In a decisive move that safeguards Montana ranching, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has revoked grazing permits allowing the American Prairie Reserve (APR) to run bison on approximately 63,000 acres of public lands in north-central Montana.  Announced in January 2026, this reversal of a 2022 authorization marks a critical win for agriculture in Montana, countering the expansive ambitions of a well-funded nonprofit that threatens the very fabric of our rural communities.

For those unfamiliar, APR is an extreme environmental organization with the goal of assembling a vast, privately owned wildlife refuge spanning over 5,000 square miles—roughly the size of Connecticut.  Backed by wealthy donors from outside Montana, APR has aggressively purchased ranches, converting them from productive cattle operations to “re-wilded” habitats for free-roaming bison.  While this vision of restoring a wild prairie might sound romantic to urban environmentalists, it poses real threats to local communities and the ranching industry that has sustained Montana for generations.

One of the primary threats from APR is its land acquisition strategy, which disrupts the local economy.  By buying up family ranches—often at premiums that outbid local buyers—APR removes important economic contributors from our communities.  With each ranch lost there are fewer customers on Main Street, fewer kids in the schools, and fewer taxpayers contributing to local services.  This isn’t conservation; it’s a slow-motion land grab that erodes the economic backbone of central Montana.

Even more concerning are the practical risks posed by APR’s bison herds.  Unlike domestic cattle, bison are powerful, unpredictable animals that can breach fences and wander onto adjacent properties, damaging crops, infrastructure, and even posing safety hazards to humans.  Ranchers have long voiced fears about disease transmission, particularly brucellosis—a devastating disease leading to mandatory quarantines and financial ruin.  And critically, with wild bison, APR would have no liability for damage caused to their neighbors.

Perhaps the even more serious threat posed by APR was the completely new policy they were attempting to set with BLM’s grazing permits.  BLM was established to manage grazing lands to ensure a stable food supply for the nation.  APR’s plan was to take control of those grazing allotments, take them out of production agriculture, and “re-wild” them. 

If BLM had allowed this to proceed, we would have seen non-profit organizations throughout the West in a land rush to buy up ranches to take them out of cattle production, undermining the stability of the entire Western livestock industry.

BLM’s ruling is unequivocally good for Montana ranchers.  It preserves access to BLM-managed allotments for cattle grazing, ensuring that public lands remain a resource for productive, sustainable agriculture rather than experimental wildlife projects.  By revoking these permits, the BLM upholds the principle that federal lands should support local economies, not subsidize playgrounds for out-of-state elites. Ranchers can now operate without the looming threat of competition from taxpayer-subsidized bison operations, which benefit from nonprofit status and don’t face the same market pressures as family-run outfits.

Moreover, this decision reinforces Montana’s cultural identity.  The ubiquitous battle cry against APR has long been “Save the Cowboy.”  Ranching isn’t just a job here—it’s a heritage passed down through families, embodying self-reliance, stewardship, and community.  APR’s model romanticizes a pre-settlement prairie at the expense of those who have managed these lands responsibly for over a century.  For Montana’s cowboys who’ve been facing down APR, this ruling is a godsend that ensures their continued existence.

A coalition of Montana counties has petitioned the Department of Interior (DOI) to vacate a 2022 decision that allows American Prairie Reserve (APR) bison to graze on BLM allotments.  In response, DOI Secretary Doug Burgum on December 9 took the extraordinary step of assuming jurisdiction over a review of the 2022 decision.  The result of this move portends to be a major blow to APR’s plan to establish a 3.5-million-acre private nature preserve in the heart of Montana.

In a detailed filing with DOI, the Montana Natural Resource Coalition of Counties (MTNRC) points out that BLM lands are reserved for livestock grazing and cannot be rewilded.  Furthermore, BLM regulations give grazing preference to “cattle, sheep, horses, burros, and goats.”

MTNRC contends the 2022 decision to allow APR to graze bison on BLM grazing allotments contravenes BLM’s own rules and regulations and should be vacated.

APR has also disingenuously claimed to be a livestock operation, thereby qualifying for BLM grazing preference.  Those claims were exposed as false, however, in the release of private correspondence between APR President Sean Garrity and then-Governor Steve Bullock.  In a September 5, 2017 letter to Bullock, Garrity writes that APR’s objective is to “create the largest nature reserve in the continental United States (that will) result in wild bison one day inhabiting the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and eventually the surrounding areas.”

