Contributors to this thread:
Montana "International" Park????
With all the BLM going into the American Prairie Reserve (APR) for bison (and eventually wolves), one wonders how many elk and deer tags will be allowed in the Park, once it develops? Lots of hunters supported the APR ( and on this forum), good hunting to all.
"The goal of these international millionaires is to convert Eastern Montana into an American Serengeti and will convince the federal government to declare it an International Park controlled by the United Nations,” wrote Ed Butcher, a former Winifred state legislator, in a Jan. 23 guest opinion.
learned a new word "fladry", other than that nothing was said about hunting.
There is always a catch to fairytale ideas.
Controlled By the UN?!! That’s just Crap. I am not for allowing them controlling a toilet bowl in our country. That has to be one of the stupidest ideas conceived. If you want something totally screwed up get the UN involved.
This is what the Poppers' (Princeton professors) dreamed of in their 1980's essay, "Buffalo Commons". People in the west thought they were insane. It's coming true.
Many of the Montana hunters on this very forum support the APR, see past posts. They called the park believers conspiracists. Hard to believe hunters are so naive as to how politics and park creators actually work. Hunters were, and are being sold a bill of goods. They took it...hook, line and sinker. Too late now.
Some of you are getting your panties in a wad prematurely. Who said "all the BLM is going into the American Prairie Reserve"? The APR is a private land acquisition effort to buy ranch land up for sale. Apparently last year there were 10 bison hunting tags offered. It seems to me that if ranchers want to retire/sell out, that selling their land to the APR could be a better alternative than to sell the property to someone else who will prohibit hunting and cow out the land. I'd encourage looking up information on APR on their website or even Wikipedia before passing judgment on this.
All of the BLM will not go into bison grasslands, but thousands, perhaps millions of acres will and already are. Long term, when is the last time hunters hunted in any numbers in National Parks? The short term promises all are renegotiated if one reads the fine print when ranches are sold. There is nothing wrong with purchasing private ranches, but the promises of ongoing hunting of deer and elk is a farce, all have expiring deadlines. Hunting of deer, elk and antelope simply does not happen in any numbers in National Parks, wolves, bears, disease and famine are chosen to take care of populations.
If the UN somehow heads this up I don't need to look it up, it will be a disaster. As long as it is under US control I see it as a positive.
Parks are not a bad thing. However, this entire forum is plastered with posts that state the biggest threat and detriment to hunting is loss of places to hunt. If this is true, how can hunters ask for millions of public BLM, State and potential private land access(block) to go bye bye over the next twenty years? Read the fine print in the hunting promises. Hint... there are no promises, simply limited time offers.
Look what they did here in Ca with the coast line. They set up protected zones where you can’t take anything out of. They say these protected zones will have a spillover affect making the unrestricted zones better fishing. I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop and they do that with hunting access. The big problem with this approach is they will take the best habitat areas and make them off limits. If it’s sheep they are after to protect they will take mountain areas where they currently are and then say you can hunt sheep in all the valleys and prairies. What business do people from other countries telling us how to manage anything here especially countries that don’t use toilet paper or know what deodorants for?
That`s nothing DL....look at what is happening in the UN`s Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 areas of California. These areas are set to be "uninhabited areas" of California as designated by the UN. Strange how all the recent "mega fires" have occurred in this certain area.
Watch out Montana.
I must be missing something. I've not studied up on any of this, but the article indicates that "International Park" and "UN" statements are both quotes from some old legislator's opinion piece. Are there any facts behind that opinion, or is someone ranting wildly because they're pissed that a private outfit is buying up ranches. Where does it say that they have any ability to take control of BLM, unless you're talking land locked BLM that private ranchers won't allow access to either?
You may well be correct, but the linked article is an opinion piece itself. Is there more info out there that includes facts and details?
The UN conspiring to create world-parks in the US... I thought I'd heard it all...
If it's printed on the internet, it's gotta be true.
