Never Ending Challenge of Access

[Beignet]

I’ve asked numerous times before, but is there any traction left in “Type 3” access that Hank Worsech brought up as a possibility a few years ago?

It was going to be tied to the user having completed some education on how to behave on other people’s property. I don’t think it ever went beyond a spitball suggestion.

Anything else coming down the pike that could encourage more landowners to participation and retention aside from the recent payment increase?

 

[cgasner1]

If I somehow came into ownership of a big ranch in MT there is a zero percent chance that MTFWP would have the last word on game management on it. That includes block management of either type. This is not to say that I dislike the block management program, I just would have no part of it.

I have seen large parcels of land near me acquired by FWP and opened to the public, and as stated above 2 years and you can't tell it from the piss pounded public next to it.

I remember when fwp opened up a fairly large piece over here archery season was fun we saw some decent bucks. Fast forward to rifle and it had somewhere between 32-36 trucks in the parking lot and one guy bumping some gangster rap music with his subs. By the time the following year had rolled around they punched a road all the way thru it and into the back really ruined a good thing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One of the best ways to leverage long-term access on private lands is through FWP CEs. The $$ that goes to the landowner makes it lucrative for traditional producers to take interest, helps them stay on the land, and provides access forever. Conserve wildlife, MT traditions, and public access for a helluva deal on a completely voluntary basis. It’s a shame this administration doesn’t seem to understand or appreciate that. Our kids and grandkids will rue the things we don’t do today, tomorrow.

It takes 3 votes from the land board to pass conservation easements & fee title acquisition.

 

[WanderWoman]

It takes 3 votes from the land board to pass conservation easements & fee title acquisition.

Yes… And one would think if those elected officials were actually representing the public, the projects that make it through all the hoops it takes to get even to that point, should be a no-brainer.

 

[Carnage2011]

Yes… And one would think if those elected officials were actually representing the public, the projects that make it through all the hoops it takes to get even to that point, should be a no-brainer.

I think the elected officials are actually representing the public. There are a lot of people that don’t want any government expansion of land management at all. Montana is made up of a lot of people that aren’t public land recreationists and believe that permanent easements are not the right move. I personally don’t understand it but it’s always shocking to me how many people don’t see the value of conservation easements. Many hunters don’t understand the value of conservation easements. When enough uneducated people voice their displeasure about FWP to politicians it makes it easier for them to justify their vote against them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes… And one would think if those elected officials were actually representing the public, the projects that make it through all the hoops it takes to get even to that point, should be a no-brainer.

I'd love to see a concerted effort to educate those folks on the benefits of easements and try to find ways to deal with the concerns voiced over them.

 

[Big Fin]

I'd love to see a concerted effort to educate those folks on the benefits of easements and try to find ways to deal with the concerns voiced over them.

You set up the meeting with them and I’ll show up with a bus full of working landowners who feel a conservation easement was a great move for the long-term vision for their property.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You set up the meeting with them and I’ll show up with a bus full of working landowners who feel a conservation easement was a great move for the long-term vision for their property.

Let me see what we can do

 

[cgasner1]

I kinda wanna come and listen to the adults talk might even learn something

 

[WanderWoman]

I think the elected officials are actually representing the public. There are a lot of people that don’t want any government expansion of land management at all. Montana is made up of a lot of people that aren’t public land recreationists and believe that permanent easements are not the right move. I personally don’t understand it but it’s always shocking to me how many people don’t see the value of conservation easements. Many hunters don’t understand the value of conservation easements. When enough uneducated people voice their displeasure about FWP to politicians it makes it easier for them to justify their vote against them.

I agree with some of this, in that there are people that don’t like government interest in land and a lot of hunters are naive to the benefits of, particularly, CEs. For instance, there is still little “FWP management” of CE lands; the landowner has a lot of flexibility in deciding the terms and even changing some of those terms as time goes on. Not the same as the government buying and managing land.

However, I don’t think the land board or whoever happens to be the final person saying “no” on a CE purchase is representing the public, especially those taking part in the public process. I don’t see massive numbers of people commenting or speaking out against these projects. Do you guys? Comments, etc. will always show a few naysayers but the majority of public input is supportive (a CE wouldn’t make it very far otherwise given the hurdles it has to go over). In other words, if there is legitimate reasoning/significant public opposition to these projects, particularly CEs (I’m avoiding fee title—that’s a different situation), then land board or whoever needs to prove it. “I don’t like CEs” is a personal opinion, not a professional decision that holds water.

