American prairie. What's the issue?

[BuzzH]

AP is playing the long game, will be around when all the save the cowboy crowd is dust.

 

[Big Fin]

Q: How does this virtue signaling by Burgrum and the Montana delegation "Save the Cowboy?"

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out how hammering a group, AP, that leases private pasture for 8,000 head of cattle to nearby operators is somehow helpful to the cause of ranchers.

 

[mtmiller]

Q: How does this virtue signaling by Burgrum and the Montana delegation "Save the Cowboy?"

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out how hammering a group, AP, that leases private pasture for 8,000 head of cattle to nearby operators is somehow helpful to the cause of ranchers.

Thanks for finding the cattle number. I searched for a bit and then was side tracked. I think this is a major point....well, one of several anyway.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Q: How does this virtue signaling by Burgrum and the Montana delegation "Save the Cowboy?"

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out how hammering a group, AP, that leases private pasture for 8,000 head of cattle to nearby operators is somehow helpful to the cause of ranchers.

It’s part of a larger plan to save ranchers. Phase one was sending 40 billion to Argentina and importing more Argentinian beef into the US market.

This will help lower retail beef prices and combined with the fact that AP will pay more for ranches that come up for sale in the area it should assist in helping beef producers expand their operations and pass on their ranches to the next generation….

 

[Rack Daniels]

Mixed reaction to BLM decision to cancel American Prairie Reserve bison permits

American Prairie CEO Alison Fox called the decision "unfair, deeply disappointing, disruptive, and inconsistent with long-standing public-lands grazing practices in Montana."

www.krtv.com

Of all the touchy subjects in this great state, I fail to fully comprehend the Save the Cowboy thing.. maybe someone can elaborate?

“reversing a prior federal authorization that allowed APR to graze non-production bison on over 63,000 acres of federal public lands.”

When did we have to ALLOW or DENY free roaming native species to graze federal lands?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Of all the touchy subjects in this great state, I fail to fully comprehend the Save the Cowboy thing.. maybe someone can elaborate?

“reversing a prior federal authorization that allowed APR to graze non-production bison on over 63,000 acres of federal public lands.”

When did we have to ALLOW or DENY free roaming native species to graze federal lands?

Those free roaming native species are legally designated as livestock in MT when they are privately owned. Those herds come under the jurisdiction of the MT Dept of Livestock rather than FWP which manages wild herds.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Those free roaming native species are legally designated as livestock in MT when they are privately owned. Those herds come under the jurisdiction of the MT Dept of Livestock rather than FWP which manages wild herds.

So is that the bottom line that needs to change? How do we change these from livestock to free roaming native species owned by the trustees? Wasn’t elk a high fence private stock at one point here…….?

 

[BuzzH]

The main thing that's important is that things like this aren't going to slow AP down from acquiring private lands when they come up for sale. In fact, things like this tend to make people more supportive of AP.

I think its more important that they continue to acquire lands for the sake of deer, elk, bighorns, sage grouse, etc. The bison are certainly part of it, but they can keep those on their deeded ground and kick off more cattle from their private leases.

Be interesting to see if AP fights this in court or appeals somehow.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So is that the bottom line that needs to change? How do we change these from livestock to free roaming native species owned by the trustees? Wasn’t elk a high fence private stock at one point here…….?

Total conjecture on my part but I would expectt an attempt to change the status of bison from livestock back to wildlife would trigger a huge fight with the ag/livestock industry since bison are brucellosis carriers and can also interbreed with domestic cattle.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Go ahead and keep kicking the gift horse in the mouth.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Bison will jump a fence.

That is a fundamentally false statement. Significantly more cattle have gone over or through fences than bison.
Having monitored that ideologically spawned notion of bison "jumping fences" and creating havoc and having been a close neighbor and observer of Ted Turner's vast lands and bison herds, I can tell you with certainty that the problems with bison "jumping fences" is negligible and for sure much, much less than domestic cattle "jumping fences"!

 

[Straight Arrow]

can also interbreed with domestic cattle.

The myth of the bison bull raping the polled Hereford cow is also ideologically spawned. Perhaps bison "can", but as far as I know there has not been an incident of such interbreeding.

 

[Slam]

Poor phrasing.

Will be interesting to see how it changes as time passes while they expand and they outbid any ranchers that cannot afford the inflated bid APR offers.

Can you substantiate this statement please?

I'm curious, are other ranches in the state and region being sold at inflated values?

How does your use of the term "inflated" jibe with market trends (comps"?

I was buying rural properties in the late 80's and early 90's for $300-$500 / acre. Now, with our fracking abilities to extract hydrocarbons from tight shale the same acreage, with mineral rights is selling for $8-$10K per acre. Would you consider that inflated? It sure sucks for me because a large part of my income is derived through real estate.

In the late 90's I bought ~1000 acres in south central MT close to the front. During a 20+ year period I developed a relationship with several of the ranchers in the region. These are generational ranchers. We became close friends and had many a night of in depth discussions concerning the rising value of land, the market concept of single channel marketing (sending beef to feedlots) and the lack of desire among their children to stay in the ag business. I feel for their predicament. We also discussed American Prairie.

We did agree that things change (horse to tractor) - remain static in an evolutionary environment is a recipe for extinction. The current model of producer to feedlot/packer to retailer doesn't leave much margin for the producer. Producers need to find a better way to reach the final consumer. Generate more profit and maybe you can stay in the game. Farm to Table marketing is gaining traction. Our livestock producers are really good at what they do (production), however, they need to develop (or hire someone) to find a better way to go to market. Many a night I would ask these gentlemen why they allowed the feedlot/ packer industry to consolidate and dictate terms to them? No easy solution, but smart people working together can find a better to run their business. Demand for beef is not decreasing.

