American Prairie Preserve

Retired Educator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
3,226
Likes
183
Points
273
Location
North Dakota
In some ways this is not a lot different than DU in that it goes directly to the ideology of a few controlling the funds as to what is or what is not allowed on these lands.

https://www.americanprairie.org/profiles/board-directors

Now many of these people look like avid hunters? Do a bit of research into the background of their "causes".

Remember here these will be privately owned lands that once enough has been purchased to satisfy their goals, management plans including hunting and public access can be limited or ended completely. So one needs to look beyond the public affairs statements as to where and who the funding is coming from. I would have to look again to be sure, but in the case of this preserve, a great deal of the funding (and influence) comes from outside this country. Combine that with some of the ideologies of the family trusts funding it and it may not be all that it is being made out to be as it relates to public hunting.

"Well-known business people from across the country have bought into the vision of saving America's prairie and are backing it with big donations with contributions coming from individuals and foundations in all 50 states, including Montana, in addition to 12 countries."

It will be interesting to see how the BLM "works" with this entity given what thy are trying to do and given the BLM's history of limiting grazing for cattle and sheep.

A public, 13,075-acre grazing allotment owned by the Bureau of Land Management, called Flat Creek, was tied to the Holzey ranch purchase and is now leased by APR. APR has applied to change the class of livestock so bison can graze on the Flat Creek Allotment. It's also seeking a change to year-round grazing from the current May 1-to-Nov. 15 season. The requests have spurred comments from 140 people, with 95 opposed to the changes, which is an unusually high number of comments for a grazing allotment change, BLM spokesman Jonathan Moor said.

I did take the time to read their brochure. Didn't see the word "hunting" used. Looked at the leadership, Didn't look like many hunters, based on their background. Looked at the Scientific Leadership, all from colleges and not one listed as specializing in Wildlife Management. Looked at the home office address. Made me wonder why their offices are in Bozeman. That's a long drive from the APR acreage.

I'm not against providing more habitat for wildlife but this certainly doesn't seem like a group worried about preserving habitat for wildlife. Nor did it appear to be hunter friendly.

Do they pay taxes? Don't know but do know that there are a lot of non-profits that don't pay taxes and then those expenses fall back to the rest of the community to pay. The whole situation leaves kind of a bad taste in my mouth. It's everybody's choice but they won't be receiving a donation from me.

I just went back and checked their financials. There is no mention of paying any taxes other than payroll taxes.
 
Last edited:


Account Deleted

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
4,641
Likes
50
Points
246
You’re not going to convince me otherwise Gabe. I know how you operate and this is as far as I’m going to take the conversation with you.
 

Account Deleted

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
4,641
Likes
50
Points
246
What about it Zogman? I get completely different vibe about it than retired educator and that’s ok. Yes, non-profits don’t pay taxes. So is the NRA which I know you support. It was private land, its still private land. They didn’t set out to provide a haven for hunters, though they still allow for it in a limited fashion, they set out to make a large haven for wildlife.

Youve beem around the block a time or two. You probably remember some places you used to see, hunt, fish or whatever that no longer exist. What would you give just to know they were back? I’m not saying dump your life savings into a donation. I’m just saying it’s a cool idea.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
You’re not going to convince me otherwise Gabe. I know how you operate and this is as far as I’m going to take the conversation with you.

So how exactly do I "operate"?

I share links and facts so people can make up their own minds based on fact and truth. You certainly can make up yours based on whatever you wish.
 


SDMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,908
Likes
620
Points
438
Here's my take simply by looking at their map and not reading anything else on their site:

APP is buying some of the least expensive $/Acre land in the country in one of the most sparsely populated areas of the country. I predict their goal is twofold.

1. Obtain as much land as they are able to while remaining "under the radar" because there aren't enough people who live/visit the area to get the word out.

2. Use that land to establish precedence favorable to their goals, again because there isn't enough local population or $$ to oppose them.

Knowing a little bit about the area they're in, the APP is buying private islands in an ocean of public land. That doesn't sound bad, but, those private islands often contain the only access roads to 10's of thousands of acres of public. Looks to me like based on their map and just a little bit of looking, they could easily shut off access to ~50mi worth of the CMR from the North. Access to where the Musselshell dumps into the Missouri could also be denied as the only road down to the lake comes in from the West across ground they currently own and/or lease.

Introduce a few Brucellosis carrying Bison to the area, ranchers can't sell their cattle, lots more land gets even cheaper.

