Listening to one of Matt Rinella's podcasts and listening to him proclaim about the BMA program and how we should fund raise and help out these land owners even more gave me the urge to put this out there for all the people who might be being mislead about the program. I am in no way against the Block Management Program and think that the premise of the program is great. It is not however "non paid" (Matt's words) hunting. These landowners are being paid for the access in an essentially un-vetted process where they call the shots and all the FWP cares about is the number of acres enrolled. The quality of most of these access places is poor at best. Great program that is being ruined the way it is ran. Sorry for the long rant but the main point is that BMA properties are anything but "non paid".
Montana Block Management Program
- Thread starter BuckRut
- Start date
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Though I think Block Management could be improved, my experience does not mirror yours. Some BMAs are better than others, and perhaps some shouldn't even be enrolled. The only places where I see that landowners really could wrong folks is the Type 2s where they control the rosters. I think all Type 2s should be administered by FWP in terms of their access.
I am good friends with numerous landowners who are enrolled - one of which has been enrolled since its inception. At that BMA they accept all comers, but all hunters must meet with the landowner to hunt first. She said in over 20 years of being in the program they have only had one problem with hunters.When I have approached the subject of some properties being too poor for enrollment, they do have an interesting take in that hunters are welcome to vote with their feet. If a BMA is terrible not many hunters should sign into it, and that should be a telling statistic.I can see problems with such a heuristic, but is is a simple one to implement.
Hopefully after this legislative session, an increase in the cap would help incentivize landowners to stay in the program. I have heard only a few BMAs will actually be up against the new cap, but one of them that will, which surrounds me, swallows up tons of hunting pressure that otherwise would be placed on adjacent public lands.
I have shot numerous elk, deer, and birds on BMAs. I could put dozens of pictures up. Sure it could be improved, but there are millions of acres out there to hunt that most wouldn't otherwise. As I have said before, sometimes, even an overhunted BMA provides a better experience than overhunted public lands right next door.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Although I do get out there to be successful hunting and bringing home the wild game or birds, I enjoy exploring, hiking, and hunting BM properties with the opportunity to access landscapes otherwise not open to me. After all it is hunting and not necessarily shooting.
I would agree with most of your points. The goal of the program is a good one and with that it is bound to develop some good access opportunities. My biggest gripe is that people like Matt and the FWP themselves treating these opportunities like they are free with no process in place to valuate the properties and not waste the money on the properties that aren't worth it. Your comment about people not signing in was one I shared for a while but anymore the FWP "advertises" these properties to hunters with the booklets and bright signs and every out of state hunter that has no clue the potential of the property stops and signs in just in case they see something. The program is good but the execution is poor and I think especially MT residents should demand that they make sure our money couldn't be better spent elsewhere.
Also in case anyone is curious one of these landowners has closed a FS road through his property and is still being paid by the BMA program. For a couple years he allowed you to drive this road though his property via the BMA then locked the gate at the back of his property not allowing you to continue on to the FS land. He has since made it walk in only and after horses were used to cross his property following the road to access the public land he banned stock from the BMA. The FWP knows this and still pays him.
You can send in the sign in ticket with your review of the BMA you hunted. That helps FWP review their success as BMA's.
The payment is not an access payment. It is a payment for the impacts caused by hunters. That's been the case since day 1.
If you have a specific issue like outlined in the post about the FS road, take it to your commissioner and have them look at the issue.
Block is one of the most successful access programs in the west. It always will have pluses and minuses. The new payment cap, along with some rule changes for hunter use day payment, will help increase enrollment, and I believe that there is interest in the agency to look at tightening up rules, etc to help improve the program.
I will believe they care when I see it. I used to agree with you but there is never any change. Regardless of how you classify what the payment is for in the end the landowners are paid for allowing access. I definitely don’t want to see the program gone. Just want some accountability on how OUR money is spent.
Some of the BMA's are a total scam, and some are good. The sign in as you go seems to get the least abuse on the landowners side. The ones where you have to call them up on the first day and reserve the days are abused. I know for a fact of a couple where the same guys are hunting it every year no matter what. It comes down to his buddies are hunting his ranch year after year and the rest of the tag holders pay for that private access.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Easy solution, have the FWP administer the permission slips.
Wyoming does that with HMA's and that kind of BS doesn't happen.
Stone_Ice_1
Well-known member
This is certainly true. I have called at the first second the time was available for a popular local BMA. I was very clear about the time and place I wanted to hunt and told it was open and I could hunt and my name was put down. About 30 minutes later I got a call back saying the time was filled and that I couldn't hunt it. Obviously somebody much more important had called to get access and I was booted out. My experience on Type 2 is the landowner does what they want but this way they can still get paid for it being BMA.
Had very good experiences with Type 1. A very successful program and I always make sure I sign in so the landowners get the money they are due.
This is the best solution to Type II out there.
I called and reported the landowner on one of the ones I know abusing it. The guy actually admitted that he let the same guys on every year and I was calling him within 15 minutes of the opening time to make the first calls to get on the list. It was like he didn't even know what he was doing was against the rules.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
BMAs type 1 - awesome type 2 - 50/50 crapshoot. Do the type 1 guys get more money? I sure hope so. Most of the type 2s I don’t even bother on
I’m addition to providing more transparency this would save landowners the grief of having to field phone calls and keep a schedule, as well as provide more accountability to the user when FWP knows with certainty who had access for the day.
Yes. This would require a rule change that would need to be managed by the commission.
There are several landowners who like the ability to physically see who is hunting their land. There are some type 1 & type II's that I've hunted where you either talk to the landowner so they can help set you up for success based on species, or who simply want to put eyes on your rig and you. Not every landowner wants to disconnect from the hunting public on their property. Keep that option, or allow for another way for the landowner and the hunter to connect face to face.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Was it the same guy I’m thinking about? If so, he knew EXACTLY what he was doing and even told me so. I put a very professional letter out to all the right people at FWP. The drafted up a reply and cc’d the landowner - citing his great hunter use days and high hunter reviews over the years. Guys milking the system.
I agree that full FWP control would be a sticky issue for some landowners. I've hunted one where they wanted to show me around for a few so I could see what was "above and beyond" any place I'd be shooting, and that was very reasonable for that property in particular. And another who just wanted to gauge if I was a complete moron or not (jury is out on that, but they still let me hunt there anyway).
Not sure how to find a happy medium between oversight of allowing equal access and a landowner's peace of mind as to who is walking around their property carrying firearms on any given autumn day.
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,997
If the gate was locked, how did the horsemen get their stock around it? If the road is on his property and unless it had historic public use for govt service (i.e. mail or school bus), it is his road. I suspect the USFS may have had a temporary arrangement to use the road (if they even used it). If the USFS built the road, then the farmer may be required to allow public use. There has been a lot of Montana courtroom activity on that issue in recent decades and most of the closures of historic use roadways (usually by transplanted phony "ranchers") have been revoked. I can understand the rancher closing the road if govt ceases to maintain it. I see many situations where BMA ranchers have closed roadways on their property and almost always it's because hunters won't stay off them when they're wet. I know one guy that puts up a sign saying stay off the access road when it's muddy. Yeah right! The assholes go ahead and tear up the place anyway. I confronted two douchebags from Washington a few years ago. "We signed in so we have a right to hunt however we choose. That's why the rancher is getting paid." I felt like shooting the tires out. But decided to save my ammo. I knew what was in store for them. They spent most of the rest of the day trying get unstuck. By late afternoon both men and their truck were covered with gumbo top to bottom.
Last edited:
