Disposal of Federal Lands

[Nemont]

Ask them yourself. https://www.americanprairie.org/ And, like I said before, the BLM end should be public record. Let us know what you find out. Of course, you might not believe them. I know how you feel. I never believed much of what the cattle ranchers and BLM were telling me, either. Especially when they were hanging their hat on all the bison we used to have as an excuse for putting more cattle out there.

Wildlife Corridors
The American Prairie Reserve is envisioned as a third large-scale conservation area forming a leg of the Montana Wildlife and Tourism Triangle. Wildlife corridors provided by conservation-minded landowners help link the Reserve with Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, allowing wildlife to move naturally instead of being constrained to relatively small parks and preserves. The combined public and private lands will protect an area about the size of Connecticut.

Here is a map that Mr. Geddes used in his power point presentations to show what is his vision for the APR. Can you find it on the their website? Nowhere in his dog and pony show or in his op ed pieces does he ever state that 10,000 bison is the ultimate goal of the APR.

Now ask yourself, how much hunting goes on in Glacier and Yellowstone? Since as you pointed out nothing is set in stone, how many of the people who used to hunt in the areas of both those parks ever believed there would be no hunting in such a large and wild area. If we only go on what is on the APR's website we only get half the story. There is much more out there if one is willing to look.

Go read the "Yellowstone of the future", Nowhere in the op ed is hunting mentioned. No where on the APR's Website will find the restoration of wolves to the North East Montana written as their ultimate goal but it is in all of their off site, out of area presentations to the clubs at Yale and Harvard and Brown University.

So the reason I don't trust them is because they don't publish their true ultimate goal on their website because you will never find this map on their website or even a discussion of what their ultimate goal is.

 

[James Riley]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...fceba54b0c1fe5d/submontana-map-Artboard_2.png

Here is a map that Mr. Geddes uses to show what is his vision for the APR. Can you find it on the their website?

Yeah, here: https://www.americanprairie.org/building-the-reserve. So what's your point?

 

[Nemont]

Wildlife Corridors
The American Prairie Reserve is envisioned as a third large-scale conservation area forming a leg of the Montana Wildlife and Tourism Triangle. Wildlife corridors provided by conservation-minded landowners help link the Reserve with Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, allowing wildlife to move naturally instead of being constrained to relatively small parks and preserves. The combined public and private lands will protect an area about the size of Connecticut.

The above map is not on their website.

 

[Eric Albus]

nemont, there are other maps out there that link the Grasslands National Park in Sask. with this grand scheme as well all the Indian Reservations in Montana to the "migration corridor"

 

[1_pointer]

Why would it be necessary to remove ALL the cross fencing? I would think that, bison, like elk, deer, and pronghorn, would do fine if you left openings/gates in the fences every so often. There is no way to reach a compromise on that issue?

Also, by keeping the fences mostly in place, if the science is fleshed out and its proven that the bison are doing damage via year round grazing, you aren't paying to rebuild a fence.

Just sort of thinking out loud, but I just fail to see why things cant work out. I also wonder if MTFWP is in any kind of discussions with APR to ensure long term access for hunting and recreation on both the deeded and public lands? How about some of the hunting organizations in Montana? Are they reaching out to APR? I know if I lived in Montana, and belonged to a sportsmen's organization there, I would be asking these questions of the leadership. It is in Montana Sportsmen's best interest to be having that discussion, IMO. But, I'm sure, in true form, the FWP, Landowners, Outfitters, and Montana Sporting groups will wait until the chit hits the fan and go straight into "reactionary mode".

It just seems like, once again, that both sides have bunkered up and nobody is taking a leadership role to work on the "devil in the details".

Step one is just getting some dialogue started and dropping the baggage.

I don't see where all cross fencing would have to be taken out. I just assumed that was the request by APR reading what information was posted. The fences themselves are not the problem. Keeping stock where you want them, when you want them there is their benefit. The most cost effective way of not having a pasture system would be to just remove some of the wire. As you well know, they'll find the openings. Heck, a let down fence like that used in deep snow country would work slick.

