Type 2 BMA hunter number limits

[Bhoesl]

Does anyone know how the limit on hunter numbers works on a type 2 BMA in Montana? So when it says you can call on a certain date for reservations, and says “limited to 6 hunters per day”, if one person calls in first and reserves a date for just them, will 5 other people still get on for that date? Or does it just mean a maximum of 6 in a party?

 

[bigsky2]

In that case I would guess it means 5 other hunters could still get on.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

In theory, 5 other hunters, in practice could be zero or 5 of their friends.

Thread 'Montana Block Management Thievery!'

Aug 21, 2015

So today's August 21, the first day reservations are allowed for the program. According to the regional BMA HQ I spoke to last year and this year, do not call this landowner before 6AM, which is the earliest they take reservations. And remember, today is the first day reservations are allowed. It's in bold print, in the BMA handbook.

Last year, I checked in on this same BMA, called just shortly after 6AM and the landowner said, "Sorry, all booked up." I said, "For the entire archery and rifle season? in just a few minutes??" "Yup, goodbye."

Thinking this was bogus, and not entirely...

• Point Creep
• Replies: 84
• Forum: Sportsmen Issues

• 
• 

It's only gotten worse, I generally don't bother with Type 2 BMA's anymore. Add on that they can control the access the the PUBLIC land they surround or border and I am with @Point Creep that they are generally a crock.

 

[Bhoesl]

That’s pretty much what I thought, but it also seems like that would encourage people to exaggerate hunter numbers, i.e. making a reservation for yourself and 5 imaginary friends, in order to get exclusive access…
Which would then greatly inflate what the landowner is getting paid, because aren’t those payments based on hunter days?

 

[wtrfwlhunter]

Most of the type two bmas that I’ve seen and hunt require that each individual hunter obtain permission slips, making the hypothetical 5 imaginary hunter situation harder to pull off.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

That’s pretty much what I thought, but it also seems like that would encourage people to exaggerate hunter numbers, i.e. making a reservation for yourself and 5 imaginary friends, in order to get exclusive access…
Which would then greatly inflate what the landowner is getting paid, because aren’t those payments based on hunter days?

The Type 2 I did 5+ years ago also required us to sign in the day of, so I think this could get caught pretty easily unless you're forging a bunch of friends signatures (which also wouldn't surprise me) and I believe if caught you get banned but IDK for sure.

The following year I after I hunted that BMA they made a very specific and bold rule that you could not access the adjacent BLM land. That was it for me. Since I hunted it the year before and the BLM is where the elk were that was going to be part of my hunt plan going in so without the BLM access it was a pretty property void of game.

There was also another Type 2 near that had a 15 hunter per day limit. IIRC it was run like a type 1 where you signed yourself in but the sign in sheet only had 15 slots for each day. It never failed on the weekends folks would just sign in on the next days sheet (especially if all of the first 15 were there in the morning and then vacant in the afternoon and someone showed up). Warden got some easy tickets on that one, literally folks writing themselves tickets. Totally screwed the next day hunters too lol.

IMO, I would like to see FWP take a stronger stance on this and decline that property and others that seek to exclude adjacent public lands from BMA enrollment (especially with their BMA budget paying more for less acres over time I think they can be more selective, IDK). If you want to exclude the general public from public land, totally fine with me, you have every right to do so in those property instances as a landowner. However a public agency monetarily incentivizing this is what myself and folks get frustrated with on here. I also think if Type 2's are going continue at all they should be run by FWP, not the landowner. The program is ripe and full of abuse and that's the crux of it - getting paid by FWP to let your friends and family hunt that were going to hunt anyways. Electronic geotagging app that automatically digitally signs in based on location also seems pretty attainable for sign in and real time notifications etc. but if we can't even get mandatory reporting I don't see that happening anytime soon.