American Prairie Preserve

[guywhofishes]

it's really quite shocking that this thread is headed down a rabbit hole

 

[ndlongshot]

it's really quite shocking that this thread is headed down a rabbit hole

You have my word, i'm done now. Not going to change anyones mind from here on out. Said my .02.

 

[Zogman]

I don't think exposing the background and makeup of these types of organizations is going down a rabbit hole. However skunks have been known to hide in rabbit holes. So maybe we should go down there. JMHO.

 

[lunkerslayer]

I don't think exposing the background and makeup of these types of organizations is going down a rabbit hole. However skunks have been known to hide in rabbit holes. So maybe we should go down there. JMHO.

Zogman being from blue plate country, question do you see a lot of private land rented out exclusively for hunting rights?

 

[gst]

So groups like DU should be able to buy whatever they want then I take it.#$%^&>

So if you have two counties that are the same size but one only has 1/3 as many people and 1/3 as many roads that County still needs the same amount of taxes to maintain its infrastructure?

If they meet the guidelines established by the state for that land usage then the law allows for it.

The counties decide what mills to establish for those purposes do they not? Why do you ask/assume that?

- - - Updated - - -

Stop diverting!

No one is blocking the deal. They can close the deal. The new owner just can't open a stripper house. UNLESS he changes the zoning laws. Stop acting like there isnt another solution. Thats not a "blocked" sale. Its ill-advised from a potential business man to purchase (LEGALLY) knowing that he can't run a certain type of business UNLESS he switches zoning. Again, something that comes back to elections, reps, and voters. You should know a thing or two about those GST. Your the biggest online lobbiest in the state of ND.

A law prevents a willing buyer from buying from a willoing seller because that law prevents what the willing buyer can do with the land. That is not "diverting" is is plain simple truth. "Divert" from that all you want but that is the end result.

- - - Updated - - -

and you need to stop kissing ass.
SDMF organizations like APP can not charge to hunt or they are no longer non profit. .

How then can they "charge" to camp on their property?

https://www.americanprairie.org/kestrel-camp

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-american-prairie-reserve/

A two-night stay at the yurts in Kestrel Camp on the American Prairie Reserve begins at $2,400 per person, including meals.

 

[Account Deleted]

it's really quite shocking that this thread is headed down a rabbit hole

I should have known better.

 

[gst]

it's really quite shocking that this thread is headed down a rabbit hole

Why do people try to "divert" from having an open honest discussion about the back ground behind these orgs such as this or BCH&A or others?

People claim to want to protect hunting for future generations yet distract from the simple facts that are shared relating to groups whos goal is to tie up 3.5 million acres of lands owning and controlling a significant portion of that in "perpetuity" as their site states.

The question has been asked who on this orgs board of directors or the foundations funding this gives one the impression they are avid hunters and no one wants to answer that.....

Start doing some searching and there are many orgs with these goals around......most are NOT favorable to huntings future.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I should have known better.

Yup there is always a couple that will try kill any discussion about conservation. That's their goal.

Kurtr you don't think there are different rules for different people? There shouldn't be. If you own a restaurant try telling a black guy your not going to serve him because he is black and see where that gets you. Not much different than North Dakota passing laws against conservation organizations not purchasing land without permission. Not different than landowners over there in Montana trying to stop the sales. Different rules for different people.

 

[Kurtr]

I should have known better.

Not really. Is it better to have your head in the sand or to find out the facts about stuff so you can make an informed decision. People like to do stuff to feel good or help do thing but in the end if it does more harm is it really good. The idea is good in theory but it is the way it is executed is not. Non profits i will do more harm to wildlife and hunting than any thing elese

- - - Updated - - -

Yup there is always a couple that will try kill any discussion about conservation. That's their goal.

Kurtr you don't think there are different rules for different people? There shouldn't be. If you own a restaurant try telling a black guy your not going to serve him because he is black and see where that gets you. Not much different than North Dakota passing laws against conservation organizations not purchasing land without permission. Not different than landowners over there in Montana trying to stop the sales. Different rules for different people.

You really cant be that dumb to compare that to being a racist it is no where near that. Time to get the meds checked

- - - Updated - - -

you just keep topping your self its rather amazing when you think it cant get any worse but some how you find a way....

 

[gst]

Yup there is always a couple that will try kill any discussion about conservation. That's their goal.
.

