bwanakubwa
Active member
- Joined
- May 19, 2022
- Messages
- 109
There sure are a lot of Montanans on here that like bashing ranchers. Wonder why?
American prairie. What's the issue?
- Thread starter hossblur
- Start date
It's just a fun thing they like to do in the off season. mtmuley
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Don't know how long you've been reading HT posts, but I think it's safe to say that regardless of whether a rancher, banker, baker or candlestick maker, if one posts false assertions with baseless assumptions, skewed ideology, illogical conclusions, wacky conspiracy theories or other false information ... they are gonna get "bashed".
bullbugle307
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2018
- Messages
- 934
So in a few years when nothing happens will you guys admit you were duped and were full of it all along?
Not trying to be a jerk…I’ll do the same thing if it happens to go the other way. I don’t think it will though…
300stw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 843
AP has been at it a while now, what has the general hunter lost or gained since AP has been purchasing land,,,
id like to see how many hunter days were on the private before vs. after AP,
id like to see how many hunter days were on the private before vs. after AP,
atlas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2022
- Messages
- 342
Well, now that it's enrolled in block management you can see exactly how many hunter days there were in a given season.
Not sure how you'd get the number before when hunter days weren't tracked because it wasn't open to the public.
I know that the type 2 BMAs are booked up all season and I bet the type 1s are hunted all season too.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It would be much easier to determine how many acres are now open to the public (and in particular, to hunting) versus the acreages of the ranches prior to purchase by AP.
Any of the acquired ranches should have a clear history of public access for hunting. I doubt there were many.
D4570
Well-known member
brocksw
Well-known member
AP has purchased 118,371 acres, almost 70% (~80k acres)of it is enrolled in block management and open to hunting through a mix of type 1 and type 2. Another 334,817 acres are public lands leased by American Prairie.
AP allows hunters to cross their deeded properties that are not open to hunting, in order to access the leased public acres for the purpose of hunting.
Assembling the Land
American Prairie currently owns and leases more than 419,000 acres of deeded and public land on Montana’s northern plains.
www.americanprairie.org
Hunting
American Prairie believes hunting provides an important food source and connection to the outdoors for Montanans and visitors. When managed in such a way that prioritizes fair chase and healthy wildlife populations, it is possible that hunting also may serve as a tool for wildlife conservation...
www.americanprairie.org
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,592
A former director of APF, who is also a former FWP director told me this, “while the APF is open for hunting now it won’t be in time”.
Their horizon is perhaps another generation or two and they will own all of the “American Serengeti”.
I personally am not comfortable with foreign investment/contribution to take AMERICAN lands out of agricultural production.
I do not look at this as “wow, this is great for ME, I can access some ground to recreate on for free”. My concern is what is going to be left for the next generation(s).
bullbugle307
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2018
- Messages
- 934
You just pivoted from “in a few years” to “in a few generations”. Sounds like even you don’t believe what you said that first time…
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,036
Can we be honest for a minute.
A LARGE reason the land is being assembled into the APR is that it is unsustainable as agricultural land. If the land was productive enough to support ranching and farming, it would not be lacking from eager buyers for that purpose. No one is forcing the sale of the land to APR. IF there were other buyers offering a competitive price, I think most sellers would have a similar view the Mr. Albus has, that they would prefer it supported a new agricultural family.
None of us know with any certainty what the world will be like in a 100 years. But I'm fairly certain that there will always be a segment of the population that will value wild land.
A LARGE reason the land is being assembled into the APR is that it is unsustainable as agricultural land. If the land was productive enough to support ranching and farming, it would not be lacking from eager buyers for that purpose. No one is forcing the sale of the land to APR. IF there were other buyers offering a competitive price, I think most sellers would have a similar view the Mr. Albus has, that they would prefer it supported a new agricultural family.
None of us know with any certainty what the world will be like in a 100 years. But I'm fairly certain that there will always be a segment of the population that will value wild land.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
I’m assuming that’s just on the AG side? I don’t recall a MOGA board of director ever speaking up for wildlife. It’s always about lining outfitters pockets….see the Gardiner elk hunt public comments if you have questions.
Nothing better for accurate info than a hearsay quote from a former employee.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Genuine question. What would be left for the next generation(s) if the APR never undertook their mission, that will not be under APR ownership? What is "it", and when we say "generations" are we talking the general public, or the select few who would own the land? I think about this question a fair bit actually. From a utilitarian perspective, the APR seems like a better deal for the generations to come, and at minimum could be no worse.
Though, I do share some of the angst of some Montanans who don't like the APR. Any private contingent owning hundreds of thousands of acres seems off to me - and is a progression of the state of things all around us lately - an increase in disparity on the landscape. From what I can tell thus far though, APR is really a great landowner - keeping a lot of country open to agriculture, working with public programs to allow access to their lands as well as public lands that would otherwise be locked, not lobbying government in any nefarious ways like other contingents do, being fairly open, etc. From the public's perspective, they are doing things "better" than most landowners out there.
What I am getting at is, the case most anyone makes against APR is really weak, and you'd need to come up with something other than concerns many decades into the future for most Montanans to really care. Anti-APR folks need to see that for what it is - as true - if they are ever going make their opposition look like anything but a strange fetishization, disproportionate to what is actually happening.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,355
Some folks forget that bison are livestock. APR is definitely not taking land out of agricultural production just because they graze bison instead of cattle.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think you would agree that “next” generations have been leaving the farms and ranches for the last 100yrs. I don’t think anything you do will change that.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Like the N-bar or Sunlight? I get your point, but it seems the opposition is very APR specific. All ranching/farming is becoming an activity that requires large scale to be profitable.
Regardless of the rest of this discussion, I think this is an incredibly important statement and I find myself agreeing with Eric to a certain degree.
Talking with another rancher/outfitter outside of Winifred, he said it a bit differently relative to AP and the Billionaire landowner class taking over Montana, and how he said it really struck a chord with me:
"It feels like we're becoming serfs."
It's a sentiment that deserves some contemplation. As Americans, we have the philosophy that our freedom is central to who we are as a people. That freedom manifests itself in a lot of different ways. For guys like Eric, it's the ability to make a decent living off the land, living a lifestyle that if we're honest, everyone on this website yearns for to some degree.
It's not a new sentiment either. Back when the landed gentry were controlling the range between the 1860's and 1910's, we had range wars over who could use the range - either the wealthy cattle barons or the scrappy homesteaders & free grazers. The Scotts, Germans, English all owned mega ranches and tried to dominate the landscape and the politics of the era. Those who were able to stay did so by the skin of their teeth and the grit of their determination.
It's not that much different than the miners in Butte who fought against William Clark's Machine, the Railworkers struggling for basic human decency in getting some actual sick leave against the hedge fund owned company that thinks they are automatons, etc.
There's a basic desire for self-determination that all people have, and the people who live on the land in eastern Montana are struggling here to keep that. While I am supportive of AP, I also think we all could do a better job realizing what the objections that folks have really are and the fact that they are legitimate rather than try to udermine those concerns if they don't match our own.
Empathy can be a wonderful, and it can help find solutions where we only think conflict can exist.
Similar threads
