What is Hank Worsech beef with Block Management?

[HighCountryCommando]

Can anyone provide context and insight into why Worsech makes these comments about the block management program? As a non-resident I’m at loss to understand why anyone would disparage block management.

From the article:

When Sen. Pat Flowers, D-Bozeman, asked what created the wedge between outfitters, landowners and sportsmen, Worsech laid the blame at the feet of hunters. He said the Block Management Program has contributed to the problem for 25 years because hunters don’t learn to ask landowners for permission to hunt.

“There’s a lack of respect from hunters for landowners,” Worsech said. “We have a changing mentality with hunters. You can see it on public lands – they shouldn’t bother and leave stuff alone. And a lot of times, they don’t know the difference between public land and a landowner’s property.”

FWP director nominee predicts agency changes during hearing

The Senate Fish and Game committee heard testimony on Hank Worsech’s nomination and asked the nominee about his intentions as director of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Worsech indicated he’d be making some changes in the agency.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Trial153]

Because he is representing in an administration that obviously places landowners at the top of the hierarchy, and rhetoric like that paves the way for their other landowner primary policies. Coupled with the fact that states voters all but gave carte blanche power to republicans and they now have pay up their donors.

 

[antlerradar]

I would never say that hunters are solely responsible for driving the wedge, landowner have taken there turn with the hammer. I will say the I get disrespected by at least one hunter just about every year. One of the reasons I get on HT is to interact with respectable hunters or I could see myself getting a very jaded view of sportsman.

 

[406LIFE]

The reality is that poor hunter behavior is an increasing issue. The Galt ranch last fall is an example of it. With everyone having cameras and a blog/newsletter/podcast/other news source for nearly everything it all travels quickly.

A generation ago a handshake is all it often took to gain access. Many variables have changed that, but there are still a great many landowners who have that same attitude. I knock on a great many doors, and if you are willing to listen, understand and partner with one, you can usually gain access. I have some really great stories about these types of people.

The wedge between sportsmen and landowners continues to grow. There needs to be a willingness from both sides to work together on issues. I think what we are seeing now in the legislature is that pendulum of power swinging. HB505 as an example, it's not favored by sportsmen (to put it lightly) but I also don't hear much be asked as to WHY that bill was put forth.
This gap will only widen until there is less posturing and more cooperation, from all sides.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The reality is that poor hunter behavior is an increasing issue. The Galt ranch last fall is an example of it. With everyone having cameras and a blog/newsletter/podcast/other news source for nearly everything it all travels quickly.

A generation ago a handshake is all it often took to gain access. Many variables have changed that, but there are still a great many landowners who have that same attitude. I knock on a great many doors, and if you are willing to listen, understand and partner with one, you can usually gain access. I have some really great stories about these types of people.

The wedge between sportsmen and landowners continues to grow. There needs to be a willingness from both sides to work together on issues. I think what we are seeing now in the legislature is that pendulum of power swinging. HB505 as an example, it's not favored by sportsmen (to put it lightly) but I also don't hear much be asked as to WHY that bill was put forth.
This gap will only widen until there is less posturing and more cooperation, from all sides.

Lots of truth in there. This is why Hunters need to police their own, and call in bad actions, etc.
Hank isn't the most polished speaker, as folks have seen. But there is some truth in what he said. Hunter behavior has gotten worse.

If we're honest about bridging these divides, we need the folks who are willing to sit down & be adults to get together and leave the bomb-throwers out of the room. I don't know that it will happen over the next 4 years, given how the first 3 months have gone.

 

[tjones]

HB505 as an example, it's not favored by sportsmen (to put it lightly) but I also don't hear much be asked as to WHY that bill was put forth.

Everyone knows the why.

 

[Straight Arrow]

next 4 fours,

'Hope you're not predicting sixteen more years!

 

[Gerald Martin]

There’s people with good character and people with bad character. How they hunt, how they manage their land, how they interact with others are just manifestations of their character.
I can guarantee you a slob on private property is a slob on public property as well.

Part of relationship breakdown is caused by extreme individualism. People are so selfish they don’t consider or care what effects their actions have on others.

 

[Sytes]

The wedge between sportsmen and landowners continues to grow. There needs to be a willingness from both sides to work together on issues. I think what we are seeing now in the legislature is that pendulum of power swinging.

