land enrolled in Block Management, posted no hunting, questions

[300stw]

question,

lands that are enrolled in Montana block management program, lets say 2 sections, couple different landowners,
120 acres in the middle are posted no hunting, said 120 harbors all wildlife, surrounding land harvested wheat no cover, landowner and relatives hunts the 120 acres, no one else allowed

I was told the landowner receives a check on this 120 acre property even though its off limits to everyone but the family,
is this the way the bma system works,,,,

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yes, you are allowed to make rules about your property, although that does seem like side stepping the intent of the system a bit if indeed the rest of the property does not hold game. Typically carve outs are for buildings/ areas where hunting would be dangerous or inappropriate. What's are the proportions of the BMA? 120acres out of 1280 doesn't seem like a huge deal, 120 out of 240 on the other hand... also I mean worse case is the land owner just shuts off access completely it is private land at the end of the day.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Not sure what you're talking about, but there's no shortage of swindlery with MT BMAs, the landowner can choose where others can/cannot hunt on their property.

Our family was enrolled, and the tree rows around our house and buildings were posted as a "no shooting zone". It was the best place to shoot a quick limit of birds, but posted and off limits to anybody that wasn't with me.

 

[300stw]

I guess what I am asking is does the landowner get paid for these 120 acres since its enrolled, I assume the landowner or family doesn't signin to get paid, if 400 people drive by, sign in,

no habitat to hunt on except the 120 acres, why have the 120 enrolled, take it out of the program, hunt it all they want, I see some bma maps that have sections colored solid red, not red "X"'s

im mainly interested in the getting paid part,,,,

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If you really want to do a deep dive...https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Audit/Report/13P-04.pdf

Big thing to know is the payments are made via hunter participation rather than acreage so the fact that they block of 120 acres doesn't matter. If people get pissed at the fact acreage is excluded and don't hunt their then that family won't get paid very much.

Also keep in my the max payment is 15k and some of these places are huge, you could probably charge that amount for one guided elk hunt on some of the properties. If you look at the program as a whole (total BMA payments/total bma acres) the state is paying .60 cents an acre for access.

So, if you look at it that way, which isn't even the way they determine payments, it means they are getting compensated maybe $72 for that acreage they aren't letting people hunt.

Now if you have some beef with this kinda thing we should chat about CO landowner tags/ranching for wildlife... now there is a steaming pile of turd.

 

[406LIFE]

The exempted part is taken into consideration on how much they get paid. There are many variables that go into deciding that amount: species, days hunted, specific days allowed (weekends), amount of land, and huntability of the land and a little bump for weed control. If you were to tell us which BMA specifically it might help to figure out the situation. Otherwise call the BMA Director for the region and ask for the details. FWIW, there is a cap on how much the can get and honestly it is not competitive with what a private lease might get. This will take us off topic, but exclusions and reservations that land owners make are their discretion as it is private property and the BMA is an imperfect answer to a growing problem of access loss.

 

[300stw]

FWIW, there is a cap on how much the can get and honestly it is not competitive with what a private lease might get this statement s thrown out so many times it makes me ill.....

I know a number of outfitters , was in the outfitter game also, many of the bma's I see in eastern Montana out fitters wouldn't lease very limited amounts of game at best, much less O habitat,
im asking because I have land that borders a bma, I would like to enroll, but keep the hunting to myself on the best part and share in the 15000.00 cap, when I see and hear of a place getting 5-600 visits a month with very little game harvested, I wouldn't mind sharing the wealth, help pay the taxes,,,, ive talked to a bma guy at length, no real straight answers, "every situation is unique on how we handle payment, o public involvement on the rules" last thing I heard,,,,,oh well just thinking out loud
not complaining at all,

thanks for the input

 

[mountain monster]

All BMA's should be type 1 or not at all,
We (public) should not have to pay for type 2 BMA's that allow primarily friends and family to hunt so called public access land.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

All BMA's should be type 1 or not at all,
We (public) should not have to pay for type 2 BMA's that allow primarily friends and family to hunt so called public access land.

Cool bro or we could just have no BMAs....

The BMA system has it's flaws but it is unequivocally the best system in the country at getting landowners to allow public hunting access. Also clearly you haven't spent much time hunting BMA's or just had a few bad experiences. I've hunted a dozen type 2 and have never been turned down, a couple of times I have been told that a particular weekend was reserved by another group of hunters that beat me to the punch and I had to adjust my plans a bit, but I still got to come out and hunt their land the next weekend. Try hunting in another state and have fun knocking on doors.

