Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB857 Block Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana lawmaker proposes 10% surcharge on conservation licenses to shore up block-management funding
Summary
Rep. Tom France introduced HB 857 to add a 10% surcharge on conservation licenses when applicants declare they lease land for hunting; Fish, Wildlife & Parks warned the proposal would create an impermissible earmark and many landowners and outfitters opposed the measure as burdensome or privacy-invading.
Representative Tom France (House District 99) introduced House Bill 857, proposing that hunters who lease private land for seasonal hunting declare that lease on their Montana conservation license and pay a 10% surtax directed to the state’s block management program.
France told the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee the bill is intended to preserve public hunting opportunity as private leasing becomes more common, and to stabilize funding for block management, which he said has become more expensive. He said Fish, Wildlife and Parks increased per-day payments to landowners from about $13 to $17 and that the program’s cost rose from roughly 7.8 to 11.6 (figures referred to in testimony as millions), producing an estimated $4 million increase.
In the nut graf: the proposal drew immediate pushback from agency staff and landowner groups. Lena Havron, testifying for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, told the committee attaching a surcharge to the conservation license would legally function as a separate license fee and create a new earmark — what she described as a “diversion” from the general-license account — requiring a statutory fix or an amendment. Opponents warned of double payment, privacy intrusions, accounting and compliance problems, and harms to small-business outfitters.
Opponents’ arguments and evidence Lena Havron (Fish, Wildlife and Parks) said, “Calling it a surcharge, does not mean that it’s not a license fee. Therefore, putting that revenue in the block management program creates a new earmark, therefore creating a diversion.” Havron said the agency could not estimate revenues because it lacks the records required to verify voluntary self-reporting.
Charles Denow (United Property Owners of Montana) said the bill does not distinguish lessor and lessee and could require both landowners and hunters to pay; he also raised privacy concerns about disclosing lease terms. Will Israel (Montana Outfitters and Guides Association) said the surcharge would punish private landowners who rely on lease income and would create compliance headaches for variable or in-kind lease arrangements.
Representative France acknowledged drafting gaps and said he had removed language that would have applied to outfitter licenses. He said the bill’s intent is to target season-long lessees and that committee amendments could tighten definitions to avoid unintended effects. France also said the bill includes penalties for noncompliance and that some enforcement would rely on existing game investigations.
What is uncertain or not specified The exact revenue the 10% surtax would generate was not confirmed during the hearing; Havron said a fiscal note estimating revenue (and an associated $37,000,000 figure referenced by committee members) was being prepared and would be posted later. Committee discussion showed uncertainty about how to verify voluntary declarations, how to treat in-kind leases, and whether landowners who also purchase licenses would be charged.
Next steps The committee closed the hearing with no immediate vote; Representative France said the bill was offered as a discussion starter and that members and staff could draft clarifying amendments. The hearing record includes testimony urging either tabling or substantial amendment to avoid diversion and privacy problems.
Ending: The committee did not take final action on HB 857 during this session’s hearing; staff were asked to prepare fiscal and drafting clarifications for later consideration.
