Montana Regional Caps and Limited Entry for Mule Deer.

[Treeshark]

Even after all of that, BMA enrollment is still on a downward trend isn’t it?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Even after all of that, BMA enrollment is still on a downward trend isn’t it?

It will take some time for all of this to come to fruition. Programs this large don't turn on a dime. Talking with some folks on PLPW, it seems that there is some growth interest from landowners in Block after they get a PAL agreement and have good relationships with those recreationalists.

The rule making around SB 83 & SB 441 will be pretty important in terms of finding innovative ways to implement better enforcement. Those two bills, perhaps more than the financial incentives, could be the biggest game-changer in bringing properties back into the program.

If folks want to do something tangible now to increase access, there are 3 public comment periods open for some pretty critical items:

Habitat Conservation Leases, Stafford Ferry CE and Phase 2 of the MT Great Outdoors CE for Region 1.

 

[Treeshark]

It will take some time for all of this to come to fruition.

The downward trend could reverse course, but it’s equally if not more than likely it won’t- especially if NR-supplied funding is reduced.

There is a golden lever waiting to be pulled that would improve MT mule deer hunting for both R and NRs, outfitters and their clients, DIY hunters, landowners, and the resource itself- but emotion is preventing that from happening.

 

[sclancy27]

The downward trend could reverse course, but it’s equally if not more than likely it won’t- especially if NR-supplied funding is reduced.

There is a golden lever waiting to be pulled that would improve things for pretty much everyone, but emotion is preventing that from happening.

It's not emotional, it's incentive. With the introduction of transferable landowner tags you remove any incentive for low cost (think BM type access) private land opportunities, everyone will just sell tags and access to the highest bidder.

WY system of private land only tags is getting closer, but I still think there is a system out there that can provide better incentives to open up access to not just $$$. I don't know what it is tho.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The downward trend could reverse course, but it’s equally if not more than likely it won’t- especially if NR-supplied funding is reduced.

There is a golden lever waiting to be pulled that would improve things for pretty much everyone, but emotion is preventing that from happening.

MT still has more accessible private land any state surrounding it because of Block Mgt, Habitat MT, Open Fields, etc. Programs ebb and flow; changes get made.

Forgot to mention: The 10 day resident only season for prairie grouse and roosters will also help with hunter crowding as BMA's and Open Fields are only open for residents during that timeframe. Resident archers and pronghorn rifle hunters should have a more quality opportunity there as well.

Let's also remember the antlerless side of this:

Both proposals call for the elimination of doe hunting on public land as well as reduction in overall antlerless licenses. This follows the good work that MOGA did in December of 2023 to get the provision included in the 2024/2025 hunting season framework. In 2023, we passed SB 281 which eliminated the oversell of NR antlerless deer licenses. That saw a reduction in almost 3,000 licenses in one year, which translates in to many less user days in the field. In the last 4 years, NR Antlerless deer license sales have dropped by almost 50% from a high of 12,229 to just under 7500.

 

[Treeshark]

All good stuff, and yet here we are- BMA on a downward trend along with MT mule deer hunting. Trying more of the same may work, but it probably won’t.

As I’ve said, I applaud the groups efforts towards positive change, it’s admirable. However, it does seem that it has become a bit unwieldy and overly complex as a symptom of trying to appease to many interest groups.

A much more simple and effective solution is sitting right there, that’s all I’m saying.

 

[Drake4]

All good stuff, and yet here we are- BMA on a downward trend along with MT mule deer hunting. Trying more of the same may work, but it probably won’t.

As I’ve said, I applaud the groups efforts towards positive change, it’s admirable. However, it does seem that it has become a bit unwieldy and overly complex as a symptom of trying to appease to many interest groups.

A much more simple and effective solution is sitting right there, that’s all I’m saying.

Colorado is on a downward trend for mule deer hunting, New Mexico is on a downward trend for mule deer hunting...
Your "effective solution" spiel gets old.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All good stuff, and yet here we are- BMA in a downward trend along with MT mule deer hunting.

Trying more of the same may work, but it probably won’t.

I don't think it is wise to say that the changes aren't having the desired effect, especially as BMA contracts are generally not a single year contract, but multiple years (with 2 being the min I think).

It is also incorrect to say that the changes being made are "trying more of the same." SB 83 and SB 441 put a lot more control into the hands of landowners as it relates to excluding bad actors from multiple BMA's (441) and ensuring that all of the ranch rules have enforceable actions associated with them (83). Those were both FWP bills, and they came about after listening to landowners who were enrolled in Block, or ones who were enrolled but then left the program.

There are also new warden positions in the budget to help bring the enforcement side back up to where it needs to be relative to staffing levels, as well as 7 new FTE that are going to e helping with the Hunter Ed program, so FWP can provide a lot more support to the Hunter Ed Volunteers as well as provide staff time for classes, etc.

Forgot to give @Elky Welky & crew a shout out for their Block Mgt bill, HB 763 as well. I'm hopeful that can be a good option for landowners looking to add another access tool.

Since I started working in MT in 2007, the narrative around block management has always been that the payment is to offset the costs landowners incur by hosting public access. That's because it is anathema to most resident hunters of Montana to pay for access. That is something that should be celebrated to be sure. However, economics do not cater to sentiment and as the leasing world has changed with the invention of Land Trust, leasing for Hunt Clubs, etc, Block mgt needs to evolve to remain relevant. I think that's being done across the board.

 

[Treeshark]

I don't think it is wise to say that the changes aren't having the desired effect, especially as BMA contracts are generally not a single year contract, but multiple years (with 2 being the min I think).

