Latest APR. SENT TO me by a friend

[Eric Albus]

Hey — heads up.


American Prairie is now being represented by Earthjustice in their fight with BLM over bison grazing permits.





Earthjustice is a national anti-use, anti-hunting, anti-grazing litigation group that uses lawsuits to shut down multiple-use public lands.





This press release is from Earthjustice’s own website — not rumor, not spin:


https://earthjustice.org/press/2026...-proposed-revocation-of-bison-grazing-permits





Worth asking where American Prairie really stands on modern, science-based conservation and Montana ranching.

 

[mtmiller]

Just to validate your statement (EDIT, likely your friends text). I only checked one AI chatbot, I was not invested in further investigation tonight.

Feel free to call BS on me.

Characterizing Earthjustice as strictly "anti-use," "anti-hunting," or "anti-grazing" is a bit of a simplification that misses some of the nuances of their work. While they are a national litigation group that frequently uses lawsuits to challenge how public lands are managed, their stated goal is sustainable stewardship and environmental protection rather than a total shutdown of all activity.

Here is a breakdown of how their work aligns with those specific labels:

"Anti-Use" vs. Selective Use​

Earthjustice generally opposes extractive industrial uses of public lands—such as new coal leasing, oil and gas drilling, and large-scale commercial logging—arguing these contribute to climate change and habitat loss. However, they actively advocate for recreational and conservation uses, including:

• Recreation: They legally defend the public's right to access lands for hiking, camping, and rafting.
• Scientific Access: They support land designations that protect areas for ecological research.

"Anti-Hunting" vs. Regulated Hunting​

The group is not broadly "anti-hunting," but they are anti-trophy hunting of endangered or threatened species.

• The Nuance: They have successfully sued to stop grizzly bear trophy hunts and protect gray wolves, arguing that these specific hunts violate the Endangered Species Act.
• Pro-Access: Conversely, they have recently won cases (such as the 2025 "corner crossing" ruling) that actually expanded access for hunters to reach millions of acres of "landlocked" public land in the West.

"Anti-Grazing" vs. Regulated Grazing​

Earthjustice's relationship with grazing is complex and case-specific:

• Opposition: They often litigate against overgrazing or livestock grazing in sensitive habitats (like those of the Mexican spotted owl), claiming it damages ecosystems and violates federal standards.
• Support: Interestingly, they have also represented groups fighting for grazing permits. For example, in 2026, they filed protests on behalf of American Prairie to defend bison grazing permits on public lands, arguing that bison are essential for prairie health.

Summary of Their Position​

Category	Earthjustice Stance
Public Lands	Supports "multiple-use" but prioritizes conservation and recreation over extraction.
Hunting	Opposes hunting of imperiled species; supports general public access for hunters.
Grazing	Opposes grazing that damages ecosystems; supports it when used for restoration (e.g., bison).
Litigation	Uses the law to enforce environmental standards (Clean Air Act, ESA) on federal agencies.

 

[406dn]

imo, the APR got hosed by the BLM reversing the approval to graze bison on BLM land. It was a nakedly political decision.

Regarding ranching, if ranching was generally profitable in that part of Montana, the APR would not exist. It is pretty telling that ranches that had sweetheart BLM leases in addition to their deeded land, end up selling out to the only buyer interested.

 

[Eric Albus]

Just to validate your statement (EDIT, likely your friends text). I only checked one AI chatbot, I was not invested in further investigation tonight.

Feel free to call BS on me.

Characterizing Earthjustice as strictly "anti-use," "anti-hunting," or "anti-grazing" is a bit of a simplification that misses some of the nuances of their work. While they are a national litigation group that frequently uses lawsuits to challenge how public lands are managed, their stated goal is sustainable stewardship and environmental protection rather than a total shutdown of all activity.

Here is a breakdown of how their work aligns with those specific labels:

"Anti-Use" vs. Selective Use​

Earthjustice generally opposes extractive industrial uses of public lands—such as new coal leasing, oil and gas drilling, and large-scale commercial logging—arguing these contribute to climate change and habitat loss. However, they actively advocate for recreational and conservation uses, including:

• Recreation: They legally defend the public's right to access lands for hiking, camping, and rafting.
• Scientific Access: They support land designations that protect areas for ecological research.

"Anti-Hunting" vs. Regulated Hunting​

The group is not broadly "anti-hunting," but they are anti-trophy hunting of endangered or threatened species.

• The Nuance: They have successfully sued to stop grizzly bear trophy hunts and protect gray wolves, arguing that these specific hunts violate the Endangered Species Act.
• Pro-Access: Conversely, they have recently won cases (such as the 2025 "corner crossing" ruling) that actually expanded access for hunters to reach millions of acres of "landlocked" public land in the West.

"Anti-Grazing" vs. Regulated Grazing​

Earthjustice's relationship with grazing is complex and case-specific:

• Opposition: They often litigate against overgrazing or livestock grazing in sensitive habitats (like those of the Mexican spotted owl), claiming it damages ecosystems and violates federal standards.
• Support: Interestingly, they have also represented groups fighting for grazing permits. For example, in 2026, they filed protests on behalf of American Prairie to defend bison grazing permits on public lands, arguing that bison are essential for prairie health.

Summary of Their Position​

Category	Earthjustice Stance
Public Lands	Supports "multiple-use" but prioritizes conservation and recreation over extraction.
Hunting	Opposes hunting of imperiled species; supports general public access for hunters.
Grazing	Opposes grazing that damages ecosystems; supports it when used for restoration (e.g., bison).
Litigation	Uses the law to enforce environmental standards (Clean Air Act, ESA) on federal agencies.

Well, I’ve not even followed the link as of yet. Was sent to me by someone I know. IF u think I’m making it up, need to buy a vowel?? I dont have time to make crap up. I also don’t have time to read everything I’m sent, so thot I’d throw it out here to be investigated and vetted…….so guess where I’d tell u to get off.
The person who sent it to me is a SUPPORTER of APR….so again if you want to question my
Integrity or question my character call me…. I don’t hide.

 

[Eric Albus]

imo, the APR got hosed by the BLM reversing the approval to graze bison on BLM land. It was a nakedly political decision.

Regarding ranching, if ranching was generally profitable in that part of Montana, the APR would not exist. It is pretty telling that ranches that had sweetheart BLM leases in addition to their deeded land, end up selling out to the only buyer interested.

All they’ll do is end run it, just like I would in their position… it’s about production ag… pretty easy to sell 10-40-100 bison and claim to be in “ag-production “. If I’m smart enuf to figure that out I’d bet I didn’t just give the secret away.. their lawyers would be light years ahead of my dumb a$$

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm no friend of Earthjustice (though ironically I am friends with one of their board members), but I do occasionally support one of their initiatives, at least philosophically. I would never give them a penny for the reason Albus points out. But their supporting APR does nothing to change my take on the APR.

 

[mtmiller]

Integrity or question my character call me…. I don’t hide.

I did neither, confused.