Speaker 1: From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This
Speaker 1: is Col's Week in Review with Ryan col Kalahan. Here's Cal.
Speaker 1: Last week we brought you news of a coyote who
Speaker 1: swam to and from the Rock. Ah, that was a
Speaker 1: bad Sean Connery, let me give it to you this way,
Speaker 1: your best Losa's only whine about doing that best The
Speaker 1: Rock is that better? It's got to be better. Couldn't
Speaker 1: finish that quote. Go watch The Rock, which if you
Speaker 1: listened last week you already have. It's a wonderfully bad movie,
Speaker 1: but fantastic Nick Cage and Sean Connery great one liners.
Speaker 1: Kind of like that like overlay of like some history
Speaker 1: in there. It's fun. Anyway. This week we're covering a
Speaker 1: canid who crossed a much, much bigger body water, the
Speaker 1: Atlantic Ocean. Earlier this year, a red fox stowed away
Speaker 1: on a car carrier ship leaving from Southampton, England, arriving
Speaker 1: in the Port of New York and New Jersey in February.
Speaker 1: After being discovered, the fox was quarantined at the Bronx Zoo.
Speaker 1: It's a good thing he didn't slip off the boat undetected.
Speaker 1: Vet's discovered that the fox was carrying a parasite called
Speaker 1: French heartworm, which is just regular old heartworm with a
Speaker 1: fancy accent and a cigarette joking aside, French heartworm is
Speaker 1: rare in the US and can be fatal to canids.
Speaker 1: So it's great news that this fox was treated without
Speaker 1: spreading the parasite. I can't imagine it just got treated anyway.
Speaker 1: Last week the Bronx Zoo declared the fox was disease free.
Speaker 1: Scientists there also named the fox Basil, which is a
Speaker 1: good name, even if I don't love the practice of
Speaker 1: giving names to wild animals, although now I guess Basil
Speaker 1: isn't a wild animal. The Bronx Zoo doesn't have a
Speaker 1: red fox, and so this one might end up staying there,
Speaker 1: or he may be transferred to a different animal sanctuary.
Speaker 1: We've all heard stories of crafty foxes escaping red coated
Speaker 1: hunters on horseback by crossing back over their tracks or
Speaker 1: traveling only at night but to stow away on a
Speaker 1: cargo ship headed for the USVA. That's taking the term
Speaker 1: sly fox to a whole different level. This week land
Speaker 1: access legislation and he shot my paw. But first I
Speaker 1: want to tell you about my week, and my week
Speaker 1: has been a little more wild than usual. The pregnant
Speaker 1: lady whom I was just told by some listeners that
Speaker 1: I referred to my partner Sam in many ways other
Speaker 1: than fat, But those terms that I use meant fat
Speaker 1: right here on this here podcast, Well, Sam is not
Speaker 1: pregnant anymore. The kid is here, baby Boy Callahan, the
Speaker 1: sixth generation of Callahan's here in the Treasure State, was
Speaker 1: born on the twenty second, meaning that we were contractions
Speaker 1: were happening while I was recording this podcast. Now I
Speaker 1: should address the quote and alleged fat references. We practice
Speaker 1: positive body image here in this house, especially when referring
Speaker 1: to everything other than my beer belly. Bigger is better
Speaker 1: in the baby game, so far as my knowledge goes,
Speaker 1: so big is success and good and beautiful. And you
Speaker 1: may argue with me about that, but you cannot argue
Speaker 1: about the end result. The kid's so handsome that I
Speaker 1: couldn't walk the fifteen feet across the operating room. We
Speaker 1: ended up in like an emergency C section scenario without
Speaker 1: someone stopping me to say, wow, that is a good
Speaker 1: looking baby, to which I said thank you and they said, no,
Speaker 1: you don't understand, but don't always look that good, to
Speaker 1: which I said, yeah, I'm not someone who compliments babies,
Speaker 1: and this one is so handsome. I need to go
Speaker 1: figure out who the father is. Anyway, we got six
Speaker 1: days of keeping a tiny human alive under our belts.
