Montana startup becoming the Airbnb of outdoor recreation

[BuzzH]

So basically everyone wants the government to provide them with land and hunting opportunities (elk,deer,antelope,etc) for free.

Some of those are willing to pay more $ to reduce competition and increase hunting opportunities on private.

Then people get mad if someone does not agree with their view of hunting.

Always entertaining to watch the same people get involved.


The whole thing is a $ game. From rifles, camo, boots, optics, crossbows, creedmores, etc.. Hunters are always trying to gain an advantage. This is really no different.



If you are waiting for the government to give you better hunting opportunities I wish you luck. IMO you would be better off spending your free time making more $ than arguing on forums. If you spend 100's of hours on forums you could easily put that towards a side hustle and pay for private access.


View attachment 270221

So, how much do you spend on your lease?

How many hours of side hustle pays for it?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Its about inclusion, Block manegment as well as our public lands are open to anyone legally able to access them, there is no segregation. LandTrust is leading us down a path where those with the financial freedom to spend income on access will receive more, better, increased access. While those who can not afford the payment, loose what was once open to them.

Fair enough and thank you for your thoughts.

For us (the public hunter) to compete with these private options, we need to really up our game. Hunter behavior, time loss organizing hunter traffic, monetary return, etc. are all issues that are driving landowners away from public access programs and to these type of options. If we want landowners to continue enrolling in public access we need to give them better options.

I suspect all of those issues you mention could be cured to a large degree by having a BM access management system that more closely resembled what LT has implemented.

 

[xcskier_hunter]

The willingness of hunters to pay for access through programs like Land Trust, and for residents to lease land over the past ten or so years, says a lot about what the quality of our hunting in Montana has become.

I think this is one of real double edged swords of increased hunter recruitment/numbers even if it's done with good intentions. Inevitably, the marginal benefit of paying for exclusive access increases as crowding increases and hunt quality decreases on accessible land. Thus, someone with means who might have historically felt no need to pay for exclusive access now feels like they need to in order to maintain the hunt quality they've come to expect and/or to just acquire a tag.

In the best case, LandTrust might facilitate access to lands not previously open to hunters as landowners are likely more comfortable with increased control over access it affords them. LandTrust also allows for shorter term use versus someone leasing the land for the whole season. Finally, I like that LandTrust does provide additional monetary incentive for a landowner to manage their property for wildlife versus other ways they could make money that are odds with wildlife such as mining or oil extraction (many other examples could be added).

However, when LandTrust use results in a loss in land enrolled in programs like BMA it's hard to say it's a good thing for the future of hunting. Still, I think the only real solution is for us to make programs like BMA much more appealing to landowners.

Expecting landowners or hunters to refrain from utilizing tools like LandTrust in favor of programs like BMA out of the goodness of their hearts does not seem like a winning strategy.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

THIS ^. This is the difference between BM and Landtrust. One is public, one is pay to play, with the private market setting a market price. It's essentially private.

You and everyone else that buys a license is paying for BM. The desire to raise the BM fees to better match leasing opportunities that landowners have sure sounds a lot like the private market setting a price to me. The only difference is the cost to the individual. BM - everyone pays a little so no one pays a lot. LT - one pays a lot.

 

[brockel]

In Montana it would be once every 5-10 years if we started putting wildlife instead of opportunity first. You might not like it but that’s what needs to happen. Unlimited opportunity is leading to programs like this and the privatization of hunting.

Exactly. If public was to the quality that it was in the past then these programs wouldn’t have near the leg to stand on. But we continue to piss pound everything that moves on public so there’s no chance of that.

 

[Watts307]

View attachment 270214

Seems trustworthy.

At least they can be close to the fact checkers

 

[PrairieHunter]

Exactly. If public was to the quality that it was in the past then these programs wouldn’t have near the leg to stand on. But we continue to piss pound everything that moves on public so there’s no chance of that.

True.

I used to hunt so much 15 years ago.

In Nebraska there were deer everywhere on public, and I mean some quality WT and Muleys. Last time I was there 3 years ago we hunted for 3 days in my usual spots where we should have seen 100's of deer. We saw a few does looking over thousands of acres. And my friend got shot at my a muzzleloader hunter.

