FWP woes

[tjones]

http://m.helenair.com/news/local/au...11e3-99ac-001a4bcf887a.html?mobile_touch=true

 

[katqanna]

Heres the Legislative Audit and Director Hageners Response, so y'all can see for yourself. I prefer full versions, rather than media commentary on a subject.

 

[tjones]

Ok, I was lazy. Thanks.

 

[katqanna]

Ok, I was lazy. Thanks.

Your Helena link didnt have it, but one thing I love about Brett French and the Gazette, is he often has links to documents, so I went to the source to get it. But Hageners response was not there. I had to call and get it, then upload online.

I was not trying to imply you were lazy, this is just how my brain works and research is what I have been doing for over 30 years of my life, its like breathing to me. I like to make resources available to the public.

 

[Big Fin]

The point of all of this is how much can be done to improve the Montana Block Management Program. Obviously, EQC and a few of their members will use this as another bullet to shoot at the Department.

That being said, the Montana Block management program needs improvement and reform. So much more could be done with the existing funds, in addition to not paying cooperators for lands on which we have already paid for a hunting easement - the big topic of this article.

I hunt all the western states and I have talked to many of the other agencies who have programs similar to the Montana BMP. Most of them started it with the MT BMP as a model to look at. Yet, almost all of them are much further along in creativity than the MT BMP. They all have a better "dollar per acre enrolled" result than Montana.

In my travels, I hunt these public access properties in other states and get to visit with some of those cooperators. My opinion is that some easy no-brainer ideas could be captured from other states who provide a lot of private hunting with less than what Montana spends on their BMP.

Change to Walk-in hunting - For whatever reason, MT does not have much in the way of this idea. In KS, it is all walk-in hunting. In WY, many of their biggest properties enrolled are all "walk-in" hunting. It is easy to see why.

When I talk to KS/WY landowners who participate, they think by going to all "walk-in" hunting, it is almost without headache, making it more attractive to them. They talk about what headaches are eliminated with "walk-in" hunting. Here are a few:

• No roads destroyed in bad weather.
• No increased likelihood of more invasive weeds.
• Generally, a pretty committed hunter in the field.
• No road hunting and the problems that come with that.
• Less litter.
• No gates left open, as there is no driving around.
• Less likelihood of fires during early season dry periods.
• Designated parking areas to make enforcement easier. If you see a vehicle outside the designated parking areas, you have reason to investigate what they are doing on your land.

Seems like a lot of benefits by one simple rule change. I know some would complain. But, if that change enrolled more acreage in the BMP, it would lessen pressure on other public lands where motorized access is not restricted.

If walk-in only solves that many issues for landowners, it seems it would make the program more attractive, increasing enrollment without spending more money, or needing less funds to keep enrollment static.

Next change - Online reservations.

Not only is it more efficient, it is less hassle to landowners. Look at the Wyoming Hunter Management Areas (HMS). It is all online. You enter your license information, your vehicle information, you sign a statement to comply with all the rules specific to that property, and you then are given a form to print off and put in your vehicle window.

That is far more cost-effective to operate and keeps better tabs on hutners. It also takes a huge burden off landowners who are forced to take phone calls, have hunters fill out permission slips, etc. All of that is a good thing. The better it is for the landowner, the more who will enroll or the less cost to keep enrollment the same.

This also prevents the biggest abuse going on in Montana. In MT we reimburse coopeators based on hunter-days. Bird hunters will hunt five or six properties in one day. And they will do it for multiple days. That is a huge financial drain when you calculate what it costs just for weekend of pheasant hunting with four guys hunting five properties per day.

I bet if you factored the cost per pheasant harvested, given how many bird hunters hunt multiple properties, it costs more per pheasant than it does per deer or antelope taken off BMP properties. That is not acceptable use of the program money.

We need to get to a system that is computerized and you are allowed to hunt one property per day. Hunting multiple properties costs the program multiples more in payments to operators. That is stupid and wasteful.

Online reservations will solve that problem. And, if everyone is required to have their form on the dash of their truck, it will improve enforcement and make enforcement easier.

Next item - access to adjacent public lands.

If you read the rebuttal from Director Hagener, he makes the case that the BMP is not supposed to provide access to adjacent public lands. I have not read the statutes and rules to verify if such is the case, but I have had many landowners tell me the adjacent public lands are not able to be accessed via their BMP-enrolled lands. That directive is coming from somewhere, law or rule.