Speaker 1: Mom's tough and kicking butt. Kid is eating like a
Speaker 1: monster and gaining a little bit of weight on the
Speaker 1: right track. A couple of big takeaways so far from
Speaker 1: early fatherhood. For all the crap people in the guiding game,
Speaker 1: get about like being itinerant bums and you know season
Speaker 1: employees dirt bags well, blah blah blah blah, that life
Speaker 1: had taken care of other people and making sure you
Speaker 1: are the first one up and operating for a week
Speaker 1: or ten days on little to no sleep before a
Speaker 1: day of recharge, multitasking your butt off and keeping things safe, well,
Speaker 1: that really preps a fella for the dad life. May
Speaker 1: not be doing it the way the TikTok influencers are
Speaker 1: or the nurses in the hospital would prefer, but we
Speaker 1: smell nice and eat well and no missing digits or
Speaker 1: scars or diaper rash. Yet for those who have not
Speaker 1: the you know, the c section game takes MA out
Speaker 1: of the quick movement and lifting any weight game for
Speaker 1: a bit. Plus, I mean, jeez, childbirth is wild. We
Speaker 1: are mammals. It's a good reminder. Other takeaway, I've never
Speaker 1: named a puppy before I got to hang out with
Speaker 1: it for a while. I'm not one of those people
Speaker 1: that comes up with names ahead of time. So baby
Speaker 1: Boy Callahan came home with the name baby Boy Callahan.
Speaker 1: That's something people do not like, and I can't imagine
Speaker 1: doing it any other way. But my god, that's a
Speaker 1: conversation that I wish would end. Makes one wish you
Speaker 1: had a generic name that you just lie to everybody with.
Speaker 1: I know it's hard to top that news, but I
Speaker 1: got a little corner crossing update from Montana Fish, Wildlife
Speaker 1: and Parks today. Christy Clark, the director of Montana Fish,
Speaker 1: Wildlife and Parks, just announced a directive issue to the
Speaker 1: Public Land and Public Water Committee to review corner crossing
Speaker 1: access programs provided by the state and ways to increased
Speaker 1: land owner participation in those state access programs designed around
Speaker 1: opening up like easement style corridors to landlocked parcels, and
Speaker 1: I suppose that could be applied in areas where you
Speaker 1: have quote unquote problem corners. What is the Public Land
Speaker 1: Public Water Committee, you may ask, Well, it was created
Speaker 1: back in ninety three to help advise the governor and
Speaker 1: FWP on landowner relations and access programs. PLWP can support
Speaker 1: legislation and provide recommendations. Recently, the committee backed increased payments
Speaker 1: for landowners in block management. We've had a couple of
Speaker 1: things here, So we had, you know, backcountry hunters and
Speaker 1: anglers in Public Landwater Access Association entered a joint suit
Speaker 1: against the State of Montana seeking a declaratory judgment on
Speaker 1: corner crossing, a real black and white definition for all
Speaker 1: of us to run on. And then our Land Board
Speaker 1: voted to kind of adopt a lot of new language
Speaker 1: and pro One of those seems to imply that state
Speaker 1: lands that are accessed through corner crossing would be considered
Speaker 1: not accessible and land swaps of state land. One of
Speaker 1: the big barriers is if it's in use by the
Speaker 1: public and accessible by the public, it's a lot harder
Speaker 1: to swap those parcels. So those two things have happened,
Speaker 1: and then we just got this statement or public notification
Speaker 1: basically that the Public Land Public Water committee would be
Speaker 1: focusing on finding some access solutions. So I like that.
Speaker 1: That's great, show some good intent, some movement would be
Speaker 1: good if it was a long time ago. Just remember
Speaker 1: that no matter what side of the barbed wire you
Speaker 1: stand on, public or private, we are all trustees of
Speaker 1: the public estate. We are public landowners, and we can
Speaker 1: have access to those lands while respecting and preserving private
Speaker 1: property rights. It literally happens every single day and has
Speaker 1: happened every single day. The crazy comes out when folks
Speaker 1: start acting like this is a new concept. It is
Speaker 1: not moving on. We're just trickling into June here after
Speaker 1: a season of historically low snowfall across the West. We
Speaker 1: have more updates on Crazy Mountain Ranch, the ultra luxury
Speaker 1: Montana golf course with a long track record of racking
Speaker 1: up water violations CMR. Crazy Mountain Ranch is now petitioning
Speaker 1: the Park County District Court to gain quote unquote exclusive
Speaker 1: authority to control a ditch carrying water to their golf course.
Speaker 1: The hearing on the petition will take place on June third.
