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.

 

[Gila]

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.

SBc. 5. “The Secretary of the Interior shall permit, under regulations to
be prescribed by him, the free grazing within such districts of livestock
kept for domestic purposes;”
—————————
For profit is a domestic purpose.

 

[WRO]

SBc. 5. “The Secretary of the Interior shall permit, under regulations to
be prescribed by him, the free grazing within such districts of livestock
kept for domestic purposes;”

—————————
For profit is a domestic purpose.

Can you cite this definition please?

 

[NRA4LIFE]

SBc. 5. “The Secretary of the Interior shall permit, under regulations to
be prescribed by him, the free grazing within such districts of livestock
kept for domestic purposes;”
—————————
For profit is a domestic purpose.

By saying only "him", that's seems a bit sexist.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

—————————
For profit is a domestic purpose.

An opinion only.

 

[Gila]

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.

Going by what you post I would say that is certainly believable.

Trying to book a hunt on AP? I’ll say good luck with that. AP may just build luxury yurts for billion-aires and sell tickets to watch a grizzly take down an elk.

 

[Gila]

An opinion only.

So how can you spin wild bison as a domestic purpose?

 

[NRA4LIFE]

So how can you spin wild bison as a domestic purpose?

So how can you spin wild bison as a domestic purpose?

Because there are only a few places in this country where there are "wild" bison, and those are all planted anyway. 99.9% of them are grown for the grocery stores. Go have another toke.

 

[Gila]

By saying only "him", that's seems a bit sexist.

Women couldn’t even vote until 1918.

 

[Gila]

Because there are only a few places in this country where there are "wild" bison, and those are all planted anyway. 99.9% of them are grown for the grocery stores. Go have another toke.

What is your point?

 

[WRO]

Going by what you post I would say that is certainly believable.

Trying to book a hunt on AP? I’ll say good luck with that. AP may just build luxury yurts for billion-aires and sell tickets to watch a grizzly take down an elk.

They’re all by drawing only.

Btw all that building on private land you’re so scared of will provide valuable jobs and economic activity in the local community.

There’s other reasons to go to wild places than just to hunt, I’ll probably run my bird dogs there this year on my way to ft peck.

I get it, you can’t be a hunter and support non consumptive uses on our public lands.

It’s possible to want clean water ways, wild places, and high quality habitat and still be a hunter.

Any luck finding that codified definition of domestic purpose that requires profit and excludes personal use?

 

[tipsntails7]

SBc. 5. “The Secretary of the Interior shall permit, under regulations to
be prescribed by him, the free grazing within such districts of livestock
kept for domestic purposes;”
—————————
For profit is a domestic purpose.

Would for profit not be a commercial purpose?

Wouldn’t industrial for profit ranching be a commercial purpose. Not domestic?

Wouldn’t “domestic purpose” really mean these original grazing allotments, and the entire act be in place to help ranchers and settlers for their own grazing use for their domestic use, for self sufficiency's to homesteading?

I can not square domestic purpose, with private for profit businesses.

 

[Jpsmith1]

SBc. 5. “The Secretary of the Interior shall permit, under regulations to
be prescribed by him, the free grazing within such districts of livestock
kept for domestic purposes;”
—————————
For profit is a domestic purpose.

But not the only possible domestic purpose.

The rewilding of parts of the short grass prairie could easily be defined as a domestic purpose.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Would for profit not be a commercial purpose?

Wouldn’t industrial for profit ranching be a commercial purpose. Not domestic?

Wouldn’t “domestic purpose” really mean these original grazing allotments, and the entire act be in place to help ranchers and settlers for their own grazing use for their domestic use, for self sufficiency's to homesteading?

I can not square domestic purpose, with private for profit businesses.

Precisely.

 

[Sandhills]

Would for profit not be a commercial purpose?

Wouldn’t industrial for profit ranching be a commercial purpose. Not domestic?

Wouldn’t “domestic purpose” really mean these original grazing allotments, and the entire act be in place to help ranchers and settlers for their own grazing use for their domestic use, for self sufficiency's to homesteading?

I can not square domestic purpose, with private for profit businesses.

Those ranchers didn't sell stock to make money?

 

[Axlrod]

Going by what you post I would say that is certainly believable.

Trying to book a hunt on AP? I’ll say good luck with that. AP may just build luxury yurts for billion-aires and sell tickets to watch a grizzly take down an elk.

Well earlier in this thread, you stated that the bison would run off all the elk, deer, and antelope. So how would the grizzly take down an elk?
Also, after the bison run them off, what are the apex predators you say AP wants to import, going to eat? In Yellowstone the apex pedators leave the bison alone.

 

[WRO]

Those ranchers didn't sell stock to make money?

The question here is is it a codified requirement that they sell to make money as part of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk