How to Improve Montana's Block Management

[Straight Arrow]

I’d scrap the program all together along with all the money wasted on conservation easements that provide zero level of access. Let’s work on stuff that actually provides long term access and not landowners letting there buddies on and getting paid for it. If I can’t hunt it whenever I want I got no interest in it. The money wasted on it could be used to provide long term access to public land.

timmy, I understand where you are coming from and agree to a large extent .... however, knowing where the elk now live that previously lived on public land I could hunt, scrapping the Montana BM program is not a good solution, nor realistic.

 

[Nameless Range]

Those are all good thoughts Randy. I tried to think of my own but can't improve upon yours.

Something I have done for the last few years is write thank yous to the landowners whose BMAs I have hunted on. I try and tell them how much I appreciated the privilege of walking on their land, how I did, and the things I love about the chunks of ground they own.

Money no doubt talks, and maybe some landowners just want to be left alone, but perhaps someway to recognize landowners that participate in Block Management as furthering the traditions of Montana could mean something to some of them. I believe that when you think of all the hours of hunting, the moments lived by hunters on those parcels, and of the experiences that we hunters know are so precious, those landowners really are leaving a legacy.

I am a public land advocate through and through, but I also get a special feeling walking on private land I wouldn’t get to if not for the Block Management Program. It allows a person to cultivate a connection with a chunk of land that is so potentially fleeting. Any season a person enjoys, or even falls in love with private land on which they are allowed to hunt, it is possible that they will never step foot on that ground again afterward. Not because they have chosen not to, but because they will never again be allowed to. A change in whim or ownership can leave a guy with nothing but memories and google earth, so I savor it.

 

[GearJunky]

Having hunted many BMA's, and also having rancher friends who have participated in BMA's... I echo many of the same points.

- They need a real economic incentive - In return we want good access (I am totally in support of raising resident tag fees to support this). I don't think going from a $20 tag to $40 is going to stop anyone from hunting.

- Ranchers likely aren't interested in managing the hunters... they have a ranch to run. So with extra funds, FWP needs to really help manage these BMA's for the benefit of everyone.

And yes, the type II reservation system doesn't work. It's almost always filled up with family and friends. Or when you're in the field, it's too late. Also, many Type II's want you to meet in the morning and get permission. I don't want to be at the ranch house in the morning, I want to be hunting. So the same comments as above. Pay them for the access and then support them and let the FWP manage the hunters/reservations etc.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Most here know that I see Wyoming as the best example of how private land access models work for big game hunting. I have researched many states in preparation for presentations to Montana's Private Lands-Public Wildlife Committee. In doing so, I came to understand how some states view it more from the hunter and game management perspective and some states, specifically Montana, come to view it as more of a landowner-focused program.

If you want to learn more about the program, here is the link on the Montana FWP website - http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/blockman/

My interest in this post is to share ideas that could make Montana's Block Management Program more attractive to Hunt Talk members, knowing most of us are big game hunters, more than we are bird hunters. There are some properties enrolled that have worked with FWP to offer a high quality experience. Yet, my experience is that those are less common and the over-hunted/overcrowded situation is more common. If I was a bird hunter, maybe I would see it differently.

Here are things I found when I gave my presentation to the PLPW Committee five years ago. All of which I would like to see changed to improve the program.

1. Allow the lands enrolled in this program to be used for access to adjacent public lands. Adjacent public lands is a ranking criteria some states use when enrolling lands, making smaller critical lands score well due to the access provided.​

​

2. Allocated funds in proportion to the type of hunting activity from which the money is generated. This could require a bit more accounting and allocation of some joint costs/revenues, but we know how much revenue comes from bird licenses compared to big game licenses. A huge amount of Montana acreage is enrolled as bird hunting lands, with almost no big game value, though the majority of funding for the program comes from big game hunting licenses/interest. Most other states allocate their funds to accomplish access for the activities that are driving the funds. This will allow more enrollment of elk hunting ground/access, good deer hunting grounds/access, and hopefully more places to chase antelope.​

​

3. Make it less about the acreage enrolled and more about the quality of the acreage, the additional public access obtained, and the quality of the experience.​

​

4. Take over the headache from landowners who feel this is a pain in the butt for them. Some landowners want to see the hunters and administer the program themselves, which is fine.​

​

5. Any BMA with restricted slots needs to have those slots filled by online lottery. No "repeat customers" for high-demand properties.​

​

6. Enroll lands for longer-term periods, rather than one-year periods. Enrolling for a five/ten-year period is likely a fraction of the work to enroll the same property five or ten times on an annual basis. It will add some predictability to what properties will be available when people draw their tag and it will allow for property maps to be made available earlier in the year.​

​

7. Increase the cap on payments to landowners to compete with quality hunting lands. When you are a bargain shopper, as current laws make the BMA program, expect to get the lower end of the scale when it comes to quality of lands and quality of experience.​

​

8. Move away from the "hunter-day" payment method. This encourages crazy amounts of use to reach the maximum payment cap. Result is a lot less "management" and a lot more hammering of properties.​

My recommendations will surely cause some landowners to leave the program, as they want to run it how they want. I understand that and accept their decisions to do something else. Yet, a lot of other landowners would likely consider the program if it were operated differently.

