American Prairie loses grazing rights

[Sandhills]

Elk do the same thing with fences.

The water sources that have been put in on the range are definitely helpful to wild life.

The ranchers locally do a piss poor job on them public, good winter range gets grazed to dust in August/September every year. Then the whining commences about elk and deer, if you bring it up they’re doing gods work preventing fires. We have cows illegally in wilderness areas, and the fine for over grazing is 1.33 per additional AUM, not exactly a deterrent.

I hunt some private ranches in nm, their range management is amazing and seeing how good ranchers treat their own dirt is fascinating to me. I know a lot of great ranchers including one of my best friends, it’s not all bad apples, just a few that fuk it up and it’s mostly the entitled lease guys that I end up having bad interactions with.

I carry a chain in my truck that I use to rip out illegal locked gates on public a couple times a year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Back where I grew up we had one of the original wilderness areas from the 1965 act. It had a grazing allotment because the rancher that had the allotment before it became a wilderness area was grandfathered in I suppose. It had some of the prettiest meadows, creeks and lakes a guy could ever see. But it also had some huge thick conifer stands. Its almost of it burned in the Dixie Fire back in 2021.

 

[KurtR]

Ranches dont raise buffalo in north america.

Where do you live all the people around here including the Cheyenne River Sioux and Standing Rock tribe all call them buffalo and bison interchangeably every one knows what they mean. Maybe the south africans that work here get confused and think there are cape buffalo i guess.

 

[PLhunter]

The average American, and I'll bet Canadian too, calls bison buffalo. Hell all the Indians I know call em buffalo.

I'll be sure to call them bison from now on so I don't confuse you.

Yeah this is unnecessary semantics. The context alone is enough to know what you’re talking about. I’m a biology a zoology nut and the older I get the more it bugs me when people get caught up on nomenclature vs common names.

As to the food value I think there are enough people like me who love bison, especially wild ones, to allow at least a fraction of a percent of our public land to have them.

 

[PLhunter]

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"

I guess I understand that sentiment. I’m just stuck a bit further in the past when it comes to “ it’s new and different and hate it”

Cattle, fences, development, and industrialized agriculture. All new, the bison, wild sheep, and prairie chickens and connected wild habitat to roam is old.

That’s the old school shit you think a hunter would be dreaming of.

 

[Gila]

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.

There are “holes” in CFRs (Codified Federal Regulations). The CFRs are “distilled” from USC (United States Code) which is enacted by Congress. Sometimes the Federal Agency’s OGC (Office of General Counsel) broadens the scope of CFRs to protect that Agency’s Management decisions. If those Agency decisions are appealed; the appeal goes before that Agency’s appeal board. It is an intra-agency board made up by a panel of administrative law judges.

For BLM the appeals board is: Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) which has the authority to hear grazing appeals. The ILBA decisions are final but can be reviewed by a U.S. District Court. The ILBA argues the law (USC) not the CFR. In this grazing case, precedence isn’t applied to federal law, rather precedence only applies to future BLM grazing decisions. The issue at hand is APs free ranging bison that are not raised for profit - consumption etc. Those bison are not “plugged” into the national economy in any way. If there were prior decisions made to graze bison on public lands, and I’m not doubting that there were, those decisions were made based on bison that were being raised for consumption and/or profit.

My “beef” is public lands are being used to subsidize politically motivated special interest groups and not for businesses that contribute to the national economy. Hunting only exists because of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. American Prairie is not part of that model.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

The issue at hand is APs free ranging bison that are not raised for profit - consumption etc. Those bison are not “plugged” into the national economy in any way. If there were prior decisions made to graze bison on public lands, and I’m not doubting that there were, those decisions were made based on bison that were being raised for consumption and/or profit.

My “beef” is public lands are being used to subsidize politically motivated special interest groups and not by businesses that contribute to the national economy. Hunting only exists because of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. American Prairie is not part of that model.

AP allows public hunting of them on the BLM lands, which in turn are being consumed by the hunters, no? So since the AP allows PUBLIC hunting of bison and doesn't charge for them this is somehow "unplugged" from the national economy? Say they were not allowing any hunting and just slaughter them like cattle and selling, then would they be plugged in?

By this logic all elk and deer etc. on USFS lands are also unplugged?

 

[Big Sky Guy]

 

[Gila]

AP allows public hunting of them on the BLM lands, which in turn are being consumed by the hunters, no? So since the AP allows PUBLIC hunting of bison and doesn't charge for them this is somehow "unplugged" from the national economy? Say they were not allowing any hunting and just slaughter them like cattle and selling, then would they be plugged in?

By this logic all elk and deer etc. on USFS lands are also unplugged?

The tail is wagging the dog…

 

[finner]

The tail is wagging the dog…

 

[WRO]

There are “holes” in CFRs (Codified Federal Regulations). The CFRs are “distilled” from USC (United States Code) which is enacted by Congress. Sometimes the Federal Agency’s OGC (Office of General Counsel) broadens the scope of CFRs to protect that Agency’s Management decisions. If those Agency decisions are appealed; the appeal goes before that Agency’s appeal board. It is an intra-agency board made up by a panel of administrative law judges.

