Irrelevant
Well-known member
^This is what keeps me around.
Opinion pieces like this bug me
- Thread starter sacountry
- Start date
Jock Conyngham
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 94
I’m frustrated to be posting this, but for those thinking it’s a happy new day of working together for elk, other wildlife, and access in Montana, Marta Bertoglio (R-HD 75) dropped the Governor’s bill this morning eliminating Habitat Montana’s 20% share of marijuana tax revenue. Ignoring the voters (it was a popular voter referendum stipulating almost 40% of tax revenues go to Habitat MT) is not a good look for the bill’s proponents, and those of you who don’t support this bill might point that out to their legislators.
Jock Conyngham
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 94
Apologies—I should have posted the bill number. It’s HB 462.
sacountry
Well-known member
Here's the link to the bill....
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/LC2448.pdf
@Ben Lamb, there seems to be a notion by our legislators that FWP is sitting on $170M. I'm guessing this legislator believes that to be true and is thus attempting to funnel funds away from FWP. It's the only explanation I can conger. What's the scoop on the FWP reserve account?
Regardless of any surplus or no surplus, part of the sales pitch made to get marijuana legalized AND TAXED, was the promise of what would be done with the tax revenues. These stupid bills change the promises made.
I have several family members (that ironically would greatly benefit from a little weed) that have what I would consider archaic views on marijuana use, that voted for legalization specifically because of what the funding was to be used for.
Last edited:
Nicoli7153
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
- Messages
- 446
Typical politicians changing promises. I always thought a promise was permanent
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Really disappointing coming from a legislator I have viewed as moderate and reasonable. I'll be reaching out to her.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
They have been trying to defund Habitat Montana since it started. I have never heard much negative about the program - not from landowners, hunters, general public. It must be the easement aspect of it? Maybe @Ben Lamb can give some insight into why politicians hate it so much.
Stone_Ice_1
Well-known member
I voted against it when it was on the docket because the way it was written allowed the legislature the ability to change where the funding went too easily. Seen this too many times with the legislature changing the funding after something passes. If I remember right, there is another 20% or so of the tax that the legislature gets to decide where they want the money to go because it wasn't specified in the original bill. Had nothing to do about being for/against marijuana.
sacountry
Well-known member
It is sad. If a change is to be made, then it would only make sense to make weed illegal again. then put it back on the ballot for legalization with the new set of benefiting budget items. Obviously not practical, nor probable, but anything less feels shady.
I do want to understand the money held in reserve. It came up in the discussion I had with MacGillvray about his desire to increase the NR definition. I told him that if feels strongly about expanding the definition, then at least don't make it at a discount. He responded with "FWP is sitting on $170 million +- in investment funds. I'm not open to increasing the cost."
We need to root this out. I feel like it's going to be a thing this legislative session.
4ohSick
Well-known member
Email sent. Can't imagine this sits well with most of the voters in her district; hopefully others speak up as well.
FWP does have a large ending fund balance due to a lot of NR tag sales, increased PR funding, etc. It makes it difficult to demand a license increase when they are flush with cash.
However, that funding is often earmarked for special accounts, like Habitat Montana, Block Management, etc. There are also legislative restrictions placed on FWP through the budgeting process so that they tend to hold cash in reserve more than other agencies, and historically, that funding has been a type of "peak and trough" approach that, based on past history of hunting and fishing license sales was used to buttress low revenue years after license fee increases were brought forward.
In the context of Habitat MT, there are several earmarked appropriations for that fund through the sale of licenses both resident and non-resident and the funding there has been pretty stable. FWP generally does a good job of guestimating on the biennial budgeting process on what they can and cannot spend in these accounts, although lately there has been a lot of unspent authority that is now causing some concern relative to the budgeting subcommittees.
How that all plays into the weed $ is that the Agency is telling the Legislature that they can't spend the extra $20 million deposited into Habitat Montana from two years of revenue under the 20% rule. My guess that this is due to conflict within the Landboard and the continued raising of the bar on conservation easements and fee title acquisition. We also have a land board that is not terribly interested in purchasing large tracts of land, or FWP held conservation easements.
Voters decided that 40% of the tax revenue from recreational MJ was to go to Habitat MT. HB 701 cut that to 20%. This bill, which is from the Governor's office, cuts that funding entirely. my understanding as well is that the HEART Fund, a great concept, has only spent $500,000 of the $6 million that was appropriated for it last year, yet now the Governor would like another $10 million per year.
We absolutely need to fund programs for at risk youth, veterans and others that are encompassed by the HEART fund, but perhaps a better way would be to put part of the Surplus into the Coal Severance Trust and use the interest generated off of that, rather than give 4th homeowners in Big Sky a big tax break on their property taxes.