 

[mtmiller]

All BMA's should be type 1 or not at all,

Cool bro or we could just have no BMAs....

Bad argument. He has a point that deserves discussion.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Disagree Miller, the system doesn’t work unless the public meets land owners in the middle. This type of line in the sand doesn’t help either side.

Personally, if someone has 1000 acres and wants to hunt birds ( so no upland hunting), has family that comes out every year for thanksgiving and wants to take them out on their place with no competition, and wants to know who’s out there running around at any given time, but is willing to let mugs chase deer and elk on their place the rest of the year I’m going to try and work something out with them.

Sure if someone is limiting access to the point that the public doesn’t actually get to use the property then sure they should be remove from the program, but having the Type 2 option brings lots of landowners to the table that otherwise wouldn’t be interested. You could easily loose 500k acres from the program if you eliminated that option.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The BMA system has it's flaws but it is unequivocally the best system in the country at getting landowners to allow public hunting access. Also clearly you haven't spent much time hunting BMA's or just had a few bad experiences. I've hunted a dozen type 2 and have never been turned down.

Well - I would have to say as somebody whose family is still enrolled and also a recipient of the free licenses, Wyoming’s HMA program is far superior & less corrupt. Have also been completely denied on several type 2s.

 

[LopeHunter]

Cool bro or we could just have no BMAs....

The BMA system has it's flaws but it is unequivocally the best system in the country at getting landowners to allow public hunting access. Also clearly you haven't spent much time hunting BMA's or just had a few bad experiences. I've hunted a dozen type 2 and have never been turned down, a couple of times I have been told that a particular weekend was reserved by another group of hunters that beat me to the punch and I had to adjust my plans a bit, but I still got to come out and put their land the next weekend. Try hunting in another state and have fun knocking on doors.

Drew a tag for pronghorn in Montana. Was a tag for an area whereI had never hunted. I prefer solo hunting. Researched what the BMA program was then sorted through BMAs in that particular region of Montana where my hunt unit was to identify the handful for my hunt unit that permitted pronghorn hunting. I arrived several days into the season and called to arrange permission to access a property that limited access to certain days and required prior written approval. I saw this hurdle as a good thing as might have had less hunting pressure to date. I shot a buck first morning on that property. Not sure if Type 1 or 2. Worked well for me and glad Montana has the BMA program.

 

[The Hedgehog]

https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...Block-Management-Thievery!&highlight=Thievery

Lots of good BMAs. A few rotten bastards out there though..

 

[mtmiller]

Disagree Miller, the system doesn’t work unless the public meets land owners in the middle. This type of line in the sand doesn’t help either side.

I don't disagree, but if some Type 2's are being abused, maybe they need to be reviewed and removed.

If someone believes the system is better with a straight Type 1 doesn't mean "no BMAs" as you mentioned and is a silly argument. I am glad you have had success with your Type 2 hunts. Not all the time is it the first one to call or log in for a reservation the one permitted access.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't disagree, but if some Type 2's are being abused, maybe they need to be reviewed and removed.

100%, A system where each property is reviewed annually and if you get more than x number of access complaints you get kicked out of the program, would be great and constructive. I agree if you are only opening up your property to friends it isn't public and you shouldn't get paid.

Straight type 1 doesn't mean no BMAs at all, it just means there would be a massive reduction in the program. So yeah silly argument if you mean it would destroy the program, but accurate in that the particular BMA the Op is talking about and millions of acres of other BMAs would likely not exist. (Also if you make a dumb declarative statement I think you deserve one as a riposte.)

Look at other states, Colorado's program is essentially Type 1 access but it's a fraction of the size of Montana's and is primarily for small game. Wyoming has a program as well, as Greenhorn noted, but it's dwarfed by the BMA program and more than half of it is essentially "Type 2" access. I did a bunch of research on all three states programs but couldn't find white papers that spell out specifically how each state compensates landowners... I'm sure people have gripes access/ fees in WY, fees landowners in CO get for marginal fields, etc.

