Speaker 1: This is me Eater podcast coming at you shirtless, severely,
Speaker 1: bug bitten and in my case, underwear listening Hunt podcast,
Speaker 1: you can't predict anything presented by on x Hunt creators
Speaker 1: are the most comprehensive digital mapping system for hunters. Download
Speaker 1: the Hunt app from the iTunes or Google play store,
Speaker 1: nor where you stand with on x okay before we start.
Speaker 1: This is the This is the biggest thing to happen
Speaker 1: since the uh Bismith shock, ELI with the cotton gent
Speaker 1: and on like since opening hostilities of the French and
Speaker 1: Indian War. This is the biggest thing to happen. Um
Speaker 1: going on going on tour called met Eat off the
Speaker 1: air me Steve cal Kel asked me and and Yanni
Speaker 1: and friends are going on on our tour and you'll
Speaker 1: be able to see and hear things that you will
Speaker 1: not be able to see in here anywhere else. We
Speaker 1: got eleven cities. Me and Calorie take turns name in
Speaker 1: the cities. I'll start San Francisco, Portland's, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Chicago,
Speaker 1: d C, Pittsburgh. Tickets go on sale Friday, January seventeen,
Speaker 1: but are available exclusively to the mediator community beginning January
Speaker 1: at ten am local venue times, So in your venue
Speaker 1: whatever becomes ten am for you. You go on our site,
Speaker 1: the me eater dot Com, go to the live events
Speaker 1: and you'll find your venue and you use the promo
Speaker 1: code mugs and then you get tickets before they go
Speaker 1: on just general national sale. We're also gonna have an
Speaker 1: exclusive meat and greet where we take some photos, signed
Speaker 1: some stuff, signed books. That's available for v i P
Speaker 1: ticket holders. There's only sixty five those v i P
Speaker 1: tickets per show, so get on that. But Meat Eater
Speaker 1: off the air, come seeing meet me, Yanni o Cal
Speaker 1: we're thinking about having a thing at the show. When
Speaker 1: I when I was a kid and you went to
Speaker 1: a wedding, they had to think called the dollar dance,
Speaker 1: and you would come and pay a buck and dance
Speaker 1: with if it was a dude, I think a word
Speaker 1: like this. You put throw a dollar in and it's
Speaker 1: like I think it was like a dude, you dance
Speaker 1: with the bride. It's called the dollar dance. It's a
Speaker 1: big part of every wedding. You put in a buck
Speaker 1: or five bucks or something dance at the bride. You know,
Speaker 1: do you not know what I'm talking about. Our producer
Speaker 1: Crint Crin, do you understand what I'm talking about? A
Speaker 1: dollar dance. Have you been to a wedding with a
Speaker 1: dollar dance? I have not no, but I'm I'm getting
Speaker 1: like a picture in my mind. There's a part of
Speaker 1: this thing. Everybody's a little looped up. That's a youth
Speaker 1: missen for drinking and they, uh, it's a big part
Speaker 1: of the night. Everybody lines up. It's a way to
Speaker 1: raise money for the bride and groom to buy the house.
Speaker 1: Everybody lines up and you throw a dollar into a
Speaker 1: can and you get a very very short dance with
Speaker 1: the bride or I think a shot. How short it
Speaker 1: depends on the line. Quick dance would be like a
Speaker 1: lot of people per song. Yeah, so like a song,
Speaker 1: the bride might dance with ten people who are all
Speaker 1: throwing in money to raise money for the couple. Or
Speaker 1: I think you get a shot. Or it was like
Speaker 1: ladies get a shot, dude. Either way, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. The dollar dance, got it? Yeah, we think
Speaker 1: about having the thing um dollar dance with cal for
Speaker 1: twenty bucks, but it all goes to conservation. I want
Speaker 1: to end the I want to end the off the
Speaker 1: air live shows where you can either leave or do
Speaker 1: a dollar dance with Cal for twenty bucks. Go go
Speaker 1: get your tickets for this. The most important part it
Speaker 1: will be uh hoping that when a dance with you're
Speaker 1: buying a dancer cow for bucks. I've already got already
Speaker 1: got the playlist in my head. We're gonna have a
Speaker 1: spotlight shining down on cow. You can whisper in my
Speaker 1: ear all the things I'm getting wrong, but whisper loudly
Speaker 1: because I'm down. Yeah, and I was thinking about ladies
Speaker 1: get a kiss for an extra five, so much money
Speaker 1: for conservation. But what if they're like a thousand people?
Speaker 1: Then if it gets that bad, me and yeah, and
Speaker 1: you'll jump in and we'll start dancing with people too.
