Attention: it’s time sportsmen and women listen!

[Schaaf]

People moving away from rural Montana is a stark reality. Yes, the APR is helping this in NE Montana, but that also occurs when mega ranches buy what’s for sale and I have yet to hear those concerns living here.

They are kind enough to allow hunting on the majority of their property right now and They could change their mind about that at any time in the future, just like every other private land owner.

I have talked with representatives from the APR about permanent access easements through their land onto public inholdings in case 50 years from now they have a board of directors that isn’t pro hunting. That ball is still rolling.

I don’t know about this year but in prior years they have been more restrictive on hunting on some of their property due to their opinions on wildlife population. They are not fans of how FWP currently manages big game species population objectives in the Breaks and I agree with them.

 

[mtmuley]

Having 10,000 bison running around should make the hunting interesting. mtmuley

 

[Straight Arrow]

I think a lot of hunters share the same trepidations.

I think it's appropriate to share "trepidations" about hunting policies on public lands, but not about hunting on private property. Hunters expressing and demonstrating inappropriate concerns about what an owner does with private property is a dynamic which offends many property owners. It is more appropriate to thank APR or any property owner for the privilege of hunting and/or visiting their property ... and perhaps further encouraging them to enter into a conservation easement or Block Management agreement. Criticizing a property owner because they don't establish public hunting for perpetuity is not appropriate nor constructive.

 

[bigsky2]

I have to wonder if their current policies on hunting will stand in the future. I was denied permission to elk hunt on a property completely surrounded by public. I hope they continue to work with hunters. mtmuley

I am unaware of any of their properties where you can hunt elk. If they don't feel there is a significant population of a particular species on a property, they won't allow hunting for that animal. Their wildlife management strategies are more conservative than FWP's, which I tend to like.

 

[onpoint]

I think it's appropriate to share "trepidations" about hunting policies on public lands, but not about hunting on private property. Hunters expressing and demonstrating inappropriate concerns about what an owner does with private property is a dynamic which offends many property owners. It is more appropriate to thank APR or any property owner for the privilege of hunting and/or visiting their property ... and perhaps further encouraging them to enter into a conservation easement or Block Management agreement. Criticizing a property owner because they don't establish public hunting for perpetuity is not appropriate nor constructive.

Spot on observation/thoughts. More likely than not, if any other private entity held the deeded acreage within the APR holdings, this conversation about (public) hunting there wouldn't even be taking place.

 

[mtmuley]

I am unaware of any of their properties where you can hunt elk. If they don't feel there is a significant population of a particular species on a property, they won't allow hunting for that animal. Their wildlife management strategies are more conservative than FWP's, which I tend to like.

Well, I can tell you there was elk hunting being done on APR property. Legal or not I have no idea. Just by the eye test, seems to be a lot of elk. At least where I was. The gentleman I talked to didn't mention no elk hunting on APR. Just the property I inquired about. It makes no difference to me whether or not they continue to allow hunting. I just wonder if the policy will change as they go forward. mtmuley

 

[Nameless Range]

Though I think APR is a net good for wildlife, am grateful for their current participation in Block Management, and don't think that if that land were owned by others we'd be able to hunt it, I understand the trepidation.

I have no problem saying that discussions around private property lose much of their meaning to me when we are talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of acres (I know they currently only hold title to 90ish thousand). Whether it be the Wilkes Brothers, timber companies gifted millions via historic dealings with the govt, or someday maybe the APR, once a private contingent owns hundreds of thousands of acres, we are in a different realm than 99.999% of applications of private property theory. That's not to say folks shouldn't be able to own a million acres or some such number, or maybe it is.

Outsiders coming in, spending big $, and wiping historic cultural uses off the landscape is fine and dandy when it serves our interests. Just know it sometimes doesn't. I look forward to and hope for a day when bison roam chunks of Montana's prairie as wildlife, not livestock. The APR is in a better position than almost anyone to further that along. Though it is not currently a large concern in that neck of the woods, I am grateful that what the APR owns will not be developed. I also think that though hunting serves them now, a day will come when it no longer will, and as they approach their endgame a day will come when they disallow hunting completely. Not something I am opposed to them being able to do, but as I personally heard them state, this will be like a private national park, where the animals that live on it will live and die there naturally.

