Catch me up on Montana Conservation & Wildlife Issues?

[Beignet]

I used to pay very close attention to this stuff. Kind of got overwhelmed with the amount of crap happening at the national level (I believe that's by design) and quit paying attention for a while.

So, anyone mind catching me up on the good, the bad, and the ugly of issues affecting the sporting populace and wildlife here in Montana since say, January 2025? There's a bunch of bright folks on here whose knowledge and opinions I trust. Read me in, please.

 

[Beignet]

I'll get started, FWP seems to be shifting away from perpetual conservation easements. Instead using the Habitat Conservation Lease Program for 30-40 (or even 99) year conservation leases. My understanding is that they need to spend Habitat Montana monies but don't want to catch political flak from the Board of Land Commissioners who are skeptical of perpetual easements.

 

[Elky Welky]

I'll get started, FWP seems to be shifting away from perpetual conservation easements. Instead using the Habitat Conservation Lease Program for 30-40 (or even 99) year conservation leases. My understanding is that they need to spend Habitat Montana monies but don't want to catch political flak from the Board of Land Commissioners who are skeptical of perpetual easements.

Nailed it on that one.

Next: a last minute change to land board land exchange procedure, a truly shady backroom-type deal that in effect "no longer gives DNRC the power to deny proposals, and puts a greater emphasis on allowing landowners to hire consultants to facilitate key parts of the exchange process." So the fox guarding the henhouse, as it were. https://dailymontanan.com/2026/06/26/outdoor-groups-sue-state-over-new-land-exchange-policy/

Also, the cowboys have been saved from the evil native bison, for now: https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-p...grazing-on-montana-state-lands-heard-in-court

And of course we are suing FWP over Corner Crossing, and the governor continues to travel around the State and falsely claim that it is illegal. Some decent local reporting on this recently: https://jcmonitor.com/cornering-the-corner-crossing-debate/

 

[Forkyfinder]

Nailed it on that one.

Next: a last minute change to land board land exchange procedure, a truly shady backroom-type deal that in effect "no longer gives DNRC the power to deny proposals, and puts a greater emphasis on allowing landowners to hire consultants to facilitate key parts of the exchange process." So the fox guarding the henhouse, as it were. https://dailymontanan.com/2026/06/26/outdoor-groups-sue-state-over-new-land-exchange-policy/

Also, the cowboys have been saved from the evil native bison, for now: https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-p...grazing-on-montana-state-lands-heard-in-court

And of course we are suing FWP over Corner Crossing, and the governor continues to travel around the State and falsely claim that it is illegal. Some decent local reporting on this recently: https://jcmonitor.com/cornering-the-corner-crossing-debate/

That sums it up well.

I think this is a better article.

With limited public involvement, Montana Land Board overhauls land-swap process

Landowner-hired consultants can broker deals with the state under State Auditor James Brown’s proposal.

montanafreepress.org

Items from the article that i find significant:

"One section of the policy, for example, specifies that while trust land should generally “be valued for its highest and best use,” considerations will be made for “limiting factors.” It instructs the DNRC to apply a “commercially reasonable discount” for state lands lacking a documented legal access — e.g., land that is in the checkerboard. "

"The proposal drew support from several well-known lobbyists who frequent the halls of the Capitol, including Raylee Honeycutt with the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Clayton Elliott with Trout Unlimited, Ben Lamb with the Montana Conservation Society and former Democratic lawmaker Tom Jacobson, who lobbied for eight entities during the 2025 Legislature, including the Taylor Luther Group, which represents the interests of some of Montana’s highest-profile businesses and landowners."

“Recent third-party brokered land exchanges in Montana have produced deals where the public received high-elevation terrain of limited utility, while giving up productive lower-elevation land and established recreational access,” argued Russell Fruits with the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers during comment on the proposal. “Those outcomes are not accidents. They’re what happens when no one is in the room to independently be accountable to the public.”

 

[Forkyfinder]

Odd the proponents of the public land policy change are completely mum on the topic.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Mums the word on the whole thing…

The more I read after-the-fact,
the more gets slipped in?
I’m very upset with all the recent changes. I’ve voiced concern on every link that is posted and still, I learn more with every article about what actually took place during the exchange.

 

[Beignet]

This one is a little in the weeds, but do you think that the changes to DNRC Land Board procedure had an effect on the proposed Cramer Creek land exchange? Quick background: local research ranch in the Sapphires, MPG, has a few state owned inholdings within their boundaries. Some would be inaccessible even via corner crossing. A full section and then some would be accessible via corner. They're proposing to purchase land in the Garnet range from the Nature Conservancy then swap it for those state owned inholdings.

It seems a little tricky, as I know that TNC never meant to hold lands in perpetuity and needs to offload them. Meanwhile, the current political climate will essentially prohibit federal agencies from acquiring TNC lands. (I know that's a broad generalization of complex policy, but bear with me for brevity's sake).

All is to say that the timing seems a little fishy...

Editing my post to clarify that the Cramer Creek exchange proposal has actually been in the works for over a year, and will proceed under the old rules. Thanks for the PM clarification I received.

 

[Beignet]

Ok, a good one. The River Runs Through It proposal. Background (again, in generalization) was that former Senator Jon Tester repeatedly introduced the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act. He was also repeatedly stymied by Senator Daines who wanted it paired with legislation to release a number of Wilderness Study Areas from wilderness management. Looks like the River Runs Through It proposal is attempting to reinvgotate some tenants of the Blackfoot act (including greater concessions to motorized use stakeholders). Other than their website, I know little about it. Any chance of it going anywhere? Sure seems like a long shot to me.

 

[Forkyfinder]

 

[BigHornRam]

Ok, a good one. The River Runs Through It proposal. Background (again, in generalization) was that former Senator Jon Tester repeatedly introduced the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act. He was also repeatedly stymied by Senator Daines who wanted it paired with legislation to release a number of Wilderness Study Areas from wilderness management. Looks like the River Runs Through It proposal is attempting to reinvgotate some tenants of the Blackfoot act (including greater concessions to motorized use stakeholders). Other than their website, I know little about it. Any chance of it going anywhere? Sure seems like a long shot to me.

Apparently you never actually read Tester's bill.


S.37 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress https://share.google/qrXyFAjzGjFYsQmkX

(Sec. 205) Releases certain BLM wilderness study areas from further study for designation as wilderness areas, and releases the Sapphire and West Pioneer Wilderness Study Areas from further study for inclusion as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.