Senator John Brenden and Block Management

[Nemont]

The FWP just muddies the waters with their explanation as it ties the payment to access for the public to private lands.

A Montana Partnership

A cooperative program between private landowners and FWP, Block Management helps landowners manage hunting activities and provides the public with free hunting access to private land, and sometimes to adjacent or isolated public lands. Block Management addresses fall hunting only-spring bear and turkey hunting access are typically not included in the program.

Block Management Basics (155 KB)

There is no charge to hunt on block management lands (referred to as Block Management Areas or BMAs). Program funding comes from the sale of various licenses, including the resident and nonresident hunting access enhancement fee, nonresident upland gamebird licenses, nonresident combination deer/elk licenses, and chances sold in the Supertag license lottery.

Landowner participation in block management is voluntary. Contracts are negotiated annually in the spring and summer. After enrollment is complete, each FWP administrative region publishes a Hunter Access Guide, which lists the block management opportunities available to you for the current season. These regional guides are made available August 15, annually.

Formally started in 1985 and expanded significantly in 1996, Block Management has provided free public hunting experiences across the state since its inception. Positive working relationships have been formed between landowners, hunters, and resource managers. The future looks promising, but is dependent on you. By following the rules for the BMA, as well as demonstrating courteous, legal and ethical behavior, sportsmen and women can do their part to assure future access to private lands in Montana.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/blockman/

 

[Ben Lamb]

Understood, but they need to not just look at the BM side of things. When you look at the easement side, it already accounts for impacts by the manner in which the purchase value is derived.

On the topic of impacts versus access, I think it is time to get over the semantics of that. We can call it what we want and I remember when some protested strongly about the use of any context to the word "access."

Well, we promote it as a public access program. Every hunter talks about it as an access program. Landowners look at it as an access program.

And, in other states, they are proud to call it an access program and in doing so, they are able to direct dollars that provide the greatest access to the best properties, at the least cost. In Idaho, to even get considered for Access Yes, you almost always have to be adjacent to other public lands that can be accessed for the fee that you will get paid.

That seems like a good way to leverage dollars. Yet, I am sure if that change occurs, there will be some who still fight against anything that has the context of "access" and want to keep it as "impacts."

There are no "impacts" if there is no "access." We all agree on that. As such, it leads me to the conclusion that the impact is really from the access, so let's call it an access program, understanding that access is what derives the value, and then give additional priority to those properties that can provide access to some of the 900,000 acres of landlocked public lands.

In reading Director Hagner's reply to the Legislative Audit Committee, he stated the program was about impacts, not access. That is a pretty hollow argument in the discussion of today. In couching it that way, it almost came across as denying the issue or deflecting the problem.

I'm not sure that it is a hollow argument. There will be plenty of folks at the legislature pushing this since BM was sold to most sportsmen as a means to pay for impacts incurred by allowing access. It goes back to the disdain MT hunters have for paying for access, be it gov't sponsored, leases, hunt clubs, etc. I would not dismiss that quickly.

Here's an op-ed by Rep. Sue Malek:

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/...cle_54eb7b90-836e-11e3-94ac-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[bigskyblueman]

This is a ruse Brendan is using to discredit and defund the program, prior to abolishing it outright, somewhere down the road.

 

[theat]

This is a ruse Brendan is using to discredit and defund the program, prior to abolishing it outright, somewhere down the road.

Bingo!

 

[Eric Albus]

This is not a "ruse" by Brenden....typical liberal rhetoric. Brenden would like to see FWP held accountable for their mis-use and abuse of funds. The only thing is, there ain't nobody to hold FWP accountable, they do not answer to anyone...FWP is autononmous.
Were he "planning on defunding the program" would he be thinking of placing a provision to allow the 2nd owner of the property w/ a CE on it to enroll in BM?

 

[RobG]

This is not a "ruse" by Brenden....typical liberal rhetoric. Brenden would like to see FWP held accountable for their mis-use and abuse of funds. The only thing is, there ain't nobody to hold FWP accountable, they do not answer to anyone...FWP is autononmous.
Were he "planning on defunding the program" would he be thinking of placing a provision to allow the 2nd owner of the property w/ a CE on it to enroll in BM?

LOL, "typical liberal rhetoric" == assuming Brenden hasn't changed his stripes. If you can't see that certain folks take advantage of any opportunity to weaken FWP and their programs your hand is deep in the sand.

 

[Nemont]

So what incentive does Sen. Brenden have to sit at a table and deal with you guys? If you all believe and voice the opinion that he is out to screw you from the get go why would he care to sit down you? He has plenty of people to give him input other then hunters.

Nemont

 

[ingomar]

Randy nailed the financial discussion on double dipping. I own a commercial building that I rent out to a drift boat manufacturer and it would be like me asking my tenant for more money because his business is having a negative impact on my building when I knew what he was going to be doing to begin with. I factored in the expenses of his impacts in the rent I charged him.

Calling it "paying for impacts" not access is semantics. Perhaps there is some statute or ARM rule that prohibits FWP from paying for access but the reality is, Block Management is an access program.

I have done many battles with Brenden over the past two legislative sessions and rarely/ever have they been friendly. If he brings forth this bill, it needs to be evaluated not by who the author is, but instead on the merits of the bill itself. This should be true, but rarely is, of all bills brought forth.

If we are to accomplish anything positive in the future, we must stop with the "us vs them" mentality and start finding areas where we can work together. It will take baby steps and time to start rebuilding relationships. Some people will be a lost cause but there are those that are sick of the fighting/name calling that cherish our wildlife resources and who could be allies.

 

[tjones]

So what incentive does Sen. Brenden have to sit at a table and deal with you guys? If you all believe and voice the opinion that he is out to screw you from the get go why would he care to sit down you? He has plenty of people to give him input other then hunters.

