Agree whole heartedly with the guys that the BM program is a great thing. I've lived in MT for my entire hunting life, and grew up hunting the river bottoms for whitetails. Nowadays it seems like everywhere I used to hunt is either leased by an outfitter and it will take $5,000 to hunt or it has been purchased by some super wealthy guy (Ted Turner, Hirsch, etc etc) that has completely locked up the place and in a lot of cases locked up access to thousands of acres of our federal lands.
I haven't had a season in the last 5 years where I haven't hunted a BM area at least a few times. Is it over hunted, perhaps, but its no more crowded that the federal lands that are my alternative. It's like anything else when you're hunting ground that's open to the public, you have to go further and hunt harder than the next guy. Does it always pay off, absolutely not, have I come out of a BM area having hiked/hunted my tail off and seen little game and many hunters, of course. But I do know that having a place to hunt, and being able to access thousands of acres that could otherwise be leased by some JERK outfitter beats the heck out of the alternative.
Plus if we don't use the funds for the Block Management program what will they be used for? I don't think using the money for wildlife management is a good idea, our biologists obviously aren't doing a very good job "managing" our deer herds now, just look at the crazy amount of doe tags still being issued!!
I in fact think that the landowners that enroll in the BM program should be given a tax incentive as a reward for allowing public access to try and get more acres enrolled. I also believe that the landowners that are leasing their land to these JERK outfitters should be taxed differently (as recreational land and not agricultural land) to try and discourage the leasing/locking of private ground from the public.