Speaker 1: If but but my wife pointed out that no one's
Speaker 1: gonna want to dance with me. You either gonna want
Speaker 1: to dance the cow. But if someone was like, you
Speaker 1: know it needed to get out of there because babysit
Speaker 1: or whatever, they just needed to dance. They didn't care
Speaker 1: who they got it from. I'll give a kiss, Okay.
Speaker 1: It will be a great opportunity to come down and
Speaker 1: have fun with a bunch of outdoors folks. Meat Eater
Speaker 1: off the Air Levin Cities. Tickets go on sale Friday, January.
Speaker 1: That's by just next the exclusive thing on our own website,
Speaker 1: The mediator dot Com. Promo code mugs ten am. Your
Speaker 1: time off there, folks, dancer cow. Okay, we're joined by
Speaker 1: very special guests with Fosburg second every time on the show.
Speaker 1: Good to be here. The first time we did what
Speaker 1: we're gonna do right now. We did like a conservation
Speaker 1: round up to the eastern shore. And now that we're
Speaker 1: kind of like the dust is settling. I mean there's
Speaker 1: a new dust to stir, but the dust is settling
Speaker 1: from teen and we can review like the lay of
Speaker 1: the land. Yeah, that sounds great. Uh, first we gotta
Speaker 1: take care of something. Oh and uh, we need to
Speaker 1: say yeah, he's gone well with Fossburg CEO. You know,
Speaker 1: I said that the first time, but still hadn't done
Speaker 1: his you know, um CEO of Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Speaker 1: t RCP. We talked about a fair bit. Um. Yanni's gone.
Speaker 1: This is the fourth ever episode he wasn't present for.
Speaker 1: He's out ice fishing, he's on assignment. It's part of
Speaker 1: our fur Hat ice tour, which we haven't announced. And
Speaker 1: Yanni and I were duck hunting the other day and
Speaker 1: he let me know that he is not much of
Speaker 1: an ice fisherman, which I found kind of shocking when
Speaker 1: you take into consider, um, you know where he hails from.
Speaker 1: But he's not a true outdoorsman. He just said, Oh,
Speaker 1: I come on, he is not a true outdoorsman. I
Speaker 1: will often I will often uh invite him to go
Speaker 1: do things, but hey, let's go ice fishing and he can't.
Speaker 1: He's going skiing. He probably like, you cannot be a
Speaker 1: true outdoorsman and a skier. You just can't do it.
Speaker 1: That's why me and Seth the flip flop Flasher, are
Speaker 1: the only true outdoorsman. You can't. You can't unless you
Speaker 1: ski to unless you're like skiing to hunt snowshoes or something,
Speaker 1: you cannot. It just doesn't work. I was flabbergasted recently
Speaker 1: to find out that his family didn't hunt on Christmas Day.
Speaker 1: Oh really, they don't hunt on Christmas Day. He grew
Speaker 1: up not hunting Christmas Day, not taking a walk in
Speaker 1: the woods for squirrels or rabbits or ice fishing the
Speaker 1: whole day. They just sat there. Well, they're up all
Speaker 1: night doing their pagan rituals that time. Yeah, and then
Speaker 1: they drink too much the Latvian people. Uh, quick, before
Speaker 1: we get into the main stuff here, the lamestream media
Speaker 1: refuses to cover, um, what happens with people's We've been
Speaker 1: talking a lot about this, what happens to people's limbs
Speaker 1: and fingers and whatnot when they lose them. Um, here's
Speaker 1: a fresh story. This guy. There's a guy in Edmonton.
Speaker 1: The guy just sent the things we've been talking. I
Speaker 1: don't know how it came up, but somehow we gotta.
Speaker 1: Oh it was from getting de gloved, conversations around your
Speaker 1: wedding ring, tearing the skin off your finger, and how
Speaker 1: silicon wedding rings are the way to go. I I
Speaker 1: switched to no ring at all recently because I lost mine,
Speaker 1: my rubber one. Um. But that guy is into talking
Speaker 1: about just various things that have happened to people's fingers
Speaker 1: and arms. There's this article out about this guy in
Speaker 1: Edmonton who got in a crash a long time ago
Speaker 1: in his arm. He lost the use of his arm,
Speaker 1: but he packed it around. He's on a motorbike, his
Speaker 1: brother's more motorbike. Uh, and he packed it around for
Speaker 1: twenty years not working. Arm didn't work so evenly he
Speaker 1: thought just trying to move on and had the arm amputated.
Speaker 1: Told tells the doctor that he wants to keep it,
Speaker 1: and in the end, after he gets his army ampetated,
Speaker 1: he goes back and brings his frozen arm home in
Speaker 1: a sack. Calls around to a bunch of taxidermists and
Speaker 1: most of them won't even consider his request, and eventually
Speaker 1: he gets hold of a taxidermous. They even give the
Speaker 1: name of the tax I want to give kudos to
Speaker 1: this taxidermous Legends taxidermy in Drayton Valley, Alberta. Uh. They
Speaker 1: finally agree to take care of it and he gets
Speaker 1: it euro mounted. And it's funny because the article I'm
Speaker 1: looking at uh, um, there's an image of him holding
Speaker 1: this bone arm up in a warning about graphic images
Speaker 1: below the image, so it's like you already saw the image. Uh.
Speaker 1: He brings it. He brought it to Christmas this year
Speaker 1: to show everybody. He says that he thinks he might
Speaker 1: eventually retire the arm and he's thinking about I'll quote him,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna keep it probably behind the sink in
Speaker 1: the kitchen. From the there's a good line from the taxidermist.
Speaker 1: So the husband wife taxidermy team, you know from this story, Yes, oh,
Speaker 1: you know more than I know about it. No, I
Speaker 1: just you sounds like you know more, but I just
Speaker 1: read a different the short short version. You heard a
Speaker 1: quote from the taxidermist. Yes, and uh so the one
Speaker 1: armed man calls and the wife picks up the phone
Speaker 1: and she's like, well, you need to bring it down
Speaker 1: in person so I can make sure it's your arm,
Speaker 1: which I found entertaining. Oh yeah, if a guy with
Speaker 1: two arms shows up and he's got an arm in
Speaker 1: the sack and says he wants his arm, I would
Speaker 1: be a credulous yes. And so smell of fish for sure.
Speaker 1: The husband, the second half of the taxidermy team, says,
Speaker 1: you know what's up? And she said, well, this is
Speaker 1: what's happening. And he says no way, and she says,
Speaker 1: well he's on his way down here already. Um. And
Speaker 1: the detail that I kind of want because she she
Speaker 1: did say that, like did they beatle did they beatle clean?
Speaker 1: That's the detail that I want because I would feel
Speaker 1: very differently. So typically for a European mount, either boil, slash,
Speaker 1: steam the meat and hide off of bone. Feel you
Speaker 1: busy down there? Would you mind checking to see if
Speaker 1: Legends Taxidermy and Drayton Valley. Uh, if they advertise beetle
Speaker 1: cleaning services, Beetle cleaning, Legends tax and Drayton Valley. But
Speaker 1: real curious was the Beatles. There wasn't a boiling clean right,
Speaker 1: because he's kind You're smelling what I'm getting at, right,
Speaker 1: It just be a little different. But I would never
Speaker 1: look at my Beatles the same way again if I
Speaker 1: was using drmifted beatles to clean it. Yeah, what do
Speaker 1: you find is interesting? You're not interesting? Fascinating? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: great cast characters. Uh. And then they had to get
Speaker 1: so we'll let that linger until we get get the
Speaker 1: the final result. But um they had to with with
Speaker 1: the bones that were left after the cleaning process. Um,
Speaker 1: Legends tax during Me then reached out so much more
Speaker 1: about this. This was just a real tight snippet and
Speaker 1: kind of from their perspective, I can you know, I
Speaker 1: can't remember where it was from. But anyway, they had
Speaker 1: to reach out to a doctor friend of theirs um hand,
Speaker 1: doctor assumed assumedly, and they The doctor then put it
Speaker 1: back together for them because she apparently looked at the
Speaker 1: pile of bones, was like, hey, I'm not I got
Speaker 1: how this goes together, which should be kind of bummed,
Speaker 1: right if that's your because you can't give him another
Speaker 1: arm to work on. Did you get any sense of
Speaker 1: what they we should just call these guys up. Do
Speaker 1: you get any sense of what they charged for this? Oh?
Speaker 1: That was not in the article, not in my version.
Speaker 1: You know, I never endorsed Taxidermist, but um well I
Speaker 1: know I will because it's got Justin Sable. Dude, Justin.
Speaker 1: I took table and he called me yesterday afternoon, was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: come get these things. He doesn't waste time, he's got
Speaker 1: a system dialed. And then I immediately regretted the price
Speaker 1: that we settled on. Hold me, you got overcharged. When
Speaker 1: I finally came in and pay for something, I wanted
Speaker 1: to be as painful and argue as for the person
Speaker 1: I'm paying as possible. That way, I feel like I
Speaker 1: got my money's so you haggled. You can't. I can't
Speaker 1: argue with the speed. It's sable, amazing does he is
Speaker 1: justin Sables. Does he go by is it Sable? What's
Speaker 1: he call his place? No, it's Bridger Canyon Taxidermy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's a good dude. I love that guy's a great job.
