New West Film
Filming, Preserving ‘The American Serengeti’ of Montana
The winner of the International Wildlife Film Festival's Best Made in Montana award takes on the vast task of profiling about 3 million acres that will someday make up the American Prairie Reserve.By Jule Banville, 5-06-11
Producer Andy Mitchell on location in Montana during the winter of 2009. Photo courtesy of National Geographic Television.
Years from now, when the official American Prairie Reserve stretches 3 million acres, Ken Burns’ team may show up, as they did in the National Parks, to tell the story of who made it happen and how.
But right now, the story of protecting the grasslands largely contained in Montana and traveled by Lewis and Clark is still in progress. What “The American Serengeti,” a new National Geographic film screening this weekend at the 34th International Wildlife Film Festival, makes clear is that there is a lot of work still to be done before this ambitious, possibly unrealistic, dream can become real.
An unfinished story, of course, is still worth telling and this one doesn’t need Ken Burns when it has writer/producer and NatGeo veteran, Andy Mitchell. Mitchell’s film, the winner of the IWFF’s Best Made in Montana award, will be shown in Missoula’s Roxy Theater Saturday at 3 p.m.
Narrated by Tom Selleck, the film mainly follows the efforts of the American Prairie Foundation, which is undertaking a massive project to connect millions of acres of grasslands, larger in size than Yellowstone National Park, but without the in-your-face grandeur that it and other parks of the West offer.
Above all, “The American Serengeti” attempts to answer why protecting this prairie is as important, perhaps more so, as leaving more majestic views undeveloped.
In the grass, species flourish. Without protections, fences go up that halt pronghorn in what the movie calls North America’s “largest and least-understood migration.” Entire towns of prairie dogs, the canaries in this coal mine, disappear. Bison die off in epic numbers.
“In less than 100 years,” Selleck’s narration intones, “all the herds are gone.” But the land is primed for the pure American bison’s rebirth, an idea that anchors the movie’s narrative.
In 2005, the World Wildlife Fund and the American Prairie Foundation worked together to transport 16 disease-free bison from South Dakota to settle south of Malta, Montana. It’s a grand experiment to see if the animal that dominated this land can still thrive here.
When filming got under way, that herd had grown to 87 and we, the viewers, are told to anticipate the magic number – 100 – that will indicate this herd’s return to health.
Along the way, Mitchell glances across several more species and the people fighting for their survival.
We meet conservation soldiers like Molly Web, whose work with the eggs and offspring of pallid sturgeon has literally helped resurrect a prehistoric species.
We see a wildlife biologist looking in the dead of night for the bright, glowing eyes of black-footed ferrets as he checks to see if their numbers have slipped below the 12 he last counted.
We get a sense from Kristy Bly what it’s like to watch five of the six prairie dog towns known to exist here die off because of the plague.
The stories of elk, grizzlies, wolves, cougars and migrating birds are all represented here in some fashion. Ultimately, though, the real star of the film and the prairie is that lumbering, unmistakable bison.
By the end, a cow is giving birth to the 100th calf. But it’s not necessarily a happy ending. This is nature, after all, on land where these animals were once eradicated. It takes time to come back, a lesson it seems those backing a national preserve of millions of acres probably get better than most.
In the meantime, the world and land filmed by Mitchell and his crew is still beautiful, still vast. And even though we may be a good distance from seeing it preserved forever in the name of the American people, at least we are reminded by “The American Serengeti” why such a thing should eventually come to pass.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Of course, I doubt if he was willing to donate his cult's house.
I hope the members of the World Wildlife Fund and the American Prairie Foundation will donate their homes before they steal those farmers' and ranchers' homes and cattle land in the prairie they want for the bison.
Certainly not for the people that live in the area.
You hit it on the head, louie.
We don't want your serengeti, or your earth people who don't know how to work for a living.
Remind me to punch Tom Selleck in the mouth for selling his soul for a buck.
I have seen no proof that buffalo produce more meat then cows. In fact, that cannot be true. I doubt you could put a buffalo in a feedlot.
Of course, thats not with the 15th century environmentalist dogma rules either.....
