Disposal of Federal Lands

[BuzzH]

Be honest Eric, you're just mad you cant lease the hunting from APR...if you could, you would be their biggest advocate.

Funny to see you contradict yourself regarding property rights, you banter on about how private owners should be able to lease, not allow, or allow hunting. But, then you whine when the APR does the exact same.

You're a hypocrite of epic proportions...best case.

 

[dexnrex]

I would rather see the land owned and managed by us, but IF it goes to the private sector, I'd MUCH rather it be owned and managed by APR than ranchers. They've already demonstrated their willingness to sell out and if APR doesn't get it, it could very well be subdivided, paved, clear cut, stripped mined, damned and trashed way beyond anything APR would do. That's when the REAL money comes into play and APR gets put in the ranks of peons like the rest of us.

I agree there could be a worse fate for the land, but the isolation of this country has and will protect it from subdivisions and pavement, there isn't any timber to clear cut, if there was anything to mine it would have been mined...this country is suited for grazing. I would prefer cattle some of you would prefer bison. I much prefer the conservation model of the Nature Conservancy which strikes a balance between current use, ranching/feeding people and conservation of the prairie. BTW I'm not a rancher, just a guy with a strong sense of community and really don't eat much beef, mostly deer, elk and antelope.

Buzz, they haven't been responding to Eric, but me. I am certainly not an outfitter in fact Eric and I will disagree on more than we will agree on but as it relates to the APR and the N.E.MT community we see things similarly.

 

[James Riley]

I certainly hope you are correct but I've seen the trashing start south and work it's way north, even in the wind-swept steppe of Wyoming's high desert, where the winter drives out most of those who see and buy in the spring green up. But they're coming.

I live in the mountains and love mountains, but I'm actually partial to short grass prairie and high plains. I used to think I was the only one. But I'm not. Some folks would love to own their own little 40 acre chunk of it. And the population of this country is growing and the rich are looking for places to hide. I've seen the San Luis Valley, the Red Desert, the Colorado Plains and other "worthless", flat, dry, cold, hard country get eaten up. It starts with the cheap and the poor and the single wide, but the rich see this and grab what they can before it all looks like a trailer park, albeit more spread out (even worse, in my estimation).

Off topic, but I thought I'd let all you Montana people know something about me. I always thought if I could, I'd buy me a chunk of paradise. But, after much consideration, I've decided not to. I've been there. I've been all over lots of paradise. And I take to heart the words of some folks, like that guy in the National Geographic Article that Big Finn was quoted in; something to the effect of, if you really loved this country, you'd burn down your house and leave. I'm doing my best to not be part of the problem. I'm sure many developers don't want this mentality to spread, but I hope it does. I won't be coming up there. I've got a place that's grown on me and it was already a going concern when I got here. But the pressure is on. Isolation will not save you.

 

[BuzzH]

dexnrex,

Sorry, but you're wrong. It wasn't that long ago that Cabelas land sub divided a bunch of stuff on the south side of the breaks.

Also, just a few years ago, there was a subdivision that went in just NE of Medicine bow on the southern end of Shirley Basin. I didn't think anyone would buy it, no water, no paved road, and one of the coldest, windiest places I've ever been in Wyoming. But, driving through there last year, there were cabins, trailers, etc. set up on the 40 acre parcels. It would be a tough decision for me between buying 40 acres in Shirley basin or Siberia...and that's not a joke. Yet, its being bought up.

Point being that if people are buying their slice of heaven in Shirley Basin...the APR property in the breaks could just as easily be subdivided. In fact, if I were to have the choice between 40 acres in Shirley Basin and 40 acres near Fort Peck...there isn't even a doubt which I would rather buy.

The world is shrinking, and people are buying land in places I would have never thought they would, at ridiculously high prices.

On top of that, I don't understand your argument regarding the "need" to have cattle grazing every last acre of private land. Its a total non-starter and its really none of your business what people choose to graze on their property.

You have yet to make a single argument as to why the APR should not only be allowed to purchase land that is for sale, or that you should care about them grazing bison there rather than cattle.

