American Prairie loses grazing rights

[PLhunter]

Hunters talk a great game but it seems we continue to get farther and farther away from being stewards of the land, and it’s turned to a “how does this benefit me” not how dos this benefit the animals, ecosystem or landscape in general.

What’s worse is it’s not “how does it benefit me” it’s “how does it benefit this separate interest that doesn’t care about or benefit me at all.”

 

[Jpsmith1]

Wouldn’t that make them livestock by this logic and eligible to graze? Bison aren’t worth saving because they have some cattle DNA in them. Bison aren’t eligible to graze because they aren’t cows. Which is it?

Whichever is most convenient for the argument at the time.

 

[Jpsmith1]

What’s worse is it’s not “how does it benefit me” it’s “how does it benefit this separate interest that doesn’t care about or benefit me at all.”

I'm not even sure this covers it.

I've been trying to track a cohesive narrative in the anti-APR position and the best I can come up with is "It's new and different and I hate it"

The resistance to change, for good or bad, seems to embody so much of the hunting community.

My own state has just last year made Sunday hunting fully legal AND PEOPLE ARE CRYING ABOUT MORE DAYS TO HUNT.

It's not bison. It's not APR or anything like that.

It's fear of what's around the corner.

 

[B Harrison]

Public lands should be kept for the public use.

Private citizens, not corporations.

Non profit have no business in farming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ19]

I think you guys need to get down off your conservation high horses. There is a reason AP does not market their project in the fashion and tone you guys take. There is plenty of things to look at with the AP project and have legitimate questions or concerns about, even for those people that believe American Prairie has some or lots of public benefits.

 

[CJ19]

we can talk about subsidies all day, an their rightful use or not, but AP isn’t making money on this. Are they paying less than they would to expand their effective dollars compared to private land? Yes for sure. But the argument could be made, they are paying the AUM to make the habitat better and expand access overall, while from my understanding making basically zero dollars from the value of the animal. They do not rely on these subsidies to stay afloat or make a profit.

AP can’t just ban hunting on public lands, but lets for a second say they have a magic wand and could., and let’s take the extreme. If it’s for the betterment of the wildlife and the landscape then have at it. I would rather have 50 Yellowstone's, than 50 commercial cattle ranches if those were my only two choices. I would rather have wild places, with wild animals restored as close as we can after ruining it, then cattle roaming all over it

I think a lot of hunters have forgotten what being a “conservationist” is. It’s not about what the animal can do for you, it’s not about maximizing your personal and selfish opportunities.

Hunters talk a great game but it seems we continue to get farther and farther away from being stewards of the land, and it’s turned to a “how does this benefit me” not how dos this benefit the animals, ecosystem or landscape in general.

Not sure what happened, we used to hold wild places with such reverence.. apparently we’d rather see cattle and fences all over it now.

Shame.

what an incredibly disingenuous take of what I said. public funding needs to be accurately and transparently allocated and spent. It is not intended for the largest corporate entities and richest people in the world to find loopholes to exploit so they can fund a project they think is righteous or personally enjoy.