American Prairie loses grazing rights

[WRO]

You're the one continuously demonstrating that you know little to nothing about land management, hunting access and wildlife issues in Montana. APR restricted mule deer hunting on its properties because of severely declining populations across Central Montana. As did plenty of other BMA owners, because they recognize that populations are in trouble and FWP isn't doing enough to address overharvest. Participating BMA landowners across the state are legally allowed to choose what species they allow access for, just like how any nonparticipating landowner can tell you what you can shoot on their property.

The point that should land is that they still allow free public access for multiple species. You blithely ignore the fact that APR is a private landowner that would be well within their rights to completely exclude the public from hunting anything on their property or on the inaccessible public lands contained within their exterior boundaries, the same way that the Wilkes Brothers, Stan Kroenke, or any other private landowner prohibits public access in this state.

My family owns working land within spitting distance of APR property. I hunt APR property every year without issue. They did a poor job of PR when they first arrived on the scene, and that has spiraled into endless antipathy and dogmatic conspiracy theories from internet dipshits. That's on them, but they're doing good work for our public wildlife and hunting opportunities and deserve more than your inane slander. Your retirement would be better spent trying to figure out who funds the United Property Owners of Montana, the entity behind most of the anti-APR propaganda and the one that sued the State of Montana to force FWP to cull 50,000 elk statewide in order to conform to outdated population objectives that were based on landowner tolerance, not data-based carrying capacity. Sadly, I doubt that conforms to your worldview, so you'll probably ignore it.

5 minutes of reading on their webpage and they literally support exactly what have been saying about lowered MOs for elk, anti corner crossing, etc.

How as a sportsman can one even contemplate supporting a group like that?

 

[finner]

5 minutes of reading on their webpage and they literally support exactly what have been saying about lowered MOs for elk, anti corner crossing, etc.

How as a sportsman can one even contemplate supporting a group like that?

UPOM is dark money poison for the hunting public. They typically receive less than $1000 in membership fees each year per their 990s, yet somehow have enough money for shady lawyers and multiple lobbyists for every legislative session. They're not getting all that cash from Montana ranchers. It's worth checking out their litigation records, registered lobbyists, and tax filings to see where most of the anti-APR slop is coming from.

 

[Greenstig]

You're the one continuously demonstrating that you know little to nothing about land management, hunting access and wildlife issues in Montana. APR restricted mule deer hunting on its properties because of severely declining populations across Central Montana. As did plenty of other BMA owners, because they recognize that populations are in trouble and FWP isn't doing enough to address overharvest. Participating BMA landowners across the state are legally allowed to choose what species they allow access for, just like how any nonparticipating landowner can tell you what you can shoot on their property.

The point that should land is that they still allow free public access for multiple species. You blithely ignore the fact that APR is a private landowner that would be well within their rights to completely exclude the public from hunting anything on their property or on the inaccessible public lands contained within their exterior boundaries, the same way that the Wilkes Brothers, Stan Kroenke, or any other private landowner prohibits public access in this state.

My family owns working land within spitting distance of APR property. I hunt APR property every year without issue. They did a poor job of PR when they first arrived on the scene, and that has spiraled into endless antipathy and dogmatic conspiracy theories from internet dipshits. That's on them, but they're doing good work for our public wildlife and hunting opportunities and deserve more than your inane slander. Your retirement would be better spent trying to figure out who funds the United Property Owners of Montana, the entity behind most of the anti-APR propaganda and the one that sued the State of Montana to force FWP to cull 50,000 elk statewide in order to conform to outdated population objectives that were based on landowner tolerance, not data-based carrying capacity. Sadly, I doubt that conforms to your worldview, so you'll probably ignore it.

Man, you nailed it. Tanking mule deer populations, broad public access, even the UPOM point I was going to bring up. Genuinely, thank you for a well thought out response!

5 minutes of reading on their webpage and they literally support exactly what have been saying about lowered MOs for elk, anti corner crossing, etc.

How as a sportsman can one even contemplate supporting a group like that?

They are the most anti-sportsman organization currently operating in the state. Ironically, embodying some of the exact traits @ Gila is accusing AP of. If there’s actually a story of hidden agendas and dark out-of-state billionaire money, it’s here.

