Summary#

HJ 73, “Study resolution on block management funding and participation,” was a proposed joint resolution requesting an interim study of Montana’s Block Management Program. It did not amend the law or change the program, and it failed, so the proposed study was not required. Its stated goal was to examine how to sustain and expand the program.

• Had it passed, the Legislative Council would have been asked to assign an interim or statutory committee to study current and possible future funding.
• The committee would have examined landowner compensation caps and strategies to keep or increase landowner participation and enrolled acreage.
• The committee would have had to consult the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, hunters, and landowners, finish the study before September 15, 2026, and report to the 70th Legislature.
• The resolution proposed a study and possible legislation—not a funding increase, higher landowner payments, or an expansion of the program.

What it means for you#

• Hunters: HJ 73 did not change access to Block Management areas or hunting rules. Had it passed, hunters would have been among the groups consulted.
• Landowners: It did not change compensation or require landowners to join or leave the program. Had it passed, the study would have examined compensation caps and ways to retain or attract participating landowners.
• State agencies and lawmakers: The resolution did not require action because it failed. Had it passed, a committee would have studied the program and could have proposed legislation; the resolution did not require the Legislature to adopt any proposal.
• Taxpayers: The resolution did not authorize program spending or set aside money for the study.

Money#

No cost information is provided for carrying out the proposed study.

• The resolution’s background statements say the program’s cost rose from $4.7 million in 2010 to $11.5 million in 2023. Those figures describe the program, not a cost estimate for HJ 73.
• The resolution did not specify study staffing or funding, a new funding source, or increased payments to landowners.

What is unclear#

• The resolution did not name alternative funding sources or define what would count as sustainable funding.
• It did not set criteria for deciding whether compensation caps should increase, or by how much.
• It named groups to consult but did not specify how the committee would gather or assess their views.
• It did not say what recommendations the committee would make; proposing legislation was one task, not a requirement to enact it.
• Because the resolution failed, it did not assign a committee or set a study in motion.

Case for#

• The resolution’s background statements describe rising program costs alongside increased hunter use and less enrolled acreage. Studying funding and participation could help lawmakers assess those issues before proposing changes.
• Examining compensation caps and landowner participation could identify options for retaining or adding enrolled land.
• The proposed consultation with agency representatives, hunters, and landowners could bring different perspectives into the study.

Case against#

• A study would not itself provide more funding, increase landowner payments, or add hunting access; any changes would require later action.
• The resolution did not specify how the committee should judge funding options or weigh costs against possible benefits.
• It did not guarantee that the study’s recommendations would be adopted or that acreage or participation would increase.