American Prairie loses grazing rights

[WRO]

Tourists always know better than locals.

Most locals no matter what the area hate change. Raising cattle is all many of the locals know out there, so any change to that norm is perceived as bad.

 

[MTtrout]

The APR is more popular the farther from Montana you get.
Their neighbors are not very fond of them.

From what perspective are you saying that from? The old protest signs you see along the highway or did you have grazing allotments that your family has sold? They work with open neighbors and graze a lot more cattle than bison. I don’t view the APR as bully’s.

Bison are managed as livestock and the APR has every right to keep grazing bison on their allotments.

What is everyone afraid of, too much conservation in too big of space?

 

[Ropnjansen]

Interesting to see how that has changed.

 

[CJ19]

What is everyone afraid of, too much conservation in too big of space?

The largest corporations and richest people in the world acquiring vast tracts of land in central montana through a third party non profit as part of a social engineering project aligned with the corporate esg policies of the companies the board members sit on? I see potential for red flags.

 

[MTtrout]

Would you rather had something like the Wilks Brothers or the LDS church buy it? See how easy it is to access their lands. There’s red flags in a lot of things in life. I find the APRs mission to restore Montanas prairie ecosystem fascinating. Especially since they’re also doing this on BLM land. There’s a lot of great ranchers out there that value wildlife and habitat but it seems like they often forget their values when their cattle are grazing BLM lands.

Do they have an end goal to destroy civilization as we know it, maybe, but I’ll let you worry about those red flags.

The largest corporations and richest people in the world acquiring vast tracts of land in central montana through a third party non profit as part of a social engineering project aligned with the corporate esg policies of the companies the board members sit on? I see potential for red flags.

 

[Gila]

ECONOMIC
Removing 500,000 cattle from the landscape in an area that is totally dependent on agriculture is more than just “change”. Think of all of that leather, wool and meat lost to the national economy. How many megatons of hay is lost? How many millions of our tax payer dollars went into the Conservation Reserve Program that paid out to ranchers, farmers over the decades? How many millions of tax payer dollars is recouped by grazing leases? How much Iowa corn do you think is fed to 500,000 cattle to finish them out? Last but not least, how many billions of tax dollars are lost if 500,000 cattle never make it to market? On that scale it’s not just about Montana.

PUBLIC LAND USE
American Prairie was given access to approx 2.5 million acres of surrounding BLM land for biodiversity restoration and preservation during the Obama Administration. That access would exclude any consumptive uses including: hunting, fishing, trapping and cattle grazing. Bison grazing is considered to be a net positive for biodiversity credits as well as any endangered species including grizzlies and wolves. Some of that access was apparently removed in Trump one and most recently, the rescission of the Public lands use rule of 2024.

Carbon and biodiversity credits were to be sold from the Public land leases. I have not been able to find where this is at. However Defenders of Wildlife is currently implementing a Biodiversity Credit program on the Fort Peck Reservation. This is where CBD, DOW and EJ come into play. AP currently has access to approx. 387,000 acres of public lands. It is not known (to me) what the actual public uses are for the current leases. AP was grazing bison on 63K acres but those leases were all rescinded.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Since the goal is re-wilding and preservation, there isn’t any wildlife conservation goals implemented that are established by the NORTH AMERICAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MODEL. AP’s position is that wildlife isn’t owned by the public but is part of the land. Ungulates are considered food for apex predators and are only to be hunted by indigenous humans. Basically leave it all alone and limit any human interaction.

PREDATORS
In the following Google presentation that was made about 11-12 years ago, there were not any Grizzlies or wolves there, but they have grizzlies on their property today. No one has mentioned the current population of wolves. Also the presentation mentions selling carbon credits but not biodiversity credits because the presentation was before the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of 2022.

 

[WRO]

ECONOMIC
Removing 500,000 cattle from the landscape in an area that is totally dependent on agriculture is more than just “change”. Think of all of that leather, wool and meat lost to the national economy. How many megatons of hay is lost? How many millions of our tax payer dollars went into the Conservation Reserve Program that paid out to ranchers, farmers over the decades? How many millions of tax payer dollars is recouped by grazing leases? How much Iowa corn do you think is fed to 500,000 cattle to finish them out? Last but not least, how many billions of tax dollars are lost if 500,000 cattle never make it to market? On that scale it’s not just about Montana.

PUBLIC LAND USE
American Prairie was given access to approx 2.5 million acres of surrounding BLM land for biodiversity restoration and preservation during the Obama Administration. That access would exclude any consumptive uses including: hunting, fishing, trapping and cattle grazing. Bison grazing is considered to be a net positive for biodiversity credits as well as any endangered species including grizzlies and wolves. Some of that access was apparently removed in Trump one and most recently, the rescission of the Public lands use rule of 2024.

Carbon and biodiversity credits were to be sold from the Public land leases. I have not been able to find where this is at. However Defenders of Wildlife is currently implementing a Biodiversity Credit program on the Fort Peck Reservation. This is where CBD, DOW and EJ come into play. AP currently has access to approx. 387,000 acres of public lands. It is not known (to me) what the actual public uses are for the current leases. AP was grazing bison on 63K acres but those leases were all rescinded.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Since the goal is re-wilding and preservation, there isn’t any wildlife conservation goals implemented that are established by the NORTH AMERICAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MODEL. AP’s position is that wildlife isn’t owned by the public but is part of the land. Ungulates are considered food for apex predators and are only to be hunted by indigenous humans. Basically leave it all alone and limit any human interaction.

PREDATORS
In the following Google presentation that was made about 11-12 years ago, there were not any Grizzlies or wolves there, but they have grizzlies on their property today. No one has mentioned the current population of wolves. Also the presentation mentions selling carbon credits but not biodiversity credits because the presentation was before the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of 2022.

I'm very confused, you make claims but then immediately follow up with I don't know. Public land access and hunting is governed by state and federal laws, not leasees. They can't reintroduce predators legally.

From a cattle grazing standpoint, its a drop in the bucket. 95-97% of the cattle produced in the us come from private land.

This is the epitome of S*** posting.

 

[Gila]

Would you rather had something like the Wilks Brothers or the LDS church buy it? See how easy it is to access their lands. There’s red flags in a lot of things in life. I find the APRs mission to restore Montanas prairie ecosystem fascinating. Especially since they’re also doing this on BLM land. There’s a lot of great ranchers out there that value wildlife and habitat but it seems like they often forget their values when their cattle are grazing BLM lands.

Do they have an end goal to destroy civilization as we know it, maybe, but I’ll let you worry about those red flags.

What difference does it make if the land is off limits to public hunting? Turner does the same thing that AP does here in New Mexico. He buys up half a million acres or more at a time and puts conservation easements on the properties. Our largest bighorn sheep herd of 250 animals is locked up on his property. He cut a deal with the Dept of War to lock up some of the Oryx, so now next year there won’t be a public draw hunt for seniors.

 

[Gila]

SCI public comment about the Public lands Rule of 2024:

“Specifically, SCI highlighted that the proposed rule’s definition implies preservation, and not the “wise use” of resources. The use of conservation leases to promote conservation is equally problematic to SCI. The proposed rule does not explicitly exempt recreational and guided hunting from land subject to these leases. Over 99% of the 250 million acres that BLM manages are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting opportunities. These lands provide vital access to all sportsmen and women, and SCI’s comment encourages the proposed rule to expressly protect those opportunities and access. SCI requested that the BLM revise the proposed rule to take into account the comments of affected users of public lands, notably hunters and guides, and to publish another rule that will promote conservation, but protect the multiple use and sustained yield nature of federal public lands.“

SCI Comments on BLM’s Proposed Public Lands Rule - Safari Club

Last week, SCI submitted a comment on the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed rule for Conservation and Land Health. The proposed rule seeks to expressly

safariclub.org

 

[WRO]

What difference does it make if the land is off limits to public hunting? Turner does the same thing that AP does here in New Mexico. He buys up half a million acres or more at a time and puts conservation easements on the properties. Our largest bighorn sheep herd of 250 animals is locked up on his property. He cut a deal with the Dept of War to lock up some of the Oryx, so now next year there won’t be a public draw hunt for seniors.

Oryx have migrated onto the Amadeus, same as all of the off range oryx.

Do you have any proof of the special agreement with the dept of war. Also is that even a real department?

 

[Gila]

“The New Mexico Land Conservancy and the Department of Defense recently completed one of the nation’s largest conservation easements at the Armendaris Ranch in southern New Mexico.”

 

[WRO]

“The New Mexico Land Conservancy and the Department of Defense recently completed one of the nation’s largest conservation easements at the Armendaris Ranch in southern New Mexico.”