I'll pass on donating to them.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,238
Likes
1,966
Points
648
Location
Mobridge,Sd
Not allowing predator hunting is a big no go on any support for me. It says non profit some one some where is making bank on peoples money that they dont have to pay taxes on

- - - Updated - - -

What about it Zogman? I get completely different vibe about it than retired educator and that’s ok. Yes, non-profits don’t pay taxes. So is the NRA which I know you support. It was private land, its still private land. They didn’t set out to provide a haven for hunters, though they still allow for it in a limited fashion, they set out to make a large haven for wildlife.

Youve beem around the block a time or two. You probably remember some places you used to see, hunt, fish or whatever that no longer exist. What would you give just to know they were back? I’m not saying dump your life savings into a donation. I’m just saying it’s a cool idea.


In reality i am seeing more places to hunt and fish down here with the walk in program and the farmers and ranchers are doing more and more for conservation.
 

Account Deleted

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
4,641
Likes
50
Points
246
Maybe it’s a long con. Maybe it’s not. I want to believe that some well minded individuals got together and said let’s do something grand. Maybe that’s naive. I dunno. If that’s not the case though, I still think it’s neat.
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
66
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
I have no idea who this company is or what their motivations are but they remind me a lot of just a smaller baby version of The Nature Conservancy. Those of you who have never bumped into at The Nature Conservancythey own a shift tonight of land in like 40 states and including some big chunks in North Dakota including this one I showed here Northeast of Bismarck and they are pretty good at letting people go on and hunt. They actually own a big chunk of bottom grounds between Washburn and Cross Ranch State Park that they allow at least bow hunting in I believe so as of yet they haven't given me a reason to have a bad impression of them even though they seem bunny hugger like. Hell the stuff on this map between them and DU's coteau ranch they are about the only nonleased land around and to the east of that spot.

Screenshot_20180111-075311.jpg
 

SDMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,908
Likes
620
Points
438
Maybe it’s a long con. Maybe it’s not. I want to believe that some well minded individuals got together and said let’s do something grand. Maybe that’s naive. I dunno. If that’s not the case though, I still think it’s neat.

Here's a snippet from their "Building the Reserve" page on their site:

Impact on Leases in the C.M.R. National Wildlife Refuge
American Prairie Reserve’s acquisitions have also resulted in the retirement of 63,777 acres of cattle grazing leases in the neighboring Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Some ranches purchased by the Reserve historically held grazing privileges on the refuge that do not transfer to new owners, meaning that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can now restore the habitat primarily for wildlife use.

So, the CMR, made famous by artwork often featuring cattle is having almost 64,000 acres shut down to cattle grazing.

Read the Bio's on the board of directors, with the exception of 1 person who grew up in MT, the rest are absentee landowners or don't own land at all in the area. Even the 1 MT resident they have on the board lives 5-6hrs from the APR.
 


KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
The more I read about this project, the more I wish I had a couple million to buy a couple stretches of land to put a few pins in this balloon by building roads and providing permanent access to the public lands. I'm convinced now this is nothing but eyewash for the anti-hunting movement. The block management and easements are temporary concessions that will be yanked upon reaching their objectives. The restrictions currently in place and those restrictions projected to be implemented by this group are deeply concerning. Hope the MT folks can put he kibosh on this deal. Sorry Ghost, but I don't see this as benefiting anyone in the sporting community. Especially the youngsters coming up that will need a place to hunt. The money trail leads to some nefarious individuals and organizations that have a pronounced history of anti-hunting activities and leanings. I also looked into the 2nd amendment attitudes of several individuals and organizations involved here and was NOT impressed. I, like you, would rather these folks truly want to preserve and conserve wildlife and create a wild place where folks could go an hunt, observe, photograph, and otherwise use and enjoy the land, but I fear a deeper political agenda here that has very little to do with wildlife and more to do with creating a no-go zone for the public under the guise of wildlife conservation.
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,326
Likes
680
Points
443
Location
Drifting the high plains
Ghost I think the no tax is an empty argument. If there are no people living on the land there are no children to educate, so no taxes needed for that. If there are no people living on the land their is no need for tax money going for roads. If there are no people with no houses on the land their is no need to support the fire department. If there are no people living on the land their is no need for them to pay taxes. If 36 sections of land need X amount of money to support these things and someone buys 18 sections and pays no taxes the tax rate for individuals on the remaining 18 sections should stay the same. It's an empty argument.

As far as the APP I have some reservations, but I believe the average person who can't afford to pay $3000 to hunt deer will be able to hunt this land longer with APP ownership than private ownership. Sure they will let their friends on, but others will pay. The whole country is fast turning to pay to play/hunt. Texas was the first, but when it starts it expands like a fire.

I am uneasy about who donates. However, like mentioned the Nature Conservancy hasn't gone out and stopped hunting as predicted years ago. Every time a conservation organization gets going on a project there are always those who will tell you the sky is falling. Some are simply very suspicious which I totally understand, while others don't want competition which is supposed to be the American way. They like competition for everyone but themselves.
 

Account Deleted

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
4,641
Likes
50
Points
246
I see where you’re coming from K, SDMF. Your concerns concern me too. It bears keeping an eye on.
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City

LBrandt

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Posts
10,828
Likes
1,382
Points
498
Location
SE ND
If it gets bad enough we will have to bring back Robbin Hood.:;:cheers And his merry men.
 


ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,777
Likes
112
Points
258
I really want to jump into the convo here but its hard knowing we are headed down the same familiar path we always do. You either support conservation or your dont. If you do, it takes acres to do it. I agree with willing sellers and willing buyers. You are either capitalistic and against govt control or you aren't. If people are willing to pay for it and pool private funds and a owner wants to sell, who are we as neighbors to tell them no?

The problem is "conservation" means different things to different people. GST thinks the practices he implements are conservation in a working landscape. And he is right as I am sure he does responsible things as a landowner. Lots of them do. But lots of others dont....

Another person may see "conservation" as Ghost does. Conserving and appreciating a parcel of ground for what it is what before human interference. Preserving to the best of our ability the wildness it once held and the species that lived there. I think to preserve these places they need to be managed and have multiple use agreements. Its the only way to have support and not have them plowed up or altered. Once "native" is gone, its gone and ain't coming back. We can attempt to restore but its never the same. There are species that used to live in the prairie, that are now gone. And new species have taken there place in some instances. To the comments about the refuge in ND and trees and wildlife needing trees. ND never had much for trees until settlement and modern farming practices allowed deer and pheasants to take hold in the open prairie. They couldnt survive. So do we manage to preserve these game species or the natural habitats that came before them?

Different strokes for different folks. There is no reason we can't all spend money on the areas we feel passionate about. Our own land. Or with an organization that works on projects we care about.

I guess my thoughts on this preserve are, landowners know what they are getting into and choose to sell. Its on them and all of their neighbors and descendants. They live with that decision and its their right to make it. And the prairie preserve isn't IRAN. Its an american company formed under our current laws. If they shouldnt exist, then change the law. Its how we operate in this country.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
Ghost I think the no tax is an empty argument. If there are no people living on the land there are no children to educate, so no taxes needed for that. If there are no people living on the land their is no need for tax money going for roads. If there are no people with no houses on the land their is no need to support the fire department. If there are no people living on the land their is no need for them to pay taxes. If 36 sections of land need X amount of money to support these things and someone buys 18 sections and pays no taxes the tax rate for individuals on the remaining 18 sections should stay the same. It's an empty argument.

As far as the APP I have some reservations, but I believe the average person who can't afford to pay $3000 to hunt deer will be able to hunt this land longer with APP ownership than private ownership. Sure they will let their friends on, but others will pay. The whole country is fast turning to pay to play/hunt. Texas was the first, but when it starts it expands like a fire.

I am uneasy about who donates. However, like mentioned the Nature Conservancy hasn't gone out and stopped hunting as predicted years ago. Every time a conservation organization gets going on a project there are always those who will tell you the sky is falling. Some are simply very suspicious which I totally understand, while others don't want competition which is supposed to be the American way. They like competition for everyone but themselves.

Ah yes the Buffalo Commons ideology...........There actually ARE people living in these areas, just not stacked on top of each other demanding lands be taken for golf courses and shopping and rec centers.

I have a question for you plainsman what exactly is the number of people living in a county before their expectations of community and property rights are rolled over by your ideals?

[h=3]The Nature Conservancy cuts local WI school revenues[/h]

The Nature Conservancy announced that it will stop paying taxes on the land it owns in some rural communities- taxes that local government use to fund schools, roads and other critical local services.

Rural communities that are locates in areas where The nature Conservancy is the largest landowner know that they cannot financially survive without TNCs support, so this could be the beginning of the end of these communities. We suppose that after some years of struggle these communities will deteriorate financially, people will move out, foreclosures will increase, and property values will fall.

But have no fear, once the communities start to look like ghost towns then The Nature Conservancy will be there to buy up the remaining properties from the former residents for at pennies on the former dollar value and then sell this land back to the state's taxpayers at a big profit.

http://www.wiscnews.com/bnr/news/432811


- - - Updated - - -

I really want to jump into the convo here but its hard knowing we are headed down the same familiar path we always do. You either support conservation or your dont. If you do, it takes acres to do it. I agree with willing sellers and willing buyers. You are either capitalistic and against govt control or you aren't. If people are willing to pay for it and pool private funds and a owner wants to sell, who are we as neighbors to tell them no?

