Latest APR. SENT TO me by a friend

[corndog1]

Not
Much danger if a subdivision in south Phillips county.

I think you would rather see billionaires buy these ranches and then lease to outfitters. Pretty obvious. APR grants access billionaires do not.

 

[TheTone]

I’d much rather have a group like APR buying the farmland south of my town than watching it get turned into high priced subdivisions and factories for computer chips. Sure is weird our bird hunting is terrible and our elk keep plundering the farm lands they are getting more and more squeezed into.

 

[DFS]

IMO- Any AP thread along with any political thread i.e “Relax, Everything is going to be ok”, on Hunt Talk, degrades the quality of Hunt Talk AND takes away from the basic joy we all get from hunting & fishing.

Neither subject is worth the amount of time and arguing that they are currently getting.
Carry on!

I enjoy the APR threads. It brings out the locals “stay out of my back yard” type of people and the people that interject their thoughts on other peoples back yards after they already destroyed theirs. Both have valid opinions and shouldn’t be discounted. Time will tell us who is right APR isn’t going anywhere. It is much more pertinent to hunting and wildlife then a lot of the crap that gets spewed on here.

 

[mtmuley]

I’d much rather have a group like APR buying the farmland south of my town than watching it get turned into high priced subdivisions and factories for computer chips. Sure is weird our bird hunting is terrible and our elk keep plundering the farm lands they are getting more and more squeezed into.

Sometimes I think billionaires are good. I can't even begin to imagine what the Bitterroot River corridor would look like without some of the long time landowners that can afford to keep it intact. mtmuley

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I agree with you and disagree with EJ's position.
However, you missed a key phrase in this minor debate between you and me. The phrase "or threatened" likely means something different for EJ than for you or me. From context, it seems to mean status not up to ESA protections but yet "threatened". Anyhow, EJ does make this distinction with regard to trophy hunting.

Yeah, "threatened" likely applies to any creature they dont want you to hunt. It's "threatened" by someone having a tag for it..

I've largely been on the Pro APR side of a lot of these discussions but having EJ represent them is a red flag. If folks cant see past the "Trophy hunting" propaganda that is disappointing. If someone shows me where EJ has ever advocated FOR hunting vs always being on the anti side, i'd be open to reconsidering. Until then, APR is being represented by an anti hunting org far as i'm concerned.

Nothing about wolves in MN is "threatened". They've lost 30%+ of the population in extreme northern MN over the last 2 years due to there being insufficient prey (deer) left to sustain them! 20% pup survival rates because of the same. EJ would rather they starve to death and kill each other than have the state raise $ off sustainable hunting.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yeah, "threatened" likely applies to any creature they dont want you to hunt. It's "threatened" by someone having a tag for it..

I've largely been on the Pro APR side of a lot of these discussions but having EJ represent them is a red flag. If folks cant see past the "Trophy hunting" propaganda that is disappointing. If someone shows me where EJ has ever advocated FOR hunting vs always being on the anti side, i'd be open to reconsidering. Until then, APR is being represented by an anti hunting org far as i'm concerned.

Nothing about wolves in MN is "threatened". They've lost 30%+ of the population in extreme northern MN over the last 2 years due to there being insufficient prey (deer) left to sustain them! 20% pup survival rates because of the same. EJ would rather they starve to death and kill each other than have the state raise $ off sustainable hunting.
View attachment 401952

I liken this to needing to hire a lawyer and asking to review for every case the firm has ever been involved in to ensure the firm meets your moral litmus test.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yeah, "threatened" likely applies to any creature they dont want you to hunt. It's "threatened" by someone having a tag for it..

As stated, I do agree "threatened" may mean something different to EJ than to you or me. However, your characterization of the meaning as expressed is a real giant leap to conclusion regarding hunting, a leap not really supported by fact or reasonable analysis.
SAJ-99 makes a valid point in that entities with certain conservation and/or wildlife management goals in common may well be at odds over other goals. In such cases, it seems prudent to employ or accept litigation services of an entity with a history of successful court case outcomes.
Regardless of the association between AP and EJ, IMO it does not warrant opposition to goals, programs, bison grazing on BLM leased land ... and especially public access perpetuated by American Prairie.

 

[Nunjagottam]

I liken this to needing to hire a lawyer and asking to review for every case the firm has ever been involved in to ensure the firm meets your moral litmus test.

Well said, not alot of $ucce$$ful lawyers out there dying on the hill for a cause. They're kinda like lobbyists, but now I'm repeating myself...

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I liken this to needing to hire a lawyer and asking to review for every case the firm has ever been involved in to ensure the firm meets your moral litmus test.

I see what you're saying but something about an activist 501(c)3 non-profit (EJ) strikes me differently than a standard law firm.

I'm sure i align with EJ on a handful of topics. It's just that the only time i recall hearing their name is when they are fighting against hunting.