I believe this is the heart of the swing... We've been a blue wave governor base for a good while. The same Montana voters switched gears.
I know a few landowners within BM that have dropped from or threatened to drop due to piss poor activity by hunters who do not respect private land owner's property.
Many years ago a good gent who had his land enrolled found his duck blind sacked, decoys stolen, etc. The next year when I approached his BM entry point he had a sign posted - if his decoys were not returned, he was halting his BM status. A good "Fatherly" written, mostly polite ass whoopin! Several of us pooled money together and gave it to him as a means to share our gratitude for his BM status and our disappointment with a couple "entitled" sensed arseholes. Basically it was a plea to not chop the tree down over a few bad apples.

He called me with appreciation for our gesture and shared this was his first time publicly addressing the crap done. There had been several issues that he turned the other cheek however this event was the point where his desire to keep it open reached it's turning point. Neighboring properties have turned leased outfitters. He shared outfitters have made offers that VASTLY exceed BM. and actions such as this... Make it a tough decision to keep it open.
Point of the story. He kept it open two more years... now it's outfitter leased. I find it hard to say though I don't blame him.

Hence, my one event that presents the logical collaboration between outfitters and landowners. Hard to blame landowners... and can't blame outfitters.

I'm a strong advocate for public land, block management, etc. I've lost two favored landowner hunt / access to public land locations due to "entitled" self centered type public land hunters. Block Management should be restructured. Specific BM district stamp one must buy for access. Raise BM funding and hold accountable specific hunter name / address for those requesting to use private landowner BM land. Hopefully the additional funding assist with organization of something more responsible for use of these lands. And for the turd bags here - this is not a complete revamp suggestion. The basis starts with the almighty $$$ to structure a change in BM use.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Like Charles, my best whitetail spot was taken out of Block because of the self-entitlement of hunters (Type 2 BMA had hunters show up Christmas Morning demanding access, shitty behavior by deer hunters, etc). We would routinely take 4-5 does a year off that place, and while we were looking out for big bucks, we'd be there to help our friends who let us hunt jus as much as being there for antlers or roosters.

That hurt.

There are some changes to Block that would be super beneficial, chiefly the payment for allowing quality access versus quantity. The current formula favors high hunter day numbers ,rather than based on harvest or quality of experience. Landowners have to through the gates open & allow maximum hunter days to get $15K to help pay for impacts. It should be twice that, and we should recognize that we're paying for the privilege of accessing private land. MT would also be smart to allow "multiple use" of Block as well, in terms of allowing some leased activity (waterfowl) while signing up for others (deer hunting). That could still easily be managed for the public's benefit, but also recognize that landowners aren't all going to want the same agreement terms if it doesn't work for their operation.

 

[brocksw]

Because he is representing in an administration that obviously places landowners at the top of the hierarchy, and rhetoric like that paves the way for their other landowner primary policies. Coupled with the fact that states voters all but gave carte blanche power to republicans and they now have pay up their donors.

I really wonder if this has less to do with the Governor than we think and more to do with his personal beliefs lining up with the Governors agenda. He is literally making enemies with sportsman in MT, he has to see that. Would he have really taken the job if he was so opposed to this agenda? I mean, I would assume him and GG had a long sit down before he was appointed to ensure they were on the same page.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I have not seen a noticable increase in abuse on BMA properties. This year seemed worse than usual. I reported one group and ass chewed two others. Biggest issues seem to be driving off road (grrrr!) and not signing in. ALL problems I have witnessed over the years have been driving LOCAL LICENSE PLATES.

I would like to see more emphasis on encouraging/educating hunters to follow rules and report violators. In particular, there should be something printed in big bold letters on the front of BMA maps at the box instructing hunters to look at the back for regs for that particular piece of property. Many hunters I have talked to don't even know there's stuff on the back. It also might be a good idea to put landowner phone # on the map for those who don't have OnX. The landowner might act more swiftly in removing the problem. It is my understanding they can refuse access to anyone who abuses the property.

I am beginning to think Hank is an idiot. For every jerk there are a hundred BMA sign ins who are grateful good people. We can be and should be the landowner's eyes and ears when hunting his property. If I see a fence down, I'll tell the rancher. If I find a sheep caught in the fence, I'll run to the ranch house for help. Horses or cattle on the highway, I'll do my best to find the owner. Nothing bugs me more than seeing a bunch of black cows on Hwy 2 and everyone just sailing on by. You want your wife to wear one of those bloody bombs after it gets dark? Doesn't have to be BMA either. Got no use for Giaforte but I would drive in and tell him if I saw someone abusing his property ... would give me an excuse to flip him off in person.