In Nebraska and Wyoming there were antelope everywhere during season. I remember buying leftover tags during the season for unit 26 because we kept seeing good bucks on public from the highway. I had a ball hunting walk in areas in Nebraska where there were antelope everywhere. Last few times I have been over by Lusk there were few antelope on public and you were lucky to get a dink. No more driving around having fun looking over many animas. Those same areas in Nebraska that held antelope are not longer filled with animals either.

When I deer hunt in Wyoming I have not even seen a good buck over by Lusk in a few years, and I shoot the first decent buck I see if I am in the snowies.

Same with Turkeys as Nebraska was loaded, even on public. We used to go shoot them in the fall while deer hunting in the middle of the day. Last time I went there was almost no turkeys.

I've gone from hunting 20+ days a year to last year I hunted 3 afternoons total. I'd much rather just take my daughter on a hike before hunting season starts hoping to see what's left on public before they get shot up.

If I could go back in time I would just buy a nice camera and go to the best units for hikes before seasons start. All the $ wasted on camo, packs, guns, tags etc would have been better spent elsewhere.

The hunting pressure has gone up so much in the last 10 years and when combined with droughts and extreme weather the animals are just not there like they used to be.

I'd guess in 10 years I won't even hunt. Which is crazy as I work in the hunting industry and used to love it.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I guess I am failing to understand how a program like Land Trust isn’t inevitable? Of course if I had my druthers all private property would accessible without pay by asking for permission. But, given that private ownership has a lot of costs it’s only reasonable that landowners are often going to try and mitigate those costs or even diversify their income sources with something like Land Trust.

Block Management is a great program for providing public access but it’s not going to be a good fit for every landowner.


I think it reinforces two thing to me. First and foremost how invaluable our 36 million acres of public lands are and secondly that access to private property is always at the discretion of the landowner. We are never guaranteed access to private lands. Programs that incentivize landowners to provide access are great but unless an easement is purchased that guarantees access, hunters should always assume they will eventually not have access to that particular property.

 

[seeth07]

I think this is one of real double edged swords of increased hunter recruitment/numbers even if it's done with good intentions. Inevitably, the marginal benefit of paying for exclusive access increases as crowding increases and hunt quality decreases on accessible land. Thus, someone with means who might have historically felt no need to pay for exclusive access now feels like they need to in order to maintain the hunt quality they've come to expect and/or to just acquire a tag.

In the best case, LandTrust might facilitate access to lands not previously open to hunters as landowners are likely more comfortable with increased control over access it affords them. LandTrust also allows for shorter term use versus someone leasing the land for the whole season. Finally, I like that LandTrust does provide additional monetary incentive for a landowner to manage their property for wildlife versus other ways they could make money that are odds with wildlife such as mining or oil extraction (many other examples could be added).

However, when LandTrust use results in a loss in land enrolled in programs like BMA it's hard to say it's a good thing for the future of hunting. Still, I think the only real solution is for us to make programs like BMA much more appealing to landowners.

Expecting landowners or hunters to refrain from utilizing tools like LandTrust in favor of programs like BMA out of the goodness of their hearts does not seem like a winning strategy.

Well said, especially the last sentence.

I also really like the point you bring out that it provides a very solid incentive to manage their property for wildlife which in my mind is a huge win. Think about solar farms popping up all over the place. Once one is put in, do you think deer, elk, antelope, birds, snakes, etc. are still going to use that block of property? Wouldn't you rather see the landowner withdrawn from BM and join LandTrust instead of selling it to the energy company to build a 1000 acre solar farm?

 

[BuzzH]

True.

I used to hunt so much 15 years ago.

In Nebraska there were deer everywhere on public, and I mean some quality WT and Muleys. Last time I was there 3 years ago we hunted for 3 days in my usual spots where we should have seen 100's of deer. We saw a few does looking over thousands of acres. And my friend got shot at my a muzzleloader hunter.

In Nebraska and Wyoming there were antelope everywhere during season. I remember buying leftover tags during the season for unit 26 because we kept seeing good bucks on public from the highway. I had a ball hunting walk in areas in Nebraska where there were antelope everywhere. Last few times I have been over by Lusk there were few antelope on public and you were lucky to get a dink. No more driving around having fun looking over many animas. Those same areas in Nebraska that held antelope are not longer filled with animals either.

When I deer hunt in Wyoming I have not even seen a good buck over by Lusk in a few years, and I shoot the first decent buck I see if I am in the snowies.

