Study resolution on block management funding and participation
Summary
House Joint Resolution 73 requests an interim legislative study on Montana’s Block Management Program, the state’s primary public hunting access program. The study would examine whether current funding sources are sustainable, whether alternative funding mechanisms are needed, whether landowner compensation caps should be increased, and what strategies could help retain and expand landowner participation and enrolled acreage. It also directs the committee to identify any legislation needed to sustain and expand the program and to report findings to the 70th Legislature.
The resolution is based on findings that Block Management is widely supported by hunters and landowners, but that participation and costs have moved in opposite directions: hunter use has increased while enrolled acreage has declined, and program costs have risen substantially. The resolution does not itself change substantive law or appropriate money; instead, it creates a policy study process and sets a deadline for completion before September 15, 2026. Any resulting recommendations could lead to future statutory changes affecting the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, landowners enrolled in the program, and hunters who rely on public access through private lands.
Impact
HJ 73 would not directly amend the Montana Code or alter program funding by itself. Its legal effect is to request that the Legislative Council assign an interim committee to study the Block Management Program under section 5-5-217, MCA, consult stakeholders, and develop possible legislative proposals. The practical impact is to place the program’s funding structure, landowner compensation limits, and participation incentives under formal legislative review, potentially setting the stage for future changes to wildlife access policy, landowner agreements, and Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks administration.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment appears supportive of the Block Management Program and favorable toward studying how to preserve and strengthen it. The bill’s findings emphasize broad support from both resident and nonresident hunters and the importance of maintaining landowner participation. Its progress through committee and floor votes suggests it had meaningful support in the House, though not unanimous, indicating general agreement on the need for a study even if members may have differed on priorities or future policy directions.
Contention
The main areas of potential contention are funding sustainability, whether landowner compensation caps should be raised, and how to balance program expansion with fiscal limits. Stakeholders likely to have differing views include hunters, who may favor expanded access and program stability; landowners, who may seek higher compensation or stronger incentives; and state officials concerned with long-term budget impacts. Because the resolution only commissions a study, the most significant disagreements are likely to emerge later if the committee recommends new funding sources, increased payments, or other legislative changes.