Never Ending Challenge of Access

[Nameless Range]

Trends are bothersome and we should pay attention to them, but also not mistake them for the current state of affairs and the many babies in the bathwater.

I think if you follow the trend line of any “average” person’s access to Private lands, be it through friendship, work, public access programs, etc - the ratio of hunters to acres of private lands they have to hunt has been decreasing for decades.

I think increased money, more flexible options for landowners, shorter seasons, and being far more punitive to bad behavior, could all be things that would slow the rate of descent down. I don’t know if anything will ever reverse it, but I don’t equate that with all hope being lost.

I know some of the original participants in block management, and I am good friends with landowners who do not participate. It’s not for everyone, and that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong necessarily. It’s still an incredible program.

 

[Treeshark]

Trends are bothersome and we should pay attention to them, but also not mistake them for the current state of affairs and the many babies in the bathwater.

Fair point here @Nameless Range. It does seem like the issue may be magnified right now- especially with people being understandably raw over the state of mule deer hunting.

I do wonder if a prolonged economic downturn and/or a rebound of mule deer numbers would help “improve” a lot of these issues, or at least the perception of them. Unfortunately, I think the former is much more likely than the latter.

 

[peterk1234]

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?

There's a very simple solution. Be respectful and greatful. It can be as simple as saying thank you. 90% of the time that's all it takes.

We hunt one in particular. We have offered to help repair fence and help during calving. We always bring something at the end of the season to say thank you. This year it was homemade bacon, corned beef and pastrami. It is the least we can do for their kindness.

 

[Beignet]

Some of my best BMA experiences have been on Type 2 properties where FWP administers access. On some you can either call on a specific day to get your name in the “drawing” or on others you just reserve a spot online the same way you buy your tags.

I know it isn’t a catch all for every BMA, but have always been curious why more properties aren’t managed this way. Seems like it alleviates many concerns from the landowner side. Access gets limited to x-number of hunters a day, no one is pestering the landowner directly at 6am on a Sunday morning, there’s far more transparency in who gets access and how, and FWP has a list of everyone who is around on a given day to track down the numbnuts who abuse the privilege.

 

[Mountain Man]

Some of my best BMA experiences have been on Type 2 properties where FWP administers access. On some you can either call on a specific day to get your name in the “drawing” or on others you just reserve a spot online the same way you buy your tags.

I know it isn’t a catch all for every BMA, but have always been curious why more properties aren’t managed this way. Seems like it alleviates many concerns from the landowner side. Access gets limited to x-number of hunters a day, no one is pestering the landowner directly at 6am on a Sunday morning, there’s far more transparency in who gets access and how, and FWP has a list of everyone who is around on a given day to track down the numbnuts who abuse the privilege.

It’s almost like the internet could help alleviate this friction point…but it’s only 2024 so the technology isn’t there yet

 

[ismith]

If we keep on the path we are on, it won't matter in 10 years anyways.

 

[Shed God]

I think we as public land hunters, should not support block management or any access to private. Instead fwp ect should use money to purchase private to make it public. Any private worth a shit we will not get access too. Focus on making the public better. If your not fighting for wildlife on public lands then u must hunt private.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

Again, tell us what you would cut in the budget.

The proposed budget from Governor Gianforte has $30 million for long-term agreements with access like easements & leases and around $10 million for block management. FYI.

 

[Treeshark]

Taking a first principles approach to this- it seems to me that the access puzzle essentially breaks down to three possible solutions:

1. Reduce hunters.
2. Increase the amount of public land.
3. Improve opportunity for people to access private land.

The first two usually have significant financial ramifications to the state. The third one does not necessarily have any negative impact to the state whatsoever, and it may actually be positive financial impact.

If the discussion does not address at least one of these three (and hopefully more than one), I have to wonder how impactful it is actually going to be.

 

[seeth07]

I think we as public land hunters, should not support block management or any access to private. Instead fwp ect should use money to purchase private to make it public. Any private worth a shit we will not get access too. Focus on making the public better. If your not fighting for wildlife on public lands then u must hunt private.

I have always felt that this is the best long term investment a state could make. Investing in land and water for the citizens of the state just always made sense to me. It is one thing that sure makes me proud to be a Wisconsinite where our government has for a long time realized the importance of land and water and they make it a priority to preserve, protect and conserve it.

@Ben Lamb just pointed out that the budget for access and BM is 40mil. Is that just for this year? If so, good lord that is a lot of dough that could go into land purchases for the state.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think we as public land hunters, should not support block management or any access to private. Instead fwp ect should use money to purchase private to make it public. Any private worth a shit we will not get access too. Focus on making the public better. If your not fighting for wildlife on public lands then u must hunt private.