If that is the law, or some administrative rule, it needs to change.

Look at Idaho. They have "Access Yes!" as their public hunting access program. One of the primary focuses of that program is to rank properties on many things, with one of the highest weighted attributes being "How well it improves access to otherwise accessible public lands." Great idea. Leverage your dollars by giving priority to those lands that can get you more access to adjacent public lands.

Why MT does not do that is supposedly driven by statute or administrative rule. That statute/rule has to be changed. To operate in a time of tight financial times and have that impediment in place makes the entire program open to criticism.

I could list more. This program does a lot of good. But, it has been in place for almost two decades without hardly an change. Historically, the BMP has been treated as a provincial fifedom within the Department that seems to be protected from outside recommendations. That needs to change.

Hopefully this audit report and the rebuttal from the Department provide an opportunity to bring forth some change that benefits BMP and makes it a more financially efficient. Critics are going to use this report to completely junk the program and to further their agendas against FWP. Seems FWP would be best served to get ahead of this and demonstrate a commitment to making it more efficient and improve the return they are getting for the dollars they are paying.

 

[tjones]

This is going to make the fee increase a tough sell.

 

[JLS]

Randy,

Reference the access to adjacent public lands. I believe (but cannot say for certain) that access to adjacent public land is a decision made by the landowner. They can choose to deny or to grant access. It is simply a term of the permission granted by the landowner. For example, look at many of the BMAs in the Missouri Breaks that give access to BLM and USFWS land.

In contrast, some of the BMAs in the Cascade are specifically state that access to adjacent DNRC ground is prohibited.

 

[JLS]

Washington just implemented a Hunt by Reservation program this year that is similar to Block Managment, but very different in a few aspects.

It is reimbursed by the acre. There is a minimum number of access days that must be granted, and these are determined by the landowner (and approved by the Department I believe).

Reservations are done online. You can have three active reservations at one time. Reservations may only be made 21 days in advance. Reservations can be at different times or on the same day.

The hunter prints out a reservation slip and is required to carry and display this in their vehicle. Automating the system is a no-brainer in my opinion.

I love the program. I got to bird hunt some very good areas this year because of it, and I'd like to see WDFW do everything in their power to expand it drastically.

It's not perfect, and I made a number of recommendations on how it could be tweaked and improved. As far as paying per hunter vs. per acre, I am mixed. Block Mgmt does not reward a landowner for trying to provide a high quality experience, rather it rewards for providing a lot of opportunity. I've always had mixed feelings on this. Paying per acre does reward the landowner for trying to provide a quality experience, but may short the public from opportunity that could be provided and maybe isn't. It's a double edged sword.

 

[Big Fin]

This is going to make the fee increase a tough sell.

Yeah, that opportunity just left the building.

 

[idahohuntr]

Paying per acre does reward the landowner for trying to provide a quality experience, but may short the public from opportunity that could be provided and maybe isn't. It's a double edged sword.

I have mixed feelings on paying per acre....its a simple and manageable way to run an access program...but I see a lot of big wheat farms with little wildlife habitat value enrolled in the program. Frankly, they are just not providing any real hunting opportunity and it frustrates me. As demand (and price) for good hunting ground continues to increase the only people left in a $/per acre program are going to be low value hunting areas with little suitable habitat. The high value wildlife areas figure out they can charge $1000 or $5000 or whatever for access per person which means more money and less hassle and no restrictions from the state agency.

I would almost rather see each county or region get an "access" budget and a volunteer sportsmen panel takes the allotted money and seeks bids or evaluates properties and makes offers for access. I realize the many down sides to a much more convoluted and complex process...but I do not feel like we are getting the best bang for the buck by paying and measuring success of many of these access programs by acreage...at least in Washington.

I believe every state agency in the west has position(s) in their agency with titles like landowner-sportsman coordinator or private lands biologist etc. where their primary job duties are to identify/enroll/manage private land hunting access for sportsmen. These positions did not really exist 30-40 years ago...but now and into the future these guys and gals are among the most important people in the agency for the average DIY hunter...particularly NR DIY guys.

