American Prairie loses grazing rights

[Sandhills]

I'll be willing to bet cash money that a large percentage of the DNA from the buffalo on Rosebud Reservation is cattle. A lot of those came from Fort Niobrara NWR which used to have a longhorn herd that ran freely with the bison

 

[WRO]

I'll be willing to bet cash money that a large percentage of the DNA from the buffalo on Rosebud Reservation is cattle. A lot of those came from Fort Niobrara NWR which used to have a longhorn herd that ran freely with the bison

If it’s a large percentage wouldn’t they stop looking like bison?

There’s cattle genes in a lot of bison herds, but it’s what we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marbles]

They're not livestock under BLMs definition. Simple as that. BLM is following their own rules

Incorrect. BLM is not even applying the supposed definition across the board because it is not actually a definition and there is no legal nor procedural authority for what they are doing.

Livestock is not defined in the Tailor Grazing Act of 1934 nor in subsequent legislation and BLM has historically and continues to permit bison grazing under that authority. By the principles of English law that our justice system is based on, this sets a precedent that defines the definition.

This is nothing but a BS game of Calvin Ball by the Executive to circumvent the Legislative and Judicial branches. It is contrary to the foundations of both the US Constitution and the principles that uphold just societies.

Further, when SCOTUS overturned the Chevron Doctrine in 2024, they specifically rejected the only real defense BLM could make, highlighting the illegal nature of what this administration is doing.

If it’s a large percentage wouldn’t they stop looking like bison?

Yes.

Bison herds have 0.5-2.5% cattle DNA. Considering that we humans share 98.8% of our DNA with chimps, the DNA argument is asininely ignorant of biology (humans clearly are not chimps). It is neither a large percentage, nor materially significant. Besides, if it was, than bison are cattle and the BLM is now picking on certain breeds.

The DNA drivel just highlights the logical inconsistency of the anti-bison arguments.

 

[tipsntails7]

They're not livestock under BLMs definition. Simple as that. BLM is following their own rules

Then why has the BLM granted grazing permits for bison for over 3 decades?

Why did BLM approve grazing authorizations in 2022, and defend those permits in the years after?

Because the definition of Livestock in 29 CFR is open-ended, and based on Montanas ruling and how they treat privately owned Bison they are livestock. But thats irrelevant in this instance, they are not attacking the basis for being livestock or not, they are using a "definition" they have decided to unilaterally use, thats not even in the TGA's language.

so we have on one hand, precedent thats been set for 30 plus years, or special interest groups bitching about their handouts being legally taken and used by someone else.

This is nothing more than special interests steering government action.

Regardless of what side you see yourself on, thats not something that should be welcomed.

 

[Gila]

They're not livestock under BLMs definition. Simple as that. BLM is following their own rules

The Taylor Act was enacted by the US Congress and is to be executed by the Secretary of the Interior. Deb Haaland bended the rules to accommodate the bison which is part of a liberal agenda to re-wild the prairie and return the land back to parks and reserves. The Buffalo Commons Movement is a land grab for all of the short grass prairie biome which also includes private lands in New Mexico and neighboring states around the Black Kettle, McClellan Creek, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands covering 263,261 acres in northeastern New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Since 2019, a total of 414 Yellowstone bison have been transferred to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes at Fort Peck. Nearly all of those bison and their offspring have then been further distributed to 26 tribes across 12 states in partnership with the InterTribal Buffalo Council. Most of these bison were consumed. Certainly not enough bison to feed all of the Reservation residents in South Dakota. The Tribes get bison from farms from all over the country.

 

[Gila]

I'll be willing to bet cash money that a large percentage of the DNA from the buffalo on Rosebud Reservation is cattle. A lot of those came from Fort Niobrara NWR which used to have a longhorn herd that ran freely with the bison

Actually they were at one time. Catalina Island gave them a sizeable number of bison about 35 years ago…something like that. They were so inbred that they were riddled with disease and had to be destroyed. I don’t think it was due to the amount of bovine DNA. However, what if the bovine DNA genes made them more susceptible to disease? Just a question, I don’t have the answer.

Camp Pendleton had bison that were there for a very long time. However they also had wild long horns, so the bison couldn’t leave the base.

 

[WRO]

The Taylor Act was enacted by the US Congress and is to be executed by the Secretary of the Interior. Deb Haaland bended the rules to accommodate the bison which is part of a liberal agenda to re-wild the prairie and return the land back to parks and reserves. The Buffalo Commons Movement is a land grab for all of the short grass prairie biome which also includes private lands in New Mexico and neighboring states around the Black Kettle, McClellan Creek, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands covering 263,261 acres in northeastern New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Since 2019, a total of 414 Yellowstone bison have been transferred to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes at Fort Peck. Nearly all of those bison and their offspring have then been further distributed to 26 tribes across 12 states in partnership with the InterTribal Buffalo Council. Most of these bison were consumed. Certainly not enough bison to feed all of the Reservation residents in South Dakota. The Tribes get bison from farms from all over the country.

