Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor proposes steep nonresident fee increase to support block management; stakeholders urge smaller compromise
Summary
HB145 would raise the nonresident base hunting fee from $15 to $100 and direct most of the increase toward block-management access. Outfitters and conservation groups support funding but called $100 too large; sponsors and stakeholders discussed a compromise amendment (reported as $50 with $40 to access).
Representative Gary Perry presented House Bill 145, a one‑page bill proposing to raise the nonresident base hunting fee from $15 to $100 and to allocate $90 of the increase to the state's block management program to pay landowners and expand public access.
Online and in-room proponents told the committee nonresident hunter numbers have grown in Regions 6 and 7 and that block management acreage has declined; they supported a fee increase to recruit cooperators and improve management capacity. Steve Christian (online) urged passage to bolster block-management payments and local staffing.
Opponents, including representatives of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association and the Montana Conservation Society, said they back targeted funding for access but that the proposed increase is too large. Scott Bollanger (MOGA) called for a milder increase, and Mark Taylor (MCS) described ongoing stakeholder negotiations toward a compromise.
The sponsor acknowledged stakeholder concerns and said he had requested an amendment to be offered at executive action. Committee members asked FWP about the fiscal note and implementation; Emily Cooper said a fiscal note had been requested and was being prepared. Questions also focused on whether the block management program is losing acres due to money or land sales; FWP's Quentin Kujala said land sales were the most common reason for acreage loss, not only payment rates.
Witnesses and lawmakers debated privacy and whether publishing district-level data would reveal private hunting spots; the sponsor and staff said the bill only summarizes aggregated district-level statistics and does not include geolocation of individual hunters.
The hearing closed with the sponsor indicating a stakeholder amendment would be filed during executive action; no committee vote was taken during this hearing.
