Sean Gerrity/American Prairie Reserve on Meateater

Did anyone else catch this podcast out this week? Very informative about the APR and where it's going. The vision presented by Mr. Gerrity is ambitious and good for them for taking action on a vision in a big way. However, he seemed shaky on including hunters as a permanent part of that vision statement.

By the end of the discussion, Steve and the crew seemed almost taken aback by being called out by Mr. Gerrity. He made a lot of good points that that seemed to have no defensible response. My favorite was the analogy that we get a season of hunting for an embarrassingly low entry fee - a resident license and tag.


Other thoughts?

I did.

I was introduced to APR many years ago and didn't understand the significance or scope then. I do now. I wish it were a possibility, but I don't see it coming to fruition. The hurdles, socially yes, but I see the financial as larger, seem to be insurmountable. They have six properties that would fit their model right now, that they can't purchase due to funding. How many have they missed out on in the past? If they got all the property they wanted, you then have multiple state, federal, tribal, and private agencies that have to come together to manage it holistically. That would take an agreement signed to perpetuity, or at least 50+ years, to even see if they project would be viable. I just don't see that as possible. I wish that it were, expansive grassland is underrated and underappreciated.

As to Gerrity's thoughts on hunting and licensing:
-Comparing hunting to golfing or any other sport just because they are lumped together as "sports" does not mean they are directly comparable.
-I agree we has hunters in Montana could, should, and will pay more for our licences. I'd like to see the MT duck stamp come back, I'm for a MT wildlife stamp, I willingly paid my $2 for the AIS when that came out. Whatever is needed to manage our wildlife, I will pay ten times over. I don't say this with a blind loyalty to FWP, as there should be oversight and critique; but I am fiercely loyal to our natural resources.
-I see the caricature of Montana hunters not wanting their fees raised fading as the younger (maybe read BHA) generations come into their own.
-land owners becoming more tolerant to elk if there were more fences: I don't buy that.
-I applaud his commitment to hunting being on the APR, but it seems weak. If the majority of donors are apathetic or anti hunting, how long will that last before it is cast aside to generate more funds?
-They did offer that bison hunt last year on the place, which I think speaks towards their stance on hunting and should not be forgotten.
-I commend them for there commitment to public access, but I wonder how that will impact the wildlife they have envisioned.

I listened to this podcast and wished I knew more about the background of Mr. Gerrity and the APR. A lot of what I heard sounded like a win for hunters, but I was skeptical on some issues.
The concluding thoughts about hunters getting a bargain on licenses did raise my hackles. Comparing hunting to golf or skiing is not very logical. I live in California and as a RESIDENT pay more than I feel appropriate for both fishing and hunting license. Would I pay more? Absolutely, but I see our sportsman numbers declining yearly and believe cost is a major factor. I hunt a couple states as a non resident and we all know how much that costs. In short, as far as Montana and other western states go, don't be like California. I don't see raising resident license fees as a smart way to raise dollars and hunter numbers.

BucksnDucks said:

I listened to this podcast and wished I knew more about the background of Mr. Gerrity and the APR. A lot of what I heard sounded like a win for hunters, but I was skeptical on some issues.
The concluding thoughts about hunters getting a bargain on licenses did raise my hackles. Comparing hunting to golf or skiing is not very logical. I live in California and as a RESIDENT pay more than I feel appropriate for both fishing and hunting license. Would I pay more? Absolutely, but I see our sportsman numbers declining yearly and believe cost is a major factor. I hunt a couple states as a non resident and we all know how much that costs. In short, as far as Montana and other western states go, don't be like California. I don't see raising resident license fees as a smart way to raise dollars and hunter numbers.

Click to expand...

Agreed that the comparisons are apples and oranges, but what about the money that goes to gear? It seems like more and more companies are plastering their ads all over social media and podcasts while lining their pockets on the backs of hunters. I find it very curious that more companies are hiring "Director of Conservation" types. Is this just pandering to the public land cries? What's the outcome for a for profit company? It seems like the "Director of Conservation" might just be another marketing decision to get clicks and eyeballs and sell $300 puffy coats or $700 backpacks. Or sell cookbooks (sorry, new Meateater mega media conglomerate).

Sean made a poorly received comment that Steve could easily tell more people to buy an extra duck stamp rather than a new $400 pair of Schnees.

Re the APR. If something sounds too good to be true, is usually is.

I see they're talking about it on the Campfire

I thought he made a lot of good points. I can understand why some of his comments rubbed people the wrong way though. I do think some aspects of hunting may be cost prohibitive to some people, especially non resident hunting, but ultimately $20 is extremely cheap for an elk tag. I pay more than double that for a resident whitetail tag. My take from what he was saying regarding hunting access was that there may be times or locations where hunting could be restricted due to any number of situations that could come up, so they don’t want to make a blanket statement that hunting will always be allowed on APR. That would effectively remove a tool from their toolbox for managing the wildlife. I think APR is a cool and ambitious idea.

APR would be a place I would take my family to.
There is a lot of truth to what Gerrity said about wildlife depredation issues causing wildlife managers to set lower population objectives. Not only are there issues with hay stacks and alfalfa fields but the "competition " between cattle and elk on federal and state allotments puts a lot of pressure on wildlife managers to issue additional tags.

One thing that jumped out to me is how he seems to think APR should be able to determine the wildlife management policies on the public land as well as the deeded acreage.

