Latest APR. SENT TO me by a friend

[Nameless Range]

Those goofballs, along with the Western Environmental Law Center, are leading the charge in the courts for the protection of the environment. They represent a variety of organizations you may support (or at least think are not goofballs) in various cases. I get that any individual may not agree with every case they fight. I certainly don't. Reasonable people can disagree, and politics makes strange bedfellows (yes, we all know this is political). Montanans that punish the APR or anything else because of a bias against the legal firm making the fight seems like a great plan for losing. If someone wants to create a legal firm that pays the staff meager wages for a ton of work that will only represent their specific interest, I will applaud the effort.

Montanans will punish you for the company you keep, for both good and bad reasons. Outside of my own personal opinions on the issues, being represented by a group that is diametrically opposed to the large majority of Montanans on some of our leading conservation issues (wolves, grizzlies, timber harvest, etc.) is going to fortify the believers and increase distrust in the skeptics that APR is no bueno.

I suppose the miracle here is that EJ and other litigious organizations are all of a sudden pro public land grazing.

 

[SAJ-99]

Montanans will punish you for the company you keep, for both good and bad reasons. Outside of my own personal opinions on the issues, being represented by a group that is diametrically opposed to the large majority of Montanans on some of our leading conservation issues (wolves, grizzlies, timber harvest, etc.) is going to fortify the believers and increase distrust in the skeptics that APR is no bueno.

I suppose the miracle here is that EJ and other litigious organizations are all of a sudden pro public land grazing.

In some ways I get it. All I can say is that holding that view is going to result in getting your teeth kicked in. Hunters and outdoors people don't have many legal organizations to represent them, because they are too bust fighting on the internet. The changes in NEPA reviews will mean everything that can be logged, mined, or drilled has little stopping it from happening. You also need people in your corner when individual parcels are sold or transferred to the highest bidder, or highest briber. That is coming. I would love to live in a world where we debate these things and determine if the cost is worth the benefit. This isn't the Great Depression or WWII where eminent domain can be implemented toward an end goal with little consideration of future consequences. Unfortunately I believe that time is gone. Lawyer up.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Not true. Montana hunted grizzlies until 1993 or 1994 when they were listed as threatened. They were listed in 1975...so almost 2 decades Montana hunted a threatened species.

Fair point but I believe they were referencing this:

• 2017–2018: Earthjustice led a coalition in a lawsuit to block scheduled grizzly bear trophy hunts in Wyoming and Idaho after the Yellowstone population was delisted.

And I will admit I am pretty skeptical when a person or organization leads with “I am not anti-hunting, I just oppose trophy hunting”. Because that is the leading phrase we hear time and time again from the rabid anti-hunting activists here in Colorado as they try to eliminate harvest of pretty much everything.

I am not in any way trying to say that APR is anti-hunting, it seems to be quite clear from folks with real world experience that APR provides access to numerous hunters annually. Earthjustice has clearly taken up anti-hunting positions. However, that seems to be a small portion of their partners/clients, most of it is standard environmental work. I did see all the usual anti-hunting suspects listed on their website: CBD, Humane Society, Sierra Club, etc, along with hundreds of others unrelated to hunting/animal welfare.

Earthjustice might a be killer lawfare group, just not an organization I would donate to.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

In some ways I get it. All I can say is that holding that view is going to result in getting your teeth kicked in. Hunters and outdoors people don't have many legal organizations to represent them, because they are too bust fighting on the internet. The changes in NEPA reviews will mean everything that can be logged, mined, or drilled has little stopping it from happening. You also need people in your corner when individual parcels are sold or transferred to the highest bidder, or highest briber. That is coming. I would love to live in a world where we debate these things and determine if the cost is worth the benefit. This isn't the Great Depression or WWII where eminent domain can be implemented toward an end goal with little consideration of future consequences. Unfortunately I believe that time is gone. Lawyer up.

I agree hunters absolutely need more legal organizations to file suit or defend on their behalf. The only ones that come to mind recently is Sportsman's Alliance in WA, SCI and Sportsman's Alliance in CO, and BHA corner crossing in WY.

 

[Straight Arrow]

“I am not anti-hunting, I just oppose trophy hunting”

The group is not broadly "anti-hunting," but they are anti-trophy hunting of endangered or threatened species.
It's disingenuous when your failure to complete the entire statement is perpetrated merely to hold your skewed ideology.

I am not in any way trying to say that APR is anti-hunting, it seems to be quite clear from folks with real world experience that APR provides access to numerous hunters annually.

'Sounds like some sort of concession of fact that took much to convince you. Likely your bias against AP was fueled by the longstanding irrational myths which have been lied.

