Create a pollinator health task force
SB 541 would create a temporary Pollinator Health Task Force within the Montana Department of Agriculture to develop a statewide pollinator health strategy. The task force would include representatives from agriculture, state agencies, conservation groups, pesticide distributors and applicators, beekeepers, Montana tribes, a youth representative, and a pollinator expert from Montana State University. Its work would focus on pollinator habitat, research, education, disease and pest issues such as varroa mites, partnerships, and coordination among landowners, beekeepers, and pesticide applicators.
The task force would be directed to build on existing state and national pollinator habitat plans and produce recommendations for legislative, administrative, and budgetary action. It would also identify targets for state agencies to improve pollinator habitat on state-managed lands, promote native plants and seed banks, and consider a draft policy to improve communication about apiary locations when landowners or applicators request it. The department of agriculture would report the task force’s findings to the 70th Legislature, and the act would terminate on December 31, 2026.
The bill would not directly regulate pesticides, land use, or agriculture practices, but it would create a new advisory and planning structure within the Department of Agriculture and appropriate $50,000 from the general fund for its work. It would also require the secretary of state to distribute the act to each federally recognized tribal government in Montana. The bill would affect state agencies, agricultural industries, beekeepers, conservation organizations, and tribal governments by bringing them into a coordinated state planning process for pollinator protection.
The bill’s framing is strongly supportive of pollinator conservation, emphasizing the ecological and economic importance of bees and other pollinators and the need for coordinated state action. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials limits the ability to gauge detailed support or opposition, but the bill’s structure suggests an effort to build consensus among agriculture, conservation, tribal, and state agency stakeholders. Its eventual status as having died in process indicates it did not advance to enactment despite its broad policy goals.
The main likely points of contention are the inclusion of pesticide distributors and applicators alongside conservation and beekeeper interests, and the proposed policy allowing release of registered apiarist contact information to landowners or applicators to protect apiaries. There may also be debate over the use of general fund money for a temporary task force and over whether the state should prioritize habitat and pollinator protections through planning versus more direct regulatory action. Because no committee transcript is provided, specific objections or supporters cannot be identified from the record here.