Speaker 1: To get a sense of whether these are folks we
Speaker 1: can trust to make water diversions without oversight, It's important
Speaker 1: to look at their history after CMR was caught watering
Speaker 1: their grass without proper permits in twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 1: you got to keep in mind, this is the arid
Speaker 1: West right that ditchwater is largely from snowpack located in
Speaker 1: this case in the Crazy Mountains, and it runs down
Speaker 1: stream for everybody. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservations
Speaker 1: sued the club to stop, but the club continued to
Speaker 1: use water illegally, and so the state Water commissioner shut
Speaker 1: off supplies entirely. To resolve the dispute, the club and
Speaker 1: the DNRC sent a consent decree where the state would
Speaker 1: expedite review of the club's existing permit applications and the
Speaker 1: CMR would stop using water in violation of the rules.
Speaker 1: But almost immediately the club began trucking in one hundred
Speaker 1: and ten thousand gallons of water per week, and soon
Speaker 1: investigators found that the City of Boulder, Montana, was selling
Speaker 1: much of this water to CMR from a well that
Speaker 1: had no water right that violated both the Montana Water
Speaker 1: Use Act and the consent decree the club had signed.
Speaker 1: The DNRC fined the club eight thousand dollars one thousand
Speaker 1: dollars per day for using the unlawful well. CMR then
Speaker 1: refused to pay that fine, saying it wasn't their responsibility
Speaker 1: to ensure that Boulder could legally sell them the water.
Speaker 1: In fact, Boulder had been isn't that well for years
Speaker 1: without proper rights due to a clerical error, and so
Speaker 1: in March, the district court ruled in CMR's favor, allowing
Speaker 1: them not to pay the fine, but warning, quote, make
Speaker 1: damn sure that the water you put on those soddid
Speaker 1: acres is compliant. After the rule, the same commissioner who
Speaker 1: turned off CMR's water gave it a quote to the
Speaker 1: press that he probably shouldn't have, saying, quote, it could
Speaker 1: really be tight on water this year. It should stay
Speaker 1: limited to egg use. I think CMR is citing this
Speaker 1: quote as evidence that the commissioner won't act impartially and
Speaker 1: a reason the club should have control over the water
Speaker 1: ditch without oversight. Justifying their position, the general manager of
Speaker 1: CMRS said they needed to quote react to water flows
Speaker 1: on a daily, sometimes even hourly basis. The headgate is
Speaker 1: on our property and we cannot expect the water commissioner
Speaker 1: to be there at all times. But that's a far
Speaker 1: cry from removing commissioner oversight altogether. Nearby water user Scott
Speaker 1: Knutsun said quote, if one user can manage its own
Speaker 1: diversions without independent oversight, it weakens the system that protects
Speaker 1: every water user in Montana and sets a dangerous precedent.
Speaker 1: And he does mean dangerous precedent. The saying whiskeys for
Speaker 1: drinking waters for fighting is all around the West, and
Speaker 1: it's because of situations that are very similar to this,
Speaker 1: not exactly like this right in relation to the agriculture
Speaker 1: I think you should ride in, do you think the
Speaker 1: water should be used for growing fat cattle, tall grass,
Speaker 1: improving feed and habitat, maybe growing some food for America?
Speaker 1: Or do you think it should be used to irrigate
Speaker 1: some Kentucky bluegrass in a spot that only a handful
Speaker 1: of people have access to with a high high barrier
Speaker 1: to entry. The hearing to decide the matter is on
Speaker 1: June three. If the district Court allows CMR to control
Speaker 1: this headgate without oversight, all the foxes in the area
Speaker 1: should take no. Maybe they can petition to get unrestricted
Speaker 1: oversight of their local chicken coops. Moving on to the
Speaker 1: Pierce vote, last Monday, Donald Trump's pick for head of
Speaker 1: the BLM, Steve Pierce, was confirmed by the US Senate.
Speaker 1: As we've covered before, Pierce's record isn't great, with a
Speaker 1: long list of statements and votes showing support for selling
Speaker 1: public lance. This vote was an early test for the
Speaker 1: so called Senate Stewardship Caucus, a bipartisan group of four
Speaker 1: Democrats and four Republicans, similar to the Public Lance Caucus
Speaker 1: in the House. The Senate Stewardship Caucus split along party
Speaker 1: lines to confirm Pierce, with one of the Republican members,
Speaker 1: Tom Tillis of North Carolina, deciding not to vote. The
Speaker 1: administration seemed to know that Pierce wasn't the most popular
Speaker 1: pick because they packaged together his nomination with almost fifty
Speaker 1: other officials. Now do I think it would have been
Speaker 1: worth the political capital for the Republican members of the
Speaker 1: caucus to demand that Pierce be broken out from the
Speaker 1: other nominees and then vote him down. Not necessarily, but
Speaker 1: the whole point of this group is to defend our
Speaker 1: public land, and so waving through a BLM director who
Speaker 1: is on the record saying, quote, we do not even
Speaker 1: need most of those public lands might be strike one. Now,
Speaker 1: we'll wait and let Pierce prove himself one way or another.
