Disposal of Federal Lands

[Straight Arrow]

Let's drop the conjecturing and wagering. This could be informative with information regarding the various perspectives. The current line of bickering is heading toward a lock-down. Please offer informative messages.

 

[James Riley]

Let's drop the conjecturing and wagering. This could be informative with information regarding the various perspectives. The current line of bickering is heading toward a lock-down. Please offer informative messages.

Roger that.

 

[Eric Albus]

buzz... I see you still don't understand a thing... and where was anything stated hypocritical??

I merely stated that hunting will not always be allowed...I care not one wit what APR does with their private holdings. I may not like what they are doing, but will be the first in line to defend their RIGHT as a property owner. Just as it is the right of the landowners who have sold to them. The APR would like to buy more of South Valley Co., and have approached other key landowners.... I may not like the competition of a non-profit entity, but that does not make me a hypocrite.


I can look at things objectively, and can see the inevitable, the APR will one day control the 3,000,000 acres they want. When they have their "American Serengeti" there will be no hunting allowed. It will be treated as a park, or national treasure. What tourist would want to come from the far reaches of the globe and look at the wildlife if they thought that the animals they are taking photos of would be hunted down and killed for "sporting men" such as yourself?

 

[mtmiller]

Eric, first you state they will "own" 3 million acres and now you say they will "control" 3 million acres. So far you are 0 for 2.

The bulk of the 3 million acres they are looking at are Federal public lands which they may get a permit to graze. No ownership and no control.

You continue to exaggerate and assume....not exactly "objective".

 

[James Riley]

Eric, first you state they will "own" 3 million acres and now you say they will "control" 3 million acres. So far you are 0 for 2.

The bulk of the 3 million acres they are looking at are Federal public lands which they may get a permit to graze. No ownership and no control.

You continue to exaggerate and assume....not exactly "objective".

This ^^^. Thank you.

As Nemont has pointed out, APR doesn't get to change the law.

 

[Straight Arrow]

.... there will be no hunting allowed. It will be treated as a park, or national treasure. What tourist would want to come from the far reaches of the globe and look at the wildlife if they thought that the animals they are taking photos of would be hunted down and killed ...

Eric, you have every right to formulate and express an opinion regarding APR, its philosophy, goals, and mission, but your opposition would be better received if based on factual information and actual occurrences, rather than speculation, conjecturing, and irrational reasoning. What you have expressed is commonly called "fear mongering" and, as evidenced by response to your remarks, is mostly rejected by rational folks who have access to factual information.

 

[BuzzH]

buzz... I see you still don't understand a thing... and where was anything stated hypocritical??

I merely stated that hunting will not always be allowed...I care not one wit what APR does with their private holdings. I may not like what they are doing, but will be the first in line to defend their RIGHT as a property owner. Just as it is the right of the landowners who have sold to them. The APR would like to buy more of South Valley Co., and have approached other key landowners.... I may not like the competition of a non-profit entity, but that does not make me a hypocrite.


I can look at things objectively, and can see the inevitable, the APR will one day control the 3,000,000 acres they want. When they have their "American Serengeti" there will be no hunting allowed. It will be treated as a park, or national treasure. What tourist would want to come from the far reaches of the globe and look at the wildlife if they thought that the animals they are taking photos of would be hunted down and killed for "sporting men" such as yourself?

So what if APR has approached other land owners? Have you ever approached a landowner to lease hunting rights? Its not like APR is holding a gun to a landowners head and forcing them to sell, or even to entertain an offer, or even talk to APR.

I'm also sorry that you don't like "competition" from non-profits, but I'm not in your camp at all in that way of thinking. If not for non-profits, there would be untold acres of public access that wouldn't exist (RMEF, etc.) that have purchased easements and lands to allow for public access.

I'm also with Miller, in that just because APR may hold a grazing lease on BLM, doesn't mean they control the wildlife or access to that wildlife. What I can say is that APR has afforded me access not only to their property, but also to adjacent public lands. I cant say the same for a single place that is leased by an outfitter...ever.

I'll roll the dice with APR all day long on whether or not they will access and/or hunting in the future. Its a 100% given that if those same properties were leased to an outfitter, I would never even have a chance to access anything (public or private) in that scenario.

 

[Straight Arrow]

BuzzH has stated what is reality for us as hunters. If the Wilks bros or any similar private entity purchased those properties and acquired the BLM leases, do you really think Montana hunters would have any chance of hunting on those lands .... ever?

 

[James Riley]

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

I have those same concerns. But let's flesh this out a little more. IF I was king of the world, My Public Lands would be returned to, and maintained by government as intact ecosystems, with all indig species, migration corridors, blah blah blah. Nothing would be privately owned. Hunting and management would be by science toward those goals.

