APR and hunting

[mtmuley]

Just read an article about the latest land aquisition by the American Prairie League in the Breaks. Anybody know what their stance is/will be concerning hunting? mtmuley

 

[James Riley]

Just read an article about the latest land aquisition by the American Prairie League in the Breaks. Anybody know what their stance is/will be concerning hunting? mtmuley

League or Reserve? I support the Reserve and here's what I got from them:

"American Prairie Reserve just became the proud, new steward of the iconic PN Ranch, a nearly 50,000-acre expanse of crucial wildlife habitat that includes:

20,722 acres of deeded land,
16,562 acres leased from the BLM, and
10,034 acres leased from the State.
Home to elk and bighorn sheep, the PN is located almost entirely within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, where the Bureau of Land Management is working to promote the scenic, historic, wildlife, and recreation values on the public lands it oversees. What a great neighbor for a nature reserve!

The PN also represents an incredible chance to improve public access to more than 20,000 acres of private lands and permanently conserve key habitat in the wildlife corridors along the region’s river bottoms. And with the site of Montana’s first military outpost and one of the camps of Lewis & Clark, visitors to this special place will find an abundance of the great American spirit.

We look forward to evaluating the recreation, restoration, and historic preservation opportunities of this new area and sharing more about our plans. Thank you for building American Prairie Reserve year after year!"

Bold is mine in answer to your question, such as it is. Doesn't really address hunting specifically. I guess they are "evaluating . . opportunities".

 

[Ben Long]

The American Prairie Reserve has allowed hunting on its holdings.

 

[Big Fin]

They currently have much of their property enrolled in the Block Management Plan. They do currently allow the public to hunt, with a set of rules and guidelines for doing so.

I think the APR is an interesting experiment. It is a unique approach to landscape conservation, for sure. Watching the dynamics of willing-buyer/willing seller at play, makes for some very interesting observations, based on if you were the willing seller who cashed out at above-market prices, or if you are the person who did not sell.

 

[Schaaf]

From a couple days ago.



I understand she might not be the decision maker but I have yet to see any action from the APR that would lead me to believe they are against hunting or eventually close the gates on hunters. I do think entering into a more permanent conservation plan would kill a lot of fears. I've signed into portions of their BMA the last 2 years and have always enjoyed my hunts in that area.

 

[James Riley]

I've never been there but I hope to go to their eastern properties some time. Maybe before I die (and maybe how I actually do die, I hope) is to put on a loin cloth, jump on my horse and ride full-tilt into a stampeding herd of bison with my bow. Now that there is rodeo! Maybe APR will arrange it.

I know there is some opposition up there from ranchers but I don't quite understand it. No one is forcing anyone to sell and no one (to my knowledge) is stopping any rancher from doing anything on his/her own land. There may be fewer folks down at the local greasy spoon for coffee in the morning (i.e. a change in local culture), but heck, back in the "good old days" of ranching/cowboys, folks didn't drive into town every day either. Seems the area is getting more 1870s, not less. Are bison destroying fence without recompense? I don't think so. Does APR have wolves running around? Is BLM jacking rates due to APR? I don't know the answers to these questions.

 

[Big Fin]

Just read an article about the latest land aquisition by the American Prairie League in the Breaks. Anybody know what their stance is/will be concerning hunting? mtmuley

I should have added to my first reply, that as much as I like that APR allows hunting and I hope they continue to allow hunting, should we be judging them with any different standard than we judge other people who own/buy property as it relates to hunting access? I don't think we should. I hope they continue to allow hunting access, but in reality, it is none of my business any more so than whether or not Ted Turner allows hunting access or the Wilks Brothers allow hunting access, or (insert landowner name here) allows hunting access. It is none of the business of neighboring landowners what APR does with land APR bought in an open market transaction with the former neighbor who is getting out of the farming or ranching business, any more than it is my right to tell my neighbor what to do with his 300+ acres of wheat field.

 

[James Riley]

APR about themselves, for thems whats interested: https://www.americanprairie.org/

 

[Nameless Range]

I discussed this with a fellow HuntTalkers on their Facebook page the other day.

On a work trip last year we were given a tour of APR lands and a presentation of the different business models they are using to achieve their goals. What they are currently doing is amazing. The country they are buying up is a national treasure, and the fact that their lands are open to hunting and all sorts of recreation is a win for sportsmen.

That said, I was given the impression during one of the presentations they gave that hunting may be phased out eventually. This was not stated explicitly, but this is how I got that impression.

