Central Montana Is Already Conserved and Connected
June 1, 2026
For the past half-century, this country’s agricultural policy has been anti-rural.
By Gilles Stockton
The recent reversal by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on American Prairie’s (AP) permit to graze bison on public land is a narrow administrative ruling on whether the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 allows bison to graze on BLM lands for conservation purposes or whether the Act only authorizes domestic livestock raised for commerce. It is easy to see how everyone on every side of the political spectrum suspects that either the initial ruling allowing bison or the subsequent ruling disallowing bison was politically motivated.
There are, however, many legitimate concerns by the people directly affected by the AP’s plan to buy Central Montana. Full disclosure, this includes myself, as my pasture is adjacent to a ranch the AP purchased in northern Petroleum County. I certainly do not need the headache of getting stray bison bulls out of the pasture where I summer my yearling heifers.
On another level, I also worry about my community. Ranchland bought by the AP translates to fewer ranch families, fewer calves going to market, less money circulating in our communities, fewer local businesses, and ultimately, no children and no community. The hikers and campers attracted to the AP’s vision will never make up for the loss of cattle and neighbors.
For the past half-century, this country’s agricultural policy has been anti-rural. Consequently, rural America has been hollowed out until it is now a vast, sparsely populated slum. This is why billionaires can buy hundreds of thousands of acres of land and lock all the gates in order to raise elk for their private enjoyment. Personally, I don’t see much difference between the billionaires who fund the AP and the billionaires whose elk summer in my hayfields. The main difference is that the AP claims to be doing this for our benefit, while the other billionaires don’t bother to justify their intrusion.
However, if the AP is doing what they are doing for the benefit of the general public, we should have a say. They showed up uninvited in 2004 and started buying land – in their words – to conserve and connect. Since the AP’s aim is to conserve the short grass prairie, it can only be because they allege that my neighbors and I have mismanaged it.
According to the BLM, 82% of the rangeland under their administration in Montana has met all conservation standards. After all, the purpose of the BLM and the Taylor Grazing Act is to restore degraded rangeland caused by the drought and economic depression in the 1930s. Rangeland restoration is a slow process, but because of the partnership between landowners and the BLM, 82% of public rangeland is now in great shape.
This has been accomplished by adhering to sound range management practices. Remember, all of this BLM ground is open to multiple use, which means that hunting and other forms of recreation are welcome. And because of the stewardship of the ranchers and BLM, there are plenty of deer, antelope, and elk.
The AP claims that they are connecting this land, but it is already connected. From Fort Benton to Fort Peck on both sides of the river, millions of acres of BLM, Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, and Charles M. Russel Wildlife Refuge land are open to hunting, hiking, boating, fishing, and camping. Much of the private ranch land, interspersed with the public lands, is in block management agreements with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. The main exception is land owned by out-of-state millionaires and billionaires.
Just because the AP claims that free-roaming bison restore rangelands does not make it so. Go look at the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park if you want to see an overgrazed pasture. It is all a question of proper range management, regardless of the species involved.
And why assume that Central Montana was better in the imagined past? After all, Lewis and Clark found the Missouri River valley devoid of trees, while cactus was a major impediment to their men. Without active management by humans, all grazing animals use the landscape in an uneven manner. Because of good range management, the short grass prairie in Central Montana has never been more productive. In addition, agriculture has created habitat for all kinds of birds and animals that were not previously here.
This range war will not end anytime soon, as the ruling evicting the AP’s bison may be reversed by the courts or by future administrations. It should be understood that anyone can, if they so choose, raise buffalo on their private land. And, apparently, on public land if the bison are being raised for production purposes. There are more than half a million bison in North America, and there are also scores of places where the public can experience them. The AP is not providing anything that is not already available. I don’t look forward to dealing with AP’s bison, but as long as those bison are classified as livestock and subject to the regulations governing livestock, I shall have to put up with the inconveniences. However, under no circumstances should I be forced to coexist with bison classified as wildlife. The fantasy of “wild” buffalo attracts fanatics who will sue to block common-sense range management and disease mitigation. Why put ninety-two years of careful range stewardship in jeopardy for a make-believe story about “free-roaming” buffalo?