For BLM the appeals board is: Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) which has the authority to hear grazing appeals. The ILBA decisions are final but can be reviewed by a U.S. District Court. The ILBA argues the law (USC) not the CFR. In this grazing case, precedence isn’t applied to federal law, rather precedence only applies to future BLM grazing decisions. The issue at hand is APs free ranging bison that are not raised for profit - consumption etc. Those bison are not “plugged” into the national economy in any way. If there were prior decisions made to graze bison on public lands, and I’m not doubting that there were, those decisions were made based on bison that were being raised for consumption and/or profit.

My “beef” is public lands are being used to subsidize politically motivated special interest groups and not by businesses that contribute to the national economy. Hunting only exists because of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. American Prairie is not part of that model.

How is cattle grazing on public lands for profit part of North American conservation model?

Also the APR has several full time employees and brings in tourists from around the country, how does this not support both the national and local economy?

 

[Jpsmith1]

I guess I understand that sentiment. I’m just stuck a bit further in the past when it comes to “ it’s new and different and hate it”

Cattle, fences, development, and industrialized agriculture. All new, the bison, wild sheep, and prairie chickens and connected wild habitat to roam is old.

That’s the old school shit you think a hunter would be dreaming of.

Everything was "as it should be" when they grew up.

Any change after a certain age becomes a terrifying existential threat.

Even if that change is for the better

 

[Gila]

From EarthJustice on 6th of Feb:

“In 2022, the BLM approved American Prairie’s plan to allow bison grazing on 63,000 acres of public lands in north-central Montana. The state of Montana, North and South Phillips Grazing Districts, and the Montana Stockgrowers Association appealed the decision, which Earthjustice and Cochenour Law have defended in administrative proceedings on behalf of American Prairie. The BLM vigorously defended its decision to issue permits for American Prairie’s bison from summer 2022 until February 2025, when under the new administration it sought a voluntary remand to reconsider the decision. After nearly a year and following a letter from Governor Gianforte to the Secretary of the Interior, on January 16, 2026, BLM issued a Notice of Proposed Decision that the agency had reversed its prior position and proposed a rescission of the permits.”


From AP yesterday:

“Most recently, a 2022 environmental review found that our bison grazing program was not only in compliance with all laws and regulations, but also benefits local wildlife, improves land and water quality, and creates new jobs in the region. For twenty years, we faithfully adhered to the rules and regulations set forth by the BLM. However, this past Friday, we learned that the BLM has decided to cancel our permits. This decision is unfair, disappointing, and out of step with long-standing public-lands grazing practices in Montana. While this process is still in its early stages, our team is reviewing the decision closely and determining our course of action.”

—————————————————————————————————————-

My take is that the BLM is satisfying the remand and the process will stay within BLM for quite some time…like years.

 

[Marbles]

Good example of why I would rather AP buy land over ranchers, one supports access and hunting, the other group obliquely attacks hunting by destroying access; then manufacturers conspiracy theories to attack AP and distract from the scumbag behavior of a portion of the ranching community.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/02/12/clarkston-mountain-trail-dispute/

 

[Sandhills]

Good example of why I would rather AP buy land over ranchers, one supports access and hunting, the other group obliquely attacks hunting by destroying access; then manufacturers conspiracy theories to attack AP and distract from the scumbag behavior of a portion of the ranching community.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/02/12/clarkston-mountain-trail-dispute/

You know, a lot of ranches used to allow access back in the day when the general public actually acted like they were decent. But then people started cutting fences, shooting cows, leaving gates open, and other things. Not to mention the sue happy people who did something stupid and got themselves hurt and then tried to sue the landowner.

There's still plenty of ranches around that grant access. Even for free.

 

[Marbles]

You know, a lot of ranches used to allow access back in the day when the general public actually acted like they were decent. But then people started cutting fences, shooting cows, leaving gates open, and other things. Not to mention the sue happy people who did something stupid and got themselves hurt and then tried to sue the landowner.

Pretty pathetic excuses. The article is an example of a private individual buying up land, then shutting off century old access. Not of a land owner that got burned in the ways you describe.

The excuse made in this thread to support bad behavior by members of the ranching community demonstrate the point. It is how a community that should represent hard work comes to be associated with entitled and spoiled behavior.

 

[WRO]

Pretty pathetic excuses. The article is an example of a private individual buying up land, then shutting off century old access. Not of a land owner that got burned in the ways you describe.

The excuse made in this thread to support bad behavior by members of the ranching community demonstrate the point. It is how a community that should represent hard work comes to be associated with entitled and spoiled behavior.

Sandhills is right about piss poor behavior from the public, experienced it personally. That being said family ranches are quickly becoming a thing of the past as they’re being bought up for 1031s etc by non ranchers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk