How to Improve Montana's Block Management

[Big Fin]

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.

 

[BuckRut]

I couldn't agree with you more Randy. I think the biggest problem the MFWP has across the board is the attitude they have with regards to catering to private land owners. Everything they do from the way they run the block management program to the shoulder seasons and population management tactics is all tailored to please the private land owners. The only shining point for the block management program is the land owners that care about the sportsmen and offer a good experience for them. In my personal opinion the MFWP doesn't care about the sportsmen or the animals at all. As far as my suggestion for the program it would be to actually evaluate each property for what if offers the sportsmen rather than just trying to gain acres for the FWP to brag about.

 

[LCH]

If Montana were to do away with Type 1 vs. Type 2 BMA designations, and go more towards a unilateral implementation of Type 1 (self-administered sign in/out) with a random allocation of access permits where necessary, I believe this would more closely mimic Wyoming's WIA/HMA system. Whether this change would be beneficial for management objectives and hunter satisfaction, I do not know.

 

[----]

I don't have a lot to add regarding the points you outlined, but did want to say that my satisfaction with the program is very high.

I've seen a lot of progress the last 5-10 years on how some BMA are managed. A couple really popular BMAs in my area have gone from antiquated systems like first call, first book (booking an entire season in <5 minutes) and meeting every Friday night at a rural church to literally draw names from a hat, to call-in draw systems. Online would be better, but FWP has shown some initiative to make access to these properties more fair, which I appreciate.

I think 4 of the last 5 big game animals I've killed in MT have been on block management, and I probably hunt ~10 different properties each year. I've never personally ran in to some of the problems others here have, but definitely don't doubt those shenanigans are happening.

Every year I hunt on properties through the program that I am absolutely blown away are open to the public.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I have also had some amazing opportunities on BMAs.
I have almost always gravitated towards type 1 when hunting in new areas since I often don’t know exactly where I want to hunt in time to make reservations on a type 2.
As pointed out, some of the habitat on type 1 can be marginal, especially if it is a property that grazes sheep. On other properties I have seen some great habitat.

From a hunter’ perspective finding a great BMA is just like finding good areas anywhere. The more effort you put in, the better the results. In my experience a lot of hunters don’t get far from the beaten path.

 

[Irrelevant]

It's been several years since I hunted any MT BMAs and when I did it was always for birds, and always type 1, but I thoroughly enjoyed the program. It was far better than what WA has to offer. I have yet to utilize any of the Access WY properties or some of the very few ones in ID when I've been in either of those states, so I can't offer much opinion there.

 

[Schaaf]

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

I think this would be a great modification. One of the few instances of heartburn I encountered when trying to sign up for a BMA was when everything was good to go and then the landowner found out I wasn't going to be renting a camping spot on their land. They were suddenly full on the days I was about to reserve and we never got off the phone throughout this exchange.

All really good points. It's a great program, but is certainly outdated in some ways.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I really like point 3 a lot. I've definitely hunted some BMAs and wondered why they were one in the first place, as in there were no animals to be seen, not even a deer. Maybe they were overcrowded at one point but when I hunted them, I was one of the few hiking around. I think I have different experiences with BMAs than others here, but I've hunted a couple pretty hard in the last 6 years and have never harvested an animal on one (both deer and elk hunting). I think most of the time, the elk had their same patterns of being on the BMA in the dark and then on private by daylight. But I do know that if you were lucky enough to harvest an animal, the landowner would either help you get it out or open up a gate for you to drive in and get it. I still appreciate the BMA program as it has opened up land and hopefully spread out hunters.
I also gravitate towards Type 1 purely because I've tried to obtain access on a couple Type 2s where you call the landowner and have just been denied. Apparently one landowner wouldn't let anyone on unless you called to ask before May...that wasnt in the fine print.
Maybe others have more successful experiences on Type 2s. I also don't really like commiting to a reservation on some type 2s because I've never hunted the area and therefore dont know what I'm getting myself into.

 

[Sioux33]

Those are some excellent points Randy. Couldn't be happier to see you taking this on as it feels like we're at a crossroads with all the talk on a new EMP, shoulder seasons, etc.

I like your ideas on changing the funding allocation to benefit more valuable and sought after properties. Let's spend the limited funds we have in a way that gives us the biggest bang for the buck.
I also like point #7 on increasing the cap to landowner payments as I feel that's the crux of the problem. Big money outfitters are getting more and more difficult to compete with and let's face it, money talks. What about raising resident tag prices to open up new properties, I'd be all for that. Or what about requiring a BMA stamp, similar to the archery stamp, to hunt those properties? Or, what about allocating funds from some other, lesser used programs?

Last, I'm not sure if this would ever fly, but if they tied game damage assistance to BMA enrollment, it'd entice landowners to sign up. Give the landowner the choice to enroll and have help when needed, or go it on their own and deal with the consequences. These are public, tax payer funds and it's not fair to spend those in a manner that doesn't benefit the public, rather the few landowners who outfit or only let a few family and friends on to chase publicly inaccessible elk.