It's a unique experiment in what is nationally an underappreciated, yet beautiful-on-a-world-wide scale chunk of country, and as far as stewards of the land, they seem deeply in love and concerned about that which they hold dominion over. It could be worse.

 

[LuketheDog]

and my Wildland fire pack has already been thrown in the dumpster.

Could have at least burned it and scored some YouTube views, or there's always eBay...

 

[belly-deep]

I think it's appropriate to share "trepidations" about hunting policies on public lands, but not about hunting on private property. Hunters expressing and demonstrating inappropriate concerns about what an owner does with private property is a dynamic which offends many property owners. It is more appropriate to thank APR or any property owner for the privilege of hunting and/or visiting their property ... and perhaps further encouraging them to enter into a conservation easement or Block Management agreement. Criticizing a property owner because they don't establish public hunting for perpetuity is not appropriate nor constructive.

I get nervous when an entity that could exist, essentially, forever is involved. Local farms/ranches are pretty dynamic. One generation lets hunters on, the next does not, and later the place is sold to someone else who allows hunting again. The Wilkes are a prime example. Much of their land in the West is now for sale. But when an entity is buying up very large chunks of land and may hold them for several generations, I'm a little more inclined to scrutinize their policies.

I'm all for the APR, so there's no need to start an argument. But would I bet that in 100 years their property is still open to hunting? No. Social pressure is a strong force, especially for groups that take donations and advocate for "restoring" nature. In contrast, if the property was held by several individual farmers/ranchers, I'd bet that in 100 years at least some of it would be available to hunters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get nervous when an entity that could exist, essentially, forever is involved. Local farms/ranches are pretty dynamic. One generation lets hunters on, the next does not, and later the place is sold to someone else who allows hunting again. The Wilkes are a prime example. Much of their land in the West is now for sale. But when an entity is buying up very large chunks of land and may hold them for several generations, I'm a little more inclined to scrutinize their policies.

I'm all for the APR, so there's no need to start an argument. But would I bet that in 100 years their property is still open to hunting? No. Social pressure is a strong force, especially for groups that take donations and advocate for "restoring" nature. In contrast, if the property was held by several individual farmers/ranchers, I'd bet that in 100 years at least some of it would be available to hunters.

It's a fair point. But I would say that some of the properties that APR has purchased have FWP conservation easements, so they'll be open for hunting in perpetuity. They've also made significant investments in the recreation infrastructure, including several campgrounds, lodges/houses & they are finishing up a yurt trail where you can spend a week traversing the land and stay in a different place each night. They've also hired a hunting coordinator, outdoor recreation planner and they've spoken at length about not trying to change the culture of hunting. Yes, they can pull their open lands from hunting at any time, but as of today, APR has opened up almost 50,000 acres of either landlocked public land or private land for hunting.

APR's management style is to put the condition of the land and wildlife first, then design hunting & recreation opportunity around those conditions. Sometimes, that means no hunting on select parcels, and other times, it means liberalizing their access opportunities. For a while they were toying with going with non-toxic & gutless only because they want to keep carcasses on the land, in order to replenish soils & bug life, etc. To me, it's pretty refreshing to see a large landowner manage for the resource first, rather than amenities. And while there is a risk of not having these lands open for hunting in the future, I think that can be said with every chunk of private ground. Look at the Gallatin or Bitterroot Valleys. All that open country turned into subdivisions, etc. There's little wildlife value in that, versus the large chunks of private that APR is never going to subdivide. Even that alone should be a net positive, without looking through the access lens. With APR< we will always have a refuge for wildlife, just like CMR or the monument, but without the swings in management from one administration to the next.

 

[belly-deep]

It's a fair point. But I would say that some of the properties that APR has purchased have FWP conservation easements, so they'll be open for hunting in perpetuity. They've also made significant investments in the recreation infrastructure, including several campgrounds, lodges/houses & they are finishing up a yurt trail where you can spend a week traversing the land and stay in a different place each night. They've also hired a hunting coordinator, outdoor recreation planner and they've spoken at length about not trying to change the culture of hunting. Yes, they can pull their open lands from hunting at any time, but as of today, APR has opened up almost 50,000 acres of either landlocked public land or private land for hunting.

