Montana startup becoming the Airbnb of outdoor recreation

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.
The issue would be that it’s a direct competitor with our block management program. To many landowners it will probably appear to be a much better option so it will be like high schoolers(land trust) vis grade schoolers(bm). That’s not good for the average Montana hunter and access to quality hunting land.
 
The issue would be that it’s a direct competitor with our block management program. To many landowners it will probably appear to be a much better option so it will be like high schoolers(land trust) vis grade schoolers(bm). That’s not good for the average Montana hunter and access to quality hunting land.
Hopefully it provides momentum to make the BM program better. If landowners think LT is a better avenue than BM then you need to evolve or get left behind.
 
Is landtrust paying the property owners regardless of someone booking or does the owner only get paid when someone shows up? I’m a little curious on that aspect of the business model I guess. The various state programs seem like such a safe payday for the landowner

I think what it has to lead to is for the states to compete they probably have to find a way to offer more than just money in return and that’s hard, only so many landowners out there are wanting help with fencing, habitat improvements, etc
 
Is landtrust paying the property owners regardless of someone booking or does the owner only get paid when someone shows up? I’m a little curious on that aspect of the business model I guess. The various state programs seem like such a safe payday for the landowner

I think what it has to lead to is for the states to compete they probably have to find a way to offer more than just money in return and that’s hard, only so many landowners out there are wanting help with fencing, habitat improvements, etc
It works just like vrbo or anything like that where a person books through Landtrust, Landtrust takes their cut and then sends payment to the leasee. Obviously people can cancel dates and so forth but their still is a cancelation fee and I'm not sure what portion of that goes to the leasee, with vrbo its not much.

I would assume that just like vrbo, as a renter you also get direct contact with the owner to find out details and so forth about your upcoming stay. Numerous times with myself using vrbo, the owner will be like "if you ever want to book again, just call me directly and I can give you a better rate without all the vrbo fees". Landtrust bookings probably could work out similar where you can meet the landowner and work out some deals such as helping with fencing as you just mentioned for a reduced use fee.
 
I think what it has to lead to is for the states to compete they probably have to find a way to offer more than just money in return and that’s hard, only so many landowners out there are wanting help with fencing, habitat improvements, etc
Every landowner requesting damage compensation to the Wyo G&F Commission I have ever heard has been immediately asked if they offer access to the public through AccessYes. If the answer is no, almost to a person, the reasoning the landowner has is that they like to have greater control over who hunts, where they hunt and how they hunt than the AccessYes program provides. Perhaps these State run private land access systems could have a user reviewing system like LT has or a registration and signup system like LT has? If the reasoning for the landowner isn't entirely about money but ease of use or greater oversite to then adopt management and administration systems similar to what LT uses.
 
On one hand, I’m not a fan.
On the other, if I owned hunting land, it would probably just be for me, my family and my friends.
If it was for strangers, controlling the quantity and quality of people on my land would probably be easier this way than through BMA.

If BMA lands are transitioning to LandTrust, land is becoming less accessible to the average hunter and imo, that’s a negative.

If lands that, for example were never open or were exclusively leased to an outfitter who charged $6-$15k for a hunt, end up enrolling with LT, where I (a person who would never pay an outfitter for a Montana elk) can pay $500-$2,000 for access to good hunting, then it’s making things more accessible.

I guess what I’m saying is it depends how you look at it, or how it’s applied to a specific piece of property and what that property’s past is, that make this either a good thing or a bad thing for the rest of us. (Not that my opinion or the opinion of anybody else not named on the deed really matters when it comes to private land access).
 
The issue would be that it’s a direct competitor with our block management program. To many landowners it will probably appear to be a much better option so it will be like high schoolers(land trust) vis grade schoolers(bm). That’s not good for the average Montana hunter and access to quality hunting land.
Truth. Western states limit tags and charge high $$ for NonResidents because as citizens of those states which own the wildlife; whether it be on public or private land; we can!! Some of that windfall of $$ gets poured into Access Programs to gain access to private lands. Thank you NonResidents!

If landowners can make more money with a online access program, over what the state pays; the residents of that state can accept it's private property, or lobby our elected leaders to pay landowners more.
 
