But, they want wolves and lions.
American Prairie Reserve - Nothing new
- Thread starter Gila
- Start date
FI460
Well-known member
ManBearPig. You should be taking this super dooper cereal.
kiwi hunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,179
I haven't trolled thru the whole thread but here is my take and not just in America, hunters should get together around the world and do this simple project.
Get as many people together as possible and start buying up land, at a hundred dollars each(20 lataes each to give up per year) at 5 million hunters, in my dim brain it says 500 hundred million dollars. 10 yrs down the track should be a fair bit of dirt to see the direction this can take American hunters. There is one problem to or should I say hurdle to overcome, human nature. My 2c
Get as many people together as possible and start buying up land, at a hundred dollars each(20 lataes each to give up per year) at 5 million hunters, in my dim brain it says 500 hundred million dollars. 10 yrs down the track should be a fair bit of dirt to see the direction this can take American hunters. There is one problem to or should I say hurdle to overcome, human nature. My 2c
Gila
Well-known member
Hunters and anglers have put in over 14 billion dollars into wildlife conservation (Robertson - Pittman Act) that has given us tremendous hunting and fishing opportunity on both public and private lands. No other country on earth affords it's citizens these hunting and fishing opportunities. We use the North American Conservation Model to enhance wildlife and wildlife habitat. Private ecotourist Preserves refute this conservation model and want to go their own way. The money comes from federal excise taxes on arms, ammunition and other sporting goods.
FI460
Well-known member
No different than any other piece of private property. At least AP allows access and is interested in habitat improvement.
brocksw
Well-known member
@Gila couple questions.
1. How many free elk tags has AP asked for?
2. What percentage of Montana Elk tags do they want taken out of the public lottery and given only to the people who hunt their property?
3. How many elk do they want "Eliminated" from eastern MT? Is it more or less than 50k elk?
1. How many free elk tags has AP asked for?
2. What percentage of Montana Elk tags do they want taken out of the public lottery and given only to the people who hunt their property?
3. How many elk do they want "Eliminated" from eastern MT? Is it more or less than 50k elk?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Canada? or is that just US north?
NZ?
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 225
I can bet upwards of 99% of people using this forum know all of this.
Doesn't change the fact that we can't tell private landowners what they can and can't do with their land. Which is why much of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation doesn't apply to Texas.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
(1) On. Private. Ground. It's like you're saying PR money exists, therefore BackofBeyond shouldn't be able to put bird netting over his garden to keep the quail out. I've never received money to maintain quail habitat, it's my property, if I want to discourage the quail from eating my strawberries it's my right to do so.
(2) What federal funding has AP taken that is directly for wildlife management? Are the fed's funding any of the habitat reclamation projects?
This is all about as non-sequitur as it gets.
atlas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Messages
- 416
Alright, great new model. How does it exactly refute the model? I think of it more as a compliment to our current model. Have we had too much conservation? Do we just wait for the slower moving government to pick up the scraps? https://www.ktvq.com/news/montana-n...ill-open-up-nearly-10-000-acres-to-the-public It's already been said but the BLM tried to get this one and it fell through.
Gila
Well-known member
It's called land use. AP is taking huge amounts of agricultural lands out of production. As the thread title implies, this is nothing new. Other Eco groups funded by billionaires are doing the same thing, or have done so in the past. Re-purposing millions of acres of agricultural lands into wild animal parks is not necessary a good thing. Most states have laws against this practice, simply because they want to keep their economies healthy. Metropolitan areas are a different story. People need a place to live as the cities expand. Urbanization isn't a problem where AP stakes its claims. They say the population of those counties is decreasing. As time goes on, it gradually takes more farm ground to produce the same income. For cattle ranches, that means more grazing land. Ranch land is always in demand and as such the price of that land goes up. The price of ranch land may have peaks and valleys, however the trend is always up. If an elderly couple doesn't want to work the ranch anymore, then they typically lease the ranch operation to someone in the family or a neighbor. That way they can stay where they are and not move to town, and keep some of the income to retire on. If they want to sell out, the neighbor that they leased to may buy it, or another rancher in the area will.
