Irrelevant
Well-known member
Of course, the APR represents competition
APR on NPR
- Thread starter Irrelevant
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Competition for land acquisition or what?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Wilks' are die-hard anti-public land folks, who spend lavishly on politicians to try and advance that agenda. I'm not sure if it's competition, since the Wilks' can pay more than appraised price, but it does represent a thorn in their side in terms of trying to eliminate public land in the west, so they can own their own kingdom. Wilk's have funded almost every MT Republican politician, and they fund UPOM (It's tough to find the paper trail, since UPOM is a dark money outfit that doesn't report their donors). I think it's a difference in ideology - Wilk's hate public land & public access, APR is in their way, by creating a reserve that is open to the public for all kinds of recreation. Can't own everything, if the public owns it first.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
All of these giant private hordes of land are held in trusts correct, and will continue to be owned as a single entity after the current owners die?
Also food for thought the 10 families / individuals together own 14,000,000 acres of land in the US. So approx equivalent to the total amount of USFS land in Colorado.
Also food for thought the 10 families / individuals together own 14,000,000 acres of land in the US. So approx equivalent to the total amount of USFS land in Colorado.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
If a private land owner sells to a private land buyer, how is this a public land grab? Are these large land owners actively converting public to private or primarily consolidating private? If the later, in the long run that may help public lands as easier for gov. and NGOs to buy the consolidated rather than piecing together fragmented private.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
My take on the "No federal land grab!" slogan of those opposing APR is that since acquisition of the ranches included BLM leases, the theory is that it amounts to a "federal land grab". Of course, if one of the UPOM members purchased the ranch with BLM leases, that would just be ranching and "saving the cowboy".
Irrelevant
Well-known member
While not what the ARP opponents seem to be saying, you could view it like the Wilks, buy the private surrounding public then close off access the public.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No Federal land public access grab! If you want on you'll have to pay "Durfee" and it's a big one!
SAJ-99
Well-known member
In a recent news article, I heard that a Montana pea farmer (source of your lab-grown meat comment, but a different discussion) was asked by his cattle-rancher neighbor why he was trying to put him out of business. Simple example of one person trying to adapt to change and the old-guard fighting it. I guess when we need a boogieman, eventually we turn on our own.
npaden
Well-known member
I guess they could sell to the Hutterites instead of to the APR. If they are just worried about human population, the Hutterite communities seem to do pretty well with that part of it.
Would be interesting to see what got some of these folks more riled up, the Hutterites or the APR?
Would be interesting to see what got some of these folks more riled up, the Hutterites or the APR?
one ate E grain
Active member
I've read up to the end of the second page of comments, don't feel like wading through four more. I'm skeptical in general of private entities owning extremely large pieces of land. The news article starts out by claiming private funding for public land, if it's public, then give it to the government like RMEF does. Half a million people are sleeping rough tonight.
bullbugle307
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2018
- Messages
- 934
Is it fair to wonder about the future of hunting on the APR? Sure.
Right now they're doing good work that's beneficial to wildlife and the ecosystem and allowing some hunting. I send them my money as do many other hunters. If enough hunters get on board and contribute financially and be vocal about our wishes, they'll be less likely to kill the goose that lays the golden egg in the future. It's as simple as that in my mind. The APR exists whether you like it or not, its growing in size by the year, and if we want to shape its future as hunters we should pony up. God knows most of us spend an ungodly amount on gear, guns, tags, and gas. Why not take some of that often unnecessary spending and use it to continue to build the APR and shape its future for hunters?Money and influence talks, and fear mongering in the name of obstructing the conservation of wildlife and wild places gets us nothing but a bad reputation as being ignorant and self serving.
Besides, if there's a potential loss of hunting access on the privately accessible lands on APR in the future that coincides with doing right by the wildlife and the ecosystem, especially bison, a species that has been persecuted more than any other, so be it. That's the way I look at it.
What's more of a rarity in this country right now, places that are working towards having free ranging bison and large tracts of intact habitat free from non native livestock, or cattle producers that often times allow no public hunting or very low quality public hunting? How many areas do we have on public land that are shot to hell by fish and game agencies in the name of opportunity, funding, and livestock producers tolerance vs. how many areas do we have that offer the potential to be game rich and vast on the ecosystem scale with a full suite of native fauna and that's accessible to a reasonable extent.