Give me a friggen break.
Guess what guys? I'm trying to take over the world. True story. How do you like my chances?
Hell, Idyll, I would just need to a day, a week at most and could fix 99% of the US’s problems! When you get elected, give me a shout:-)
Hunted mule deer on the APR this past fall. Their land is in far better shape than when the cattle grazed it to the dirt, something told to me by a guy who had been hunting the area 18 years.
A great deal of BLM and forest land that had been locked out by the ranchers is now open to hunting.
They have never convinced Montana legisltors to buy into turning the CMR into a park and they sure won't succeed with doing so on the APR.
One of the thing I enjoy about this site is all the posters who love any conspiracy that comes up.
A few points to consider before I contact Pat about trying to be a sponsor with my new camouflage tin foil hat company. 1. This is an organization buying private land from willing sellers. Private property rights defend what they want to do on their land the same as it does for anyone else. If a bunch of Bowsiters want to go together and put up a bunch of money and buy ranches for hunting, they could do the same thing.
2. The BLM that is reference as being bought is the grazing leases, not the property itself. Public ownership and public usage for hunting, hiking, etc. remains.
3. APR can allow or disallow hunting on their private property according to whatever whim they decide, same as the ranchers that owned it before them. They have no say on legally accessible BLM land.
4. I think the best scenario if for a bunch of guys from Bowsite to get together and buy as much land as possible adjacent to APR. That way we could help them stock the bison and ensure that there are always huntable free ranging bison in the west. It would also make a great base of resistance for when the UN takes over APR and implements it's international schemes upon humanity. :)
I am going to fly into my bison hunt with a black helicopter.
The wilkes brothers buy up hundreds of thousands of acres, they gate it up and maybe best case scenario they sell some hunts that maybe about 5% of hunting population can afford. And the response is that's the American way!. It is their land and they rightly can do what they want with it.. The APR buys land and they open it up to public hunting and the response is that they are Seditious bastards who are selling our Sovereignty. I sometimes wonder if this place is for real.
"3. APR can allow or disallow hunting on their private property according to whatever whim they decide, same as the ranchers that owned it before them. They have no say on legally accessible BLM land."
And they're allowing public hunting. Which is probably the exact opposite policy of the ranchers from whom they purchased the property.
"And they're allowing public hunting. Which is probably the exact opposite policy of the ranchers from whom they purchased the property." True this. ^^^^
My point is that even if this current practice is only to maintain good will and changes in the future, it's their right to do so, just like it's my right to dictate who I let hunt on my ten acres. Does anyone else think it a bit ironic that United Property Owners of Montana, a supposed private property rights group founded to protect the interests of private landowners that ranch, are the most opposed to another private landowner doing what is with their rights on their land.
Are you guys saying the new park will be limited to private land only and not include millions of acres of BLM and State lands? How many deer, elk, antelope and trapping permits will be allowed among the wolves, bison and bears in a drawing to hunt in a National or International Park? It is not the private ranches that are the concern, they have always been private. I wish all of you and the future generations well in your hunting adventures, there will be less opportunity in the breaks in areas such as GMU 410. The selling landowners get the sweet deal, the public land hunters will have even less public land to hunt.
It's all laid out fairly well in this episode of meateater.
It is all spelled out,.... if you want less future hunting opportunity and to financially support the ranchers selling area private lands, donate now to the the APR. Everyone will love you, especially the liberals, foreign tourists, anti hunters, and even the bison and wolves.
I really don't know where I stand on this one. I really enjoy listening to the MeatEater podcasts and force my wife to listen along when we're on road trips (for the most part she enjoys them also :)). After listening to the episode Huntskifishcook posted she looked at me and said she felt like she'd just got done listening to an infomercial, I kinda felt the same. Seemed weird the guy wouldn't answer the question about future hunting on the property. Time will tell...