Speaker 1: But if he takes actions that sacrifice public land, or
Speaker 1: if another public land sale comes around, this caucus needs
Speaker 1: to pull together and do the right thing to risk
Speaker 1: becoming irrelevant, and you know, we want them to succeed.
Speaker 1: We need Unfortunately, a lot of reliable folks at the
Speaker 1: BLM have moved on to greener pastures. At least seven
Speaker 1: BLM state directors or associate state directors left the agency
Speaker 1: in April. Institutional knowledge turnover is tough. Now. This past
Speaker 1: Monday was Memorial Day. Memorial Day is the day that
Speaker 1: we should chill out a little bit and think about
Speaker 1: all the actions of the folks in the armed services
Speaker 1: that have got us protecting our freedoms and interests across
Speaker 1: the world. It's public service, man, it's a it's a
Speaker 1: civil service role. And I know lots and lots of
Speaker 1: folks who have taken up that charge and challenge many
Speaker 1: who are still out there and we're involved in conflicts
Speaker 1: all over the place. So in the spirit of Memorial Day,
Speaker 1: I am, you know, very thankful for the actions of
Speaker 1: those folks who have signed on and joined up and
Speaker 1: didn't come home or sometimes came home and had a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of tough challenges getting back in
Speaker 1: the old civilian swing of things. Memorial Day is also,
Speaker 1: you know, the kickoff to summer for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Our temperatures start to really crank up, which typically means
Speaker 1: that bears should be entering like a lull between the
Speaker 1: heightened activity of the late rut which typically runs into
Speaker 1: you know, June, first week of June, and that hyper
Speaker 1: faget of leaving the den and trying to pack on
Speaker 1: as many pounds that occurred early in the spring. So
Speaker 1: it was very surprising to read this week that a
Speaker 1: two year old black bear was shot and killed in
Speaker 1: the suburban neighborhood and Canby, Oregon. According to Katei n
Speaker 1: Channel six, the bear had come within a few blocks
Speaker 1: of a farmer's market as well as the Clackamas County Fairgrounds.
Speaker 1: The bear climbed a tree, a classic strategy to avoid conflict,
Speaker 1: and when the bear came back down, neither the local
Speaker 1: police nor the Department of Fish and Wildlife had a
Speaker 1: tranquilizer gun on hamp According to the news report, the
Speaker 1: bear was not acting aggressive and had not threatened anyone,
Speaker 1: but police shot the bear out of an abundance of
Speaker 1: caution because several people had gathered around the tree to
Speaker 1: view the animal. That's a tough lesson for old the
Speaker 1: Yogi to learn. It's been a while since we've said
Speaker 1: this on the show. We've said it many many times.
Speaker 1: Our job in days of abundant wildlife right is to
Speaker 1: make sure that we're putting our bird feeders away, we're
Speaker 1: putting our trash away, and we're keeping our garage doors closed,
Speaker 1: stuff like that so these critters don't become habituated and
Speaker 1: scenes like this happened. Staying in Oregon, we have a
Speaker 1: bit of bad news. Initiative Petition twenty eight, the so
Speaker 1: called Peace Act, has now officially gained enough signatures to
Speaker 1: be included on the ballot in this fall's elections. Although
Speaker 1: the Oregon Secretary of State still needs to verify the
Speaker 1: signatures before they make it official, voters are almost definitely
Speaker 1: going to decide this one as a reminder, the Peace
Speaker 1: Act would remove exceptions for hunters and anglers in Oregon's
Speaker 1: animal cruelty laws, which would make any act that injures
Speaker 1: or kills an animal illegal. This would also criminalize farming
Speaker 1: and ranching in the state. I'm not shaking in my
Speaker 1: boots that this will definitely pass, but the fact that
Speaker 1: it's coming to a vote is just absolutely ridiculous. Even
Speaker 1: if IP twenty eight is defeated, it remains damaging because
Speaker 1: it creates needless division. Most people on the right and
Speaker 1: the left agree about protecting the natural world, and they
Speaker 1: all agree that hunting and fishing are essential to conservation.
Speaker 1: But when people get out there and they hire very
Speaker 1: skilled folks to collect signatures to advance efforts like the
Speaker 1: Peace Act, convinces too many people that everyone on the
Speaker 1: left is a wacko and everybody on the right is
Speaker 1: a crazy conservative, and so we remain divided. There's a
Speaker 1: better path forward folks having a real dialogue and take
Speaker 1: the time to actually understand the other side of the fence. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: we got to defeat this one with a big public
Speaker 1: education campaign. We'll let you know when IP twenty eight
Speaker 1: gets closer to the vote. Moving on to West Virginia,
Speaker 1: Senator Jim Justice So West Virginia has introduced the Grouse
Speaker 1: Act aka the Growing and Restoring Operational upland Species Ecosystems
Speaker 1: Act of twenty twenty six. How's that for an acronym
Speaker 1: good job team. The bill would benefit yes, grouse, but
Speaker 1: also a whole lot of other species. It would establish
Speaker 1: a USDA program to reimburse landowners up to seventy five
Speaker 1: percent of the cost of planning native vegetation that's beneficial
Speaker 1: to upland wildlife on commercially logged for us. It would
Speaker 1: also provide landowners with technical assistance to do so. Quote
Speaker 1: as a lifelong hunter and angler, this is just common
Speaker 1: sense and a major win for investing in conservation, said justice.
Speaker 1: By improving wildlife habitats, we can strengthen populations of everything
Speaker 1: from grouse to deer and beyond, while also creating a
Speaker 1: real economic impact for West Virginians, Americans, and our outdoor community.
Speaker 1: The bill unsurprisingly has the backing of a host of
Speaker 1: conservation groups, from the Rough Grouse Society, an American Woodcock Society,
Speaker 1: to the National Wild Turkey Federation and Yes US over
Speaker 1: at backcountry hunters and anglers. In fact, our West Virginia
Speaker 1: Chapter chair takes old Justice out on the river works
Speaker 1: on a smallmouth bass game. It's solid, common sense legislation
Speaker 1: that will be pushing forward and tracking in the weeks
Speaker 1: and months to come. M moving on and I'm circling
Speaker 1: back to something I hit at the top of the show.
Speaker 1: The Montana Landboard is overhauling its land swap process for
Speaker 1: the first time in twenty years, and some conservation groups
Speaker 1: are crying foul. On Monday May eighteen, the Land Board,
Speaker 1: which includes the state's five highest elected officials, voted on
Speaker 1: the shakeup. The new plan impacts the regulations for land
Speaker 1: swaps involving public land managed by the state. One change
Speaker 1: is that the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation would
Speaker 1: no longer be able to flatly deny a proposed land
Speaker 1: exchange if it is not in the public interest or
Speaker 1: eligible under existing land exchange requirements. That would be reserved
Speaker 1: only for the politically elected Land Board. Additionally, the new
Speaker 1: plan increases the scope of work that private consultants can do.
Speaker 1: Those consultants are paid for by YEP, private landowners and
Speaker 1: might not have the public's best interest in mind for
Speaker 1: obvious reasons. The new process also changes the language surrounding
Speaker 1: whether the public benefits from a landswap, a required consideration.
Speaker 1: Some folks in the conservation community testified and support of
Speaker 1: the change, which was introduced by State Auditor James Brown,
Speaker 1: who called it a red tape reduction that all eliminated
Speaker 1: unnecessary bureaucracy. According to the Montana Free Press that said,
Speaker 1: many folks raise serious concern with who exactly benefits from
Speaker 1: the changes, as well as the lack of a public
Speaker 1: comment period. Said Kevin Farren with Montana Wildlife Federation, quote,
Speaker 1: this is opaque. This is something that was given to
Speaker 1: the public seven days ago in its full form. A
Speaker 1: thirty day scoping and comment period should be the very
Speaker 1: least that we should be getting out of this. Governor
Speaker 1: Greg gene Forte did put forward a motion to add
Speaker 1: a thirty day comment but the Land Board voted down
Speaker 1: the motion. Gene Fote abstained from the final vote, which
Speaker 1: was a unanimous four to zero. Russell Fruits with the
Speaker 1: Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a man who
Speaker 1: is taking his own time as a volunteer to represent,
Speaker 1: made his voice heard during public testimony. Quote. Recent third
Speaker 1: party broker land exchanges in Montana have produced deals where
Speaker 1: the public received high elevation terrain of limited utility while
Speaker 1: giving up productive, lower elevation land and established recreational acts.