One land owner that I know use to be leased out to an outfitter. One day that landowner shot an animal on his ranch it became a very big issue with the outfitter. The following year he kicked the outfitter off his ranch. This could potentially open up some land for guys to hunt for a couple days that otherwise they couldn’t have. Some ranchers like to hunt also this could be a way for them to make some money and still hunt their own property
 
I want to hear what @Eric Albus thinks of this. I know he has expressed concern with "hunt clubs" and unlicensed endeavors in the past.

Montana folks: I haven't kept up very well with your legislative happenings in the last 18 months. Wasn't there an attempt to increase BM funding that met some pretty strong opposition in the legislature?
 
I'm not too familiar with Montana licenses and so for perspective to all of us, can someone share the amount that a typical resident and typical non-resident pay each year as direct funding towards block management?
 
Some data at the end of this article indicate where the money comes from. Appears less than half is from license dollars.

Based on that article, a lot of the block management payments actually come from License Dollars with the remaining being leveraged P-R funds. Montana hunters are paying for 6.07M dollars for access on block management properties with an additional 1.4M boost in P-R funds. If someone had a number for the number of hunters that bought a Montana license, you could get a rough cost/hunter. I'm just curious what is really being spent is all to compare to say a person spending $1000 for a long weekend hunt using Landtrust.
 
Based on that article, a lot of the block management payments actually come from License Dollars with the remaining being leveraged P-R funds. Montana hunters are paying for 6.07M dollars for access on block management properties with an additional 1.4M boost in P-R funds. If someone had a number for the number of hunters that bought a Montana license, you could get a rough cost/hunter. I'm just curious what is really being spent is all to compare to say a person spending $1000 for a long weekend hunt using Landtrust.
Wouldn’t you need to know the number of hunter days on block management and than you could compare cost per day per hunter? I don’t suppose fwp has that data.
 
Is landtrust paying the property owners regardless of someone booking or does the owner only get paid when someone shows up? I’m a little curious on that aspect of the business model I guess. The various state programs seem like such a safe payday for the landowner

I think what it has to lead to is for the states to compete they probably have to find a way to offer more than just money in return and that’s hard, only so many landowners out there are wanting help with fencing, habitat improvements, etc
I’m pretty certain that they are paid for the days of usage booked.
 
Wouldn’t you need to know the number of hunter days on block management and than you could compare cost per day per hunter? I don’t suppose fwp has that data.
No, what I'm really wanting to know is what is the level of "welfare" that the common is spending for the benefit of the few. Or at least I'm guessing its "few". I'm guessing that a large portion of hunter days are spent on NF, BLM, State or private with a small percentage of hunter days occurring on a private property open to block management.

I'm not saying by any means that I oppose the fee on license sales to be used for an access program such as block management. Its not all just solely about hunter days using that land. I'm just curious what the ratio is as a way to point out that maybe Landtrust isn't as bad as some people on this forum topic are making it out to be.
 
No, what I'm really wanting to know is what is the level of "welfare" that the common is spending for the benefit of the few. Or at least I'm guessing its "few". I'm guessing that a large portion of hunter days are spent on NF, BLM, State or private with a small percentage of hunter days occurring on a private property open to block management.

I'm not saying by any means that I oppose the fee on license sales to be used for an access program such as block management. Its not all just solely about hunter days using that land. I'm just curious what the ratio is as a way to point out that maybe Landtrust isn't as bad as some people on this forum topic are making it out to be.
I’d say my time is pretty split between public and bm but it seems I spend more time hunting with other people trying to get them game than myself these days
 
No, what I'm really wanting to know is what is the level of "welfare" that the common is spending for the benefit of the few. Or at least I'm guessing its "few". I'm guessing that a large portion of hunter days are spent on NF, BLM, State or private with a small percentage of hunter days occurring on a private property open to block management.

I'm not saying by any means that I oppose the fee on license sales to be used for an access program such as block management. Its not all just solely about hunter days using that land. I'm just curious what the ratio is as a way to point out that maybe Landtrust isn't as bad as some people on this forum topic are making it out to be.
Here is some older data.


Tells a great story as to why MT residents would prefer BM over other forms of private hunting access.
 
Back
Top