APR's management style is to put the condition of the land and wildlife first, then design hunting & recreation opportunity around those conditions. Sometimes, that means no hunting on select parcels, and other times, it means liberalizing their access opportunities. For a while they were toying with going with non-toxic & gutless only because they want to keep carcasses on the land, in order to replenish soils & bug life, etc. To me, it's pretty refreshing to see a large landowner manage for the resource first, rather than amenities. And while there is a risk of not having these lands open for hunting in the future, I think that can be said with every chunk of private ground. Look at the Gallatin or Bitterroot Valleys. All that open country turned into subdivisions, etc. There's little wildlife value in that, versus the large chunks of private that APR is never going to subdivide. Even that alone should be a net positive, without looking through the access lens. With APR< we will always have a refuge for wildlife, just like CMR or the monument, but without the swings in management from one administration to the next.

All good points, Ben. Thank you.

 

[COEngineer]

I think APR is a nonprofit asking for financial donations, right? So I feel the "trepidation" is that as a hunter I love the idea of a huge open landscape with tons of wildlife (including/especially bison), but I hesitate to support APR financially or politically unless/until they make a public affirmation of their long-term support for hunting.

Keep in mind that if they have a different opinion than FWP about the carrying capacity of the land, their opinion is just that. Wildlife belongs to the people of the State, not the property owner. Of course, as Randy pointed out, MT screwed the pooch and designated bison as cattle, so APR can do whatever they want with bison, I guess, but that's just one species.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think APR is a nonprofit asking for financial donations, right? So I feel the "trepidation" is that as a hunter I love the idea of a huge open landscape with tons of wildlife (including/especially bison), but I hesitate to support APR financially or politically unless/until they make a public affirmation of their long-term support for hunting.

Keep in mind that if they have a different opinion than FWP about the carrying capacity of the land, their opinion is just that. Wildlife belongs to the people of the State, not the property owner. Of course, as Randy pointed out, MT screwed the pooch and designated bison as cattle, so APR can do whatever they want with bison, I guess, but that's just one species.

All of this is true & I think it bears further thought, especially on the first paragraph. When APR commented that part of their plan was to turn over the completed project to the Feds so it could be managed as a refuge/monument/National Park, that proposal was met with town halls where APR was trashed for instituting a "land grab," but now, the idea starts to sound good to outdoor recreationists who want to be able to utlize this land for their pursuits. It's a double-edged sword for them.

Your second paragraph also has a lot of truth, but in this instance, when one organization controls significant acreage you can create pockets of refugia where animals will not be hunted, therefore creating concentrations of animals that then feed out on to shared landscapes, increasing overall herd numbers. We see this all of MT in terms of private ranches that allow limited to no hunting, and therefore keep herds well over their stated objectives. I don't think it's impossible to say that APR, even at their current size, could significantly impact the number of deer, elk, pronghorn and hundreds of other species by simply employing a limited access strategy on their open lands.

And just as a point of clarity - wildlife is owned by no one, and held in trust by the state. Wildlife exists as a condition of the land. Their frequency and distribution are state matters (by and large) to deal with as a means to control conflict and provide harvest opportunity, but wildlife in Montana - at the end of every discussion - are not owned by any entity or person. Just as the good lord intended.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All good points, Ben. Thank you.

Anytime buddy!

 

[onpoint]

All of this is true & I think it bears further thought, especially on the first paragraph. When APR commented that part of their plan was to turn over the completed project to the Feds so it could be managed as a refuge/monument/National Park, that proposal was met with town halls where APR was trashed for instituting a "land grab," but now, the idea starts to sound good to outdoor recreationists who want to be able to utlize this land for their pursuits. It's a double-edged sword for them.

Your second paragraph also has a lot of truth, but in this instance, when one organization controls significant acreage you can create pockets of refugia where animals will not be hunted, therefore creating concentrations of animals that then feed out on to shared landscapes, increasing overall herd numbers. We see this all of MT in terms of private ranches that allow limited to no hunting, and therefore keep herds well over their stated objectives. I don't think it's impossible to say that APR, even at their current size, could significantly impact the number of deer, elk, pronghorn and hundreds of other species by simply employing a limited access strategy on their open lands.

And just as a point of clarity - wildlife is owned by no one, and held in trust by the state. Wildlife exists as a condition of the land. Their frequency and distribution are state matters (by and large) to deal with as a means to control conflict and provide harvest opportunity, but wildlife in Montana - at the end of every discussion - are not owned by any entity or person. Just as the good lord intended.

As to the last paragraph of this, the North American Model is kinda' neat and sometimes seems some kinda' unknown. Here's some light reading for the off season......
http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/North-American-model-of-Wildlife-Conservation.pdf

 

[COEngineer]

Thanks for the clarifications, Ben. "Held in trust" does not equal "owned."

 

[Nemont]

Couple of things:

The APR's money is a green as any other buyers. Private property rights should be protected regardless of buyer.

The APR should not be allowed to graze bison year round on public lands regardless of what the APR lovers tell you about the bison not impacting the land. The same rules should apply to all users, period. Every other grazer has to remove their critters, so should the APR.

They should not be allowed to remove fencing from public lands as long as bison continue to be classed as livestock and not wildlife.

There is zero guarantee of continued hunting access if, and I know it is a big if, the APR does get to it's vision of 3.5 million acres and becoming a National Park to rival Yellowstone and Glacier.

Nemont

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The APR should not be allowed to graze bison year round on public lands regardless of what the APR lovers tell you about the bison not impacting the land. The same rules should apply to all users, period. Every other grazer has to remove their critters, so should the APR.

I can see both sides of this issue, but I think you make a fair point.

At the very least seems like if you remove the fences from your property and let buffalo loose, then they should become wildlife and therefore public property held in trust by the state. Also seems like it should then be illegal to round them up again.

 

[1_pointer]

All of this is true & I think it bears further thought, especially on the first paragraph. When APR commented that part of their plan was to turn over the completed project to the Feds so it could be managed as a refuge/monument/National Park, that proposal was met with town halls where APR was trashed for instituting a "land grab," but now, the idea starts to sound good to outdoor recreationists who want to be able to utlize this land for their pursuits. It's a double-edged sword for them.

Your second paragraph also has a lot of truth, but in this instance, when one organization controls significant acreage you can create pockets of refugia where animals will not be hunted, therefore creating concentrations of animals that then feed out on to shared landscapes, increasing overall herd numbers. We see this all of MT in terms of private ranches that allow limited to no hunting, and therefore keep herds well over their stated objectives. I don't think it's impossible to say that APR, even at their current size, could significantly impact the number of deer, elk, pronghorn and hundreds of other species by simply employing a limited access strategy on their open lands.

And just as a point of clarity - wildlife is owned by no one, and held in trust by the state. Wildlife exists as a condition of the land. Their frequency and distribution are state matters (by and large) to deal with as a means to control conflict and provide harvest opportunity, but wildlife in Montana - at the end of every discussion - are not owned by any entity or person. Just as the good lord intended.

Doesn't the Elk Management Plan preclude some, if not most, of the benefit of refugia as it pertains to elk? High numbers of elk that can't be hunted only put the screws to the elk that can, or at least that's the take away I've gotten from other MT elk threads...

 

[tjones]

Doesn't the Elk Management Plan preclude some, if not most, of the benefit of refugia as it pertains to elk? High numbers of elk that can't be hunted only put the screws to the elk that can, or at least that's the take away I've gotten from other MT elk threads...

Its suppose to. Page 55 of the EMP addresses the refuge elk. FWP chooses to ignore page 55, except in HD270.


Montana Elk Management Plan 2005
page 55


5. Elk populations in portions of some EMUs may be almost entirely inaccessible to hunters during the general hunting season or accessible to only a few hunters. To avoid over-harvest of accessible elk on public lands or private lands open to hunting, the inaccessible elk may not be included in objective numbers. Trend count number objectives may include only elk normally accessible to general hunting (if they are a distinct segment), though hunter access negotiations will continue. Elk occupying these “refuges” may be counted separately where practical (if they are a distinct segment) and sub-objectives established that could be operative if access negotiations are successful. If significant harvest of these “refuge” elk is possible with special management at some times and locations, they should be included in objective levels.