American Prairie loses grazing rights

[Sandhills]

Somebody doesn't like having their behavior reflected back to them.


Ever heard of a farmer?

Do you really believe the 94-98% of cattle raised on private in the US don't need money spent on fences and water? Or that those ranchers/farmers/cattleman don't pay taxes on land they own that in some cases are more than a grazing lease?

Sure they spend money on it. My Father in law has a big fence project coming up that'll I'll be helping on. Oil well pipe ain't cheap. That's not the point though.

Proper Grazing reduces wildfire risk, improves bird habitat, and promotes plant growth.

Sod busters, all they care about is their next bushel and they'd kill every deer in the nation to get one more.

 

[Gila]

If so, than so is the publicly subsidize grazing of cattle. So, if socialism is always bad, time to get some socialist ranchers off the land.

Better option is stop using words inappropriately to demonize others. Neither can accurately be described as socialist.

Your circular logic is getting a bit ridiculous. Go listen to Newberg’s podcasts about AP. You will find his propaganda equally ridiculous. So you think that the gov’t should subsidize Eco-Tourism instead of cattle grazing? Ranchers don’t graze their cattle for free.

Thankfully Doug Bergum settled this matter with a little bit of common sense.

 

[Gila]

Farmers need farm subsidies to keep afloat at times also.

Conservation Reserve Program pays to keep land out of production for habitat improvement. The drought in NE Montana was so bad a few years ago that the Feds put out an emergency to allow haying and grazing on CRP lands.

 

[WoolOverAll]

So you think that the gov’t should subsidize Eco-Tourism instead of cattle grazing?

Yes I do. The public does not have an obligation to prop up inefficient cattle farms and should instead look for economically viable alternatives. In your own example, if American Prairie ends up being another Yellowstone, I see that as an immense benefit to the public. Another park capable of generating hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue and thousands of jobs seems good to me!

 

[tipsntails7]

Read some of Sean Gerrity’s papers if you have some time. He had several presentations on YouTube. His experience is getting large wild animal preserves and parks in Africa. Quite a bit of his funding comes from former Soviet Union Oligarchs. The bison are not to be consumed by humans because he plans to get Grizzlies and Wolves to predate on the bison and other ungulates on the Preserve. His goal is to connect three million acres for predator management and bison grazing.

American Prairie is just another Yellowstone only privately owned (for now). Deb Haaland subsidized American Prairie by allowing them to graze their bison (not raised for consumption) on BLM land. Those Grazing leases came with the cattle ranches they bought up. AP dangled a carrot in front of hunters by putting 80K into Block Management and allowing some access to public lands on their borders. Newberg and Hettick (BHA) are trying to get hunter support for AP. They are also in bed with Center for Biological Diversity. American Prairie is a socialist idea and has nothing to do with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model which uses our excise taxes on sporting goods etc. for wildlife management.

I will do some reading, and get better informed with this, but correct me below if I am wrong.

The BLM's own report for the original decision in Montana specifically noted Bison grazing could lead to overall habitat improvement when compared to Cattle, which from everything I can find has been true.

AP bought ranches, in a free market, that had already established leases.

AP is not running the ranches or leases for profit to sell Bison meat, yet are required to pay the same AUM Fees as cattle leases.

They have revived the Bison population to where they are now offering hunting opportunities specifically for Bison in certain areas.

They have opened up 160k plus acres of land to public use, and 80k of that is enrolled in the block management, not including access its opened to bordering BLM lands that were impossible to access.


So... your issue is... they are blocking cattle ranchers from using public land for profit, from all accounts to the ecological detriment of the land.


As a hunter, Conservationist, and general outdoorsman that loves wild places, I cant really square that.

 

[Marbles]

Your circular logic is getting a bit ridiculous. Go listen to Newberg’s podcasts about AP. You will find his propaganda equally ridiculous. So you think that the gov’t should subsidize Eco-Tourism instead of cattle grazing? Ranchers don’t graze their cattle for free.

Thankfully Doug Bergum settled this matter with a little bit of common sense.

Creating a strawman because you cannot argue the actual topic doesn't help your case.

Do you know what socialism is?

Do you know what circular reasoning is?

So far, you have been demonstrating the answer is no.


1. Socialism is the government owning the means and methods of production.
2. If the government owning one portion and subsidizing the use of that portion is socialism, then it must be socialism in all cases, not just when the word is convenient to you.
3. I offered two options, either both are socialism for the same reasons (which apparently offends you) or neither are socialism because complete control is not in the publics hands (though both have some traits of socialism).

I prefer the latter interpretation, but am willing to discuss the implications of the former given you put it forth.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that you prefer logical duplicity and orwellian double speak. That attitude is the foundation of tyranny, regardless of the system it is employed in.


Your statement on American Prairie being socialist actually is bordering on circular reasoning giving the improper use of the word.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Creating a strawman because you cannot argue the actual topic doesn't help your case.

Do you know what socialism is?

Do you know what circular reasoning is?

So far, you have been demonstrating the answer is no.


1. Socialism is the government owning the means and methods of production.
2. If the government owning one portion and subsidizing the use of that portion is socialism, then it must be socialism in all cases, not just when the word is convenient to you.
3. I offered two options, either both are socialism for the same reasons (which apparently offends you) or neither are socialism because complete control is not in the publics hands (though both have some traits of socialism).

I prefer the latter interpretation, but am willing to discuss the implications of the former given you put it forth.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that you prefer logical duplicity and orwellian double speak. That attitude is the foundation of tyranny, regardless of the system it is employed in.


On the other hand, your statement on American Prairie being socialist actually is bordering on circular reasoning giving the improper use of the word.

It's just boomer buzzword salad, not a real ideological position. Socialist just means "I don't directly benefit from it this instant".

 

[WRO]

Sure they spend money on it. My Father in law has a big fence project coming up that'll I'll be helping on. Oil well pipe ain't cheap. That's not the point though.

Proper Grazing reduces wildfire risk, improves bird habitat, and promotes plant growth.

Sod busters, all they care about is their next bushel and they'd kill every deer in the nation to get one more.

That’s what we’re dealing with locally, cows illegally in the wilderness, illegal roads, the steppe grazed to dirt. Then the loudest weeping and gnashing of teeth of the elk come within 5 miles of their private winter range how they’re eating us out of house and home and we need to kill them off. After they spend the summer and fall eating the range bare for profit.

 

[Gila]

Go to SDSU to get information on the research that Clarence Mortensen produced. Found these to be interesting reads:

Bison vs. Cattle: Neither are Better nor Worse than the Other | Praise the Ruminant Ltd.

praisetheruminant.com

Billionaire-funded eco group quietly taking farmland out of production in rural America

A little-known conservation project funded by billionaire moguls is slowly acquiring land made available for cattle grazing in an effort to create a "fully functioning ecosystem."

www.foxnews.com

 

[WRO]

Go to SDSU to get information on the research that Clarence Mortensen produced. Found these to be interesting reads:

Bison vs. Cattle: Neither are Better nor Worse than the Other | Praise the Ruminant Ltd.

praisetheruminant.com

Billionaire-funded eco group quietly taking farmland out of production in rural America

A little-known conservation project funded by billionaire moguls is slowly acquiring land made available for cattle grazing in an effort to create a "fully functioning ecosystem."

www.foxnews.com

Really, an Oped and a fox sensational headline?

You claim to be a hunter and conservationist, yet you’re taking the anti position to your proclaimed identity?

 

[Jpsmith1]

National parks, wildlife refuges, and public land are by nature socialist ideas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably more communal/communist if we're being pedantic but the modern american political machine uses 'socialist' to encompass everything on the left.

Your circular logic is getting a bit ridiculous. Go listen to Newberg’s podcasts about AP. You will find his propaganda equally ridiculous. So you think that the gov’t should subsidize Eco-Tourism instead of cattle grazing? Ranchers don’t graze their cattle for free.

Thankfully Doug Bergum settled this matter with a little bit of common sense.

The government subsidies a ton of stuff.

I live how farmers "need" subsidies but restoring bison and natural grasslands is just a ridiculous idea because you might not benefit directly from it.

 

[CJ19]

We went from a conservation oriented project that will benefit hunters to another yellowstone in this thread? What benefit to hunters does yellowstone have? Hunt the edge and hope an animal wonders out of the park? I am not sure where all the people here are getting that this project is better than subsidized beef. Have you looked at AP 990s? For all you "muh billionaire bad" people, look away now.