But I'm not king of the world and, in fact, my government doesn't treat an indig species as wild. For all practical purposes, the meat market and policies and history and etc. work to keep that indig species off the land and out of the ecosystem, or reduces it to mere livestock.

So, does my concern about private ownership, in and of itself, supersede my desire to see an intact ecosystem with all the moving parts?

I noticed you used the term "concerns" and not "objections." That leaves some room, for me at least, to see some private herds on my public lands. Having read APR's policies and proposed procedures, I think my concerns are met and any objections I might have to the principle of private ownership of herds on My Public Land have been overcome; especially when APR says they are fine with Montana someday getting around to changing their mind on the livestock vs wild designation.

If I'm missing something, let me know. I'd like to think about it.

I'd rather see privately owned indig bison herds on public land than publicly owned invasive horse herds on public land.

 

[Eric Albus]

I guess that I will need to be more specific.

The APR will not "own" the land, just the surface right to graze on the BLM. They have chosen to place bison on a good portion of the APR's holdings, and I will assume that as the lands they have recently purchased with previous owners retaining grazing rights for 10-12 years that when those leases expire the APR will have built up enough of a bison herd to stock those BLM leases and commensurate private properties with bison as well.

When they do eventually control(notice, in order to keep some of you happy I did not say "own") 3 million acres and have the place stocked with shaggies, do you really think that you will be allowed to sport hunt?

I do not have a problem with anyone owning bison...I have a problem w/ "free ranging"...just like all my neighbors do. W/ the free range moniker attached to a bison all responsibility is removed from said beasty. This means that when a bison bull roams through fences that there is no accountability...when said bison bull breeds somebodies registered cow there is no accountability, when the bison bull gores somebodies registered bull there is no accountability. Right now the owners are held responsible for the actions of their shaggies....most all of us in NE Mt. want it kept this way.

 

[James Riley]

I guess that I will need to be more specific.

The APR will not "own" the land, just the surface right to graze on the BLM. They have chosen to place bison on a good portion of the APR's holdings, and I will assume that as the lands they have recently purchased with previous owners retaining grazing rights for 10-12 years that when those leases expire the APR will have built up enough of a bison herd to stock those BLM leases and commensurate private properties with bison as well.

When they do eventually control(notice, in order to keep some of you happy I did not say "own") 3 million acres and have the place stocked with shaggies, do you really think that you will be allowed to sport hunt?

I do not have a problem with anyone owning bison...I have a problem w/ "free ranging"...just like all my neighbors do. W/ the free range moniker attached to a bison all responsibility is removed from said beasty. This means that when a bison bull roams through fences that there is no accountability...when said bison bull breeds somebodies registered cow there is no accountability, when the bison bull gores somebodies registered bull there is no accountability. Right now the owners are held responsible for the actions of their shaggies....most all of us in NE Mt. want it kept this way.

Your first paragraph sounds good. However, nothing is different. Before APR the ranchers did not own the public land and they did not control it. Nor could the public hunt their cattle. Nothing different there.

As to your second paragraph, they will never control the Public Land. We may or may not be able to hunt the "shaggies" but that, again, is no different than cattle. Regardless, the elk, deer, antelope, etc. are still Montana's call and most of the land is still public. Nothing has changed.

As to your last paragraph, I need you to clarify some things for me before I take it up. When you use the term "free-ranging", is that the same as the cattle on public land now? Or are you talking about some speculative future shift from a "livestock" designation to a "wildlife" designation by the state of Montana? Is Montana a "fence out" state? Or a "fence in" state? Why would a bison grazing under allotment on BLM get any special treatment, liability-wise, that a domestic bull doesn't get? If APR bison are out of line on someone else's property, why wouldn't APR be liable? Are ranchers liable when their bulls/cows get out?

 

[Eric Albus]

yes, we are liable when our cattle get out and destroy crops, or if my longhorn bull were to break into the neighbors and breed his registered Angus cattle I am liable, I am liable if they get into someone else's BLM allotment and can be fined.

What we in NE Mt. fear is the "free range" designation hung on the bison....it removes them from livestock and places them as wild/free.

 

[James Riley]

yes, we are liable when our cattle get out and destroy crops, or if my longhorn bull were to break into the neighbors and breed his registered Angus cattle I am liable.

What we in NE Mt. fear is the "free range" designation hung on the bison....it removes them from livestock and places them as wild/free.

Okay.

There are several different levels here.

1. So long as the State of Montana continues to consider bison as "livestock" then you have nothing to fear. The private owners of bison will be on the hook for damages caused by their "livestock."

