Montana Block Management Stamp?

[BuzzH]

I agree with others that if the system in Montana is fixed FIRST, then having to pay for a stamp is not a problem. I'd pay it as a NR of Montana. It would be pretty tough for me to pay more for the same old same old.

For the record, Wyomings AccessYes program opens just shy of 5 acres/dollar spent. All the HMA applications for permission slips are handled on-line and by the WYGF.

Its hard to find much wrong with Wyomings HMA/WIA programs, with the exception of having more funding. The generosity of some of the Landowners is pretty amazing.

 

[jvanderlinde]

I dont support the stamp being that im a NR and feel i pay my fair share and then sum. Does montana have a Access yes progam? I think people woulod donate a small fee if there was a option. I like the program and have hunted several BMA being succesfull.

 

[teamhoyt]

Those states use a lot of non-financial incentives. Kansas example, everything is "Walk-in" only. I know that upsets some people, but as a result a KS landowner does not have his roads destroyed in wet weather, does not have to worry about vehicles spreading noxious weeds, does not have to worry about vehicles starting fires in hot/dry weather, does not have to worry who is where, as they all have a designated parking spot from which to start walking. As a result, the cost/risk equation for the KS landowner is much less, so he is willing to enroll more acres for the same fee, or the same acres for less.

I do like this aspect. I have been able to secure permission on some properties that normally don't allow a lot of hunting by offering to walk in from certain access points. I was disappointed on 4 separate occasions last fall while elk hunting in the breaks by vehicles or atvs driving past me on closed roads on BMA's. Not anything more frustrating than walking in a mile or two and having guys driving past you. also several times one particular BMA in the breaks is shut down in some aspect during the archery season due to fire danger, so they either have the BMA closed or just "walk in only". The issue of guys driving wherever is not limited to BMA's of course but also a big problem on state land where If I remember correctly you can NOT drive unless its a county rd.

 

[antlerradar]

The Licensing and Funding Advisory Council Looked at several of the funding issues mentioned above. We debated the new fee for residents to fund more BMAs. In the end we were all in favor of finding a way for residents to start funding Block Management. but felt we should concentrate more on funding all of FWP and that Block Management funding would be better left to PLPW.
There was also a lot of discussion about getting funding from non hunting users. We were uneasy with making decision on this as the non hunting users didn't have representation on the council. We were also uneasy with non hunting community funding FWP and then wanting a say in how FWP operated and managed game.
Antlerradar

 

[Flatrock]

If the FWP said they needed to raise the cost of licenses for residents, how much of an increase would it realistically be able to get through? $5, $10, $20? Or would there be a rebellion with a 1 cent increase?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Following review of the council’s recommendations by a legislative oversight committee, a $3 fishing license increase and an $8 hunting license increase are being proposed.

There has been much discussion and speculation regarding a Montana resident hunter license increase, which is needed to more adequately fund FWP. The quote from above was from the FWP website and describes the most recent agreed upon proposal. I am sure that it will be hashed, rehashed, and vetted ad nauseum in the upcoming legislative session ... but I am also fairly confident that there will be some increase in fees. I support increased license fees, as well as improving and increasing funding for BM.

 

[Flynarrow]

Have suggested such a stamp for years.....BMAs are important for pheasnt hunters as well as big game hunters. It is a "user pay" concept so if you dont choose to use it, the stamp doesnt cost you. It should apply to both residents as well as non-residents.

There is indeed a need for a BM overhaul.....some parcels offer only space....not habitat, but yet are signed up year after year. Does anybody actually evaluate habitat as part of the process? Yes to those who suggest an online reservation system. And for the landowner and those who play by the rules, some enforcement of sign in and the rules and banning those who don't comply.

And another suggestion to weigh....how about a youth BMA stamp (maybe reduced cost) that would be used to sign up BMAs only for kids? At least one upland bird BMA area near each major town so parents could introduce kids to upland bird hunting (and other hunting too) without wild roosters or competition with crowds of adults?

