Photo illustration by Getty Images.
The primary question Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, posed to the Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs committee this week was a choice between people or public lands and wildlife.
“Do you care more about children, teenagers that are having struggles with addictions, pregnant mothers that are using marijuana that’s causing injuries to their babies?” McGillvray asked. “We have to, as a society, decide — are people more important or trails, parks and wildlife?”
“What’s the choice? Is it children, or gophers?”
Numerous conservation organizations, and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, argued that eliminating a key funding source for habitat conservation, recreation and nongame wildlife programs was tantamount to eliminating the programs themselves.
McGillvray was testifying in support of his Senate Bill 307 on Thursday, which would reallocate tax revenue from recreational marijuana in Montana, eliminating around $16 million in funding for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks programs and funneling it towards drug prevention and law enforcement operations.
Following the legalization of recreational weed in 2020, the Legislature in 2021 passed the laws governing the new industry, including allocating the more than $60 million in annual tax revenue.
Under the current structure of the law, each fiscal year, funds are distributed as follows:
- $6 million to the Healing and Ending Addiction through Recovery and Treatment (HEART) Fund
- Of the remainder:
- 20% to FWP’s Habitat conservation program ($10 million in FY26)
- 4% each to FWP’s state parks, trails and recreational facilities, and nongame wildlife accounts ($1.9 million each in FY26)
- $200,000 to veterans and surviving spouses account
- $150,000 to board of crime control
The remaining revenue goes into the state’s general fund, which is estimated to be $33.3 million for fiscal year 2026.
Calling it a policy choice, McGillvray’s primary argument for the reallocation was to connect the dots between funding sources and expenditures. In this case, the marijuana tax should pay to mitigate the social cost and harms of the drugs, he said.
He used examples such as the cigarette tax, which directs revenues toward the harms from tobacco to Department of Public Health and Human Services programs and to six of the state’s Native American tribes; or the gas tax, which is used for infrastructure projects and highway maintenance.
“Most special revenue sources are directed to something connected to that special revenue source,” he said. “If marijuana taxes are directed toward parks, trails and wildlife habitat, then who’s got to pick up the cost of the harms that come from the legalization and the use of marijuana? The property taxpayers, the income tax payers.”
Under McGillvray’s bill, a new marijuana prevention account would receive 16% of revenue, a marijuana law enforcement operation account would receive 8%, the HEART fund would receive 24%, and the state Department of Revenue would see an increase of funding for administrative costs.
The HEART fund, a priority of Gov. Greg Gianforte in the original marijuana legislation, is a drug treatment program that doles out state money to local organizations and nonprofits to fill gaps in the continuum of substance abuse care and prevention services, according to the governor’s office. McGillvray said his bill essentially doubles the money in the HEART fund.
However many representatives of wildlife, conservation and public lands groups testified against SB 307, decrying the bill for stripping out vital funding for the programs administered by FWP.
Thirteen individuals testified against the bill before Chairman Sen. Mark Noland, R-Bigfork, cut off testimony due to time restrictions, leaving nine opponents online and several in person out of the conversation.
“This bill would strip crucial funding from conservation efforts and will have immediate negative effects on public land and recreation opportunities in our state,” said Micah Fields with the Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. “The most urgent and reckless threat within SB 307 is the impact this bill would have on quality outdoor opportunity in Montana, particularly the loss of support for trail stewardship, state park maintenance and habitat improvement projects for Montana’s greatest assets, our public lands, waters, fish and wildlife.”
The director for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Christy Clark, also spoke in opposition to the bill and listed off the work the department did that is funded through these revenue streams.
Under the nongame wildlife programs, the funding has been used to gather data on species listed as endangered or in need of conservation and to establish a wildlife tracking system for birds and bats, two programs that would “be virtually eliminated,” Clark said.
The state park funding has allowed FWP to catch up on a “major backlog” of maintenance programs, including 55 separate projects since 2021, she said, and the trails and recreation account had funded 140 projects in 34 counties for a more than $6 million investment in local communities with matching funds.
