Montana

Montana hunters fight nonresident landowner license giveaway

Published

11 months ago

April 7, 2025

Laura Lundquist

(Missoula Current) Resident hunters are hoping to reverse a 2023 law that gives free deer and elk licenses to nonresident landowners just because they own large properties. But some legislators and lobbyists appear to be twisting the rules to stop the bill that would undo the program.

On Saturday, the Montana House passed House Bill 907, sending it on to the Senate. But on Friday during the second reading, a nonstandard motion caused confusion on the House floor that led to a muddled vote.

Rep. Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula, sponsored the bill but in mid-March, Rep. Ed Byrne, R- was a cosponsor. On Friday, Byrne rose on the House floor but instead of defending the bill, Byrne asked the House for a Do Not Pass vote. Sullivan stood immediately and asked for some time. Ten minutes later, Sullivan asked the House to vote “No” on the Do Not Pass recommendation, which would create the same effect as passing the bill.

“I was the carrier of (HB) 907 in House Fish, Wildlife and Parks (committee),” Sullivan said on the House floor Friday. “What HB 635 did (in 2023) was create a nonresident landowner preference pool where nonresident landowners who own 2,500 or more acres have an ability to receive a big game combo license just by the virtue of being a nonresident landowner. So they don’t have to give back to receive the tag – they just have a large amount of land.”

The 15 minutes of debate that followed on the House floor resulted in 46 representatives voting “Yes” to kill the bill while 54 voted “No” to keep the bill alive. HB 907 went on to receive a more solid vote of 74-24 on third reading on Saturday. The bill now lists only Sullivan as the sponsor.

In 2023, some members of the short-lived Montana Citizen’s Elk Management Coalition proposed House Bill 635 in an effort to take some hunting pressure off public lands and to encourage large out-of-state landowners to conserve wildlife habitat. Under HB 635. nonresidents who owned more than 2,500 contiguous acres could receive a free big game combination license, which includes one elk and one deer license. For each additional 2,500 acres owned, nonresidents could get an additional combination license. Finally, to encourage people to allow hunter access, nonresidents who enrolled in FWP access programs such as Block Management could buy a bonus point to improve their odds of getting a permit.

HB 635 split the hunting community, with some groups wanting to give the proposal a try while others said it violated the North American Model, which requires that wildlife be held in the public trust so everyone has equal opportunity to hunt and fish for personal benefit, not for revenue. Giving tags to wealthy landowners violates the idea of equal opportunity.

However, on Tuesday in the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee, the eight proponents of HB 907 included former supporters of HB 635 who testified that they no longer backed the 2023 effort.

“I supported 635 because it was a risky bill that was attempting to make a significant reduction in hunter crowding on public land. Two years later, we see it didn’t really work very well. So I believe HB 907 is certainly worth a try,” said Anaconda area rancher Kathleen Hadley.

Montana Wildlife Federation spokesman Mike Mershon testified that the program created by HB 635 had had low participation and negligible impact on public lands, so the Federation no longer supported giving licenses to nonresident landowners.

According to FWP, 131 landowners had received free combination licenses, and only 30 of those had gone on to provide public access to their property. That meant very little hunting pressure was removed from public land. Additionally, any landowner, resident or nonresident, who owns 640 acres or more and participates in Block Management can get into the pool for a permit drawing so HB 907 provides some advantage by allowing the purchase of a bonus point.

HB 907 would eliminate the provision that gives combination licenses to landowners. But Sullivan kept the option for landowners to get bonus points that improve their odds of getting a permit if they allow public access and reduced the qualifying property area to 640 acres instead of 2,500.

The 12 opponents of HB 907 repeated three main arguments: 1) the program needed more time to get going, 2) reducing the qualifying area to 640 acres would lead to people subdivide their land, and 3) taking away the free tags was “forcing public access.” The main opponents were Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, Property and Environment Research Center, and Montana Conservation Society.

Mark Taylor, who didn’t identify who he represented but who lobbies for the Montana Conservation Society, testified that by giving licenses to nonresident landowners, HB 635 puts the landowners “on the same footing with any other Montana landowner.”

On Tuesday following the hearing, the committee approved HB 907 with a vote of 13-7. Sullivan denied that HB 907 is trying to force access.

“I’m not trying to force access. It is an incentive and it is the incentive that was created in 635. Opponents are saying they don’t want to give access unless they are getting licenses. Makes me sad to think that folks will only do something if they are given something free in advance. The free tags are what we’re eliminating,” Sullivan said.

“(HB) 907 asks that they have some skin in the game and do something in return and that is to enroll some of their land in the block management program.”

Resident hunters were pleased that HB 907 passed the House on such a strong vote but they’re still cautious. They anticipate that the three main opponents of HB 907 will put pressure on Republicans to kill the bill in the Senate. So they said they’re gearing up for their own offensive to get the bill to the governor’s desk.

Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.

Source link

Related Topics:deer elk environment Featured hunting montana today nonresident wildlife

Click to comment

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

6 hours ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

18 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link