News

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arguing its hands are tied, the BLM is locking itself into Resource Management Plans that are often 20 to 30 years old—outdated frameworks that completely fail to reflect the changing conditions and realities on the ground today.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.

On June 1st and 2nd, the Private Lands Public Wildlife Council (PLPW) met to finalize their recommendations to lawmakers and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP), to review access programs related to corner-to-corner public access scenarios, and to offer new ideas for increasing landowner participation in public access programs more broadly. The Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) has long participated in these PLPW discussions, and June’s meeting was no different. 

As a reminder, the PLPW is a Governor-appointed group of landowners, outfitters, and hunters charged with, among other things, improving hunter-landowner relations, addressing landowner concerns and issues flagged by the outfitting industry, and approving some public and private access agreements.

A number of hunters and conservation organizations provided comments. You can watch or listen to the full meetings here. MWF’s comments are summarized below: 

Re: The Landowner Stewardship Course

There were concerns expressed by PLPW that by potentially making this quick and easy online Landowner Stewardship Course a requirement – rather than voluntary – we would see a massive decline in hunter participation which would significantly reduce hunter day payments to landowners. MWF respectfully disagreed, and we were surprised by the opposition to improving hunter behavior, given how much attention hunter behavior receives.

MWF reminded PLPW that Block Management payments have jumped 330% in just a few years. And despite a 10% drop in enrolled acres, we’re looking at record numbers of hunter days on Block Management properties, a 56.6% increase in just the last decade. There’s no shortage of interest or funding. MWF is much more concerned with poor hunter behavior leading to Block Management disenrollment than we are hunter-day-payments dropping from a requirement to take a quick online course on how to respect private property. Hunting or walking across private lands is a privilege – taking a quick course to acknowledge this privilege, stressed MWF, is the least we can do.

Comparisons were offered to both the bear ID course – a prerequisite for buying a bear license which hasn’t decreased the number of licensed bear hunters – but also to the archery license – requiring a course to hunt anything in this state with a bow. The archery license even requires a mandatory $10 annual fee – yet this also hasn’t led to a reduction in archery hunters.

MWF suggested that compliance for stewardship course completion could be achieved with better signage, reminders, and maybe a warning for any first-time violators.

Further, MWF asked that consideration be given to the idea of creating a new private-land-public-access license for a nominal annual fee. This quick, online stewardship course could be a one-time prerequisite for that license, and the license could be a requirement for participating in access programs administered by FWP – similar to how the archery license is a prerequisite for archery hunting, and the bear ID course is required to hunt bears. Any revenue from that hypothetical private-land-public-access license could go directly to these private access programs, or enforcement, or regional access managers, all needed to ensure these access programs have a future.

Re: Landowner Preference

PLPW sought to address the problem of nonresident landowners having increasing success in the landowner preference (LOP) permit drawings, to the detriment of resident landowner success. To illustrate the problem, FWP pointed out that LOP permits for nonresident landowners have more than doubled since 2020. Those come out of the 15% of total permits set aside for both resident and nonresident landowners.

One suggestion from PLPW was to cap nonresident landowners to just 10% of the 15% of landowner permits. Concerns were expressed that this may end up being too restrictive or too complicated for FWP’s drawing process.

MWF offered another idea to help achieve the same outcome: to repeal the nonresident landowner preference passed in 2023. Existing preference for nonresident landowners gives them up to five deer and elk combo base licenses (eliminating what was a previous drawing hurdle as those base licenses are requirements to then draw a special permit). But, thanks to that 2023 legislation, nonresident landowners also get an added bonus point if they provide access, a benefit not enjoyed by resident landowners who are competing with nonresident landowners for the same permits. This actually gives nonresidents a leg up in the LOP permit drawings. MWF suggested that by repealing this and revisiting a bill from 2025 – HB 907 – we could level the playing field for resident landowners substantially while still encouraging participation in public access programs.

Additionally, MWF again suggested that by timing the landowner preference draws with the Elk Hunting Access Agreement (EHA) program we would be essentially asking landowners to pick or choose between the near guaranteed permits of EHAs, or rolling the dice with regular landowner preference. This scenario would undoubtedly increase participation in EHAs, and therefore moderately increase public hunting access – as those come with the requirement of allowing at least three public hunters – while also providing that landowners hunt their own deeded lands, an added bonus in terms of the actual intent of landowner preference, but also the impact of crowding on public lands.

