Public land enrolled in Block Management?

[Straight Arrow]

Montana ARM Rule: 36.25.163 language seems to answer the question.

A recreationist shall obey all restrictions imposed pursuant to the block management agreement.

Specifically, if calling the landowner and written permission are included as BM "restrictions" relative to the agreement, then it seems clear enough. Now with regard to enforcement, that is another of those "depends on law enforcement and county attorney" issues.

You can still hunt the fed land if you can legally access. Not state.

That is also my understanding, after discussing Block Management at one time with a BLM field officer.

'Sorry, I did not mean to highjack this thread, but felt strongly compelled to respond to Eric's post.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks for the responses. I figured it was legal but always thought it was BS. I've always had the same thought as MTGomer. If I want to hunt it, I'm going to hunt it. I shouldn't have to ask a rancher if I can hunt an accessible piece of public land

The way that FWP has described this situation in the past is that having the state parcels in block helped get the BMA in it's entirety. Landowners wanted to manage the hunting, and rather than just have the state or public land open, by including those sections in the BMA, it opens a lot more land to hunters. I can see some logic in that. I'm planning on hunting a spot that's in a huge BMA with multiple cooperators. One BMA has about 1.5 sections that overlap with some state lands, and it's a type 2 BMA. I can access the state from the road, but by calling and getting the reservation, I'll have another 15 or so sections I can hunt.

I think that makes sense, to include state lands, in a BMA if it truly opens up a lot more access. But it should be a discretion that is exercised cautiously.

 

[BigHornRam]

Land owners get paid per hunter day for BM, not by the acre. Last I heard it was $15 per day. Granted more acres allow for more hunters. Some land owners, like the Nature Conservancy and some of the timber companies with large land holdings, enter into a BM agreement, but waive the revenue. They just want the FWP to handle all the BS (ATV's behind gates, ect) that comes along with allowing general access to their properties.

 

[Fire_9]

Land owners get paid per hunter day for BM, not by the acre. Last I heard it was $15 per day.

Anyone know what the average cost per animal unit is for a grazing lease on state land? So the land owner basically gets paid to run his business on public land while restricting access to the public? Seems like the public is getting double boned. I'm sure there is no malicious intent with most ranchers that do this but it just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[BigHornRam]

Anyone know what the average cost per animal unit is for a grazing lease on state land? So the land owner basically gets paid to run his business on public land while restricting access to the public? Seems like the public is getting double boned. I'm sure there is no malicious intent with most ranchers that do this but it just doesn't sit well with me.

How much do you pay for BMA? State leases are considerably more per AUM than federal. Public isn't getting "double boned".

 

[Ben Lamb]

Average cost of a DNRC grazing lease depnds on a number of factors, including competitive bidding. It is much higher than BLM or Forest Service.

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/agriculture-and-grazing

 

[Shotgun1]

View attachment 63189

my morning coffee just came out my nose..Funny

 

[Straight Arrow]

So the land owner basically gets paid to run his business on public land while restricting access to the public?

Again, it is important to recognize the differences between state lands and federal public lands. (See link in post #18.) In Montana the battle to finally gain access to state lands for recreation was a very long and arduous process and resulted in access with provisions different from those for recreating on federal public lands. That state lands access success was achieved not that long ago and required courageous and persistent efforts spearheaded by Tony Schoonen and the Butte Skyline Sportsmen. The public exclusionary history and principles longstanding with regard to state revenue producing lands were challenges extremely difficult to overcome.

'Guess what I'm saying is be grateful, follow the rules, and don't let state lands access become a political football again.

 

[BigHornRam]

'Guess what I'm saying is be grateful, follow the rules, and don't let state lands access become a political football again.

Sound advice.

 

[Frenchy]

Land owners get paid per hunter day for BM, not by the acre. Last I heard it was $15 per day. Granted more acres allow for more hunters. Some land owners, like the Nature Conservancy and some of the timber companies with large land holdings, enter into a BM agreement, but waive the revenue. They just want the FWP to handle all the BS (ATV's behind gates, ect) that comes along with allowing general access to their properties.

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. I'm not a block management expert by any means, but I believe that each and every Block Management property is negotiated differently. That said, yes, there are some properties that get paid on a per hunter day agreement. And last I heard (a few years ago) it was something like $7/hunter/day. But again I think there is a variety of contracts out there.

 

[Fire_9]

Straight Arrow I'm following you now. I don't want it to come across that I don't appreciate land owners allowing access to millions of acres of private land. BM is a great program but, as with everything, it's not perfect. It's not always easy to follow the rules. I've seen several sections that are very poorly marked as BM.