 

[James Riley]

Wildlife Corridors
The American Prairie Reserve is envisioned as a third large-scale conservation area forming a leg of the Montana Wildlife and Tourism Triangle. Wildlife corridors provided by conservation-minded landowners help link the Reserve with Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, allowing wildlife to move naturally instead of being constrained to relatively small parks and preserves. The combined public and private lands will protect an area about the size of Connecticut.

Here is a map that Mr. Geddes used in his power point presentations to show what is his vision for the APR. Can you find it on the their website? Nowhere in his dog and pony show or in his op ed pieces does he ever state that 10,000 bison is the ultimate goal of the APR.

Now ask yourself, how much hunting goes on in Glacier and Yellowstone? Since as you pointed out nothing is set in stone, how many of the people who used to hunt in the areas of both those parks ever believed there would be no hunting in such a large and wild area. Remember we get to engage in all the if's and but's we want to because if we only go on what is on the APR's website we only get half the story. There is much more out there if one is willing to look.

Go read the "Yellowstone of the future", Nowhere in the op ed is hunting mentioned. No where on the APR's Website will find the restoration of wolves to the North East Montana written as their ultimate goal but it is in all of their off site, out of area presentation to the clubs at Yale and Harvard and Brown University.

So the reason I don't trust them is because they don't publish their true ultimate goal on their website because you will never find this map on their website or even a discussion of what their ultimate goal is.

I don't understand you. First, in the context of a discussion about bison numbers and year round grazing you say that you don't believe APR has ever stated their ultimate goal in writing. I then showed you where they did exactly that. Whether they are lying or not, they stated in writing their ultimate goal in bison numbers. Now you pull out information from the APR Managing Director (i.e. straight from the horses mouth) and claim, again, they haven't stated their ultimate goals. What's up with that?

You say they don't talk about wolves on their web site. You obviously haven't read their web site. Go read it. All of it. Then come back here and tell me what they say about wolves.

As to the National Parks, no hunting takes place there. I'm sure that pissed off all the market hunters that were driving elk and bison to extinction. So what? Who cares? I don't speak for the APR but I think the Army should have captured, shot and killed those poaching criminal POS. In fact, if it were not for the ban on hunting in Yellowstone National Park, we wouldn't have any elk the U.S. Where do you think the seed stock came from? Likewise genetically pure bison (that and Wood Buffalo in Canada).

You were the one waxing on about the law and how APR can't change it. So how does APR get to outlaw hunting in the migration corridor area on the map they show? On all the public and private land they don't and will never own?

 

[Nemont]

The proposal from the APR was to remove all interior fencing from the Flat Creek Allotment.
This is from the first go around prior to all the protest and the BLM reconsidering this issue.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front.../67716/73666/Proposed_Decision-Flat_Creek.pdf

Additional Actions
The Flat Creek Allotment Management Plan will be discontinued. The removal of all
interior fencing is authorized.

 

[James Riley]

Wildlife Corridors
The American Prairie Reserve is envisioned as a third large-scale conservation area forming a leg of the Montana Wildlife and Tourism Triangle. Wildlife corridors provided by conservation-minded landowners help link the Reserve with Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, allowing wildlife to move naturally instead of being constrained to relatively small parks and preserves. The combined public and private lands will protect an area about the size of Connecticut.

The above map is not on their website.

So what? A better map is, that shows the same thing. And again, so what? They showed the above map of yours in a public forum. Are they hiding something from you? Seems like they are taking a big, thick, rock hard, calloused farmer's finger and poking you square in the chest with it.

 

[BuzzH]

The proposal from the APR was to remove all interior fencing from the Flat Creek Allotment.
This is from the first go around prior to all the protest and the BLM reconsidering this issue.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front.../67716/73666/Proposed_Decision-Flat_Creek.pdf

Thanks for that Nemont...still think there is room to maneuver though.

