As someone who got his teeth handed to him in Helena a decade ago while trying to get something like this going, a few thoughts come to mind.
I think a stamp is a good idea and a way to get residents to fund more of it. The time has come; maybe better stated, long since passed, where we have to start paying more of our own way.
It will be hard to add it to a basic license amount as some have stated. BMA availability and use is pretty low in the NW part of the state, growing in use and availability as you go east. Getting legislators on board to increase the basic part of the license fee will be hard, especially those in the NW, given they have very little BMA useage by local hunters. Yeah, some travel east and use BMAs, but many in that part of the state have never set foot on a BMA.
A lot can be done to improve the program. Way too much money is allocated for bird hunting, when bird hunting contributes a very small portion of funds toward the program. Seems reasonable if 90% of the funding comes from big game licenses, 90% of the lands should be focused on big game. Right now, it is easier to manage and enroll bird properties, so those are a disproportionate amount of the program, relative to funding.
An online reservation system would save the program a ton of money. WY and ID have much smaller programs, but they provide way more acres of access per dollar spent. And, they focus all on big game. They look at how much additional public access can be provided and score the properties that way.
MT's BMA program was the first and has a lot a good attributes, but from a technology standpoint, which would greatly increase efficiency and enroll a lot more acreage for the same, or less, money, MT is in the dark ages.
I think it might be hard to get a stamp passed until the BMA program takes a few steps into the modern day and starts using their money more efficiently. We have some really good models to look for as some new ideas; mostly in WY, ID, KS. The acres per dollar enrolled in those three states makes MT looks like the Federal Government buying $1,000 toilet seats. What we get, per dollar spent, is much lower in comparison.
Those states use a lot of non-financial incentives. Kansas example, everything is "Walk-in" only. I know that upsets some people, but as a result a KS landowner does not have his roads destroyed in wet weather, does not have to worry about vehicles spreading noxious weeds, does not have to worry about vehicles starting fires in hot/dry weather, does not have to worry who is where, as they all have a designated parking spot from which to start walking. As a result, the cost/risk equation for the KS landowner is much less, so he is willing to enroll more acres for the same fee, or the same acres for less.
WY gives their landowners a lot of input. They have both a Walk-in program and a Hunter Management program like our BMA. When you look at how they rank properties and what they enroll, they are able to enroll some of the best big game properties in a unit, for elk, deer, and antelope. In MT, we struggle to enroll much for elk. WY has found ways to compete in the very expensive world of elk access. We could learn a lot from that.
ID prioritizes based on how much additional public acreage a property can provide access to. As a result, the access issue in ID is getting addressed with a lot fewer dollars than in MT.
As much as I pressed for a stamp in past years and I have no problem with a stamp, I would almost make it part of a bill that changes some of the rules/priorities/SOPs that the department uses in administering this program. Add the revenue from a $25 stamp to some of the efficiencies and implement some of the ideas working in other states, and you would be able to really do something big in the way of improving the status of access in MT.
Without those changes to the program, I wonder how much good the $25 stamp is going to do; surely some good, but seems time to start pushing for some changes to insure we are getting more for the dollars we are spending. I'm not an expert with the answers. I was asked by the PLPW Council to give a presentation that incorporated my perspective from all the states I hunt and the public/private access properties I hunt in those states. In my research, it became apparent that Montana could benefit from looking toward those states for some new ideas that get us a lot more for the dollars we are spending.
