American Prairie loses grazing rights

[CJ19]

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wildlife-reports/bison/appendix-b-public-opinion-strategies-1.pdf

If you look at the state level, ranching interests are disproportionately represented compared to the general population make up. Idaho is much the same.

What don’t you want to take seriously? You said feral live stock, are they live stock or wild animals? Simple question.. (I know the answer from a state perspective they’re classified as both)

O yes, these "polls" conducted by political lobbying organizations and slipped into these reports as if they are non bias fact points. I am sure NWF hunted down the locals and local ranchers to find their opinion on bison reintroduction. Defenders of Wildlife's poll came to the same conclusion in their report. You could of at least cited the Defenders of Wildlife poll to make the discussion more lively.

I am 100% neutral on APR. Could be nice if run right, could be a disastrous bait and switch for hunters.

This post here is pretty much 100% how i feel.

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.

 

[WRO]

O yes, these "polls" conducted by political lobbying organizations and slipped into these reports as if they are non bias fact points. I am sure NWF hunted down the locals and local ranchers to find their opinion on bison reintroduction. Defenders of Wildlife's poll came to the same conclusion in their report. You could of at least cited the Defenders of Wildlife poll to make the discussion more lively.

The local ranchers make up a very small portion of the population in Montana. It’s one of the least densely populated areas in the lower 48. If you did a Rokslide poll you’d have very similar skewing. Phillips county, where the APR, has less than 1 person per square mile and makes up ~3% of the population of Montana, and it’d be a pretty bold assumption to say they’re all against it.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wildlife-reports/bison/final-programmatic-bison-eis-december-2019-1.pdf

Starting at page 57 there’s some more background on the social implications. Appears there’s 2 studies done, 1 by nwf and 1 by defenders. Without reading the full methodology on the survey it’d be hard to tell. Although it was interesting that the Malta petition only gathered 88 signatures.

 

[WRO]

Double post.