You never cease to amaze..

How is welfare cattle ranching not a liberal agenda item as well, While were at it how about selling elk tags on the private market to the highest bidder, that sounds about as capitlist as it gets.

Most of the bison have not been consumed, tribes all across the west are working to reintroduce them on their reservations. Certain tribes that have enough do tribal hunts.

As a hunter, the idea of rewilding a portion of the prairie seems awesome and something I would love to show my kids and grand kids. Moreover land can’t be turned into a park without federal approval, the bonus is that the blm land will be much better off with bison than cattle.

 

[CJ19]

You never cease to amaze..

How is welfare cattle ranching not a liberal agenda item as well, While were at it how about selling elk tags on the private market to the highest bidder, that sounds about as capitlist as it gets.

Most of the bison have not been consumed, tribes all across the west are working to reintroduce them on their reservations. Certain tribes that have enough do tribal hunts.

As a hunter, the idea of rewilding a portion of the prairie seems awesome and something I would love to show my kids and grand kids. Moreover land can’t be turned into a park without federal approval, the bonus is that the blm land will be much better off with bison than cattle.

Throttling supply to increase meat prices for the public, specifically beef, is a major action item for proponents of net zero and other aggressive climate change related policy. Virtually every climate action plan to achieve aggressive climate goals calls for Americans to eat less meat. All of the board members and leadership I have examined from AP are net zero proponents. Replacing industrialized beef ranching with re-wilded bison fit that vision perfectly. You will eat zee bugs.

 

[Gila]

The Buffalo Commons is a movement to create a vast nature preserve by returning 139,000 square miles of the shortgrass prairie biome of the Great Plains to native prairie, and by reintroducing the American bison, that once grazed the shortgrass prairie. And of course introduce wolves, grizzlies and lions to control their numbers. The Movement affects ten states: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

It’s a pipe dream by city folk who think that beef steaks come from grocery stores and hamburger comes from McDonalds. The only bison they have seen is on the Nat Geo channel. Those same ignorant folk are against hunting, fishing and trapping. They are the same ones that want to take our guns away. And they are the same ones who want to put those cute little kitties and puppies into places they don’t belong!

I hope some of you people wake up and smell the coffee, because if things continue on the current path, not only will there be no places to hunt, we won’t be hunting or shooting at all!

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Gila, you are a great user of google.

 

[WoolOverAll]

The Buffalo Commons is a movement to create a vast nature preserve by returning 139,000 square miles of the shortgrass prairie biome of the Great Plains to native prairie, and by reintroducing the American bison, that once grazed the shortgrass prairie. And of course introduce wolves, grizzlies and lions to control their numbers. The Movement affects ten states: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

It’s a pipe dream by city folk who think that beef steaks come from grocery stores and hamburger comes from McDonalds. The only bison they have seen is on the Nat Geo channel. Those same ignorant folk are against hunting, fishing and trapping. They are the same ones that want to take our guns away. And they are the same ones who want to put those cute little kitties and puppies into places they don’t belong!

I hope some of you people wake up and smell the coffee, because if things continue on the current path, not only will there be no places to hunt, we won’t be hunting or shooting at all!

I see the issue. It is hard to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The city folk are going to turn your guns gay and make your trucks dress in drag.

 

[WRO]

Throttling supply to increase meat prices for the public, specifically beef, is a major action item for proponents of net zero and other aggressive climate change related policy. Virtually every climate action plan to achieve aggressive climate goals calls for Americans to eat less meat. All of the board members and leadership I have examined from AP are net zero proponents. Replacing industrialized beef ranching with re-wilded bison fit that vision perfectly. You will eat zee bugs.

Here’s the problem, the facts don’t fit your narrative.

We’re not even talking about a blip in the meat supply here, in fact if public land ranching was ended nationally, it would equate to around 3% of the beef production in the us. I’m not advocating for that.

I’ll eat elk and deer like I do every year, hunt harder you won’t have to eat bugs.

 

[Gila]

About 95% of cattle in the United States spend at least two-thirds of their lives grazing, but only a small percentage are finished on grass for their entire life. Most beef is produced from cattle that are finished on grain for the last part of their life. Grass finished beef is in much higher demand these days.

 

[CJ19]

Here’s the problem, the facts don’t fit your narrative.

We’re not even talking about a blip in the meat supply here, in fact if public land ranching was ended nationally, it would equate to around 3% of the beef production in the us. I’m not advocating for that.

