American prairie. What's the issue?

[hossblur]

Despite what everyone on here tells you, many traditional ranchers have done this for years too. They just don't have a fancy website with a mission statement and a billionaire infested board. Carry on with your romantic fantasyland idea of preserving the land and restoring the wildlife(bison are livestock in Montana FYI)

True.

Until Jr figures out dad's passion, means feeding cows in Feb.

Or that he can sell that headache, and never work a day again.

Combined with the assault on easements, and suddenly APR looks a lot better

 

[4ohSick]

Paragraph basically stated that due to aging landowner/farmer population, 70% of all US farmlands will change ownership in the next 20 years, and that current prices are a bubble not sustainable with the production value of the land.
Sounds a lot like current house prices.

I'm pretty skeptical of the bubble theory for western lands (just like I am for housing in Montana). The fact of the matter is that production value of land isn't a factor to the billionaires buying up every chunk of land with a hoofprint to be found. And the overinflated value is just a drop in the bucket to them. So until billionaires run out of money, and California (et al) runs out of Californians selling $800,000 decrepit shacks to buy Montana mini-mansions, western property values and Montana house prices are going to stay on their trajectory.

 

[MTGomer]

I agree with your opinion as well. The APR is playing the long game on this. As the APR continues to purchase ranches, they will begin to have more political clout in the area regarding the management of the federal lands as well.(Change of use to bison grazing on a couple BLM allotments is just the beginning. They will be going for the next 200,000 acres of BLM contained in their original proposal next) What this will look like in 10, 20, 50 years is anyone's guess. Again just my opinion(yes put on tinfoil hat), but one possible scenario that I see likely, the federal protections for the monument(maybe all federal lands as they increase connectivity on these ranches) to continue to ratchet up maybe even eventually becoming a national park or preserve if the APR and (by than) vast legion of supportors want this. As tourism ratchets up in this area and you get millions of lookie lou's coming to see the restored bison, elk, grizzlies, and wolves that now have names, do you think hunting will be something that can be sustained? I think people are in denial if they don't think this is within the realm of possible scenario that could play out. For some this probably sounds awesome. As with anything, there are pros and cons to increased access, tourism, etc. Case in point. The yurts. Who would have ever thought some might travel to NE Mt to stay in a yurt? But that's a thing now.

I find it fascinating that the nobility running the APR have even convinced some of the peasants to contribute their hard earned money to their vision. From the outside looking in it doesn't appear the APR is in need of money. The only thing holding them back is willing sellers of private ranches. I agree, change is inevitable but that doesn't mean I have to support it, so I won't. To me this just doesn't sound that much different than the "preserve" the Wilks have built that everyone on here hates.

I don’t think the APR will work as hard as they have and will continue to do to hand over their control and scientific management of their land to the inefficiencies and incompetence of the NPS or any other fed agency, along with all of the additional regulations that would become a hurdle to carrying out their mission.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with your opinion as well. The APR is playing the long game on this. As the APR continues to purchase ranches, they will begin to have more political clout in the area regarding the management of the federal lands as well.(Change of use to bison grazing on a couple BLM allotments is just the beginning. They will be going for the next 200,000 acres of BLM contained in their original proposal next) What this will look like in 10, 20, 50 years is anyone's guess. Again just my opinion(yes put on tinfoil hat), but one possible scenario that I see likely, the federal protections for the monument(maybe all federal lands as they increase connectivity on these ranches) to continue to ratchet up maybe even eventually becoming a national park or preserve if the APR and (by than) vast legion of supportors want this. As tourism ratchets up in this area and you get millions of lookie lou's coming to see the restored bison, elk, grizzlies, and wolves that now have names, do you think hunting will be something that can be sustained? I think people are in denial if they don't think this is within the realm of possible scenario that could play out. For some this probably sounds awesome. As with anything, there are pros and cons to increased access, tourism, etc. Case in point. The yurts. Who would have ever thought some might travel to NE Mt to stay in a yurt? But that's a thing now.

I find it fascinating that the nobility running the APR have even convinced some of the peasants to contribute their hard earned money to their vision. From the outside looking in it doesn't appear the APR is in need of money. The only thing holding them back is willing sellers of private ranches. I agree, change is inevitable but that doesn't mean I have to support it, so I won't. To me this just doesn't sound that much different than the "preserve" the Wilks have built that everyone on here hates.