In every meeting they have dodged the "future of hunting" issue. All hunting is very temporary to sooth the soul. When is the last time any of you have drawn a tag to hunt elk, deer and antelope in a National Park?
Where is it stated that anything is becoming a national park? Also, where is it stated that they have any control over any BLM other than access to land locked BLM same as any other private landowner? Is there something other than an opinion piece that somehow extrapolates some info into a UN international park?
I don't particularly like any private landowner being able to block access to public land. But....just the mention of a UN international park makes the article you've posted into a "sky is falling" post.
Simply linking an article as read in the Billings Gazette. There is enough Koolaid for everyone. We will know more in a few years. No matter what, it is already too late. Good hunting from your tour bus!
I know Cole Mannix (quoted in the Billings Gazette article), and will have some questions for him. But I believe he probably already answered me: "Oftentimes the conflict voice is what’s heard in the press, but there are so many efforts to proactively figure this out that are not heard" And his last quote: "Private land staying intact is critically important." sure doesn't seem like there are any plans for an International Park run by the UN. I know Cole and his family, and they are very steadfast about hunting and providing hunting opportunity to those who respectfully ask and treat their land with respect. So at this point I find it hard to believe in some International Park, BLM land being sold to the preserve, and hunting privileges going away.
"Guess what guys? I'm trying to take over the world. True story. How do you like my chances?"
Ike in 2020! You've got my vote...
I agree with Missouri Breaks, It is done. I don't believe I will live long enough to see it but my grandchildren will. There plan involves the acquisition of many private parcels. That will take time. They already have the money. I believe they will use almost any means necessary to accomplish there plan. Hunting and public use will eventually go away. I have been blessed to own a place in this country over the last 20 years. I spend a good part of the fall there and have developed some great friendships. I have only met one person from there that is in favor of the A.P.R. . Some of my favorite hunting memories are on land that is now owned by them. I have friends that sold there ranch to them and later questioned whether they did the right thing. Form your own opinion. What would you do if this was happening in your backyard?
When Ike becomes king, I'm going to run for vice king.
Want to be King of Vice.
This is a letter that one of the largest ranchers to sell to APR posted for his reasons why they made their ultimate decision: Their family were basque homesteaders in northeast Montana. He gives a nice history lesson on that part of the Missouri breaks country. I grew up there and didn't know some of this timeline history. They had always been pretty good about letting folks hunt their land since I was a kid.
Steve Page: Why We Sold the South Ranch
8/29/2012 6:05:00 AM/Categories: General News, Livestock, Grain Markets
The following letter, written by Steve Page, was sent to Voices of Montana Host Aaron Flint. It outlines the decision that went into selling their "South Ranch" to the American Prairie. For more information on the sale, please read "Page Whitham Sells Ranch to American Prairie."
South Ranch Sale by Steve Page
Page Whitham Land and Cattle, a Montana Partnership leased, with an option to purchase, the Etchart Ranch in 1981, and executed the purchase option in 1992. The Etchart Ranch was established in 1912 by John Etchart, a Basque emigrant. The ranch grew to become one of the largest livestock (cattle and sheep) operations in the State of Montana and included about 3000 acres of farmland and pasture in the Milk River Valley near Tampico, plus 197,000 acres of rangeland and dry farm in southern Valley County, bordered on the west by the Phillips Co. line and the south and east by the Missouri River (Ft. Peck Lake). The “South Ranch” is 10% deeded and 90% Public Land (Federal and State). Additionally, the Etchart Ranch included a large range unit in North Valley County adjacent to the Glasgow Air Base and Ft. Peck Indian Reservation. This ranch was sold in 1978.
Page Whitham Land and Cattle recently sold the “South Ranch” to the American Prairie Reserve with a long-term lease-back and intention of operating the ranch in traditional manner, well into the future.
There has been considerable community “buzz” in recent months regarding the rumor of this transaction, and we will attempt to explain the rationale associated with our decision to sell the South Ranch.