From my vague knowledge of this project and their aspirations, I am generally supportive, but do not agree that just because they buy the private which controls the access to the BLM and state land that they should get game management authority over the public ground. Even if they don't grant easements to the public ground, if FWP considers it to be hunting season in that HD, people will access via helicopter, boat/etc.

If they're getting the fences removed between the public and private parcels, the bison will be protected due to their livestock status. But I don't think that hunters should be forced to play by the APRs rules on game animals on the public ground within the APRs holdings. I don't see the difference between that and landowners like the Wilks trying to control access to public parcels within their ranch holdings.

Greenhorn said:

I see they're talking about it on the Campfire

Click to expand...

Unfiltered....

LCH, welcome to the wide, wide world of sports. The APR has an AGENDA, that does not include you, me, or FWP in management decisions on wildlife.

MDF's Marshal Coble interviewed a former APR manager who stated , "APR allows hunting, for now, but don't expect it to last forever".

Hunters having to play by APR's rules on public ground?? What about the cattle rancher looking at 50 buffalo bulls next to his heifer pasture, how will that one play out?

If APR stops allowing hunting won’t it be just like the hunting next to other major landowners in limited draw areas? The Wilks, although shitheads are a big bull factory.

Where was it stated hunters have to play by their rules on public land?

Schaaf said:

Where was it stated hunters have to play by their rules on public land?

Click to expand...

It was a long podcast, and I by no means have the quotes memorized, but I do remember him stating that they will limit hunting in order to build up wildlife levels to an "American Serengeti" level. An 'American Serengeti" sounds awesome, but how will the APR accomplish this in an area that's a patchwork of public and private, unless they get to make management decisions on hunter numbers, harvest limits, etc. on the public inholdings?

LCH said:

It was a long podcast, and I by no means have the quotes memorized, but I do remember him stating that they will limit hunting in order to build up wildlife levels to an "American Serengeti" level. An 'American Serengeti" sounds awesome, but how will the APR accomplish this in an area that's a patchwork of public and private, unless they get to make management decisions on hunter numbers, harvest limits, etc. on the public inholdings?

Click to expand...

It sounded like they saw reduced grazing pressure and removing the social constraints on wildlife objectives. I cannot see how they would limit hunting on the public parcels within the administrative boundary of the APR, but if you are gaining access through their private property via block management or permanent easement they probably could.

What about the cattle rancher looking at 50 buffalo bulls next to his heifer pasture, how will that one play out?

Click to expand...

Over here in SW Montana there are no real problems between the Flying D bison ranch and adjacent properties and the wildlife come and go as they please. Ranchers in this area are not stupid enough to graze heifers across the fence from other ranchers' bulls ... bison or angus.

LCH said:

It was a long podcast, and I by no means have the quotes memorized, but I do remember him stating that they will limit hunting in order to build up wildlife levels to an "American Serengeti" level. An 'American Serengeti" sounds awesome, but how will the APR accomplish this in an area that's a patchwork of public and private, unless they get to make management decisions on hunter numbers, harvest limits, etc. on the public inholdings?

Click to expand...

If you think private entities can't have any sway with a state wildlife division then you must be living under a rock. I don't live in Montana but it certainly happens in Idaho. The largest land owners get a say in the rules and management objectives on the public land nearest to their interests.

LCH said:

It was a long podcast, and I by no means have the quotes memorized, but I do remember him stating that they will limit hunting in order to build up wildlife levels to an "American Serengeti" level. An 'American Serengeti" sounds awesome, but how will the APR accomplish this in an area that's a patchwork of public and private, unless they get to make management decisions on hunter numbers, harvest limits, etc. on the public inholdings?

Click to expand...

Like Minnesotahunter said, through their BMA hunter days agreements. In one part of the podcast he mentions that you could stay in a campground of theirs or you could set up a tent on the other side of the county road on BLM land for free, so I view that as them having a clear understanding of what they can and cannot enforce.

In 2014 I went through their land that they didn't allow Bighorn Sheep hunting and shot a ewe on the refuge. Even stopped to show one of the employees on the way out.

LCH said:

It was a long podcast, and I by no means have the quotes memorized, but I do remember him stating that they will limit hunting in order to build up wildlife levels to an "American Serengeti" level. An 'American Serengeti" sounds awesome, but how will the APR accomplish this in an area that's a patchwork of public and private, unless they get to make management decisions on hunter numbers, harvest limits, etc. on the public inholdings?

Click to expand...

And that comes with owning the land. I’ve known a number of ranchers who had divergent views of wildlife management than FWP, and chose their hunting practices appropriately.

I listened to it as well, and my take was it would be done via access to the private. I don’t think there was any inference they should control the public as well.

I listened to it and thought it sounded like a pretty cool idea, but I have a feeling it would turn out poorly for hunters in the end. There were several times when asked a question, Mr. Garrity would smoothly transition away from whatever the question was on to another talking point that he wanted to talk about. I was glad to hear Steve call him out on dodging a few questions at the end of the podcast.

There are a ton of questions that need to be answered before I could see them getting much backing from the hunting crowd. One thing that kind of bothered me is how he kept saying we as hunters place ourselves in a poor light and that there are all these things that we can do better. Also saying we need to pony up more money, when we all know that hunters and fisherman are basically the only people that put any significant amount of money into wildlife, conservation, and public lands. All the other recreational groups offer basically nothing.