Bowsite.com

American Prairie Reserve (APR)

I did not want to "highjack" another thread, so I created this one.

Serious Question: What makes APR "good" or "bad" for resident (MT) hunters? I don't have a good background on the APR. I cannot claim to be "for" or "against" APR. Please explain in a rational way. Someone on another thread referred to residents who support the APR as idiots. I'm wondering why the reference to being an idiot.

I think many residents are gun shy due to "give an inch take a mile" mentality of the people that want to do this. Just like with the wolves, a few wolves werent going to satisfy them, they wanted a whole stated full of them. the APR is going to be the same thing. They say it is going to be a large area of "wilderness" for the public to use and all species of animals can live in as they did back in the old west. In reality it will be filled with wolves and bears that kill off the prey animals to the point we see in a lot of MT with predators. Also they have hinted shutting off hunting at some point. I would like to see some buffalo in some areas, but that is a tough sell to ranchers that have to maintain fencing, and worry about brucellosis. The whole thing sounds appealing on the surface, but looking at reality in the not too distant future, it would not be good for the hunting opportunities in this area

A little Google searching and one can read about the APR coalition with the tribes to support the role of wolves and griz in the Missouri breaks, including the CMR and surrounding units along the Musselshell river. I could see this coming five years ago when the agreements to allow some hunting was limited to 20 years only. Many hunters took the bait, hook, line and sinker. Not very smart and visionary hunters.

By the way, the APR has, and is, purchasing land adjacent to the areas already colonized by wolves and griz as they spread eastward. The APR is creating a corridor to allow for the "natural" eastward expansion of wolves and griz, therefore no reintroduction necessary. Who cannot see this?

Thank you. Very insightful and constructive statements.

If there is more, keep them coming.

Where are all the hunters who support the APR, would be nice to hear their views on current trends and developments?

With my limited knowledge ... the APR is doing a better job of public relations (PR) in that they do allow hunting on the properties they have acquired (I get that they could at any time stop allowing access to hunt their property). The APR has constructed a camping site, north of the Missouri River (off of Hwy 191, Billings to Malta) that has "message boards" telling folks what they are trying to accomplish (feel good message). Without coming across as an a$$hole, the whole "Save a Cowboy" things makes me shake my head in derision. I do have private property owners who let me hunt (I have built those relationships). Most of these "Cowboys" don't allow me the opportunity to hunt their property. I'm not new to the scene, I am a long-time resident of Montana. I've seen the change and seen the good and the bad (hunters and rancher/farmer). I've encountered my share of rude or disrespectful landowners. Ranchers and farmers could use a little work on their public relations, as well. One of the biggest PR moves would be to allow public hunting. Use this opportunity to educate and build that relationship between the public and farm and ranching community. It takes two to have a relationship. I'm not saying I support the APR, but at this time ... I don't have anything bad to say about them. I'm staying open minded.

I am staying a bit open minded too. However, I believe the long term prospects for the non tribal sportsman are not good in the Missouri Breaks. And, the wolves and bears will make things interesting and less favorable to hunting sportsman. Saving a cowboy has little merit, they have been on the way out for a number of years now, and not because of the APR.

Thanks for having a discussion.

I cannot say I have a view one way or the other on the APR. I’ve hunted on their stuff. I do view them as any other landowner/property owner or prospective landowner. Lots of time new owners buy a place and shut off access. They just have the ability to pay asking price for property and not dicker on price of the property. They offer access. The item I don’t fully understand is how it’s now everyone else’s business to tell the APR what they shouldn’t be allowed to do. Is this a common thing is to tell your neighbor how they should operate their farm/ranch?

I agree, it is their land, they should do what they want with it. And, with all the new hunter technology it never hurts for animals to have more safe zones. This area will become a park, which is fine with me, however I think the thought will make many hunters puke. There is a lot of foreign money being invested here, part of the grand plan.