This bill is likely to be heard next week. If you are interested in showing up to testify, feel free to reach out and I'll help with your testimony. Same goes for if you want to zoom in.
The disdain for the program goes all the way back to Brian Schweitzer's aggressive land purchases that created several new WMA's and conservation easements. That sparked a ton of opposition from the right who were concerned about ag land prices and taxes paid to counties (FWP makes a payment in lieu of taxes to counties for FWP owned land that equals the property tax valuation). There were several attempts to limit or remove FWP's authority to purchase land, hold permanent easements and even one attempt to completely defund the program, led by UPOM. At one point, FWP was only allowed to spend funds on Conservation Easements, and not fee title. We got that prohibition lifted in 2017 and were able to go back to purchasing small, strategic parcels of land like the MT Haggin additions as well as larger pieces of property like the Big Snowies WMA.
That effort saw the birth of the MT Sporting Coalition in 2015 to respond to these attacks. That coalition is comprised of the largest and most effective hunting and angling organizations in the state. RMEF, MDF, DU, PF, MWF, TRCP, MTTU, MBA, WSF, MTWSF and MTBHA are all on there and work together to protect the program and spending authority and they had been largely successful in de-escalating the conflict around this until 2019 when the Land Board took a right turn and tried to stop the Horse Creek Easement. That's when the conflict reared up again, and the weed $ is part of that conflict now.
There is a fundamental disagreement with some legislators who simply do not want FWP to be able to purchase land. Luckily, most of the Legislature is ok with this, so long as there are sideboards. In 2021, there was a bill that made all purchases go through the landboard, but we were able to increase the triggers by increasing the dollar amount to $1 million, or 100 acres, IIRC. That was a significant win in an otherwise bleak session.
sacountry
Well-known member
Interesting. @Eric Albus I believe you're on the FWP land committee, correct? Any inside detail as to why this money hasn't been deployed?
I'm not Eric, but I have an opinion.
Generally, the agency has projects lined up that require funding from various accounts:
Governor's tags, Upland Game Bird, Wetland Advisory, Habitat MT, WHIP, etc. When the revenue is more than the proposed expenditures, you end up with the ending fund balance. Since these are restricted funds, the Legislature can't take them and use them elsewhere, or the state would be in diversion of license revenue and lose PR/DJ funding. This is the beauty of PR/DJ in that they protect the license revenue used for these programs.
State Parks doesn't really have the kind of protection that license revenue accounts do, so they do get raided from time to time. There was a $2 million cash grab in 19 or 21 from State Parks' overly large EFB to pay for road improvements on the road to Hell Creek.
For wildlife dollars, those accounts grow over time, and if the agency isn't spending then the balance grows. That frustrates appropriators who feel as though they should be the arbiter of these funds.
sacountry
Well-known member
Problems arise on both sides of the funding coin obviously. If the money sits for any length of time, our legislators feel empowered to make poor decisions. Heck, the state of Montana should pay me to hunt and maybe throw in a box of ammo so I can sight in my gun. Point being, while its nice the money is protected, it needs to be spent.I'm not Eric, but I have an opinion.
Generally, the agency has projects lined up that require funding from various accounts:
Governor's tags, Upland Game Bird, Wetland Advisory, Habitat MT, WHIP, etc. When the revenue is more than the proposed expenditures, you end up with the ending fund balance. Since these are restricted funds, the Legislature can't take them and use them elsewhere, or the state would be in diversion of license revenue and lose PR/DJ funding. This is the beauty of PR/DJ in that they protect the license revenue used for these programs.
State Parks doesn't really have the kind of protection that license revenue accounts do, so they do get raided from time to time. There was a $2 million cash grab in 19 or 21 from State Parks' overly large EFB to pay for road improvements on the road to Hell Creek.
For wildlife dollars, those accounts grow over time, and if the agency isn't spending then the balance grows. That frustrates appropriators who feel as though they should be the arbiter of these funds.
I agree. However, if the authority to spend it is not there, they simply can't spend it down. The legislature appropriates, the executive spends.
In the issue of Habitat Montana, you have a third layer - the Land Board. It is getting more and more difficult to get these projects past the land board, so the agency is less enthusiastic about spending it.
In the case of the Wetlands fund, it's a council that hasn't been functional in a while, so there's $2 million awaiting projects. DU seems to have stepped up to the plate on this over the last two weeks though, and will begin putting projects together.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Without HuntTalk and many of the members here, I just would not know what the hell is going on. Thanks @Ben and others!
sacountry
Well-known member
I have a bad feeling the money in that account, deployable or not, is going to be the weapon used against us at just about every corner this session. We're going to hear "FWP can afford it" on the additional NR discounted tags, free super tag draws, and defunding Habitat Montana.
