cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 2,976
I’d like to see that 302 bumped up to about 500 and that particular tag only good in a region for a season but this is the world we live in
Montana startup becoming the Airbnb of outdoor recreation
- Thread starter atlas
- Start date
FairWeather
Well-known member
Idk, looking at some here in Oregon, $125/day isn’t bad considering lodging is included. Nearly the same price as a motel 6.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
I was thinking this same thing. Makes me suspect of what else your buying
Every year montana keeps going on the same trajectory with wildlife management we get closer to Oregon and Washington management. It’s not far away. It’s like watching a train wreck you can suggest simple ideas to right the ship and they are ignored, everything looks good from the people in charge. How to privatize wildlife 101. Bring on the Montana Airbnb this is what the people want.
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 615
I used to work for NRCS, basically every big conference we would go to that farmers/ranchers go to had at least one presentation on increasing profit margins using access fees, hunting leases, outfitting etc. So at conferences everywhere there is some org pushing this. Not good
375H&H
Well-known member
At least Montana isn’t taking away opportunities via ballot…yet (never I hope). Long way to go before Montana is on par with Washington.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Not just at NRCS conferences, Talk to the banker about a loan or line of credit and you are going to here something similar. Even if you are not taking money they are going to want to know what the income potential is.
A good friend of mine was told by the bank he is leaving a lot of money on the table by not leasing his place out. I hope he never does but it probably makes sense financially if he did. Private land is the only thing keeping Montana wildlife floating and it does not need to be that way.
Don Fischer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 3,141
Ain't that the truth. Was stationed in Lakeside three years 1970-1973. Out of staters were taking over Flathead Lake. Went back up to Kalispell with my mom about 2004 and Kalispell has been over run with hippies. Made the mistake of going up to Polebridge, same crap up there!
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,680
Landtrust is just a new type of hunt club.
It’s not a traditional hunt club, usually run by an individual for profit, or group of individuals for exclusivity.
HerkHunter
Well-known member
Perfectly said. That article made me think of something I have had a hard time putting into words about Montana as well. Growing up here I always loved the small towns we have ad especially enjoyed checking out small town bars and cafes. This article mentions this app as a “shot in the arm for rural areas”. While I am happy these business owners are earning more income, I also realize some of us prefer things the way they are (used to be?) where maybe our little cafe we know and love isn’t a gold mine for the owners and isn’t going to catapult them to retirement, but the charm of the place is what’s special about it. Everyone knows everyone. Its a place for people that dont come into town often to catch up and talk. So when a flood of strangers come in and boost profits, it’s nice for the owners but kind of ruins the allure of the place and changes it forever (e.g Western Cafe in Bozeman)
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,057
It's only fair. I can't believe MT resident's god-given rights to hunt are infringed by the existing draconian fees they pay for a license. With time maybe this wrong will be righted and NR fees will cover the license fees for residents as well.
I don’t get out much but I don’t know of a single Montana hunter who wouldn’t pay more for better management or less nonresident hunters. Our hands are tied here, we want changes. Changes have to be legislated and fwp isn’t asking or saying we need any. With Montana seasons structure landowners are tired of being inundated for 6 months out of the year. Good for them for getting money for it. I would encourage nonresidents to quit funding the poop show but that seems unlikely. Privatization of hunting is only going to get worse, access will decrease nonresident tags will increase. Well on our way to the kings deer.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The two most recent Blood Origins Podcast are centered around LandTrust:
I don't think the LandTrust folks are bad people, but they say things like, "“We facilitate public access, obviously for pay, to private land, and we don’t affect or contribute to the loss of public land hunting. Full Stop...”
They're a business, and I think their business will necessarily erode public opportunity that isn't pay-to-play. This is just due to market forces, and not nefarious intent, but to say the above is kind of silly and shows how we should look out for our own public access opportunities - because no one else will.
Hopefully, LandTrust just stays in their current lane, but it's not hard for me to imagine how they or someone like them, will be incentivized in the future to get involved in wildlife management, and one could imagine the management proposals - the tag allocations - that would benefit their business model. It would be those types of proposals that folks on this site are typically against.
I don't think the LandTrust folks are bad people, but they say things like, "“We facilitate public access, obviously for pay, to private land, and we don’t affect or contribute to the loss of public land hunting. Full Stop...”
They're a business, and I think their business will necessarily erode public opportunity that isn't pay-to-play. This is just due to market forces, and not nefarious intent, but to say the above is kind of silly and shows how we should look out for our own public access opportunities - because no one else will.
Hopefully, LandTrust just stays in their current lane, but it's not hard for me to imagine how they or someone like them, will be incentivized in the future to get involved in wildlife management, and one could imagine the management proposals - the tag allocations - that would benefit their business model. It would be those types of proposals that folks on this site are typically against.
Last edited:
I don't really see this as a negative. I get the initial impression might be to some because it talks about a rancher taking his land out of BM and doing LT. But what will happen with this is the same thing that will happen in residential rentals in that not everyone is going to do the airbnb/vrbo route and will stay w/BM. Why? because like in residential rentals it's a lot easier and less of a headache to just do bm and deal with it once a year get a payment and be done with it than having to deal with different people every week or no people some weeks, cancellations, etc, etc. It will also open up some lands that where never available to hunt anyway. And let's face it some of these small ranches are barely getting it by as it is so if they can make a little extra instead of having to sell out to a corporate operation that's not a bad thing.
Similar threads