Personally, with the prairie eco-systems evolving with bison on the landscape, there is a better argument to made that bison would be advantageous to cattle. Timing, intensity, duration of grazing, where/how the bison graze, ease of calving, the fact bison don't need open water in the winter, lack of predation, all make bison a better fit on remote landscapes.

You have no valid grievance with APR and how they choose to operate their private lands.

 

[dexnrex]

Off topic, but I thought I'd let all you Montana people know something about me. I always thought if I could, I'd buy me a chunk of paradise. But, after much consideration, I've decided not to. I've been there. I've been all over lots of paradise. And I take to heart the words of some folks, like that guy in the National Geographic Article that Big Finn was quoted in; something to the effect of, if you really loved this country, you'd burn down your house and leave. I'm doing my best to not be part of the problem. I'm sure many developers don't want this mentality to spread, but I hope it does. I won't be coming up there. I've got a place that's grown on me and it was already a going concern when I got here. But the pressure is on. Isolation will not save you.

Not off topic, in fact part of the discussion. My roots are too deep and my wife & boys would not approve of me burning down the house and leaving. I agree that in the very long term the masses will fill in, it's just math, everybody has to live somewhere but in the short term I am going support the status quo. All of those people out there have to eat and a lot of them eat cows and grain.

I've been in the area all my life, 45yrs. I will admit when I was a kid the only thing I found interesting about the prairie were the critters I was hunting, but over the last 25yrs. I have come to truly appreciate the prairie. I'm fascinated by the relationships between the land and all the critters on it. I enjoy a visit to the mountains and the "Oh! and Ahh!" views, but I'm always glad to get back the the "Hmm?" of the prairie.

 

[dexnrex]

Buzz, I never said that the APR should not be allowed to purchase land or graze whatever they choose on that land. I only said I'm disappointed by the fact that they are doing it and that the ranching heritage and the ag economy of my community are in jeopardy. I believe I am entitled to my opinion even if it is different than yours.

I do agree that bison grazing would be best for the ecosystem, I also believe cattle could be grazed in a manner to mimic what the bison did for thousands of years to the same benefit to the prairie...and beef could be produced.

 

[Nemont]

I give less than 2 shits about what the APR does on their deeded land. It is theirs, bought and paid for and it was conveyed with all the rights the previous owner enjoyed. The issue is now what to do with the public lands they want to graze bison on. They proposed changing the Flat Creek allotment from cattle to bison, removing all interior fencing and allowing bison on the allotment all year long. That is a stretch for even the BLM to make because it puts everyone else who holds a grazing permit at a disadvantage grazing only from May 1 to Nov. 15th. Why should the APR be allowed to utilize the range on public lands year round?

These bison are not wild bison and are considered livestock. What is left for wildlife if 600 bison are on this allotment all year? Why would there be a two tiered system for grazing when no other Bison rancher has been given this same leeway to just leave their bison on the public lands all year? It will be interesting to see what the science says about year round grazing of bison on that allotment. I suspect the other people who have allotments will be seeking to have congressional intervention on the issue and when that happens it is almost always bad.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

dexnrex

If cattle ranchers were worried about their "way of life", heritage, economy and/or APR acquiring land, they should have bought it first.

Absolutely entitled to your opinion, but your argument for the basis of that opinion are largely without merit. I somehow doubt that APR is going to sink the ranching heritage in Montana by buying 86K acres.

If the economy of NE Montana collapses over an 86K acre private land purchase...it was going to happen regardless.

 

[BuzzH]

I give less than 2 shits about what the APR does on their deeded land. It is theirs, bought and paid for and it was conveyed with all the rights the previous owner enjoyed. The issue is now what to do with the public lands they want to graze bison on. They proposed changing the Flat Creek allotment from cattle to bison, removing all interior fencing and allowing bison on the allotment all year long. That is a stretch for even the BLM to make because it puts everyone else who holds a grazing permit at a disadvantage grazing only from May 1 to Nov. 15th. Why should the APR be allowed to utilize the range on public lands year round?

These bison are not wild bison and are considered livestock. What is left for wildlife if 600 bison are on this allotment all year? Why would there be a two tiered system for grazing when no other Bison rancher has been given this same leeway to just leave their bison on the public lands all year? It will be interesting to see what the science says about year round grazing of bison on that allotment. I suspect the other people who have allotments will be seeking to have congressional intervention on the issue and when that happens it is almost always bad.

