On one hand, I’m not a fan.
On the other, if I owned hunting land, it would probably just be for me, my family and my friends.
If it was for strangers, controlling the quantity and quality of people on my land would probably be easier this way than through BMA.
If BMA lands are transitioning to LandTrust, land is becoming less accessible to the average hunter and imo, that’s a negative.
If lands that, for example were never open or were exclusively leased to an outfitter who charged $6-$15k for a hunt, end up enrolling with LT, where I (a person who would never pay an outfitter for a Montana elk) can pay $500-$2,000 for access to good hunting, then it’s making things more accessible.
I guess what I’m saying is it depends how you look at it, or how it’s applied to a specific piece of property and what that property’s past is, that make this either a good thing or a bad thing for the rest of us. (Not that my opinion or the opinion of anybody else not named on the deed really matters when it comes to private land access).