Go to North Dakota to the Teddy Roosevelt Park. They have a 10 foot high FENCE that must be maintained to keep the buffalo out of towns, cities, farmlands, etc. That fence must be MAINTAINED and that cost money.
Funny how you say that land produces little grain. Hmmmm, I know of 50 bushel and acre crops that come off of that land sometimes. It just depends upon the land.
We already have hunting revenue coming into the area. Do you think thousands of people will be hunting bison? You have like 70 bison there now.....ridiculous
Just because we don't have millions of people living there does not mean that we don't have rights just like the rest of americans. I should go to your area and run you out of your job....and why? So we "view" a bison once in awhile if we take a shine to drive to eastern montana.....
The most ridiculous idea anyone ever came up with for our state.
If 'big sky' is so enthused about prospects out there, why doesn't he show us how it can be done?
Bison evolved for these conditions -- Angus cattle and wheat did not. The hard working families of the region had a good run, but it just wasn't sustainable for the long haul. That's why bison will return, as the people leave.
I would just LOVE it, Inky and Faker, if you would go to a public meeting in Malta and express yourselves as you have done here. At least then we'd know who you really are.
Secondly, most of you folks obviously don't understand todays farming. Yes, there are less farmers. But the equiptment is bigger and easier to maintain. I know single man operations that are farming 4,000 acres. Less manpower, less people needed. But they use the same land, fellas.
What I see is bigger farms with less people. I also see farming businesses sproating up. People who specialize in leveling land for lentels, more seeders, more harvesters, large fencing operations, etc. Farming is becoming more specialized, especially on the plains. I know more than a few people who own the land but run the whole operation with someone else doing the work. Lease it, or lease part of it, and you can keep the land and still get some income.
Keep pretending the people are going away. They are not. All the kids leave? Yea, right. Not when you have a multimillion dollar operation waiting for you after college. Today it is easy compared to 30 years ago. Get a good accountant, update to the high production machines with all that satellite stuff, and you can make a profit at it also. Of course, it does not hurt that the govt. keeps throwing money at them either. Most of the guys I know signed up for that government welfare because they could. They took it because it was offered, as you would also. I still know some holdouts that refuse govt. funding except insurance.
Keep pretending, but you don't know what you are talking about. Grain is a desert crop, suited for eastern montana, and you can see it when you look at how much we export. Fellas, we feed alot of people, and we do it cheaply, even with the govt. welfare that keeps coming our way.
I don't care what anyone does with his private propoerty. If Ted Turner wants to buy 3 million acres thats fine with me. I DO NOT want the govt. buying anything.
First, let me ask you about your own great personal stake. Spill, and don't lie.
My mom still owns my grandfathers farm, she leases it out. So there's an interest in having the lessee prosper. Then, I went to school at Bozeman, and my dorm happened to be full of aggies, a fair number of whom I have stayed in touch with over the years. Then there was the summer of custom cutting when the railroad didn't come through, that was the year I learned to talk "farmese."
As for Malta, I guess I have been over there three or four times over the years, it's 600 miles one way. I have made friends over there, we keep in touch and cross paths.
I guess my interest is no more than that of hoping one's friends prosper, taking satisfaction when they do, and being concerned when they don't.
Now, I was aiming my previous posting at pig sty and mugger; but, since you waded back in here, could you please reread my previous posting, take it all in, and then reread your own previous posting?
Let's see; I asked whether either of them, pig sty or mugger, had any real personal stake... as a resident or landowner anywhere near there. You jumped in and offered that your mom still owns your grandpa's farm, someplace unspecified; but, she leases it out. Dave, I didn't inherit or marry into or win my properties in the lottery; I bought them with my own after tax earned income and I work the ones I can get to myself.
Then I said, "I'm not asking whether you met a guy in a bar once who knew a guy who was from near there; I'm asking whether you really have a legitimate personal stake in this play" and I meant something closer to having a private property investment. The closest you came to responding was to say that you've been to Malta "three or four times over the years" and "made friends over there..." So, you really have "met a guy... who knew a guy who was from near there" have you?
Then I asked whether you guys own a cow or a sheep or a working farm of any kind and I pointed out that I wasn't asking whether you have a cousin who once worked part-time for a guy whose uncle had some chickens. You offered that, when you went to school, you stayed in a dorm full of aggies and learned to talk "farmese" during a summer of custom cutting. Dave, I'm not sure that quite gives you standing; it's not exactly my ag background, although I'm sure that drinking with those aggies from that old college dorm was a real hoot. No, pig sty, trapping rats for extra cash doesn't count either. No, Marion, raising "ranch mink" doesn't make you a rancher.
Dave, you should be smart enough to be embarrassed.
Those folks that live around Malta are prefectly capable of making choices on their own. They don't need a bunch of buffalo people coming in and doing it for them.
Oh, but the tourists that will come.....they have the same thing in North Dakota, Wyoming, around YNP, and many more including Turners holdings. If they wanna go see buffalo, they can do it there and won't have to go 500 miles across no mans land to do it.
Towns and cities in the area depend upon the livihoods of folks who farm up and down the milk, and in case you have ever been there mikey, there is an abundance of natural gas. Some fields have been producing for years and more will be developed.
Next we will have the issue of "buffalo vs gas fields". Just like the issues that are going on around yellowstone at the moment with bison wrecking peoples fences, bison chasing and goring horses, etc. etc.
Bison are not like deer and elk. The generally don't run from you, and hunting them is no different that going out and buying a cow from a farmer and shooting it in his corral.
The American Serengeti is just another wacko idea backed by alot of money to depopulate vast areas of montana so a few "naturalists" can shoot pics of supposed wild buffalo. Go to yellowstone. You can do the same thing there.
Of course ol mikey is gonna say "whats your stake?" What I would say to mikey is that its none of your business. I live here, and just like the majority of montana folks don't want a bunch of out of staters telling us what we can or can't do.
Mikey, the only thing you are good for is cut downs. No discussion necessary. Glad you remember me from rat trapping. I remember a few things also. How many ranches do you own? In what states? You either inherited alot of money or you are a liar....
Faker, I've been around enough of Montana because I take "social" road trips. It's not just the country but the people who live there. I'm interested in them. I mostly like them, too, and enjoy their company...and I prefer to think the feeling is mutual.
But as I said, these are social trips that involve conversations. And I guess it is a function of the cultural realities that such conversations are pretty much free of guile and manipulation. Either it's an environment where there's no need for it, or maybe there's just not enough opportunity to practice deception and get good at it.
If all the landowners in the region had taken it upon themselves to set up a bison program, I'd have to respect their decision to do so. But APF is all about a vision imposed from without -- a second rural cleansing along the lines of the Indian pogroms. And the first go around was, and remains a failure. I suspect the second try will be just as big as a bust, and again, taxpayers will be on the hook to clean up the wreckage.
The American Prairie Foundation buys land from people who want to sell it and prioritizes conservation goals on the private property that they acquire, and on the accompanying federal and state grazing leases. I can't imagine anything less controversial that that. To top it all off, most of the newly acquired properties, some of which were off limits to public access, are now in Montana's Block Management Program, so people can hunt them.
Perhaps the posters here who dislike this idea can explain what they find unpleasant about a willing buyer-willing seller relationship that increases wildlife populations, expands public access, and results in more commerce in local towns, does not result in a loss of tax revenues, and does not expand federal or state ownership of land.
Maybe you boys want some "laws" forbidding people to buy land and do what they want with it? Well, you ain't got a dog in this fight. Private property rights are still a cornerstone of our society.
I've had that transition shock myself, many times.
APF has the advantage of being exempt, therefore they can outbid any private buyer or "real" rancher.
The long term is for APFWWF to amass the base properties and then come to the government and flip off the entire mess on everyone else's nickel. So claiming this is about "property rights" is deflectionist nonsense.
NO WILD BISON here! They are domestic,hybrid bison like livestock. "Wild" is false advertising to collect money and illegal!Look at the Montana statutes and federal & state laws on FALSE ADVERTISING TO COLLECT MONEY! Wake up...don't be duped! Montana................are you awake??
I'll sure look into it.