Call me a leftist radical commie or whatever, but I'd honestly rather there be large intact ecosystems and bison roaming vast tracts of prarie in one of the few places it's still feasible to do so than to be able to hunt that particular place if it came down to one or the other. Obviously I want hunting to be a big part of it in terms of management and in recognition that hunters of wild places are a part of the natural history and rightfully belong in a project such as this, but I've got plenty of other places to hunt on public land already, and most of them will never present the unique opportunity that APR offers. Sometimes we should do what's best by the wildlife and the land, even if it's not best for hunters.
Right now they're doing good work that's beneficial to wildlife and the ecosystem and allowing some hunting. I send them my money as do many other hunters. If enough hunters get on board and contribute financially and be vocal about our wishes, they'll be less likely to kill the goose that lays the golden egg in the future. It's as simple as that in my mind. The APR exists whether you like it or not, its growing in size by the year, and if we want to shape its future as hunters we should pony up. God knows most of us spend an ungodly amount on gear, guns, tags, and gas. Why not take some of that often unnecessary spending and use it to continue to build the APR and shape its future for hunters?Money and influence talks, and fear mongering in the name of obstructing the conservation of wildlife and wild places gets us nothing but a bad reputation as being ignorant and self serving.
Besides, if there's a potential loss of hunting access on the privately accessible lands on APR in the future that coincides with doing right by the wildlife and the ecosystem, especially bison, a species that has been persecuted more than any other, so be it. That's the way I look at it.
What's more of a rarity in this country right now, places that are working towards having free ranging bison and large tracts of intact habitat free from non native livestock, or cattle producers that often times allow no public hunting or very low quality public hunting? How many areas do we have on public land that are shot to hell by fish and game agencies in the name of opportunity, funding, and livestock producers tolerance vs. how many areas do we have that offer the potential to be game rich and vast on the ecosystem scale with a full suite of native fauna and that's accessible to a reasonable extent.
Call me a leftist radical commie or whatever, but I'd honestly rather there be large intact ecosystems and bison roaming vast tracts of prarie in one of the few places it's still feasible to do so than to be able to hunt that particular place if it came down to one or the other. Obviously I want hunting to be a big part of it in terms of management and in recognition that hunters of wild places are a part of the natural history and rightfully belong in a project such as this, but I've got plenty of other places to hunt on public land already, and most of them will never present the unique opportunity that APR offers. Sometimes we should do what's best by the wildlife and the land, even if it's not best for hunters.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Please explain relevance.
one ate E grain
Active member
I'm not a big fan of large private land ownership. Even if they claim to be all kinds of conservation minded, and promise to maybe let someone hunt it. There are a lot of people who don't have a piece of dirt to sleep on or call their own, yet 100 people own 2% of land in America, one guy owns two Delaware's. Those 100 owners are growing their acreage by a half million acres per year. Probably not a lot of street people want to go crash on a piece of eastern MT, but anyone who does want a piece of land cheap is getting priced out of more all the time.
BrentD
Well-known member
Curiously (at least to me), no one has mentioned Terrible Ted. I've never really understood what Turner's grand plan is - but have always thought there must be one.
Now, he is getting mighty old, and I wonder what will happen with his empire. Is he still a land accumulator?
Now, he is getting mighty old, and I wonder what will happen with his empire. Is he still a land accumulator?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Fortunately some of them actually transfer those claims to actions which are real.
As someone who lives near his Flying D Ranch, attended his news conference after purchase, reviewed the Flying D conservation easement, has conversed with Ted as he recreated on the road by my house, met his son Beau and a couple grandchildren, volunteers during the annual Gateway Youth Group environmental summit on the Flying D Ranch, knows Ted's caretaker, his cook, and his ranch manager, is married to someone who actually lived on the Flying D at one time, reluctantly met Jane Fonda (as a skeptical Vietnam veteran), I have closely watched Ted Turner's rhetoric and actions for several decades. Although he has the consistent propensity to appear arrogant, he is the real deal and has literally put his money where his mouth is. Even if one dislikes his persona, it is difficult to criticize his conservation work and successes. As far as his plan, there is a Turner Foundation and spin-offs which will perpetuate his philosophy and the extent of his legacy. Obviously the conservation easements emplace the conservation and preservation practices on many of his vast properties. (Ironically, even perhaps humorously, the Flying D easement restricts the division of property to three parcels ... although Ted has four children.)
The following link to the CNN story of Ted Turner is likely somewhat biased but also very interesting and informative in giving insight and actual words from Turner about his philosophy and "grand plan".
Hopefully I have helped in answering your question, although I too have more questions than answers. We have strayed from the "APR on NPR" thread somewhat on this Christmas Day.
May you all, and the Turners too, enjoy a blessed Christmas celebration and a Happy, Healthy New Year.
