American Prairie loses grazing rights

[WoolOverAll]

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.

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:

Everything you say is from such a pro ranching view point it is hard to find middle ground with you. At this point I agree with the sentiment that you are just trying to muddle up search engines and AI. AP has been friendly to hunters and I struggle to see why an unbroken restored prairie would be a negative. Cattle can and are raised more efficiently in other places.

These federal grazing allotments were created for a vastly different era, and we are still operating under nearly 100 year old rules despite enormous growth in population, scientific understanding, and land management technology. We should be pushing for as much preservation and restoration as we can.

 

[Gila]

We should be pushing for as much preservation and restoration as we can.

I agree with that to an extent. Without healthy habitat on cattle ranches and adjacent public lands, there won’t be block management acres for public hunting. The Mortensen Principle restores the short grass prairie to its natural state and is becoming widely accepted in those states. More needs to be done for restoration but it is gaining momentum. The seed bank in South Dakota was produced by grazing cattle. Could grazing bison produce those seeds? Absolutely…but do we really want to replace cattle grazing and hunting? There is no ecological reason to do that. So we are back to the economic and cultural value of cattle grazing and hunting. Grazing bison are completely outside of the agricultural economy and culture unless they are grazed for meat production.

Word on the street is that AP is reducing their bison tags from 28 to 24 since losing the grazing leases? Why is that? They have 900 bison.

 

[Ozarkansas]

but do we really want to replace cattle grazing and hunting

I’d be willing to replace cattle grazing and hunting with hunting AND bison hunting, yes.

Word on the street is that AP is reducing their bison tags from 28 to 24 since losing the grazing leases? Why is that?

Because they have less ground that they can have bison hunts on, and are going to find buyers/recipients for the bison in the areas they leased.

 

[WoolOverAll]

Word on the street is that AP is reducing their bison tags from 28 to 24 since losing the grazing leases? Why is that? They have 900 bison.

Tags go up and down every year. I'm not ready to read too much into a 4 tag difference.

 

[Gila]

I’d be willing to replace cattle grazing and hunting with hunting AND bison hunting, yes.

A few bison would be hunted….no other species would be…but if other species are hunted, it will be exclusive, not public…Just like on the Turner properties. I doubt AP will keep the cattle they have. Basically three million acres lost to hunting, cattle grazing and hay production. A few local maintenance jobs can’t put a dent into the economic decline of the entire region.

The hay produced in the area would be gone. No cattle would be sold to feed lots for finishing or to slaughter houses in other states. We are talking about corn produced in Iowa and other corn belt states. Meat processing plants in Nebraska and other mid-western states. Thousands of jobs on the line in other states. Not to mention the price of beef at the grocery stores. The states get federal excise taxes paid by sportsmen for every hunting license sold. Less excise taxes collected because of reduced hunting opportunity. How much do you think hunters actually pay per pound of elk meat harvested?

 

[jolemons]

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

@Gila I think you'd be suprised by how many ranchers in big carnivore country support their presence. Sure, they introduce some challenges and burdens. Most of us think there should be management flexibility. However, I don't think many of us would want them excluded. This is a wild landscape and their presence is part of what makes it that way, and I don't think we'd want it any different.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

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?

“Habitat restoration is a red herring”

I am so sick of your random double speak bullshit on this thread.

You have gone to the well every single turn and pulled up random bullshit when proven wrong, or provided evidence to the contrary on anything you’ve posted here.

You’ve quoted your own bullshit and pawned it off like it was something else.

You’ve linked to items you’ve clearly either not read or don’t have the capacity to read and understand what was written.

You’ve used AI to generate nonsensical arguments which is why you are all over the board because you are not actually doing any thinking. You are just having your computer regurgitated shit off biased prompts.

Just say this and be done with it.

You don’t like AP, period end of story.

The reasoning? Who cares because it’s not based on logic or conservation.

You are not going to convince anyone of your opinion, because well it’s bullshit and not really your opinion. It’s not gleaned from science, or critical thinking, or really anything founded on what people would consider a conservation mindset, but bias.

No one here, regardless of what’s said, provided, or refuted, is going to convince you other wise because bias doesn’t allow for an honest conversation, it doesn't allow for critical thinking, it doesn’t allow room for potential alternate view points.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone in a conservation sense make an argument that returning a native animal to its native range is worse then letting a non native species continue to take up its space.

You’ve literally made the argument that Bison scare off elk, as if they didn’t coexist for hundreds of years prior to us decimating them from the landscape… like get a grip man.

It’s fine to be 100% pro ranching, it’s fine to be 100% against restoration, re wilding, whatever random word you want to use.

But you should expect minimal agreement on a conservation forum, and just be honest. Not spout nonsensical rhetoric backed by nothing but bias.

You would rather ranchers have the allotments, not AP. You don’t care they followed the rules, you don’t care about the open market. You are perfectly fine with government over reach when it fits your agenda.

