AN ALTERNATE PRESPECTIVE ON THE AMERICAN PRAIRIE RESERVE’S PLAN FOR MONTANA
There are many conflicting views on the American Prairie Reserve’s (APR) operation in north central Montana, but the one sided article, “Gianforte, Knudsen try to stop American Prairie’s bison,” written by Darrell Ehrlick and printed on the front page of the 12-7-21 Tribune that venerated APR’s wild bison campaign begs for an alternate response to be made.
In this article, our governor and attorney general are accused of pressuring the BLM to reconsider its proposed decision to grant APR bison grazing privileges on public land in north central Montana.
What governor or attorney general in the west would embrace a non-profit organization’s effort to create a wildlife reserve the size of Connecticut with a plan to gobble up 500,000 acres of private land with bison grazing opportunities on millions of acres of public land?
While the article portrays Montana’s leadership as bullying BLM, it ignores the true nature of APR’s design for the region and the many reasons BLM should deny APR’s grazing request and send them packing.
Accordingly, a more realistic view on APR’s agenda is in order for readers to consider.
First, APR stormed into Montana in early 2000, invited by no one, and declared its intent to implement a higher calling to restore millions of acres of private and public lands to a native setting that existed hundreds of years ago, including the return of wild bison and apex predators like wolves, lions and grizzlies.
Justification for APR’s inane plan was the erroneous belief that agriculture in the region is a failing enterprise; rural communities are folding and establishment of a tourism based economy featuring a prairie experience would bolster local economies and keep rural communities viable. A collaborative effort envisioned by the World Wildlife Fund to restore and preserve a large swath of Montana’s native grasslands would make it a win-win for everybody.
Contrary to beliefs portrayed in the article, the most salient issue on the table is not about the legal arguments on raising bison as domestic livestock, or the bison disease issue, or grazing management on public land, or tourism enrichment. The real concern here is that a favorable decision by BLM on APR’s grazing allotment requests will underwrite and ensure the success of APR’s prairie reserve concept and preserve in perpetuity the ability of any entity to create wild bison reserves virtually anywhere in the west where public land is in ample supply.
BLM fully realizes that a favorable grazing decision for APR will set a huge precedent for the west and that burden has likely caused the BLM’s Environmental Assessment on bison grazing to drag on for over three years.
APR is not the benign land owner dedicated to simply raising bison as domestic livestock that the article would have us believe. In fact, APR states in its 2005 report to the World Wildlife Fund that “We will view this project as a wildlife reintroduction and as such will follow the strategies and protocols recommended for wild species reintroductions. We recognize in the short term the need to plan and manage bison as semi-domestic livestock, but our long term goal is for a naturally regulated free-ranging population of wildlife.”
APR obviously wants it both ways. Their plan is to raise bison as domestic livestock as a ploy to acquire grazing leases on public land and at some point in the future release its semi-domestic bison as a free roaming wildlife species. APR’s argument that agriculture can co-exist in the middle of a teeming wild bison reserve is unconvincing.
Despite spending millions of dollars in the area, APR continues to struggle with its public image. Although APR has pledged to be a “really good neighbor,” the author points out that they were surprised at the level of outrage expressed by regional farmers and ranchers who truly intend to make good on their commitment to “Save the Cowboy, Stop APR” as their signs and banners throughout the area indicate.
In an effort to repair its tattered image in the area, APR’s leadership appears to be focused on repackaging itself and has changed its name and logo to “American Prairie” ostensibly to remove the “reservation” trip word from the conversation. APR claims to be shifting its efforts to habitat improvement, expanding public access and preserving biodiversity in the region, but a leopard does not change its spots nor has APR changed its mission statement.
What is most troubling about APR’s manifesto is that its long term goal, if achieved, will ultimately result in its acquired farm homes, buildings and associated infrastructure to be bladed into the ground and the crop lands returned to native grasses, sage brush and weeds.
The scenario that is now in play is simply unacceptable regardless of what spin doctors say about it. It is easy to understand why Montana’s leadership has heartburn with APR’s radical undertaking and with BLM’s apparent support of that effort.
Ron Poertner
Winifred, MT
Poertner is a retired military member dedicated to promoting landowner interests in the Missouri Breaks region of central Montana.
Reader Comments(0)