 

[brownbear932008]

Boy I really enjoy ditch parrot hunting on several of the BMA's speaking from a NR perspective I can't see spending another dollar on any price increase in MT. I have been coming out 15 years now spending my hard earned money and last year I found myself in ID. for the first time and am seriously considering dropping the MT option all together people are being priced out slowly. I hate it but its the sad truth. The 161 really hurt the state in my book. I'm by far no know it all with with the how's and why's of these things in MT. I follow it semi loosely.

I also don't agree with hikers, anglers and so forth kicking money into BMA's I may be wrong but I've never seen anything but hunters on BMA's so why should an angler have to pay into the program. I guess it is a complicated issue. I really feel when the Outfitter Sponsored license was changed through 161 it was a mistake and people are just starting to see that. Let those guys that have the bucks going on outfitted hunts foot that bill on those license. If they can afford 10,000 to drop on a elk hunt they don't mind for the most part I suppose. I'd hate to see the program go belly up there are some great properties in the program some are no so great and should be taken out IMO. I just know I wouldn't purchase a permit to bird hunt that's the only time I use BMA's myself.

 

[brownbear932008]

I've called landowners multiple times on the first AM (before 8AM) the first listed day they would take reservations, and they claimed to be booked solid the entire archery and rifle season, every day. Riiiighht -- Booked solid with friends and relatives and still get to pocket the FWP's check. There's a ton of birdhunting BMAs that would generate a ton of money if every hunter was required to have a $25 stamp.[/QUOTE]

I had no idea things like this were going on with the BMA's I think number one it is plain out not ethical and number two basically stealing money IMO. The system should be changed to fix this issue. How could it be changed to take these issues out of the program wasting money?

 

[PatrickK]

I also don't agree with hikers, anglers and so forth kicking money into BMA's I may be wrong but I've never seen anything but hunters on BMA's so why should an angler have to pay into the program. I guess it is a complicated issue. I really feel when the Outfitter Sponsored license was changed through 161 it was a mistake and people are just starting to see that. Let those guys that have the bucks going on outfitted hunts foot that bill on those license. If they can afford 10,000 to drop on a elk hunt they don't mind for the most part I suppose. I'd hate to see the program go belly up there are some great properties in the program some are no so great and should be taken out IMO. I just know I wouldn't purchase a permit to bird hunt that's the only time I use BMA's myself.[/QUOTE]

I think the suggestion that other outdoors users chip in was in a more broad sense to help fund FWP and not really aimed at block management. I don't think non-residents need to pay any more to hunt in the state. What needs to happen is that FWP needs to become more efficient with the money it already has. There are not that different from other government agencies in that the more money they have the more will get wasted and there is no end to their need for more money.

Patrick

 

[brownbear932008]

I do agree Patrick most all govt. agencies are terrible at spending money. I can def say that I have worked for local,state,federal now for almost 20 years and one is as bad as the next at spending money. The more they have the more it's wasted and on top of that it's a larger burden on tax payers. I see what you mean on other users being meant in a broader way. I totally agree with that hunters do carry a very heavy burden in MTFWP it seems. I tell you guys what there sure is some work to be done out there as of lately. I really hope things make a turn for the better that state holds a special place with me no doubt.

 

[Eric Albus]

well, from what I have read here, can't even come to a consensus amongst the like minded OYO folks and other the other assortment of "liberal minded thinkers" on a stamp(you can each sort out who you are)

Whilst something is needed to tax the resident sportsman to help fund BM a $25 stamp is certainly not out of order.....but what pray tell are the good folks going to see for their extra $25. This is the same thing as the non-resident whose license went up 40-60% after 161....did the "common man" see a 40% increase in quality of hunt? in acres to access??? No, they did not see anything. The "unwashed masses" were sold a false bill of goods....promises to "open more access", "break the outfitters", "level the playing field". I have often wondered if the those supporting the bill did not know what would happen, giving them, and their friends, access to easy draw licenses and enabling them to come in and lease hunting lands for themselves? I digress...back on track.
A stamp certainly is not a bad plan, but perhaps something should be done to separate the land, some lands should be managed for quality, the buyers of the stamp put into a lottery to hunt an area near them that is managed for quality? I know this will fly in the face of several of you, but quality does not come easy or cheap.....personally I would rather hunt a quality place once every 2-3 years than hunt $hit every year....it may not be tenable, but is something that should be thought about at the very least.

