Testimony For House Bill 907
April 1, House Fish, Wildlife & Parks committee
Good afternoon, Chair Hinkle and committee members, and thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jock Conyngham, from Evaro, and I’m here to represent Montana Sportsmen Alliance as well as myself in support of HB 907.
As you listen to the proponents and read submitted written testimony, you will note many who supported HB 635 two years ago are now supporting the bill that repeals it. These include thoughtful and experienced people like my MSA colleague Andrew McKean and multiple board members of Montana Wildlife Federation. Why would that be?
It’s because HB 635 failed in its promises to us. We were told it would move up to 30,000 hunter days a year from public land to private. But, for that to be true, since Fish, Wildlife & Parks shows only 131 combination licenses were awarded to non-residents in 2024, those hunters must have been hunting only on public land previously and putting in seven and a half month seasons there, without a day off—neither of which happened, of course.
There were people who benefited, and handsomely. Those nonresident landowners wealthy enough to afford four to 20 sections in another state love their guaranteed licenses. Trophy-ranch realtors selling to nonresidents got a profoundly effective marketing tool. As you saw with the sponsor’s handout, Fay Ranches sent out a publication calling it “a game-changer,” and Swan Land marketed using HB 635 with similar wording. And the lobbyists working for these
groups, of course, did well.
Who didn’t? Nearly every rancher I know is working hard to keep his kids in viable ranching by expanding his land base. That’s just about impossible when the game has changed and you’re competing with dot-com, venture capital, and private equity wealth. These ranchers are members of and serve their communities. They pay both property and income taxes and send their kids to school here. They feed us, and they vote. Many of them entered their land in Block Management, and many others give permission widely to Montanan kids, vets, and local hunters outside of any access program. They are getting sidelined in a real estate boom that HB 635 helped create, and so are those who used to enjoy their hospitality and neighborly generosity.
You will hear some nice stories, I expect, from HB 907’s opponents of access given by nonresidents. I’m not surprised—some of those people are excellent neighbors, and I appreciate them—but I hope their hospitality wasn’t merely a quid-pro-quo for a guaranteed combination license. A few nice stories from a subset of new nonresidents, though, don’t make up for the great shift of Montana land from the old ranching families to nonresidents and the impacts to the hunting access programs or neighbor-to-neighbor hospitality that go along with
that. Block Management enrollments are dropping, and the average size of the enrolled area is dropping; it’s reasonable to assume HB 635 plays a role in that. Why enroll in Block Management when you get a guaranteed license just for owning adequate acreage?
Now, HB 635 did offer incentives to nonresidents in special-draw areas to create some access, and HB 907 expands those incentives dramatically. In essence, it builds on the best goals of the former bill and addresses the areas where it doesn’t serve Montanan residents and their economic interests. Please support this bill and, in doing so, support Montanans. Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for your service.