They just opened the 73 ranch up this fall. https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/american-prairie-opens-9-300-acres-of-new-musselshell-ranch-to-hunters-this-fall/article_5c32ea18-02dc-11ed-b590-939fce72c0fa.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage

Read the fine print, they established a safe zone. Where do you think the elk will be? They threw hunters a bone, with little meat on it. Let's hope it helps the hunters in some fashion.

Again better than shutting the whole place down and not allow any hunting/opportunity?

I agree.

I had the pleasure of hunting 410 for elk last Fall, and sure noticed the opposition to APR. I didn't hunt any APR land (needed reservations on a tiny BMA we drove through a few times). So I've got mixed feelings. I am not so worried about them buying land and using it primarily for wildlife, however I didn't like some of the grazing exemptions they got from BLM that would never have been given to a cattle rancher. I fail to understand how removing management on public lands with grazing rights is good management.

I will say hunting out there without much worry about bears was a bonus. Never saw any bear sign, let alone Griz. Will this grand wildlife corridor be a good idea? Probably not. I can foresee every rural homestead being surrounded by electric fence, with those nice drive across electric pads instead of cattle guards coming. But regarding their purchase of land, and what they do with it, as long as they allow access to hunters I can't really complain. If all these "safe zones" just amounts to harboring elk, well then they are part of the problem and will effect both hunters and neighbors.

Would I be wrong in guessing that most of the land they have purchased was mostly closed to public hunting?

I would guess you are correct. It is nice they are ever increasing safe zones, wildlife need a break from hunter pressure. Removing roads to make access more remote also helps to provide some relief for wildlife, the APR does a good job here. Hunters can still access, but it keeps the country more wild and peaceful. Basically, it sets up a more controlled and policed hunting experience, I support that.

SBH, yes closed to public hunting but most are outfitted

Interesting if I’m not mistaken the R’s are the ones who made sure to classify bison as livestock in the state and are now the ones outspoken about the decision/idea now.

Interesting article that was published in a local newspaper opposing APR. One big financial difference is their non-profit status. They pay property taxes but are not paying income tax when they "buy out" ranching families. These small communities will actually see a decline in tax revenue.

The gestures are nice to allow some limited, scheduled hunting. They can easily stop hunting down the road with plenty of "ammo" to do so. All they have to say is "hey we tried and folks are littering, leaving gates open, not respecting the rules, disturbing the bison etc...."

The average American is passionately drawn to nature. Perhaps it is the influence of the genes of their distant ancestors, who fled overpopulated Europe and mastered the nearly virgin continent. It is much more likely that the impossibility of permanently living in the sprawling centers of urbanization and industrialization pushes Americans to go out into nature. About 350 million North Americans visit U.S. and Canadian national parks every year. More than 40 million people a year purchase permits for sport hunting and fishing. One out of every five men on the continent over the age of 18 is an angler or hunter; add to this the significant number of women and teenagers who also enjoy these recreational activities. Even among our employees, who are far from hunting and who perform online paper writing services at https://writemypapers4me.net/essay-writing-service/ every day, there are many who have been out hunting at least once a year. Tens of millions of people spend many days observing, tracking, and photographing wild animals, especially birds.

the head of the APR will be on 60 minutes this Sunday night (tonight) at 6pm CBS

roughneck if you think all ranchers in Montana are honest when it comes to taxes . your truly. clueless whole lot of them cook the books when it comes to their income taxes the wilks brothers and the turner ranch are 2 of the biggest Montana's governor has a math problem when it comes to his income taxes also ranchers are just claiming that about apr to keep people distracted so you don't see them slipping their accountant a second set of financial records

Many landowners, and ranchers, like the APR. Selling to the APR, or groups like them, may be their end game and big payday. The " save a cowboy " group in most of the west is baseless and in the minority. The cowboy era is already about over.

Missouri with the drought wild fires and the real estate prices in Montana going through the roof the last 4 yrs now would be a great time for them to sell

Register here to reply to this topic