Different strokes for different folks. There is no reason we can't all spend money on the areas we feel passionate about. Our own land. Or with an organization that works on projects we care about.

I guess my thoughts on this preserve are, landowners know what they are getting into and choose to sell. Its on them and all of their neighbors and descendants. They live with that decision and its their right to make it. And the prairie preserve isn't IRAN. Its an american company formed under our current laws. If they shouldnt exist, then change the law. Its how we operate in this country.

Please answer this one question, should your neighbor be able to sell his home next to yours in town so that Shotgun Willies can come in and build a stripper bar right beside yours and your other neighbors homes? I think Shotgun Willies is an American company.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
I have no idea who this company is or what their motivations are but they remind me a lot of just a smaller baby version of The Nature Conservancy. /QUOTE]

[h=3]Paniced municipalities blame The Nature Conservancy[/h]

Only hours after The Nature Conservancy announced that it is reacting to property tax increases by refusing to pay them, local governments are responding by warning of the coming financial problems within their communities. Municipal governments pay for schools, roads and local services through property taxes. In some municipalities The Nature Conservancy is both the largest landowner and the largest taxpayer. If they don't pay their fair share, the community can be financially devastated.

The Nature Conservancy is the world's largest real estate broker with earned revenues and cash reserves that exceed the amounts of most of the nation's largest for-profit businesses.
There is no doubt that The Nature Conservancy could afford to pay its tax bill. Municipal governments do not have the legal authority to force The Nature Conservancy to pay taxes on property it owns so some people are now calling for federal legislation to force The Nature Conservancy to pay.

When private citizens and for-profit companies do not pay their real estate tax bill, the property can be seized and sold at auction in a process known as a "tax sale". This procedure does not currently apply to non-profit corporations like The Nature Conservancy. We support proposed federal legislation that would extend the same procedures to land owned by The Nature Conservancy.

http://www.wiscnews.com/spe/news/432892


- - - Updated - - -

There are some interesting "Rest of the Story" articles out there about the worlds largest land broker and nonprofit holdings company TNC if one looks.

The problem is most people don;t bother to really find the truth behind these orgs. and who is running them and their core ideals. The videos and press releases seem grand and something we should support but when the curtain falls they are often something much different than what was sold to the public.

http://tncscandals.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-10-01T06:01:00-07:00&max-results=7

- - - Updated - - -

Hell the stuff on this map between them and DU's coteau ranch they are about the only nonleased land around and to the east of that spot.

20180922_083059.jpg

Waaaaaait a minute.....I thought DU claimed they weren;t buying and owning lands here in ND a while back when they tried to grab a share of the oil revenues........I thought people claimed the state prevented them from buying and owning lands.........:;:smokin
 

SDMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,908
Likes
620
Points
438
I see where you’re coming from K, SDMF. Your concerns concern me too. It bears keeping an eye on.

State of MT seems to have no problem with public land access being completely blocked by private land. They're going to buy 10's of thousands of acres, and block access to 100's of thousands of acres.

One of the board members states that her and her husband's dream is to see a 10,000 animal herd of free-ranging wild buffalo. THAT has Ted Turner written all over it. I have seen TT buffalo herds positioned to keep elk from leaving his land once they arrive. The coulees and canyons leading to the ranches are emptied. The elk come down during the 1st 3-5 days of hunting season. The buffalo herds are then moved to occupy those same travel routes, coulees, and canyons. Essentially privatizing an elk herd without high fences.

Exhibit A @ ~1:00 in the afternoon during general elk rifle season:

0B1CA3A7-9FF6-4794-B80D-484F5ED26BEE.jpg

9DC19E88-ACEE-4F99-BA2E-940DEFB4221A.jpg

About 1.5Mi above the elk in the 1st pic is a bajillion acres of public land. About .5Mi to the left of the 1st pic is a cedar-filled coulee the elk and deer use as a travel route from the pivot up to the Timothy grass. Once they move the buffalo into the coulee, the elk pretty much stay down on the pivot. Without the buffalo in the coulee, the elk and deer move back and forth daily, mostly on the pivot at night and bedding up in the cedars (on public land) during the day.
 
Last edited:


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 159
  • This month: 133
  • This month: 115
  • This month: 108
  • This month: 103
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 82
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 74
  • This month: 74
Top Bottom