I’ll eat elk and deer like I do every year, hunt harder you won’t have to eat bugs.

First off, your last statement is not practical at scale. American and global meat demand is not going to be met through recreational hunting. The moment animal protein from large mammals such as cattle, bison, elk, etc becomes a luxury item, competition for that resource will increase significantly. Subsistence hunting already negatively impacts tag allocation and pricing in many areas and species, notably Alaska or the resident vs nonresident tag debate. In some areas and species such as feral hogs or urban white-tailed deer, such a change may be have some benefit or practicality in the short term. However, that is likely not the case for western large game species such as elk, bison, big horn sheep, or mule deer.

To your first point, the facts perfectly match what I am saying because what you are seeing happen with AP is precisely how ideologically driven corporate goals such as ESG or global initiatives such as net zero look. Elite board members from enormous corporations just as Mars (the major donor/investor in AP) go about implementing their ideological vision via corporate policy, charitable giving, and/or subsidiary corporations. Everything from AP's tax returns, to their website, corporate statements, statements of boards members and the companies those broad members are involved with align exactly with I am saying. Sure, its not the only benefit for these entities from the AP project, but it fits perfectly with in their sustainability and climate change framework. That does not mean hunters and the public can not benefit either. In fact, that is part of the corporate stated goal to mitigating climate change - A public benefit by increasing biodiversity, making life better through sustainability etc.

As far as this being a blip and only 3% beef production on public land. No entity is going to capture 100% of the US beef market in one acquisition. It is done one small piece at a time. What you are saying is actually incorrect, this single project is far larger than most single steps in reducing supply to apply upward pressure on prices. 3% is a big number especially given the condition of the US beef market. The World Economic Forum has scrubbed a lot of the material about reducing American beef consumption from its websources after the "You vill eat zee bugs"meme hit, but this white paper might be interesting for people who care to read it. No one in the net zero space is dumb enough to publicly state they want to tell people they are not going be able to eat the kinds of meat they want after the "eat zee bugs" PR disaster.

I doubt anyone will even skim them but I would suggest it if you seriously want to engage with the vision net zero global initiative has for beef.

https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Roadmap_Protein.pdf

 

[tipsntails7]

Throttling supply to increase meat prices for the public, specifically beef, is a major action item for proponents of net zero and other aggressive climate change related policy. Virtually every climate action plan to achieve aggressive climate goals calls for Americans to eat less meat. All of the board members and leadership I have examined from AP are net zero proponents. Replacing industrialized beef ranching with re-wilded bison fit that vision perfectly. You will eat zee bugs.

If you cannot raise your beef without being subsidized by public lands shouldn’t, you just… go out of buissness then? Are we that afraid of the free market now?

Not only do they need public land and dollar subsidies, but they need the government to block others from legally using the same programs they use to make a profit. You act like AP stole the shit from ranchers, or got it for free. They follow the same process and pay the same fees as anyone, and they don’t make a literal profit while restricting access or destroying n the land their “livestock” travel on.

 

[CJ19]

If you cannot raise your beef without being subsidized by public lands shouldn’t, you just… go out of buissness then? Are we that afraid of the free market now?

Not only do they need public land and dollar subsidies, but they need the government to block others from legally using the same programs they use to make a profit. You act like AP stole the shit from ranchers, or got it for free. They follow the same process and pay the same fees as anyone, and they don’t make a literal profit while restricting access or destroying n the land their “livestock” travel on.

With regards to raising beef and subsidies, all ag is subsidized.

Im not acting in any kind of way. I am not saying AP is doing any of the things you are saying. I am simply saying AP conveniently meets sustainability and esg type goals for many of the companies or people involved. To say this is some beacon of capitalism or free market is a stretch. For one this whole thread is about tax payers subsidizing agriculture and who should qualify for those subsidizes.

I am not entirely opposed to AP. The way AP are doing it now seems kinda cool. Most people here are focused on the cattle gazing aspect. I am more interested in environmental policy, public land, and The way AP is set up, hunting could be removed as an acceptible use tomorrow. 1 influential board member is all it would take. Everyone would have a much different take IF hunting was not included with the plan. That is not a unique take. Others have said the same thing.

More concerningly, the people/organizations behind this project are generally speaking the ones behind shifts in wildlife management in places like Washington, Oregon, Colorado, or other such places. When the names like Earthjustice and CBD are involved in an organization, hunters should be wary. alarm bells go off when those names appear. They are generally Mike Lee level of concern for public land hunters. Maybe this project will be different. Its set up differently and looks cool at this time. I don't know if they should be getting ag subsidizes but you guys can argue about that.

