American Prairie Reserve Purchases 14,000 Acre Ranch

[Gila]

They don't?

APR has their own biologists. Look at the areas APR has open to hunting and which species are hunted, not hunted. I would rather have game species only managed by the state of Montana wildlife. The Nature Conservancy works the same way. Both organizations recognize hunting as a management tool but only when over population is a problem. They don't approve of hunting but they don't disapprove of hunting either. The other side of the coin is the maximum number of animals allowed to be harvested to maintain a healthy population density required for each ecosystem. Robertson-Pittman funds are allocated to each State's Wildlife Agency based upon a percentage of licenses, tags, stamps that are sold. That is promoting hunting opportunity in my book. APR seems more poised to manage upland game hunting than big game. I am not saying both organizations don't do good because they do. The Nature Conservancy basically funded the New Mexico State elk herd around Chama. They funded NMDGF for the acquisition of the Edward Sargent Wildlife Area. SWA has some of the best Elk hunting and fly-fishing in the state of New Mexico.

 

[MTGomer]

I have killed two bulls on TNC land and packed my buddy’s bull across deeded APR land.

Land that the prior landowners would have had you cited for using.

 

[bigsky2]

APR has their own biologists. Look at the areas APR has open to hunting and which species are hunted, not hunted. I would rather have game species only managed by the state of Montana wildlife. The Nature Conservancy works the same way. Both organizations recognize hunting as a management tool but only when over population is a problem. They don't approve of hunting but they don't disapprove of hunting either. The other side of the coin is the maximum number of animals allowed to be harvested to maintain a healthy population density required for each ecosystem. Robertson-Pittman funds are allocated to each State's Wildlife Agency based upon a percentage of licenses, tags, stamps that are sold. That is promoting hunting opportunity in my book. APR seems more poised to manage upland game hunting than big game. I am not saying both organizations don't do good because they do. The Nature Conservancy basically funded the New Mexico State elk herd around Chama. They funded NM wildlife for the acquisition of the Edward Sargent Wildlife Area. SWA has some of the best Elk hunting and fly-fishing in the state of New Mexico.

Not sure how much you are familiar with FWP's management, but if you lived here and saw it first hand, you might think otherwise. From what I've seen, APR does a much better job of managing wildlife than FWP does.

 

[MTGomer]

APR has their own biologists. Look at the areas APR has open to hunting and which species are hunted, not hunted. I would rather have game species only managed by the state of Montana wildlife. The Nature Conservancy works the same way. Both organizations recognize hunting as a management tool but only when over population is a problem. They don't approve of hunting but they don't disapprove of hunting either. The other side of the coin is the maximum number of animals allowed to be harvested to maintain a healthy population density required for each ecosystem. Robertson-Pittman funds are allocated to each State's Wildlife Agency based upon a percentage of licenses, tags, stamps that are sold. That is promoting hunting opportunity in my book. APR seems more poised to manage upland game hunting than big game. I am not saying both organizations don't do good because they do. The Nature Conservancy basically funded the New Mexico State elk herd around Chama. They funded NM wildlife for the acquisition of the Edward Sargent Wildlife Area. SWA has some of the best Elk hunting and fly-fishing in the state of New Mexico.

Montana isn’t NM or AZ. Montana FWP doesn’t manage wildlife, they sell opportunity to anybody that will buy it. APR not engaging in FWP’s war on deer and elk is refreshing. So is them being one of the few big money land owners in the area to allow public access.


It’s so weird to me how hunters have such a problem with someone else’s private capital being used to purchase inaccessible private property and then make it accessible.

 

[Gila]

I have killed two bulls on TNC land and packed my buddy’s bull across deeded APR land.

Land that the prior landowners would have had you cited for using.

Congratulations....you won't be hunting elk on APR land because they don't allow elk hunting on any of their areas.

 

[Gila]

Not sure how much you are familiar with FWP's management, but if you lived here and saw it first hand, you might think otherwise. From what I've seen, APR does a much better job of managing wildlife than FWP does.

I am sure APR manages the eco systems well using that approach but they don't promote hunting opportunity. NMDGF tends to manage wildlife on the conservative side in that they boast about quality and trophy class over the number of tags.

