Fly In Hunt Access on Landlocked Public

[Swamp Hunter]

Long time reader, short time poster here. I see more discussion on fly in access on HuntTalk than any other forum that I'm apart of so I felt this might get more meaningful insight here than elsewhere. I've never done a fly in hunt, but the idea intrigues me. My questions are primarily around access regulations and if any HuntTalkers know why they are in place, specifically, Montana. Why is it that you can't fly into national forest and state-owned lands but can on BLM? Is there some specific reasoning behind this? Also, I see you have to land within 100' of an established 2 track. I assume that is to prevent damage to native habitat and understand that completely but that limits which tracts you can access. Many don't have 2 track roads. But......what if you didn't "land" per se. Could you drop your gear via rope then fast rope down or drop a rope ladder so long as it doesn't touch the ground? Sounds like a good way to get hurt, I know, but I'm genuinely curious if that would be legal. This is probably a question for the DNR and if I ever decide to pursue this, I will contact them, but I was just curious if anyone had any insight.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This is probably a question for the DNR and if I ever decide to pursue this, I will contact them, but I was just curious if anyone had any insight.

Montana Dept of Natural Resources (DNR) only has oversight regarding State Trust and other state owned lands.
Montana Fish and Wildlife has oversight regarding wildlife management areas, access sites, and other wildlife, hunting, and fishing lands.
USFS has oversight regarding national forest lands as clearly depicted on most maps.
BLM has oversight regarding other federal lands also clearly shown on most maps.

Rules, regulations, and policies concerning aviation and hunting access on these various jurisdictions are varied and usually quite specific, as well as being readily researched.
"Specific reasoning behind this" is a whole different can of worms and a myriad of questions for you to research, most involving legislation, agency policy setting, and a wide range of historical processes.

There is no one specific answer to the question(s) you are posing. But, as pointed above, the various rules and policies can be readily learned through basic research.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana adds new restrictions for flying to access landlocked public land // GOHUNT. The Hunting Company

Changes made to improve hunting experiences

www.gohunt.com

Kinda funny - no one in the article seems to care about helicopter "patrols" designed to harass wildlife - only when someone uses the helicopter to get access to public land.

Its pretty simple how this stuff happens. Well connected person buys lobbyist. Lobbyist convinces idiots. Idiots screw public. Public becomes aware after the fact - public sends same idiots to helena.

If youre feeling frisky do it, imo. The law doesnt seem say anything about not landing.

HT is probably the worst place in the world for legal advice. And for the record i wouldnt even take my own legal advice . You might call the county prosecutor, or sheriff, and ask to get a feel for the risk youre taking.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana Dept of Natural Resources only has oversight regarding State Trust and other state owned lands.
Montana Fish and Wildlife has oversight regarding wildlife management areas, access sites, and other wildlife, hunting, and fishing lands.
USFS has oversight regarding national forest lands as clearly depicted on most maps.
BLM has oversight regarding other federal lands also clearly shown on most maps.

Rules, regulations, and policies concerning aviation and hunting access on these various jurisdictions are varied and usually quite specific, as well as being readily researched.
"Specific reasoning behind this" is a whole different can of worms and a myriad of questions for you to research, most involving legislation, agency policy setting, and a wide range of historical processes.

There is no one specific answer to the question(s) you are posing. But, as pointed above, the various rules and policies can be readily learned through basic research.

Bill Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on legislative bills in Montana with the Montana Legislature Bill Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor bill progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

bills.legmt.gov

Na - our efficient state government (allgedly small gov republicans?) spent time codifying it. Wonder who benefitted? hmmm

 

[brownbear932008]

Well to be honest the reasons don't really matter considering I highly doubt any transporter in their right mind would even for a second consider taking anyone in to attempt a special operations entry into public lands for a hunt. If you find said transporter p!ease document that insertion by video. It would most definitely begin a new trend with the YT crowd.

 

[Perlodid]

Well to be honest the reasons don't really matter considering I highly doubt any transporter in their right mind would even for a second consider taking anyone in to attempt a special operations entry into public lands for a hunt. If you find said transporter p!ease document that insertion by video. It would most definitely begin a new trend with the YT crowd.

 

[sclancy27]

MT should adopt the same rules as AK regarding helicopters and hunting. Personally, I think MT should ban scouting via any aircraft, manned or unmanned. It gets old watching planes and choppers grid the landscape during rifle season.

 

[Forkyfinder]

MT should adopt the same rules as AK regarding helicopters and hunting. Personally, I think MT should ban scouting via any aircraft, manned or unmanned. It gets old watching planes and choppers grid the landscape during rifle season.

Good luck with that.

Galt hires some good/cunning/sneaky lobbyists.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Happened again to us this year along a ranch that’s on that stupid airbnb website for hunting…

 

[SFC B]

MT should adopt the same rules as AK regarding helicopters and hunting. Personally, I think MT should ban scouting via any aircraft, manned or unmanned. It gets old watching planes and choppers grid the landscape during rifle season.

Not just a MT thing for sure. The public I hunt most of the time here in CO has large ranches on 3 sides. Funny how if you are up there in the summer when the cattle are up on public you NEVER see small private planes......as soon as the first bit of hunting season starts that HAVE to use them to "check their cattle" Mysteriously their ranch hands on horseback and in vehicles seem to spend a LARGE amount of time on the perimeter of the ranches that border public, especially once the elk have gotten onto the ranch.

 

[CMF]

Well to be honest the reasons don't really matter considering I highly doubt any transporter in their right mind would even for a second consider taking anyone in to attempt a special operations entry into public lands for a hunt. If you find said transporter p!ease document that insertion by video. It would most definitely begin a new trend with the YT crowd...