These suggestions would likely cause a decrease in bird hunting lands that cost the program a fortune, as many bird hunters hunt multiple properties per day, resulting in many "hunter-days" being paid for when only one "hunter-day" was actually incurred. It would hopefully increase the amount of quality big game lands, the activity that drives the most demand and revenue.

So, please give your thoughts. I want to share this with some folks at FWP, so if it results in any personal mud wrestling, I will remove those comments.

Alright. You asked for it, here it is:

1.) I think this already happens, but it could be made a higher ranking/requirement, but I would say that other factors should be present when looking at who gets a bma.

2.) There's been a shift away from earmarked money as it relates to USFWS & PR funding. While I think the idea of equity makes sense, we want to be sure we don't get into an area that the agencies feel as though there could be a diversion of funds, and therefore MT could lose it's PR funding. At least that's been the line from Fiscal over the last 3 sessions. Maybe a sliding scale of payment would work here? If you enroll 30K acres of wheat field/antelope racetrack w/1000 acres of solid habitat like cover that supports mule deer/whitetail & Upland then you get paid for the quality of habitat rather than acreage offered?

3.) I've hunted some BMA's that are intermingled, and offer access to amazing coulees that you can walk for days. That's because the landowner is getting the whole place enrolled, even if it's marginal habitat. Incentivizing quality habitat over quantity is good, but I think it's important to recognize that there are BMA's that offer both for good reason, and if I have to walk across a section of wheat to hop coullees, I'm ok with that.

4.) Totally agree & I've always thought there would be a cool niche side-hustle for anyone willing to take that headache on.

5.) 100% in agreement, and the new web portal should be able to tackle that, so no more excuses.

6.) Yep. Even 2-4 year contracts would be preferable to 1 year. There would need to be flexibility built in to change courses if needs arise though.

7.) We increased the cap on payments in 2015 or 17. I can't remember. It's now $15K. Traditionally, MT has been adamant that "we don't pay for access, just impacts to the land." I think that's a specious argument and if we're honest with ourselves, offering a max of $15K to open a place up like a doe in R7 in the last week of the season is of little benefit to hunters, wildlife or the landowner. In order to be competitive for leasing, we'd need to bump that cap up to $40K a year for the top end payment. Not sure how we pay for that, but that's the number I hear bandied about.

8.) There are only a handful of properties who hit the cap.There have been efforts to figure out the quantity versus quality issue for a long time & my favorite is still based on habitat quality & quality of experience offered. If you want to open your place up for every swinging rifle barrel in the Treasure state for $15K, great, that's your land & your choice, but if you want to offer limited entry opportunity for trophy animals, that should be valued appropriately as well. From the agency point of view though, their surveys continually tell them that there is a high level of satisfaction with Block Management as is, and that we don't need to change much.

Good stuff as always, Randy.

 

[SAJ-99]

...their surveys continually tell them that there is a high level of satisfaction with Block Management...

Looking on the website, the last survey was in 2009 and prior to that 2003 and 1996? Do they do them annually? It sure doesn't look like it. Also, surveys are a horrible way to measure anything. The responses to questions are Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, and Very Dissatisfied. FWP lumps Very Satisfied and Satisfied together in showing the success because meeting the bare minimum is a win, I guess. I can't even image what it would take to mark Very Dissatisfied. So great, the program is satisfactory. There is no way to tease any nuance out of those questions. I may be Satisfied with BMA program in general, but I am Very Dissatisfied with the process around Type IIs, but how do they learn that with the questions they ask?

 

[Redside]

I like how they do some of the big Type II in R7. The reservations are handled by the office staff in Miles City. I'd rather see them handled online vs call in so that everyone has a fair chance the first day they are available, but I like it much better than dealing with the landowner. Just a much more simple process. I don't use Type II much that require reserving through the land owner.

 

[BuzzH]

Most here know that I see Wyoming as the best example of how private land access models work for big game hunting. I have researched many states in preparation for presentations to Montana's Private Lands-Public Wildlife Committee. In doing so, I came to understand how some states view it more from the hunter and game management perspective and some states, specifically Montana, come to view it as more of a landowner-focused program.

If you want to learn more about the program, here is the link on the Montana FWP website - http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/blockman/

My interest in this post is to share ideas that could make Montana's Block Management Program more attractive to Hunt Talk members, knowing most of us are big game hunters, more than we are bird hunters. There are some properties enrolled that have worked with FWP to offer a high quality experience. Yet, my experience is that those are less common and the over-hunted/overcrowded situation is more common. If I was a bird hunter, maybe I would see it differently.

Here are things I found when I gave my presentation to the PLPW Committee five years ago. All of which I would like to see changed to improve the program.