In some instances, Clark said, the department was “partially down the path” of many projects, and eliminating the funding would stop them completely.
An FWP spokesperson told the Daily Montanan it doesn’t oversee most trails, and therefore, it can’t charge users fees for most of them.
Prevention, treatment and enforcement
But on the other side, proponents argued that the greater need in Montana is towards preventing drug abuse by educating residents, especially youths, and cracking down on a potentially lethal black market trade.
Coming on the heels of another committee hearing for a bill seeking to regulate THC levels in recreational marijuana, nine individuals testified in favor of the legislation, comprising addiction counselors, drug prevention specialists and former law enforcement.
“It saves money. It saves lives,” said Coleen Smith, a certified prevention specialist with the nonprofit Youth Connections Coalition. “The governor has stated that he wants prevention in every county. The State of Montana has not put one dime towards prevention in over 20 years.”
Stacey Zinn, a retired agent with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Montana, said the state was not currently prepared to handle the marijuana black market.
“To think that Montana is not going to have any nefarious gangs or people come into here to start working the black market, that’s just plain out naive,” Zinn said, lauding the bill’s commitment to funding a new enforcement account. “We do not have the manpower to push back against these nefarious people.”
Steve Zabawa, founder of Safe Montana, a group that advocates for THC regulations, said that shifting funds from FWP to prevention, treatment and policing programs would be “a big win as far as our families.”
“It’s that simple,” Zabawa said. “Our trails are already in place. We have great trails, we have great fishing. We have great mountain climbing. They don’t need the money.”
But opponents responded by asking why the bill forced lawmakers to decide between two important program areas.
“What this bill does is it pits public safety, policing, prevention, against habitat and public access,” siad Tom Jacobsen of the Montana Wildlife Federation. “They’re asking you to make a decision — do you want to fund this, or do you want to fund that.”
Noah Marion of Wild Montana added that state revenues and surpluses remain at historically high levels — including a billion dollar ending balance last fiscal year.
“There is more than enough revenue around to fund those priorities without jeopardizing Habitat Montana, our trails, our parks and other incredibly important Fish, Wildlife and Parks programs,” he said.
Sen. Jacinda Morigeau, D-Arlee, raised a similar question for McGillvray, asking why the bill didn’t reduce the revenue funneled into the general fund and add the prevention and enforcement measures in addition to the existing programs, rather than “rob Peter to pay Paul.”
“Well, there’s a guy downstairs (Gianforte), he’s kind of jealous about general fund money,” McGillvray said.
The governor’s office did not respond to questions seeking comment on the bill.
In response to opposition testimony from Brigadier General Renee Dorvall, deputy director for the Montana Department of Military Affairs, about removing funding from the veterans account, McGillvray said he was proposing an amendment to reinstate those funds, as well as the board of crime control account.
According to the bill’s fiscal note, the legislation as written would add 15 new positions on two enforcement teams under the Department of Justice, a canine unit, and two prosecutors.
Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, asked McGillvray if all of the new full-time positions weren’t just an “unwanted DOJ jobs program.”
“I don’t disagree,” McGillvray replied.
Among the other opponents to the bill were representatives from Montana Conservation Voters, the Montana Audubon, Montana State Parks Foundation, Anaconda Sportsman’s Club, Helena Hunters and Anglers, Prickly Pear Land Trust, and the Nature Conservancy, as well as many individuals who were unable to speak due to time constraints.
In his closing, McGillvray called it a “policy choice,” and said he wasn’t disparaging trails, parks or wildlife. He pushed back against the opponents who said eliminating marijuana revenue for conservation and public lands would also eliminate the programs.
He said FWP has “plenty of money to deal with this,” in various funds.
“If they want more money, then charge a fee for trails, charge a fee for parks. Charge the fee users pay — that’s how we do things around here,” he said. “I grew up without a trail, and I figured it out … I’m not against trails. I like trails. Make your own trail.”