American Prairie loses grazing rights

I feel like this thread has turned into people stopping watch a circus side show at this point or a monkey flinging shit at the wall.

Maybe Steve-O with AI, what stupid shit is going to be posted next?

My money is on bison killing trumpeter swans during the rut.
At least a monkey has the good grace to throw his own shit at the wall, instead of turning to desperate Google searches and AI.

It wouldn't be worth engaging except for the fact that he's spewing misinformation about a nonprofit that actually does a lot of good for Montana hunters.
 
I never intended that…that wasn’t even written anywhere. American Prairie had to put up special fences to contain the buffalo on the grazing allotments. They paid for the fences, but none the less; Bison are difficult to contain when they can’t roam. Buffalo will attack anything in their path, especially rutting bulls will go on a rampage. A bull elk is no match for them. I have seen those bison attack trees and bushes…anything. Anyone who has spent time around bison knows this. Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
I used to work in Yellowstone, have spent over 1000 days there, and never seen it happen. The elk, Bison, trees & bushes all get along fine.
News flash Einstein the Bison, the elk, the trees, and the bushes ALL evolved on the landscape together. The invasive species in this equation are cattle and us europeans.
 
@Gila I respect your opinions on bison and how they interact with wildlife, fences and their aggression. I'm sure you have some substance to support your claims, but they're largely false. I've ranched cattle and bison my entire life, in multiple states and a wide array of ecosystems.

There are definately some differences between bison and cattle, however the contrast is nuanced and more subtle than you'd think. Each species has its advantages and disadvantages. The bison vs cattle argument, regardless of which side you're on, is more a reflection of social, cultural and/or political values than the merit of the species. Just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk
 
You are about as far away as could be about what I think or who I am, or even what I have accomplished in conservation. If It wasn’t for people like me and what we have accomplished, you wouldn’t be fishing, hunting or trapping today! Agriculture is not the ogre. The 4th and fifth generation family ranches and farms are a way of life. They determine their own economy. They help each other out to survive. Most work hard and struggle to put their kids through school. They seldom go beyond the local town.

Ranchers like Clarence Mortensen have made a huge impact on the landscape. Their contributions have returned a good amount of the short grass prairie to its original state. Simply because they realized that a natural prairie can graze more cattle. Their enriched lands have benefitted wildlife. You want to blame the fat cats for a reason to grab that land and put it all into a reserve for your own piece of mind. The reality is the family rancher, who has been the good steward of that land, is being displaced. That is not the democratic way to have a park.

Montana is roughly one third public lands. Some other Western states don’t have that much public land. They need to recruit private lands for hunting access or they can’t do very much hunting.

AI here gives a good synopsis of why hunters like me….are against American Prairie Reserve. What is missing is the impact that grizzlies and wolves will have on our hunting. I have already delivered my own talking points ad nauseam:
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Some hunters oppose the American Prairie Reserve due to concerns that its land acquisitions limit public hunting opportunities and favor wealthy individuals through high-end safari experiences. Critics argue that the organization's practices may not align with the interests of the hunting community, leading to a perception of exclusivity and reduced access to hunting lands.

rokslide.com hunttalk.com

Concerns Among Hunters Regarding American Prairie Reserve​

Limited Hunting Opportunities​

Many hunters express concerns that American Prairie Reserve (APR) limits hunting opportunities. Initially, APR did not allow hunting on its properties, which raised suspicions among the hunting community. Although APR has since introduced some hunting tags, the extent of hunting allowed remains unclear. This uncertainty leads to frustration among hunters who feel their interests are not adequately represented.

Perception of Land Ownership​

Some hunters view APR's acquisition of large tracts of land as a threat to public access. The organization has been involved in significant land purchases, which some believe could restrict traditional hunting grounds. This sentiment echoes historical concerns about wealthy landowners controlling access to resources, leading to feelings of disenfranchisement among local hunters.

Legal and Environmental Issues​

APR is currently involved in legal disputes over grazing permits for bison, which some hunters believe could further complicate hunting regulations. The ongoing litigation with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has raised questions about the organization's commitment to balancing conservation with hunting rights. Hunters worry that these legal challenges may hinder their ability to hunt in the future.

Community Sentiment​

The local hunting community is divided. While some support APR's conservation efforts, others feel that the organization prioritizes wealthy clientele and high-end experiences over traditional hunting practices. This division reflects broader concerns about the impact of large land acquisitions on local culture and hunting traditions.

Overall, the apprehension among hunters regarding American Prairie Reserve stems from a combination of limited access, legal uncertainties, and the perception of prioritizing affluent interests over community needs.
rokslide.com wlj.net
Would like to add another data point. APR recently hired EarthJustice.org to assist in their litigation with aforementioned grazing rights. EJ is an environmental law group and they are absolutely no friend to the hunting community. Based here in Colorado they partner frequently with the plethora of anti-hunting organizations here and nationwide. EJ has filed multiple lawsuits in the past to stop wolf and grizzly bear hunting. EJ claims they “oppose trophy hunting of threatened or endangered species”. Well, I suppose it depends on who and how the decision is made on what is a “threatened or endangered” species. Many of the anti-hunting groups claim wolves and mountain lions are “threatened”. Also the “trophy hunting” term is commonly used by anti-hunting groups as a way to divide the hunting community and generate public opposition to regulated hunting practices. I believe APR’s association with EJ gives many hunters concern that their views on hunting may be changing.

I acknowledge this is a bit of a “guilty by association” claim but there are no shortage of good lawyers out there looking to take to your money. Maybe EJ is the best? Just food for thought and some concerns that hunters may have with APR.
 
Would like to add another data point. APR recently hired EarthJustice.org to assist in their litigation with aforementioned grazing rights. EJ is an environmental law group and they are absolutely no friend to the hunting community. Based here in Colorado they partner frequently with the plethora of anti-hunting organizations here and nationwide. EJ has filed multiple lawsuits in the past to stop wolf and grizzly bear hunting. EJ claims they “oppose trophy hunting of threatened or endangered species”. Well, I suppose it depends on who and how the decision is made on what is a “threatened or endangered” species. Many of the anti-hunting groups claim wolves and mountain lions are “threatened”. Also the “trophy hunting” term is commonly used by anti-hunting groups as a way to divide the hunting community and generate public opposition to regulated hunting practices. I believe APR’s association with EJ gives many hunters concern that their views on hunting may be changing.

I acknowledge this is a bit of a “guilty by association” claim but there are no shortage of good lawyers out there looking to take to your money. Maybe EJ is the best? Just food for thought and some concerns that hunters may have with APR.
EJ also helps the state wildlife federations, which are not anti-hunting. They have their leanings, sure, based on clientele and specialty. But that can be used to help “hunting” focused orgs and wildlife. There’s a lot of gray in the world and using it where your priorities align does not make an organization bad or “anti.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: WRO
Back
Top