 

[CUElk]

Thanks Randy. I love the program and all of the points you mention. When we come to Montana there are a few block management properties that we usually hunt. I would just add that we hunters need to also do our part if we want the program to grow. One of the properties that we hunt is a type 1 with some restrictions on vehicle travel and areas allowed to hunt. We were on the property 3x this past year and every time we saw some type of violation. I am sure this does not help in keeping that landowner in the program nor in recruiting others to join. Of course it is almost impossible for game wardens to police all of the properties.

 

[Frenchy]

We ran into a quirk while goose hunting this past December. We'd scout and find a field full of geese on a BMA, then find out the permission is administered by the Regional FWP office. Which doesn't exactly do us a lot of good when scouting on a Saturday or Sunday for the next mornings hunt.

I like the idea of an on-line registration for the Type II BMA's. That would have potentially solved our problem.

 

[d-edward]

I would like to see two clear objectives met: a more fair and convenient reservation system than Type II BMAs and stronger hunter-BMA landowner relationships.

An online system to reserve access on specific BMAs would increase convenience and decrease overhead for hunters and landowners and allows landowners more control of availability and density of hunters.

That said, I don't want it to be at the expense of the value of building relationships with landowners who elect to participate in the BMA program. Multiple positive experiences with responsible, ethical hunters can go a long way towards dissuading landowners from dropping out of the BMA program when a bad apple threatens to ruin the bunch for everyone else.

Since an online reservation system would by and large remove much of the face-to-face interaction, I'd like to see more of a hybrid to #5 - those who want to be considered as part of the online lottery for restricted slots should introduce themselves to the landowner and have a conversation, registering in person for said lottery. While that may pose logistical challenges for those who sometimes hunt far from where they live (myself included), the benefits of forging and preserving relations between hunters and participating BMA landowners seems worth the opportunity cost of extra time spent. To me, it ticks the box on being more fairly administered for hunters and gives landowners peace of mind in knowing who is hunting their property.

 

[antlerradar]

On 6. I think that you will have a difficult time getting new landowners to commit to five to ten years. On the other hand it is more than redundant to keep signing up landowners that have been in BM for years one year at a time.

 

[schmalts]

Yea it gets old when you call a LO 1 minute past the time you are allowed to call to get a slot and are told everything is filled.

 

[SAJ-99]

Like others have pointed out, better registration system on Type IIs is needed. If you are like me, you often don't know where you are going to hunt until you get there and calling the number in the book often gets no answer or the places are full. For those hunters who methodically plan ahead, do you register for a type II and then not use it? Just curious.

Rewarding BMAs that offer access to locked up lands would be great. Is it possible to reward the landowner for giving access even if they don't allow hunting on their land proper? Like a Type III - park and walk.

Some BMAs offer a modified version of access to get into the program but it doesn't show on as being different on the map. 410 elk has a few of these. A few BMAs are closed to the 1900 elk bow hunters and then open to the 150 rifle hunters. I'm sure they lease out the area during bow season. A lot of people might not know this unless they read the fine print. I know they should but they don't.

This is a dream, but indulge me. I would like to know if people who hunted there previously were satisfied and saw game. I know the Type I cards are supposed to be returned, but I can realistically guess that the return rate is probably less than 10%. It would be interesting to know what game can be found on the ranch, even if it was game I didn't hunt. I know FWP attempts to do this in the book by listing typically game, but I always wonder how accurate it is.

 

[406dn]

I am as much a bird hunter as a big game hunter. I've had some great hunting on BMAs.

I suspect the tilt away from big game (elk) properties towards bird hunting is at least twofold. One, it is far easier for a landowner to get comfortable with hunters carrying shotguns than rifles. Two, every landowner knows that elk are a valued animal. Most of them with good elk hunting, have monetized it already.

For big game hunting, the most bang for the buck might be securing easements across private land to parcels of public land.

I think you will go thru the program's money very quickly if securing access to elk becomes the emphasis.

 

[mthillrunner]

I echo what others have stated regarding restricted access ranches. Where I typically hunt there are multiple BMA’s. Most are great about access. However, there were a couple that no one could ever get on. They were letting friends/family on but no one else. Rather frustrating they we’re getting payments for only letting a chosen few access lands. Consideration of access to public lands should also be taken into account.

 

[Old man bob]

Iv'e had good luck the 3 years I hunted it. I put my time in tho in the summer going over from the oil field to Montana and talking to people every where. Bars Cafes Resturants chambers of commerce. mailmen and ranchers. Gotta do Your home work. Then lastly get away from the roads and lazy road hunters helped alot............BOB!

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I agree with the what you're saying. They make something that should be simple into something complicated.

They really need to implement an online draw system for the Type II properties and do away with the shenanigans. With the season being so long and the BMAs being smaller than a lot of the Wyoming HMAs I've hunted there may need to be a way to apply for more than 1 per season. I've gotten the "all full" story a few times or the no one ever answers game when trying to gain access. Frustrating for sure.

Wyoming on the other hand has been awesome. I've hunted elk and antelope on them and had great experiences. Like anything some are better than others, but at least I can know what I can access and when through the draw, AND you can see how many hunters they're allowing access to during the season in most cases. I always feel good sticking my landowner coupon in the box and so do my buddies.

 

[timmy]

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.