On American Prairie, these fellas howled initially and it got me to research what's going on in the breaks region. Suffice to say I became a believer in the concept and a donor as well. All but one of the fellas around the table as of 3 years ago no longer disagree with AP's mission. They don't like it, understandably...a little to close to home..but conceptually they understand its a win win for the environment and the populace.

I sold that property to a billionaire, a MT bred and born gentleman who made good and has been acquiring property for the last 30+ years running cow/calf pairs and making horses. Did he pay an inflated price? He paid more than the local ranchera could. The transaction had a willing buyer and seller, with a conservation easement being part of deal. The free market worked as is should.

I come to Hunt Talk for the entertainment value, and I find the cerebral quotient a bit higher here than other forums.

But, some of the negative comments concerning AP come from a position of ignorance (1st stage - which means you don't know what the hell your talking about). You should strive to reach the 2nd stage of ignorance (you now realize how much you don't know and seek to rectify that position. Stop being so damn intellectually lazy and get boned up on what's really taking place.

 

[DFS]

That is a fundamentally false statement. Significantly more cattle have gone over or through fences than bison.
Having monitored that ideologically spawned notion of bison "jumping fences" and creating havoc and having been a close neighbor and observer of Ted Turner's vast lands and bison herds, I can tell you with certainty that the problems with bison "jumping fences" is negligible and for sure much, much less than domestic cattle "jumping fences"!

Ok let’s say a bison wandered into the middle of region 7. The bison was handled appropriately and several acquaintances including LEO’s watched it jump fences. They figure it came from South Dakota so I feel pretty good about my statement.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Ok let’s say a bison wandered into the middle of region 7. The bison was handled appropriately and several acquaintances including LEO’s watched it jump fences. They figure it came from South Dakota so I feel pretty good about my statement.

So what you contend is that bison "can" jump fences and in this one isolated instance where the bison was likely pressured, it did indeed jump fences.
My point is that Turner's herds, numbering the most bison in Montana, as well as AP's herds don't stray from their pastures and have resulted in negligible and even rare damage to fences and rare intrusion onto neighbors' properties.

 

[Straight Arrow]

" they outbid any ranchers that cannot afford the inflated bid APR offers."

Yet another UPOM spawned falsehood. From the outset that has been a criticism of both AP and the willing sellers. FYI, transparency in such transactions has consistently shown sales at fair market real estate prices.
I don't have an example at my fingertips, but you can easily find them.

 

[brocksw]

When they were first starting to show up 20+ years ago, they had a totally different attitude and presentation/marketing than they do now.

I think that’s to be expected though, even a sign of good leadership? I think starting an org like that is essentially implying that there will a lot of excited and ambitious people involved, with lofty goals that they’re excited about.

But over time, plans get altered, issues evolve, politics change, you get to know partners and stakeholders better and that impacts your strategy, including communication.

Will be interesting to see how it changes as time passes and they outbid any ranchers down there looking to expand.

I seem to remember them being outbid on a couple acquisitions. Not to say it’s never happened. But I am under the impression that they’re not much different from any other entity or individual trying to negotiate and bid on large land transactions. They win some and they lose some. They’re just more consistently in those discussions than your typical buyer, and that gives the locals the appearance that they’re at an advantage. Which, perhaps financially they are in some respects? But I don’t think that’s automatically makes them malicious towards local ranchers like the messaging seems to imply.

 

[BuzzH]

Lets just get real for a moment on the whole "outbid" nonsense.

Is it a bad thing that AP could outbid the other potential buyers? The people that complain about being outbid by AP will never even be in the conversation about buying a large property.

Is it such a bad thing if AP were to outbid Ted Turner, Stan Kroenke, or the Koch Brothers?

 

[Gerald Martin]

I seem to remember them being outbid on a couple acquisitions. Not to say it’s never happened. But I am under the impression that they’re not much different from any other entity or individual trying to negotiate and bid on large land transactions. They win some and they lose some. They’re just more consistently in those discussions than your typical buyer, and that gives the locals the appearance that they’re at an advantage. Which, perhaps financially they are in some respects? But I don’t think that’s automatically makes them malicious towards local ranchers like the messaging seems to imply.

This is consistent with what one of the AP directors told me when we were discussing the organization and its goals. He claimed that they aren’t legally allowed to pay more than an appraised fair market value due to their structure as a nonprofit organization. He said there’s been multiple properties they wanted to buy but were outbid by others who were willing to pay more than appraised value.

The fact that appraised fair market value is higher than what the land’s production of beef can service for principal and interest of the mortgage it would take to purchase it isn’t caused by AP. Land value changes in response to market forces and changing land use practices.

I grew up in an area where industry and increased human population raised the cost of farmland higher than beef or dairy could pay for it and have profit left over. Some producers diversified their operations to increase profitability per acre. Others used generational wealth to buy land for the sake of investment and maintenance of a lifestyle. Others sold out when prices offered for their land by industry and development were higher than ag producers were willing to pay.

So long as AP is abiding by willing seller/willing buyer and isn’t using illegal or unethical methods to artificially manipulate prices they
are good neighbors. I have not seen any credible evidence that would suggest they’re using anything other than legal and ethical means to purchase their properties.