Never Ending Challenge of Access

[B&CTom]

I gave this a read this morning. I've enjoyed a few hunts on Block Management, and some great conversations with landowners who've given me the privilege to hunt their property. One ranch I hunted for a decade finally moved to a lease with an outfitter, and I completely understood why. I do hope the Block Management program can continue to evolve and provide access, and work in harmony with other solutions.

Block Management Participation Decline

 

[SAJ-99]

“Montana Free Press’ analysis of 2024 Block Management data finds that landowner participation in the program has continued its downward trajectory despite because of its popularity with hunters.”

Fixed it for them. I am mostly surprised that people continued to be surprised.

 

[DFS]

With Montana’s length of season and tag allocation it’s going to get harder and harder to keep ranches in block. Especially ranchers that watch and enjoy wildlife.

 

[Ben Lamb]

“Montana Free Press’ analysis of 2024 Block Management data finds that landowner participation in the program has continued its downward trajectory despite because of its popularity with hunters.”

Fixed it for them. I am mostly surprised that people continued to be surprised.

People leave the program for a lot of reasons, and hunter behavior is one of the biggest. I've lost outstanding river bottom opportunity because people showed up Christmas morning demanding access to a type 2. Other landowners look at leasing and programs like land trust as a better revenue stream with a lot less headaches.

Wyoming's approach to hunter mgt is something MT could look at as a way to entice landowners back, a long with other incentives combined to make the revenue worth the hassle.

 

[B&CTom]

I did hunt one BMA that opening morning had a line of people signing up, and it was the worst experience I've had afield. As Ben noted, what made that such a bad experience, beyond the crowding, was the unethical behavior I witnessed coupled with unsafe practices. I've hunted another type where we were assigned a section, and that was better. The ranch I hunted for over a decade was clearly the best experience, where we had gained permission, hunted ethically, took time to check-in and talk with the landowner, and thanked him on the way out. That led to us being invited back each year, and a long friendship. Eventually, herd dynamics changed, which resulted in changes to licenses available and years without drawing. Eventually, the opportunity ended because of the lease. Not sure the crowding issue will be going away any time soon.

 

[Forkyfinder]

How far can landowners go with rules on their land? In example - can you limit game types, antler restrictions?

I know of a few land owners that would do it - but don't wish to be over run by people they've never met and won't again. I really feel having options for localized preference rules would help.

 

[SAJ-99]

People leave the program for a lot of reasons, and hunter behavior is one of the biggest. I've lost outstanding river bottom opportunity because people showed up Christmas morning demanding access to a type 2. Other landowners look at leasing and programs like land trust as a better revenue stream with a lot less headaches.

Wyoming's approach to hunter mgt is something MT could look at as a way to entice landowners back, a long with other incentives combined to make the revenue worth the hassle.

I'm sure higher payouts help, but then there is the hassle factor. Does the rancher want to open up to Type 1 and get $25k or deal with the same 5 guys all season and get paid $10k? I won't even get into whether or not the rancher claims it on his taxes, because I will just assume every Montanan is honest when it comes to paying the government.

How far can landowners go with rules on their land? In example - can you limit game types, antler restrictions?

I know they can make rules on the type of game hunted, I'm not sure on antler restrictions. I would guess not, but don't know.

 

[atlas]

How far can landowners go with rules on their land? In example - can you limit game types, antler restrictions?

I know of a few land owners that would do it - but don't wish to be over run by people they've never met and won't again. I really feel having options for localized preference rules would help.

Yeah you can do that and you can limit the length its open. There are several BMAs that are closed the first or last week of the season.

 

[Treeshark]

With Montana’s length of season and tag allocation it’s going to get harder and harder to keep ranches in block.

What do you propose as a solution?

Cutting NR tags would lead to less BM funding. I’m not saying that would be a bad decision for MT residents to make, but it would not be without consequence.

Enrollment is already diminishing, and I assume to turn that around would require increased funding- where would the money to accomplish that come from?

 

[DFS]

What do you propose as a solution?

Cutting NR tags would lead to less BM funding. I’m not saying that would be a bad decision for MT residents to make, but it would not be without consequence.

Nobody likes my solutions. That is a very loaded question. Budget cuts to the agency, season structure changes, shifting funding to long term access from block management, weapon restrictions. Limiting nonresidents when harvest exceeds a threshold probably around 30%. Legislators and lobbyists that care more about wildlife than their funding. I can tell you for sure if you continue to hammer landowners with the pressure they are seeing access will continue to go away. None of that will happen we will continue to plow forward.

 

[Carnage2011]

It doesn’t matter what BM pays landowners. Many of them don’t want the headache of hundreds of hunters/phone calls. Hunters are their own worst enemy and continually screw things up. People need to start introducing themselves to some landowners and treat their access as privilege not a right. The way a friend of mine described it the other day was pretty spot on. “Most people are intelligent, except for during hunting season.”

 

[Treeshark]

It doesn’t matter what BM pays landowners. Many of them don’t want the headache of hundreds of hunters/phone calls.

I suspect you’re right, and it begs the question whether or not BM is the best access program into the future.

Recent trend line would support that it might not be.

 

[DFS]

I suspect you’re right, and it begs the question whether or not BM is the best access program into the future.

Recent trend line would support that it might not be.

Obviously you are making your point for landowner tags.

 

[Treeshark]

Actually that hadn’t occurred to me- but now that you mention it, I can’t say I disagree with you that it would be a very effective access tool.

 

[cgasner1]

Obviously you are making your point for landowner tags.

New Mexico has 2 different types of land owner tags. One is only for the land a rancher owns the other is for the entire unit. If they enroll in a program such as our bma they get the unit wide tag.

 

[Treeshark]

@cgasner1, great point re: New Mexico’s program.

Correct me here if I’m wrong, but don’t all landowners in the private-land-only program have to open their land to access if they participate? This seems like it may be a better option than just watching a bunch of private land get leased up by outfitters year after year.

 

[DFS]

New Mexico has 2 different types of land owner tags. One is only for the land a rancher owns the other is for the entire unit. If they enroll in a program such as our bma they get the unit wide tag.

Unit wide tag for applying landowner is another gripe of mine. If they attached access I could see that improve however I would suspect they would apply like me if they had to grant access, and I don’t blame them.

 

[cgasner1]

@cgasner1, great point re: New Mexico’s program.

Correct me here if I’m wrong, but don’t all landowners in the private-land-only program have to open their land to access if they participate? This seems like it may be a better option than just watching a bunch of private land get leased up by outfitters year after year.

From my understanding it can go either depending on what the landowner wants. If they don’t want people on their ranch tags only good for their ranch. If they open it up for public hunting their tag is good unit wide. Seems like pretty decent incentive to me.

 

[cgasner1]

Unit wide tag for applying landowner is another gripe of mine. If they attached access I could see that improve however I would suspect they would apply like me if they had to grant access, and I don’t blame them.

They have a lot of other issues that I don’t agree with but I did like that

 

[Forkyfinder]

Nobody likes my solutions. That is a very loaded question. Budget cuts to the agency, season structure changes, shifting funding to long term access from block management, weapon restrictions. Limiting nonresidents when harvest exceeds a threshold probably around 30%. Legislators and lobbyists that care more about wildlife than their funding. I can tell you for sure if you continue to hammer landowners with the pressure they are seeing access will continue to go away. None of that will happen we will continue to plow forward.

Na - I think more people might like your solutions than you think.

Definitely a "pot/kettle" comment on my part - but I think your phrasing can occasionally poison in an other wise perfectly good solution/thought.