APR’s plan to remove 3.5 million acres of Montana land from agricultural production is viewed as an existential threat to the ranching communities in their target area.  Without preferential treatment from BLM, APR’s plan to rewild and depopulate this area will become more difficult.

American Prairie Reserve has been crowing about their recent ranch purchases in Phillips County.  What they won’t tell you is those acquisitions come at a cost to you and every other Montanan. 

It’s important to reflect on what we’re losing when APR removes land from agricultural production.  Most regretfully we’re losing the next generation of family ranchers whose job it is to grow food.  The dangerous decline in American agricultural production over the last few decades is accelerated if we allow nonprofit groups to buy up prime Montana ranch land.  It’s no wonder we’re seeing such increases in food prices.

Our communities are also losing the families who work those ranches.  Families fill our schools and require goods and services, creating customers for the businesses in our ag-oriented towns.  Without those families, schools and communities suffer and shrink.  It’s a devastating economic and cultural loss.

But if that seems too far removed for you to worry about, are you aware that there is also the loss of tax revenue generated on those properties?  That’s a loss that impacts everyone.  Half of Montana’s state budget comes from income tax collections, and American Prairie Reserve pays zero.  In 2022, APR reported earning $63 million in tax-free revenue. 

And it’s not just that they’re exempt from paying their fair share, APR has set themselves up in such a way that they take tax dollars out of Montana’s general fund.  That’s because as a nonprofit, the donations they receive are deductible and result in lower income tax liability for their donors.

APR sells luxury “glamping” excursions on their property, which come complete with a private chef.   In 2022 they reported earning $140,000 from these tours, for which they paid no tax.  APR also leases some of their property (for now) to ranchers for grazing.  They report earning nearly $500,000 annually in lease income—again that’s all profit for which they pay no income tax.  And to add insult to injury, in 2022 APR claimed $843,000 in federal tax credits—even though they pay $0 in federal income tax!

If ranch families had the advantage of tax-free income, like APR, how much more prosperous would they be?  Would ends be easier to meet, so selling off the family legacy wasn’t even a thought? 

And how about financial gifts from donors?  If some generous soul wanted to gift a ranch family the funds to pay off their debt, the rancher would be required to claim it as income and pay a sky-high gift tax.  The donor would receive no tax benefit for their generosity.

American Prairie Reserve is on a mission to destroy vibrant Montana communities filled with hard-working families.  Their radical plan is to turn the land over to wild animals and the elite class who can pay to pretend to co-exist with them.  You and every other taxpayer are forced to subsidize this nonprofit scheme. 

As they grow larger, more of the tax burden gets shifted to the rest of us.  The land APR acquires will never again be held by privately owned.  That land will never again produce food for Americans.  And that land will never again support a family.  While APR brags about what they’ve gained with each new ranch they purchase, the rest of us should reflect on what we’re losing.

The ink is dry on another historic cattle ranch in the Upper Missouri River Breaks consumed by the non-profit organization American Prairie Reserve (APR). With a deal to acquire the 73 Ranch, another piece of Montana’s history and leading industry has been gobbled up by the billionaires that fund APR, at the expense of Montana taxpayers.

Non-profits claiming to be conservationists rob taxpayers in a couple of different ways. Donations to APR to purchase ranch property come with lucrative tax deductions. With their privileged tax status, every dollar APR receives leaves our government coffers with less than they otherwise would have.

We’re pleased to announce that FWP has agreed to settle our lawsuit against them regarding their bison management plan. They’ve agreed to scrap the bison plan and will not undertake a new EIS for bison management for at least ten years. You can read the settlement agreement here.

As part of the litigation against FWP to challenge their bison management plan, UPOM requested all communications from FWP related to the bison management plan. We received over 2500 pages of documents. Through that discovery, we learned that FWP was in deep negotiations with APR to establish a herd of free-roaming bison on the CMR wildlife refuge. This despite repeated claims by FWP that they were not considering any specific relocation sites as part of their bison EIS.

Due to the damning information that was discovered through the course of our litigation, FWP was eager to settle the case. It was clear from communications FWP had related to the EIS that they were acting in an inappropriate and likely illegal manner by having secret meetings with APR, excluding their selected site (UL Bend on the CMR) from EIS analysis, and conducting the EIS to reach a predetermined outcome. In short, we had them dead to rights and they knew it. You can read our settlement offer linked here.

