Montana Block Management Stamp?

[BuzzH]

bulldog0156,

Its really easy actually, the computer is a wonderful new gadget that Montana should look into.

Wyoming dealt with this exact problem several years ago.

 

[shoots-straight]

Not sure if the fact that our F&G dept not owning their web site is a problem or not. Maybe a computer nerd might help us out on that little detail.

 

[JLS]

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?

It's really easy. The Hunt By Reservation system in Washington only allows three active reservations at a time. You set up an account with your Wild ID #, and the website will not allow you to reserve (or be in another party) a property if you are maxed out.

Why Montana is still paying people to (or having landowners) fill out permission slips is beyond me. Going online reduces costs, increases convenience, and prevents the abuse of the line "sorry we are all full" that does go on.

Edit: Online services would also create the really neat ability to do lottery drawings for hunt dates.

Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[1976]

Since I already stated that us NR pay very well to hunt in MT I would not be against paying another 25$ max for a BM specific stamp or additional fee as long as it goes for both NR and R. As far as the habitat issue goes that is tough to decipher. The CRP could have come out which is happening yearly and really sucks, however in the middle of that section out of site is a nice draw or slough that holds deer and birds that few people know about. The landowner has set the BM up to its all or none with the good and the bad with the state, that happens a lot in ND's walk in program, my opinion is better to have it than not.

 

[Pinecricker]

Not a big fan of these programs...

...I'm not super familiar with how it works in Montana, so I won't comment on your specific proposal. However, we have a similar program here in Idaho called "Access Yes", and in my opinion, it is a bit of a scam. Many of the properties in the program aren't very good quality hunting, and they are poorly distributed around the state. Almost all of them are in Southern Idaho, which doesn't help us much here in North Idaho.

After hunting a few of the Access Yes properties and researching others, I came to the conclusion that the program benefits land owners more than it benefits hunters. With this, I really don't like the idea of all hunters being forced to pay for a program that only benefits a few, especially when those benefits are marginal. The people that use them should pay for them. Plus, having more money is also no guarantee that good quality land will get added to the program. It also creates the risk that landowners who allow public access on their land for free will start demanding money. This could be a problem in the case of the large tracts of private timber lands we have here in Idaho, which are currently open to the public

Again, I am not familiar with how it works in Montana but I think the Idaho system demonstrates some of the weaknesses and risks that come along with these types of programs. Something to consider.

 

[Eric Albus]

RobG, for the record, I do not wish to go back to the OSL....I can understand your rational for wanting to go back to it, but no thanks.

I do not hunt BM, so was not aware that there are different rules for different tracts. The only type I have ever seen here is sign in at the box and go hunting.


The only thing wrong w/ a $25 stamp is it's just one more thing to remember. Why not go forward legislatively and raise the price of the resident deer and elk license to $30 and ear mark a percentage to fund the better types of block management....perhaps the best ones hunted only by lottery, and if drawn can not enter draw again for a 1-2 yr. period?

what my little rant in my previous post was pointing out...for those of you who did not get it(seems like the vast majority).....the increase in license price drove the masses away from applying for a license in Montana....due to the fact they did not see an increase of 40 to 60% in their hunting opportunity(just in license price)...if joe six-pack saw a 60% increase in hunting quality/opportunity the deer license would be a true draw again.....oh, and shoots....part of the sales pitch for 161 was "increased access".....

 

[ingomar]

Very interesting and informative thread. From the comments it becomes apparent that BM properties come in all different colors, some good and some bad. No one wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but tweaking the program to address some of its flaws would be a very good thing.

The last major legislation impacting Block Management was HB 607 which allowed non-residents, who did not draw an elk tag in a permit area, to receive a refund from FWP. The big problem is that the FWP had the bill written so that when the turned back license was re-sold, the money went into the FWP general fund as opposed to the Block Management account where it was originally intended to go. Don't hold me to this, but I think there was like a $800,000 yearly loss to Block Management under this legislation. FWP does not like earmarked funds as they want to be able to move the dollars around as they see fit. It is imperative that funds for programs such as Block Management and Habitat Montana not be pirated for other purposes.

An online system for BM is critical to bring the program into the 21st century. If only those using BM are required to pay, there should be no complaints from those who choose not to hunt on BMA's.

Judging by the number of views and comments it is obvious that Block Management is an important component of the Montana hunting landscape and people are concerned with it's future.

I would assume that both Rep. Flynn and FWP are monitoring the comments and hopefully are incorporated them into their thought process as they move forward.

 

[bigskyblueman]

A number of good ideas exchanged here. The program is a good one with improvements to come , at some point. Separating the funding by user and non-user is a concern , as it can be used to the detriment to to the program. Given the make up of the committee , and who is running it , I'll reserve judgement.

 

[antlerradar]

A few years ago I attended the Block Management dinner in Miles City. I was struck by the age of the ranchers that are in Block Management. Very few were under the age of 70. It dawned on me the type of ranches that are in Block are owned by the older long time residents of Montana. Ranchers that have owned there places for generations and value traditional Montana hunting. The problem I see in the future for Block is that in the not to distant future is all of the ranches will be changing owners. Some will be passed down to the next generation and the tradition will continue but many will be sold like the Diamond ranch. Over time the ranches with the best hunting will become private hunting clubs and Block Management will be left with the poorer quality ranches.
I have seen a big increase in the demand for leasing of private land in the last few years. I have had more people ask about leasing than ever before. Some Outfitters but it is mostly out of state hunters looking for a private lease for them and a few friends. If Outfitters have any thing to worry about with the passage of I161. It is not that there clients will not get tags but that now with the availability of tags hunting clubs will out compete them for the best ranches. Block Management will never keep up.

antlerradar

 

[Straight Arrow]

Ranchers that have owned there places for generations and value traditional Montana hunting.

antlerradar, I think you have hit on a key characteristic of the current BM system.
Once the BMA booklet includes the Wilks' ranches then we'll know it has become successful for sure.

 

[RobertR]

Antlerader I agree that the next generation will be selling the game to the highest bidder.

I've seen it first hand. A place my family had hunted for three generation was sold and it went from block management to being shut off to the public for an outfitter. BM is a good thing for those who don't hunt public land, but BM is just another subsidy for ranchers and using a public resource for profit.

 

[Eric Albus]

BM is a subsidy? I thought it was an incentive to open lands for the public.... perhaps there is something wrong w/ how I view privilege of access? BM is a good thing for everyone who hunts in Mt....the more acres open, the less pressure on other open acres.