Montana Block Management Stamp?

I would definitely support a stamp to hunt Montana's BMA lands.

Additionally, I think the system could be "tightened up" a bit and probably save some money there. Some of the blocks I've hunted in MT have been great. Others terrible. And as has been mentioned, I've suspected landowners letting friends/relatives have preference on several occasions.
 
BuzzH said:
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.
Click to expand...

The concept behind block was that it supposedly paid for the impacts hunters created (weeds, fence problems, etc). Those costs have risen in the last 20 years, while the price paid to cooperators has not. Even in type 1 BMA's, that means that by running the max hunter use days, you still end up in deficit (more hunters = more impacts).

WY's program is great. But it's a product of WY and I wouldn't want to trade the ample opportunity I have in MT for a system like WY's. I agree that there are some tweaks that should be made regarding BMA coordinators and some kind of uniform application of BMA agreements that include habitat components and reasonable expectations for hunter use days. Just not sure how you achieve that in an agency that has 7 semi-autonomous regions.

One thing against the stamp I've heard is from the Plum Creek side. They are the largewst landowner in Block, with around 750,000 acres. There is a rumor that if a stamp is approved, they would pull their land and issue their own stamp or institute a pay to play situation. Corporate HQ is already pushing them to move to the same system they have in OR/WA.
 
Ben,

I agree, the last thing I'd ever do is look at what's successful in other states and apply same in mine...
 
Big Fin said:
.

MT's BMA program was the first and has a lot a good attributes, but from a technology standpoint, which would greatly increase efficiency and enroll a lot more acreage for the same, or less, money, MT is in the dark ages.

.......

WY gives their landowners a lot of input. They have both a Walk-in program and a Hunter Management program like our BMA. When you look at how they rank properties and what they enroll, they are able to enroll some of the best big game properties in a unit, for elk, deer, and antelope. In MT, we struggle to enroll much for elk. WY has found ways to compete in the very expensive world of elk access. We could learn a lot from that.

ID prioritizes based on how much additional public acreage a property can provide access to. As a result, the access issue in ID is getting addressed with a lot fewer dollars than in MT.

As much as I pressed for a stamp in past years and I have no problem with a stamp, I would almost make it part of a bill that changes some of the rules/priorities/SOPs that the department uses in administering this program. Add the revenue from a $25 stamp to some of the efficiencies and implement some of the ideas working in other states, and you would be able to really do something big in the way of improving the status of access in MT.
Click to expand...

I like these ideas and comments. As a regular user of MT BMA's I would be willing to pay more to improve and maintain what we got. I personally don't see the reason to buy a stamp, why not just include it in a fee (which the $ are specifically earmarked for BMA's only) when you buy your tag online. Stamps? Really? As Big Fin alluded to there's no reason that Montana can't embrace technology. We don't need to step back in time.
 
shoots-straight said:
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!
Click to expand...
Then they should have upped the prices for the set asides before, well upping the prices of the licenses after 161. Kind of the same effect, except the latter hit the ones that couldn't afford it. You can say all you want, the but NRs got the screws with it and now we are scratching our heads trying to figure out how to generate money... that would be a fact too you know. Bring back the outfitter sponsored licenses... it is a better option that this stamp. Your second fact claimed it didn't hurt the outfitters so it doesn't help them that much either.

So maybe someone can tell me this. If we all have to pay $25+ so the landowners can be paid, how is this different from the landowners just charging an access fee? Ignoring, of course, the significant waste of funneling this money through the MFWP bureaucracy. Why go through the agency? Just have the ranchers collect directly and call it BMA. I bet people here would have a problem with that, but it is really what the program is being reduced to when you start talking stamps for participants.

JMO,
Rob
 
RobG said:
So maybe someone can tell me this. If we all have to pay $25+ so the landowners can be paid, how is this different from the landowners just charging an access fee? Ignoring, of course, the significant waste of funneling this money through the MFWP bureaucracy. Why go through the agency? Just have the ranchers collect directly and call it BMA. I bet people here would have a problem with that, but it is really what the program is being reduced to when you start talking stamps for participants.
Click to expand...

If it were left up to them, I really doubt Montana landowners would charge $25/person to hunt all of the land in the entire BMA system.
 
RobG said:
Then they should have upped the prices for the set asides before, well upping the prices of the licenses after 161. Kind of the same effect, except the latter hit the ones that couldn't afford it. You can say all you want, the but NRs got the screws with it and now we are scratching our heads trying to figure out how to generate money... that would be a fact too you know. Bring back the outfitter sponsored licenses... it is a better option that this stamp. Your second fact claimed it didn't hurt the outfitters so it doesn't help them that much either.

So maybe someone can tell me this. If we all have to pay $25+ so the landowners can be paid, how is this different from the landowners just charging an access fee? Ignoring, of course, the significant waste of funneling this money through the MFWP bureaucracy. Why go through the agency? Just have the ranchers collect directly and call it BMA. I bet people here would have a problem with that, but it is really what the program is being reduced to when you start talking stamps for participants.

JMO,
Rob
Click to expand...

Start another thread Rob
 
I'm in favor of a stamp for BMAs but only if they cleaned up the program. Make the reservations online so we don't get the BS that they are full when they are not. I've had it happen to me a couple times where I've been told the BMA is booked and driven by to see no one using it too. Seems that there should be a way to get more bang for our bucks on this and also be able to pay the landowners more.

I would not be opposed to restricting vehicle travel on the BMAs as a way to help ensure landowners' properties aren't damaged by traffic, etc.

I think MT should look at the best features of the other states' programs and tweak theirs to modernize it.
 
.280 Remington said:
I'm saying that if you scrapped the BMA system and allowed Montana LO's just collect a fee, hunters would be right back to where they were without the BMA system.
Click to expand...

It wasn't meant to be a perfect analogy, just to show the silliness of funneling the money through the FPW by buying a stamp. At the risk of getting Robert's undies into a bigger bunch, I'll suggest letting them advertize through the FWP would be a more complete analogy. That doesn't seem like a very smart idea compared to some of the other options which aren't allowed to be discussed.
 
I think that we should come up with some idea's to make the BMA system stronger in MT - not complain about compensation and I-161. Let's look towards connecting hunters and landowners so we have a system that increases participation from all sides.

I would be in favor of online enrollment. Feature wise it will need to include some type of mailing feature to reach LO's that don't have reliable internet (or can't utilize the internet). Weekly reports on enrolled hunters going to LO's, permission slips going to each enrolled hunter. Pretty simple stuff that would lower overhead on management.

Has anyone distilled complaints over the current system? I.E. Abuses from either side? I know some examples have been thrown out in this thread - but can we categorize and address these?
 
I'm curious how an online registration system would work. How do you avoid letting one guy lock up a bunch of different places every day of the season?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Time to change FWP Director
Replies
13
Views
974
cgasner1
cgasner1
Ben Lamb
Bad Bill Alert - HB 5108 - Michigan legislature: Allowing Commercial harvest of sport fish in the Great Lakes
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
undercover
U
Hammsolo
Washington Wolf Policy Comments
Replies
2
Views
1K
bigwhale
B
mrcowboy
Wife's late season elk hunt
Replies
13
Views
712
Southern Elk
Southern Elk
Gerald Martin
Montana General Season Structure Proposal
106 107 108
Replies
2K
Views
104K
Forkyfinder
Forkyfinder

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,352
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top