 

[James Riley]

As to fencing and drift fences and whatnot, I was reading about bison AND cattle ranchers figuring out that the range did better when herbivores were pushed, constantly, by wolves. So much so that some ranches have taken to having their cowboys (and girls) push the cattle around and not let them sit too long in one place. So, if, heaven forbid, end of the world, all that GD fencing was torn down, maybe APR intends to get out there and push the bison around. And, holy hell, if the wolves show up, maybe they can do the job God intended them to do.

The point is, maybe all these thoughts about fences, cross fences and drift fences relate to a bygone era of fat, slow, bawling stupid cattle. Will bison cherry pick the best? Yes. So will cattle. But it's hard to do when you are moving around.

 

[Nemont]

James Riley,


If you think the APR is all that and a bag of chips, have at it. I don't they are all that and I think they are purposefully and willfully not telling the local people their goals and what they plan to do.

Go on their website. Use the search function and type in wolf or wolves, tell me what comes up?

https://www.americanprairie.org/search?search_api_multi_fulltext=wolves

https://www.americanprairie.org/search?search_api_multi_fulltext=wolf.

Let's agree to disagree. I can change my mind if the APR proves trust worthy, they have not done so and continue to be opaque about what they are truly wanting to do IMO.


Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

James, another thing that TEI found out real quick...you don't "cowboy" or "push" bison.

They tried that and it was a miserable failure that thankfully didn't result in a funeral.

They "moved" the bison via the trace minerals they were deficient on.

 

[James Riley]

Here's the map from their web site:

 

[James Riley]

James Riley,


If you think the APR is all that and a bag of chips, have at it. I don't they are all that and I think their are purposefully and willfully not telling the local people their goals and what they plan to do.

Go on their website. Use the search function and type in wolf or wolves, tell me what comes up?

https://www.americanprairie.org/search?search_api_multi_fulltext=wolves

https://www.americanprairie.org/search?search_api_multi_fulltext=wolf.

Let's agree to disagree. I can change my mind if the APR proves trust worthy, they have not done so and continue to be opaque about what they are truly wanting to do IMO.


Nemont

Nemont: Like I said, go read the web site. It's under FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

"Does APR intend to reintroduce predators, such as wolves or grizzly bears, which were historically present in the region?

As a private non-profit organization, American Prairie Reserve does not have the authority to reintroduce species to the area, even if those species were historically present. Species reintroduction falls under the jurisdiction of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and any decisions regarding the reintroduction of wolves or grizzlies in the region will need to be made by these agencies augmented by the will of the general public."https://www.americanprairie.org/science-and-wildlife-faqs

As to trustworthiness, again, I point out that what you've provided here has been provided by APR. I guess I can be glad you are not citing some conspiracy theory, Chicken Little sources. But at that same time, it's hard to swallow when you seem to indicate they are hiding something when all you have is what they've given you.

 

[James Riley]

James, another thing that TEI found out real quick...you don't "cowboy" or "push" bison.

They tried that and it was a miserable failure that thankfully didn't result in a funeral.

They "moved" the bison via the trace minerals they were deficient on.

Yeah, I've spent some time around them. The old saying that if you want bison here, push them over there. Or find out where they want to be and want them there. In reality though, there is an art to it. We can learn a lot from wolves.

 

[Nemont]

As to trustworthiness, again, I point out that what you've provided here has been provided by APR. I guess I can be glad you are not citing some conspiracy theory, Chicken Little sources. But at that same time, it's hard to swallow when you seem to indicate they are hiding something when all you have is what they've given you.

Again that is not accurate. They did not "give" me anything of the sort. It isn't on their website either. I have not engaged in any conspiracy theory, I stated they are opaque and that is from my view a good enough reason to treat them like Reagan wanted to treat the Soviets, "Trust but verify" and go very lightly on the trust part.