 

[sacountry]

I have not seen a noticable increase in abuse on BMA properties. This year seemed worse than usual. I reported one group and ass chewed two others. Biggest issues seem to be driving off road (grrrr!) and not signing in. ALL problems I have witnessed over the years have been driving LOCAL LICENSE PLATES.

I would like to see more emphasis on encouraging/educating hunters to follow rules and report violators. In particular, there should be something printed in big bold letters on the front of BMA maps at the box instructing hunters to look at the back for regs for that particular piece of property. Many hunters I have talked to don't even know there's stuff on the back. It also might be a good idea to put landowner phone # on the map for those who don't have OnX. The landowner might act more swiftly in removing the problem. It is my understanding they can refuse access to anyone who abuses the property.

I am beginning to think Hank is an idiot. For every jerk there are a hundred BMA sign ins who are grateful good people. We can be and should be the landowner's eyes and ears when hunting his property. If I see a fence down, I'll tell the rancher. If I find a sheep caught in the fence, I'll run to the ranch house for help. Horses or cattle on the highway, I'll do my best to find the owner. Nothing bugs me more than seeing a bunch of black cows on Hwy 2 and everyone just sailing on by. You want your wife to wear one of those bloody bombs after it gets dark? Doesn't have to be BMA either. Got no use for Giaforte but I would drive in and tell him if I saw someone abusing his property ... would give me an excuse to flip him off in person.

I hate hearing about abuses. I do think Hank is right when he says that certain BMA signin procedures create a public land feel while others requiring landowner / hunter face to face interaction do not. But @Gerald Martin's point hits the mark harder and more accurately. We should be behaving the same on public as on private. Sadly, there's probably more bad eggs out there than we realize. Unfortunately, that spotlight gets shown through the BMA program because landowners have a more watchful eye than the overly thin FWP warden crew. Hank needs to be careful to not throw water on the BMA program when attempting to address hunter etiquette issues. The program works and with some tweaks could be grown to be more attractive to landowners.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

Thanks for all the replies.

Ok, I understand the distain for entitled hunters and that’s certainly a big part of what he addresses in the article.

I might be miss-reading the tea leaves here but it seemed to me he also has distain for block management on a policy level. It sounds like he’s also saying block management itself is driving a wedge. Is the wedge really just about bad apple hunters ruining landowner relationships or is there also something inherent in the block management program itself that he has a problem with?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks for all the replies.

Ok, I understand the distain for entitled hunters and that’s certainly a big part of what he addresses in the article.

I might be miss-reading the tea leaves here but it seemed to me he also has distain for block management on a policy level. It sounds like he’s also saying block management itself is driving a wedge. Is the wedge really just about bad apple hunters ruining landowner relationships or is there also something inherent in the block management program itself that he has a problem with?

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

 

[Oak]

I really wonder if this has less to do with the Governor than we think and more to do with his personal beliefs lining up with the Governors agenda. He is literally making enemies with sportsman in MT, he has to see that. Would he have really taken the job if he was so opposed to this agenda? I mean, I would assume him and GG had a long sit down before he was appointed to ensure they were on the same page.

Those climbing the career ladder often don't wait for the perfect opportunity. They take the opportunity given. I've seen plenty of good people become more measured and circumspect on the issues as this happens. Perhaps it should be called the career fence.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those climbing the career ladder often don't wait for the perfect opportunity. They take the opportunity given. I've seen plenty of good people become more measured and circumspect on the issues as this happens. Perhaps it should be called the career fence.

Hank had retired a year earlier and was apparently enjoying himself. As much as I disagree with him on policy and approach, I do think he's been true to his own belief system. When I talked to him after his appointment, I was left with the impression that this was as much an issue of duty to the state as it was anything else. Hank has never hidden his Republican roots, and I've had great conversations with him in the past on policy where we disagree, but remained friendly.

I don't know that it's necessarily nefarious, regardless of how antagonistic and tone deaf it is.

 

[Oak]

I should have signed my post "hammer swinger."