Re: Corner Crossing

Much of the focus was on corner crossing, but not the legality of corner crossing which is currently being challenged in Montana. Rather, the conversations were about improving access and/or creating access to inaccessible public lands, either by using existing tools or creating new ones.

MWF agreed that yes, we should be using the many programs we already have to improve access, including areas of the checkerboard corner-to-corner access where legal access is not only unclear but less than ideal; a larger access corridor would ensure that hunters and anglers could utilize these lands in broader terms than what a simple stepping-over-a-narrow-corner would provide. For example, PLPW members brought up that in this scenario, going through a corner with a game cart, or on a horse, or with llamas, or pulling a sled, or with hunting dogs, all of those scenarios would be challenging if not impossible without expanding access corridors at corners.

Re: Accessing Inaccessible Public Lands

We were happy to hear about FWP’s previous efforts to utilize GIS systems to conduct targeted outreach to landowners eligible for the Public Access to Lands Agreements (PALAs). MWF encouraged FWP to relaunch that effort now that we have a new Block Management Corridor program which not only applies everywhere PALAs do, but pay more (up to $25,000 instead of being capped at $15,000) and – most importantly – apply to any public-land-adjacent landowner wanting to open access, not just to those who hold public land leases (a restriction of PALAs). This is a critical distinction that garnered much more attention on Day 2 (below).

MWF also pointed to the potential for permanent solutions to inaccessible public lands rather than just annual voluntary agreements that are temporary. For example, fair land exchanges could be an option to consolidate lands, thereby decreasing or removing inaccessible acres. Access easements are another option, especially if landowners could be compensated not just for the acreage of the easement but for what it opens in public access. MWF pointed to two existing tools/funds to do exactly this: the Access Public Lands program and Habitat Montana.

MWF also pointed to Montanan’s land banking program where the funds the state generates from selling inaccessible state lands are supposed to be used to purchase new, accessible state lands. Targeted land purchases could also ‘unlock’ inaccessible public lands or solve corner-to-corner discrepancies. Unfortunately, not a penny has been spent on new state land purchases since 2018. $41-$43 million sits in that account now, and if funds from individual land sales aren’t spent in ten years they get diverted. MWF encouraged this money to be used to purchase new state lands, and quickly.

PLPW expressed legitimate concerns about real trespass near corners, especially unmarked corners. MWF suggested that if corners aren’t obvious, rather than simply shrugging our shoulders and pretending we can’t find a solution, we should explore ways to work with pro-access groups and volunteers to assist FWP, landowners and land management agencies to survey, stake and sign these corners to help minimize confusion and conflict, while also enabling legal public access. Using the ambiguity of a corner’s precise location as a prohibition to allowing public access seems insincere; let’s work together to mark it. Again, the Access Public Lands program has funding available for projects like these.

On Day 2, MWF pointed out that the issue of inaccessible public lands isn’t a new issue. With digital mapping technology this issue may be more visible now, sure, but it’s not new.

These access programs and solutions aren’t new either.

Yet 80% of inaccessible lands remain inaccessible.

Why is that? We asked.

We have access coordinators across the state. We have a half dozen programs offering all forms of flexibility in terms of who, when, where and how people can utilize access. We’ve increased landowner compensation virtually across the board. We’ve dropped the hammer on fines and penalties for rulebreakers. And to encourage more enrollments, we’ve seen eligibility requirements changed for PALAs going from 2 miles to 1 mile in terms of how we define under-accessible.

Yet the predicament remains.

So again, MWF asked why that is? What haven’t we done?

The elephant in the room, we argued, appears to be the prohibition found in many of these programs where landowners are not eligible unless they hold the grazing lease on the public land too. This is incredibly limiting. Since this PALA legislation was introduced in 2019, there have been concerns about this and how by allowing this prohibition enables a ‘that’s-my-land’ fallacy on leased lands to persist.

These are public lands. They may be important to a ranch operation, but ranchers don’t own these leased lands or hold – or pay for – access rights on these leased public parcels. The public can and should still be able to access their multiple use federal public lands, or their state lands – lands that hunters actually pay a specific fee annually to allow for their public access. While the public being on public land that a leaseholder is used to treating as their own is probably an inconvenience, is that a legitimate reason to prevent access to public lands?