 

[Sytes]

There has been much discussion and speculation regarding a Montana resident hunter license increase, which is needed to more adequately fund FWP. The quote from above was from the FWP website and describes the most recent agreed upon proposal. I am sure that it will be hashed, rehashed, and vetted ad nauseum in the upcoming legislative session ... but I am also fairly confident that there will be some increase in fees. I support increased license fees, as well as improving and increasing funding for BM.

Agree.

I also agree to the idea of those who use block management should be the ones on the hook to fork over a small fee. in my opinion, block management is an extreme value to those of us who use this as an opportunity in our hunting. I would support and purchase an additional stamp if I knew that money would go specifically, without political crapola, to our block management operation. Though is it possible to avoid the crapola hands in the cookie jar?

 

[shoots-straight]

I'd like us to stay of topic here.

For the record, 161 has made far more money for the state of Montana and BM than had we been left to the old Outfitter set asides. FACT!

There has not been one Outfitter using client that did not have access to a tag. FACT!

Had we continued the program, OSP tags would be at a huge cut rate now. FACT!

There was no promise of having more lands opened up. That's always been the imagination of those that have enjoyed the subsidy. Move on or start another thread why Outfitters guaranteed tags are good for the state of Montana.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Eric's still butt hurt over 161 even though his clients licences are cheaper and still guaranteed. Very confusing.

 

[BuzzH]

Shoots-straight, well said.

Also, just so you know, I got a phone call from T. Aldrich about our HMA/WIHA programs and I passed along a lot of helpful information to him. He was jotting down notes while we were on the phone and hopefully you MT guys will find it of some use in regard to the BM program.

 

[Ben Lamb]

well, from what I have read here, can't even come to a consensus amongst the like minded OYO folks and other the other assortment of "liberal minded thinkers" on a stamp(you can each sort out who you are)

Whilst something is needed to tax the resident sportsman to help fund BM a $25 stamp is certainly not out of order.....but what pray tell are the good folks going to see for their extra $25. This is the same thing as the non-resident whose license went up 40-60% after 161....did the "common man" see a 40% increase in quality of hunt? in acres to access??? No, they did not see anything. The "unwashed masses" were sold a false bill of goods....promises to "open more access", "break the outfitters", "level the playing field". I have often wondered if the those supporting the bill did not know what would happen, giving them, and their friends, access to easy draw licenses and enabling them to come in and lease hunting lands for themselves? I digress...back on track.
A stamp certainly is not a bad plan, but perhaps something should be done to separate the land, some lands should be managed for quality, the buyers of the stamp put into a lottery to hunt an area near them that is managed for quality? I know this will fly in the face of several of you, but quality does not come easy or cheap.....personally I would rather hunt a quality place once every 2-3 years than hunt $hit every year....it may not be tenable, but is something that should be thought about at the very least.

You mean like a type 1 and type 2 BMA where you have to reserve your days? We have that.

FTR, I hunt Type 1 BMA's that are full of game. In fact, one in particular I was able to hunt sharpies, pronghorn and quality mule deer. I had to share it with another group of hunters, but since the BMA was about 20 sections, I didn't have much problem with them.

I like the idea of a stamp. I'm also not opposed to ensuring better quality in some areas through a lottery or permit like we do on the Marias or a lot of places do through their own lottery (like Pine Butte Preserve on the Front).

After talking with Kelly about his bill drafts, I think his intent is to get the money to the cooperators by increasing the payments. Those payments haven't gone up in a long, long time and if we were to simply adjust for inflation, we'd be looking at max payments around 100% higher than what they are now.