This land grab doesn't only affect Montana, it affects the economy and the commodity markets of the entire country. In Phillips county alone, over $12,000,000 in farm subsidies were paid out in the last 5 years to those ranches. In the other counties that AP has their meat hooks into, the farm subsidies are between 8-11 million dollars. The federal government paid those ranches to produce food for the rest of the country. Also, those ranches have land that is in CRP. Most of those affected counties have or are now in emergency grazing and hay production of that CRP land because of the drought conditions. This is millions and millions of our federal taxes that we have invested into those ranches for food production.
And finally, AP is taking grazing away from domestic live stock that we need for food. BLM should not lease land to graze "zoo" animals from "Pleistocene Park". The Taylor Grazing Act specifies "DOMESTIC LIVE STOCK". The CFR that BLM is supposed to adhere to:
43 CFR § 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.
(a) Grazing permits and leases authorize use on the public lands and other BLM-administered lands that are designated in land use plans as available for livestock grazing. Permits and leases will specify the grazing preference, including active and suspended use. These grazing permits and leases will also specify terms and conditions pursuant to §§ 4130.3, 4130.3-1, and 4130.3-2. Livestock or kind of livestock means species of domestic livestock - cattle, sheep, horses, burros, and goats.
Billionaire-funded eco group quietly taking farmland out of production in rural America
A little-known conservation project funded by billionaire moguls is slowly acquiring land made available for cattle grazing in an effort to create a "fully functioning ecosystem."
Bullshit. It went from range with cattle to range with bison. No different than if I bought it and stocked it with Pygmy goats.
Edit. Know a rancher about an hour south of town who has bison. He sells about a dozen a year. Should we castigate him for taking his land out of ag production?
Last edited by a moderator:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Montana decided to classify bison as livestock, republicans made sure of that.
The BLM also approved bison grazing, so not much to whine about.
The BLM also approved bison grazing, so not much to whine about.
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
How much of the beef produced in the U.S. do you think actually stays here? Honest question.
Scott85
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,994
What about China buying up AG land?
npaden
Well-known member
Gila is showing that not only does he not have a clue on APR, but not a very good grasp on cattle production and government farm subsidies.
The land that the APR is buying up is not very productive even as rangeland. It's almost laughable how low the AUMs are on most of these properties. That's why it's getting sold off, and why big chunks of it have been already taken out of production and enrolled in CRP. I'm not 100% sure, but I would imagine that APR would leave any land that they buy that is in CRP in CRP, it really fits their model well.
It's like people think that somehow APR isn't paying property taxes and spending money running the place like the previous owners were. It really comes down to economics and it is either going to be someone like APR buying these places up or wealthy landowners who will want to 100% block all access including the landlocked public land.
The land that the APR is buying up is not very productive even as rangeland. It's almost laughable how low the AUMs are on most of these properties. That's why it's getting sold off, and why big chunks of it have been already taken out of production and enrolled in CRP. I'm not 100% sure, but I would imagine that APR would leave any land that they buy that is in CRP in CRP, it really fits their model well.
It's like people think that somehow APR isn't paying property taxes and spending money running the place like the previous owners were. It really comes down to economics and it is either going to be someone like APR buying these places up or wealthy landowners who will want to 100% block all access including the landlocked public land.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
It’s called private land. They bought it from a willing seller. They did not eminent domain it, didn’t take it by force, weren’t awarded it in some settlement. The neighbors were perfectly free to buy it, or the seller was perfectly free to lower the price into a range the neighbor could afford. That didn’t happen. They chose to sell it to AP. Thus, AP can do with it whatever they want. That is a defining feature of private land ownership. Whether you or I agree with their mission is completely irrelevant, and no amount of hand-wringing or mental gyrations are going to change that.
No different than when some guy buys native prairie and plows it up- his prerogative.
Timber company buys a chunk and clear cuts it- their prerogative.
Oil company buys a chunk and turns it into a gravel pit- their prerogative.
Hippies buy it and put a commune on it- …
Non-profit buys it and manages it for conservation-….see the pattern yet?