You can read some of this correspondence in the documents linked here. Here’s what you will find:

By Rep. Dan Bartel

In central Montana the American Prairie Reserve has amassed 420,000 acres of prime ranch land. This is a fraction of their ultimate objective: to control 3.2 million acres. The land they acquire will eventually be taken out of agricultural production and “re-wilded.” The thriving ranching communities in and around APR’s 5,000 square mile target area will be wiped off the map.

If you’re a Montana taxpayer, you’re helping APR pay for their radical plan.

by Nathan Descheemaeker

Can private property serve as a privileged sanctuary from which multi-national tax-exempt foundations can incrementally transition and consolidate millions of acres of productive agricultural lands?

The APR in its paper Building a Legacy of Conservation pg. 1 states “When complete, the Reserve will consist of more than three million acres of private and public land (using the existing 1.1-million-acre Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge as the public land anchor). The result will be a wildlife complex the size of Connecticut, set aside for conservation and public access.” On pg. 2 of the paper the APR reveals their appeal for the chosen area, “There’s a tremendous amount of public land to leverage.”

Montana FWP Director Martha Williams had a stark message for Montana counties in her interview on the Voices of Montana Program this week.  When asked if FWP would comply with county ordinances related to bison management, Williams revealed that her Department had no intention of doing so.

Voters in several Montana counties have enacted bison management ordinances, which require that all bison in the county, both domestic and wild, be tested for brucellosis, be branded or tagged and have their health status tracked.  Under these voter-enacted ordinances, entities that wish to graze bison in the county must have a management and conservation plan.

Bison management ordinances have been popular in the counties that have been targeted by FWP and APR for massive free-roaming bison herds.  For instance, voters in Phillips County enacted their bison ordinance with 79% of the county electorate in favor in 2016.  Several other counties have seen similar support at the ballot box.  The ordinances are authorized under state laws that allow county conservation districts to propose land use regulations for a citizen referendum. 

Williams’s unilateral decree that those local ordinances are invalid is legally dubious, and puts FWP on yet another collision course with landowners.

“The message from Martha Williams and FWP is clear,” said UPOM spokesman Chuck Denowh.  “They don’t care what the locals say, they’re prepared to shove it down our throats over the objections of both the county commissioners and the voters.”

The Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks is now formally recommending the introduction of free-roaming bison in Montana after the release of a long-awaited environmental impact statement. It’s a move that dramatically intensifies conflict over wildlife management in Montana.

And worse, it’s a sobering message to the thousands of Montanans who provide habitat to wildlife. FWP has made clear it would rather advance the agenda of a radical, out-of-state environmental group—the American Prairie Reserve—than give even the barest amount of credence to the virtually unanimous opposition to free-roaming bison from Montana landowners.

Let’s be clear about who is driving this process. The APR derives nearly all of its support from outside Montana. They are pushing a radical plan to depopulate several million acres in central Montana, replacing those communities with a playground for their wealthy donors. In the process, their plan would remove a large chunk of Montana’s agriculture output from our state’s economy.

With the recommendation for free-roaming bison, FWP is signaling they’re a willing co-conspirator to the APR’s extreme agenda.

FWP’s recommendation goes directly opposite the policy mandated by Montana lawmakers just one year ago. In HJ 28, the Montana legislature established a clear policy opposed to free-roaming bison, citing concerns over damage to Montanans’ public lands, threats to wildlife populations, and costs that would be borne by private landowners and rural communities.

Fortunately, FWP lacks the legal authority to unilaterally force free-roaming bison to be introduced anywhere in Montana. But the fact they are so callously willing to thumb their nose at Montana’s policymakers brings into question what else they might attempt to do.

FWP often says they want decisions to be collaborative. Actions speak louder than words. The bison EIS shows a complete disregard to the Montanans who have real-world concerns about free-roaming bison—and at the same time bends over backwards to accommodate an out-of-state group dedicated to dismantling Montana communities. There was absolutely nothing collaborative in FWP’s free-roaming bison recommendation.

The only people who matter in this issue are those with skin in the game—the real Montanans with something to lose if free-roaming bison are forced onto their property. They’re fighting for their very lives and livelihoods against the out-of-state elites who want to wipe them off the map. Who’s side should our Montana FWP be on?