Block Management is a great program. Sure it has some warts, but what doesn't? I'd rather we fund the program, and the agency, so that we can argue about how to best make the rules fit with what we want, rather than starve the agency and program until they're run perfectly. We've seen how that scenario has worked with congress and our public land agencies.

 

[----]

well, from what I have read here, can't even come to a consensus amongst the like minded OYO folks and other the other assortment of "liberal minded thinkers" on a stamp(you can each sort out who you are)

Whilst something is needed to tax the resident sportsman to help fund BM a $25 stamp is certainly not out of order.....but what pray tell are the good folks going to see for their extra $25. This is the same thing as the non-resident whose license went up 40-60% after 161....did the "common man" see a 40% increase in quality of hunt? in acres to access??? No, they did not see anything. The "unwashed masses" were sold a false bill of goods....promises to "open more access", "break the outfitters", "level the playing field". I have often wondered if the those supporting the bill did not know what would happen, giving them, and their friends, access to easy draw licenses and enabling them to come in and lease hunting lands for themselves? I digress...back on track.
A stamp certainly is not a bad plan, but perhaps something should be done to separate the land, some lands should be managed for quality, the buyers of the stamp put into a lottery to hunt an area near them that is managed for quality? I know this will fly in the face of several of you, but quality does not come easy or cheap.....personally I would rather hunt a quality place once every 2-3 years than hunt $hit every year....it may not be tenable, but is something that should be thought about at the very least.

There's quite a few BMA's that you have to enter a lottery in order to hunt already...

 

[Straight Arrow]

The question is, "Would you support the creation of a Block Management Stamp?"

Eric Albus, argumentative and unsubstantiated rhetoric about a voted-in initiative,I-161, or whatever is not helpful. Get over it! Your rhetoric, although consistent, is not healthy or positive for outfitters, landowners, and hunters. Stop and think about what you are attempting to express on this forum. The light is shining on you and unfortunately the shadows cast a vile image.

Shift your energy toward creative ideas to improve Block Management, hunting and outfitting in Montana.

 

[BuzzH]

You mean like a type 1 and type 2 BMA where you have to reserve your days? We have that.

FTR, I hunt Type 1 BMA's that are full of game. In fact, one in particular I was able to hunt sharpies, pronghorn and quality mule deer. I had to share it with another group of hunters, but since the BMA was about 20 sections, I didn't have much problem with them.

I like the idea of a stamp. I'm also not opposed to ensuring better quality in some areas through a lottery or permit like we do on the Marias or a lot of places do through their own lottery (like Pine Butte Preserve on the Front).

After talking with Kelly about his bill drafts, I think his intent is to get the money to the cooperators by increasing the payments. Those payments haven't gone up in a long, long time and if we were to simply adjust for inflation, we'd be looking at max payments around 100% higher than what they are now.

Block Management is a great program. Sure it has some warts, but what doesn't? I'd rather we fund the program, and the agency, so that we can argue about how to best make the rules fit with what we want, rather than starve the agency and program until they're run perfectly. We've seen how that scenario has worked with congress and our public land agencies.

I don't have a problem with increasing funding and payments to landowners, if, and only if, they are providing a decent experience and some level of opportunity. Right now it seems to maximize their payments, they have to run more hunters through to get to that max payment level. Not sure, but IME, those two usually aren't inclusive of one another...

Wyoming set up a program that rewards those landowners that are providing "above and beyond" reasonable opportunity to the public with $2,000 awards, being publically thanked by Sportsmen as well as the Governor for their efforts, etc. in the HMA/WIHA programs. I've hunted on one of the ranches that received 1 of the 4 awards, well deserved by that particular landowner.

To many of the landowners, the simple fact of being recognized for what they are graciously providing, is enough...the 2K doesn't hurt either...

Lots of ways to skin a cat and I'm confident that Montana can easily, and quickly, take some steps to improve the BM program.

I'd start by choosing my BM coordinators very carefully. Ran into a retired BM coordinator this year, listened to his BS for long enough to know he wasn't cut out for that line of work.