Latest APR. SENT TO me by a friend

[Straight Arrow]

Every year it seems ranches exercise the private property right to discontinue allowing hunting access to friends or the public or pull out of the FWP Block Management hunting access, due to leasing out or for various reasons. There is very little to no criticism expressed by the Albus/AP haters. Yet one main criticism of American Prairie is that sometime in the distant future, for whatever cirucmstances and reasons, AP "could", "may", or "will" discontinue public access, in particular for hunting.

As American Prairie has acquired more properties, investment in public recreational facilities and educational programs has continuously increased, along with increased public access for hunting and other outdoor recreation, as well as for access to adjacent public lands. Public use and appreciation of AP's lands and programs is a top tier goal expressed by AP in public documents, website rhetoric, and certainly by displays and information at the AP interpretive center downtown in Lewistown. The huge investment in hardscape and in public access illustrates the intent of longterm sustainment of that aspect.

Criticism based on the unlikely change in that aspect is not supported by AP rhetoric, facts, or any information. That criticism is nonsensical; it is irrational.
The statement, I hope I live long enuf to say, yet one more time, “Told U so.” expresses an attitude of disdain for one's neighbor or for a change in land use that is either not understood or is just hated. The fact that 8,000 or more head of cattle graze AP lands in support of neighbors and the cattle industry seems convenient to ignore.

This Albus/AP hater ideology does not make sense to rational, good hearted folks, but comes across to many as another example of the evil in man to hold disdain for a neighbor because they don't look like you, act like you, or do as you wish.

 

[WanderWoman]

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’.

Higher likelihood these properties will continually pass to similar wealthy recreational buyers. More likely the larger outfits will be subdivided and sold, and of course each new buyer will build a McMansion/Cabin chalet, then till more native vegetation for the sake of a food plot, and so on. Drive around the same areas of central Montana, it’s happening on an annual basis vs. over a lifetime.

You (the general “you,” not @Fire_9) can disagree with a landowner/entity and their management all you want. But it floors me how some property rights seem to always be criticized while others are ignored. So much negative attitudes towards APR and landowners who want to sell or donate perpetual CEs (the latter to keep lands in production) but a blind eye for everything else.

 

[SAJ-99]

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.

Why is that bad? The public has been watching from the stands for generations and the show is horrible. We can check a list of all the species in decline since the "traditional (since natives) generational ranchers" came into the place - Mule deer, bison, sage grouse, pronghorn, etc are all a fraction of the populations or on a steady trend down. The rivers are filled with fertilizers, soil is eroding away. If stewardship of the land was the job description, American farmers and ranchers should have been fired a long time ago. Maybe trying something new, even if it is old, isn't a bad thing. And I don't have to benefit from it.

 

[Dougfirtree]

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.

You talk as if the alternative was for the land to stay in sustainable ag. That's not a realistic assumption. In many cases, the alternative was to be subdivided and built on, or just locked up by some wealthy person as their personal playground.

And what percentage of the northern plains are being managed for native wildlife, vs. agriculture?

And what percentage of the ag lands are accessible to the public for hunting?

If I were a conservation-minded hunter in Montana, supporting APR seems like a no brainer, at this point..

 

[bigsky2]

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.

I had the same thought. That just happened to show up on my feed yesterday so that was the example I used.

 

[mtmuley]

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.

There was 5000 acres of the best elk hunting property near me for sale recently. Took over 16 million to get it. mtmuley

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

So the person I'm friends with was a VP at MSFT that allows her to donate enought to get on the board, great person, good family friend, and not "necessarily" anti-hunting, she's eaten deer and elk at my house. But she does have a very twisted perspective of what hunting is, and, as most people are, she's susceptible to propaganda.

 

[406dn]

Why is that bad? The public has been watching from the stands for generations and the show is horrible. We can check a list of all the species in decline since the "traditional (since natives) generational ranchers" came into the place - Mule deer, bison, sage grouse, pronghorn, etc are all a fraction of the populations or on a steady trend down. The rivers are filled with fertilizers, soil is eroding away. If stewardship of the land was the job description, American farmers and ranchers should have been fired a long time ago. Maybe trying something new, even if it is old, isn't a bad thing. And I don't have to benefit from it.

This is going back in the day, but those were my thoughts when Ted Turner purchased his ranch outside of Bozeman.

I knew that I would never set foot on it. I also knew it forestalled the day when the land would be subdivided and littered with mansions.

 

[mtmuley]

This is going back in the day, but those were my thoughts when Ted Turner purchased his ranch outside of Bozeman.

I knew that I would never set foot on it. I also knew it forestalled the day when the land would be subdivided and littered with mansions.

I have had to come to grips with this. Growing up I had unlimited access to mostly any private property I wanted. But, as ranches sold, my access disappeared. Some of these properties are in conservation easement. Some owned by wealthy families. I'm happy development didn't take over. Gotta keep some of it. mtmuley