Speaker 1: Those outcomes are not accidents. They're what happens when no
Speaker 1: one is in the room to independently be accountable and
Speaker 1: stick up for the public well, said Russell. Great example
Speaker 1: of what you get for your membership dollars out of BHA.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter where you came from, what your background is.
Speaker 1: You are capable of representing your interests in front of
Speaker 1: the land board or the legislature or the US Congress
Speaker 1: and will help you get there. So you know, become
Speaker 1: a member today. We need you. Jumping on over to
Speaker 1: the critter desk. Wild hogs and deer go together like
Speaker 1: oil and water, which is to say they don't. That's
Speaker 1: one of the main takeaways of some ongoing research down Mississippi,
Speaker 1: where research professor doctor Melanie Boudreau conducted a study that
Speaker 1: involved coloring wild pigs and white tailed deer. While boudreau
Speaker 1: study hasn't been published, she sat down with Meat Eat
Speaker 1: Associate editor Adam Moore to break down some of her
Speaker 1: preliminary findings. Boudreau and her team colored ten faral hogs
Speaker 1: and ten deer on a property in March and plan
Speaker 1: to monitor their locations until October, though that didn't quite happen,
Speaker 1: said Boudreau by October, all our pigs were dead. Landowners
Speaker 1: in Mississippi like to handle their pig problems. That said,
Speaker 1: Boudreau notes that they were still able to connect enough
Speaker 1: data to see how the species were impacting each other or,
Speaker 1: in this case, how the pigs were pushing deer out
Speaker 1: of overlapping habitats such as hardwood bottom land. Additionally, Boudreau's
Speaker 1: team set up camera traps over bait piles, and in
Speaker 1: thirteen thousand pictures there were none that had both hogs
Speaker 1: and deer in a single frame. Deer in pigs don't
Speaker 1: like being next to each other. If you said, that's
Speaker 1: not surprising, but it's cool to see it in the data,
Speaker 1: and that it supports what landowners and others are saying.
Speaker 1: There are a couple of interesting notes from a conservation perspective,
Speaker 1: one being that feeders create quote interaction points for hogs
Speaker 1: to run into and bump deer from properties. Additionally, the
Speaker 1: research shows that deer bumped by hogs often come into
Speaker 1: contact with other deer groups that they otherwise might not have,
Speaker 1: which could increase the spread of chronic wasting disease or
Speaker 1: other diseases. Pigs rooting and Wallowing at feeder sites could
Speaker 1: also allow for the transmission of cwdprewns within the soil,
Speaker 1: which is something hunters might want to keep in mind
Speaker 1: when considering the pros and cons of hunting over bait,
Speaker 1: and it's apparently pretty popular in Old Mississippi. Quote hunters
Speaker 1: have to decide if the feeders are worth that risk,
Speaker 1: said Boudreau. We did an aerial survey just account how
Speaker 1: many feeders might be across the state of Mississippi. We
Speaker 1: found one feeder per square kilometer and that's just the
Speaker 1: ones we could see from a plane. I imagine that's
Speaker 1: a sample size that's been extrapolated. Gang If not, we're
Speaker 1: gonna shut this podcast down. Going to the feeder manufacturing
Speaker 1: business set up shop in Old Mississippi. But to go
Speaker 1: with the math, that is one feeder for every fourteen
Speaker 1: deer in the state. That's a lot of corn on
Speaker 1: the landscape. Head over to the meateater dot com for
Speaker 1: our full conversation with doctor Boudreaux. That's all I got
Speaker 1: for you this week. Thank you so much for listening,
Speaker 1: and remember to write in to a s K C.
Speaker 1: A L. That's Ascal at the meeater dot com. You
Speaker 1: can also call into four oh six two two zero
Speaker 1: six four four one. That's four oh six two two
Speaker 1: zero six four four one, and this is the first
Speaker 1: podcast live for one audience member, baby Boy Callahan, who
Speaker 1: uh teetered and tottered and cooed and sputtered all the
Speaker 1: way through the thing, but no crying. What a chap Anyway,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening. That's all I got for you. Let
Speaker 1: us know what's going on in your neck of the woods.
Speaker 1: You know, I appreciate it, and we'll talk to you
Speaker 1: next week.