Montana Block Management Stamp?

[shoots-straight]

I like the idea and would support it.

Would it ever be possible to have a program like this where the funds were used 100% to open up existing landlocked public land? Like if a landowner wanted to, pay him a certain amount of money to create a permanent easement to cross a small piece of his land or put in a trail that would allow access to public lands?

That's why I would like to see some of the money put in the "Habitat Montana" Fund. Maybe use it for the leasing of private to access land locked public only.


Thanks for the comments either pro or con.

Keep them coming.

 

[Pagosa]

I'm all for the $25 resident fee for accessing BMA lands. Its private property and they don't have to allow anyone to access their lands. I've hunted on several BMA that were excellent and some that were overhunted but still good experiences. I spend $75 to drive one-way to elk hunt in either Region 3 or 4 from northwest MT. Its sounds like the stamp is not mandatory if you want to stick with BLM/Forest Service lands.

 

[Redwood]

Personally I wouldn't do a stamp; I would raise license cost for every resident around $25. As residents we need to take more ownership in funding. As for bma, I'm a big fan but it needs work. Lots of the enrolled land is low quality and the landowners get screwed everytime someone hunts without signing in. The more land open to the public, the better off we all are. With that said, I would focus on all the landlocked public land and get that opened up. Get the corner crossing bs figured out.

 

[Bambistew]

I'm all for a stamp. Got to pay to play. I think it should be included as part of a NR combo license.

Youth should also be free.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As a Montana resident I do think our license fees are very cheap. I could support an increase in the $2 Hunting Access Enhancement fee if it was earmarked to fund block management. I don't support raising nonresident fees any higher than they are now. As it is, my brother and friends who used to be able to afford to hunt Montana when they drew every two years are being priced out of the game and no longer come.
I also think that some of the existing Block Management money could be managed more efficiently by dropping some of the marginal properties that don't support much game and paying more money to properties that have better habitat and animals. There's a big difference in quality out there, and I've hunted properties on both ends of the spectrum.
Overall, Block Management is a good program that needs to be adequately funded.

 

[1976]

As a NR I already feel like I fund the block management program plenty well and would like to see the MT residents start pushing the cart a little more then they are. As far as though people that say Block Management is over hunted and the land owners are over payed and double dipping as coyotes R us was implying all I can say is bull butter. If some of those people would venture farther than 40 rods from the pickup they would see a different world and find that deer for the wall.

 

[RobG]

Originally, Block Management was funded by the Outfitter Sponsored licenses, which were variable priced based on market demand. The additional monies from this were used to fund Block Management.

They ought to bring that back before hitting us with another fee. Doing away with it has accomplished nothing other than hurting block management and jacking up non-resident license fees. The people who funded it did so quite happily to get a guaranteed license.

 

[PatrickK]

I have written a reply and deleted it several times. Although resident fees are very cheap, some of us do not have extra funds that can go to a separate block management fee.I am a stay at home dad and I cherish my hunting time. I mainly use block management in the Shields Valley to fill whitetail doe tags. I would view 25 dollars for block management as half a tank of gas - gas that could get me to my normal haunts 5 or 6 times. I guess what I am trying to say is that 25 dollars, although reasonable, would price me out of block management.

I would also be concerned that if we start paying an extra fee for block management, that fee would increase and become unreasonable.

Regarding FWP and their budget issues from the lack of NR hunting license fees. They need to look at different ways to get revenue. Lots of people use the river access points provided by FWP for recreational activity that is essentially free. Maybe a 1 dollar per season parking sticker for fishing access sites would spread the "love" around a little?

Patrick

 

[Hem]

I would happily pay for a stamp if the money truly is earmarked only for BM.I also would pay a higher resident fee, and higher app fee for the Big three.I agree with the comment "you have to pay to play".Too many people griping about cost on both sides of the border.I don't have any sympathy....work harder and prioritize your hunting fund.
I do think the Block management program needs fine tuning, many aspects already mentioned. Residents get edged out by non residents on the ranches that require written permission and a reservation in advance.I hunt solo and many times make a reservation well in advance,but always have to contend with large parties of non res. who reserve for a whole week and shoot everything in sight.Thats my gripe.

 

[JMG]

I would be in-favor of a stamp to raise money for Block Management/Access. I don't use Block Management too much now, but I do see the benefits for both the landowner and the hunters. The Block Management programs is not perfect, but it's better than not having it. Just like all programs, it can be improved upon. Personally, I would be willing to pay as much as $25.

 

[Big Fin]

As someone who got his teeth handed to him in Helena a decade ago while trying to get something like this going, a few thoughts come to mind.

I think a stamp is a good idea and a way to get residents to fund more of it. The time has come; maybe better stated, long since passed, where we have to start paying more of our own way.

It will be hard to add it to a basic license amount as some have stated. BMA availability and use is pretty low in the NW part of the state, growing in use and availability as you go east. Getting legislators on board to increase the basic part of the license fee will be hard, especially those in the NW, given they have very little BMA useage by local hunters. Yeah, some travel east and use BMAs, but many in that part of the state have never set foot on a BMA.