So did Ted steal public land and kidnap oryx to make this conspiracy happen? Or did he just put his own deeded land in a conservation easement?

Please tell how these events took away the public draw for seniors as the Amadeus has been posted for decades. Which also seems odd because they are increasing overall tags by 5% off range.

 

[MTtrout]

What difference does it make if the land is off limits to public hunting?

Sure, there’s no difference other than if the purchaser are good land stewards and work to improve habitat and biodiversity. And don’t actively harass wildlife to harbor them on their property, there’s no difference. I’m not pointing to any individuals, just saying these are benefits to everyone if the purchaser has these goals and standards.

I’m not sure if you’re disposition it because you don’t have the financial backing to buy large chunks of property or you just oppose ‘certain’ groups working to improve habitat.

As for as allowing hunting and access, I’m sure you already know that APR allows hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing,… What is your point with this statement if it’s not true? Call your elected officials and voice your concerns, I sure know I do

 

[bayoublaster7527]

APR discussions on hunting forums are always interesting and contentious. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.

I can see the concerns from traditional users and the sportsmen community. Any time out of state billionaire activists get involved I am usually a bit skeptical as they typically don’t share the same values regarding hunting, fishing and the NAM. They are the major drivers of much of the anti-hunting movement here in Colorado.

There are also valid concerns regarding major shifts away from traditional agriculture. But at the end of the day, it’s really a willing seller, willing buyer type situation. I respect the rights of private property owners.

That being said it has been clearly stated many times that APR opens up lots of access for hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreation. Awesome. There are concerns those policies could change based on the makeup of the leadership and associations, but that seems to be pure speculation at this time. I suspect if APR took a decidedly anti-hunting turn they would fall out of favor with many Montanans quite quickly.

I also like to draw out the contrast between APR in Montana and the similar “land trust” organizations in Colorado, specifically the Southern Plains Land Trust. Both orgs openly support “rewilding” and “biodiversity” efforts. However, their approaches are quite different. APR allows for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation, however, SPLC explicitly doesn’t not support any of these activities. Unless of course you are one of their millionaire/billionaire donors who gets a personal safari tour. SPLC is actually the center of gravity for the anti-hunting movement in Colorado. They are closely aligned with Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Wellness Action, and the formerly CATS Prop 127 groups. Their leadership hold key positions on statewide boards and commissions where they have driven anti-hunting agendas. They share fundraising events with many of the wealthy anti-hunting donors in the state, including Governor Polis’ partner, First Gentleman Marlon Reis. SPLC is a critical cog in the urban Denver/Boulder machine directed at disenfranchising Colorado sportsmen and women. I can respect the preservation work SPLC does, but I am also keenly aware of their work to diminish and discredit hunters and anglers.

Keep a vigilant eye on APR? Sure. But groups like SPLC might be the villain you’re looking for.

 

[Jpsmith1]

ECONOMIC
Removing 500,000 cattle from the landscape in an area that is totally dependent on agriculture is more than just “change”. Think of all of that leather, wool and meat lost to the national economy. How many megatons of hay is lost? How many millions of our tax payer dollars went into the Conservation Reserve Program that paid out to ranchers, farmers over the decades? How many millions of tax payer dollars is recouped by grazing leases? How much Iowa corn do you think is fed to 500,000 cattle to finish them out? Last but not least, how many billions of tax dollars are lost if 500,000 cattle never make it to market? On that scale it’s not just about Montana.

PUBLIC LAND USE
American Prairie was given access to approx 2.5 million acres of surrounding BLM land for biodiversity restoration and preservation during the Obama Administration. That access would exclude any consumptive uses including: hunting, fishing, trapping and cattle grazing. Bison grazing is considered to be a net positive for biodiversity credits as well as any endangered species including grizzlies and wolves. Some of that access was apparently removed in Trump one and most recently, the rescission of the Public lands use rule of 2024.

Carbon and biodiversity credits were to be sold from the Public land leases. I have not been able to find where this is at. However Defenders of Wildlife is currently implementing a Biodiversity Credit program on the Fort Peck Reservation. This is where CBD, DOW and EJ come into play. AP currently has access to approx. 387,000 acres of public lands. It is not known (to me) what the actual public uses are for the current leases. AP was grazing bison on 63K acres but those leases were all rescinded.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Since the goal is re-wilding and preservation, there isn’t any wildlife conservation goals implemented that are established by the NORTH AMERICAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION MODEL. AP’s position is that wildlife isn’t owned by the public but is part of the land. Ungulates are considered food for apex predators and are only to be hunted by indigenous humans. Basically leave it all alone and limit any human interaction.

PREDATORS
In the following Google presentation that was made about 11-12 years ago, there were not any Grizzlies or wolves there, but they have grizzlies on their property today. No one has mentioned the current population of wolves. Also the presentation mentions selling carbon credits but not biodiversity credits because the presentation was before the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework of 2022.

Economic. They run 10x more cattle than Bison on their lands.

Public land use. As has already been discussed, a grazing lease does not allow the lease holder to exclude anyone from pursuing any legal hunting on that land. It ONLY allows them to graze livestock.

For the rest of this, tinfoil is in the top drawer. Use multiple layers for best performance.

 

[Gila]

Sure, there’s no difference other than if the purchaser are good land stewards and work to improve habitat and biodiversity.

Large tracts of land could be (and are) purchased that were in a public hunting access program. If the new owner puts everything into a conservation easement that does not allow public access or maybe they allow very limited access, tags are pulled out of the public draw. Fewer tags means less wildlife management funds available to state fish and game depts.

I’m not sure if you’re disposition it because you don’t have the financial backing to buy large chunks of property or you just oppose ‘certain’ groups working to improve habitat.

Neither…I am merely trying to get hunters to understand that recruiting the family rancher, farmer for public hunting is extremely important to save our hunting, fishing and trapping. State fish and game depts can accomplish that objective (and already have) by paying the landowner dollars per acre for habitat improvement.

As for as allowing hunting and access, I’m sure you already know that APR allows hunting, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing,… What is your point with this statement if it’s not true? Call your elected officials and voice your concerns, I sure know I do

Hunting is extremely limited on their property. Public access in general is also limited. About all it amounts to is a carat being dangled in front of the public. They have already stated repeatedly that they buy into carbon sequestration. AP properties are going into conservation easements. Their partnership with Defenders of Wildlife is to sell biodiversity credits from their deeded acres as well as the public lands under their management. Their bison grazing leases on BLM lands could have been a means to those ends.

While it is true that state fish and game depts. manage the hunting on public lands, it is the feds that determine if hunting is allowed on federal public lands or not. The language of the Public lands rule that was recently rescinded did not put hunting on equal footing with conservation leases. Nor did the Rule specifically mention hunting as a public use. What that means is that if an NGO was given a conservation lease to restore habitat, that NGO would not have to allow hunting. SCI was quick to point that out.

 

[MTBackroads]

From what perspective are you saying that from? The old protest signs you see along the highway or did you have grazing allotments that your family has sold? They work with open neighbors and graze a lot more cattle than bison. I don’t view the APR as bully’s.

Bison are managed as livestock and the APR has every right to keep grazing bison on their allotments.

What is everyone afraid of, too much conservation in too big of space?

Spending inordinate amounts of time carrying a shotgun and following a pointing dog in that country over the last 15 years is where my perspective comes from. Being friendly and talking to folks, eating and staying in the surrounding communities, hunting public land and block management.
The only people that like the APR are tourists. The locals overwhelmingly don't like their new neighbors.
Do you have any actual experience in those communities? What percentage of their neighbors would you say are "open"?
It appears that the APR was not following federal rules as to grazing on our public lands which is why they lost those rights.
They are looking for a new community liaison to work with the local ranchers if you are interested.

 

[WRO]

Neither…I am merely trying to get hunters to understand that recruiting the family rancher, farmer for public hunting is extremely important to save our hunting, fishing and trapping. State fish and game depts can accomplish that objective (and already have) by paying the landowner dollars per acre for habitat improvement.

Why? These are the people that whine incessantly that elk are eating them out of house and home, leading to lowered MOs and populations. Most states like az, or, mt, nv, wy and Idaho absolutely wage war on elk to appease rancher’s and farming interests. No state in the west has MOs based on actual carrying capacity, they’re in large part based on social pressure from the ranching community. I’m not saying they’re all bad, but they’re not the saviors you’re making them out to be.

Also conservation easements are a good thing, groups you don’t seem to hate like rmef, du, pheasants forever, etc all push and put them in place.