N
NDhunter
Guest
Here is a letter I am going to send to MT FWP concerning their Block Managment Program...The squeaky wheel gets the grease, feel free to send one too, maybe we can make some simple changes that would vastly improve the program. Please tell me that I am not the only one who feels this way.
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter in the hopes that Montana will make some changes in regards to the BMA program. It is a good program but it could be amazing if some common sense were applied to the administration of the program.
Specifically I am referencing the secretive nature of the maps for individual BMA?s. The Department's web site addresses the issue by saying the following: ?The Department and landowners are concerned that if maps are displayed electronically on the Web site, many of the individual BMA hunter management systems that are the fundamental reason landowners have agreed to participate in the program may be compromised, with hunters simply viewing the map and traveling to the BMA or contacting the landowner without realizing that very specific rules may apply to that BMA.?
My response to that is simply this; don't assume that hunters are going to break the rules that are on the books. It is pure speculation that hunters will ?simply view the map and travel to the BMA or contact the landowner without realizing that very specific rules may apply to that BMA?. This assumption that the Department has adopted is fact less and without any basis. Enforce the laws that are in place, and be tough on those that break the laws that are in effect. Why should the average hunter have to jump through hoops and have a difficult time finding a place to hunt based on assumptions that in my eyes are invalid? There are many states including North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, and Idaho, to name just a few, that print all of their private land access maps on the internet. Many of which have individual and specific regulations pertaining to that particular parcel available to public hunting.
As far as the statement that ?landowners have agreed to participate in the program?, yes they have and they are being compensated?in large part by my high nonresident license and application fees. So why isn't it a stipulation in the agreement with them that the map of their BMA will be available on the internet? Is the Department afraid they will lose some participation with the landowners over this issue? From the sportsman?s side I can tell you that I would rather lose that type of participant, in the long run we would be able to access more land since I would be able to know where it is, and how to gain access at the drop of a hat.
With the technology we have today, the Department could ensure that individuals who would like to view a map of a particular BMA view the specific rules prior to viewing the actual map. This could be done simply by only allowing access to the map link once an individual has read the particular rules for that BMA. Or you could have sportsmen log into an account to gain access to this information (similar to the bear test) and check a box stating that they have read the rules. There are many ways to skin this cat, but something needs to be done. This would cut down substantially on costs incurred by the Department by not having to print out as many maps, and it would make planning a hunt much easier for all sportsmen.
If the above concern would be rectified then I would not need to bring up my next complaint, but until there is resolution I will bring it up. Why the disparity between Region 1-5 BMA?s and Region 6 and 7? It makes no sense to me that a sportsman can go to an FWP office and get maps for BMA?s in Regions 1-5, but in Region 6 and 7 that same sportsman has to go to the individual BMA (a process that can take a ridiculous amount of time to just track down one)! When I was in Helena and asked Mr. XXX XXXX about this and the issue identified above I got the typical political run around. Essentially he would not give me an adequate answer to my question, and essentially chose to evade the questions that I brought up in order to tell me that the program is great and needs no change. He even produced at the drop of a hat (coincidence??) some little green cards sent in from sportsmen saying what a great program the BMA is. Mr. XXXX? stance may have to do with the conflict of interest that exists between him and his rancher friends in Region 7 that he has to please. His position was that I should come out early and find the BMA?s before season starts and that way I would not have to run around looking for sign in boxes during the season. My point is that I shouldn't have to. My vacation time is precious, and I don't live within a 1 day drive of MT, so why doesn't the program reflect the wishes of the typical sportsman? If we could print or view the maps off the internet this issue would be a moot point.
I could bore you with examples of how this could have greatly helped in the few times that I have had the opportunity to hunt in Montana, but will cut it short. In summation, I essentially donate over $100 to the Montana FWP every year in the form of nonrefundable application fees and feel that with that kind of price tag I should receive, at a minimum, a voice in how some of your private land programs are run. As I stated earlier, the program could be great, but it is not there yet. Please provide me with a response at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter in the hopes that Montana will make some changes in regards to the BMA program. It is a good program but it could be amazing if some common sense were applied to the administration of the program.
Specifically I am referencing the secretive nature of the maps for individual BMA?s. The Department's web site addresses the issue by saying the following: ?The Department and landowners are concerned that if maps are displayed electronically on the Web site, many of the individual BMA hunter management systems that are the fundamental reason landowners have agreed to participate in the program may be compromised, with hunters simply viewing the map and traveling to the BMA or contacting the landowner without realizing that very specific rules may apply to that BMA.?
My response to that is simply this; don't assume that hunters are going to break the rules that are on the books. It is pure speculation that hunters will ?simply view the map and travel to the BMA or contact the landowner without realizing that very specific rules may apply to that BMA?. This assumption that the Department has adopted is fact less and without any basis. Enforce the laws that are in place, and be tough on those that break the laws that are in effect. Why should the average hunter have to jump through hoops and have a difficult time finding a place to hunt based on assumptions that in my eyes are invalid? There are many states including North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, and Idaho, to name just a few, that print all of their private land access maps on the internet. Many of which have individual and specific regulations pertaining to that particular parcel available to public hunting.
As far as the statement that ?landowners have agreed to participate in the program?, yes they have and they are being compensated?in large part by my high nonresident license and application fees. So why isn't it a stipulation in the agreement with them that the map of their BMA will be available on the internet? Is the Department afraid they will lose some participation with the landowners over this issue? From the sportsman?s side I can tell you that I would rather lose that type of participant, in the long run we would be able to access more land since I would be able to know where it is, and how to gain access at the drop of a hat.
With the technology we have today, the Department could ensure that individuals who would like to view a map of a particular BMA view the specific rules prior to viewing the actual map. This could be done simply by only allowing access to the map link once an individual has read the particular rules for that BMA. Or you could have sportsmen log into an account to gain access to this information (similar to the bear test) and check a box stating that they have read the rules. There are many ways to skin this cat, but something needs to be done. This would cut down substantially on costs incurred by the Department by not having to print out as many maps, and it would make planning a hunt much easier for all sportsmen.
If the above concern would be rectified then I would not need to bring up my next complaint, but until there is resolution I will bring it up. Why the disparity between Region 1-5 BMA?s and Region 6 and 7? It makes no sense to me that a sportsman can go to an FWP office and get maps for BMA?s in Regions 1-5, but in Region 6 and 7 that same sportsman has to go to the individual BMA (a process that can take a ridiculous amount of time to just track down one)! When I was in Helena and asked Mr. XXX XXXX about this and the issue identified above I got the typical political run around. Essentially he would not give me an adequate answer to my question, and essentially chose to evade the questions that I brought up in order to tell me that the program is great and needs no change. He even produced at the drop of a hat (coincidence??) some little green cards sent in from sportsmen saying what a great program the BMA is. Mr. XXXX? stance may have to do with the conflict of interest that exists between him and his rancher friends in Region 7 that he has to please. His position was that I should come out early and find the BMA?s before season starts and that way I would not have to run around looking for sign in boxes during the season. My point is that I shouldn't have to. My vacation time is precious, and I don't live within a 1 day drive of MT, so why doesn't the program reflect the wishes of the typical sportsman? If we could print or view the maps off the internet this issue would be a moot point.
I could bore you with examples of how this could have greatly helped in the few times that I have had the opportunity to hunt in Montana, but will cut it short. In summation, I essentially donate over $100 to the Montana FWP every year in the form of nonrefundable application fees and feel that with that kind of price tag I should receive, at a minimum, a voice in how some of your private land programs are run. As I stated earlier, the program could be great, but it is not there yet. Please provide me with a response at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely
