corndog1
Well-known member
I think you would rather see billionaires buy these ranches and then lease to outfitters. Pretty obvious. APR grants access billionaires do not.
Latest APR. SENT TO me by a friend
- Thread starter Eric Albus
- Start date
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.
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.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!
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,927
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2025
- Messages
- 51
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,927
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.
I'm a curious, has anyone here talked to the ranchers that lease from APR to get their opinion on if AP is legit to their word? I feel like they would have a good understanding of how affective AP has been on their goals and if there is any shadiness going on possibly.
I see a lot of speculation against them and a lot of "well they do this now so they must continue to do it" but I wonder what the ones that directly deal with them think. Do they think AP is taking away the cowboy? Do they back the save the cowboy motives?
I see a lot of speculation against them and a lot of "well they do this now so they must continue to do it" but I wonder what the ones that directly deal with them think. Do they think AP is taking away the cowboy? Do they back the save the cowboy motives?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I wonder also, but surmise that they are pleased to graze their cattle for a fair lease fee and don't wish to enter the controversy with neighbors in UPOM and others.
"SAVE THE COWBOY" is merely a ruse in an attempt to rile up Montana ranchers to oppose AP. That is the "cowboy motive". It has absolutely no connection to AP in real life and certainly not in logic.
It's similar to the conspiracy theory of several years ago when the Upper Missouri National Monument was established and the anti-American Prairie knot heads began a loud campaign in opposition, claiming that the BLM, Corps of Engineers, Dept of Interior, CMR Refuge, and AP were all in cahoots in a secret conspiracy "land grab" to steal ranching land away from Montanans.