This is a billionaire special interest project. Reportedly 90% of revenue was from private foundations and millionaire / billionaire mega donors including the some of the most aggressive social engineering entities in the country such as Mars Foundation, Packard Family, Hansjorg Wyss to name a few. Their 2023 990 shows a net revenue of ~25 million dollars in revenue 24 million of which was from donations. Total expenses listed at 11.5 million with non-donation revenue at less than 1 million dollars. Looking at Part 2, Section A of the return shows that 94 million of 160 million dollars over the last 5 years has been donations from mega donors. I would really like to see where that 39.6% of "public support" came from. I would bet there is all kinds of shenanigans going on in that confidential list of donations to make it look like more small donors exist than there actually are. Their 2024 financial "summary" is even more mega-donor dependent.

Where is the long term revenue for sustaining this "preserve" going to come from again? I am hearing that beef is subsidized, this project has no income as it currently stands. So when it gets up and running are they selling entrance fees and guide hunts?

 

[MT_Wyatt]

We went from a conservation oriented project that will benefit hunters to another yellowstone in this thread? What benefit to hunters does yellowstone have? Hunt the edge and hope an animal wonders out of the park? I am not sure where all the people here are getting that this project is better than subsidized beef. Have you looked at AP 990s? For all you "muh billionaire bad" people, look away now.

This is a billionaire special interest project. Reportedly 90% of revenue was from private foundations and millionaire / billionaire mega donors including the some of the most aggressive social engineering entities in the country such as Mars Foundation, Packard Family, Hansjorg Wyss to name a few. Their 2023 990 shows a net revenue of ~25 million dollars in revenue 24 million of which was from donations. Total expenses listed at 11.5 million with non-donation revenue at less than 1 million dollars. Looking at Part 2, Section A of the return shows that 94 million of 160 million dollars over the last 5 years has been donations from mega donors. I would really like to see where that 39.6% of "public support" came from. I would bet there is all kinds of shenanigans going on in that confidential list of donations to make it look like more small donors exist than there actually are. Their 2024 financial "summary" is even more mega-donor dependent.

Where is the long term revenue for sustaining this "preserve" going to come from again? I am hearing that beef is subsidized, this project has no income as it currently stands. So when it gets up and running are they selling entrance fees and guide hunts?

Well, it’s up and running and has been for a while. They’ve built a lot of facilities to try and support people visiting and enjoying it.

APR is not something to compare to subsidized beef, nor is it a place for selling guided hunts or animals produced - there is no “long term revenue” play that I’ve ever read, aside from donations. And to be clear, donations are still overwhelmingly “coastal” to my understanding, which is where the billionaire private club thing gets thrown in, which I get - except as others have noted, it indeed is not private and it does indeed benefit wildlife and access. Maybe if you don’t know a ton about the organization or its people it’s reasonable to expect you might take a little more care with your language and labeling it a “special interest club.” I’m confident they’ve made mistakes, including approaches to what they are working towards, but it’s hard to have an honest conversation with all of the misinformation.

You’re obviously willing to spend some time trying to understand the org by reviewing financials, so I’d take a step back and understand what they are doing before going further. The cattle thing is just an argument or distraction - “better than subsidized beef” lends zero recognition of the benefits because they aren’t selling bison burger? APR isn’t about replacing beef grazing with something better, fundamentally it’s about trying to preserve a contiguous swath of an ecosystem that’s largely been erased from America, and part of doing that has been restoration of bison (which is where ALL the controversy seems to flow). BTW you can indeed eat some - you draw in lottery and go hunt them.

Land - they work on willing buyer/willing seller model and HAVE to pay fair market value for properties obtained. They aren’t out with a mega donor backed checkbook trying to overpay “locals” and buy out generational ranches. This fallacy of outcompeting everyone with a war chest of cash is often misrepresented.

Gila has posted a lot of nonsense but he’s not wrong on the hope to connect ecosystems and predators, that idea has been publicly stated. The idea that bears and other predators are going to manage the bison herd sizes (hunting does right now to keep land use density appropriate) is something I’ve ever heard - sounds made up.