1. Allow the lands enrolled in this program to be used for access to adjacent public lands. Adjacent public lands is a ranking criteria some states use when enrolling lands, making smaller critical lands score well due to the access provided.​

​

2. Allocated funds in proportion to the type of hunting activity from which the money is generated. This could require a bit more accounting and allocation of some joint costs/revenues, but we know how much revenue comes from bird licenses compared to big game licenses. A huge amount of Montana acreage is enrolled as bird hunting lands, with almost no big game value, though the majority of funding for the program comes from big game hunting licenses/interest. Most other states allocate their funds to accomplish access for the activities that are driving the funds. This will allow more enrollment of elk hunting ground/access, good deer hunting grounds/access, and hopefully more places to chase antelope.​

​

3. Make it less about the acreage enrolled and more about the quality of the acreage, the additional public access obtained, and the quality of the experience.​

​

4. Take over the headache from landowners who feel this is a pain in the butt for them. Some landowners want to see the hunters and administer the program themselves, which is fine.​

​

5. Any BMA with restricted slots needs to have those slots filled by online lottery. No "repeat customers" for high-demand properties.​

​

6. Enroll lands for longer-term periods, rather than one-year periods. Enrolling for a five/ten-year period is likely a fraction of the work to enroll the same property five or ten times on an annual basis. It will add some predictability to what properties will be available when people draw their tag and it will allow for property maps to be made available earlier in the year.​

​

7. Increase the cap on payments to landowners to compete with quality hunting lands. When you are a bargain shopper, as current laws make the BMA program, expect to get the lower end of the scale when it comes to quality of lands and quality of experience.​

​

8. Move away from the "hunter-day" payment method. This encourages crazy amounts of use to reach the maximum payment cap. Result is a lot less "management" and a lot more hammering of properties.​

My recommendations will surely cause some landowners to leave the program, as they want to run it how they want. I understand that and accept their decisions to do something else. Yet, a lot of other landowners would likely consider the program if it were operated differently.

These suggestions would likely cause a decrease in bird hunting lands that cost the program a fortune, as many bird hunters hunt multiple properties per day, resulting in many "hunter-days" being paid for when only one "hunter-day" was actually incurred. It would hopefully increase the amount of quality big game lands, the activity that drives the most demand and revenue.

So, please give your thoughts. I want to share this with some folks at FWP, so if it results in any personal mud wrestling, I will remove those comments.

I think your first sentence is pretty important when considering changes, sometimes, you don't have to reinvent the wheel when you find one that already works. Wyoming has a stellar program and the closer you can get to that in regard to Montana, the better.

The only one I see as a potential stumbling block in your list is 6...these landowners enter these programs voluntarily. I think trying to lock them in for longer periods of time, while more convenient for the hunters/department, may be a deal breaker for some landowners. Wyoming also tries to get landowners to sign longer agreements, but at least in Wyoming, even when a landowner signs an agreement, they can shut down and withdraw from the AccessYes program anytime they want. Landowners want maximum flexibility, which I totally understand.

One thing you didn't mention, that I have seen used in Wyoming, is cooperation between the WGF and the landowners that sometimes result in a specific tag/season that is largely used in conjunction with the HMA program. I think that's the perfect scenario when your program is functioning at a very high level with the department, landowner, and commission all extremely aware of how important it is to offer a quality experience.

 

[----]

One thing that I have been thinking about since this thread popped up, is that it would sure be nice to use BMA as a bargaining chip with these landowners that are dealing with 'problem' elk.

During this winter's season setting process there has been a lot of tension over a couple herds of elk. I'm only familiar with one of these herds/units, but I know it well.

In this unit there have been many complaints from landowners that elk, and specifically bulls, have been causing damage. So much so that FWP has been running either sex damage hunts the last month, and the commission voted yesterday to more than double the amount of bull tags in the unit. 99%+ of the elk in this unit are only available to hunters with private access.

There were 13 different landowners that this either sex damage hunt was open to, yet only one of those properties is in block management. That doesn't quite pass the smell test to me.

Maybe the department already is using BMA as a bargaining chip here, maybe not. Maybe a bunch of those landowners will be in Block management in 2020 and I'll eat crow.

 

[BuckRut]

One block management property I know of is an absolute atrocity. I have hunted this area my whole life and the block management property allows access to a forest service road we hunt at the end of. This year the land owner decided to close the gat at the back of his property. You can drive the road on his property and if you could get a vehicle across the gate without damaging it you are on an open forest service road but he has locked the gate. He is using his property to block the public but use the forest service road essentially as his own private road. The FWP knows this and still pays him for block management.

 

[Sytes]

"x" $ BM Stamp to increase funds for public access programs.

Some form of sub Type for multi day access through property to public land. This has been a challenge for a couple BM's I've hunted in the past. The challenge to hunt public land after hiking through BM to reach and return the same day limits the ability to hunt the public land.

I'm finding more and more outside State owners of the land and thus less interest in BM activities, rather the attorney's representing the land I am interested crossing and/or hunting are typically a no go due to outfitter lease agreements or some exorbitant fee. Those in-State LO's are much, MUCH more amenable.

Anyhow, outside my little personal challenge of limited time on our public land while routing through BM's, I value the more involved time spent by those interested in improving LO involvement and public access.