I have always felt that this is the best long term investment a state could make. Investing in land and water for the citizens of the state just always made sense to me. It is one thing that sure makes me proud to be a Wisconsinite where our government has for a long time realized the importance of land and water and they make it a priority to preserve, protect and conserve it.

@Ben Lamb just pointed out that the budget for access and BM is 40mil. Is that just for this year? If so, good lord that is a lot of dough that could go into land purchases for the state.

I think if you actually do the math of budget vs real estate prices, you'd realize this wouldn't work. I'm not opposed to FWP purchasing properties and think they should when it makes sense- some of our WMAs are incredible and happen to be the most sought after permits for many species in many instances, but in terms of access it won't come close to what BM does.

Hundreds of hunters logged well over a thousand - maybe thousands of hunter days - on a 13,000 acre ranch out my back door. That ranch isn't for sale, but if it was, I don't think $40,000,000 would even touch it. Instead, for 50k it provided tons of upland bird, elk, deer, and pronghorn hunting this season. I think if you just look at the landscape, look at what's for sale, and look at real estate prices - the money isn't there. Not to mention the political reality that a lot of Montana's legislators are highly opposed to state purchase of land, but very amenable to leasing and access programs. Also, that ranch is a working landscape - providing employment and taxes for the local environment - and year-round habitat for wildlife. Seems a good deal to me as I look out my window at it. It's been in BM for going on 30 years now.

I think we need to continue to push for higher payments to landowners, strengthen the program and add sensible nuance via more landowner discretion regarding species, dates, etc. It's not perfect and may very well continue to decline in acres enrolled, but I don't know if any thing we do will stem this rapidly changing Montana. Doesn't mean there's not value still be had for years, decades, generations - within the program.

 

[antlerradar]

Fair point here @Nameless Range. It does seem like the issue may be magnified right now- especially with people being understandably raw over the state of mule deer hunting.

I do wonder if a prolonged economic downturn and/or a rebound of mule deer numbers would help “improve” a lot of these issues, or at least the perception of them. Unfortunately, I think the former is much more likely than the latter.

Hunters should not underestimate the effect poor quality hunting has on access. No landowner wants to see their property become what has happened to public land unless they are in the kill them all camp. Landowners in that camp are singed up for wide open BM.
Some of the biggest resistance to allowing more access comes from hunters that already have access. They may not outright tell you, but you know when the resistance is there. Poor public hunting the stronger the resistance.
Poor quality public hunting is a big part of why hunters are willing to part with thousands of dollars to pay an outfitter or lease land themselves.
Opportunity management has consequences far beyond the trade off of opportunity/ quality.

 

[seeth07]

I think if you actually do the math of budget vs real estate prices, you'd realize this wouldn't work. I'm not opposed to FWP purchasing properties and think they should when it makes sense- some of our WMAs are incredible and happen to be the most sought after permits for many species in many instances, but in terms of access it won't come close to what BM does.

Hundreds of hunters logged well over a thousand - maybe thousands of hunter days - on a 13,000 acre ranch out my back door. That ranch isn't for sale, but if it was, I don't think $40,000,000 would even touch it. Instead, for 50k it provided tons of upland bird, elk, deer, and pronghorn hunting this season. I think if you just look at the landscape, look at what's for sale, and look at real estate prices - the money isn't there. Not to mention the political reality that a lot of Montana's legislators are highly opposed to state purchase of land, but very amenable to leasing and access programs. Also, that ranch is a working landscape - providing employment and taxes for the local environment - and year-round habitat for wildlife. Seems a good deal to me as I look out my window at it. It's been in BM for going on 30 years now.

I think we need to continue to push for higher payments to landowners, strengthen the program and add sensible nuance via more landowner discretion regarding species, dates, etc. It's not perfect and may very well continue to decline in acres enrolled, but I don't know if any thing we do will stem this rapidly changing Montana. Doesn't mean there's not value still be had for years, decades, generations - within the program.

You are looking at this from the view of a short term only. What if Montana 30 years ago decided to rather than invest in access, instead just invest in the land itself. Where would it be now? Think of the protentional income generated from leasing the land for grazing and other uses? Park revenue, access fees, etc.

I do understand that the real estate market in Montana right now is completely off the charts. I'm in the market and every time I look up towards Montana I'm just blown away by the $/acre its going up there for ranch land. Its literally almost triple what quality ranch land in NM is going for. Why does everyone want to move to Montana? I keep hearing the hunting sucks, its expensive and the state is just being overran with people from CA.

 

[Treeshark]

What if Montana 30 years ago decided to rather than invest in access, instead just invest in the land itself. Where would it be now?

Might it be that they’d be in the exact same position they are now, if not worse? It seems that the general consensus is that hunting on public is bad, and hunting on private is usually quite a bit better.

What is this telling us?

