Public land enrolled in Block Management?

[Fire_9]

I've noticed several pieces of state land in SE MT that local ranchers will lease for grazing and then turn around and enroll it in type 2 block management. These pieces are not landlocked and are accessible from a country road. How can the state of MT allow a landowner to control who can, and cannot use accessible public land? Can someone please educate me on this issue? Thanks

 

[TBass]

How? Through Administrative Rule: http://mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=36%2E25%2E163

 

[Camdu7]

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

 

[brownbear932008]

And yet another reason to fight land transfer to states at every turn so this doesn't happen more often.

 

[Sytes]

The person leasing the state land for grazing does not receive the BM benefits... $$$, etc, does s/he?

 

[RobG]

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

In Montana you can hunt state if you can access. I'll guess about the original question: The BM is allowing you to access from his property, in addition to any other access. This could be beneficial to hunters, but I hope they aren't getting paid for it.

 

[----]

In Montana you can hunt state if you can access. I'll guess about the original question: The BM is allowing you to access from his property, in addition to any other access. This could be beneficial to hunters, but I hope they aren't getting paid for it.

There's state sections that are legally accessible by other means, that you need to gain access via Block management.

 

[JBS]

I looked into it and yes some accessible state land is off limits to hunt without signing into block management. The rule is old but I have not heard of it u til this year. BS but legal

 

[RobG]

There's state sections that are legally accessible by other means, that you need to gain access via Block management.

And I though my post was confusing!

I thought they were all open if you could access them. What are the criteria for remaining under leaseholder control?

 

[MTGomer]

Some of the R7 BMA maps say you need permission to hunt the state lands.
As long as it's not some leased ag field right by a house, ignore all that stuff.
Those sagebrush and grassland sections of state land all over eastern MT are fair game.
I hunt public land where and when I want to.

I have had issues at the Keith ranch BMA south of
ekalaka hunting accessible fed BLM land from a public road, either the people who don't like it don't actually call the warden like they say they will or he never comes.
Still highly annoying to be told you can't hunt public land.

 

[Fire_9]

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

 

[brownbear932008]

Some of the R7 BMA maps say you need permission to hunt the state lands.
I ignore all that shit.

I hunt public land where and when I want to.

I have had issues at the Keith ranch BMA south of
ekalaka hunting accessible fed BLM land from a public road, either they don't actually call the warden like they say they will or he never comes.
Still highly annoying to be told you can't hunt public land.

Makes perfect sense could not see how a ticket for trespass could ever hold up much in court charging you with trespass on state trust property but heck who knows.

 

[RobG]

Here's a link to the DNRC rules. http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/...-use-forms-and-permits/recreational-use-guide
Lands with crops that haven't been harvested yet are closed.

It says in some cases you need to notify the lessee, but not get permission. Except in certain cases where you need permission. I think I know less now than when I started.

 

[Shotgun1]

And yet another reason to fight land transfer to states at every turn so this doesn't happen more often.

Yup yet we still have people, including some on this forum, saying how great the transfer will be.......If you vote Republican this year you vote to end public lands

 

[MooseCaboose]

If you vote Republican this year you vote to end public lands

 

[Eric Albus]

The land transfer issue is mostly political hay making. The odds of the Fed. Gov't giving up control on accessible BLM, FS, ect., are near 0(zer0).

I'd be willing to bet a cold one, or 12, that were the shoe on the other foot, and any of you were leasing a piece of state land that you would like to know who was doing what, and when they were doing it. Want access to the back 40, stop and let a landowner know who you are and what you are doing...you just might be surprised how some folks will react when treated with a little respect...... Now before clamoring and jumping on me, yes I am fully aware that landowner "permission" is not needed to access lands that are accessible......And I did not say to ask "permission" to hunt an accessible state or BLM piece....I just said attempt being courteous and letting the guy who leases it know who you are and what you are doing....I know I appreciate it when people stop in and introduce themselves and let me know what they are up to. Tends to worry me less about them straying to greener pastures...and has resulted in me taking a few of them to greener pastures and harvesting a few deer and antelope they would have otherwise never had access to.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Eric, I applaud the attitude and the positive situation described by you regarding good relations between those accessing public lands and the agricultural users of the lands.

As to your first statements,

The land transfer issue is mostly political hay making. The odds of the Fed. Gov't giving up control on accessible BLM, FS, ect., are near 0(zer0).

Only the upcoming congressional sessions will tell. The fact that the transfer commitment is a national Republican plank and that a major component of the "Fed. Gov't" is a likely Republican congress leaves most of us feeling much less confident about our public lands staying open and accessible, or even forever owned by the public.

Merely a recommendation, but when using the phrase, "Fed. Gov't", please try to be clear just what entity you are describing. The "Fed. Gov't" is comprised of the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches, and also described by those subsidiary entities overseen and funded (albeit underfunded if USFS & BLM) by Congress and / or the President. You and I and most HuntTalkers are also at least indirectly part of the "Fed. Gov't" through the convoluted representative democratic process, so it is a good idea to specify what entity you're pointing a finger at when describing that the ambiguous "Fed. Gov't" or "they" are doing this or that.

 

[Straight Arrow]

http://www.protectourpublicland.org...ferences-between-state-lands-and-public-lands

The link above describes differences between state lands and federal public lands and provides a helpful perspective on the issue and potential consequences.

 

[Sytes]

Anyone know if the state BM land pays those with grazing, harvest, etd opportunities? Nothing I've found shares info either way. I would imagine not though we've all been surprised in the past...

 

[RobG]

I'm interested in the answer to original question. We all know the republicans want to build a wall around our public land and make us pay for it so no need to hijack this thread.