American Prairie loses grazing rights

[nm.otter]

Unfortunately, that bill did not survive the session, and current regs appear unchanged. It's an ongoing issue in our area, with mule deer being effectively a pest animal. Farmers are allowed to dispatch them, but are not allowed to eat them. Government employees and contractors (who mostly deal with road kill, skunks, and javelina) are supposed to pick them up, but some definitely end up in freezers.

 

[finner]

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.

Let's not let facts get in the way of senile feelings and Agenda 21 conspiracy theories

 

[Thehillbillee]

I am not intimately familiar with AP, but I’m much more comfortable with an organization like theirs accumulating private property than out of state, individual billionaires and millionaires. I know for sure if they get it I’m not gonna have any shot of hunting it.

AP also seems unlikely to develop it into housing/golf courses/etc, and they’re not gonna allow data centers or wind/solar/oil projects.

Also I find it very difficult to believe buffalo are worse for elk, antelope, deer, etc than cattle. The buffalo were on the landscape a lot longer than the ranches and ranchers have been, and game was plentiful.

I love beef, eat it almost every day. I probably like it more than venison. But it’s my understanding that AP allows cattle grazing too. And it seems unlikely that they’re actions will make beef less available and more costly.

It would be great if they had a solid commitment to always allow public access and hunting for any species as allowed by the state of MT. Not sure how’d they’d do that—maybe have it in bylaws or their mission statement or something. Maybe they already have that, anyone know?

 

[WRO]

.

Also I find it very difficult to believe buffalo are worse for elk, antelope, deer, etc than cattle. The buffalo were on the landscape a lot longer than the ranches and ranchers have been, and game was plentiful.

I love beef, eat it almost every day. I probably like it more than venison. But it’s my understanding that AP allows cattle grazing too. And it seems unlikely that they’re actions will make beef less available and more costly.

It would be great if they had a solid commitment to always allow public access and hunting for any species as allowed by the state of MT. Not sure how’d they’d do that—maybe have it in bylaws or their mission statement or something. Maybe they already have that, anyone know?

There’s a very informative podcast with Randy Newberg where they go through their public access programs. Very informative, I personally like their approach for quality access over maximum access, since the type 2 block management. There’s a 20 year history of the Apr being in Montana so they history backs it up. They’re in the top 3 in landowners who provide access and access through their private to landlocked public lands.

As for Montana deer, they have one of the most detrimental season structures for mule deer (general open through November) that has lead to declines in populations. Landowners being protective of their mule deer populations is pretty common across the properties I’ve been a part of (leased, managed, and guided) in the west.

Mt cut non resident tags this year and more cuts are coming.

 

[Greenstig]

I am not intimately familiar with AP, but I’m much more comfortable with an organization like theirs accumulating private property than out of state, individual billionaires and millionaires. I know for sure if they get it I’m not gonna have any shot of hunting it.

AP also seems unlikely to develop it into housing/golf courses/etc, and they’re not gonna allow data centers or wind/solar/oil projects.

Also I find it very difficult to believe buffalo are worse for elk, antelope, deer, etc than cattle. The buffalo were on the landscape a lot longer than the ranches and ranchers have been, and game was plentiful.

I love beef, eat it almost every day. I probably like it more than venison. But it’s my understanding that AP allows cattle grazing too. And it seems unlikely that they’re actions will make beef less available and more costly.

It would be great if they had a solid commitment to always allow public access and hunting for any species as allowed by the state of MT. Not sure how’d they’d do that—maybe have it in bylaws or their mission statement or something. Maybe they already have that, anyone know?

Thank you for your reasonable and level-headed discussion points.

AP does not currently have anything codified regarding hunting that I’m aware of.

Caution, statement of opinion ahead…

It would not surprise me if this changes once they’re a little further down the road. I think, as an organization, they understand that humans, and thus hunting, have always been part of an in-tact prairie ecosystem. If I were to speculate, 50 years from now, hunting will be the primary tool they utilize for managing wildlife populations at sustainable levels on their lands.

For now, I think they are asking us as sportsmen to judge them by their actions regarding hunting and access.

 

[Thehillbillee]

It would not surprise me if this changes once they’re a little further down the road. I think, as an organization, they understand that humans, and thus hunting, have always been part of an in-tact prairie ecosystem. If I were to speculate, 50 years from now, hunting will be the primary tool they utilize for managing wildlife populations at sustainable levels on their lands.

Then I think that as hunters we should be proactively supporting American Prairie as much as possible. Build and strengthen the relationship between hunters and the organization. Use their land responsibly and respectfully. Support them politically and financially, as you’re able.

Out of all the groups of outdoor loving folks hunters align most closely with the organization’s mission. Human hunters go as far back as the animals, and should definitely have a role in managing their populations.

 

[Gila]

Unfortunately, that bill did not survive the session, and current regs appear unchanged. It's an ongoing issue in our area, with mule deer being effectively a pest animal. Farmers are allowed to dispatch them, but are not allowed to eat them. Government employees and contractors (who mostly deal with road kill, skunks, and javelina) are supposed to pick them up, but some definitely end up in freezers.

New Mexico is rather slow to the trough though. Their wildlife management practices are from the Stone Age. I think they still have a law on the books that 100 year old citizens are exempt from income tax. New Mexico has depredation hunts open to the public. I certainly hope there aren’t any landowner hunters on this thread who think they can just go out and shoot wildlife on their property because of the posts here.
———————————————————
B. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill animals on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that present a threat to human life or damage to property, including crops, according to regulations adopted by the commission. The regulations shall:

(1) provide a method for filing a complaint to the department by the landowner or lessee, or employee of either of them, of the existence of a depredation problem;

(2) provide for various departmental interventions, depending upon the type of animal and depredation;

(3) require the department to offer at least three different interventions, if practical;

(4) require the department to respond to the initial and any subsequent complaints within ten days with an intervention response to the complaint, and to carry out the intervention, if agreed upon between the department and the landowner, within five days of that agreement;

(5) permit the landowner or lessee to reject for good cause the interventions offered by the department;

(6) require a landowner or lessee to demonstrate that the property depredation is greater in value than the value of any wildlife-related income or fee collected by the landowner or lessee for permission to take or kill an animal of the same species, on the private property or portion of the private property identified in the complaint as the location where the depredation occurred; and

(7) permit the landowner, lessee or employee, when interventions by the department have not been successful and after one year from the date of the filing of the initial complaint, to kill or take an animal believed responsible for property depredation.

—————————————————————————————

 

[WRO]

New Mexico is rather slow to the trough though. Their wildlife management practices are from the Stone Age. I think they still have a law on the books that 100 year old citizens are exempt from income tax. New Mexico has depredation hunts open to the public. I certainly hope there aren’t any landowner hunters on this thread who think they can just go out and shoot wildlife on their property because of the posts here.
———————————————————
B. A landowner or lessee, or employee of either, may take or kill animals on private land, in which they have an ownership or leasehold interest, including game animals and other quadrupeds, game birds and fowl, that present a threat to human life or damage to property, including crops, according to regulations adopted by the commission. The regulations shall:

(1) provide a method for filing a complaint to the department by the landowner or lessee, or employee of either of them, of the existence of a depredation problem;

(2) provide for various departmental interventions, depending upon the type of animal and depredation;

(3) require the department to offer at least three different interventions, if practical;

(4) require the department to respond to the initial and any subsequent complaints within ten days with an intervention response to the complaint, and to carry out the intervention, if agreed upon between the department and the landowner, within five days of that agreement;

(5) permit the landowner or lessee to reject for good cause the interventions offered by the department;

(6) require a landowner or lessee to demonstrate that the property depredation is greater in value than the value of any wildlife-related income or fee collected by the landowner or lessee for permission to take or kill an animal of the same species, on the private property or portion of the private property identified in the complaint as the location where the depredation occurred; and

(7) permit the landowner, lessee or employee, when interventions by the department have not been successful and after one year from the date of the filing of the initial complaint, to kill or take an animal believed responsible for property depredation.

—————————————————————————————

I don’t understand how you can continually be so blatantly misleading, you literally left out section A, which only requires reporting of killing not prior authorization.

This is directly from nm code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gila]

I don’t understand how you can continually be so blatantly misleading, you literally left out section A, which only requires reporting of killing not prior authorization.

This is directly from nm code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A) is an exception clause for an immediate threat…in other words there is no time to get a prior authorization. But I will say that a prior report of depredation will enter into the argument of whether or not it was an immediate threat.

 

[Gila]

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.

That number came from Sean Gerrity. His actual number in the presentation was about 440,000 I believe….

 

[Jpsmith1]

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.


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.

They just can't decide if you’re allowed to hunt certain species or not?

This reasoning just gets land shut down.

 

[Svivian]

That number came from Sean Gerrity. His actual number in the presentation was about 440,000 I believe….

A google video from 2015.... lol

 

[Greenstig]

That number came from Sean Gerrity. His actual number in the presentation was about 440,000 I believe….

You’ve posted this a few times now. Have you actually watched it? Nowhere in that presentation does he say that they’re displacing that many cattle.

What was actually said is they have half a million cattle on the periphery of their project area. The context being how can they “soften their borders” to create better interactions with their cattle ranching neighbors. Timestamp is 21:45 for anyone interested.

 

[Jpsmith1]

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?


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?


*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.

Expecting logical consistency and staying on the point being made when it detracts from his tinfoil hat crap isn't happening.

Landowners can do what they want until AP does something that he doesn't like then AP can't do it but anyone else can.

 

[Jpsmith1]

The Montana FWP has used science to advance mule deer hunting in that area

As for Montana deer, they have one of the most detrimental season structures for mule deer (general open though November) that has lead to declines in populations.

2 statements cannot be true at once.

Given that the population decline is well documented, I think i know which to trust

 

[Gila]

What was actually said is they have half a million cattle on the periphery of their project area. The context being how can they “soften their borders” to create better interactions with their cattle ranching neighbors. Timestamp is 21:45 for anyone interested.

Not true…The 440,000 cattle were drawn within the context of the area he had intended to control.

“American Prairie's efforts to create a nature reserve are expected to displace a significant number of cattle, with estimates suggesting that it could affect around half a million head of cattle in the surrounding area.”
Wikipedia beefmagazine.com

 

[Greenstig]

Not true…The 440,000 cattle were drawn within the context of the area he had intended to control.

“American Prairie's efforts to create a nature reserve are expected to displace a significant number of cattle, with estimates suggesting that it could affect around half a million head of cattle in the surrounding area.”
Wikipedia beefmagazine.com

Are you short-circuiting?

Neither source you just posted says any such thing. The closest reference is on the Wikipedia page you just posted which says:

“AP's vice president and chief external relations officer estimated that there is a half a million head of cattle in the seven county area where AP is based and seeks to be a good neighbor (ref 66)”

The Rokslide mods have a high tolerance for bullshit, but how you haven’t been banned for this level of trolling, I don’t know.

 

[CJ19]

Are you short-circuiting?

Neither source you just posted says any such thing. The closest reference is on the Wikipedia page you just posted which says:

“AP's vice president and chief external relations officer estimated that there is a half a million head of cattle in the seven county area where AP is based and seeks to be a good neighbor (ref 66)”

The Rokslide mods have a high tolerance for bullshit, but how you haven’t been banned for this level of trolling, I don’t know.

calling for others to be banned because you disagree with them is low behavior.

 

[Svivian]

calling for others to be banned because you disagree with them is low behavior.

Low behavior is calling people nut jobs for not agreeing…

 

[WRO]

calling for others to be banned because you disagree with them is low behavior.

How many blatant lies can one post before it becomes something to consider?

There’s a pile of mistruths, misquotes, and blatant lies posted by rainman on this thread.

I don’t care if anyone gets banned or not to be honest.