PLPW mentioned that leaseholders could be disgruntled if their neighbors were compensated for opening access to public lands that they themselves lease. MWF understands this concern, and we suggested that instead, perhaps we should amend these access programs to allow leaseholders the right of first refusal for that compensation. But if leaseholders refuse, then there should be nothing stopping their neighbor from exercising their own private property right of allowing the public to walk across their land to access adjacent public land. This wouldn’t be forcing access, but rather greatly increasing access-program eligibility.

MWF suggested that if we find there are legitimate operational or safety concerns from leaseholders, let’s hear them on a case-by-case basis, and let’s take them seriously. But we shouldn’t be prohibiting access by default without hearing those concerns in a public forum first. And that’s what many of these access programs do now.

Removing this programmatic barrier seems like a needed step to allowing voluntary and incentivized access to inaccessible public lands, and that was the biggest message MWF delivered at the June PLPW meeting.

The PLPW Committee will now formalize their recommendations and pass them along to the FWP staff and lawmakers on the Environmental Quality Council to consider.

Again, you can watch or listen to the full meetings here, or contact the PLPW Committee with your own thoughts, ideas or concerns.

Map courtesy of OnX Hunt

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than one-third of the nation’s public lands, including more than 8 million acres here in Montana. In recent weeks, actions have been taken to remove native bison — our national mammal — off of BLM public lands, to rollback a rule that would have given conservation a seat at the table in land management decisions, to ease grazing regulations on 155 million acres, reduce royalties paid by oil and gas developers, and to allow the use of sodium cyanide poisoning by government agencies – a practice previously banned because it was indiscriminately killing people’s pets and other wildlife.

Much of this is being done under the guise of supporting ranchers, but what many ranchers really want is for the cost of fuel and fertilizer to go back down, and for this administration to stop promoting imported beef over American-raised protein.

At the same time, Steve Pearce, a former oil executive and noted opponent of public lands, was confirmed by the Senate to be the next Director of the BLM. Both Senators Daines and Sheehy voted to confirm Pearce despite polling showing that 75% of Montanans opposed his nomination. 

This comes just a few weeks after Montana’s BLM State Director left the agency. We can’t blame her. She is one of many experienced public servants leaving an agency that, because of DOGE-driven cuts, funding reductions, and political upheaval, is losing staff, institutional knowledge, and capacity at a dangerous pace.

Let’s look closer at these recent actions.

Bison

Bison are native, beneficial grazers. In Montana, they are also defined as livestock under state law. The bison at issue are managed like a production herd: they are fenced, tagged, vaccinated, and subject to grazing fees that generate direct economic value from undeveloped public lands.

It should not matter whether those bison are ultimately sold, hunted, donated, or valued as part of Montana’s wildlife and tourism economy. But because these bison belong to the controversial American Prairie (AP), it has mattered a great deal.

Despite American Prairie enrolling 82,000 acres of their lands for hunting in Block Management, leasing the vast majority of their deeded lands to traditional, cattle-grazing producers, and the fact that cattle outnumber bison 8-to-1 on AP’s lands and leases, their organization and their bison continue to be in the crosshairs of our entire Montana delegation and the Governor.

The BLM’s decision to renege on AP’s lease agreements and remove ecologically beneficial grazers from public lands will have unintended consequences that stretch far beyond the prairie. The decision is likely to be appealed, and taxpayers may ultimately bear the cost of defending a politically driven reversal.

Public Lands Rule

Contrary to what this administration would have us believe, our BLM lands do not exist solely for industry’s benefit. On the contrary, the long-standing directive of these lands is for multiple use and sustained yield of our natural resources, for both present and future generations.

In 2024, the Conservation & Landscape Health Rule, more commonly known as the Public Lands Rule, went into effect. Championed by conservationists and supported by 92% of the public comments, the Rule acknowledges conservation as a legitimate use and value of our shared public lands. This is increasingly important as Montana and the West grapple with significant challenges like growing recreational use, invasive species, wildfires, and droughts.

But, as of this month, the new rule is now officially rescinded, and these lands will once again be on an all-you-can-lease buffet for oil and gas, logging, and grazing, with no one else involved, and largely without your say.

Grazing regulations

Many ranchers are excellent land stewards, and grazing has a legitimate place on public lands. But grazing is one use among many, and public lands must also support wildlife habitat, clean water, public access, hunting, angling, and long-term ecosystem health.

