News

Act now & submit comments to Montana’s Department of Natural Resources & Conservation (DNRC) by September 25th.

Montana’s state lands generate important revenue for our schools. Most state lands are leased, though these lands remain publicly accessible to outdoor recreation, for the most part. 

However, now that Montanans specifically pay for recreational access to these lands with the required conservation license – generating $2.4 million in Fiscal Year 2026 – some of the more restrictive rules no longer seem appropriate or fair.

The rules that guide what sort of recreation is permitted and where are being revisited, and DNRC wants to know your thoughts.

MWF will be commenting on the following:

Camping and Overnight Use 

Montanans should be able to camp for more than two days, even if that state land is leased, and backcountry hunters specifically should be able to venture on foot to camp overnight in locations that are more than 200 feet from an access point. Otherwise much of our large chunks of state lands remain only accessible to lessees. 

In recognition of this and to be consistent with existing regulations on unleashed state lands, we request that camping be allowed on all state lands for up to 16 days a month, and that non-motorized camping be allowed on all state lands, rather than being limited to within 200 feet of an access point.

Camping while using a motorized vehicle, however, should remain limited to 50 feet of an access point to protect our natural resources.

Electric Bike (e-bike) Use

DNRC should continue to regulate e-bikes as motorized vehicles since they have a motor. 

As electric OHVs and e-dirt bikes enter the market, it’s increasingly important that we distinguish between human-powered and motorized recreation on our state lands.

Snowmobilie Use

DNRC should continue to default to snow machines only being allowed on motorized travel routes unless otherwise noted (rather than the other way around). 

The ‘open-unless-posted-as-closed’ approach makes it too easy for signage to disappear; but for some reason the signs denoting a road or area as open to motorized use, those signs seem to last a long time. 

Lessees should continue to get motorized use exceptions, but since those often lead to confusion amongst other user groups there needs to be more education and signage explaining these permissive exemptions for lessees only, and increased enforcement to back it up.

Motorized Use/Road Use

Similar to snowmobile use, we encourage DNRC to default to motorized use only being allowed on motorized travel routes unless otherwise noted (rather than the other way around). The ‘open-unless-posted-as-closed’ approach makes it too easy for signage to disappear and it will take significant staff time and resources to appropriately sign DNRC lands if it were to change.

Again, lessees should continue to get motorized use exceptions, but to limit confusion there needs to be more education and signage explaining these permissive exemptions for lessees only and expanded enforcement efforts are needed.

State Trust Land Enrolled within Block Management Agreements (BMAs)

Block Management compensates private landowners for the impacts associated with hunters on their private lands; it is not technically an access payment. And with more use comes more impacts on the private lands enrolled, even if much of that impact is also on DNRC lands. 

We encourage DNRC to continue to allow these chunks of private and DNRC lands to be clearly communicated as publicly accessible to hunt via Block Management, and private landowners should still be compensated for all of those associated user impacts on their private lands. 

But the special hunting restrictions that we’re seeing for Block Management should only apply to the private lands enrolled, and not the DNRC lands that would otherwise not have any special regulations. Leaseholders nor Block Management cooperators should be able to prohibit forms of otherwise legal and responsible hunting or recreation.

Final Thoughts

Leaseholders often pay to use these DNRC lands, but lessees don’t own them, nor do they pay for or possess exclusive access. And while there are valid concerns from leaseholders that more public recreation could mean an increase in litter, for example, DNRC should not allow reasonable impacts of public use to prohibit public use of state lands. 

Recreationists should certainly strive to minimize our impacts as much as possible though, by practicing principles of Leave No Trace and being responsible and ethical users of our shared resources. To this end, MWF supports improved education and consistency, better signage, and bolstered enforcement in the field.

To submit your own comments, click here. The comment deadline is September 25th.

Roadless Flashback: Hunters & anglers hike 7 miles for Montana backcountry

On June 23, 2025, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the Trump Administration was planning on rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

During the scoping period this summer, USDA received 625,000 public comments. 99% of the comments opposed rolling back the Roadless Rule.

On August 29th, 2026, the USDA kicked off a 21-day official public comment period which ends September 19th, 2026. Now is the time for all of us to act and submit a public comment.

The proposed rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule jeopardizes nearly 45 million acres of undeveloped backcountry forestland managed by the U.S. Forest Service, comprising around a third of the territory in our national forest system. These forests have only remained intact because of the Forest Service’s nearly 25-year-old commitment not to build roads in these areas for harmful activities like major logging operations or oil-and-gas drilling.

Montana hunters and anglers have stood up for roadless lands, wildlife, wild waters and the Rocky Mountain Front for generations. It’s our turn in 2026. Go to this link to submit a comment and honor the legacy of leading Montana hunters and anglers mentioned in this MWF press release from March 2006.

Its been said that some elected officials in Montana don’t believe that “real” Montana hunters and anglers actually care that much about the conservation of Inventoried Roadless Areas on National Forest lands or even the fate of public lands along Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front.

