Press Releases

Editorial Comment

Montana’s private hunting lands are being closed at an alarming rate. Outfitting has become a ravenous industry that has quietly crept up on the average Montana hunter and suddenly more and more Montanans are finding their hunting lands closed, mainly for financial reasons. The agricultural industry is experiencing hard times, mainly due to drought. Finance has tipped the scale, already weighed down with the conundrum faced by many landowners of how to deal with heavy public hunting pressure. Leasing to an outfitter is an easy convenient solution to the problem of how to manage hunting on many ranches.

Montana’s outfitting structure needs to be reworked to level the playing field. Guaranteed outfitter set asides need to be eliminated. Non-resident hunters should have to compete with resident hunters for tags, with the favor shown toward resident hunters. If non-residents are successful in drawing a tag, they should not be required to hire an outfitter as many are pushing for (another ploy to further strengthen the outfitting industry). Outfitters do have a place in Montana’s hunting industry and that place is on public land in wilderness areas. Outfitting in the wilds of Montana is what the industry was designed for and that is where it needs to return.

The Montana Block Management Program, while a necessary tool to manage some of Montana’s hunting lands, has contributed to the conditioning of Montana landowners to expecting payment for hunting privileges. Some have suggested that they haven’t paid to hunt on private land and that they are not about to start now. These individuals don’t realize that they have been paying to hunt indirectly through the Block Management Program. Each time you sign into Block Management, you are indeed paying that landowner to hunt on their land.

Fee hunting is coming whether we like it or not. Montana is far behind the curve (perhaps only Wyoming is further behind) when it comes to fee hunting operations. Fee hunting has been the norm in many states and fee hunting operations account for the continued viability of countless ag operations, many of which would have long since vanished to become subdivisions.

Montana’s Private Land Hunting Access Improving

March 22, 2002, Bozeman, Montana- HuntMontana is providing what may be the answer to a growing problem in Montana, non-resident access to private land for hunting and other outdoor recreation. Bob Waller, founder of HuntMontana, says his organization was formed to bridge a growing gap between landowners and sportsmen. HuntMontana arranges long-term access agreements with owners of high quality upland bird, turkey, waterfowl and deer habitat and then, in turn, allows its members to hunt, fish, camp or hike on any of the properties. It’s a far cry from the typical lease divvied among a few hunting partners. But like smaller hunting lease arrangements common throughout the country, members join to gain exclusive access for themselves, their families and guests to hunt on private property. Waller views his larger arrangement, though, as a key ingredient to carrying on this country’s rich hunting heritage. Clubs like HuntMontana have been popular in the East for the past couple decades but the concept is fairly new to this region.

The club is really suited to people who have lost contact with private landowners or who never had those contacts to begin with. "Lots of sportsmen, especially non-resident hunters, really don’t have the time to put into developing the solid long-term relationships with landowners that are so vital to obtain good access. We do all that for them."

After hearing complaints from countless sportsmen about a lack of good land devoid of other hunters, about the poor quality of our public access programs, about farmers and ranchers refusing access, Waller decided to act. "It inspired me to get this done because people were screaming for a way to resolve these issues. Non-resident bird hunters are finding diminished opportunities in this state. Montana’s economy badly needs non-resident hunters. They’re just not finding good hunting on our public land or on Block Management land due to overcrowding."

Members pay an initiation fee and a yearly access fee and, in exchange, the club guarantees access to hunting ground free of other hunters. The club provides detailed information about the properties and, through a detailed harvest reporting program, sportsmen know what to expect from each property. All members have to do is call to reserve a piece of land for a certain time and they are assured of access to that land exclusively.

Waller says his access agreements will total over 100,000 acres for the 2002-2003 hunting season and hopes to grow that acreage to over 500,000 acres within a couple of years. Until then, Waller says satisfying hunters is his first priority. "If we can prevent one person from giving up this sport, we have succeeded. I think we will prove to be vital to the future of hunting in Montana. Public hunting access just isn’t cutting it."

Hunters find private land less accessible

By RON TSCHIDA, Chronicle Staff Writer

Floyd Whiteman's story isn't the sort of tale Montana hunters like to hear. Whiteman ranches on about 10,000 acres near Ritchey, and he used to allow hunting access pretty much to anyone who asked, no charge. But he had some problems with hunters damaging gates and driving where they weren't supposed to. Then he signed up for Block Management, a program run by Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks that pays landowners in return for allowing public access and provides help with things such as hunter sign-in and maps. But that didn't solve all his problems. "You kind of have to patrol it," Whiteman said in a recent interview.

So a few years ago, he went a step further."I have my land leased to an outfitter," Whiteman said. "They take the headaches out of it."The problem for hunters is that Whiteman's story is far from unusual.Outfitters leased 7.5 million acres of Montana farms and ranches in 2001, the most recent year for which the state's Board of Outfitters has complete records.That's up from about 6 million acres in 1993.And while outfitter leasing has grown by about 25 percent in the past 10 years, that increase may pale in comparison to lands leased by individuals and small groups of hunters, say FWP.Either way, hunting opportunities on private land in Montana increasingly are going to hunters with the fattest wallets."Big dollars are driving it," says Henry Mischel, a Glendive hunter and president of the Dawson County Rod and Gun Club. "I'm born and raised here in Glendive and in the last few years, there are over 100 sections of private land that I used to have access to that I no longer can hunt on."

That's 100 square miles now off limits to non-paying hunters.Although more than a third of Montana is state and federal land, private land, the 57 million acres in farms and ranches, has always been a big part of Montana's hunting tradition. According to FWP harvest surveys, 70 percent of deer and 80 percent of antelope are taken on private land.But today hunters are competing for opportunities on fewer open ranches and farms."As more places close, it puts more pressure on the fewer places that are open," said Alan Charles, FWP's head of landowner-sportsmen relations. "Every year, every time a ranch closes in an area, the people who were hunting there now are competing for access elsewhere."That's building friction between hunters, landowners and FWP.

"Access has been out there as an issue for a long time," said Don Childress, chief of wildlife management for FWP. "But it's becoming more and more polarized."Demographics and economics -- two subjects hunters don't typically dwell on -- have a lot to say about the trend.In 1930, one out of four people in the American labor force worked on the land.By 1990, just two out of 100 still worked as farmers or ranchers.Translate that into hunting access: A generation ago most hunters knew someone still on the land, but today that personal connection is lost."What the relationship used to be between the farmers and ranchers on the land with people and hunters in general, I think it's changed," Childress said. "In the last 30 to 40 years knocking on the door and getting permission to hunt, or going over to the neighbor's place to hunt, those weren't even issues."The economics have changed as well.Landowners have realized that hunting access has value -- huge value if there are trophy-class animals on the land.

Whiteman seemed a little bemused by the demand for deer hunting, the fact that hunters will pay more for a mule deer buck than he gets for a steer calf. The antlers don't even make good soup, he jokes.His outfitter lease payment isn't based on the number of deer taken, but he's noticed what hunters take and, in true rancher fashion, calculated the value on the hoof."I would probably be getting about $500 for that deer," he said. "They just take the very biggest bucks. They don't take very many does."

That doesn't cut down the deer population much, but Whiteman said the outfitter pays extra for wildlife damage to his haystacks and alfalfa fields.Instead of outfitter leasing, other ranchers are turning to fee hunting -- charging each hunter for access -- or to private leases with small groups of hunters. Those payments are more attractive to ranchers today, struggling to pay bills after successive years of drought and low prices for beef and grain.

That means the economic change is to a certain degree driven by hunters themselves, particularly well-heeled hunters who are willing to spend money to buy convenience. Convenience is part of the pitch made by HuntMontana, a private club that sells annual memberships. Members can reserve destinations with the assurance they'll be the only shooters that week. The club's Web site advertises "a better way to hunt," saying HuntMontana has leased about 120,000 acres of private land previously off limits to public hunting.

It's harder to get a handle on how much other hunter leasing is going on because such leases don't have to be reported, Childress said.But for long-time residents, who remember free and easy access to quality hunting, the trend is clear."It's getting really ugly," Mischel said. "If it doesn't turn around in the next three or four years, I'll probably hang up my gun and quit. It's getting to where it ain't worth the hassle."

Limited access to private land challenges FWP

Chronicle Staff Writer

Hunters have been locked out of millions of acres of private land in Montana in recent years. The trend is toward fee hunting, leasing by groups of hunters and outfitters, and changes in ownership from traditional ranchers and farmers to recreational owners.
That's frustrating to Montana hunters who were accustomed to free and easy private land access.But it has created a different problem for Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks."We need hunters as the main tool to provide population control," said Don Childress, FWP's chief of wildlife. "We rely on hunters, hunting seasons and their ability to get to those populations to provide some level of control."

When game populations get out of balance, Mother Nature sometimes takes care of things with disease or winter kill, Childress said.
"Ultimately if there is no access you can watch populations crash and decline," Childress said.Access is becoming an increasingly thorny issue, with landowners, game officials and hunters finding themselves at odds.
Those involved in the debate obviously have differing views on the problem and possible solutions, but most say money plays a major role in the issue."I don't disagree with that," Childress said. "I can't say that I like it. We're involved in recreation. Of course, recreation costs money."

A survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that in 2001 hunters in Montana spent about $240 million on their sport.
Landowners say they provide much of the fuel for the economic engine hunting has become, furnishing range for growing herds of deer and elk.And they're demanding a bigger say in wildlife management. The Montana Stockgrowers Association wants "harvest based" big game seasons, so hunting continues until a harvest quota is reached.More controversial is the association's proposal, on the back burner for now, to offer some public access in return for the right to sell "letters of authorization" that guarantee a big game license and land access.

Hunting groups and FWP say that crosses a line, turning public wildlife into a private commodity.That gets close to the heart of the current debate. Hunters who increasingly are willing to fork over cash for access are defining the dollar value of game."It'll take it out of the hands of those that can afford it," said Craig Sharpe, executive director of the Montana Wildlife Federation, about the trend toward exclusive leasing. "It'll make it a rich man's sport.""I don't know that we can stop this train," Sharpe said. "It's real unfortunate."

Frustration for ranchers

Lowell Stevenson, who ranches near the Yellowstone River in Dawson County, said state game managers essentially want things both ways."They say they're managing (game herds) for the public," Stevenson said. "Then they need to pay the bill for them. I don't put up extra feed for deer and antelope."But when a landowner contacts FWP to complain about wildlife damage, the first question game managers have is whether the landowner leases hunting rights or charges fees for hunting. If so, the agency won't deal with the complaint.

"Our general game damage rules do not provide game damage assistance to a landowner that doesn't provide for public hunting opportunities," Childress said. "And that was legislation that was very specific recognition that the agency can't manage wildlife at an acceptable level if they don't have the opportunity to have sportsmen harvest them."To landowners, it sometimes seems like FWP is blackmailing them into allowing public access."I myself sound a bit bitter about the Fish and Game," Stevenson acknowledged. "They don't care about the landowner. They don't care about the stockgrower. They care about getting numbers in here to buy licenses to support their spending habits."

Nationwide, the number of hunting licenses sold annually has decreased by 7 percent since 1996. That's caused budget problems for some state wildlife agencies. Montana's participation has not fallen off overall, but in 2002, for the first time, some guaranteed issue nonresident big game tags went unsold.That means less money in the coffers. but that's not the biggest problem, Childress said."Contrary to what most people would probably think, it isn't just a money-making operation is what we're out here after," Childress said. "Declining participation is not a revenue issue so much for me as it is losing the opportunity to use those hunters as a management source. That's my concern."

New direction

Childress said he recently told his staff that, "I think we need to change our perspective when we think of access."Instead of looking for answers in more Block Management or another road easement, the agency must take a totally new look at access."Because I don't think we'll solve it with the things we have in front of us," Childress said. "And I think that scares a lot of people. But as an agency we have some responsibility to find some management solutions."

FWP, which acknowledges big game populations, particularly elk, are "above objective" in many areas, is currently rewriting its elk management plan.The agency is pinning a lot of hope on what it calls "community-based management," an initiative to involve local landowners in writing hunting regulations. The idea is to create working groups in different hunting areas to deal with specific issues.But even that idea faces obstacles, Childress said."There are getting to be enough significant land ownerships that really don't care, and they don't see themselves as part of the community," he said.That applies to resident as well as nonresident owners, he added.

And without landowner cooperation, game managers and hunters have fewer options.But long-time ranchers like Stevenson, who is on land his grandfather homesteaded nearly a hundred years ago, acknowledge they need some help as well, in controlling game numbers."There are a lot of problems here and not many solutions," Stevenson said. "I don't know what's going to happen."