Then there’s the whole issue of an elected official dictating to a landowner what they can or can’t do on their property… which seems odd to me.

I'd love to see a concerted effort to educate those folks on the benefits of easements and try to find ways to deal with the concerns voiced over them.

That would be amazing.


This thread is about access. We can limit opportunity and/or increase the denominator (accessible lands) to improve hunter pressure issues, hunt quality, success, etc. We hear about incentives for landowners and with CEs, a ballpark $1 mil (often more) buys that access forever through an extensive and extremely-vetted process, along with a whole host of other benefits to wildlife, habitat, and traditional ag.

 

[TheJason]

Then there’s the whole issue of an elected official dictating to a landowner what they can or can’t do on their property… which seems odd to me.

Well you know, ‘Murica. Rights of potential future property owners must be protected, even at the cost of current property owners. It’s the conservative way. I think.

 

[antlerradar]

This thread is about access. We can limit opportunity and/or increase the denominator (accessible lands) to improve hunter pressure issues, hunt quality, success, etc. We hear about incentives for landowners and with CEs, a ballpark $1 mil (often more) buys that access forever through an extensive and extremely-vetted process, along with a whole host of other benefits to wildlife, habitat, and traditional ag.

I don't think that increasing denominator is going to get the results you think. Most hunters look at posted land and think that is virtually unhunted. That is simply not the case. You may not be able to hunt there, but others likely are. Our place has hunters on in virtually every day from the first of Sept to the end of Nov. The neighbors outfitter hunts that property harder than it ever was before it was leased. Near me is a large parcel of land locked public land. It gets as much or more pressure than accessible public with similar terrain. Even on hunt clubs the best animals are high graded. I have access to large amounts of private and inaccessible public land to shed hunt. I have found one 75 inch mule deer antler in the last five years. The quality bucks are just not there. Would more access help, A big yes it would, Would it bring back the hunting of the 80's and 90's, not likely. Hunters have changed, more and more hunters are not just looking to shoot the first buck and go home, and today they have better gear to make it happen.

 

[WanderWoman]

I don't think that increasing denominator is going to get the results you think. Most hunters look at posted land and think that is virtually unhunted. That is simply not the case. You may not be able to hunt there, but others likely are. Our place has hunters on in virtually every day from the first of Sept to the end of Nov. The neighbors outfitter hunts that property harder than it ever was before it was leased. Near me is a large parcel of land locked public land. It gets as much or more pressure than accessible public with similar terrain. Even on hunt clubs the best animals are high graded. I have access to large amounts of private and inaccessible public land to shed hunt. I have found one 75 inch mule deer antler in the last five years. The quality bucks are just not there. Would more access help, A big yes it would, Would it bring back the hunting of the 80's and 90's, not likely. Hunters have changed, more and more hunters are not just looking to shoot the first buck and go home, and today they have better gear to make it happen.

I wouldn’t expect things to go back to the 80s and 90s. Habitat is different, weather patterns/climate have changed, elk numbers/predator assemblages are different, technology has improved, etc. And there is never going to be the same amount of access some enjoyed in yesteryear. I don’t take that to mean we shouldn’t try any less hard to improve the denominator while also finding solutions to the numerator issues, but I see the denominator (access/habitat) as long-term, the numerator (hunter numbers) as short-term/changeable with seasons or political tides.

 

[Horseman]

“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.

I agree that ‘hunters’ with extremely poor judgement are to blame based my many first hand observations this fall of blatant wildlife violations, downright awful etiquette and disregard for rules regarding land access. It sucks to watch people do things that are very illegal and wrong, knowing that they will get away with it because there are simply not enough game wardens. Driving on my way to and from hunts I will see usually drive by several police officers on duty but I will not see a game warden. I’ve been a diehard avid hunter for 30+ years and I still have never been checked by a game warden in any way shape of form. If I was a poaching, trespassing, atv driving elk hazing asshole I could commit any illegal activity while afield that I wanted to and not get caught (assuming I kept my mouth shut) because there are far too few game wardens. I reported every illegal activity that I witnessed this fall and the game warden responsible for the (huge) area would respond with a disappointed sigh and tell me that he’d file a report in case he was able to put together a case in the future but I was told by GW’s that it’s nearly impossible to successfully prosecute unless the violators are literally caught in the act, preferably multiple times. I imagine catching bad ’hunters’ in the act would happen a lot more often if there were 10x’s more game wardens on duty-maybe they’d even be able to leave their pickups and actually get into the field at strategic spots, observe the violations and make some arrests. As for hunters bothering BMA landowners with unwanted calls/questions/requests, I think a lot of that could be resolved by having enough *knowledgeable* and local fwp staff that are readily available to answer those questions. I had a very specific and important question regarding how I could access/retrieve game on a very large and rugged BMA this fall. I first called the local fwp office and nobody could answer my question and they of course refused to share the landowner’s/manager’s contact info so I simply looked it up online and politely called the guy up during business hours. Unfortunately the landowner sounded annoyed to be answering my questions during our brief conversation. I didn’t really want to call the guy either. I would have preferred to have gotten a clear yes or no answer from the local fwp office when I contacted them first.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't think that increasing denominator is going to get the results you think. Most hunters look at posted land and think that is virtually unhunted. That is simply not the case. You may not be able to hunt there, but others likely are. Our place has hunters on in virtually every day from the first of Sept to the end of Nov. The neighbors outfitter hunts that property harder than it ever was before it was leased. Near me is a large parcel of land locked public land. It gets as much or more pressure than accessible public with similar terrain. Even on hunt clubs the best animals are high graded. I have access to large amounts of private and inaccessible public land to shed hunt. I have found one 75 inch mule deer antler in the last five years. The quality bucks are just not there. Would more access help, A big yes it would, Would it bring back the hunting of the 80's and 90's, not likely. Hunters have changed, more and more hunters are not just looking to shoot the first buck and go home, and today they have better gear to make it happen.

Your point is important. I think a lot of these access conversations evolve around a belief by those that hunt public land that all the deer are on private land and all they need is access. The hunter may see 10 deer in a private field and think "If I could just get access...", with little thought that in the past there were easily 20 or 30 deer in that spot. This is why I don't like the framing of public land deer and private land deer. Access is an issue, but it isn't a cause of the main problem.

 

[Horseman]

I agree that ‘hunters’ with extremely poor judgement are to blame based my many first hand observations this fall of blatant wildlife violations, downright awful etiquette and disregard for rules regarding land access. It sucks to watch people do things that are very illegal and wrong, knowing that they will get away with it because there are simply not enough game wardens. Driving on my way to and from hunts I will see usually drive by several police officers on duty but I will not see a game warden. I’ve been a diehard avid hunter for 30+ years and I still have never been checked by a game warden in any way shape of form. If I was a poaching, trespassing, atv driving elk hazing asshole I could commit any illegal activity while afield that I wanted to and not get caught (assuming I kept my mouth shut) because there are far too few game wardens. I reported every illegal activity that I witnessed this fall and the game warden responsible for the (huge) area would respond with a disappointed sigh and tell me that he’d file a report in case he was able to put together a case in the future but I was told by GW’s that it’s nearly impossible to successfully prosecute unless the violators are literally caught in the act, preferably multiple times. I imagine catching bad ’hunters’ in the act would happen a lot more often if there were 10x’s more game wardens on duty-maybe they’d even be able to leave their pickups and actually get into the field at strategic spots, observe the violations and make some arrests. As for hunters bothering BMA landowners with unwanted calls/questions/requests, I think a lot of that could be resolved by having enough *knowledgeable* and local fwp staff that are readily available to answer those questions. I had a very specific and important question regarding how I could access/retrieve game on a very large and rugged BMA this fall. I first called the local fwp office and nobody could answer my question and they of course refused to share the landowner’s/manager’s contact info so I simply looked it up online and politely called the guy up during business hours. Unfortunately the landowner sounded annoyed to be answering my questions during our brief conversation. I didn’t really want to call the guy either. I would have preferred to have gotten a clear yes or no answer from the local fwp office when I contacted them first.

With that said I had another highly enjoyable MT hunting season. I saw some humongous bulls, plenty of legal bulls and many cows. I saw a couple of very big mule deer bucks, tons of little forky mule deer and a massive whitetail Buck. My hunting experience on MT BMA’s was high quality and has given me a new found appreciation for Montana ranchers and landowners. I could have killed a mature Buck or bull but I ended up filling my general tag with a pretty cow because filling my freezer with an elk killed in an ethical manner, on publicly accessible land is my ultimate trophy. I killed my elk on a busy piece of BLM (that is nonetheless loaded with game) because I had done my homework and gotten there first on a frigid powder day. I killed her with one shot at 150yds, 3 minutes after legal shooting light-a cow with my general tag (and 10+ days hunting hard and seeing lots of game) completely satisfied my lust for elk hunting for 2024. I love antlers as much as the next hunter but they aren’t edible and a trophy rack would be meaningless if I killed it in a manner that I wasn’t proud of. If I took a hasty, unethical, unsafe or illegal shot and it went wrong, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night, maybe I’d feel bad enough to not hunt anymore. I witnessed far too many hunters do just that this year. I also would rather shoot a doe or a cow than an immature buck or bull.