Nemont

So what incentives do hunters have to sit at a table and deal with Brenden? He has shown his true colors towards hunters and FWP for a long, long time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Calling it "paying for impacts" not access is semantics. Perhaps there is some statute or ARM rule that prohibits FWP from paying for access but the reality is, Block Management is an access program.

You will run in to opposition from a great number of people who helped institute Block and did so based on the philosophy that BM is about addressing impacts. Once again, it is imperative to remember that just because some folks think that BM is an access program, that's not how it was sold to MT hunters in the past, nor was it part of the negotiations when establishing the program.

I have done many battles with Brenden over the past two legislative sessions and rarely/ever have they been friendly. If he brings forth this bill, it needs to be evaluated not by who the author is, but instead on the merits of the bill itself. This should be true, but rarely is, of all bills brought forth.

If we are to accomplish anything positive in the future, we must stop with the "us vs them" mentality and start finding areas where we can work together. It will take baby steps and time to start rebuilding relationships. Some people will be a lost cause but there are those that are sick of the fighting/name calling that cherish our wildlife resources and who could be allies.

120% percent with you there Vito. Very well said.

 

[Nemont]

So what incentives do hunters have to sit at a table and deal with Brenden? He has shown his true colors towards hunters and FWP for a long, long time.

So you don't really believe in the process at all, just want to keep score. Fine if that is the games you guys want to play. Sounds like the 2015 session will be as shitty as the previous ones.

I didn't say to not hold onto you core values, or expect the Brenden to not hold onto his. If you don't want to be at the table that is your choice.

Nemont

 

[tjones]

So you don't really believe in the process at all, just want to keep score. Fine if that is the games you guys want to play. Sounds like the 2015 session will be as shitty as the previous ones.

I didn't say to not hold onto you core values, or expect the Brenden to not hold onto his. If you don't want to be at the table that is your choice.

Nemont

Easy big fella, you questioned incentives first, remember?

 

[Nemont]

Easy big fella, you questioned incentives first, remember?

Of the two sides, which one is duly elected and sits in a position to write the actual bill?

I didn't say you have to love guy but if the hunters begin the discussion with, "Sen. Brenden you suck", I highly doubt you are going to get much in the way of what you want.

If hunters want input on important bills then playing good offense is a lot easier then trying to play defense on everything. There have been way to many sessions like that, if your memory is long and you want just count coup over what happened in the past then fine.

May go a long ways to sit down with the Senator and address concerns about what should be included in such a bill. If he shits on you then scream to mountain tops about what kind of a guy you believe him to be, but do it after attempting to have a discussion. I don't think anybody is surprised when Sen. Brenden goes after the FWP.

So again what incentive does Sen. Brenden have to work with hunters? If you can't think of answer to that question then that says plenty about the way the session will be.

Nemont

 

[tjones]

You have had your head buried in Eastern Montana gumbo if you think none of your suggestions have ever been tried.

So again what incentives do hunters have to work with Brenden? If you can't think of answer to that question then that says plenty about the way the session will be

 

[Nemont]

You have had your head buried in Eastern Montana gumbo if you think none of your suggestions have ever been tried.

So again what incentives do hunters have to work with Brenden? If you can't think of answer to that question then that says plenty about the way the session will be

You are right, I never leave the gumbo of Eastern Montana.

I can think of many reasons to reach out to both sides. One is that you can leverage the message if the radicals try to come with some whacked out idea to put a hurt on average Joe hunters. You can say we tried working with these people, now it is time to kick ass and take names.

The fact that he is in the position he is in should be reason enough to attempt to work with him, at least on the funding of the BM program and how it is handled in regards to CE's paid for with our money.

You have your head stuck in some alpine canyon at a very high altitude.

Nemont

 

[shoots-straight]

I didn't say you have to love guy but if the hunters begin the discussion with, "Sen. Brenden you suck", I highly doubt you are going to get much in the way of what you want.

OK, can we start the conversation with " Senator Brenden, Sir, up until now everything you've done regarding wildlife and sportsman issues has sucked, soooooo here's a fig leaf and let bygones be bygones, lets talk?"

Suggestions?

 

[Nemont]

How about, "we want to help with getting this bill right regarding CE's and the BM enrollees". "Let's see if we can find common ground" If not at least we tried.

Doesn't mean you can battle tooth and nail on other issues. Why bring up the past battles or future battles instead of working on this bill?

Maybe there is too much scar tissue, or feelings have been hurt and there are no adults in the room who can work together.

Nemont

 

[tjones]

Maybe there is too much scar tissue, or feelings have been hurt and there are no adults in the room who can work together.

Nemont

Maybe you are the sportsmens huckleberry? You up for volunterring?

 

[Jwill]

Befuddles me as to why anyone would sell the soul of the property w/ an easement of "in perpetuity". An easement in most cases de-values property significantly.

I would argue that they are preserving the soul of it! That's kind of the whole point of CEs. A block of forever wild land surely has more soul than a potential stripmall or ranchettes... My opinion anyhow.

 

[RobG]

Nemont,
Nobody is going to open a conversation with "Sen. Brenden, you suck." That said, only a fool would enter negotiation with him assuming they shared the same agenda. That was the point of my comments which got you all excited in the first place.

For what it is worth, I don't think he "sucks." He just has a different view on the roles of MFWP. On this topic he supposedly wants to "hold FWP accountable." On the other hand, I want to (if needed) clarify the rules so they are fair. That is not a subtle difference in our motives even though it sounds like one.

There is no reason why this bill would have to be contentious - Brenden knows very well what would be acceptable to everyone and if he is sincere, and the problem is real, he will put together a good bill and nobody will shoot it down simply because it has his name on it.