The Etchart Ranch and later, Page Whitham have dealt with numerous land-use issues over a long period of time and we have concluded that traditional ranching operations on public land in South Valley and South Phillips counties are in jeopardy of becoming history in the not so distant future.
Although volumes can be written, I will attempt to summarize the history of the ranch and demonstrate a timeline of significant land-use issues and events leading to our conclusion:
Following the Civil War, two war veterans; Henry Carpenter and Lemuel Gibson set up camp in southern Valley County and hunted buffalo professionally, until the specie was extricated from the area. Being very familiar with the landscape, Carpenter and Gibson deeded numerous small tracts of land with the best surface water in the area, using Civil War Script and homesteading privileges. The two established a sheep ranching partnership and controlled a huge area of open range by virtue of the ownership and management of their water resources.
John Etchart came to South Valley County in 1911 and purchased a small holding on the head of Willow Creek and established the Etchart Ranch. Over time, numerous small homesteads and the Carpenter and Gibson holdings were acquired which now represent the South Ranch.
At the turn of the century, all of the Public Domain represented “free grass” on open range and the size of an operation depended largely on winter feed base, water rights, hard work, business skill, and conservative management of the resource, often times under adverse conditions. During this time, John Etchart purchased land and developed hay farms on the Missouri River bottom lands, allowing him to expand his summer grazing program.
The Taylor Grazing Act was established in 1934 to stabilize the Western Livestock Industry on public lands and provided summer grazing allotments to existing livestock operators based on their ability to feed and care for their animals during winter months. This act established the U.S. Grazing Service, later becoming the Bureau of Land Management, to administer the new federal regulations, resulting in orderly and vastly improved land management.
In 1936, President Roosevelt, by executive order established the Ft. Peck Game Range surrounding the future Ft. Peck Reservoir. This action reduced the allocation of forage for livestock by about 40% for the purpose of providing additional habitat for Sharp tailed Grouse and Pronghorn Antelope. About 40,000 acres of the traditional Etchart Ranch grazing allotment including 4000 acres of deeded land was within the boundary of the Game Range.
During this same era, the Ft. Peck Dam Project was authorized and all of the Missouri River bottom lands were condemned, purchased for a fraction of value, and later flooded by the lake, leaving most of South Valley County ranches without adequate feed base to meet the qualifications for existing grazing allotments. As the result, Etchart Ranch and others acquired irrigated lands on the Milk River and converted large acreages of rangeland into crop production to maintain commensurability with grazing allotments.
In 1963, President Kennedy changed the name of the Ft. Peck Game Range to Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range and in 1978, by “Act of Congress”; it was designated as the CMR National Wildlife Refuge and was transferred to the USFWS for administration under the National Wildlife Refuge Act.
In 1984, the USFWS completed an Environmental Impact Statement which determined existing levels of livestock grazing incompatible with the goals of the CMR and the grazing allotment was further reduced by 40%. The season of use was restricted to pre-growing-season grazing, transferability of the grazing permit was eliminated, and the grazing fee was increased over time from a base rate of $1.35 per month for a cow and calf to the current fee of $23.28.
Bottom line; we bought and paid for a grazing allotment, funded considerable investment in range improvements, participated in development of habitat friendly rotational grazing systems, spent a lot of money in litigation to protect our rights, lost in Federal Court, and have lost considerable property and property value.
We no longer hold a grazing permit on the CMR
Southern Valley and Phillips Counties represent the single largest contiguous block of public land in the State of Montana and may be considered by the Department of Interior for designation as a National Monument. The area has been described as a last holdout for Sage Grouse, and has been restricted from oil and gas exploration and surface disturbance, essentially locking up the possibility of exploration and development of minerals on intermingled private lands. Additional Wilderness Study Areas and Areas of Critical Environment Concern are being proposed, and Bison management plans are being written.
