On Thursday, February 22, hundreds of hunters and anglers gathered on the steps of the state Capitol in Helena, Montana. Huddled around propane heaters in sub-zero temperatures, we had come to protest a slew of recently introduced bills that threaten the state’s culture of fair access to hunting, fishing and public lands . If passed, the legislative measures would restrict access to public lands, divert money from critical conservation programs, threaten the state’s cherished stream access law and alter the habitat protections enshrined in the Constitution of the state of Montana.
As someone who recently moved to Montana in part because of its access to vast wild country, I decided to drive to Helena from my home in the Bitterroot Valley to attend the rally in person. By the time I arrived at the capitol building, a crowd had already gathered. Hunters and fishermen clapped, clapped and chanted slogans in unison. It was five degrees below zero with a windchill of -20, but these people were on fire. The sound of their applause, slightly muffled by heavy gloves and mittens, echoed across the north lawn of the capital. A number of impassioned local speakers then took to the podium to air their grievances with the “bad bills”.
Public lands demonstrations have become a regular occurrence over the past five Montana legislative sessions. The goal is simple: send a clear message to Big Sky politicians that hunters and anglers will not stand idly by when threatened by political schemes designed to strip them of public land or break access to hunting and fishing
Unfortunately, these types of schemes have become all too familiar in Montana and other states in the West. Here’s why hunters and anglers in Montana, and beyond, should be concerned.
Current access to Limbo
SB497 is a bill that threatened Montana’s famous stream access laws by restricting public easements across private property. In Montana, all streams and rivers capable of recreational use are considered public property. They are open to fishing and some forms of hunting, as long as recreationists stay below the high water mark of the creek bed.
These laws, which are widely regarded as some of the best streaming laws in the nation, were debated and litigated for decades. They were enacted in 1985 through precedent set during hard-fought court cases. And they have been supported over the years by the diligent work of local cane and gun clubs. They are fragile but very much appreciated.
Montana has one of the best power access laws in the country. Travis Hall
In the days since the public lands rally, SB497 and its proposed stream access amendment died a quick and public death. After an uprising that took place on social media and in the email inboxes of state senators, it was killed by a vote of 36-14 during its second reading in the Senate.
“This bill really nailed the bear,” Marcus Strange, director of state policy and government affairs for the Montana Wildlife Federation, told Field & Stream. “Lawmakers heard from thousands of Montana hunters and anglers who stood up to protect our stream access laws. We hope this overwhelming response will remind lawmakers to rethink our most cherished access laws and rights on public lands and water.”
A non-traditional source of funding for conservation may be reduced
Another problematic bill, HB462, deals with money generated through the taxation of recreational marijuana, which was approved by a voter referendum in Montana in 2020. Voters who supported the legalization of marijuana on 2020 had one stipulation: They wanted to see marijuana tax money funneled directly. to the management of public land and other conservation-oriented causes. More specifically, they wanted that money to go to a state program called Habitat Montana.
In the end, only 20 percent of the weed tax revenue went to conservation. But this is no small change. According to the Missoula Current, marijuana sales are projected to bring in more than $50 million in tax revenue by fiscal year 2024, and up to $57 million in 2025. This revenue has allowed Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks (FWP) to acquire new public lands and secure new conservation easements that open public access to private lands through the state’s block management program.
The Habitat Montana program, administered by Montana FWP, provides critical funds for conservation easements and state land management. Travis Hall
The Habitat Montana program, administered by Montana FWP, provides critical funds for conservation easements and state land management. Travis HallHB462 would remove these funds from Habitat Montana and direct the money to law enforcement and substance abuse programs. “Despite overwhelming support for the program, Gov [Greg] Gianforte’s budget and HB462 are trying to completely eliminate this funding for Habitat Montana,” the Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) said in a recent news release. “We cannot let this happen. Montana voters want marijuana tax revenue to be used for conservation and specifically for Habitat Montana.”
Unlike the aforementioned SB497, which was released last week, HB462 is still awaiting a committee hearing. Montana BHA is joined in its opposition to the bill by more than a dozen conservation groups, including Theodore Roosevelt Partnership, Ducks Unlimited, the Wild Sheep Foundation and the Montana Wildlife Federation.
Equal access to Elk is a major point of interest
There are several troubling bills addressing elk management before the Montana State Legislature right now, but the most troubling is HB635. This bill guarantees five bull elk tags to absentee landowners with 2,500 acres or more by reducing the total pool of nonresident elk tags by 15 percent.
Opponents say HB635 conflicts with the American model of wildlife conservation and puts Montana on a path to privatizing its public wildlife. “We don’t want to go down that road,” Kevin Farron, regional policy manager for the Montana BHA, told Field & Stream. “When it comes to labeling, whenever you pick winners and losers based on wealth and land ownership, that’s a form of privatization. You’re telling people that they’re getting a bigger piece of the pie public resources, just because they have more money.”
It’s a trail that may sound familiar to anyone who lives or hunts elk in New Mexico. Owner preferences and elk tags have become so prevalent in the Land of Enchantment that owners will regularly sell their elk tags on an unregulated secondary market.
The thousands of dollars that change hands in exchange for these coveted landowner elk tags don’t go into the coffers of New Mexico Game and Fish, which means the money doesn’t benefit conservation. That’s the kind of privatized, pay-as-you-go model that Farron and other Montana BHA members are resisting. “We fully appreciate the value that private landowners provide to our public wildlife, and they not only deserve our thanks, they deserve some compensation,” he said. “What we think is problematic is using our public wildlife as a bargaining chip as an incentive, reward or compensation.”
An embarrassment of riches
On the way to Helena from my home in Stevensville that morning, I had driven through a small strip of the wild country that the public rally-goers were so eager to protect. I passed wooden views of a frozen, snow-covered Blackfoot River on my way out of Missoula. As I hit I-90, I began to parallel the trout-rich waters of the famous Clark Fork. I thought about a mule deer I’d taken with my bow on public land surrounding a nearby pass, and a herd of bighorn sheep I’d seen last October after an afternoon of fly fishing with a friend on the banks of Rock Creek. .
As I turned east onto Highway 12 to complete the last leg of the drive, I found myself in the shadow of the Boulder Mountains, surrounded by millions of acres of National Forest, before a road up and down MacDonald Pass I spat. to Helena The trip left me longing for more time in the mountains and more miles logged on the “embarrassment of riches” (to borrow a phrase from Field & Stream contributor Hal Herring) that we all call “public lands.”
In all, these riches add up to more than 30 million acres of state and federal lands in Montana alone. We all share them: hunters and fishermen, climbers and kayakers, and residents and non-residents alike. The current threats facing public land hunters and anglers in Montana are not blatant land grabs or attempts to transfer federal land to state ownership. They are more subtle and more insidious than that.
Whether these threats will actually be carried out remains to be seen. What I learned in Helena last month that simply cannot be denied is that Montana hunters and anglers will never sit back and watch it happen.