Just curious if you hold the same contempt for the Flying D, or Q creek, or the Wagonhound ranch, where many "peasants" pay from $10k-$14k to hunt elk on those places where I assure you the billionaires who own those places, clearly do not need the "peasants" hard earned money.

They take it with both hands, and greedily. There is no chance you get on any of those places without forking over the cash, end of story.

For the record, the experience my Dad got while hunting APR property, was in fact, an equivalent type of hunt...minus the hand holding and 5 star chef. I had to play guide, pack his bull and I rate myself as no higher than a solid 4 star chef. Price paid to APR for that? Exactly zero...a "peasant" getting a $10-$14K hunt from APR, that doesn't owe me a thing.

If my Dad and I feel it appropriate to donate some money to them from time to time, we will, and its none of your business.

That money, while maybe not significant at all to the over-all APR budget, may just be the reason that hunting stays part of their long-term management. It does illustrate appreciation and a way to continue the positive relationship between APR and the hunting public.

If they had to deal with negative people like you, I agree, they would likely close the doors.

From what I've seen, a majority of the people that hunt APR properties do not hold the contempt you do for the access they provide.

 

[DFS]

Just curious if you hold the same contempt for the Flying D, or Q creek, or the Wagonhound ranch, where many "peasants" pay from $10k-$14k to hunt elk on those places where I assure you the billionaires who own those places, clearly do not need the "peasants" hard earned money.

They take it with both hands, and greedily. There is no chance you get on any of those places without forking over the cash, end of story.

For the record, the experience my Dad got while hunting APR property, was in fact, an equivalent type of hunt...minus the hand holding and 5 star chef. I had to play guide, pack his bull and I rate myself as no higher than a solid 4 star chef. Price paid to APR for that? Exactly zero...a "peasant" getting a $10-$14K hunt from APR, that doesn't owe me a thing.

If my Dad and I feel it appropriate to donate some money to them from time to time, we will, and its none of your business.

That money, while maybe not significant at all to the over-all APR budget, may just be the reason that hunting stays part of their long-term management. It does illustrate appreciation and a way to continue the positive relationship between APR and the hunting public.

If they had to deal with negative people like you, I agree, they would likely close the doors.

From what I've seen, a majority of the people that hunt APR properties do not hold the contempt you do for the access they provide.

Yeah screw you @rogerthat how dare you have a different opinion!

 

[rogerthat]

Just curious if you hold the same contempt for the Flying D, or Q creek, or the Wagonhound ranch, where many "peasants" pay from $10k-$14k to hunt elk on those places where I assure you the billionaires who own those places, clearly do not need the "peasants" hard earned money.

They take it with both hands, and greedily. There is no chance you get on any of those places without forking over the cash, end of story.

For the record, the experience my Dad got while hunting APR property, was in fact, an equivalent type of hunt...minus the hand holding and 5 star chef. I had to play guide, pack his bull and I rate myself as no higher than a solid 4 star chef. Price paid to APR for that? Exactly zero...a "peasant" getting a $10-$14K hunt from APR, that doesn't owe me a thing.

If my Dad and I feel it appropriate to donate some money to them from time to time, we will, and its none of your business.

That money, while maybe not significant at all to the over-all APR budget, may just be the reason that hunting stays part of their long-term management. It does illustrate appreciation and a way to continue the positive relationship between APR and the hunting public.

If they had to deal with negative people like you, I agree, they would likely close the doors.

From what I've seen, a majority of the people that hunt APR properties do not hold the contempt you do for the access they provide.

Negative? Contempt? Maybe I just have a different opinion and perspective than you Buzz. My post was not at all a personal shot. If you support Apr and are happy with them, you think they are the cats meow than good deal.

You guys do whatever you want with your money. No judgement from me. I apply for Wyoming moose and bought a point this year. I have 8.

At this time, Apr just ain’t my cup of tea. I think I have made that clear. My opinion may change. Who knows

 

[MNElkNut]

Been reading this whole thread with an open mind. I knew about APR before reading it, but was willing to look at all sides. I have firmly came down on the side of APR being a good thing. If they do an about face and switch their positions, I may change my mind but am not going to let what-ifs shade my opinion. But as of now, an entity is buying market rate ranches to conserve (not preserve) a rare ecosystem. They allow hunting on a limited basis, which is a good thing. They can manage the wildlife on their footprint very precisely that way. I wouldn't want a free-for-all, that would not be good management.

