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.

 

[Straight Arrow]

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

Asked and answered to the point of being trite. Obviously, you have not been paying attention. AP is like an open book. There is so much on this forum and in the news recently, that your "worth asking" is truly dumb question of the year so far!

I also don’t have time to read everything

So don't get so excited about spreading the news about something of which you are not well informed or don't thoroughly understand.
You are better than that!

 

[Nunjagottam]

OlWhitcombPlace

Anyone know how to tag this guy and maybe cut through the bullshit?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

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.

I see this a bit differently. When an organization says they are “anti or oppose trophy hunting”, that is usually a clear indicator they are an anti-hunting organization. The Proposition 127 folks in Colorado that sought to end mountain lion hunting literally called it “Ban trophy hunting of cats”. We had to fight them to get that language out of the ballot title. They used the term “trophy hunting” in every single piece of propaganda. It says Earthjustice opposed “trophy hunting” of grizzlies and wolves because it violates the ESA. But if states are legally hunting them, that would mean they no longer have ESA protections. Sounds pretty anti-hunting to me. Anti-hunting groups regularly use nuance to hide their true intentions. Orgs like Wildlife For All and Washington Wildlife First both claim that they only oppose “trophy hunting” and don’t oppose hunting for subsistence. However, unless you are a Native American, you don’t fit their definition of subsistence hunter. And you better believe they are 100% backing every single anti-hunting initiative they can find. These people are clever.

 

[IDiot]

This is an issue that hunters and anti-hunters can agree with each other on. Similar to the attempted public land sell off. Why pick a fight with someone that wants the same thing on this issue.

AP supports hunting, just because an organization that may not support hunting is representing them on this, doesn't mean AP won't continue to support hunting. AP also supports ranching, proven by the amount of cattle that graze on AP ground.

The permits were pulled for political reasons and I hope they get them back. I would consider their bison harvest program to meet the production requirement for grazing. And as other posts have said, if horses that don't serve a purpose can graze BLM, why shouldn't America's national mammal.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

When do we get mad at Ted Turner? Just curious.