 

[WRO]

First off, your last statement is not practical at scale. American and global meat demand is not going to be met through recreational hunting. The moment animal protein from large mammals such as cattle, bison, elk, etc becomes a luxury item, competition for that resource will increase significantly. Subsistence hunting already negatively impacts tag allocation and pricing in many areas and species, notably Alaska or the resident vs nonresident tag debate. In some areas and species such as feral hogs or urban white-tailed deer, such a change may be have some benefit or practicality in the short term. However, that is likely not the case for western large game species such as elk, bison, big horn sheep, or mule deer.

To your first point, the facts perfectly match what I am saying because what you are seeing happen with AP is precisely how ideologically driven corporate goals such as ESG or global initiatives such as net zero look. Elite board members from enormous corporations just as Mars (the major donor/investor in AP) go about implementing their ideological vision via corporate policy, charitable giving, and/or subsidiary corporations. Everything from AP's tax returns, to their website, corporate statements, statements of boards members and the companies those broad members are involved with align exactly with I am saying. Sure, its not the only benefit for these entities from the AP project, but it fits perfectly with in their sustainability and climate change framework. That does not mean hunters and the public can not benefit either. In fact, that is part of the corporate stated goal to mitigating climate change - A public benefit by increasing biodiversity, making life better through sustainability etc.

As far as this being a blip and only 3% beef production on public land. No entity is going to capture 100% of the US beef market in one acquisition. It is done one small piece at a time. What you are saying is actually incorrect, this single project is far larger than most single steps in reducing supply to apply upward pressure on prices. 3% is a big number especially given the condition of the US beef market. The World Economic Forum has scrubbed a lot of the material about reducing American beef consumption from its websources after the "You vill eat zee bugs"meme hit, but this white paper might be interesting for people who care to read it. No one in the net zero space is dumb enough to publicly state they want to tell people they are not going be able to eat the kinds of meat they want after the "eat zee bugs" PR disaster.

I doubt anyone will even skim them but I would suggest it if you seriously want to engage with the vision net zero global initiative has for beef.

https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Roadmap_Protein.pdf

The sky isn't falling, every time there's change the whole internet gets tribal and thinks it’s the end of the world as we know it. The reason we have clean water, national parks, public lands, is because people bucked the system.

I'm going to support causes that are good for hunters and conservation, regradless of sponsonship. This is a minor event on the scale, but a step in the right direction from looking at our public lands as a profit center to preserving them. I'm sure the euro trash wants to turn us all gay and take our guns, but we live in a system of checks and balances.

We've lost more cattle on the landscape from market attrition and natural disasters the last decade than 3%.

Why are you opposed to restoring the landscape in a small section of MT?

I didn't mention anything about scale for the american people, just my freezer.

 

[WRO]

With regards to raising beef and subsidies, all ag is subsidized.

Im not acting in any kind of way. I am not saying AP is doing any of the things you are saying. I am simply saying AP conveniently meets sustainability and esg type goals for many of the companies or people involved. To say this is some beacon of capitalism or free market is a stretch. For one this whole thread is about tax payers subsidizing agriculture and who should qualify for those subsidizes.

I am not entirely opposed to AP. The way AP are doing it now seems kinda cool. Most people here are focused on the cattle gazing aspect. I am more interested in environmental policy, public land, and The way AP is set up, hunting could be removed as an acceptible use tomorrow. 1 influential board member is all it would take. Everyone would have a much different take IF hunting was not included with the plan. That is not a unique take. Others have said the same thing.

More concerningly, the people/organizations behind this project are generally speaking the ones behind shifts in wildlife management in places like Washington, Oregon, Colorado, or other such places. When the names like Earthjustice and CBD are involved in an organization, hunters should be wary. alarm bells go off when those names appear. They are generally Mike Lee level of concern for public land hunters. Maybe this project will be different. Its set up differently and looks cool at this time. I don't know if they should be getting ag subsidizes but you guys can argue about that.

The whole hunting access thing is a red herring. 1) They can't ban hunting on public lands they lease. 2) We have landowners of all political leanings posting no tresspassing signs.

For a counterpoint, we have non ESG public lands ranching locally, the range gets nuked most years and then the ranchers whine to IDFG about the elk hitting their private winter ground because its the only food source left, leading to elk getting slaughtered every winter for cheap beef.

 

[treydfoster]

That doesn’t really make any sense now does it? The buffalo are gone and their habitat is gone…that cannot be undone.

Makes more sense that you claiming animals can't live around Buffalo but have learned to live around cattle in less than 200 years.

 

[WRO]

Makes more sense that you claiming animals can't live around Buffalo but have learned to live around cattle in less than 200 years.

Logic left this discussion at the first post.