 

[antlerradar]

I wouldn’t expect things to go back to the 80s and 90s. Habitat is different, weather patterns/climate have changed, elk numbers/predator assemblages are different, technology has improved, etc. And there is never going to be the same amount of access some enjoyed in yesteryear. I don’t take that to mean we shouldn’t try any less hard to improve the denominator while also finding solutions to the numerator issues, but I see the denominator (access/habitat) as long-term, the numerator (hunter numbers) as short-term/changeable with seasons or political tides.

What I am saying is that when you add more access, you have to take into account the number of hunters that already have access. In many places you are not going to change the number of hunter days as much as people think. Almost no place is not hunted, and the ones with the least amount of pressure are the ones that are the least likely to enter into some kind of access agreement.
As for habitat, I can only speak for where I live, but nearly 100% of the Custer has burned since 2000, much of it more than once and Broadus has increased the 30 year average on precipitation by nearly an inch. The years 2007 through 2011 were the wettest five year period ever recorded on the Custer. The elk are a big change, but I wounder if the issue is more the people they bring than the competition with deer. During the first week and half of season I talked to a dozen hunters on a state section near me. All of them were looking to fill an elk tag or helping a friend fill one. They all had deer tags to, but it is not likely they would have been there if it wasn't for elk.

 

[MTTW]

What I am saying is that when you add more access, you have to take into account the number of hunters that already have access. In many places you are not going to change the number of hunter days as much as people think. Almost no place is not hunted, and the ones with the least amount of pressure are the ones that are the least likely to enter into some kind of access agreement.
As for habitat, I can only speak for where I live, but nearly 100% of the Custer has burned since 2000, much of it more than once and Broadus has increased the 30 year average on precipitation by nearly an inch since the 80's. The years 2007 through 2011 were the wettest five year period ever recorded on the Custer. The elk are a big change, but I wounder if the issue is more the people they bring than the competition with deer. During the first week and half of season I talked to a dozen hunters on a state section near me. All of them were looking to fill an elk tag or helping a friend fill one. They all had deer tags to, but it is not likely they would have been there if it wasn't for elk.

I used to believe that the worst thing about elk was the hunters that they attract but eventually many of those same areas have become almost void of mule deer. I am talking mountainous country where very few does are killed by hunters. I now believe that elk make it impossible for most mule deer to make it through a harsh winter. The hunters that elk attract make it very hard for a buck to get any age on him, but the elk themselves make it very hard for even does to get age on them.

Just my observation not scientific. In Wyoming they have found that mule deer need near 15% body fat entering winter to survive a particularly harsh winter. I would like very much to know what % body fat our local mule deer are at entering winter, but I am confident that I will never know.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You set up the meeting with them and I’ll show up with a bus full of working landowners who feel a conservation easement was a great move for the long-term vision for their property.

@Big Fin maybe a fresh tracks weekly topic? It'd be good to spread information- especially with the CE being in the political arena here in MT lately.

Would love to know about other states too...

 

[antlerradar]

I used to believe that the worst thing about elk was the hunters that they attract but eventually many of those same areas have become almost void of mule deer. I am talking mountainous country where very few does are killed by hunters. I now believe that elk make it impossible for most mule deer to make it through a harsh winter. The hunters that elk attract make it very hard for a buck to get any age on him, but the elk themselves make it very hard for even does to get age on them.

Just my observation not scientific. In Wyoming they have found that mule deer need near 15% body fat entering winter to survive a particularly harsh winter. I would like very much to know what % body fat our local mule deer are at entering winter, but I am confident that I will never know.

I think you are mostly right for western MT, May be a different story in eastern Montana where productivity is better and winter is less of an issue.

I did find some supper sized mule deer antlers in Yellowstone park in the early 90's when the over sized northern elk herd was absolutely piss pounding the range. Too bad I couldn't keep them.