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.

 

[ddowning]

This argument could go on and on. Every system has flaws. Massive systems have massive flaws. We have gotten to the point where some of these companies and our government are gigantic financially. The companies are so large that they are multiple companies, ngos, non-profits, and lobbying groups all linked together and funded by the same money. The education system and the nuclear family have been degraded to the point that very few can even begin to understand what is happening.

We have massive problems in the country that have been looked on through a blindfold for nearly a century now. They are leveraging human tribalism instinct to pit us against each other like never before. We cannot even seem to have a debate about what's really going on the the solution.

The problems are very deep at this point. There will need to be many discussions and likely many failed attempts to improve things. As a society we have dug a 100 mile deep hole in sugar sand and we are now tasked with climbing out. We only have so many spoons to dig out with and they are rapidly being worn down. If we cannot work together through thoughtful debate to come to a viable solution we are in deep trouble. No on can save us but ourselves. Farming and ranching are in and have been in trouble for at least 2 if not 3 generations. Propping it up with tax dollars is a losing battle and I for one am sick of being a tax slave. Allowing the companies with centuries worth of wealth and their own self interests in mind to rum the world is not the best idea either in my opinion. There needs to be thoughtful debate from many different stakeholders' perspectives, so we can figure out a potentially viable solution and pursue it.

 

[Sandhills]

This argument could go on and on. Every system has flaws. Massive systems have massive flaws. We have gotten to the point where some of these companies and our government are gigantic financially. The companies are so large that they are multiple companies, ngos, non-profits, and lobbying groups all linked together and funded by the same money. The education system and the nuclear family have been degraded to the point that very few can even begin to understand what is happening.

We have massive problems in the country that have been looked on through a blindfold for nearly a century now. They are leveraging human tribalism instinct to pit us against each other like never before. We cannot even seem to have a debate about what's really going on the the solution.

The problems are very deep at this point. There will need to be many discussions and likely many failed attempts to improve things. As a society we have dug a 100 mile deep hole in sugar sand and we are now tasked with climbing out. We only have so many spoons to dig out with and they are rapidly being worn down. If we cannot work together through thoughtful debate to come to a viable solution we are in deep trouble. No on can save us but ourselves. Farming and ranching are in and have been in trouble for at least 2 if not 3 generations. Propping it up with tax dollars is a losing battle and I for one am sick of being a tax slave. Allowing the companies with centuries worth of wealth and their own self interests in mind to rum the world is not the best idea either in my opinion. There needs to be thoughtful debate from many different stakeholders' perspectives, so we can figure out a potentially viable solution and pursue it.

Amen. Try being a young guy who wants to get into farming or ranching. Unless you have FU money good luck.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I took it as APR leaning that way due to using EJ for legal help and gave an example where I’ve seen it go the other way. But I actually do agree with you, there is some guilt by association there and being skeptical of that relationship is totally fair.

That line between landscape and active players working against hunting makes a lot of sense to me, as does the concern with EJ. I like the see orgs that can find some common ground work together on issues regardless of stances, but there comes a point where common associations are just too much to ignore (your examples highlight that with EJ). Hell just their name kinda sets the tone. When I consider where I’ve seen it, public lands is typically the tying point, and sage grouse are about the only commonality I’ve seen with regards to wildlife (between orgs not normally aligned).

I appreciate your response and laying what you’ve seen out there - feel like I owe you a beer for the trouble.

Absolutely. Really appreciate you highlighting your real world experience. I do acknowledge that there are areas hunters can expand the tent and work with non-hunting conservation orgs. But in this day and age, especially in the west (CO, WA, NM, etc), we have to be very vigilant on the associations and partnerships. There are anti-hunting groups that masquerade as many different things in hope of shifting public option against hunters, anglers, and trappers. And these orgs are generally very well-funded with out of state money and paid employees.

 

[Gila]

Groups change their names over the years but have basically the same donors, associations and partnerships. In liberal states, anti hunters have more of a constituency therefore more of a voice into the processes. That shouldn’t mean that hunting conservation groups should give them what they want or partner with them for that metter. Because if they do it’s a slippery slope that eventually transforms the dynamic of hunting. That’s what happened in California….then Oregon….then Washington…now in Colorado and New Mexico.

Earth Justice is more than just an association, it is a strategic alliance for AP. The reason EJ is representing AP is because they are the legal hammer for the re-wilding movement. The re-wilding movement is what the anti-hunting agenda is all about. Defenders of Wildlife are one of the most powerful anti-hunting groups on the planet. DOW has been a strategic partner with AP since the beginning.

American Prairie is the most aggressive effort to re-wild the prairie in history. Their goal always has been to re-wild the prairie by stitching together three million acres of public and purchased private lands. In one of Sean Gerrity’s presentations (was on YouTube) he shows a map where he intends to build corridors that will encourage Grizzlies and Wolves to move into the preserve. Obviously there is no place for cattle grazing or hunting within that management model. EJ and DOW are against any Grizzly and Wolf delisting efforts. So what happened to the 1.2 million acres of block management that was there?

 

[jolemons]

Groups change their names over the years but have basically the same donors, associations and partnerships. In liberal states, anti hunters have more of a constituency therefore more of a voice into the processes. That shouldn’t mean that hunting conservation groups should give them what they want or partner with them for that metter. Because if they do it’s a slippery slope that eventually transforms the dynamic of hunting. That’s what happened in California….then Oregon….then Washington…now in Colorado and New Mexico.

Earth Justice is more than just an association, it is a strategic alliance for AP. The reason EJ is representing AP is because they are the legal hammer for the re-wilding movement. The re-wilding movement is what the anti-hunting agenda is all about. Defenders of Wildlife are one of the most powerful anti-hunting groups on the planet. DOW has been a strategic partner with AP since the beginning.

American Prairie is the most aggressive effort to re-wild the prairie in history. Their goal always has been to re-wild the prairie by stitching together three million acres of public and purchased private lands. In one of Sean Gerrity’s presentations (was on YouTube) he shows a map where he intends to build corridors that will encourage Grizzlies and Wolves to move into the preserve. Obviously there is no place for cattle grazing or hunting within that management model. EJ and DOW are against any Grizzly and Wolf delisting efforts. So what happened to the 1.2 million acres of block management that was there?

Why would the presence of large predators be incompatible with hunting and grazing?

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

 

[Gila]

Why would the presence of large predators be incompatible with hunting and grazing?

Grizzlies, Wolves and Cougar were prairie apex predators that along with indigenous hunters controlled the bison, elk, deer and pronghorn populations on the plains. The competition among the apex predators controlled the predator numbers. Apex predators were removed from the prairie to make way for cattle ranches. Hunters have taken the place of those apex predators to control the populations of those game species. Re-introducing those apex predators to the prairie invalidates the purpose of hunting. Obviously cattle grazing on an open range isn’t feasible in the presence of those apex predators.

Edit: actually West of Fork Peck area
Currently there is about 1.4 million acres enrolled in block management in that area (region 6) which gives access to hunters and/or allows crossing to public lands where hunting is allowed:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/gisresources/hunting/hunteraccess/blockman/regionaloverviews/bma_r6west_2025.png