Chapter III - Block Management Then and Now 



Background 



The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) formally started 

 the Block Management Program in 1985. Prior to 1985 a number of 

 landowners expressed concerns to the department about the number 

 of hunters on their land, damage to the land, and the time it took the 

 landowner to deal with hunters. Some landowners were threatening 

 to close their land to all public hunting. In response, the department 

 created the Block Management Program. The intent of the program 

 was to help landowners control hunters on their land. 



Program Formally 

 Organized in 1985 



In 1985 the department developed formal incentives to recognize and 

 reward landowners for their assistance to the public during hunting 

 seasons. The strategy, block management, rewarded landowners for 

 services rendered to hunters. Primary focus centered on maintaining 

 free public access to private lands with big game hunting 

 opportunities. Landowners participating in block management were 

 assisted by FWP in reducing interruptions to farm and ranch 

 operations associated with hunting. A variety of landowner 

 incentives using sportsman license dollars were used. Incentives 

 included: 



Signs, maps, permission booklets. 



Livestock loss insurance. 



Game damage materials. 



Temporary department personnel were hired to manage hunting 

 activities on large ranches, or a group of ranches. They were 

 responsible for issuing permission slips, directing hunters, 

 signing areas and patrolling the property. 



The majority of landowners desired to act as their own resource 

 manager. In those cases a monetary reimbursement was 

 provided to compensate landowners for their services in 

 managing hunters. A maximum of $2,000 for any one contract 

 was recommended. 



Landowner liability protection. Under section 70-16-302, 

 MCA, if a landowner permitted hunters to use his land and did 

 not charge a fee or accept other compensation from hunters, the 

 landowner's liability was assumed to be at the lowest level. 



Page 11 