Earthjustice might a be killer lawfare group, just not an organization I would donate to.

That is certainly your prerogative, and mine as well. However, as pointed to, it's really the deep pockets that fund the successes.
('Don't mean to be disrespectful if you are a deep pockets guy.)

 

[Straight Arrow]

I agree hunters absolutely need more legal organizations to file suit or defend on their behalf. The only ones that come to mind recently is Sportsman's Alliance in WA, SCI and Sportsman's Alliance in CO, and BHA corner crossing in WY.

According to the AI Chatbot referenced above, EJ has been such an organization. Not suggesting that you should therefore donate; but maybe put that one among those "that come to mind".

they (EJ) 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.

 

[mtmuley]

Lawyer up.

There it is. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

There it is. mtmuley

What choice do you have? Do you really think WYBHA wanted to raise 250K to fight corner crossing?

I'm not bitching because it was money well spent and our attorneys did it cheap, but the point is, that's how we do battle on these issues.

However, what I will bitch about is Hunters and Anglers as a whole are cheap asses when it comes to putting their money where there mouths are.

You don't see Sportmen offering up money to fight this BS BLM over reach in AP's case regarding their grazing rights.

 

[mtmuley]

What choice do you have? Do you really think WYBHA wanted to raise 250K to fight corner crossing?

I'm not bitching because it was money well spent and our attorneys did it cheap, but the point is, that's how we do battle on these issues.

I get it. Not happy it has to come to litigation for so many issues like this. Not surprised though. Kudos for WYBHA. Thanks. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

I get it. Not happy it has to come to litigation for so many issues like this. Not surprised though. Kudos for WYBHA. Thanks. mtmuley

Totally agree it does suck but the Sportsmen's community is missing the boat by not having a central litigation fund, group, etc.

If you want to play ball, you need to have a team.

 

[Eric Albus]

How is the BLM reversing course 100% for political reasons on AP'S grazing leases stand on modern science based conservation and Montana ranching?

I mean, its not like their properties didnt evolve for oh, give or take, the past 10,000- 12,000 years with bison as a primary grazer or anything.

I'm more than comfortable with the science behind what America Prairie is doing with their properties.

I doubt your motives here are anything more than the continued smear campaign thats been going on for a long time...and also based 100% on your own political reasons.

You claim to support science based conservation, but I've seen exactly zero proof from you ever doing so.

My best guess is that a former director of APR will be proven correct (as will I). Hunting will be ok under current director, who has a vision and love of hunting, until replaced by a different board.
I hope I live long enuf to say, yet one more time, “Told U so”.

They’ll end run the “law” and sell a few head of buffalo, legal min. to claim “production ag status”. Only a moron poor business person wouldn’t.

Anybody want to bet against me
On number one domino?
They will keep buying and outlast us(the last of the Indians, traditional (since natives) generational ranchers). Then, embargo on.

Follow the money and it will show you the answers.

 

[BuzzH]

My best guess is that a former director of APR will be proven correct (as will I). Hunting will be ok under current director, who has a vision and love of hunting, until replaced by a different board.
I hope I live long enuf to say, yet one more time, “Told U so”.

They’ll end run the “law” and sell a few head of buffalo, legal min. to claim “production ag status”. Only a moron poor business person wouldn’t.

Anybody want to bet against me
On number one domino?
They will keep buying and outlast us(the last of the Indians, traditional (since natives) generational ranchers). Then, embargo on.

Yet again on what? I can't remember you being right about much regarding AP.

BTW, AP already sell some bison every year.

 

[mtmiller]

Anybody want to bet against me
On number one domino?

What are odds on AP vs 100K ton exporting gauchos?

 

[Fire_9]

My best guess is that a former director of APR will be proven correct (as will I). Hunting will be ok under current director, who has a vision and love of hunting, until replaced by a different board.
I hope I live long enuf to say, yet one more time, “Told U so”.

They’ll end run the “law” and sell a few head of buffalo, legal min. to claim “production ag status”. Only a moron poor business person wouldn’t.

Am I reading that correctly where you’d like to see the public lose hunting on the APR just so you could say ‘I told you so’?

Do you have any complaints of the wall street businessmen being able to keep their elk ranches in ‘production ag status’ because they run a few cows and plant food plots?

It sure seems that the cowboys have no problem losing these ranches to billionaires but somehow the APR is the devil. I’m having a hard time connecting the dots as to why. Can you break it down for me like I’m in kindergarten?

 

[bigsky2]

Do you have any complaints of the wall street businessmen being able to keep their elk ranches in ‘production ag status’ because they run a few cows and plant food plots?

It sure seems that the cowboys have no problem losing these ranches to billionaires but somehow the APR is the devil. I’m having a hard time connecting the dots as to why. Can you break it down for me like I’m in kindergarten?