Same with Turkeys as Nebraska was loaded, even on public. We used to go shoot them in the fall while deer hunting in the middle of the day. Last time I went there was almost no turkeys.

I've gone from hunting 20+ days a year to last year I hunted 3 afternoons total. I'd much rather just take my daughter on a hike before hunting season starts hoping to see what's left on public before they get shot up.

If I could go back in time I would just buy a nice camera and go to the best units for hikes before seasons start. All the $ wasted on camo, packs, guns, tags etc would have been better spent elsewhere.

The hunting pressure has gone up so much in the last 10 years and when combined with droughts and extreme weather the animals are just not there like they used to be.

I'd guess in 10 years I won't even hunt. Which is crazy as I work in the hunting industry and used to love it.

Sounds like you need a lease...

 

[antlerradar]

One of the biggest advantages BM has for some landowners over a traditional outfitter leases is that you can get payed for the access you provide to public land. This land trust idea will compete with BM in that lane.

 

[antlerradar]

The willingness of hunters to pay for access through programs like Land Trust, and for residents to lease land over the past ten or so years, says a lot about what the quality of our hunting in Montana has become.

This is well said, and is worth reading again. Hunters need to think about this the next time they answer as survey about quality vs opportunity.

 

[Gerald Martin]

This is well said, and is worth reading again. Hunters need to think about this the next time they answer as survey about quality vs opportunity.
[/QUOTE

Changing hunter’s perceptions of what quality opportunity looks like and establishing season structure, tag allocation and bag limits that is weighted towards how much public land hunting pressure wildlife will tolerate and still thrive on public is extremely important in my opinion.

 

[corndog1]

If Montana fwp or the legislature managed our deer and elk herds responsibly there would be less incentive to lease private ground. I won't pay to hunt but certainly won't look down on someone who does. Some people resent the private sector and those who make a little jing. I don't get it.

 

[cgasner1]

Changing hunter’s perceptions of what quality opportunity looks like and establishing season structure, tag allocation and bag limits that is weighted towards how much public land hunting pressure wildlife will tolerate and still thrive on public is extremely important in my opinion.

It is for like you, me and 2 other guys on here apparently

 

[OriginalOscar]

Large and better private property likely already leased or have established relationships. Great idea if this helps farmers, ranchers, and property owners make some extra money to keep the land in the family or improve opportunities for their families.

 

[idahohuntr]

I've had mixed feelings on this sort of thing, but I'm leaning more and more to thinking it is a positive. I hope more states look at this 'airbnb' system as a way to effectively manage their private lands access programs. I also think it opens the door for more access to private lands that would otherwise only be available to a very small number of people. Finally, while I do not like pay to play, I'd take trespass fees and diy hunting over going guided all day long. As a bonus, systems like this may help combat the outfitter welfare/entitlement to public tags that is so prevalent.

 

[jmcd]

I've had mixed feelings on this sort of thing, but I'm leaning more and more to thinking it is a positive. I hope more states look at this 'airbnb' system as a way to effectively manage their private lands access programs. I also think it opens the door for more access to private lands that would otherwise only be available to a very small number of people. Finally, while I do not like pay to play, I'd take trespass fees and diy hunting over going guided all day long. As a bonus, systems like this may help combat the outfitter welfare/entitlement to public tags that is so prevalent.

Same. Might take the plunge and try LT this year. FwP will still be trying to tell their ass from a hole in the ground for the next decade.
BM by and large is a joke. Never seen anything the govt can run better than private either. Looking at some of the options on Landtrust, I think it’s worth trying.
I guess if it’s cost prohibitive, go to public with the throngs of yahoos that Newberg is enticing out west with YouTube tutorials.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It is for like you, me and 2 other guys on here apparently

It only takes a couple sparks if the tinder is dry enough…

 

[mdhunter]

What am I missing here, was this ranch “walk on open access to the public” prior to joining the Airbnb of land access? Someone posted early on that they were going to lose their free annual invite but honestly, that happens every day someplace and someone else gets an opportunity.

The name LandTrust sounds disingenuous to me as in my area that is a legit conservation group, not a pay to play offering. With that said, I don’t have a problem with anyone monetizing their private property in a way they see fit.

As a NR and the 90-10 tag split, I totally get it.