American Prairie loses grazing rights

[Gila]

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.

Ever heard of Defenders Of Wildlife? They were either co-defendants or represented AP in the IBLA appeal if memory serves me correctly.

“By revoking these leases, the Bureau of Land Management is undermining its own mission to sustain health, diversity and productivity across our public lands,” said Andrew Bowman, Defenders of Wildlife president and CEO. “Wherever bison graze, they bring true ecological benefit to their environments, as well as to the Native Nations who partner with American Prairie. Defenders stands with American Prairie in the fight to do what’s right for our national mammal.”

Defenders is a longtime partner of American Prairie and its organizational efforts to restore native plains species back to these grasslands. The BLM underwent a considerable environmental assessment and an extensive public comment period prior to 2022 to arrive at its decision to reclassify these grazing leases to allow bison. Bison play a key role in restoring grassland biodiversity, improving soil health and creating “green waves” of plant growth, to the benefit of pollinators, birds and other wildlife.

Defenders joins American Prairie and EarthJustice in filing a protest against BLM’s proposed decision. Defenders’ protest period runs from January 26 to February 9, 2026. BLM is required to review and consider issues raised in any protests received. After a final decision by BLM, interested parties will have 30 days to file an administrative appeal.”

Eagle Eyes: 10 Anti-Hunting Groups to Watch

Protecting hunting’s future means exposing extremist groups.

www.nrahlf.org

 

[WRO]

Ever heard of Defenders Of Wildlife? They were either co-defendants or represented AP in the IBLA appeal if memory serves me correctly.

“By revoking these leases, the Bureau of Land Management is undermining its own mission to sustain health, diversity and productivity across our public lands,” said Andrew Bowman, Defenders of Wildlife president and CEO. “Wherever bison graze, they bring true ecological benefit to their environments, as well as to the Native Nations who partner with American Prairie. Defenders stands with American Prairie in the fight to do what’s right for our national mammal.”

Defenders is a longtime partner of American Prairie and its organizational efforts to restore native plains species back to these grasslands. The BLM underwent a considerable environmental assessment and an extensive public comment period prior to 2022 to arrive at its decision to reclassify these grazing leases to allow bison. Bison play a key role in restoring grassland biodiversity, improving soil health and creating “green waves” of plant growth, to the benefit of pollinators, birds and other wildlife.

Defenders joins American Prairie and EarthJustice in filing a protest against BLM’s proposed decision. Defenders’ protest period runs from January 26 to February 9, 2026. BLM is required to review and consider issues raised in any protests received. After a final decision by BLM, interested parties will have 30 days to file an administrative appeal.”

Eagle Eyes: 10 Anti-Hunting Groups to Watch

Protecting hunting’s future means exposing extremist groups.

www.nrahlf.org

What does this have to do with the fundamental issue at discussion here? All of their points seem valid..

Are you saying that because these groups support habitat restoration we shouldn’t as sportsmen?

 

[Jpsmith1]

What does this have to do with the fundamental issue at discussion here? All of their points seem valid..

Are you saying that because these groups support habitat restoration we shouldn’t as sportsmen?

That sounds like exactly what's being asserted.

An "anti" hunting group makes a point and rather than agreeing with that point while not agreeing with their position as a whole, we now have to throw away sound scientific evidence because some anti said it.

 

[Gila]

What does this have to do with the fundamental issue at discussion here? All of their points seem valid..

Are you saying that because these groups support habitat restoration we shouldn’t as sportsmen?

Habitat restoration is a red herring. This is about re-wilding public lands while wiping out cattle grazing in the process. The excuse that bison are better than cattle to return the prairie to a natural state is proving to be untrue. Mortensen Ranch was the only seed bank in the world that has those plants that were previously thought to be extinct. Those seeds were produced by grazing cattle. I don’t see AP producing those seeds, nor do I see AP buying seeds from Mortensen Ranch.

I don’t see how AP can hang on to 7,000 cattle and still claim non-profit status. I can only guess that it is because those 7,000 cattle are kept out of production…which wouldn’t do very much for the local economy now does it?

 

[WoolOverAll]

Habitat restoration is a red herring. This is about re-wilding public lands while wiping out cattle grazing in the process. The excuse that bison are better than cattle to return the prairie to a natural state is proving to be untrue. Mortensen Ranch was the only seed bank in the world that has those plants that were previously thought to be extinct. Those seeds were produced by grazing cattle. I don’t see AP producing those seeds, nor do I see AP buying seeds from Mortensen Ranch.

I don’t see how AP can hang on to 7,000 cattle and still claim non-profit status. I can only guess that it is because those 7,000 cattle are kept out of production…which doesn’t do very much for the local economy now does it?

Claiming habitat restoration is a conspiracy to push cattle off the land ignores that public lands are meant to support multiple uses, including wildlife, water quality, recreation, and grazing, not just ranching interests. Cattle can contribute to prairie health and native seed production in some exceptional cases, but that does not invalidate bison or other restoration strategies.

Nonprofits are allowed to manage livestock as part of their conservation mission as long as revenue supports that mission. Framing this as a plot to eliminate ranching is a deliberate distraction from the real issue of long term ecological and economic sustainability.

You still have not answered the simple question of why we, as hunters and sportsmen, should prioritize cattle production over rebuilding a native ecosystem?

 

[WRO]

Habitat restoration is a red herring. This is about re-wilding public lands while wiping out cattle grazing in the process. The excuse that bison are better than cattle to return the prairie to a natural state is proving to be untrue. Mortensen Ranch was the only seed bank in the world that has those plants that were previously thought to be extinct. Those seeds were produced by grazing cattle. I don’t see AP producing those seeds, nor do I see AP buying seeds from Mortensen Ranch.