 

[BuzzH]

Negative? Contempt? Maybe I just have a different opinion and perspective than you Buzz. My post was not at all a personal shot. If you support Apr and are happy with them, you think they are the cats meow than good deal.

You guys do whatever you want with your money. No judgement from me. I apply for Wyoming moose and bought a point this year. I have 8.

At this time, Apr just ain’t my cup of tea. I think I have made that clear. My opinion may change. Who knows

I often wonder, at times, why more landowners don't allow public hunting.

Then I read stuff like this, and it becomes very obvious.

No good deed goes unpunished. Provide access via BM, open up access to past landlocked BLM and State, and allow some hunting on a vast majority...yep, some 10-watt is going to complain.

Speculating on what might happen in 10, 20, 50 years when their current policy is to allow hunting, and to actually be complaining about it?

Rather than embrace what they're doing and try to build on that, lets beat them up instead.

Truly unbelievable.

 

[Hunting Wife]

It is an interesting juxtaposition, to be sure, reading on the one hand the contempt for APR and their desire (and right) to keep portions of their property closed to hunting, and on the other hand read from some of the same people bitching about FWP’s management and the need for areas to serve as refuge for big game being “piss-pounded” on public and Block Management.

I’m not sure there is any scenario on earth that would satisfy some people. And that is in no way directed at anyone in particular, just to be clear.

 

[rogerthat]

Luckily I am

I often wonder, at times, why more landowners don't allow public hunting.

Then I read stuff like this, and it becomes very obvious.

No good deed goes unpunished. Provide access via BM, open up access to past landlocked BLM and State, and allow some hunting on a vast majority...yep, some 10-watt is going to complain.

Speculating on what might happen in 10, 20, 50 years when their current policy is to allow hunting, and to actually be complaining about it?

Rather than embrace what they're doing and try to build on that, lets beat them up instead.

Truly unbelievable.

Luckily I am an Led bulb so 10 watts is fairly bright.

Good on them for allowing some hunting access. I applaud any landowner that does. However hasn’t it occurred to you allowing some hunting access now could just be to improve public opinion? Public perception is definitely something they have a handle on. They have staff that specializes in it. They need ranches to be sold to them to complete their vision. For that they will need a positive public perception.

My statements were all prefaced with opinion, speculation, heck I even said tin foil hat at one point. I guess I’m just a distrustful individual. Even a mouse thinks he is getting a great deal when he first finds the bait in the mouse trap.

 

[antlerradar]

I often wonder, at times, why more landowners don't allow public hunting.

Then I read stuff like this, and it becomes very obvious.

I have yet to say anything posted by @rogerthat that has lowered my opinion of sportsman. Others have posted up plenty.

 

[SwaggyD]

Been reading this whole thread with an open mind. I knew about APR before reading it, but was willing to look at all sides. I have firmly came down on the side of APR being a good thing. If they do an about face and switch their positions, I may change my mind but am not going to let what-ifs shade my opinion. But as of now, an entity is buying market rate ranches to conserve (not preserve) a rare ecosystem. They allow hunting on a limited basis, which is a good thing. They can manage the wildlife on their footprint very precisely that way. I wouldn't want a free-for-all, that would not be good management.

From their website.

The Next 20 Years​

Though our brand image is evolving, our commitment to the land, the wildlife, and the people on the prairie remains unchanged. We cannot lose sight of the fact that temperate grasslands are one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet. The Great Plains of North America is one of four temperate grasslands in the world with potential to be preserved at an ecosystem scale. We have an opportunity to unite around the preservation of this shared ecosystem here in Montana, and we must seize it. It is not a distant dream; this future is within our reach.

We remain committed to working together to be a voice for the prairie, to celebrating its rich history, and striving toward a future that sees this remarkable place preserved forever.

Lastly, we could not do any of this without supporters like you. Thank you for standing with us. We are so excited to see where the next 20 years take us.

Home

Our mission is to create one of the largest nature reserves in the United States. This will serve as a refuge for people and wildlife, forever.

www.americanprairie.org

 

[BuzzH]

I have yet to say anything posted by @rogerthat that has lowered my opinion of sportsman. Others have posted up plenty.

