I've noticed several pieces of state land in SE MT that local ranchers will lease for grazing and then turn around and enroll it in type 2 block management. These pieces are not landlocked and are accessible from a country road. How can the state of MT allow a landowner to control who can, and cannot use accessible public land? Can someone please educate me on this issue? Thanks
Public land enrolled in Block Management?
- Thread starter Fire_9
- Start date
How? Through Administrative Rule: http://mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=36%2E25%2E163
Camdu7
Active member
You can still hunt the fed land if you can legally access. Not state.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
And yet another reason to fight land transfer to states at every turn so this doesn't happen more often.
Sytes
Well-known member
The person leasing the state land for grazing does not receive the BM benefits... $$$, etc, does s/he?
RobG
Well-known member
In Montana you can hunt state if you can access. I'll guess about the original question: The BM is allowing you to access from his property, in addition to any other access. This could be beneficial to hunters, but I hope they aren't getting paid for it.
There's state sections that are legally accessible by other means, that you need to gain access via Block management.
RobG
Well-known member
And I though my post was confusing!
I thought they were all open if you could access them. What are the criteria for remaining under leaseholder control?
Some of the R7 BMA maps say you need permission to hunt the state lands.
As long as it's not some leased ag field right by a house, ignore all that stuff.
Those sagebrush and grassland sections of state land all over eastern MT are fair game.
I hunt public land where and when I want to.
I have had issues at the Keith ranch BMA south of
ekalaka hunting accessible fed BLM land from a public road, either the people who don't like it don't actually call the warden like they say they will or he never comes.
Still highly annoying to be told you can't hunt public land.
As long as it's not some leased ag field right by a house, ignore all that stuff.
Those sagebrush and grassland sections of state land all over eastern MT are fair game.
I hunt public land where and when I want to.
I have had issues at the Keith ranch BMA south of
ekalaka hunting accessible fed BLM land from a public road, either the people who don't like it don't actually call the warden like they say they will or he never comes.
Still highly annoying to be told you can't hunt public land.
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses. I figured it was legal but always thought it was BS. I've always had the same thought as MTGomer. If I want to hunt it, I'm going to hunt it. I shouldn't have to ask a rancher if I can hunt an accessible piece of public land
brownbear932008
Well-known member
Makes perfect sense could not see how a ticket for trespass could ever hold up much in court charging you with trespass on state trust property but heck who knows.
RobG
Well-known member
Here's a link to the DNRC rules. http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/...-use-forms-and-permits/recreational-use-guide
Lands with crops that haven't been harvested yet are closed.
It says in some cases you need to notify the lessee, but not get permission. Except in certain cases where you need permission. I think I know less now than when I started.
Lands with crops that haven't been harvested yet are closed.
It says in some cases you need to notify the lessee, but not get permission. Except in certain cases where you need permission. I think I know less now than when I started.
Yup yet we still have people, including some on this forum, saying how great the transfer will be.......If you vote Republican this year you vote to end public lands
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 498
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,883
The land transfer issue is mostly political hay making. The odds of the Fed. Gov't giving up control on accessible BLM, FS, ect., are near 0(zer0).
I'd be willing to bet a cold one, or 12, that were the shoe on the other foot, and any of you were leasing a piece of state land that you would like to know who was doing what, and when they were doing it. Want access to the back 40, stop and let a landowner know who you are and what you are doing...you just might be surprised how some folks will react when treated with a little respect...... Now before clamoring and jumping on me, yes I am fully aware that landowner "permission" is not needed to access lands that are accessible......And I did not say to ask "permission" to hunt an accessible state or BLM piece....I just said attempt being courteous and letting the guy who leases it know who you are and what you are doing....I know I appreciate it when people stop in and introduce themselves and let me know what they are up to. Tends to worry me less about them straying to greener pastures...and has resulted in me taking a few of them to greener pastures and harvesting a few deer and antelope they would have otherwise never had access to.
I'd be willing to bet a cold one, or 12, that were the shoe on the other foot, and any of you were leasing a piece of state land that you would like to know who was doing what, and when they were doing it. Want access to the back 40, stop and let a landowner know who you are and what you are doing...you just might be surprised how some folks will react when treated with a little respect...... Now before clamoring and jumping on me, yes I am fully aware that landowner "permission" is not needed to access lands that are accessible......And I did not say to ask "permission" to hunt an accessible state or BLM piece....I just said attempt being courteous and letting the guy who leases it know who you are and what you are doing....I know I appreciate it when people stop in and introduce themselves and let me know what they are up to. Tends to worry me less about them straying to greener pastures...and has resulted in me taking a few of them to greener pastures and harvesting a few deer and antelope they would have otherwise never had access to.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Eric, I applaud the attitude and the positive situation described by you regarding good relations between those accessing public lands and the agricultural users of the lands.
As to your first statements,
Merely a recommendation, but when using the phrase, "Fed. Gov't", please try to be clear just what entity you are describing. The "Fed. Gov't" is comprised of the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches, and also described by those subsidiary entities overseen and funded (albeit underfunded if USFS & BLM) by Congress and / or the President. You and I and most HuntTalkers are also at least indirectly part of the "Fed. Gov't" through the convoluted representative democratic process, so it is a good idea to specify what entity you're pointing a finger at when describing that the ambiguous "Fed. Gov't" or "they" are doing this or that.
As to your first statements,
Only the upcoming congressional sessions will tell. The fact that the transfer commitment is a national Republican plank and that a major component of the "Fed. Gov't" is a likely Republican congress leaves most of us feeling much less confident about our public lands staying open and accessible, or even forever owned by the public.
Merely a recommendation, but when using the phrase, "Fed. Gov't", please try to be clear just what entity you are describing. The "Fed. Gov't" is comprised of the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches, and also described by those subsidiary entities overseen and funded (albeit underfunded if USFS & BLM) by Congress and / or the President. You and I and most HuntTalkers are also at least indirectly part of the "Fed. Gov't" through the convoluted representative democratic process, so it is a good idea to specify what entity you're pointing a finger at when describing that the ambiguous "Fed. Gov't" or "they" are doing this or that.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
http://www.protectourpublicland.org...ferences-between-state-lands-and-public-lands
The link above describes differences between state lands and federal public lands and provides a helpful perspective on the issue and potential consequences.
The link above describes differences between state lands and federal public lands and provides a helpful perspective on the issue and potential consequences.
Sytes
Well-known member
Anyone know if the state BM land pays those with grazing, harvest, etd opportunities? Nothing I've found shares info either way. I would imagine not though we've all been surprised in the past...
RobG
Well-known member
I'm interested in the answer to original question. We all know the republicans want to build a wall around our public land and make us pay for it so no need to hijack this thread.
Similar threads