But MWF events in 2006 set the record straight.

Hunters and Anglers March 4 Roadless 

On March 4, a cloudy and sometimes sleety Saturday, more than 50 hunters and anglers walked nearly seven miles from the Black Mountain Roadless Area outside of Helena to the Capitol building where they met with Governor Brian Schweitzer.

The plan, originally hatched by Jim Posewitz of Orion: The Hunters Institute, was to hand deliver written recommendations to the Governor detailing why Inventoried Roadless Areas on National Forest lands need to remain in their current condition. The Capitol-March illustrated that hunters and anglers are not only concerned about the fate of Roadless Areas but care enough to walk seven miles to say so.

The goal fit perfectly with organized MWF efforts that include the organization of a statewide Hunters and Anglers Roadless Working Group that has been working on science-based recommendations for submittal to the Governor. 

“We marched today to express our concern for these last roadless wild lands.  Doing so is our ethical responsibility as hunters,” said Posewitz during his remarks at the event.

Kathy Hadley, an avid angler and Montana Wildlife Federation member, told the Governor and the crowd assembled that her new grandson deserves a Montana wholly different from states where lands free of roads were lost a generation ago.  “Montana’s future generations should not be left with a place indistinguishable from Detroit or Los Angeles.”

Chris Marchion, President of Montana Wildlife Federation told the Governor, “Secure roadless habitat is the core of Montana’s world-renowned wildlife legacy.  Maintaining the current condition of Roadless Areas is crucial to maintaining our five week general deer and elk season – the longest general season of all the western states.”

Marchion handed the Governor a written recommendation drafted by the Hunters and Anglers Roadless Working group and signed by 25 hunting and angling groups from across Montana representing thousands of “real” Montana hunters and anglers.

The event culminated with the Governor telling the group, “I see a group of people who are committed to the ideas of Theodore Roosevelt.”   He continued, “Theodore Roosevelt stood up and said ‘I can’t accept it.’”  The Governor was referring to the wholesale degradation of wildlife and their habitat during Roosevelt’s lifetime.  

The Governor went on to say that the conservation of Roadless Areas is not a partisan issue, “conservation is an American value,” he said to the hunter orange wearing crowd.  “The days of polarizing wild places are gone.  We are the treasure state and there’s no greater treasure than our wild lands.”   

Hunters and Anglers Support Protecting the Rocky Mountain Front

More than 400 Montana hunters and anglers signed a letter urging the state’s congressional delegation to protect fish and wildlife and fishing and hunting along the Rocky Mountain Front.

Russell Country Sportsmen, Montana Wildlife Federation and Trout Unlimited sponsored a press conference March 23, at Paris Gibson Square in Great Falls to discuss the letter and sportsmen’s efforts to protect the Front from further oil and gas development.

“Our professions vary from ranchers, business people, doctors, lawyers, engineers, wildlife professionals, to educators,” the letter states. “All of us share a common passion for hunting and fishing, and a love of the Rocky Mountain Front.  We are writing to ask that as our elected senators and representative, you all work together to support the permanent protection of the Front from oil and gas development.”

Speakers at the event included: John Borgreen, of Russell Country Sportsmen and the Montana Wildlife Federation; Roy Jacobs, a Choteau taxidermist, former hunting guide and active member of the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front; Kirk Evenson of Missouri River Flyfishers and Trout Unlimited, and Jim Posewitz of Orion: The Hunters Institute. 

Posewitz told reporters, “The Front is a place that has been called the North American Serengeti, an unneeded comparison. It is a remarkable place that is the physical expression of the conservation ethic held by Montana people – there is nothing it needs to be compared to or measured against – it is who we are. Our conservation ethic demands that we NOT put these resources at risk for some fleeting prospect of a passing economic blip. The wildlife and wild land resources of the Rocky Mountain Front – are in fact – priceless…the existing oil and gas leases…should be terminated.”

“We want to send a clear message to Senators Burns and Baucus and Representative Rehberg, that there is a strong diversity of grassroots hunters and anglers, from all walks of life, who support the permanent protection of the Rocky Mountain Front,” said Craig Sharpe, executive director of MWF. “In others words, their constituents here in Montana will support any efforts to protect this special, wild place.” 

In the late 1990s, the U.S. Forest Service withdrew most of the Front from new oil and gas leasing, but there remained old leases that could still be developed. Last summer, in response to concerns expressed by Montana residents, U.S. Secretary of Interior Gale Norton temporarily suspended development of existing leases. The letter signed by hunters and anglers urges Montana’s congressional delegation to “seek common sense solutions, such as trading or buying out existing leases” to permanently protect the Front. 

“We all use gas and oil, and we all support responsible energy development,” said David Stalling of Trout Unlimited. “However, some places are simply too important for fish and wildlife to drill, and the Rocky Mountain Front is one of these places.” ◆

A new proposed rule from the U.S. Department of the Interior would shortchange Montanans, reduce public input on decisions affecting public lands and waters, and put more fish and wildlife habitat at risk.