Trust is earned and so far they haven't earned mine, you trust them so, good on ya. I don't have to.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

Again that is not accurate. They did not "give" me anything of the sort. It isn't on their website either. I have not engaged in any conspiracy theory, I stated they are opaque and that is from my view a good enough reason to treat them like Reagan wanted to treat the Soviets, "Trust but verify" and go very lightly on the trust part.

Trust is earned and so far they haven't earned mine, you trust them so, good on ya. I don't have to.

Nemont

So wait; I thought there was their web site, and then there was the stuff their managing director was saying in his speeches, and the maps he was using in his presentations, etc.

If they did not give you these things, how did you get them? Did you take them?

If they are not opaque, then you must have something they did *not* give you. Something else that shows us something you did not get from them Something they are trying to hide.

Since you have not cited any other sources then I assume you are relying upon information they provided to you. Is there some BLM documentation, or some group of opposing ranchers who have put together some studies, or tapped some phones or got some secret information showing the true intent of APR that is contrary to all that we have had presented to us, publicly, as referenced in this thread?

Let me give you an example. If they say X on the web site but don't reference X in a speech, does that mean they are hiding something? No. Maybe it didn't come up, or it wasn't part of the speech. If Obama's web site says he supports free trade does he have to mention that in a speech about a moonshot for cancer cures? Now, if they say X on the web site and then say Y in a speech, maybe there is some cause for concern. You know, like a lying, flip-flopping politician. But I've seen no evidence of a flip flop. They seem to be pretty open, honest and straight forward.

 

[Eric Albus]

buzz...the elk in the breaks are a special case. These elk were "introduced" to the breaks from Yellowstone Park. The deal was set up between FWP and landowners as to a number that would be "tolerated" by landowners in the breaks. That number was set, and if memory serves me correct it was 2400 on the north side of the river/lake.

I will not argue that Eastern Mt. could support tens of thousands of elk, habitat is not the question, it is landowner tolerance of a re-introduced species.

 

[Nemont]

I said they are opaque, period. No pro wolf propaganda appears on their website. In their private meetings they make grizzlies and wolves their priorities, do you suppose they purposely don't lead with that on their website for a reason? I really don't want wolves on the CMR, I really don't want Grizzlies there either, both would impact recreation dramatically and it would affect every hunter who hunts there. I get it none of that matters to you and you are entitled to that view.

I know it may surprise you but there is info out there but I doubt you will spend the time to find it. You have your opinion on the APR and I have mine. We will see who is right in the future. Like I said before they can still earn my trust, so far they are far to opaque for me to give it to them. You like them, good on ya, the jury is still out for me.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

I said they are opaque, period. No pro wolf propaganda appears on their website. In their private meetings they make grizzlies and wolves their priorities, do you suppose they purposely don't lead with that on their website for a reason? I really don't want wolves on the CMR, I really don't want Grizzlies there either, both would impact recreation dramatically and it would affect every hunter who hunts there. I get it none of that matters to you and you are entitled to that view.

I know it may surprise you but there is info out there but I doubt you will spend the time to find it. You have your opinion on the APR and I have mine. We will see who is right in the future. Like I said before they can still earn my trust, so far they are far to opaque for me to give it to them. You like them, good on ya, the jury is still out for me.

Nemont

Okay, I get it now. You have evidence of what they make priorities in their private meetings. Gotcha. Howsabout you share that with the rest of us. How did you get that information? Did someone secretly tape their private meetings? You show me that and I will agree they are opaque. But they can't be opaque just because you say so. You must have some kind of reason to believe they are opaque. Facts are kind of like science. It's really helpful. Show me evidence of what goes on in their private meetings.

You say there is info out there but doubt I will spend the time to find it. I repeatedly went and found APR information for you. Won't you please at least give me a link showing me what goes on in their private meetings?