@antlerradar brings up a great point though, and it was discussed earlier- how much of the “access problem” is really just a symptom of poor mule deer and antelope management?

 

[DFS]

Again, tell us what you would cut in the budget.

The proposed budget from Governor Gianforte has $30 million for long-term agreements with access like easements & leases and around $10 million for block management. FYI.

Is that yearly? And is that money coming from nonresident license sales? That would be a good place to start right there. When I talk about long term access I am talking easements to already existing public land.

If we had another bad winter and the deer numbers get crushed again nothing with management would change. So what are we funding on the wildlife side of things. The budget could be cut.

 

[SaskHunter]

Bottom line, the overall trend everywhere is less access to public or private land.

Saskatchewan used to have a pretty good land access law; if it was posted, you couldn't hunt it without permission, if it wasn't posted, you could hunt it without permission. The law clearly stated that gates had to be left as is, ie; if it was closed, you closed it back. This system worked well for generations here. If landowners didn't want people on their land, they just needed to post it. We went from one of the most socialist concept of access, to complete restriction whether posted or not, private is private and you need written permission on your person when accessing private land. This change in law came as a result of trespassers, slob hunters, ATV'ers and snowmobilers. Guys being too f'n lazy to close gates back up and let cattle roam free, trashing places, idiots driving seeded fields, burning cars on properties, driving their ATV/sleds anywhere they wanted, removing posted signs and cutting fences, etc.

Guess what? The poaching, gates left opened, fences cut littering and trespassing still happens. On top of that, landowners are now inundated with phone calls and yard visits year round, most of which are made during harvest when they are at their busiest. I've heard it from several landowners that its just easier to say "no" and that they much preferred when people could roam free and they didn't have to deal with permission. Again this year, two friends/landowners told me they were done with allowing access because of "slob hunters" trashing the place and were just allowing me and a handful of hunters to access their land (yay me?). Between the rich, or Hutterites, buying up all the available land and existing landowners now denying access, it's not getting any better. The remaining available public or private just gets hit so hard it's ridiculous. I've witnessed so many "drive by" shootings since this law came into effect, it's ridiculous. Guys will drive by, takes shots and GTFO as fast as they can if nothing dropped within sight. The year after this law came into effect, on one quarter I hunt alone, I found two sections of fences cut with sled tracks going through. We went from a free for all, to complete restriction and it's not getting any better, au contraire.

Thankfully, it is still illegal to pay for access, but chances are, I will see this law go away during the course of my hunting days.

 

[Mountain Man]

On Sunday I had a conversation with the owners of a very large ranch currently enrolled in BMA and I thanked them for enrolling. Their immediate response to my thanking them was that a hunter shot one of their cattle 2 days prior and they are seriously considering halting their participation in the program because of the bad behavior of hunters.

Needless to say, I was a bit heartbroken to hear this, but couldn’t really blame them for being frustrated with the actions of dumbasses killing their cattle. Bad hunter behavior is one of the main reasons the BMA program is shrinking, and I’m not sure it will ever be possible to prevent that type of behavior from happening. What is wrong with people?

 

[TheJason]

Two things:

1). The political climate across the west is not conducive at all for any moderate to large scale state purchases of land.

2). People in general are quite stupid, do stupid things, and think little of it. Perceptions of hunters will always be tainted by these folks. Plain and simple.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is that yearly? And is that money coming from nonresident license sales? That would be a good place to start right there. When I talk about long term access I am talking easements to already existing public land.

If we had another bad winter and the deer numbers get crushed again nothing with management would change. So what are we funding on the wildlife side of things. The budget could be cut.

The answer to these questions are here:

TITLE 87. FISH AND WILDLIFE - Table of Contents, MCA

archive.legmt.gov

And here:

https://budget.mt.gov/_docs/execbudgets/2027_Budget/Section-C.pdf

PAL provides easements to public land. Currently that is $1 million per biennium & the Governor has asked for another $1 million for this program, which has opened 500,000 acres of landlocked public land in the last 5 years.

If you want to offer an opinion on the budget & how money is spent, it's helps your case if you have an understanding of how budgeting works & what the budget is.

From last session: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CAoQBg&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2uRTEK_9yMxkv9KaBWq-cM

 

[cgasner1]

One day I was talking to @Ben Lamb and I asked him why can’t we do xyz? He blankly starred at the wall for a few seconds then looks at me and says I can give you about 1.2 million reasons why. My point is he knows the numbers those aren’t things he is pulling up on his computer guy is like rain man with fwp budgets. If any of this access stuff was just a wave the magic wind and fix it I’d like to think someone would have done it by now. With that said someone needs to take a serious run at trying to get corner crossing legalized that’s probably the most acres and bang for our buck for the general sportsman. Especially ones on ht because your not driving your sxs thru a corner crossing.