Colorado (from 2018 walk-in access program)
Walk in only, no vehicle access- No Permission Needed
Only for small game (small big game pilot program was started last year on a few properties)
231,314 Acres Small game only
25,010 Big Game hunting

Wyoming (from website)
WGFD Walk in Access - 660,000 Acres (Landowner can restrict species that are hunted) ~ Type 1
HMA - 1.1 million acres, permit required for each property ~ Type 2 Permission is issued in a lottery

MT Block management (From 2018 access map, with state land, BLM, FS within BMA boundary removed... deeded acres only)
Type 1- 2,877,793 Acres
Type 2- 2,088,751 Acres

 

[scubohuntr]

It works out, for the most part, I think. The Type 2s that put lots of hoops in the way get less participation, therefore less payment. I generally write off Type 2s completely when I'm making plans. I really don't need the hassle, even though they are likely less crowded. I hunted probably ten different BMAs this year, all Type 1. But in the final analysis, it's private land, and the landowner has every right to control access to the extent that feels comfortable for them. I don't have any right to access their land, and the privilege is conditioned on my abiding by the rules they set. I'm just grateful to have the opportunity to hunt. I don't have connections, I don't know any landowners, so BMAs are the only way I'm ever going to get to hunt on private land. And being honest, if I owned a whole bunch of land, it probably wouldn't be in the BMA system, or at least the best parts wouldn't. Of course, I wouldn't be leasing to an outfitter either.

 

[D4570]

I very seldom use them.
I feel it's just one step closer to fee hunting ...


Most the time the land locked state / federal land makes the BMA.
SOOO we are paying them to LET us hunt our land.
Just how I feel.

 

[BuzzH]

100%, A system where each property is reviewed annually and if you get more than x number of access complaints you get kicked out of the program, would be great and constructive. I agree if you are only opening up your property to friends it isn't public and you shouldn't get paid.

Straight type 1 doesn't mean no BMAs at all, it just means there would be a massive reduction in the program. So yeah silly argument if you mean it would destroy the program, but accurate in that the particular BMA the Op is talking about and millions of acres of other BMAs would likely not exist. (Also if you make a dumb declarative statement I think you deserve one as a riposte.)

Look at other states, Colorado's program is essentially Type 1 access but it's a fraction of the size of Montana's and is primarily for small game. Wyoming has a program as well, as Greenhorn noted, but it's dwarfed by the BMA program and more than half of it is essentially "Type 2" access. I did a bunch of research on all three states programs but couldn't find white papers that spell out specifically how each state compensates landowners... I'm sure people have gripes about landowner tags in exchange for access in WY, fees landowners in CO get for marginal fields, etc.

Colorado (from 2018 walk-in access program)
Walk in only, no vehicle access- No Permission Needed
Only for small game (small big game pilot program was started last year on a few properties)
231,314 Acres Small game only
25,010 Big Game hunting

Wyoming (from website)
WGFD Walk in Access - 660,000 Acres (Landowner can restrict species that are hunted) ~ Type 1
HMA - 1.1 million acres, permit required for each property ~ Type 2 Permission is issued in a lottery

MT Block management (From 2018 access map, with state land, BLM, FS within BMA boundary removed... deeded acres only)
Type 1- 2,877,793 Acres
Type 2- 2,088,751 Acres

Wyoming doesn't give landowners tags in exchange for access, not sure where you came up with that.

I think any access programs is great, but I've used both Montana's and Wyoming's enough to know that total acreage doesn't mean jack shit about quality. I'd rather have fewer acres enrolled that provide a quality experience over trying to hunt a winter wheat field. I'd rather pay the landowners that actually have game to hunt more, than someone who's just milking it for very little opportunity.

I also agree that landowners need their concerns addressed and have the right to maintain some control. Randy and I talked a lot about both programs while on a recent elk hunt, and from what Randy told me, Montana is having some pretty significant issues (some of them being brought up on this thread).

I think there is some room for improvement and I'm no more opposed to kicking the bad actor landowners out of the program, than I am hunters that don't follow the rules of access. No reason to pander to the BS that goes on from either.

Having used both WY and MT access programs extensively, Wyoming system is way more fair, way more transparent and nearly impossible to "game". The quality of the land enrolled is also much better, with wayyyy better animal quality than anything I have found in Montana.

There's a reason why my wife and I are among the top private donors to AccessYes and why several sportsmens groups donate heavily to Wyomings AccessYes program.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

BuzzH from Greenhorns comment... like I said it was hard to find any specifics about payments for any of there three states.