Nemont

Agreed.

I also have concerns with year round grazing of a private herd of bison on my public lands.

 

[JEL]

Dexnrex, totally understand your point of view. I have family in Malta and I know how real this is for those folks and how threatened they feel as a community.

 

[James Riley]

I give less than 2 shits about what the APR does on their deeded land. It is theirs, bought and paid for and it was conveyed with all the rights the previous owner enjoyed. The issue is now what to do with the public lands they want to graze bison on. They proposed changing the Flat Creek allotment from cattle to bison, removing all interior fencing and allowing bison on the allotment all year long. That is a stretch for even the BLM to make because it puts everyone else who holds a grazing permit at a disadvantage grazing only from May 1 to Nov. 15th. Why should the APR be allowed to utilize the range on public lands year round?

These bison are not wild bison and are considered livestock. What is left for wildlife if 600 bison are on this allotment all year? Why would there be a two tiered system for grazing when no other Bison rancher has been given this same leeway to just leave their bison on the public lands all year? It will be interesting to see what the science says about year round grazing of bison on that allotment. I suspect the other people who have allotments will be seeking to have congressional intervention on the issue and when that happens it is almost always bad.

Nemont

Just as a devil's advocate, I'd say the bison are not only there year round, they are there forever. The cattle, on the other hand, end up in a waste water treatment plant sludge to be spread on some farm ground back east. One is leaving in mineral extraction; the other is staying in and on the land and the bellies of carnivores and scavengers. Further, the ranchers raise cattle as a private-for-profit outfit. APR is private non-profit and the APR bison are not in competition with cattle on the meat market. I see a world of difference. If those cattle ranchers wanted to scale back their running to levels that would sustain year-round grazing without trashing the public land, then they might get year round running too. But they'd really have to scale back.

Finally, the bison are only considered "livestock" in that the term is what APR, et al, deems required to get them in under the laws designed for livestock. But for that, they are wild and, in fact, should be treated like deer, in my opinion. They should be roaming all over the U.S. like fleas on a dog. If MT would treat them like deer or elk then APR would have no need to try and shoe-horn them into livestock grazing regulations.

P.S. I don't think cattle would last out there, year round. What, with the cold and the predators and whatnot. The ranchers would have to be out there tending them all year. I don't think they'd be up for that.

 

[Nemont]

Just as a devil's advocate, I'd say the bison are not only there year round, they are there forever. The cattle, on the other hand, end up in a waste water treatment plant sludge to be spread on some farm ground back east. One is leaving in mineral extraction; the other is staying in and on the land and the bellies of carnivores and scavengers. Further, the ranchers raise cattle as a private-for-profit outfit. APR is private non-profit and the APR bison are not in competition with cattle on the meat market. I see a world of difference. If those cattle ranchers wanted to scale back their running to levels that would sustain year-round grazing without trashing the public land, then they might get year round running too. But they'd really have to scale back.

Finally, the bison are only considered "livestock" in that the term is what APR, et al, deems required to get them in under the laws designed for livestock. But for that, they are wild and, in fact, should be treated like deer, in my opinion. They should be roaming all over the U.S. like fleas on a dog. If MT would treat them like deer or elk then APR would have no need to try and shoe-horn them into livestock grazing regulations.

What a load of fertilizer, you clearly are clueless on the area and how the Bison are handled by the APR. Can you find where these large predators are going to come from that will cull this bison herd? I guess there are mountain lions but hard to see them putting a bison down. Those bison are owned property ie livestock not wild free roaming animals like elk and deer.

Government agencies have to follow rules and regulations. Even the BLM cannot just ignore the system put in place since the Taylor Grazing act and all the revisions it has had since 1934. Nothing in the law states that this allotment can be grazed year round by any livestock whether it is a bison or a bovine. It doesn't matter whether there is a profit motive or not when it comes to grazing these lands, the grass doesn't know the difference.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Agreed.

I also have concerns with year round grazing of a private herd of bison on my public lands.

Just to be clear, I have concerns with ANY grazing of private herds on My Public Lands. Bison, sheep, cows, or zebras....

