Federal Funding for Hunting access?

[Nemont]

Here is a Sportsman Issue. I don't think it is fat assed, ass clowned or a salmon. Thought I would post something of interest for sportsmen and women.

March 24, 2005


Bill would help fund access programs
By BRETT FRENCH

Gazette Outdoor Writer

A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate earlier this month could be a boon to Montana's hunting access program, but its chances for survival may be slim.

Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, introduced the measure in the Senate on March 8. The so-called Open Fields initiative would direct the Department of Agriculture to provide grants to existing state-based programs that provide public access to private lands for recreation.

A companion measure to the bill - which is called the Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2005 - was introduced in the House.


"Hunting and fishing is a tradition as old as America itself," Conrad said when introducing the bill. "And through Open Fields, I am intent on keeping that tradition alive for generations to come. This bill offers a win-win situation for everyone. The farmers and ranchers who voluntarily enroll their land get an incentive payment. Hunters, fishermen and birders find more land available to enjoy the outdoors, and our rural communities get a tremendous economic shot in the arm."

The bill is a modified version of one drafted in 2003. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., were co-sponsors of the 2003 measure. Conrad told The Bismarck (N.D.) Tribune that the first version of the bill was shot down because congressmen wanted a specific pool of money for the program. That's included in the new initiative, and the new bill also includes payment for access to tribal and forest lands, as well as agricultural land. The measure also calls for $20 million in annual funding to be made available between 2005 and 2009.

Conrad is still seeking co-sponsors for this year's bill. But it has already gained backing from 45 groups, including the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Pheasants Forever and the Izaak Walton League.

George Cooper, director of communications for TRCP, said the bill's chance of passage this year is not good. But he said the group believes the bill has a chance of getting a hearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee.

"That's where you really start shaping these things," Cooper said. "That's when we can explain to the Senate what the program is all about."

Cooper said that in a hearing, someone such as Montana block management director Alan Charles, of the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, could explain his state's situation to the senators.

"The message we've gotten from Alan is that he's tapped out," Cooper said. "He's running out of money. This bill gets him funding."

The feds would not start any programs, only help those already in existence. Conrad told The Bismarck Tribune that the initiative would "let the states determine what works best for their resources."

Farm groups have also support the bill, including an endorsement from the National Farmers Union and the rural organization Communicating for Agriculture and the Self-Employed.

"Experience demonstrates that the rural economic impact of hunting on private lands can be an important contributor to rural economic development and can provide a much-needed boost to the incomes of farmers and ranchers," Dave Fredrickson, president of the National Farmers Union, said in a press release.

Seventeen states now have access programs that would qualify for Open Fields grants, including Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Cooper called Montana's block management program an incredible success. The state's numbers seem to back that up. During the 2003 hunting season, according to FWP statistics, 1,251 landowners enrolled 8.8 million acres and received $3.9 million in payments. About 80,000 hunters spent 400,000 days pursuing game on block management lands. Figures for 2004 would be similar.

The program is funded mainly by nonresident license sales. The fees the state pays out to property owners is capped at a maximum of $12,000 a year. The state also reimburses landowners for livestock losses, patrols enrolled lands and produces maps, signs and sign-in booklets.

Besides the obvious financial benefits behind block management and the Open Fields act, supporters say such programs promote ties between rural landowners and recreationists from urban areas.

A more immediate concern for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, however, is keeping the block management program alive. The legislation creating block management, which began in 1985, is set to expire in March 2006. Without legislative reauthorization during the current session, the program will die.

Senate Bill 77, which would make block management permanent, had overwhelming support in the Senate and now faces hearings in the House. House Bill 235 would, among other things, provide an alternate means of funding the block management program through proceeds from a lottery for big game licenses.

Related bills - House Bill 56 that would make the Fishing Access Program permanent and HB 79 that would do the same for the Habitat Montana Program - were approved last week by the Legislature with overwhelming majorities and now await Gov. Schweitzer's signature.

Habitat Montana funds the purchase of land and conservation easements to protect wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Funded by hunter license dollars, the program has protected 258,000 acres since its inception in 1988. The Fishing Access Program provides landowners incentives to allow access to private lands for public fishing.

 

[Ten Bears]

Wonder if Idahos access yes program would qualify too?

Here is a Sportsman Issue. I don't think it is fat assed, ass clowned or a salmon. Thought I would post something of interest for sportsmen and women.

Where's the fun in that?

 

[Washington Hunter]

I agree, where is the fun in this topic. There's nothing to argue about!

 

[Ten Bears]

Okay, is it, or is it not going to create another "welfare" program? It is my OPINION, that this program will make more landowners lock up their land until they get compensated, rather then open more land to hunting that was previously closed. |oo Nothing but a "welfare" hunting program. That should get things started.

 

[Washington Hunter]

TB, good job! Just bringing up the "welfare" word ought to do it. If I had more time I'd do my part to get this argument going, but right now all I have time for is to compliment you on a job well done.

 

[Nut]

Just another way to rip off non-residents to pay for welfare resident hunters.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I use quite a bit of block management lands thru out the year, whether I am going thru them fishing and hopefully this year, duck and goose hunting.
This is a really good program; it allows any one, including those from out of state to utilize land that used to be off limits.
It also is a boon for out of starters, these grounds are advertised thru the Fish and Game and all one has to do to find out the areas is to send Fish and Game an E-Mail or make a phone call.
It really helps in ones planning strategies for going into new areas as it gives a base of where one can start.
When I first came back to Montana, it was pretty tough, I didn't know of any places to hunt, and the locals weren't much help, Block Management was so new that it really didn't do any thing.
It has now become a very good tool for this state and hunting opportunities.