;:;banghead

- - - Updated - - -

Kurtr you don't think there are different rules for different people? There shouldn't be. If you own a restaurant try telling a black guy your not going to serve him because he is black and see where that gets you. Not much different than North Dakota passing laws against conservation organizations not purchasing land without permission. Not different than landowners over there in Montana trying to stop the sales. Different rules for different people.

Once again juuuusssst a bit off from what the actual truth is.

- - - Updated - - -

You really cant be that dumb to compare that to being a racist it is no where near that.

For someone that claims ot hate liberals old plains sure seems to embrace their tactics...........

 

[SDMF]

and you need to stop kissing ass.
SDMF organizations like APP can not charge to hunt or they are no longer non profit. I doubt they will change their policy of open to hunting real fast. I fear they may some day. However, if your not local or whip out your wallet (now, but more so in the future) you not getting on private.

There is VERY LITTLE PRIVATE LAND where they're buying/leasing. They're buying/leasing private land that contains access points to enormous tracts of public land and anyone who can read a fuggin' map can very easily see how much public land they could easily turn into an inaccessible island.

Look here:

http://fwp.mt.gov/gis/maps/huntPlanner/?bma=true&region=6

 

[EZZIE]

The APP is nothing but a modern day land baron, the bait is block management to appease the hunter. They are heavily supported by eastern liberals and some big Hollywood dollars. If you think they wont be closing this down to hunting in the future, I have a bridge to sell you. The locals do not want them. The ranches that are sold are way over priced by the new generation that doesn't want to live in the boonies nor farm or ranch. Go out to Phillips county and check it out, see what the locals think. The people in south Phillips county are some of the nicest people you will ever come across. It really is a shame, the APP wants to own the whole county and turn it into a Serengeti with no fences and nothing but buffalo.

 

[PrairieGhost]

There is VERY LITTLE PRIVATE LAND where they're buying/leasing. They're buying/leasing private land that contains access points to enormous tracts of public land and anyone who can read a fuggin' map can very easily see how much public land they could easily turn into an inaccessible island.

Look here:

http://fwp.mt.gov/gis/maps/huntPlanner/?bma=true&region=6

Montana has some foolish laws like no corner hopping. They should have section line laws like we do so people could keep prairie trails open to that public land.

The ranches that are sold are way over priced by the new generation that doesn't want to live in the boonies nor farm or ranch.

So if you were out there and you didn't want to farm or ranch and a local farmer offers you $100 and acre and a conservation offers you $200 who would you sell to? Should your local farmer be able to stop you from selling to the conservation group. Young farmers or people with kids who want to expand hate these conservation groups. People who want to sell not so much hate.

 

[gst]

If people take the time to learn and inform themselves who is behind these "conservation" groups like this one and hundreds if not thousands of others and want to support them ......hey that is your right to do so.

But when some people come on hunting sites like this and claim they are doing so to protect the future of hunting..........that is either uninformed idiocrasy or an out right lie.

When those same people refuse to answer a simple question of who on these orgs boards controlling agendas and funding supports hunting themselves..........it speaks volumes.

- - - Updated - - -

Should your local farmer be able to stop you from selling to the conservation group. e.

Tell us where this happens please. Just one example if you can to substantiate what you post for once.

Just as someone else already spelled out on here it is the representatives of ALL the people of the state that make laws not your "local farmer"........;:;banghead

 

[EZZIE]

Montana has some foolish laws like no corner hopping. They should have section line laws like we do so people could keep prairie trails open to that public land.

So if you were out there and you didn't want to farm or ranch and a local farmer offers you $100 and acre and a conservation offers you $200 who would you sell to? Should your local farmer be able to stop you from selling to the conservation group. Young farmers or people with kids who want to expand hate these conservation groups. People who want to sell not so much hate.[/QUOTE

Nope they should sell for whatever they can get. I had a very good friend sell his ranch to them, we had many long discussions about why he sold to them. He had his place for sale, did he ever think anyone would pay that price, nope, here came APP and paid him, now there was some other factors, his health, a close family death and no one to leave it to that would take care of it. He had a heart attack and died 3 years ago on his farm land. But he did run a large cattle operation and he always said how bad he felt for his neighbors if APP brought in Buffalo. The APP is a wolf in sheep clothing as a conservation group, there plan is to buy up the whole county, all the way to the Canadian border, have you looked at how big Phillips co is? Take all the fences down, scrub all the farm land and run Buffalo. That would mean the loss of food, beef and grains, I think there’s like 100k cows in this county. So the foods gotta come from somewhere. Guess we can use up the rest of what’s left in crp.