These are all the same, whether you agree with any of them or not.
As far as farm subsidies, I suspect AP is not taking advantage of those. In that case, it looks like they may be saving me the taxpayer a few million bucks in Montana.
And finally, Montana Stockgrowers and other ag groups in Montana put up a serious fight and eventually succeeded in having bison reclassified as livestock in this state. So they do meet the legal definition.
Man it must irk those groups to see AP using that to good effect right now.
Gila,
Here is a link that will discuss your concern. Take a look at Concern ID #2.
Knowing you will just try to pull another rabbit out of your hat, please look some of the other comments and responses.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You have bounced back in here with more false information regarding AP.It's called land use. AP is taking huge amounts of agricultural lands out of production. As the thread title implies, this is nothing new. Other Eco groups funded by billionaires are doing the same thing, or have done so in the past. Re-purposing millions of acres of agricultural lands into wild animal parks is not necessary a good thing. Most states have laws against this practice, simply because they want to keep their economies healthy. Metropolitan areas are a different story. People need a place to live as the cities expand. Urbanization isn't a problem where AP stakes its claims. They say the population of those counties is decreasing. As time goes on, it gradually takes more farm ground to produce the same income. For cattle ranches, that means more grazing land. Ranch land is always in demand and as such the price of that land goes up. The price of ranch land may have peaks and valleys, however the trend is always up. If an elderly couple doesn't want to work the ranch anymore, then they typically lease the ranch operation to someone in the family or a neighbor. That way they can stay where they are and not move to town, and keep some of the income to retire on. If they want to sell out, the neighbor that they leased to may buy it, or another rancher in the area will.
This land grab doesn't only affect Montana, it affects the economy and the commodity markets of the entire country. In Phillips county alone, over $12,000,000 in farm subsidies were paid out in the last 5 years to those ranches. In the other counties that AP has their meat hooks into, the farm subsidies are between 8-11 million dollars. The federal government paid those ranches to produce food for the rest of the country. Also, those ranches have land that is in CRP. Most of those affected counties have or are now in emergency grazing and hay production of that CRP land because of the drought conditions. This is millions and millions of our federal taxes that we have invested into those ranches for food production.
And finally, AP is taking grazing away from domestic live stock that we need for food. BLM should not lease land to graze "zoo" animals from "Pleistocene Park". The Taylor Grazing Act specifies "DOMESTIC LIVE STOCK". The CFR that BLM is supposed to adhere to:
43 CFR § 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.
(a) Grazing permits and leases authorize use on the public lands and other BLM-administered lands that are designated in land use plans as available for livestock grazing. Permits and leases will specify the grazing preference, including active and suspended use. These grazing permits and leases will also specify terms and conditions pursuant to §§ 4130.3, 4130.3-1, and 4130.3-2. Livestock or kind of livestock means species of domestic livestock - cattle, sheep, horses, burros, and goats.
Billionaire-funded eco group quietly taking farmland out of production in rural America
A little-known conservation project funded by billionaire moguls is slowly acquiring land made available for cattle grazing in an effort to create a "fully functioning ecosystem."www.foxnews.com
1. Land use is a great topic of success and benefit from AP. Bison on the landscape are proven beneficial to the prairie grasses. Ag land out of traditional ranch usage is a myth. The recent Helena IR op ed points to 80% of AP range leased back to neighbor ranchers, who run 10,000 head of cattle on the AP.
2. Land use for AP bison has reduced the threat of brucellosis in central Montana due to the stringent bovine disease protocol employed on the AP, one of the strongest program yet in central Montana to prevent brucellosis.
3. Grazing permits and leases on federal public lands are established for domestic livestock. The bison on such AP leases are domestic livestock, as politically painfully established legally, lawfully, and legislatively by the Montana Legislature.
Once again your weak-kneed obvious attack on this private entity with private property rights and publicly accessible vast tracts of wonderful wildlife habitat, tracts acquired through the most highly constitutional property rights construct of willing seller - willing buyer reads like a farce. Your expressions appear and appeal to the senses as strongly and pungently as the fresh buffalo chips which now fertilize the grasslands of the AP.