 

[BuzzH]

You should have said, "it even allows RESIDENTS to hunt block management land" beings how 90% of the funding comes directly from the sale of NR hunting licenses.

If you like the BMP, thank a non-resident.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Thanks Non Residents...

 

[Ten Bears]

I was told that Idahos access yes program is funded from a tag lottery. Thanks Gamblers for building the welfare hunter program.

 

[Wally Dog]

I don't get all this access stuff.........What ever happened to knocking on doors of farmers or ranchers, establishing a relationship with them, gaining their trust and having access to their property.......Now everyone seems to want to click on a website, select a region, find the hotlinks to participating landowners properties, look at sattelite images to see which tree to sit by...
WD

 

[Washington Hunter]

Nut makes a good point although I believe he was just trying to stir the pot...he used the term "welfare resident hunters." I really think there's a lot of truth in that. Most of the western states charge residents practically nothing for hunting licenses and tags. Most resident hunters could easily afford to pay double the price for their tags. But most hunters would whine and bitch if the state thinks of raising fees, even if it's only a few pennies. I just think of how much more money could be spent on buying up prime wildlife habitat before it is developed, or how many more game wardens could be out in the field catching poachers, if the majority of hunters weren't so damn greedy.

 

[dgibson]

I agree with WH that residents pitch a huge bitch any time their fees go up. They like spending the NR dollars, but they don't like having the NR's visit. Also, I wonder how far such a "welfare" program will ever get because of its hunting-specific nature. How long until the huggers demand equal access? Finally, Ten Bears, it may be "welfare," but if SOMETHING isn't done soon to curb the loss of hunting access there's going to be a lot of hunters looking for places to go. Would you rather they attempt to force landowners to allow access for free (good luck if you do)?

That about sums up my cold-medicine-induced delerious thoughts on this topic.

 

[Nemont]

I agree with WH that residents pitch a huge bitch any time their fees go up. They like spending the NR dollars, but they don't like having the NR's visit. ?

You are painting with a pretty big brush there aren't you? Tell me who doesn't bitch if their fees for anything goes up? I have never heard anyone say, "you know what would really make me happy: to pay more for this then I am now?" It is human nature to do that.

I have no problem hunting with and welcoming NR hunters. Usually give them any info I know. Have invited some to come hunt on our private deeded land, enjoyed meeting them etc, etc. There is a simple solution to the NR issue through out the west. If the NR hunters would quit paying the high fees charged the G&F depts. would get the message. That doesn't happen because there is nearly unlimited money chasing NR tags and more willing buyers then sellers. Would you rather have your NR dollars funding increased access for all hunter or have those dollars dropped into the states general fund and paid out to help a meth addict? Which helps hunting more? The huggers already have equal access.

Nemont

 

[ELKCHSR]

I'm in full agreement with Nemont.

I also have left an open door to NR's that want to come out. I don't know if I could lead them to the trophies they so desire, but that is another story for another topic.

I like to see them come into areas and spend tons of their own capital, this is what keeps a lot of the communities around the West open and operating and being able to keep their doors open for all that come by.

I actually see more damage and rule breaking by the locals in general, then by those from other places wanting a full rich exposure of something they are paying a lot of money for.

 

[dgibson]

Sorry, I forgot that I was in the "substantiate every statement and provide proof for every figure" department. Let me rephrase that to be a little more concise: "It is often observed that residents, when offered the suggestion of raising their license fees, opine that said fees are already adequate and that no increase is needed. It is also often observed that residents would prefer to limit the amount of nonresident hunters allowed in the state, despite the fact that nonresident license fees form a large portion of the state's wildlife budget. This is not necessarily true of all residents or of all states. Results may vary and your rights vary from state to state."

You know damned well what I meant; don't nitpick and play semantic games with me. The fact is that many, if not most, states RELY on non-resident dollars for their F&W budgets. Of course no one wants their license fees to go up, but if they want the NR's to go away then they're going to have to make up the difference somewhere. They can't have it both ways.

 

[Nemont]

Okay not to play semantics with you then why don't you come up with the solution. Most NR who spout this kind of inaccurate bs never have a solution. If the state F&G dept. can sell out of NR tags, either Outfitter Sponsored or open draw, at a high price what incentive does the Dept. or resident hunts have to reduce the costs of NR tags? What is the answer, just lower the costs of NR tags even though there are many willing payers at the higher price? Raise resident fees even though they live and work in that particular state. While the don't contribute as much as NR they do pay taxes and fund all the other functions of state government which are used by NR when they are here hunting.

So boy genius since you have all the answers to the question of what is fair to NR hunters and reasons why we resident hunters should pay homage to you because you grace our states with your presence, what should be done?

Also get the chip of your shoulder: Who ever said anybody wanted NR hunters to "go away". Maybe you should read USO's website, ole George would welcome you with open arms. You are inaccurate in nearly everything you wrote.


Nemont

 

[Nut]

i'm with my buddy darren. and yes i was hoping to stir the pot andalso i see it asthe nr end up paying for the majority.

 

[Nemont]

Nut Simple solution to not paying for the majority: Don't spend the money or move.

Nemont

 

[Nut]

that is the problem Nemont. Truthfully I am willing to pay the money to experience the great western outdoors.