There's already been several who do it, they are on the yt..

 

[Rack Daniels]

Shiiit randy and his son did it too and killed two bulls in one trip with archery tackle….

 

[Tmbrgost]

Opening of Antelope we counted 10 different planes taking off and gridding large ranches with no public hunting allowed.

It felt like Bozeman with all of the helicopters taking their rich clients to the airport from Big Sky or flying them to Big Timber for a round of golf every morning!

 

[Deez Nutz]

No transporter would drop you off in the manner you are describing. Only way to actually hover and get dropped off is if you have a buddy that owns a helicopter that is a good pilot that you trust with your life and he drops you.

Also I’m curious where you get your “within 100 feet” of a blm road reference? According to the blm offices that I’ve talked to you have to land on an “established 2 track” so you’re not making new tracks.

 

[Straight Arrow]

No transporter would drop you off in the manner you are describing. Only way to actually hover and get dropped off is if you have a buddy that owns a helicopter that is a good pilot that you trust with your life and he drops you.

Also I’m curious where you get your “within 100 feet” of a blm road reference? According to the blm offices that I’ve talked to you have to land on an “established 2 track” so you’re not making new tracks.

This new member Swamp Hunter seems misinformed and even irrational in posing the questions. No disrespect meant, Swamp Hunter, but methinks you're speaking out of the rectum.

Welcome to HuntTalk.

 

[Swamp Hunter]

This new member Swamp Hunter seems misinformed and even irrational in posing the questions. No disrespect meant, Swamp Hunter, but methinks you're speaking out of the rectum.

Welcome to HuntTalk.

You guys are probably correct and I am relying on some bad information or just didn't understand it. Also, to clarify, I don't have any helicopter pilot friends, have never fast roped from a helicopter, and probably never will. If it were legal, I'm sure someone will though. People go to extremes these days. I was just generally curious if it would be a legal way to access a parcel that doesn't have legal means to land on. The 100' thing came from an article on GoHunt. I haven't looked up SB 106 so can't comment on the accuracy of the statement in the article.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, you can still fly in to public land to hunt so long as you follow the BLM laws for landing, and the law for spotting/hunting game ahead 24 hours before you hunt. The USFS isn't as open with landings for a variety of reasons, and they prefer the backcountry airstrip approach. It means you'll have a day to set up camp and get situated before you can release an arrow or pull a trigger.

Here is the language of 106 as it was signed by the Governor: https://bills.legmt.gov/#/laws/bill/2/LC0309?open_tab=bill

A couple of key things from my reading (Didn't work the bill, just followed along):

The bill broadens the definitions of aircraft to include all manned and unmanned (drones). I think this is a reasonable accommodation based on advancements in drone technology and how ranches are using them today (all use has to be permitted with the understanding that no permit shall be issued for the timeframe of the general or regular hunting seasons). I think that also helps when you get to section 2 of the bill and see that now spotting of game is illegal from aircraft, which drones are now defined as.

Section 2, sub 2 redefines a lot of things, but it adds a lot as well to deal with the issues of "aiding hunters" (drones & helos circling, etc), and it gets to the heart of what @sclancy27 was talking about

Senate Bill 106 was brought at the request of the Devil's Kitchen Working Group. HB 202 was brought at the request of the MT Wild Sheep Foundation. Both were good faith efforts to get something fixed that was causing significant problems. HB 202 sailed through the House but ran in to a lot of resistance in the senate from pilots, hunters and ranchers who were concerned about the language and how it results in them potentially being illegal because they were working cows, and calling locations to the ground for folks to round them up. One of the folks that was deeply involved in drafting amendments is a former deputy chief game warden, and one of the finest conservationists the state has seen (He helped create the Block Management and Habitat MT, as well as many, many other things).

The groups got together and worked out their issues and part of that included some issues that ranchers had brought. It was enough of an issue that the wildlife groups worked on the amendments with the folks opposed. Ultimately, both bills passed and 202 was vetoed. The override failed. Overall, it's not a bad bill and was certainly a step in the right direction relative to dealing with the growth of use of drones and flying overall.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Seemingly - theres a notable exception that makes this all unapplicable in practice. As long as someone was "looking for cows" or other agriculture operations they can fly their unpermitted flight during hunting season with no issue.

Edit: As i said earlier - hire a good lobbyist. Then sportsman will come out and cheer as we lose access opportunities (better to fly in and use than nothing in my mind) and a certain class of landowner will continue to enjoy hazing elk with his helicopter during hunting season. I meant cattle. Well - he thinks elk elk are his cattle. Lets just go with cows.

 

[BuzzH]

No transporter would drop you off in the manner you are describing. Only way to actually hover and get dropped off is if you have a buddy that owns a helicopter that is a good pilot that you trust with your life and he drops you.

Also I’m curious where you get your “within 100 feet” of a blm road reference? According to the blm offices that I’ve talked to you have to land on an “established 2 track” so you’re not making new tracks.

Not what I've been told directly in a face to face meeting with the BLM. I was told you can land anywhere there isn't resource damage as long as you show them where you want to land and they can verify that no damage will occur. I was looking at an elk area and an open ridge that was compatible for landing a fixed wing aircraft when I inquired. I was also told helicopter would be allowable about anywhere they can safely land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not what I've been told directly in a face to face meeting with the BLM. I was told you can land anywhere there isn't resource damage as long as you show them where you want to land and they can verify that no damage will occur. I was looking at an elk area and an open ridge that was compatible for landing a fixed wing aircraft when I inquired. I was also told helicopter would be allowable about anywhere they can safely land.

Yep. The bill says that any landings have to comport with the existing travel plan in an RMP, etc.