It is also incorrect to say that the changes being made are "trying more of the same."

The trend line is pointing down. If that reverses, while still operating under the current framework (which it is and has been), I will stand corrected.

This seems unlikely to happen under a scenario in which NR funding participation is also further limited.

 

[Nameless Range]

I would expect BM acreage to continue to trend downward. Just a changing west. We can slow it, and work with it to be more amenable to the very generous landowners who often participate and I believe we should, but even if say 10 years from now 5 million acres - 2 million less than today - are enrolled in BM, that acreage alone would still be something near a quarter of the total huntable land (public land + other) on offer in a state like Colorado. We've been "spoiled" by how successful BM has been, but millions of acres of private ground open to the public, be it the 7ish million today or 2 million 30 years from now, is a heck of a thing that doesn't exist in other western states at such a scale.

I kind of view it the same way as habitat. The acres of good mule deer habitat in existence in Montana today is very likely more than there will be 30 years from now. Subdivisions and development may slow, but unless there's a plague, it doesn't stop. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue things like intelligent zoning, conservation easements, habitat improvements, etc.

I just reject the premise that BM isn't working and it absolutely has to do with the hundreds of memories in my melon and last fall's elk in my freezer right now.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The trend line is pointing down. If that reverses, while still operating under the current framework (which it is and has been), I will stand corrected.

This seems unlikely to happen under a scenario in which NR funding participation is also further limited.

@Nameless Range said it better than I.

IIRC, there are more BMA agreements today than in previous years. The acreage is smaller, but the number of contracts grows.

 

[brockel]

I would expect BM acreage to continue to trend downward. Just a changing west. We can slow it, and work with it to be more amenable to the very generous landowners who often participate and I believe we should, but even if say 10 years from now 5 million acres - 2 million less than today - are enrolled in BM, that acreage alone would still be something near a quarter of the total huntable land (public land + other) on offer in a state like Colorado. We've been "spoiled" by how successful BM has been, but millions of acres of private ground open to the public, be it the 7ish million today or 2 million 30 years from now, is a heck of a thing that doesn't exist in other western states at such a scale.

I kind of view it the same way as habitat. The acres of good mule deer habitat in existence in Montana today is very likely more than there will be 30 years from now. Subdivisions and development may slow, but unless there's a plague, it doesn't stop. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue things like intelligent zoning, conservation easements, habitat improvements, etc.

I just reject the premise that BM isn't working and it absolutely has to do with the hundreds of memories in my melon and last fall's elk in my freezer right now.

View attachment 377487

My daughter also feels BM is worth it

 

[Treeshark]

Awesome BM hunts (especially that whitetail, damn!). I’m not against the program in any way, shape, or form- but the fact remains that enrollment is not going in a good direction in terms of acerage.

I happen to feel there may be an additional and complimentary solution to some of these challenges- I’m well aware many here don’t support them, and I get that perspective as well.

 

[Dukeball33]

That’s what happened when they broke up the archery elk bundle. We ended up with more overall permits.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about Bigsky2...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Awesome BM hunts (especially that whitetail, damn!). I’m not against the program in any way, shape, or form- but the fact remains that enrollment is not going in a good direction in terms of acerage.

I happen to feel there may be an additional and complimentary solution to some of these challenges- I’m well aware many here don’t support them, and I get that perspective as well.

FWP is currently working diligently to make 500,000 acres of private land open for public hunting through their Conservation Leasing program within Habitat MT.

HB 932 also requires & encourages access to lands that utilize this funding for habitat restoration, WHIP etc.

It seems to me that Montana offers a plethora of options for access for landowners, and those programs together have opened up roughly 10 million acres of private land for public hunting and reduced the landlocked state public land portion by 25% (Open Fields, Block, HM, PAL). That tells me that MT is offering a lot of variety in their programs in order to fit the needs of the landowner as well as wildlife.

 

[Treeshark]

That tells me that MT is offering a lot of variety in their programs in order to fit the needs of the landowner as well as wildlife.

Certainly a lot, but much less than ten years go and continues to trend downward. Type 2 is fraught with abuse as we’ve all heard about here in HT. In addition, reducing NR pressure and increasing BM funding are opposing forces.

Just pointing out that an additional complimentary solution exists that benefits landowners as well as R and NR DIY hunters

 

[Forkyfinder]

Certainly a lot, but much less than ten years go and continues to trend downward. Type 2 is fraught with abuse as we’ve all heard about here in HT. In addition, reducing NR pressure and increasing BM funding are opposing forces.

Just pointing out that an additional complimentary solution exists that benefits landowners as well as R and NR DIY hunters

Lay it out for us in your own thread.

 

[Treeshark]

Lay it out for us in your own thread.

10/4, sorry to sidetrack the discussion with an idea that may actually improve things

 

[Ben Lamb]

Certainly a lot, but much less than ten years go and continues to trend downward. Type 2 is fraught with abuse as we’ve all heard about here in HT. In addition, reducing NR pressure and increasing BM funding are opposing forces.

Just pointing out that an additional complimentary solution exists that benefits landowners as well as R and NR DIY hunters

I don't think the solution you have in mind is viewed very complimentary.

Block works great. It, like any program, can use updates. I've yet to see any state that has enacted your solution that has any better approach on the access issue than MT.

 

[Treeshark]

I've yet to see any state that has enacted your solution that has any better approach on the access issue than MT.

I understand the point you’re making, and don’t disagree. Again, I am not advancing LO opportunity as a replacement to BM.

I do wonder though if access the only goal here, or is there also an interest in improving game population?