The proposal would roll back key parts of the Bureau of Land Management’s 2024 Oil and Gas Rule, including up-front bonding requirements that help to ensure oil and gas companies — not taxpayers — pay to clean up and restore public lands after drilling. The current rates recognize the true costs of plugging wells and reclaiming damaged public lands, but weakening those requirements increases the likelihood that abandoned and orphaned wells will be left for Montanans to clean up – and pay for.

Under the proposed rule, public comment periods for oil and gas leasing decisions would be reduced from 90 days to just 10 days, leaving hunters, anglers, landowners and local communities with little time to understand proposals and provide adequate public input. 

Existing safeguards that ensure critical habitat, clean water, and other public uses are all considered would also be weakened with the proposed rules.

Montanans support responsible energy development, but only when developers are held accountable, taxpayers receive a fair return, and local communities have meaningful opportunities to weigh in on decisions affecting public lands and waters. These new proposed rules grant us none of these.

The Montana Wildlife Federation encourages comments in opposition to the proposed rollback. The deadline to comment is August 24th. 

COMMENT HERE

Suggested talking points: 

• As a Montanan, I insist that my voice be heard and weighed appropriately in how our public lands are used. 10 days of public comment are insufficient. The two 30-day public comment periods should remain.
• This is another example of privatizing profits and socializing the losses—a story all too familiar to Montanans. When companies drill on public lands, they should be held accountable for the messes they make. I ask that DOI maintain the bonding requirements established in the 2024 Leasing Rule. This will ensure that Montana taxpayers are not treated as the cleanup crew for out-of-state corporations.
• A recent poll found that 95% of Montanans support requiring oil and gas companies, rather than taxpayers, to pay for all cleanup and land restoration costs after drilling is finished. Across the West, nearly 9 in 10 voters support the same basic requirement. We should not be weakening bonding requirements.
• More than 260,000 Americans commented on the 2024 Oil and Gas Rule, and 99.4% supported the reforms. Just a few years later, we should not be weakening safeguards designed to protect public lands and wildlife habitat. DOI should maintain the leasing preference criteria that attempt to avoid sensitive fish and wildlife habitat and lands with little promise of extractive potential.
• According to Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, rolling back federal oil and gas bonding requirements could leave American taxpayers responsible for up to $753.5 billion in cleanup costs on public lands. Rolling back bonding requirements is unfair and fiscally irresponsible.
• Leases should not be allowed to be held indefinitely. This puts our public lands in limbo, for an uncertain amount of time, with little return to taxpayers, all while risking proactive conservation efforts and restricting other land uses.

COMMENT HERE

On June 1, 2026, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it plans to move forward with the full leasing alternative for its Montana-Dakotas third-quarter oil and gas lease sale.

The sale, currently scheduled for July 14, would offer 66 parcels totaling 29,087 acres in Montana and North Dakota for oil and gas development.

During the public comment period, Montana Wildlife Federation and other organizations asked the BLM to consider deferring parcels where leasing could conflict with critical wildlife habitat and other sensitive areas. These lands are important to hunters, anglers, local communities and others who rely on healthy public lands and waters.

The BLM’s response raises concerns that reach far beyond this individual lease sale.

The BLM Says Its Hands Are Tied

In response to public comments, the BLM stated that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has restricted its authority to exercise discretion and defer individual parcels during the leasing process. According to the BLM, decisions about which lands may be offered for oil and gas leasing must be made during the broader land-use planning process—not during the scoping or public comment period for an individual lease sale.

That interpretation means the BLM may be unable to respond when hunters, anglers, ranchers, local communities and other members of the public raise valid concerns about current threats to wildlife habitat, recreation or water resources. It also locks leasing decisions into Resource Management Plans that may be decades old and no longer reflect changing conditions on the ground.

Public comment should give citizens a meaningful opportunity to influence decisions affecting public lands. It should not be a box-checking exercise conducted after the most important decisions have already been made.

A Dangerous Precedent for Public Lands

In response to the BLM’s position, Montana Wildlife Federation Executive Director Frank Szollosi released the following statement:

“The BLM’s claim that it cannot defer parcels during the public comment phase of oil and gas lease sales highlights the sheer absurdity of the legislative mess Congress created last year with its new leasing requirements. By arguing its hands are tied, the BLM is locking itself into Resource Management Plans that are often 20 to 30 years old—outdated frameworks that completely fail to reflect the changing conditions and realities on the ground today. Rather than forcing agencies to rely on decades-old planning decisions, Congress must step in immediately and explicitly restore the BLM’s authority to use some common-sense discretion to defer specific parcels when valid concerns are raised.”

The consequences of the BLM’s position could extend to future oil and gas lease sales in Montana and across the country.

Congress must restore the agency’s ability to consider current information, respond to public concerns and defer individual parcels when development could put wildlife, recreation, water resources or local communities at risk.

Featured photo by Lisa Ballard.