Senate Bill 58- Doubling the Maximum Cap for Block Management

[YoungGun]

Senate Bill 58 would increase the maximum payment for landowners who participate in Block Management from $25,000 to up to $50,000.

Currently, landowners who participate receive a $13/day/public hunter allowed to hunt on their property, however, they are capped at $25,000, or ~1900 hunters. The amendment would increase that cap to $50,000, and would also open the door for FWP to increase the $13/day payment.

Block Management is by no means perfect, but this is still a good step to see to help compensate those landowners who participate and create more hunting opportunity for the hunting public. The fact that it has wide support also bodes well.

The news article is below (use an incognito window to get it to open)

Bill doubling landowner payment cap for Block Management earns support

Both conservation and agriculture groups endorsed the bill on Tuesday.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

The proposed bill revision is here:

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/lchtml/LC0745.htm

 

[golfer]

I think paying them more is a great idea. I just don’t think it’s going to recruit many more to enter their ground into BM.

 

[sacountry]

I think paying them more is a great idea. I just don’t think it’s going to recruit many more to enter their ground into BM.

Increasing the impact fee from $13 to $25 would do more to attract people vs just raising the cap. Sounds like both are in play. Not sure where the $$$ is coming from to fund the increase but this is a step in the right direction.

 

[Nameless Range]

I’m grateful and appreciative of Montana leaning into what works.

Block management participants often came and went from season to season. There is more to do, but this will help.

 

[golfer]

I just feel some of these prior BMA’s didn’t pull out due to money.

I agree raising the max cap to $50k is great, but I don’t think it’ll start attracting more LO to enroll.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I don’t think it’ll start attracting more LO to enroll.

That remains to be seen. But I bet it'll keep some in the program.

 

[YoungGun]

That remains to be seen. But I bet it'll keep some in the program.

That's my hope- there's still room for improvement to be sure. However, any step in the right direction to maintain access and build relationships between land owners and the State/Hunters as well as hunters with the State is a positive one. And for family ranches that might have been on the edge before, $50,000 is just enough to maybe make them think twice, at least for a trial year or two.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Hopefully this will incentivize more quality private lands to be enrolled. Ideally there would be more enrollment than available funds to allow Block coordinators to prioritize those properties with high quality habitat and good game numbers.

In my opinion some current Type 1 properties are overgrazed and lack both security cover and feed to support much wildlife. They are still enrolled and receive compensation even though “opportunity” on their properties pretty much consists of being able to go for a walk.

 

[bigsky2]

Hopefully this will incentivize more quality private lands to be enrolled. Ideally there would be more enrollment than available funds to allow Block coordinators to prioritize those properties with high quality habitat and good game numbers.

In my opinion some current Type 1 properties are overgrazed and lack both security cover and feed to support much wildlife. They are still enrolled and receive compensation even though “opportunity” on their properties pretty much consists of being able to go for a walk.

Unless the $13 per day is increased, I don't see this incentivizing quality private lands to be enrolled. Most of the quality private lands are the ones where hunting is limited in some way, and the properties getting the max payment are the ones getting overran with hunters. This is where Block Management is flawed in my opinion.

The BMA's that try to maintain some sort of quality aren't going to benefit from doubling the cap.

 

[sacountry]

Hopefully this will incentivize more quality private lands to be enrolled. Ideally there would be more enrollment than available funds to allow Block coordinators to prioritize those properties with high quality habitat and good game numbers.

In my opinion some current Type 1 properties are overgrazed and lack both security cover and feed to support much wildlife. They are still enrolled and receive compensation even though “opportunity” on their properties pretty much consists of being able to go for a walk.

I usually consult the Magic 8 Ball prior to signing into a questionable Type 1 BMA. Want to be a good steward of the states resources, you know.

 

[Nameless Range]

Unless the $13 per day is increased, I don't see this incentivizing quality private lands to be enrolled. Most of the quality private lands are the ones where hunting is limited in some way, and the properties getting the max payment are the ones getting overran with hunters. This is where Block Management is flawed in my opinion.

The BMA's that try to maintain some sort of quality aren't going to benefit from doubling the cap.

I know not all BMAs are created equal, and I do agree the daily payment should be increased as well and I’d like to see quality incentivized some how, but I have genuinely found multiple instances of overrun Type 1 BMAs still being better than overrun public lands adjacent or near by. For both elk and deer, and sometimes for often-overlooked upland game.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I would agree with @bigsky2, this will not benefit the BM type-II landowners that truly appreciate the wildlife and believe in our hunting heritage. I have to tip my hat to the type-II landowners that try to provide for both the wildlife and the whole hunting experience. Not easy to field phone calls and the knocks on their doors for half of the year. Plus, the majority of the public doesn't understand that most type-II landowners have family and friends that will always take priority when scheduling hunting days on their lands.

