American Prairie loses grazing rights

[WRO]

It seems like I have to post things over and over again before you pick up on it. If you don’t know what is going on then stop being so lazy and get out there on the internet and find out! I’m about ready to put you back on IGNORE if you don’t come around.

From Montana.gov:

“In September 2021, Gov. Gianforte, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Montana Department of Livestock, and the Montana Department of Agriculture objected to BLM’s environmental analysis and proposed permit issuance, explaining the deficiencies and requesting the permits be denied. Despite these objections, BLM authorized the grazing change in July 2022”

Those were completely political and not at all based on any ecological or environmental concerns.

For a c and p, it’s 100% about propping up ranching and 0 to do with environmental concerns.

See below and prior link.

In September 2025, Gov. Gianforte and the entire federal delegation wrote to Secretary Burgum, highlighting the stalled appeals process and explaining how the issuance of grazing permits to “rewilded” conservation bison undermines Montana’s production livestock industry and the law. Following the Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction in December, BLM issued the proposed decision to cancel the permits today.

When you have to threaten people to give yourself superiority, you’re either short on facts or just giving up.

So far you’ve failed to answer serious questions posed earlier with anything close to a fact. When asked questions, you cut and paste and skip
Around the actually answering the question..

I’ll ask again, how does public land grazing benefit the North American conservation model?

And how are tourism jobs and dollars less than public land ranching dollars, even though per acre the revenue to the local economy is higher?

 

[Gila]

During Deb Haalunds reign, the BLM was run by emotion not science. The science of wildlife management and the science of economic data. Both tenets of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Sec. Doug Burgum interjected with the science of it all with a little common sense mixed in. How can you hunt when you take up an anti-hunting, anti-access agenda?

Actually I have two lame mares right now and they take priority.

 

[WRO]

During Deb Haalunds reign, the BLM was run by emotion not science. The science of wildlife management and the science of economic data. Both tenets of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Sec. Doug Burgum interjected with the science of it all with a little common sense mixed in. How can you hunt when you take up an anti-hunting, anti-access agenda?

The APR has 22 full time employees in Montana, so I’m struggling to see the economic data to be relevant and struggling even more to see any connection to economic data and any of the 7 core tenants of the model.

I’d argue that it goes directly against the scientific management of wildlife. The mt.gov piece you’ve cited clearly states that they’re fighting the blm decision is based solely on the ranching industry.

In 2021 the blm had 0 issues with the EIS the APR submitted.

Ya got me on the rest of it, the last 4 decades of hunting, guiding, working in the outdoor industry etc is just a psyop to gain access to forums and spread misinformation.

 

[tipsntails7]

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.

Can you point out to me in the TGA where it says livestock needs to be raised for profit to qualify?

Legitimately, I don’t see it and could absolutly be mistaken.