MT Block MGMT Changes

[katqanna]

FWP addresses audit criticism with changes by Brett French

The PL/PW Council is reviewing measures to improve the Block Management Program to make recommendations to the Legislature. But so far they’ve had trouble finding problems other than accusations that the properties are overhunted — despite hunters reporting high satisfaction with BMAs; the loss of Block Management Program participants as older landowners die or sell their property — a 3 to 5 percent attrition rate; the difficulty in recruiting new participants; and a need for more FWP personnel on the ground during hunting seasons.

“I’m trying to figure out where the hell the complaints are,” Perry said.

Last hunting season, the Block Management Program enrolled more than 6.3 million acres of private land, which also provided access to more than 376,000 acres of state land, 17,000 acres of national forest and 802,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management property.

 

[Nameless Range]

From the article:

The audit recommended FWP reduce BMP expenditures or increase revenues to address shortfalls in funding, which the department agreed with. To meet that objective, FWP has not been expanding the program and is supplementing funding for now with federal dollars. The agency is also hoping that its proposals, still being developed, to raise resident license fees and modify licenses to simplify the system, will be approved. Those proposals will undergo public scrutiny this spring

Block Management needs more money. I have been lucky enough to know the foreman of a nearby ranch enrolled in Block Management for over a decade. The largest deer I've killed was on that ranch. My brother's first bull as well. It is walk in, big, and provides habitat varying from the intermountain valley to high forested peaks.

I can't remember the exact number, but I think it is something like 8,000+ acres or so in size- walk in only. Sign up and go. I feel they are excellent stewards of the land, and great neighbors. I spoke to him a few months ago, singing the ranches' praises. He told me that the future of Block Management on his ranch was in question, as an outfitter offered them a sum of money twice that of what they receive from the BMP. Not only would that close it off to hunting, but they are pretty lenient , and with permission seem to approve of hiking, shed hunting, etc. All of that would be gone.

I wonder how much of the attrition rate can be linked to preferable revenue sources replacing the BMP- such as leasing? I don't see how this trend will be reversed, and that's a bummer.

 

[Nameless Range]

So I'd add that if you do hunt BMAs, always sign in. They get money for that. Also, police others the same way you would if you were on public land. Not only are outfitters preferable financially, they also don't seem to come with the problems created by allowing large numbers of the public on land - driving where it is not allowed, breaking fence, littering, shooting cows, etc - all of which has happened on this particular BMA.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Has the maximum cap on BMA payments increased, or is it still $12,000?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Has the maximum cap on BMA payments increased, or is it still $12,000?

Still $12,000.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Still $12,000.

Maybe some "COLA" are in order?

Tough situation in a limited budget, but money talks. I'd rather see FWP cut some of the lesser BMAs to free up money for the more premium ones. Unfortunately, the money saved from cutting lesser ones probably wouldn't be that substantial, and likely wouldn't make a huge difference in the long run.

Time to raise the NR rates again? :W:

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe some "COLA" are in order?

Tough situation in a limited budget, but money talks. I'd rather see FWP cut some of the lesser BMAs to free up money for the more premium ones. Unfortunately, the money saved from cutting lesser ones probably wouldn't be that substantial, and likely wouldn't make a huge difference in the long run.

Time to raise the NR rates again? :W:

FWP is pushing forward a funding proposal this next session. There is still plenty of time to get comments in, etc.

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/headlines/nr_4150.html

I like increasing the payment to cooperators, but I think we need to be pretty careful in how we do that. Part of my issue with Block is that it pays those landowners who offer a quality hunt far less money than those who throw the gates open.

I wouldn't say the program is broken by any means, but it could use some new clothes and a different hair cut.

 

[Oak]

Where does funding currently come from for Block Management?

 

[Ben Lamb]

The program is funded by a variety of sources including NR big game licenses, upland licenses, Hunter Access Enhancement funds, etc. I-161 changed the funding formula which resulted in an increase in funding, IIRC.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

FWP is pushing forward a funding proposal this next session. There is still plenty of time to get comments in, etc.

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/headlines/nr_4150.html

I like increasing the payment to cooperators, but I think we need to be pretty careful in how we do that. Part of my issue with Block is that it pays those landowners who offer a quality hunt far less money than those who throw the gates open.

I wouldn't say the program is broken by any means, but it could use some new clothes and a different hair cut.

I couldn't agree more Ben. I've long held that the program in its design penalizes landowners who want to try to provide a quality experience relative to those that have a sign in at the gate process and go hunt.

Now, I HAVE had very good hunting experiences on the type where you sign in and go. However, I had a lot of very good experiences hunting reservation/limited hunter types, and shot one of my biggest bucks on one of these areas.

That landowner and I discussed that very aspect of the program. Fortunately, he was willing to sacrifice money for experience, but should we expect them to do so and for how long?

I can think of several BMA cooperators that I would double their payment right now, no questions asked if I could.

 

[Oak]

The program is funded by a variety of sources including NR big game licenses, upland licenses, Hunter Access Enhancement funds, etc. I-161 changed the funding formula which resulted in an increase in funding, IIRC.

Resident hunters? That seems like an obvious source of funding. Maybe resident hunters are not using the BMP?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Resident hunters? That seems like an obvious source of funding. Maybe resident hunters are not using the BMP?

One concept that's been brought forward is a block management stamp. I do think Residents should have a larger slice of the funding pie. It's residents who use the Block Management program & we've repeatedly come under fire from the Legislature for not doing so.

I've not been paying as much attention to this as some have. Pierre is in the thick of it. Hopefully he chimes in.

 

[----]

Resident hunters? That seems like an obvious source of funding. Maybe resident hunters are not using the BMP?

No kidding, there needs to be an across the board 10-15 dollar fee attached to all resident conservation licenses, or maybe a pass or stamp that you can't access BMA without.

I used BMAs maybe 20 days last year, and I honestly don't think I spent a dollar to do so.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

No kidding, there needs to be an across the board 10-15 dollar fee attached to all resident conservation licenses, or maybe a pass or stamp that you can't access BMA without.

I used BMAs maybe 20 days last year, and I honestly don't think I spent a dollar to do so.

I got ya covered bro.

I spent two days out of the last three years on a BMA, and I spent a lot to do so.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It's residents who use the Block Management program & we've repeatedly come under fire from the Legislature for not doing so.

And rightfully so. I firmly believe in leveraging your assets, but at some point one has to have a conscience and take a long look in the mirror.

It's Montana's money, and as long as folks like me pay the NR fees then it's not my choice or say in how the money is spent. But just because you can doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Oak]

I see that residents do pay a $2/year Hunting Access Enhancement Fee, compared to $10/year for non-residents. That's a better percentage than resident/non-resident hunting licenses, I suppose.

 

[theat]

I have had many great days hunting BMA's in the eastern half of the state for antelope, deer, and pheasants. I really appreciate the landowners that participate as well as FWP for running the show.

I really like the idea of a pass or stamp needed for access. That way, those that actually use BMAs will be the ones helping shore up the program.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I would gladly purchase a stamp for BMA. I do not like the fact that the BMA funding is so heavily tied into the NR price structure. Those funds are not guaranteed.

The reality is that there is competition between for a landowner to participate in BMA or to lease hunting rights. I wouldn't propose a bidding war - but we need to be flexible in the incentives given to land owners participating in BMA (tax incentives, habitat improvement programs, and Access fees).

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Just like a duck stamp. Residents can pay 10 bucks and boom! you've got some funding.

 

[Bulldog0156]

I'd pay it no questions asked.