I don’t see how AP can hang on to 7,000 cattle and still claim non-profit status. I can only guess that it is because those 7,000 cattle are kept out of production…which wouldn’t do very much for the local economy now does it?

Once again your wrong, you should be used to it by now.

https://signup.americanprairie.org/project/grasslands/

Please cite a source that cows are better than bison or even equal at restoring the prairie? I’ve asked multiple times how prevalent Clarence ‘s methods are used by other’s with 0 answers, you want to try now or continue to ignore it..

As for your non profit comment, you could lump the Girl Scouts who assault my diet yearly selling cookies, good will, Salvation Army etc as all of those use revenue to support their long term objectives.

Please describe how habitat restoration is a red herring? I can’t fathom the mental gymnastics it takes to get to that conclusion.

Why don’t you just admit you think extractive uses are more important than habitat and ranchers are more important than habitat and exit stage right.

 

[Gila]

Claiming habitat restoration is a conspiracy to push cattle off the land ignores that public lands are meant to support multiple uses, including wildlife, water quality, recreation, and grazing, not just ranching interests. Cattle can contribute to prairie health and native seed production in some exceptional cases, but that does not invalidate bison or other restoration strategies.

It’s not a conspiracy it’s a reality. As far as I know, those public lands already do support multiple uses. I even target shoot on the BLM. Bison are just as capable as cattle never even suggested that they aren’t. Any hooves are good to aerate the soil and punch the seeds down. The Lakota have a saying: “Without hooves on the prairie, we live in a desert”.

Nonprofits are allowed to manage livestock as part of their conservation mission as long as revenue supports that mission. Framing this as a plot to eliminate ranching is a deliberate distraction from the real issue of long term ecological and economic sustainability.

It’s not a plot, it’s a business plan! AP makes no bones about it. EJ and DOW are the legal instruments to accomplish that plan! The state of Montana has had issues with AP’s Environmental AND Economic impact studies. The landscape is already sustainable. There can be improvements and there should be.

Where hunters can come into it is to pay the landowner per acre for habitat improvements in exchange for public hunting access. That is South Dakota’s model with their Walk-in, PATH programs which are similiar to Montana’s block management. Your excise taxes hard at work. SD has acquired over 1.2 million acres of private for hunting elk, pronghorn and mule deer. Actually the block management area where AP is was at 1.1 million acres at one time.

You still have not answered the simple question of why we, as hunters and sportsmen, should prioritize cattle production over rebuilding a native ecosystem?

The simple answer is the economy. Cattle grazing can restore a natural eco-system and should be allowed to continue. Wolves, grizzlies and Bison had their time on the Prairie. Now is the time of farming and ranching.

 

[WoolOverAll]

The simple answer is the economy. Cattle grazing can restore a natural eco-system and should be allowed to continue. Wolves, grizzlies and Bison had their time on the Prairie. Now is the time of farming and ranching.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I get your points, but I do not support continuing the status quo of propping up inefficient farms and ranches. Now is the time of restoration and preservation.

 

[Gila]

Why don’t you just admit you think extractive uses are more important than habitat and ranchers are more important than habitat and exit stage right.

The Federal and State Governments won’t keep public lands if there are no consumptive users. I would rather harvest game and fish from those lands myself. Good wildlife habitat can graze more cattle. It’s a relationship that should endure for the benefit of everyone. Now that AP is forced to go through the Democratic process, the majority of citizens have shown that they don’t want our public lands used in that way. Within that context I would say it is political. However you slice it, I think it is rather apparent that AP’s days of existence may be numbered. If the donors pull out now, they are done.

 

[WRO]

The simple answer is the economy. Cattle grazing can restore a natural eco-system and should be allowed to continue. Wolves, grizzlies and Bison had their time on the Prairie. Now is the time of farming and ranching.

This is all you had to say, there’s no scientific support for your argument. This would’ve saved us all from reading pages of nonsense, AI bullshit, and theories so far out touch with reality that there’s not even a starting point for reason.

Your narrow mindedness won’t even acknowledge the economic benefits the APR provides to the local economy or state to offset any perceived economic losses.

 

[Gila]

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I get your points, but I do not support continuing the status quo of propping up inefficient farms and ranches. Now is the time of restoration and preservation.

If that’s your vote…hey, that’s your vote. I’ll just have to agree to disagree…Democracy is what makes this Country great.

 

[Gila]

Btw here’s a public opinion poll from Montana that proves you’re completely full of @@@@. 81% of Montanans support bison restoration. Infact more republicans supported it than democrats.

https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/What-We-Do/Wildlife-Conservation/~/media/PDFs/Regional/Northern-Rockies/NRPRC-RB-BisonPoll.ashx

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The People of Montana elected their Governor. He is against AP grazing bison. The People of these good United States have appointed Doug Burgum to DOI Secretary. He has weighed in that the People do not want AP grazing bison on public lands. I know which way I voted.

 

[WRO]

The People of Montana elected their Governor. He is against AP grazing bison. The People of these good United States have appointed Doug Burgum to DOI Secretary. He has weighed in that the People do not want AP grazing bison on public lands. I know which way I voted.

By that theory everyone who voted for trump wanted to sell out off public lands? Is that why you voted for him?

 

[Gila]

If I recall correctly, the Senate Republicans nixed the sale of public lands from the reconciliation bill.