Montana’s Land Battle
Guest post by Summer Program student Caroline Richards -
I feel it’s only right to start this essay with a few disclaimers: I come from an agricultural background and have worked on both row crop and livestock operations. I inherently believe that God instructed us to be stewards of the Earth. This includes conserving Her resources and using Her to sustain ourselves. I also find that meeting people where they are, supporting them, and encouraging them to change practices is much more effective than single-entity control. Coming into this section, I focused on keeping an open mind and engaging with those who may hold different viewpoints. Still, my experiences are my experiences, and they will ultimately impact everything I understand. Regardless of the tough conversations I had during this section, I really enjoyed meeting everyone and gaining a better understanding of the Montanan social and ecological landscape.
This section started with a gorgeous drive to Sun Prairie, Montana, where we met with Danny Kinka, the wildlife restoration manager for American Prairie Reserve (APR). After my initial exposure to APR at the Lewistown Visitors Center, it was great to see their work firsthand. Though I may not agree with their methods, their hard work and conservation concerns are evident. The tensions between APR and the local community are strong. It can be difficult to separate fact from opinion when so many passionate players are involved.
Later in the week, we met with representatives from The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Ranchers Stewardship Alliance. This meeting was the highlight of the section for me. I found that I connected better during this meeting, likely due to my biases and experiences. Hearing about the way that local Montanans are shepherding conservation and preserving their traditional way of life was a big relief to me. Before coming out to Montana, I thought most people supported one and demonized the other. I was pleasantly surprised when Danny told us to give the RSA guys a “hello” from him. In the moment, it was encouraging to see the two groups interact, though I’m not sure if the greeting would be reciprocated by the RSA members. After hearing Martin, RSA’s conservation coordinator, share his interpretation of APR’s reputation around town, I wonder if Danny was being genuinely friendly or trying to improve their image. Like most things, it’s likely a mix of both. Martin also explained how RSA has expanded into a larger resource for ranchers, providing business, mental health, and many other workshops.
Kelsey Molloy, the rangeland ecologist in Malta, did an excellent job of explaining their grass bank program. I am a big fan of this initiative, which leases land to ranchers for low cost in exchange for the implementation of wildlife conservation practices at their home ranch. Leasing cattle land is a very common practice in modern agriculture. One potential pitfall for this is the exclusion of beginning ranchers who may not have developed a home ranch. The area is struggling with an exodus of ranchers, so supporting first-generation cowboys and cowgirls is vital to the continued success of the area. APR has a rancher-supporting program called “Wild Sky,” where ranchers are compensated for trail camera pictures of various wildlife. My biggest question about this program is how it’s administered. I struggle to see how APR can compensate each rancher for every picture of wildlife, which presents a few large loopholes.
Other than grazing cattle, one of the key differences I found between APR and TNC/RSA was their audience. Through our conversations with Danny and the Lewistown Visitor’s Center, I noticed that public access was a priority for APR. This shifts their audience to the public, tourists, and donors. APR also has a no-fence policy, a nod to its public access mission. This was very surprising to me and made me curious about the necessary strength of their legal department. On the other hand, RSA’s actions seemed targeted at the ranchers they support.
Another big difference between the two is their employee/member origin. I believe that when you are doing work that will fundamentally change the lives of everyone in an area, it’s important to have these people in the front of your mind. It struck me as odd that most of APR’s employees were not from the Montana prairie they were trying to change. To a lesser extent, this was reminiscent of the American colonization of indigenous tribes we spoke about in this section. I believe in supporting those managing the land rather than trying to convince them you can do it better.
At the end of this section, we met with researchers studying endangered grassland birds and prairie dogs. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that these researchers all had access to a wide array of lands. Some were working primarily on American Prairie land, Nature Conservancy land, Fort Belknap Reservation, or private ranching lands. The collaboration of arguably competing groups for the common good of research was encouraging to see. It is this kind of collaboration that must continue to ensure both groups can survive.
The future of the Montana prairie, in my opinion, will be determined in the next five years. As older ranchers find themselves too worn, will conservation-only organizations like APR grow, or will a new phase of modern agriculture take hold of the area? I hope that the Montanan cowboy will be sustained, but as Martin said, only those who can diversify their ranching pursuits or find a way to brave the storm will survive. During our last night on the prairie, one of my classmates asked if both organizations could survive and coexist. Unfortunately, I do not think both will be able to coexist and thrive. When one is directly threatening the existence of the other, there will always be tension and unrest. It’s not until they come together to accomplish the common goal of conservation that either group will truly find their niche.