2. Even if the State of Montana changes the designation of bison to "wildlife" you should be covered for damages caused by privately owned (APR) bison, just like you should be covered for damages caused by privately owned elk.

3. The only bison you should have to fear are the wildlife bison owned by the state of Montana (if they ever get around to changing bison from livestock to wildlife. Unlikely, but I hope they do.). In that event, I bet you dollars to doughnuts the State will allow hunts, provide depredation and otherwise compensate private land owners, just like they do for damages caused by elk, deer, etc.

It seems *nothing* has or will change under your scenarios *except* number three, above. And that is a pipe dream of people like me. I would love to pay you for damages caused by my public wildlife bison and I would love to pay you to hunt free-range wildlife bison on your land in a fair chase hunt. Personally, I think you'd make a killing.

 

[Eric Albus]

#3 is exactly what we are worried about here in NE MT. Without the livestock designation on bison there will be no accountability. None of us in the landowning community trust that there will be fair compensation for damages caused. The state will provide some compensation, IF the landowner allows "adequate access" by their definition(which differs from most landowners).... Brucellosis is a big fear amongst some of my neighbors, I don't worry about that as much as bachelor herds of 3-4 year old bulls roaming the country side tearing out fence. Domestic bulls can battle across fencelines and cause enough misery between landowners.

 

[Straight Arrow]

'Not sure if the bison will understand the difference in designation. Presently there are large herds of bison in Montana and across North America, with no real problems from widespread damages to neighboring properties and livestock. These bison typically are contained in very large pastures and don't realize that they aren't "wild".

Anyone who has been attentive to this longstanding ongoing issue is fully aware of the conditions, stipulations, concerns, protections and other points of assurance that are a requisite part of bison being placed on the landscape of Montana anywhere. To assert that the bison will be running roughshod across northeastern Montana, with "no accountability",
is really an indication of one's "head in the sand" or somewhere else where the sun don't shine.

 

[Nemont]

Show me the science that says year round grazing on the Flat Creek allotment is the right thing to do for that land. Show me where filling all the water holes and taking out tens of thousands of dollars worth of cross fencing is the best use available for this landscape.

That is the APR proposal and it seems like a legitimate question to ask and to demand that they prove it is viable prior to doing it.

If it were cowboys making such a proposal everyone on here would be demanding to see the science. I get that bison are different. I want to see the science that says this allotment is big enough and the APR plan is viable before we tear up taxpayer paid for fencing and water holes.

Not many bison ranches compare to what is at stake next door on the CMR. Before anyone gets to screw with the area they need to show us the actual, on the ground, studies. The APR is no different.

Nemont

 

[MTGomer]

I've been in the area of one of their properties, before I was really aware of what they are, and what was going on, so I never paid any attention.... I do have a question.

Regarding their deed land and public lease land.....What is used for fencing to keep the bison on their respective allotments? Is there a fence that keeps the bison in, that allow deer, elk, antelope, etc... passage?

 

[James Riley]

#3 is exactly what we are worried about here in NE MT. Without the livestock designation on bison there will be no accountability. None of us in the landowning community trust that there will be fair compensation for damages caused. The state will provide some compensation, IF the landowner allows "adequate access" by their definition(which differs from most landowners).... Brucellosis is a big fear amongst some of my neighbors, I don't worry about that as much as bachelor herds of 3-4 year old bulls roaming the country side tearing out fence. Domestic bulls can battle across fencelines and cause enough misery between landowners.

I really wish you had something to worry about and that Montana was anywhere within a million miles of designating Bison as wildlife. But if they did, that designation would not protect APR bison damages from liability. Only Montana bison would be protected. That has nothing to do with APR. As to brucellosis, APR bison are as clean, or cleaner than any cattle in Montana. Bison are no more prone to the disease than cattle. And elk are allowed the free range you talk of, and are the major remaining culprits. Again, APR and the disease are a non-issue.

 

[Point Creep]

Paranoia

Eric, Bison could actually help put Saco Hot Springs on the map finally. Also, think of all the cool tourists NE MT would get to have stopping through. Ted Turner's proved they can live without too much hassle on the land, and that there's a market for guys that'll pay thousands to drive around for a couple and shoot an animal with an ear tag. I figured you'd be all over this.

 

[Nameless Range]

I've been in the area of one of their properties, before I was really aware of what they are, and what was going on, so I never paid any attention.... I do have a question.

Regarding their deed land and public lease land.....What is used for fencing to keep the bison on their respective allotments? Is there a fence that keeps the bison in, that allow deer, elk, antelope, etc... passage?

Their fencing to keep bison in as not as drastic as you'd think.

https://www.americanprairie.org/project/fences

When I was up there a year ago they were pretty adamant that this fence is very effective, and they put a lot of thought into fences and wildlife.