 

[katqanna]

I have mixed feelings on paying per acre....its a simple and manageable way to run an access program...but I see a lot of big wheat farms with little wildlife habitat value enrolled in the program. Frankly, they are just not providing any real hunting opportunity and it frustrates me.

I wondered about this here in Montana this last spring. Some of the parcels I was looking into were owned by hay and seed company. So after harvest, hunting season begins and the land is in Block Management. I was curious about the quality of hunting in that situation.

 

[RobG]

Change to Walk-in hunting - For whatever reason, MT does not have much in the way of this idea. In KS, it is all walk-in hunting. In WY, many of their biggest properties enrolled are all "walk-in" hunting. It is easy to see why.

I understand the benefits of walk-in hunting, but the BMA landowner now can decide that - so how would it help?

 

[Big Fin]

I understand the benefits of walk-in hunting, but the BMA landowner now can decide that - so how would it help?

First, a lot of landowners are of the impression that if they do restrict to walk-in, they are going to be lower on the priority list for enrollment. Even though they CAN, it is not a good idea, if you want to be accepted into the program. Not sure if that is the case, but that is a perception.

Kind of like when your buddies ask you to do something your spouse is not real keen on and he/she says, "Yeah, you CAN do that. Go ahead if you want to .......(be single)." You "can," but "can" comes with consequences. In the case of the BMP, the consequence may be that your property is not enrolled.

Second, some landowners worry that restrictions make their property less attractive than unrestricted properties, and thus they would have lower use, resulting in lower payments. Again, not sure that is true, but some have that concern. So long as the payment is based on hunter-days, anything that might provide less appeal to their property comes with the economic disincentive.

Third, I'm not sure all landowners are aware that they can have walk-in only.

Fourth, it seems to be a demonstration to landowners that the program is trying to make the program less of a headache to landowners, especially at this time when the program is under such heavy criticism by the landowner community.

I have a tendency to believe some of the concerns landowners express about walk-in restrictions. When you see how well it works to lessen concerns in other states, I tend to believe it is helpful to the landowner. Yet, we see hardly any properties in MT enrolled with that restriction. Why? Are we not enrolling those who want it? Is it being discouraged when working with landowners?

I'm not sure why we see so little of it in MT, but there is a disconnect between how well it works elsewhere and the absence of it in the large program in the west (MT).

 

[JLS]

I have mixed feelings on paying per acre....its a simple and manageable way to run an access program...but I see a lot of big wheat farms with little wildlife habitat value enrolled in the program. Frankly, they are just not providing any real hunting opportunity and it frustrates me. As demand (and price) for good hunting ground continues to increase the only people left in a $/per acre program are going to be low value hunting areas with little suitable habitat. The high value wildlife areas figure out they can charge $1000 or $5000 or whatever for access per person which means more money and less hassle and no restrictions from the state agency.

I would almost rather see each county or region get an "access" budget and a volunteer sportsmen panel takes the allotted money and seeks bids or evaluates properties and makes offers for access. I realize the many down sides to a much more convoluted and complex process...but I do not feel like we are getting the best bang for the buck by paying and measuring success of many of these access programs by acreage...at least in Washington.

I believe every state agency in the west has position(s) in their agency with titles like landowner-sportsman coordinator or private lands biologist etc. where their primary job duties are to identify/enroll/manage private land hunting access for sportsmen. These positions did not really exist 30-40 years ago...but now and into the future these guys and gals are among the most important people in the agency for the average DIY hunter...particularly NR DIY guys.

Some of that farm ground that doesn't look like much can provide some awfully good deer hunting. Too many people overlook wheat stubble and CRP strips.

That said, there certainly are some areas that should be axed in favor of better areas. Montana's BMAs are the same. Sometimes you get huge expanses of farm ground for a small, but valuable piece that is very good hunting.

When I talked to the Private Land Bio about my suggestions for improving the program, he told me that these are 5 year contracts, with a required 2 year obligation. I would expect that we will see some change after this hunting season. He also expressed some hope that they would find some new funding sources to add more areas.

I think these types of hunt areas benefit the residents far more than they do NR hunters.

 

[JLS]

First, a lot of landowners are of the impression that if they do restrict to walk-in, they are going to be lower on the priority list for enrollment. Even though they CAN, it is not a good idea, if you want to be accepted into the program. Not sure if that is the case, but that is a perception.

I would bet you are pretty close on this one.