During the presentation the gal giving it showed a slide of how their management will shift over time - from leasing and allowing historic practices such as grazing, to phasing out grazing, to outright deed ownership with little human influence on the lands. They showed a slide highlighting that eventually, all animals that live on APR will die naturally and go back to the lands. Someone asked, "Like a National Park?", and she replied, "Yes, but a privately owned one."

I think what they are doing is fine either way. Willing seller- willing buyer. And where currently so many ranches are bought up and No Trespassing signs go up the same day, they are inviting the public in. If they were to enter into a permanent agreement that hunting will always be considered as a tool in their management plan, I think Sportsmen would have no choice but to acknowledge them as a great ally in reducing the perpetual loss of access that seems to be the norm in Eastern MT.

 

[mtmuley]

Thanks for all the info. I am fine with the idea of the APR eventually phasing out hunting. Continued public access would be a plus. The fact that they are going to manage that land they way they are is beneficial either way. Good to see such an amazing place be protected. mtmuley

 

[James Riley]

Thanks for the insight, Namelessrange. Interesting presentation you heard.

When I look at their maps, a lot of what they include in their efforts, kind of like a GY view of the world, includes neighboring state and federal land. Any future restrictions or elimination of hunting would, I assume, be limited to their deeded/deeded-leased land. These areas can serve as nurseries for good hunting on neighboring public land. I reckon its up to us to ensure we can continue to hunt on our land (public).

 

[mtmiller]

That said, I was given the impression during one of the presentations they gave that hunting may be phased out eventually. This was not stated explicitly, but this is how I got that impression.

During the presentation the gal giving it showed a slide of how their management will shift over time - from leasing and allowing historic practices such as grazing, to phasing out grazing, to outright deed ownership with little human influence on the lands. They showed a slide highlighting that eventually, all animals that live on APR will die naturally and go back to the lands. Someone asked, "Like a National Park?", and she replied, "Yes, but a privately owned one."

Who gave the presentation? Betty Holder gave a presentation last week in Havre and that was not the message, in fact it was the opposite. Hunting is current and future management on their holdings. Also, a huge percentage of the land is in public ownership, thankfully Federal public land.

 

[Eric Albus]

According to one of the APF/APR former directors hunting will happen for now....but eventually it will be phased out.

 

[mtmiller]

Who was the "former" director?

 

[Nameless Range]

MtMiller, I don't know what her name was. It was at their "Headquarters" I guess, and she was an older lady who seemed in charge of that location.

Like I said, it was not explicitly stated. I just wasn't sure how hunting, taking animals off the land, would fit into the model of all animals living and dying on the APR. This was last May. It very well could not have been representative of the whole picture, and I'm glad to hear that hunting will be a part of future APR management.

 

[Straight Arrow]

According to one of the APF/APR former directors hunting will happen for now....but eventually it will be phased out.

That is contradictory to the widely disseminated public information being put out through the news articles, as well as on the APR website.

That rumored comment was spread last year, but as in this case, without documentation or even the name or credentials of the supposed "former director". There has been much expected backlash from northeastern Montana, but very little based on facts, reason, and solid information. In fact some of it has been contradictory to real property rights and the age old property right and capitalistic principle of "willing seller - willing buyer" which is a bedrock principle of this country and property ownership.

 

[mtmuley]

Sounds like the issue of hunting is subject to the current leadership at the time. How are the administrators of the APR chosen/appointed? mtmuley

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sounds like the issue of hunting is subject to the current leadership at the time.

No, it isn't even an issue. It is merely an attempt to alienate hunters against the APR. It's really a non-starter if you consider what Fin has remarked. It's a private property rights topic which should not set the APR apart from any other property owner in Montana. If the owner allows hunting; then great. If the owner does not, that's their prerogative.

Why is it that allowing hunting or not allowing hunting sets this landowner apart? It's merely a red herring tossed in the mix by those who disagree with the vision of APR and are grasping at criticism straws. One certainly has the right to disagree with the land usage of another, but does not have the right to judge the other's decisions nor to fabricate and spread disparaging false information.

 

[James Riley]

I just wasn't sure how hunting, taking animals off the land, would fit into the model of all animals living and dying on the APR.

If I kill it on the APR then it's dying on the APR. It may get eaten elsewhere, but . . . Just funnin' I saw what you said in the first post.

 

[mtmuley]

SA, I've already stated whether or not hunting is allowed is a non-issue for me. Just trying to get some info here. mtmuley