Senate committee hears bill to expand block management access to landlocked public lands

House Bill 763, presented to the Senate Fish and Game Committee by Representative Josh Seckinger, would amend Montana’s block management program to make it simpler for landowners to provide access across private property to adjacent public lands. Seckinger said the bill is intended to reduce paperwork and ‘‘make it easier for landowners to participate and allow more public access to public land,’’ while emphasizing that participation would remain voluntary and that landowners would not be required to allow hunting on their property.

Seckinger told the committee that roughly 3,000,000 acres of public land are effectively landlocked and that nearly half of that area is state land. Supporters from conservation, hunting, and sportsmen’s organizations said HB 763 would reduce administrative burdens and open corridors to existing public lands.

Major proponents included Matt Leo (Backcountry Hunters and Anglers — Montana chapter), Paul Fielder (co-chair, Montana Legislative Sportsman's Caucus), Tom Jacobson (Montana Wildlife Federation), Scott Bollinger (Montana Conservation Society), Natalie Wright (Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund), Ryan Chapin (Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership), and representatives of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They said the bill would create an additional, focused tool to provide short corridors or gate access to public lands behind private parcels by allowing Fish and Wildlife Commission and FWP to streamline agreements and offer fair compensation to cooperating landowners.

Opponents urged caution and described potential duplication and conflict with existing programs. Ed Beall, who identified himself as chair of the Bridger Lands Public Wildlife Council, said HB 763 ‘‘mostly duplicates’’ a 2019 program (Public Access Landowner Agreements, or PALA) that already creates corridors to inaccessible public land and that PALA has administrative rules, differing payment structures and established procedures. Beall said PALA currently accesses about a half-million acres and has specific agreement lengths (one, three, five or ten years) and noted that the department has requested additional appropriation for that program because it has reached capacity.

Karli Johnson of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation said the bill initially lacked a protection in PALA that limits who may enter an agreement (noting lease-holder protections). She described working with the sponsor to develop amendments that would notify lease holders and ensure the department documents lease-holder objections so the commission can consider them when reviewing agreements. Johnson expressed concern that allowing adjacent landowners (rather than lease holders) to establish access could cause neighbor conflicts and urged safeguards in the bill’s implementation.

Renee Lemon, parks and outdoor recreation division administrator with FWP, testified as informational staff and described operational differences between programs. FWP staff explained that block agreements typically reimburse landowners based on hunter-days (the block-management model) while PALA agreements are negotiated based on the value of creating year-round access corridors and have different caps. Under the bill as presented, block-management ‘‘access-only’’ agreements could allow higher maximum payments (the draft set a higher per-year cap than some PALA caps), and FWP officials said that difference and year-round access distinctions are key implementation points.

Committee members asked about funding and program administration. Lena Havron, chief financial officer for FWP, said block-management funding comes from a state special revenue account seeded by license revenue, while PALA uses the department’s general license account. FWP staff said agreements are negotiated in the field by coordinators who evaluate hunter-days, access type, acres opened and other variables when determining payment amounts; PALA agreements are negotiated using different criteria and can be year-round.

Opponents said the bill could create program overlap, administrative confusion and competing payment caps; some predicted a cleanup bill could follow if HB 763 passes. Sponsor Seckinger and proponents argued the bill is a practical ‘‘shortcut’’ and complementary tool to relieve pressure at traditional entry points and to increase access options for hunters.

Ending: The hearing concluded with questions and no recorded committee vote in this session. Amendments requested by Farm Bureau and others were discussed; committee members said they would review differences between block management and PALA during further work on the bill.