BuzzH
Well-known member
Greenhorn was talking about Montana in reference to the tags...not Wyoming.
land enrolled in Block Management, posted no hunting, questions
- Thread starter 300stw
- Start date
Greenhorn was talking about Montana in reference to the tags...not Wyoming.
M
MN Public Hunter
Guest
So let me see if I understand this without reading the actual types of BMA's in Montana and how people get paid for what..... I'm happy to read if someone can provide valid links.
Are you stating that a person has lets say 2000 acres in a program, gets paid to have 2000 acres in the program, but has the right to say, OH, but these 120 aces no one can hunt? If that is the case, yes, that program is BS no matter what state you are in. They really only have 1880 acres in the program, not 2000, so why should they get paid or the 120 for a private hunting spot?
Am I reading this correctly above?
Are you stating that a person has lets say 2000 acres in a program, gets paid to have 2000 acres in the program, but has the right to say, OH, but these 120 aces no one can hunt? If that is the case, yes, that program is BS no matter what state you are in. They really only have 1880 acres in the program, not 2000, so why should they get paid or the 120 for a private hunting spot?
Am I reading this correctly above?
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,411
No. Per what I could find, maybe Greenhorn can provide more clarity here, the size of your property has no effect on your payment.
Per the MFWP
Block Management IS a program for landowners who allow public hunting and request assistance in managing hunters and some compensation for potential impacts that may result from allowing public hunting.
Incentives
Cash compensation (up to $15,000 annually) to offset potential IMPACTS that may result from public hunting activities; Complimentary non-transferable hunting and fishing license (may designate immediate family member or full-time farm/ranch employee)
Sorry BuzzH I misread Greenhorn's comment.
M
MN Public Hunter
Guest
OK....thanks....interesting that number of acres would not be be part of the payment...so someone who has 2000 acres in it gets the same payment as a 40,000 acres person based on the species huntable per days if they are the same...kinda weird. I do see links on pages, but they are pretty vague on how it works other than contracts are done per owner.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Not necessarily. I'm sure you've hunted enough to realize size of acreage is not directly correlated to quality. There are number of enormous BMAs that have good habitat on about 5-10% of the total acreage. Likewise, I've hunted small BMAs that were phenomenal in quality. Some are a very good mix of both.
False, the free for all hunting on type 1 BMA's usually leads to the game being decimated on those places. There are some issues that need to be addressed with the BMA program but from my limited time hunting type 2 BMA's I've generally had good experiences.
Last edited:
M
MN Public Hunter
Guest
Oh, I get that and I agree with Buzz and you....quality over quantity.
mountain monster
Active member
I agree with bigsky2 on over hunting on alot of type 1's.
Some type 2's are great , but I've been told by 3 different ones in July before you can even sign up that certain days and or weeks are saved for family ect.. it bothers me. Greenhorn is correct, few bad apples. If we could weed them out maybe there would be more cash for more deserving landowners.
Some type 2's are great , but I've been told by 3 different ones in July before you can even sign up that certain days and or weeks are saved for family ect.. it bothers me. Greenhorn is correct, few bad apples. If we could weed them out maybe there would be more cash for more deserving landowners.
mountain monster
Active member
And its there land to let whomever, i get that.
Just don't want them compensated for time used only for friends and family.
Just don't want them compensated for time used only for friends and family.
Yellowstoner
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 167
I for one will say that when landowners enroll a bunch of land that harbors no game it hurts the BMA program. To preclude a section of the ranch because it contains all of the "good hunting" or game animals is antithetical to what the BMA program is about. The goal is to open up access to publicly owned game animals, not just let someone roam around their ranch and collect a check at the end of the season. I know that many of the type 2 BMAs are "full" on day one of the sign up. They're getting paid for their friends to hunt the ranch - hell, some of them may even be outfitting the ranches, which is infuriating to think about. I just think that this mindset of opening up the barren places in hopes of tricking a hunter into signing in when there aren't any animals is freeloading - I see it as one step above welfare recipients that are able to work (who have able bodies and minds). In essence, the landowner is asking for payment for no contribution. I do wish they'd make turning in the blue cards a requirement so data can be collected and landowners compensated appropriately for their contributions, rather than just their popularity. A very small bma just outside of Bozeman is likely to get more visits than a huge BMA up in the breaks, where many more animals might be harvested - just due to proximity. Another wish of mine would be to have a volunteer sign up day to help clean up these BMAs that we all take advantage of.
One of the BMAs I have hunted has an adjacent chunk of state land that is explicitly inaccessible from the BMA (written on the ranch rules and on the BMA paperwork). This particular chunk has an outfitter on it daily, who drives his truck all over the place out there. For the life of me I still can't figure it out, but I'm happy to hunt the BMA and will honor the request of the landowner to not mess with it. I'd love to know exactly what precludes that section of state land from access via the BMA. The landowner seems confused about the rules surrounding it, but always just says to me "trust me it's not worth messing with" whenever I've brought it up.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Looks like my family could be missing out. We easily have two to three hundred unpaid hunter days a year. If you were to include the accessible state land and the small bit of private that we allow anyone to cross to get more convenient access to a large amount of public you could add another couple of hundred.
Not going to be signing up of BM any time soon. I would feel guilty taking the public's money and giving preferential access to family and friends. A type one is out of the question. I see first hand the disaster that has happened to the mule deer on the Custer and there is no way that is happening on land I own.
Not going to be signing up of BM any time soon. I would feel guilty taking the public's money and giving preferential access to family and friends. A type one is out of the question. I see first hand the disaster that has happened to the mule deer on the Custer and there is no way that is happening on land I own.
Yup that's, exactly how it works,
Similar threads