 

[James Riley]

What a load of fertilizer, you clearly are clueless on the area and how the Bison are handled by the APR. Can you find where these large predators are going to come from that will cull this bison herd? I guess there are mountain lions but hard to see them putting a bison down. Those bison are owned property ie livestock not wild free roaming animals like elk and deer.

Government agencies have to follow rules and regulations. Even the BLM cannot just ignore the system put in place since the Taylor Grazing act and all the revisions it has had since 1934. Nothing in the law states that this allotment can be grazed year round by any livestock whether it is a bison or a bovine. It doesn't matter whether there is a profit motive or not when it comes to grazing these lands, the grass doesn't know the difference.

Nemont

You lack analytic reading skills. First, you don't know what a Devil's Advocate is. Second, you are clueless on how the Bison are intended to be handled by the APR if their vision comes to fruition (I recommend you go educate yourself before thinking there is an argument were there isn't one). Third, I already explained to you how I thought the bison SHOULD be viewed, stipulating as to how they ARE viewed. So you either set up a straw man to make yourself look all knowledgeable and S or, again, you lack analytical reading skills. This latter analysis also applies to your TGA/BLM BS. The grass did just fine before the range maggots and slow elk showed up and it didn't know the difference then, either. Oh, that's right, the Indians rounded up all the bison in the fall and put them in stock yards back east on silage for the winter. I forgot.

Here's where your reasoning failed you: Quite simply, you think what is will always be, and that others must be talking about that. You fail to see that others were talking about what could be, and are working toward it: Wolves, year-round functioning ecosystems and treatment of bison as wildlife. The fact that you, the BLM, the ranchers and the TGA haven't caught up yet is immaterial to my post. The latter three have ALL changed, significantly, over the years. And they will continue to do so. Notwithstanding those who think everything is carved in stone. AUMs and timing are site-specific/regulatory and not carved out in the TGA. Bison could live there year round without degrading anything. It's all about the numbers. For all you know, APR will allow hunting of bison by humans until wolves show up.

 

[Nemont]

I read just fine. I just live in the present, where reality is, and don't pretend that we are going back 1800 and free ranging bison over all the landscape. I never said that anything was set in stone. I said the law has to be followed and I don't care what the APR has planned, until they get the law changed they shouldn't be allowed to change the grazing dates or rules, period end of story. If the rules change and the law changes, then fine. Until then they are not above the law and they don't get to decide what happens on my public lands just because they want bison out there. I don't want bison everywhere on my public lands just like I don't want cattle every where. The APR doesn't control that land so they can pound sand until the science is actually done and proven to be sustainable.

Care to bet if the APR is going to allow hunting of bison, ever? Name your bet.



Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Too simplistic to make a valid argument without the facts (location, habitat assessment, current health of the habitat, bison numbers, forage potential, utilization, etc. etc. etc.)

Any grazers can negatively impact available habitat...bison included.

 

[James Riley]

I read just fine. I just live in the present, where reality is, and don't pretend that we are going back 1800 and free ranging bison over all the landscape. I never said that anything was set in stone. I said the law has to be followed and I don't care what the APR has planned, until they get the law changed they shouldn't be allowed to change the grazing dates or rules, period end of story. If the rules change and the law changes, then fine. Until then they are not above the law and they don't get to decide what happens on my public lands just because they want bison out there. I don't want bison everywhere on my public lands just like I don't want cattle every where. The APR doesn't control that land so they can pound sand until the science is actually done and proven to be sustainable.

Care to bet if the APR is going to allow hunting of bison, ever? Name your bet.

Nemont

BuzzH nailed it. Nothing needs to change. As I said, the TGA does NOT set the dates, the numbers, etc. The TGA provides statutory authority for the DOI/BLM to set regulations on a site by site basis. If I run 100 cows on X land for 100 days, the BLM could very well allow me to run 10 cows on X land for 365 days. That IS the present and that IS following the law and you better care what the APR has planned, just like you better care what Rancher Bob has planned, if you care about your public land. They CAN change the grazing dates and rules, no period, beginning of story. The law doesn't have to change. The law has flexibility and Administrative Discretion built into it. So they don't have to be above the law and they DO get to apply for what the want, just like Rancher Bob. Nobody cares what you want any more than you care what APR wants. You don't get to decide. You can pound sand.

