American prairie. What's the issue?

[cgasner1]

You guys are eating beef? s

 

[Slam]

Yes, of course, just like they subsidize everything else, including grazing beef out west on public ground.

I am losing track of what the point of this conversation is about. There seems to be at least three or four or five different directions that is has gone. I am not sure any of them are profitable any longer.

Perhaps the wandering nature of this conversation has to do with the lack of a cogent argument against AP. Many have tried to stand the UPOM argument up, however, there doesn't seem to be anything of substance sticking to the wall.

 

[Gerald Martin]

You guys are eating beef? s

 

[Dave N]

You guys are eating beef? s

Have to. Couldn't find the damn rabbit!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Combine AP with all the other billionaires that have bought property and cut cattle numbers

Now you're spinning the truth and skewing reality to make a point that is not correct and right. The thousands of cattle grazing on AP lands belonging to neighbors who have the hat and the cattle does not pencil out as reality is that AP is raising a few bison and not competing with cattle ranchers ... nor is out to "cut cattle numbers".
Words have meaning; choose more wisely.

 

[antlerradar]

Now you're spinning the truth and skewing reality to make a point that is not correct and right. The thousands of cattle grazing on AP lands belonging to neighbors who have the hat and the cattle does not pencil out as reality is that AP is raising a few bison and not competing with cattle ranchers ... nor is out to "cut cattle numbers".
Words have meaning; choose more wisely.

Clearly I should have chosen my words more closely, My point went right by you. The point is groups like AP, billionaires and developers have taken 100 of thousands of acres and cut down the number of cattle on those acres. This is not a dig on AP or the billionaires. It is their property, they can do with it as they please. Second part of the point is that this is part of the reason Cattle numbers are at more then 50 year lows and why beef is so expensive at the store. I have some beefs with AP, them cutting cow numbers is not one of them.

 

[WanderWoman]

Clearly I should have chosen my words more closely, My point went right by you. The point is groups like AP, billionaires and developers have taken 100 of thousands and cut down the number of cattle on those acres. This is not a dig on AP or the billionaires. It is their property, they can do with it as they please. Second part of the point is that this is part of the reason Cattle numbers are at more then 50 year lows and why beef is so expensive at the store. I have some beefs with AP, them cutting cow numbers is not one of them.

This is not directed at you, antlerradar, but provides a segway into some ponderings I’ve had.

One thing I don’t get is the disparity in outrage over threats to the agricultural way of life. AP takes the most heat, yet when stacked against subdivision/development/billionaires, in my mind, the actual ‘threat’ to traditional ag AP poses is rather benign in comparison.. why is that?

Is it because they are a conservation organization, whereas the developers/billionaires better represent good ‘ol American capitalism? I remember listening (ugh) to Voices of Montana years back when the host talked about how the environmental movement was “like a watermelon: green on the outside, but communist red on the inside.” There just seems to be a lot of suspicion towards anything environmental/conservation-oriented (it’s changed and in some cases, improved over the last 10-15 years, but you still see it)..

Is it solely the idea of bison? I know it’s a part of it but I just struggle to wrap my head around bison being the sole reason. At this stage, plenty of other landowners have bison herds (I’m aware they’re not the same, but still..)

Is it the noise? A lot of these other land deals are done pretty quietly, whereas when AP or other entities purchase land for conservation-related purposes, it is loud (kinda has to be, given most of them need to fundraise, which requires a lot of horn-tooting). It’s probably a lot easier to direct an anti-such and such campaign against an NGO or two than it is the tens or hundreds (or more) of realtors, developers, or wealthy land-buyers.

There are definitely some things AP does/has done that make me lift an eyebrow or roll my eyes, but on the level of things threatening trad ag, wildlife habitat, and public access, I don’t put them near close to the top.

So.. why?

 

[Straight Arrow]

This is not directed at you, antlerradar, but provides a segway into some ponderings I’ve had.

One thing I don’t get is the disparity in outrage over threats to the agricultural way of life. AP takes the most heat, yet when stacked against subdivision/development/billionaires, in my mind, the actual ‘threat’ to traditional ag AP poses is rather benign in comparison.. why is that?

Is it because they are a conservation organization, whereas the developers/billionaires better represent good ‘ol American capitalism? I remember listening (ugh) to Voices of Montana years back when the host talked about how the environmental movement was “like a watermelon: green on the outside, but communist red on the inside.” There just seems to be a lot of suspicion towards anything environmental/conservation-oriented (it’s changed and in some cases, improved over the last 10-15 years, but you still see it)..

Is it solely the idea of bison? I know it’s a part of it but I just struggle to wrap my head around bison being the sole reason. At this stage, plenty of other landowners have bison herds (I’m aware they’re not the same, but still..)

Is it the noise? A lot of these other land deals are done pretty quietly, whereas when AP or other entities purchase land for conservation-related purposes, it is loud (kinda has to be, given most of them need to fundraise, which requires a lot of horn-tooting). It’s probably a lot easier to direct an anti-such and such campaign against an NGO or two than it is the tens or hundreds (or more) of realtors, developers, or wealthy land-buyers.

There are definitely some things AP does/has done that make me lift an eyebrow or roll my eyes, but on the level of things threatening trad ag, wildlife habitat, and public access, I don’t put them near close to the top.

So.. why?

Those are good points and a large valid question. IMO, it is not a simple answer; it's complex. However, there seems to be an overriding element as seen in the huge difference(s) in opposing ideologies. On one hand the great successes in this country due to capitalism and a solid economy are what drives the ideology of those whose financial goals are paramount.
On the other hand, for many Montanans and others the phrase "THE LAST BEST PLACE" resonates with desperation in that using natural resources to do business as usual and as continuously done across most of the country has obviously and disastrously impacted many landscapes and quality of life in severe adverse ways. That desperation has motivated conservation and protection of special places. AP is an example of not only protection but also of returning a landscape through science and research to prior natural state and employment, obviously perceived as a threat to UPOM and others with such a strong opposing ideology.