 

[Straight Arrow]

APR has their own biologists. Look at the areas APR has open to hunting and which species are hunted, not hunted. I would rather have game species only managed by the state of Montana wildlife. The Nature Conservancy works the same way. Both organizations recognize hunting as a management tool but only when over population is a problem. They don't approve of hunting but they don't disapprove of hunting either. The other side of the coin is the maximum number of animals allowed to be harvested to maintain a healthy population density required for each ecosystem. Robertson-Pittman funds are allocated to each State's Wildlife Agency based upon a percentage of licenses, tags, stamps that are sold. That is promoting hunting opportunity in my book. APR seems more poised to manage upland game hunting than big game. I am not saying both organizations don't do good because they do. The Nature Conservancy basically funded the New Mexico State elk herd around Chama. They funded NMDGF for the acquisition of the Edward Sargent Wildlife Area. SWA has some of the best Elk hunting and fly-fishing in the state of New Mexico.

It sounds like you don't approve of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Are you only for access to increase hunting opportunity, regardless of management plans?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Congratulations....you won't be hunting elk on APR land because they don't allow elk hunting on any of their areas.

Not true. According to the FWP 2019 Hunting Access Guide, Region 6 Block Management Areas 26 and 42, both APR lands, allow elk hunting.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

APR has their own biologists. Look at the areas APR has open to hunting and which species are hunted, not hunted. I would rather have game species only managed by the state of Montana wildlife.

I have no issue with them managing more stringently than the state allows. That is private property rights being exercised. Nothing more, nothing less. One of the best BMAs (gone now) in MT was owned by an MSU professor who didn't allow nearly as liberal hunting as the state allows.

APR seems more poised to manage upland game hunting than big game.

My guess is this is because they feel the state is overly liberal in its big game seasons and wants to see numbers increase.

The other side of the coin is the maximum number of animals allowed to be harvested to maintain a healthy population density required for each ecosystem. Robertson-Pittman funds are allocated to each State's Wildlife Agency based upon a percentage of licenses, tags, stamps that are sold. That is promoting hunting opportunity in my book.

If I was a landowner, I would certainly want to create opportunity. However, I certainly wouldn't care how many licenses the state was selling because of the opportunity I provided. I would care a lot more about a quality experience offered to the public, which is also part of the North American model. Montana certainly does its best to maximize animals harvested. Maybe to its own detriment.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Congratulations....you won't be hunting elk on APR land because they don't allow elk hunting on any of their areas.

Funny...We killed two elk on APR last year.

 

[mtmuley]

Looks good so far as to what APR is doing. Makes me a bit uneasy though. mtmuley

 

[Gila]

Not true. According to the FWP 2019 Hunting Access Guide, Region 6 Block Management Areas 26 and 42, both APR lands, allow elk hunting.

Not according to APRs website...that I could see anyway


ld se anyway.

 

[golfer]

B

Congratulations....you won't be hunting elk on APR land because they don't allow elk hunting on any of their areas.

but they do. A bit more research is needed on your end.

 

[Gila]

I am for species management and maximizing public access. Hunting opportunity is about both.

 

[Gila]

Not true. According to the FWP 2019 Hunting Access Guide, Region 6 Block Management Areas 26 and 42, both APR lands, allow elk hunting.

Hunting

www.americanprairie.org

 

[golfer]

Hunting

www.americanprairie.org

Well they own ground in more than just that region keep digging....

 

[Straight Arrow]

Hunting

www.americanprairie.org

Gila, you have misread, misinterpreted.
... and your point is???

 

[BrentD]

Looks good so far as to what APR is doing. Makes me a bit uneasy though. mtmuley

Yah, but that's just mtmuley being mtmuley.

 

[MTGomer]

I don’t have time to match up their properties with what is on here but i know #26 and #42 are APR property open to elk hunting. I think there are others.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=76601

 

[mtmuley]

Yah, but that's just mtmuley being mtmuley.

No, it isn't. I live in Montana and have been fortunate enough to have hunted out in that country. When a private entity controls that much property, especially when they can control access to public property, I get uneasy. Yeah, just mtmuley being me. mtmuley