My experience is that the type-I BMAs are lands that offer marginal hunting opportunities but provides hunters a place to get their boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong, tags are filled each year on type-I BMAs but these lands are probably the most hunted throughout the state. So, in my opinion, doubling the payment for the max hunter day type-I BMAs is not a good idea. These funds could be spent in other ways to improve both Montana's wildlife and it's hunter's experiences.

 

[Mtn-time]

New here, and opposed to a 100 percent increase without an improvement plan to go along with funds to the program. At this point maybe something along the lines of a 10-20% increase as being more palatable. I see what I believe to be a growing amount of Type II properties being filled up for friends and family and Type I's that are truly less desirable. This does not fall within the spirit of the program. As a discusion point how about directing funds to a trust or a long term tool to purchase more access to public lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's important to not conflate the rules and regulations around Block Management to this bill.

This bill simply increases the cap on what a cooperator can make. It does not do anything to the program. That's a separate area that will come later with rule making. It's critical that folks remain engaged throughout the process and especially when new rules are promulgated relative to this bill.

Over the last year whenever we talk with landowners it is clear that leasing makes financial sense, and block management often times does not. This bill is an effort to at least be competitive with the other options landowners have out there relative to access for hunting.

I think we'd all like to see some improvements to Block, but starting with the cap and working from there makes sense.

 

[Elktrack]

It’d be interesting to know how many landowners currently reach the max 25K? If it takes 1900 people to max out I doubt that this will impact the majority of landowners currently enrolled? I don’t know???
But I don’t think I’d be incentivized to enroll unless the per user amount was higher. Trying to convince them that they’ll make more money by allowing thousands of people isn’t too motivating.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

I know not all BMAs are created equal, and I do agree the daily payment should be increased as well and I’d like to see quality incentivized some how, but I have genuinely found multiple instances of overrun Type 1 BMAs still being better than overrun public lands adjacent or near by. For both elk and deer, and sometimes for often-overlooked upland game.

Agreed

 

[TimberBuck]

It’d be interesting to know how many landowners currently reach the max 25K? If it takes 1900 people to max out I doubt that this will impact the majority of landowners currently enrolled? I don’t know???
But I don’t think I’d be incentivized to enroll unless the per user amount was higher. Trying to convince them that they’ll make more money by allowing thousands of people isn’t too motivating.

The article says only 20 or so landowners currently reach the max $25k. "More than 20 landowners now hit the cap, with some far exceeding it."

But it seems this is a good bill regardless, and agree it seems the greater benefit of the bill would be an increase in the per user amount.

 

[Slim P]

1,900 hunter-days divided by 11 weeks = 25 hunters every day of the season. That's a lotta people.

I really like the BMA idea and want to see it succeed and grow, I'm just not close enough to it to have any idea what that would take. Although I do think a better reservation system for the type IIs would be nice for everyone.

 

[Eric Albus]

It's important to not conflate the rules and regulations around Block Management to this bill.

This bill simply increases the cap on what a cooperator can make. It does not do anything to the program. That's a separate area that will come later with rule making. It's critical that folks remain engaged throughout the process and especially when new rules are promulgated relative to this bill.

Over the last year whenever we talk with landowners it is clear that leasing makes financial sense, and block management often times does not. This bill is an effort to at least be competitive with the other options landowners have out there relative to access for hunting.

I think we'd all like to see some improvements to Block, but starting with the cap and working from there makes sense.

We really need a solid definition of what qualifies a ranch to reach the new $50k cap. I don’t think it should be numbers of boots on the ground, it should be an incentive ranches to provide quality hunting, where signee’s are having a quality hunt, more often than not a successful quality hunt.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We really need a solid definition of what qualifies a ranch to reach the new $50k cap. I don’t think it should be numbers of boots on the ground, it should be an incentive ranches to provide quality hunting, where signee’s are having a quality hunt, more often than not a successful quality hunt.

I think we want to keep Type I & type II as they are, but increasing the payment on hunters days for type I, while increasing the payment on hunter days based on wildlife management goals for type II. The program needs to stay flexible so that landowners and the agency have the tools they need to map out what they want the access during the regular season, etc, to look like. I am concerned that if we get too prescriptive, some landowners will pull out of the program.

The community block management concept that we've worked up would be a different approach that would pay landowners the top level while having a hunt technician assigned to the conglomerate block management area so that hunters are distributed for harvest goals as well as improved quality of the hunt.

We should talk this through more, Eric. There are some properties that this could work well on.