I would be embarrassed and expect to be kicked off property I had access to, but constantly complained because someday you might change your mind.

I agree that there is no making some people happy, no matter how much good you do.

 

[BuzzH]

From their website.

The Next 20 Years​

Though our brand image is evolving, our commitment to the land, the wildlife, and the people on the prairie remains unchanged. We cannot lose sight of the fact that temperate grasslands are one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet. The Great Plains of North America is one of four temperate grasslands in the world with potential to be preserved at an ecosystem scale. We have an opportunity to unite around the preservation of this shared ecosystem here in Montana, and we must seize it. It is not a distant dream; this future is within our reach.

We remain committed to working together to be a voice for the prairie, to celebrating its rich history, and striving toward a future that sees this remarkable place preserved forever.

Lastly, we could not do any of this without supporters like you. Thank you for standing with us. We are so excited to see where the next 20 years take us.

Home

Our mission is to create one of the largest nature reserves in the United States. This will serve as a refuge for people and wildlife, forever.

www.americanprairie.org

I would believe hunting is part of that "rich history" they want to preserve forever, unless some clowns screw it up for everyone. Which, I reckon, could happen, hunters don't ever seem to want to help themselves or those that are supportive of same.

Unbelievable.

 

[BuzzH]

Luckily I am

Luckily I am an Led bulb so 10 watts is fairly bright.

Good on them for allowing some hunting access. I applaud any landowner that does. However hasn’t it occurred to you allowing some hunting access now could just be to improve public opinion? Public perception is definitely something they have a handle on. They have staff that specializes in it. They need ranches to be sold to them to complete their vision. For that they will need a positive public perception.

My statements were all prefaced with opinion, speculation, heck I even said tin foil hat at one point. I guess I’m just a distrustful individual. Even a mouse thinks he is getting a great deal when he first finds the bait in the mouse trap.

No, it hasn't occurred to me, but then again, I actually have had conversations specific to hunting, biology, and their goals with their staff...so, there is that.

Maybe I'm just not forced to guess...

 

[SwaggyD]

I would guess hunting is part of that "rich history" they want to preserve forever, unless some clowns screw it up for everyone. Which, I reckon, could happen, hunters don't ever seem to want to help themselves or those that are supportive of same.

Unbelievable.

Ranching is also a "rich history" in that county, which is a part of agriculture, which is Montana's largest industry.

 

[BuzzH]

Ranching is also a "rich history" in that county.

And bison are livestock, so that can continue even on APR land and their leased BLM and State.

Win-win.

 

[mtmuley]

Yeah screw you @rogerthat how dare you have a different opinion!

Stay in the HT lane man. mtmuley

 

[mottlet]

I often wonder, at times, why more landowners don't allow public hunting.

I know you're making a point, but I don't. We've got a handful of acres and a pond at the office, and seeing as how we talk all the time about gateways to outdoor recreation, it's open to the public. DNR comes in and dumps dogfood trout in a couple times a year, so that folks in a pretty urban/suburban area can come catch em when they probably wouldn't have much opportunity otherwise.

The amount of time we spend picking up trash, putting out literal fires, reminding folks to stay out of the wildflower restoration zone, etc. makes you appreciate strong private property laws. And folks just assume it's always been there and always will be. Law's never run em off, so it must be THEIRS, right? Off topic I know.

Re: the APR, there's two things I wish I could go back in time to look at because I've experienced the tiniest little remnants of what's left. The first is the bottomlands in the lower Mississippi valley before they drained and plowed bout all of em. Second's the northern great plains before they chopped it all up so that oceans of grass became little island oases.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Re: the APR, there's two things I wish I could go back in time to look at because I've experienced the tiniest little remnants of what's left. The first is the bottomlands in the lower Mississippi valley before they drained and plowed bout all of em. Second's the northern great plains before they chopped it all up so that oceans of grass became little island oases.

Hal Herring talks about what Alabama used to look like pre-settlement. So much of what we see today is vastly different than what we had 350 years ago.

The American Chestnut Tree almost went extinct, invasive grasses & weeds from Europe cratered natural systems in New England, we wiped elk out of most of the US and now we're down to 3 species of them when we used to have 5 or more...

This continent used to be a garden of eden, but we cocked it up a long time ago. I'm pretty good with righting those wrongs.