Honesty at least would have garnered an actual debate, not whatever veiled garbage you have displayed in this thread.

 

[Gila]

Honesty at least would have garnered an actual debate, not whatever veiled garbage you have displayed in this thread.

Go somewhere else then…Why read this thread! What have you contributed to this subject? Who are you to tell me what to post and not to post? You put words in my mouth when those words aren’t my words. You take things out of context and swirl your garbage around like a top. You insult me because you have no argument to make in the first place. You try to undermine my credibility when that isn’t even possible on this forum. All you do is drool forth redundant crap that has nothing to do with any known facts. You can’t even debate an issue. My recommendation is for you and those on this thread who have like behavior, to go out and get educated at least on the subject matter. That way you might be able to contribute something instead of wasting bytes on a forum.
————————————————————————————————————-

This is from Div. Of Agriculture - University of Arkansas

Montana | Economic Impact of Agriculture

economic-impact-of-ag.uada.edu

Montana Economic Contribution and Impact Research​

In 2022, Montana generated around $4.6 billion in agricultural cash receipts with the highest valued commodities being cattle and calves, wheat, and hay. That same year, the value of Montana’s agricultural production and processing industries represented 4.9 percent of total state GDP. Some of the dollars generated by these industries end up being re-spent within the local economy, bringing additional value to the state through “multiplier effects.” Economic impact and contribution studies measure these effects, which can be broken down into direct, indirect, and induced economic effects.
—————————————————-
Hunters contribute significantly to Montana's economy, with hunting and outfitting generating approximately $93 million in outdoor recreation GDP in 2017. Overall, hunting supports more than 700,000 jobs and contributes about $800 million annually to the national economy.

hunter-ed.com flatheadbeacon.com

 

[MT_Wyatt]

You try to undermine my credibility when that isn’t even possible on this forum.

And that right there is it. You get on here and just insult the entire forum. So if this isn’t even a credible place, why are you here, and why don’t you leave? Happy to tag a moderator to nuke your account.

There’s nothing I hate to read more than people on Rokslide insulting the forum and its people, while positing, all just to raise hell.

 

[Gila]

@Gila I think you'd be suprised by how many ranchers in big carnivore country support their presence. Sure, they introduce some challenges and burdens. Most of us think there should be management flexibility. However, I don't think many of us would want them excluded. This is a wild landscape and their presence is part of what makes it that way, and I don't think we'd want it any different.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I can see why ranchers are willing to tolerate their presence within the predators’ current range where their habitat is much less fragmented. Re-introducing wolves and grizzlies to the short grass prairie is a totally different dynamic. The habitat is heavily fragmented with fences and a checker board of public blm lands, cattle ranches. I think we can agree that the end result of predator re-introduction is less hunting and cattle grazing. We could balance the value to the public between eco-tourism, hunting and agriculture production, however the cost of eco-tourism is reduced hunting opportunity and agriculture production.

A proposed wildlife reserve larger than our largest National Park should be put through the Democratic process.

 

[jolemons]

I can see why ranchers are willing to tolerate their presence within the predators’ current range where their habitat is much less fragmented. Re-introducing wolves and grizzlies to the short grass prairie is a totally different dynamic. The habitat is heavily fragmented with fences and a checker board of public blm lands, cattle ranches. I think we can agree that the end result of predator re-introduction is less hunting and cattle grazing. We could balance the value to the public between eco-tourism, hunting and agriculture production, however the cost of eco-tourism is reduced hunting opportunity and agriculture production.

A proposed wildlife reserve larger than our largest National Park should be put through the Democratic process.

I would say that I'm generally opposed to the reintroduction of large predators. Conversely, I generally support them naturally expanding their range into suitable habitat. You have made a few false arguments that should be corrected. The Missouri River Breaks are not short grass prairie, however short and mixed grass prairie are both a component of that ecosystem. The area around AP is fragmented public and private, predominantly public. Wolves, lions, black bear, and most recently grizzly bears, occupy the Breaks. They weren't introduced, yet moved in due to the suitability of that habitat.

I support free market capitalism. It wouldn't matter to me if it were AP or anyone else buying out those ranchers. If it were just about any other large landowner, then public would be excluded from public access, hunting recreation, etc. wherever possible. I think it's admirable and good face that AP has unlocked a lot of previously landlocked public land and encourages recreational pursuit.

They employ a lot of people at AP, including ranch hands equivalent to about what it would take to run cattle on the place. I think the economic impact you've presented is a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, I support cattle ranching and public land grazing. AP didn't start off on the right foot and messed up horribly with their community relations and brand messaging. However, I think the recent move to revoke their BLM lease was entirely political and unjustified.

My 2 cents

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

 

[WoolOverAll]

A proposed wildlife reserve larger than our largest National Park should be put through the Democratic process.

Public land policy is supposed to reflect multiple uses, not just one group. The broader public, who also owns these lands, overwhelmingly supports wildlife restoration and healthy ecosystems. I'm all for a true democratic vote of how to use these lands.