HB 907 revises Montana hunting license application and preference-point rules, with a focus on nonresident applicants. It increases the nonresident bonus point application fee from $20 to $25 per species, while keeping the resident bonus point fee at $2. The bill also creates a new exception allowing certain nonresident landowners to buy an additional bonus point for elk or deer drawings if they own at least 640 contiguous acres, were enrolled in a department-administered private land hunting access program in the prior license year, and have purchased a Class B-10 license for the current year.
The bill also changes the nonresident preference-point system for Class B-10 and Class B-11 combination licenses. It preserves the overall structure of the preference-point drawing, but adds a requirement that a nonresident who buys a second preference point must identify an outfitter and, if successful, use the license only while accompanied by that outfitter or the outfitter’s designee. It also directs the revenue from those second preference points into several access-related programs, including public access land agreements, hunting access programs, fisheries projects that improve access through private property, and permanent easements to reach otherwise inaccessible lands.
In addition, HB 907 repeals the existing landowner preference statute for Class B-10 nonresident big game combination licenses and replaces it with the new landowner bonus-point provision. The bill is set to take effect on March 1, 2026, and it would amend sections 87-2-113 and 87-2-115, MCA, while repealing section 87-2-714, MCA.
The bill’s impact is concentrated on nonresident hunters, landowners with large contiguous holdings, outfitters, and state wildlife access funding programs. It would raise some application costs, alter how preference points are purchased and used, and redirect certain fees toward access and conservation-related purposes. Because it changes both licensing rules and funding allocations, it would affect the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ administration of drawings, access programs, and related revenue distribution.
The general sentiment appears mixed but somewhat favorable in the House and more resistant in the Senate. The bill passed the House committee and cleared both House readings, but it later stalled in the Senate Fish and Game process and died in standing committee. The Senate votes suggest significant opposition or concern, especially around the policy changes to nonresident licensing and landowner treatment. A notable point of contention is the balance between rewarding landowners and access participation versus preserving fairness in nonresident license allocation; another likely issue is the new outfitter-related requirement tied to purchasing a second preference point.
HB 907 would amend Montana’s hunting-license statutes by changing nonresident bonus-point fees, adding a special bonus-point option for qualifying nonresident landowners, and revising the nonresident preference-point system for Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses. It would also repeal the current landowner preference for Class B-10 licenses and replace it with a new framework, while directing certain fee revenue to access and conservation programs. The bill primarily affects nonresident hunters, large-acreage landowners, outfitters, and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
The bill appears to have had support in the House, where it advanced through committee and passed both readings, but it encountered stronger resistance in the Senate, where a motion to table failed and the bill ultimately died in standing committee. The voting pattern suggests the proposal was controversial, with some lawmakers favoring its access-funding and landowner provisions and others objecting to its changes to nonresident licensing and preference-point rules.
The main points of contention are the bill’s treatment of nonresident hunters and landowners, and whether it creates an appropriate incentive structure for access to hunting opportunities. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to raise access-related revenue and reward landowners who participate in hunting access programs, while critics likely objected to the higher nonresident fees, the special bonus-point benefit for large landowners, and the requirement that a nonresident buying a second preference point must identify and hunt with an outfitter. The repeal of the existing landowner preference statute also appears to have been a significant policy shift that may have drawn opposition.