Finally, I never said anything coming even close the words you would pretend to put into my mouth, about APR making all these calls without BLM authorization.

I'll bet you they do allow hunting of bison IF they over-populate and IF they do so before wolves make it back and IF it's not more cost effective to give them to Indians or others who are seeking to establish herds free of bos genes. YOU may not get to hunt them. But as a member, I might get to. You said "ever". Well, those "IF"s are ever. $100.00.

 

[James Riley]

"What is APR’s position on wild bison?

The current situation in Montana, in which bison are considered livestock by the Montana Department of Livestock, is working fine for American Prairie Reserve. We are required by the Bureau of Land Management to pay the same Animal Unit Month (AUM) fees as any other producer to graze its livestock on public lands. If Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks was to someday, even decades from now, succeed in reestablishing free roaming wild bison in some areas of Montana, including in the six-county area around American Prairie Reserve, we would be fine with that arrangement as well. Otherwise, the Reserve will continue to operate under the current conditions described above."

"We should clarify a common misconception that American Prairie Reserve is primarily a bison conservation project. While certainly crucial in building the reserve, bison restoration is just part of a much broader set of goals to restore the vast and fascinating diversity of plants, animals and habitats that are native to Montana’s prairies. That said, we want to set the gold standard for bison conservation in North America. The management of our bison herd should be exemplary for how to restore and conserve the genetic, ecological and behavioral features of wild bison. In doing so, and by sharing our research and experience with others, we hope to inspire and support others who wish to restore bison elsewhere in North America, from Canada through the United States to Mexico.

To achieve this, our four main goals are that the American Prairie Reserve herd: (1) have high genetic diversity; (2) be free of detectable cattle genes; (3) fulfill its crucial ecological role in shaping the prairie ecosystem; (4) display natural behavior. In addition to these biological goals, we want the Reserve’s bison herd to be enjoyed, with diverse cultural and economic benefits, by local communities and the public. All of these goals require that the Reserve’s herd grow to number in the thousands that are free to roam over millions of acres. Learn more about our goals and progress in our annual bison report. "

 

[Nemont]

BuzzH nailed it. Nothing needs to change. As I said, the TGA does NOT set the dates, the numbers, etc. The TGA provides statutory authority for the DOI/BLM to set regulations on a site by site basis. If I run 100 cows on X land for 100 days, the BLM could very well allow me to run 10 cows on X land for 365 days. That IS the present and that IS following the law and you better care what the APR has planned, just like you better care what Rancher Bob has planned, if you care about your public land. They CAN change the grazing dates and rules, no period, beginning of story. The law doesn't have to change. The law has flexibility and Administrative Discretion built into it. So they don't have to be above the law and they DO get to apply for what the want, just like Rancher Bob. Nobody cares what you want any more than you care what APR wants. You don't get to decide. You can pound sand.

Finally, I never said anything coming even close the words you would pretend to put into my mouth, about APR making all these calls without BLM authorization.

I'll bet you they do allow hunting of bison IF they over-populate and IF they do so before wolves make it back and IF it's not more cost effective to give them to Indians or others who are seeking to establish herds free of bos genes. YOU may not get to hunt them. But as a member, I might get to. You said "ever". Well, those "IF"s are ever. $100.00.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas. Let's make it $1,000

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas. Let's make it $1,000

Nemont

You're the one that said "ever." So yeah, I can place any conditions on it I want. Let's make it $10,000.00.

See, here you are again, demonstrating your lack of analytic thinking skills. "Ever" could, and may very well be, long long after we're dead. Go read their web site and learn about their inter-generational patience. It's a type of Seventh Generation Thinking, if you will (but I'm sure you won't; because, well, I've said it). You stand corrected, but I'm sure you don't get that either.

Oh, and if "ifs" and "buts" don't mean squat to you then why are you paying interest on a debt you may never owe? Not real smart. Quit your whining about APR if they pose no threat to your interests.

Oh, they do, you say? Why? Because of "ifs" and "buts"?

P.S. I also noticed you quit addressing the merits of my initial post. I suppose I should accept your floundering as reason to turn my back on your nonsense.