 

[Fly Carpin]

Yup there is always a couple that will try kill any discussion about conservation. That's their goal.

Kurtr you don't think there are different rules for different people? There shouldn't be. If you own a restaurant try telling a black guy your not going to serve him because he is black and see where that gets you. Not much different than North Dakota passing laws against conservation organizations not purchasing land without permission. Not different than landowners over there in Montana trying to stop the sales. Different rules for different people.

This is without question the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this site. And that’s saying a lot considering the level of numbskullery that can plague these hallowed pages

 

[PrairieGhost]

Ezzie I am sorry about your friend.

I know three farmers in this county that raise bison. I would think if they raise bison they would sell them for slaughter.

 

[SDMF]

Ezzie I am sorry about your friend.

I know three farmers in this county that raise bison. I would think if they raise bison they would sell them for slaughter.

Susan Myers, Philanthropist who's on the Board of Directors for APR:

Susan has been a board member of American Prairie Reserve along with her husband Gib since 2002. The opportunity to assemble a huge prairie ecosystem full of wildlife in the 21st century is very compelling and exciting to her. Every time she visits the prairie she enjoys being on the landscape and going to find the bison herd. She and Gib would love to see a herd of 10,000 bison in their lifetime.

Susan's husband Gib is also on the board of directors. Given what I've bolded in blue, I would think they don't raise/sell any buffalo for slaughter.

More from Susan's bio:

Susan has an interest in food sustainability and has been a member of a food investor group through the Philanthropy Workshop in San Francisco.

I going to go ahead and just assume that the "Philanthropy Workshop in San Francisco" probably doesn't include hunting in their investing strategy for food sustainability.

Here's a little snippet from Gib's bio:

Gib is a co-founder of the Center for Social Innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

I'm going to step out on another limb here and guess that the Center for Social Innovation at the Stanford School of Business isn't going to have anyone on their student rolls, faculty, or board of directors that could make a strong argument for using hunting as a tool for wildlife management on the APR.

 

[gst]

A couple years ago when I first became aware of the APP I did a little digging on their directors and funding "partners".

Like I said, anyone claiming they support this because they are "protecting the future of hunting" needs to do a little research. SDMF just scratched the surface.

https://www.americanprairie.org/scientific-advisory-council

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

https://www.americanprairie.org/national-council

Michael Soulé
The Wildlands Project

The Wildlands Project
The reference to Noss, 1992, in the GBA is to a special issue of Wild Earth, a publication of the Cenozoic Society, a NGO committed to re-wilding the United States. In this issue, Dr. Reed Noss lays out in detail the land conservation strategy to implement the Wildlands Project.[SUP]1[/SUP] The Wildlands Strategy calls for establishing core wilderness reserves that are interconnected by wilderness corridors, all of which would be surrounded by buffer zones managed to protect the wilderness areas (See Figure 1).

The Wildlands Project calls for establishing thousands of core reserves and interconnecting corridors from Alaska and the Northwest Territories to Chile and Argentina.

The strategy normally is accomplished in five steps:

1. Identify existing protected areas such as federal and state wilderness areas, parks, national monuments, refuges and other designated sites. They should be from 100,000 to 25 million acres in size. These are already wilderness or close to it. Such tracts would serve as “core reserves” completely off-limits to human activity.
   
2. Identify other multiple-use government land that can be politically forced into wilderness status. Roadless areas are highest priority, but existing roads can be closed if roadless areas are not available.
   
3. Create wilderness corridors along streams, rivers and mountain ranges that interconnect the core reserves.
   
4. Purchase, condemn or regulate private property to fill in the gaps where public land did not exist. Usufruct regulation is preferred because the government would not have to pay for the land.
   
5. Create buffer areas around land not in core reserves or interconnecting wilderness to manage them sustainably so they protect the core wilderness areas.

Wildlands Project co-author Reed Noss explains that in the core, corridor and buffer areas, “The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”[SUP]1[/SUP] The Wildlands Project is the master plan for both Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty, and represents a grandiose design to transform at least half the land area of the continental United States into an immense “eco-park” cleansed of modern industry and private property. Says Noss;

- - - Updated - - -

So for those supporting this to protect hunting..........go through the above links and show us those that have protecting hunting on the forefront of their agendas.

 

[Vollmer]

Also, Vollmer, can we get a "conservation" topic forum option?

Yes. Done, and done.