A lot can be done to improve the program. Way too much money is allocated for bird hunting, when bird hunting contributes a very small portion of funds toward the program. Seems reasonable if 90% of the funding comes from big game licenses, 90% of the lands should be focused on big game. Right now, it is easier to manage and enroll bird properties, so those are a disproportionate amount of the program, relative to funding.

An online reservation system would save the program a ton of money. WY and ID have much smaller programs, but they provide way more acres of access per dollar spent. And, they focus all on big game. They look at how much additional public access can be provided and score the properties that way.

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.

I think it might be hard to get a stamp passed until the BMA program takes a few steps into the modern day and starts using their money more efficiently. We have some really good models to look for as some new ideas; mostly in WY, ID, KS. The acres per dollar enrolled in those three states makes MT looks like the Federal Government buying $1,000 toilet seats. What we get, per dollar spent, is much lower in comparison.

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.

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.

Without those changes to the program, I wonder how much good the $25 stamp is going to do; surely some good, but seems time to start pushing for some changes to insure we are getting more for the dollars we are spending. I'm not an expert with the answers. I was asked by the PLPW Council to give a presentation that incorporated my perspective from all the states I hunt and the public/private access properties I hunt in those states. In my research, it became apparent that Montana could benefit from looking toward those states for some new ideas that get us a lot more for the dollars we are spending.

 

[Ben Long]

I don't have a firm opinion on the stamp yet. As a communications professional, though, I would recommend you come up with a better name than "Block Management Stamp." I think Block Management is a good program, but it has a terrible name. PM me if you want to discuss further.

 

[1_pointer]

Just tack on $5 to everybodies tag, license, ATV plate, etc. I don't mind paying for it, but I do dislike having to remember to buy and tote one more thing.

 

[have gun will travel]

So do hikers,campers, rafters, or rock climbers buy any kind of stamp or license? Why do hunters foot the bill for everything I am a non resident now, and the cost is pretty high to hunt in MT.

 

[have gun will travel]

my comments are just in general not specific to BMA

 

[----]

I wonder if a stamp might turn off a lot of people from trying Block management for themselves that hear bad things about it otherwise. I guess I've been very lucky, I've always had really good luck finding quality hunting on BMA pieces.

Not sure if the stamp is the right way to go about it, but somehow residents need to start funding their share of it.

 

[PatrickK]

So do hikers,campers, rafters, or rock climbers buy any kind of stamp or license? Why do hunters foot the bill for everything I am a non resident now, and the cost is pretty high to hunt in MT.

You hit the nail on the head but a lot of hikers, campers, and rock climbers are using the National Forest and not land administered by FWP - but for the most part hunters foot the bill either through license fees or taxes via Pittman Robertson.

Patrick

 

[teamhoyt]

Well I tried to read most of the posts before replying but some of this may have been covered. My thoughts. I'm a resident
100% for higher resident fees
I have no problem paying more to support the block management however it needs to be done stamp, separate allocation ect.
I agree with the majority that the program has issues that need addressed
the FWP has a program called unlocking state lands where if my memory serves me the offer a $500 tax deduction for this access. by looking at the results of that this past year I think there were only 3 or 4 of these unlocked in the state.
Some BM land is a tilled up field and some generally may have no animals on it, BUT may allow access to more public land. I'm sure that is looked at when these properties are enrolled.
A few thing I don't like about some BM land is that if you go to get permission on a type 2 land and the landowner doesn't give it to you because he wants to save the particular species ie. pheasant, antelope ect. I think if the land is open to all legal species then it should be open. NOT find out you can't after driving out to the ranch. I'm all for them having say in what's huntable it should just be done up front when the land is enrolled or renewed.
I would also like to see an online reservation process for those BMA's that want to control hunters. This does a couple things, Lowers cost to FWP, allows hunters to see what is available for the whole season and then plan accordingly, and takes away the landowners from allowing the property to be"booked up" by their friends and Family for the whole year. This would also help this particular part of it to be more transparent.

I Hunt BMA's a lot and each one serves its own purpose, I support funding it more and would support a bit of tweaking to the system as well. $25 is a good price.

 

[The Hedgehog]

takes away the landowners from allowing the property to be"booked up" by their friends and Family for the whole year. This would also help this particular part of it to be more transparent.

I Hunt BMA's a lot and each one serves its own purpose, I support funding it more and would support a bit of tweaking to the system as well. $25 is a good price.

^^^This.

I'd pay $25 a year, for me and my kids, even if we'd only use it occasionally for bird hunting. It's a great idea and those who use it should cough it up, resident and non-resident. However, if I pay $25 it's got to be at least a fair system. Currently it's abused by both hunters and landowners. 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.

 

[----]

Yeah, there's some serious tomfoolery going on on some of the pieces for sure. I tried getting access to one ranch multiple times this year when they were supposedly full, yet when I drove past the parking area on those days there was never anyone parked there. It got old fast.