The “Save the Cowboy, Stop APR” signs you see hanging on a few fences north of Lewistown…take a look at the logo on the bottom right.

 

[Gila]

They did a poor job of PR when they first arrived on the scene

I typically don’t reply to nut jobs…but PR wasn’t and isn’t their problem. It’s their re-wilding and preservationist policies. AP’s re-wilding policy is the same as their partnerships: replace hunters with predators. Replace cattle with bison. So they offer a wee bit of hunting and access to the public. So what? The endgame is the same. I would rather my tax dollars go to cattle grazing on public lands. Apparently so do the American People. In case you haven’t noticed cattle grazing is in, bison grazing is out. There is no conversation going on about biodiversity or carbon credits….however that conversation will need to take place at some point. As I have mentioned before, enjoy it while you have it.

 

[WRO]

I typically don’t reply to nut jobs…but PR wasn’t and isn’t their problem. It’s their re-wilding and preservationist policies. AP’s re-wilding policy is the same as their partnerships: replace hunters with predators. Replace cattle with bison. So they offer a wee bit of hunting and access to the public. So what? The endgame is the same. I would rather my tax dollars go to cattle grazing on public lands. Apparently so do the American People. In case you haven’t noticed cattle grazing is in, bison grazing is out. There is no conversation going on about biodiversity or carbon credits….however that conversation will need to take place at some point. As I have mentioned before, enjoy it while you have it.

As opposed to groups that replace elk with cattle?

Conservation is going on with prairies as a functional ecosystem as opposed to an industrial feed lot. Which btw the AUM rate is still paid same as for cattle.

As posted numerous times, your assertion that the American people do not support bison restoration is a baseless claim. I have posted studies that show exactly the opposite.

Do you have a study that supports that claim?

Are you going to answer me why “I don’t know anything”?

Also while you’re at it, maybe try and answer any of the numerous other questions you have failed to answer, preferably without AI drivel. Most posters here have shown you that courtesy, perhaps you could extend the same.

 

[4090Sharps]

I’m very been financially contributing to American Prairie for over 7 years now. I really hope they can get these grazing permits restored.

 

[Jpsmith1]

The Montana FWP has used science to advance mule deer hunting in that area. Hunting opportunity for any species should be based on the principles of the NAWCM. AP does not own the wildlife, mule deer are in the public trust.


I would rather that the Montana F&G Commission determine those issues. I don’t understand Type 2 completely but apparently the landowner can be individually restrictive up to a certain degree with type 2 block management, hence the questions.

So, FWP should determine what is hunted where and landowners shouldn't have any say as to what happens on their land?

Man, that's not the position I expected.

 

[Gila]

So, FWP should determine what is hunted where

Absolutely….Wildlife is in the public trust. Hunter dollars in the form of federal excise taxes collected on sporting goods is allocated to each state by the number of licenses, tags, permits sold. Over 90% of the wildlife management in the state is paid for by hunters. FWP weighs the data and determines seasons, bag limits for each area.

A rancher can’t just go out and kill a hundred deer eating up his haystack. But landowners can determine who hunts the property and where, following all game laws to be determined by the State. Since hunting is a management tool, the FWP is bound to maximize hunter opportunity where feasible. With the FWP Block Management Program, landowners are paid for public hunting access. Some states also have access programs that pays landowners to allow hunters to trespass just during hunting seasons to get to public lands.

The programs are all voluntary of course.

and landowners shouldn't have any say as to what happens on their land?

Landowners absolutely do have a say. The rules they must follow are in the BM contract. From what I understand about Montana Block management a landowner can put acres in type 1 or type 2….Type 2 is negotiable, type 1 not so much. Obviously, type 1 affords the best hunting opportunity.

 

[Greenstig]

A rancher can’t just go out and kill a hundred deer eating up his haystack.

This is a false equivalence and not the argument being made. A landowner can choose to limit, but not exceed, what is allowed to be legally hunted on their property. For the MT block management program, a species or sex restriction will reduce the total compensation paid out to that landowner, but it’s their choice to do so.

If a rancher in NM gives you permission to hunt elk on their property that is in an either-sex unit, but asks you not to shoot bulls, are you just going to go kill one anyways because you legally can?

If a farmer in PA gives you permission to hunt whitetail on their property, but asks you to only kill one doe even though you have 6 valid tags, are you just going to ignore them and fill your truck bed?

Landowners absolutely do have a say. The rules they must follow are in the BM contract.

Aside from not being permitted to charge any fees, can you cite a source for the other rules that a landowner must follow under “the” block management contract?

Obviously, type 1 affords the best hunting opportunity.

*most, not best. Semantics, but if you do get the opportunity to hunt Montana, you’ll figure that out. Which, by the way, I’m still encouraging you to do. Perhaps you’ll understand why Type 2 is the preferable choice for most deeded AP properties.

 

[Gila]

I’m very been financially contributing to American Prairie for over 7 years now. I really hope they can get these grazing permits restored.

I wouldn’t get my hopes up….that onion is well layered. AP probably won’t be able to graze bison again on Montana state or federal lands.

1) Highly doubtful that any legal action against the BLM would prevail.

2) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for cattle grazing was signed on March 31, 2026, by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. The USDA MOU gives incentives to cattle ranchers which will affect landowners willingness to sell out to AP.

3) The Public Lands Use Rule of 2024 has been targeted for rescission.

What happens with AP in Montana sets precedent for the entire Country. The bottom line is that there are not enough votes (probably never will be) to handoff millions of acres of public lands to an NGO whose primary purpose is to pre-empt widely accepted uses of public lands. Looking at the big picture, the majority of the American People are just not willing to give up their food security.
———————————————————————————

 

[4090Sharps]

I wouldn’t get my hopes up….that onion is well layered. AP probably won’t be able to graze bison again on Montana state or federal lands.

1) Highly doubtful that any legal action against the BLM would prevail.

2) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for cattle grazing was signed on March 31, 2026, by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. The USDA MOU gives incentives to cattle ranchers which will affect landowners willingness to sell out to AP.

3) The Public Lands Use Rule of 2024 has been targeted for rescission.

What happens with AP in Montana sets precedent for the entire Country. The bottom line is that there are not enough votes (probably never will be) to handoff millions of acres of public lands to an NGO whose primary purpose is to pre-empt widely accepted uses of public lands. Looking at the big picture, the majority of the American People are just not willing to give up their food security.
———————————————————————————

I don't know, man. The pendulum swings.

It's kind of funny, Teddy Roosevelt's efforts to save the bison have historically been viewed as his push to preserve some sort of American frontier ethos. It seems like we're trying to do it again with these "save the rancher" efforts.

 

[Gila]

I don't know, man. The pendulum swings.

It's kind of funny, Teddy Roosevelt's efforts to save the bison have historically been viewed as his push to preserve some sort of American frontier ethos. It seems like we're trying to do it again with these "save the rancher" efforts.

Teddy Roosevelt came West to hunt Buffalo. After the Buffalo were gone, he had a large cattle ranch in the North Dakota badlands. He always prided himself as a cowboy….hence the Rough Riders that charged up San Juan hill.

Food security and the prices at the grocery store will always be the primary political issue.

 

[WRO]

I wouldn’t get my hopes up….that onion is well layered. AP probably won’t be able to graze bison again on Montana state or federal lands.

1) Highly doubtful that any legal action against the BLM would prevail.

2) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for cattle grazing was signed on March 31, 2026, by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. The USDA MOU gives incentives to cattle ranchers which will affect landowners willingness to sell out to AP.

3) The Public Lands Use Rule of 2024 has been targeted for rescission.

What happens with AP in Montana sets precedent for the entire Country. The bottom line is that there are not enough votes (probably never will be) to handoff millions of acres of public lands to an NGO whose primary purpose is to pre-empt widely accepted uses of public lands. Looking at the big picture, the majority of the American People are just not willing to give up their food security.
———————————————————————————

1. BLM has lost a bunch, especially when the wording change to production opens up Pandora’s box.

2. Please describe how you think this will change , property values are property values.

Did you know that there are 40 other permit holders that graze Bison across the west on public lands.

The whole nonsense of governed millions of acres to an ngo is a pipe dream, that being said ngos give lands to the public frequently.

As for the food security argument, it’s not enough cattle to even make the slightest difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WRO]

A rancher can’t just go out and kill a hundred deer eating up his haystack.

Actually they do quite frequently all across the west, I’ve participated and have friends that still do legally. State dfws are beholden to big ag and thousands of deer and elk are killed every year at their requests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RS_Non-Res]

Gila - Right from your own back yard... "Jennings Law" NMSA 1978, Section 17-2-7 ... allows farmers to take elk causing crop damage. Happens every year and some years someone takes enough in one massacre to make the news.

 

[Gila]

Gila - Right from your own back yard... "Jennings Law" NMSA 1978, Section 17-2-7 ... allows farmers to take elk causing crop damage. Happens every year and some years someone takes enough in one massacre to make the news.

Hooey!

https://www.santafelawyers.org/blog/2024/10/can-ranchers-without-permits-hunt-elk-that-damage-their-land/

 

[Gila]

Half a million cattle just in the area AP intends to control.

 

[Greenstig]

Half a million cattle just in the area AP intends to control.

This number is maddeningly ridiculous and just needs to stop being thrown out. Let’s look at some facts:

• There are approximately 2.1m total cattle in MT.
• The total land area of MT is 93.3m acres
• AP’s goal is 3.5m interconnected mixed ownership acres.

What you’re suggesting is 25% of the state’s entire cattle herd are concentrated on 3.8% of its land area, which is of course total nonsense.

Next, let’s look at the 7 counties in which AP operates. They’re almost exclusively agricultural land and better represent that geographic area.

The numbers are land acres followed by total cattle. Data is from the most recent (2022) USDA agricultural census:

• Blaine: 2.7m, 52.5k
• Chouteau: 2.5m, 33.1k
• Fergus: 2.8m, 103.3k
• Garfield: 3.0m, 70.0K
• Petroleum: 1.1m, 32.5K
• Phillips: 3.3m acres, 70.6k
• Valley: 3.1m acres, 56.3k

Total: 18.5m land acres, 418.3k total cattle.

So, even if AP did a hostile takeover of all 7 counties and removed every cow, they would still displace less cattle than what you claim. Again, total nonsense.

With the above data, anyone reading can calculate a realistic number if they are so inclined.

 

[WRO]

Hooey!

https://www.santafelawyers.org/blog/2024/10/can-ranchers-without-permits-hunt-elk-that-damage-their-land/

NMSA 1978, Section 17-2-7 makes it illegal to hunt, kill, or possess big game (like elk) outside of authorized seasons, punishable as a misdemeanor. However, landowners or lessees may kill animals causing immediate damage to private property or crops, provided it is reported to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish within 24 hours and before moving the carcass, under related regulations.

Legislation to Reform NM's "Jennings Law" Passes First Committee Hearing — New Mexico Wildlife Federation

By BEN NEARY NMWF Conservation Director A bill to reform a state law that allows landowners to kill wildlife they believe is threatening their crops cleared its first committee hearing Saturday with the strong support of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. The Senate Conservation

www.nmwildlife.org

Even your pet group agrees with that definition and it fighting it.

 

[WRO]

This number is maddeningly ridiculous and just needs to stop being thrown out. Let’s look at some facts:

• There are approximately 2.1m total cattle in MT.
• The total land area of MT is 93.3m acres
• AP’s goal is 3.5m interconnected mixed ownership acres.

What you’re suggesting is 25% of the state’s entire cattle herd are concentrated on 3.8% of its land area, which is of course total nonsense.

Next, let’s look at the 7 counties in which AP operates. They’re almost exclusively agricultural land and better represent that geographic area.

The numbers are land acres followed by total cattle. Data is from the most recent (2022) USDA agricultural census:

• Blaine: 2.7m, 52.5k
• Chouteau: 2.5m, 33.1k
• Fergus: 2.8m, 103.3k
• Garfield: 3.0m, 70.0K
• Petroleum: 1.1m, 32.5K
• Phillips: 3.3m acres, 70.6k
• Valley: 3.1m acres, 56.3k

Total: 18.5m land acres, 418.3k total cattle.

So, even if AP did a hostile takeover of all 7 counties and removed every cow, they would still displace less cattle than what you claim. Again, total nonsense.

With the above data, anyone reading can calculate a realistic number if they are so inclined.