Coupled with the huge increase in grazing fees on State Land and the uncertainty associated with future Public Land Policy and grazing fees, the economic value of a high percentage public land ranch is being diminished.
We feel that our South Ranch no longer provides viable opportunity for future ranching generations and it is not without emotion that we have chosen to sell to a conservation organization willing to pay fair-market-value for this property, yet allow us to operate it as a cattle ranch for an extended period of time.
We are not suggesting this to be the correct decision for others, but consider it to be right for us.
In terms of public use of the ranch, nothing will change. The private fee title lands are encumbered by a perpetual FWP conservation easement funded by sportsmen, and the South Ranch, in addition to our other lands, remains accessible to the general public for hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor activities.
The Page and Whitham families intend to remain in the cattle business, continue in this community as good neighbors, and contribute to a prosperous future for Valley County and the State of Montana.
We also feel a great deal of gratitude and obligation toward our valued employees who can count on us to provide secure employment and benefits for many years to come, as we anticipate no change in our business plan well into the future. Steve Page
Source: Steve Page Posted by Haylie Shipp
It is a sweet deal for the ranchers who sell. The APR has a longer term plan, hunting will end over a 20 year period, read the fine print in their contracts. They have set term limits on rancher grazing and hunting. I expect the park creation to slowly develop over the next decade or so as the land reverts to bison and predators such as wolves. Smartly, the organizing groups are working in tandem. They have a longer term plan than most hunters and the ranchers are aging out, the next generation will face the consequences. Not all bad, but there will be a few million less acres (private and public) open to hunting, trapping and general recreation. Not something I would wish for the next generation.
Is Qanon your source ...? ^^
I hope you're wrong MB. I'll have to check out the Meateater podcast and do more research. Personally, a few ranches being purchased to increase bison habitat (so long as they're huntable) is not a bad thing seeing as there used to be 30 million of them and they used to range over a large percentage of the country. It's unfortunate that they now inhabit tiny pockets of this country due to the loss of wild places and their incompatibility with cohabitation with cattle.
I've been across the west dozens of times - there are no shortage of cattle ranches or the ranching way of life. The biggest risk to that way of life and habitat is increasing human population and migration with the subdividing of ranches into 40 acre ranchettes to retired urbanites who a generation later, subdivide those 40 acre parcels into 1/4 acre parcels for tract homes. This is what has happened everywhere in the west and it represents a much greater risk to the West than some people who want to preserve wild lands.
Nonetheless, pinning this as some kind of UN land take over of sovereign USA ground just pushes it into the realms of the unbelievable. While I wouldn't doubt that US-based antihunters or non-hunter preservationists would buy up land and lock out hunters, pimping the UN into this development just wreaks of Bundyesque paranoia and that loses audiences because of it's wreaking unbelievability.
What is the APR going to do to prevent all these Bison from going onto the neighboring ranches, ask yourself this question. Is the APR going to build a fence ( 8 feet high) like the National Bison Range near Missoula, I will bet not. I was raised and went to school in Lewistown and I can say this there will be a lot of dead bison when they leave the APR lands.
Anyone got a map of said area?
I want to buy 10 acres smack dab in the middle of that thing....best hunting ranch in merica!
It looks not a bad deal. But, need lots of research on it. Because you don't know their catches. You should not throw your valuable money to the toilet
without knowing the legal advice.
Bendare, I’m completely off topic. But. Speaking of buying potential good elk land. Down in south central CO was the Spring Fire last summer. It was over grown from years of fire suppression. Dog hair Doug fir is now gone. This is just north of some of the best Elk hunting ranches in CO. Burnt land is selling for 1/3 of previous value. Loggers are asking to clear the burnt trees for free lumber. When that area regenerates a few years from now it will be an elk haven. Some of it is the Forbes Park ranch which was a no hunting ranch. But next door are large hunting ranches at very affordable prices. A few acres for $3-4K and 40 acres for 30-60k for the non burned parcels.