HB 145 revises Montana’s nonresident base hunting license fee and directs a larger share of that fee to hunting access programs. Under current law, resident base hunting licenses cost $10, with $2 designated as a hunting access fee. The bill amends section 87-2-116, MCA, to change the nonresident base hunting license from $15 to a higher fee structure and to increase the portion treated as a hunting access fee, with those dollars required to be used for programs authorized under 87-1-265.
The bill’s practical effect is to raise revenue from nonresident hunters and dedicate more of that revenue to land access and related hunting access initiatives administered by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. It does not change the resident base license fee, but it does alter the nonresident fee and the allocation of those funds, affecting nonresident hunters, the department, and hunting access program beneficiaries such as landowners and public access efforts.
Impact
HB 145 amends Montana Code Annotated section 87-2-116 governing base hunting licenses. It increases the nonresident base hunting license fee and earmarks a larger portion of that fee as a hunting access fee for use in programs authorized under section 87-1-265. The bill therefore changes both the amount paid by nonresidents and the statutory distribution of those funds, while leaving the resident base license fee unchanged.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support throughout the legislative process. It passed committee and floor votes in both chambers by wide margins, with several unanimous or near-unanimous votes, indicating general agreement with the fee increase and the dedication of funds to hunting access. The adoption of the governor’s proposed amendments also passed comfortably, suggesting the final version remained broadly acceptable to lawmakers.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the higher cost imposed on nonresident hunters, who bear the fee increase while resident fees remain unchanged. Any debate likely centered on whether the increased charge was justified by access funding needs and whether the revenue should be directed specifically to hunting access programs. The recorded votes show only limited opposition, indicating that any objections were relatively narrow and did not prevent passage.