthened due-process protections for individuals and landowners facing wildlife seizures.
  • Increased judicial oversight of retention and forfeiture decisions.
  • Limitations on warrantless entry into protected private land, except in narrowly defined circumstances.
  • Introduction of general-law rulemaking requirements for all Conservation Commission regulations, potentially increasing legislative oversight of regulatory actions.
  • Maintains core conservation authority but shifts some procedural and enforcement parameters toward court-approved processes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.