Ok Bighornram we may not be getting double boned but I do see it as the landowner getting a pretty good deal. In all reality there are probably very few sections that are setup like this but when you live in an area with very little public access close to home, it becomes a little frustrating.

 

[RobG]

I don't have time to read it in-depth, but this appears to contain a good summary of the programs. leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2013-2014/EQC/Meetings/January-8-9-2014/block-management-performance-audit-october-2013.pdf

As BHR mentioned, the landowner appears to be compensated for each hunter day so adding state lands doesn't benefit the landowner. It is interesting that the audit found a few cases where the landowner didn't allow access to adjacent state land, and the FWP was told to no longer do that. (p 22)

Also, on 20-21 it says that you don't have to notify the lessee of state land if you want to hunt there, even if he requires it for other activities (ARM 36.25.155).

 

[Straight Arrow]

The state land tracts referenced by audit notes on pp 20-21 refer to state land tracts adjacent to, but not included as part of the Block Management Area. The distinction is that the original question concerns state lands which are included in a BMA and accessible by public roads.

 

[RobG]

The state land tracts referenced by audit notes on pp 20-21 refer to state land tracts adjacent to, but not included as part of the Block Management Area. The distinction is that the original question concerns state lands which are included in a BMA and accessible by public roads.

From what I read, as a practical matter, the distinction doesn't change things. Enrolling in a BMA doesn't prevent hunters from using it without landowners permission. Furthermore, the landowner is compensated by hunter days, not acreage, so there is no advantage there. It isn't clear why the state land would be included, but perhaps the landowner would benefit slightly from people who didn't know they could freely access the public land. Or perhaps they just want to make it obvious that you can hunt there.

A call to the appropriate regional office would probably get it explained in under a minute, but I'm guessing we'll continue to speculate for many hours, if not days, on why they chose to do this. Thanks Al Gore.

 

[Fire_9]

Page 24- 'In addition, DNRC legal staff contends neither FWP nor a lessee of trust lands has authority to place access restrictions on state trust land, but instead must coordinate with DNRC via the procedures set forth in ARMs.'

This stuff confuses the hell out of me but I read that as the lessee cannot impose access restrictions if it's legally accessible. I know it's talking about adjacent pieces of state land but I don't know how it's any different if it's within BMA boundary. So I can legally hunt it if I don't step foot on their property to access it?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Montana ARM Rule: 36.25.163 language:

A recreationist shall obey all restrictions imposed pursuant to the block management agreement.

Feel free to quote and interpret that however you wish during your discussion with the FWP warden or sheriff deputy.

 

[Fire_9]

So I'm supposed to cross reference my maps and gps with the block management maps every time I go to hunt a piece of state land? Now I'm curious what I could be ticketed for? Trespassing on state property?

Thanks everyone for all the information. I may not agree with the answer but at least I have a better understanding of how this all works.

 

[Sytes]

How much do you pay for BMA? State leases are considerably more per AUM than federal. Public isn't getting "double boned".

Does a private person receive payments from my $$$ (FWP license fees and / or state taxes) for land s/he does not own due to a piece of our state land marked as Block Management?

<edit added>

OR

No $ is given and we are required to give a courtesy contact to the persons we permit to use our land? If so, this would make sense to me... If not and we pay a person...? That seems to be a fish that's been rotting. (no?)

 

[Sytes]

Here are the basics I've learned thus far regarding State land within a Private land owners BM... Because the land owner is offering his/her land for BM, s/he will be paid for a hunter regardless whether that hunter hunts only the state land or not. To clarify further, if the hunter has access to the state land via county or state hwy, the hunter is required to receive permission and the landowner is compensated.

 

[RobG]

Here are the basics I've learned thus far regarding State land within a Private land owners BM... Because the land owner is offering his/her land for BM, s/he will be paid for a hunter regardless whether that hunter hunts only the state land or not. To clarify further, if the hunter has access to the state land via county or state hwy, the hunter is required to receive permission and the landowner is compensated.

The bolded is not how I read the report at all. First, if you are hunting you don't need to contact the lessee of the state land to access it as long as there is public access. Furthermore, the report said the FWP should NOT allow the landowner to block access to public lands that abut or are included in his BMA.

Also, on page 38 there is a discussion suggesting participants are paid by hunter day, not per-acre. Thus, assuming my interpretation is correct, adding a state section to a BMA doesn't increase the amount a participant receives.