So again, more seriously:
@Gila's facts may be off but there's some wisdom to be gleaned here. Wealthy elites owning the vast majority of private land isn't the best thing for America, IMO. It is however an uniquely American way to turn the free market into a feudal society. UK royalty used to be the old west version of the Wilks, Turners, Jones, et al. Now it's the oligarchs of America who are trying to save the west by purchasing it all. You can be conflicted about the great value of private land conservation and keeping large tracts of unbroken land together while also mourning the loss of family ag, reduced independence and self-determination and call into question the future plans of a large non-profit. None of these things are exclusive to the others.
Private land conservation is a far different beast than public land conservation. It relies solely on the largess & ethic of the landowner. With AP, we know their plans and we know those plans may change, but for now, and on many of their properties, for perpetuity, there is and will be access for recreation, hunting and angling. AP comes closest to the model that most of us approve of: public land with some management prescriptions for quality of experience.
Turner offers a different model - and it's based on both the value of a conservation easement as well as monetizing the wildlife resource to act as a revenue stream for maintaining large properties. Turner is more of a community partner than the Wilk's, however. The Wilk's have tried for years to go at this from a top-down approach and I do see them changing that approach at least in the Lewistown area. Then you have people like Arthur Blank, who now owns 4 prime properties in the Paradise Valley and responsible for about 60% of the elk harvest in that area through a free public hunting program for cows and a limited entry bull opportunity to try and grow more bulls but still provide the right mix of cow-bull opportunities. Blank also funds heavily in the valley with community support.
AP offers access in an open & honest fashion through Block Management and sometimes they open limited access to other properties through lotteries, etc (like the Marias River WMA). They lease ground based on their management plan to small, young farmers & ranchers, giving them the opportunity to build a herd & get some experience before seeking their own spread (if they can find and afford one). AP also spends millions in the local economies of Lewistown, Havre, Malta, Glasgow, etc. That shouldn't be overlooked in the grand scheme of things.
TNC's access program is largely built around the needs of the resource, i.e. if the feeling is that a lot of recreation is going to impact plant communities, water resources, etc they will severely limit or curtail it. Some of the best fish I've caught in WY were from the TNC property on the Wind River, which is on a reservation system and fills up fast. They also offer hunting for elk on a river bottom herd on a controlled fashion. Other properties allow more access, others less, some no access. That's their prerogative as private landowners.
The idea that a private landowner should open their gates for access is a non-starter. Private Property rights trump hunting access privilege's. That's how it should be. I shouldn't be able to demand access to anyone's land, and the Gov't shouldn't either. That right to be secure in our own homes & private property is literally enshrined in the Constitution.
Questioning the goals and tactics that private land conservationists take isn't a bad thing at all. It helps those private land conservationists focus their efforts and become better community partners. However, questioning their motives without actually listening to those who have first hand knowledge and input is a bad idea as well. It simply means you want to argue and not educate yourself.
Small operators are getting squeezed by the Billionaire class and groups like AP. That's a function of the free market dictating higher prices on lands, and the lack of desire to sell land at strict ag pricing when you can get amenity pricing. One rancher said to me a few months ago "It feels like we're becoming serfs to these people." That's a statement that should set all of us back and think about how our support of one large landowner or another can often times have unintended consequences. In AP's case, I think they recognize that and they're looking to be community-conscious in how they approach their conservation strategies. Programs like Wild Sky Beef, etc are voluntary programs in which ranchers work with AP on management programs that help wildlife and increase market potential. That's a good thing, even if some folks feel it's not well executed.
The west saw this drama unfold over 100 years ago in Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, etc. The wealthy elites came and owned the land and tried to own us all. No period of time exemplifies this more than the Johnson County Cattle War. The people of Buffalo lined up at the dry good store and they were handed Winchesters off the shelf and holed up the invading army hired by the wealthy elites of the Wyoming Stockgrowers and they shot the hell out of them, but not before the invaders dry- gulched dozens of small homesteaders and sheep farmers. The Nate Champion murder story still should ring true to many of us. In case folks haven't read the book,
Banditti of the Plains is a first hand account of that invasion. Hal Herring had a great write up of the effort in Field & Stream a few years back as well:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2013/02/johnson-county-war/
When elites hold unchecked power, the people suffer. Consequently, if the elites are doing something good with their time, money and energy, we should be there to help guide them as neighbors and not simply knee-jerk a reaction based on some spotty information.
www.sdstate.edu
storymaps.arcgis.com