But actions taken this month by the BLM all but guarantee grazing permits wherever they’re requested, despite what the public thinks or what the range and conditions can actually sustain. By proposing to remove a requirement for the BLM to “consult, cooperate, and coordinate” with the public when approving and considering changes to grazing permits, the BLM is ushering in a new era of grazing, a free-for-all, where range health and other uses aren’t even considered.

Oil and gas royalties 

May also saw the implementation of a final rule that reduces royalty rates paid by oil and gas corporations benefiting off our public estate. The 25.015% royalty reduction (from 16.67% to 12.5%) will mean an estimated $1.5 billion annual loss in national revenue, according to analysis from Taxpayers for Common Sense. This includes dollars that would have flowed directly to Montana for things like road maintenance and infrastructure, with a quarter of the state’s revenue earmarked for the services benefiting the counties where extraction takes place. This is a big hit to our rural communities, and nothing but a handout to oil and gas to maximize shareholder profits, with no relief to be found for Montanans on our utility bills or at the pump.

Sodium cyanide

Then there’s the poison. At the request of a letter signed by Montana’s Senator Daines, the Trump administration issued an internal memo signaling the end to a prohibition of toxic chemicals from being used to poison wildlife on our BLM public lands.

In an effort to kill coyotes and other small carnivores like foxes and bobcats, government agents will apparently once again be able to use this indiscriminate method of killing on public lands. Wildlife Services, the government agency tasked with managing small carnivores for the benefit of agriculture, has many other animal-control tools at its disposal, including baiting, trapping, sharpshooters with night vision and infrared scopes, and even aerial gunning from helicopters. While these other methods are unsettling, the one advantage over poisoning is that they’re selective and systematic in their management – something poisoning is not.

The BLM, under the direction of the President and Interior Secretary Burgum, has made their priorities and intentions crystal clear: public lands are for unchecked grazing and extractive industries – outdoor advocates, wildlife, hunters and anglers be damned.

You might think this amount of destruction is the result of an entire term, but no, this is just from a few days in May, and to just one subset of our public lands and the agency that manages them. The onslaught of damage inflicted by this administration is deliberately relentless and carefully planned.

So yes: Mayday. Mayday.

Montana’s public lands are in trouble, and our federal delegation appears to be asleep in the cockpit.

Join us in expressing our concerns with our federal delegation.

Contact Senator Daines, Senator Sheehy, and Representative Zinke here.  

Almost a century ago, on May 16, 1936, hunters and anglers from across Montana gathered at the Placer Hotel in Helena to unite dozens of local rod and gun clubs around a shared mission: protecting wildlife, habitat, and our outdoor way of life. Ninety years later, that same spirit still drives the Montana Wildlife Federation—and your support is part of that legacy.

Ninety years to the day after hunters and anglers first came together to form this Federation, we’ll meet again—this time in Lewistown—to honor our roots, celebrate the conservation legacy we’ve built, and carry that work into the next ninety years.

The Board and staff of Montana Wildlife Federation invite you to join us for our 90th Annual Meeting on Saturday, May 16, 9:00 a.m. at the American Prairie National Discovery Center in Lewistown. We’ll be featuring some of MWF’s 2026 Conservation Award winners, offering door prizes, and providing lunch for registered attendees.

Later, join us for our Storytelling Celebration beginning at 5:00 p.m. at The Depot Room. Drinks, hors d’oeuvres, and inspiring stories from some of Montana’s conservation greats will be shared.

Register free today here!

Help us launch another ninety years of fighting for Montana’s wildlife, habitat, access, and hunting and fishing heritage. Your presence will make a huge difference; we’d love to see you in Lewistown.

• You’re invited to MWF’s Annual Meeting, 9:00 am Storytelling Celebration 5:00 pm
• Saturday, May 16 
• Lewistown, Montana
• Register free here or email mwf@mtwf.org

When?  MWF 90th Annual Meeting, 9:00am – 3:30pm Saturday, May 16th Storytelling Celebration, Doors open 5:00pm

What’s happening? The Annual Meeting includes the 2026 MWF Conservation Awards, door prizes, and lunch for those who register. Conservation Storytelling features Paul Santavy, Lailani Upham, Don Thomas, Diane Boyd, Chris Servheen, Tom Puchlerz and MWF President Mike Mershon.

Where? Lewistown, Montana. Annual Meeting is at American Prairie National Discovery Center. Storytelling is at The Depot Room at Yogo Inn.

Tickets: Registration is free: Register here. Or email mwf@mtwf.org