Totally agree. If you look at all the land brokers’ advertisements for the properties they are selling here in central MT, they sure seem to focus on selling the recreation more than the ag.



When one place sold recently, a rancher reached out to the new owner about the possibility of grazing it. The owner said “my place will never have a cow on it again.” Not sure why these types of new landowners and the land brokers get a free pass while all the negative attention is focused at AP. I think I’d respect the opinions of people that are critical of AP more if they were equally critical of these other threats to agriculture.

 

[Eric Albus]

I realize that for those who do not live this life it is more difficult to understand. Once a “non-profit entity” , like APR, owns a piece of land the likelihood of ever winding up in sustainable production Ag is zero.
The less ag land we have the less chance future generations of Montana ranchers we will see. I look at a sale to the APR the same as i do the death of an entire family, the end generational ranches with a purchase of land and grazing permits.
I truly take my hat off to the Veseth’s who left their ranch (no heirs) as a true legacy, to be available for use to ranching families. Truly an honorable thing they’ve done.
To those who use land for recreation only and have no generational tie to it, it’s different. The majority look at the land and resource(elk/deer) as to what can I take from here. Not “what do I have to leave and nurture so the land will provide for me next year and my grandchildren 30 yrs from now”.
You and others see APR as great because they will provide access for a while. I know a few guys who accessed the APR to bird hunt last fall. They got to exercise their dogs, they didn’t get to go where they wanted to, or where any birds were. When they asked about try different areas they were politely declined. Wonder why? So wonder why I see them as a gateway to the “American Serengeti”. Grizzly bears and wolves will do the hunting, the public can watch from the stands.
Time will prove me correct. Just hope I live long enuf to say “told u so”.
Just know I won’t say it with any satisfaction, it’ll just be matter of fact.

 

[Eric Albus]

Totally agree. If you look at all the land brokers’ advertisements for the properties they are selling here in central MT, they sure seem to focus on selling the recreation more than the ag.

View attachment 401090

When one place sold recently, a rancher reached out to the new owner about the possibility of grazing it. The owner said “my place will never have a cow on it again.” Not sure why these types of new landowners and the land brokers get a free pass while all the negative attention is focused at AP.

They shouldn’t.

 

[Fire_9]

I realize that for those who do not live this life it is more difficult to understand. Once a “non-profit entity” , like APR, owns a piece of land the likelihood of ever winding up in sustainable production Ag is zero.
The less ag land we have the less chance future generations of Montana ranchers we will see. I look at a sale to the APR the same as i do the death of an entire family, the end generational ranches with a purchase of land and grazing permits.
I truly take my hat off to the Veseth’s who left their ranch (no heirs) as a true legacy, to be available for use to ranching families. Truly an honorable thing they’ve done.
To those who use land for recreation only and have no generational tie to it, it’s different. The majority look at the land and resource(elk/deer) as to what can I take from here. Not “what do I have to leave and nurture so the land will provide for me next year and my grandchildren 30 yrs from now”.
You and others see APR as great because they will provide access for a while. I know a few guys who accessed the APR to bird hunt last fall. They got to exercise their dogs, they didn’t get to go where they wanted to, or where any birds were. When they asked about try different areas they were politely declined. Wonder why? So wonder why I see them as a gateway to the “American Serengeti”. Grizzly bears and wolves will do the hunting, the public can watch from the stands.
Time will prove me correct. Just hope I live long enuf to say “told u so”.
Just know I won’t say it with any satisfaction, it’ll just be matter of fact.

So what do you think the odds are of a billionaire selling his ranch back to a ranching family? I actually agree with you that once these properties are out of production, they will likely be out of production forever. So why is it that one scenario is bad and one is good?

And I still find it odd that you want to see it happen in your lifetime. A reasonable person would say something along the lines of ‘I hope I’m wrong’ or ‘I hope I don’t see that in my lifetime’.

 

[El Jason]

Just hope I live long enuf to say “told u so”.

That’s the spirit!

 

[antlerradar]

Totally agree. If you look at all the land brokers’ advertisements for the properties they are selling here in central MT, they sure seem to focus on selling the recreation more than the ag.

View attachment 401090

When one place sold recently, a rancher reached out to the new owner about the possibility of grazing it. The owner said “my place will never have a cow on it again.” Not sure why these types of new landowners and the land brokers get a free pass while all the negative attention is focused at AP. I think I’d respect the opinions of people that are critical of AP more if they were equally critical of these other threats to agriculture.

A million is not going to buy you much of a recreational property. I know of one large BM operator that was offered 100,000 for just a lease. He turned it down.