Speaker 1: I met his mom, super nice. You see his lion hounds. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I knocked on the wrong door and instead of telling
Speaker 1: me to go around the house and follow the path,
Speaker 1: which I later found two justin studio. Um, She's like,
Speaker 1: come with me, and we just walked through the house.
Speaker 1: That she was in her nightgown, her robe, and I
Speaker 1: felt pretty bad about well, she was just just getting
Speaker 1: ready for the day. But she was watching somebody else's
Speaker 1: dog that she was very politely cussing out the whole time,
Speaker 1: which was cute. So how's it going, Phil? So they
Speaker 1: don't have a legitimate website, but they have a Facebook page.
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of info. But on December eighteenth,
Speaker 1: they posted a picture of them building uh some sort
Speaker 1: of it, I don't know, an arm box and it
Speaker 1: says our new custom home for our Beatles is almost done. Okay,
Speaker 1: detective word philis guys like a private investigator. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: one more quote, um from from the guy. He said
Speaker 1: that he's talking about calling different tax nervous. He says
Speaker 1: a couple of them told me no, like right away.
Speaker 1: There was no way they were going to touch human
Speaker 1: body parts. All right, So that's a major news. Um
Speaker 1: quick thing. We're talking about dead as Dornell. Do you
Speaker 1: guys know what that means? This is a correction. I
Speaker 1: was like, why is it Dorneille dead? What beyond me?
Speaker 1: Where that expression comes from? Phil got nothing? Nothing? Do
Speaker 1: you still have Yanni's sound bites kewed up? Not not
Speaker 1: right now? I didn't know he wasn't gonna be here today.
Speaker 1: Um yeah, yeah, So let's we'll tack one in and
Speaker 1: I'll say, yann you know what that is Dornell means?
Speaker 1: And yeah, you'll insert a good sound bite from Johnnie. Uh,
Speaker 1: he's got a stab at where dead as a Doornell
Speaker 1: comes from? It was explained to me he's he's a carpenter,
Speaker 1: and when he was an apprentice carpenter was explained to
Speaker 1: him that frontier doors were made with two layers of
Speaker 1: boards with the grain running at ninety degree angles, and
Speaker 1: the nails were driven through and clenched. This makes a
Speaker 1: strong door that was not easily chopped through, right, because
Speaker 1: you want to you know, you enter in like you
Speaker 1: run your anyone who's using ax, know as you want
Speaker 1: to run your accent. If you want to splint or something,
Speaker 1: you run your acc in parallel to the grain, the
Speaker 1: blade being parallel to the grain with the grain. But
Speaker 1: it's backed by boards that are cross uh. And he
Speaker 1: got that. He goes on to say that this makes
Speaker 1: a strong door. That was neither the chopped through with
Speaker 1: the tomahawk. Now, nails were hard to come by and expensive,
Speaker 1: so oftentimes they were used time and again. Except door
Speaker 1: nails being clenched that tight, there was no way to
Speaker 1: straighten them, so they were considered dead. The only way
Speaker 1: to resuscitate them is they be recycled at the blacksmith shop.
Speaker 1: I like that, like that one I do? Yeah, you
Speaker 1: guys buying it. First framer I worked for. His dad
Speaker 1: was also a framer, and that's what he did. Every night.
Speaker 1: You'd have a beer out in his shop and he's
Speaker 1: straighten all the bent nails that he picked up around
Speaker 1: the job site and distribute the straight and nails the
Speaker 1: next day to his crew. That's good. When I was
Speaker 1: a kid, when you when my dad was annoyed if
Speaker 1: you one of the things he would do is give
Speaker 1: you a he kept a two pound meat loaf tin
Speaker 1: full of bent rusty nails. And now and then you
Speaker 1: get like a checklist of shores you're supposed to do
Speaker 1: it on. There was straight and damn nails out on
Speaker 1: a hammer and anvil for re use. Uh. Okay, first
Speaker 1: thing we want to do. UM here you explaining update
Speaker 1: on what's going on with New Mexico stream access law. Yes.
Speaker 1: So basically the foundation of this is uh. New Mexico
Speaker 1: State Constitution says all water belongs to the public. This
Speaker 1: is just as brief a synopsis as I can give here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but there's some stuff changing. There's like trouble brewing. Two
Speaker 1: thousand seventeen, um UH bill came up and uh and
Speaker 1: and was voted on to then have a process to
Speaker 1: which landowners could declare their water non navigable. And they
Speaker 1: added into a rule and amendment so the landowner gets
Speaker 1: to say the landowner gets to apply for the section
Speaker 1: of water if they have their properties on both sides
Speaker 1: of the stream or river. So he's got a case
Speaker 1: of the ass and ones people not access and he
Speaker 1: can go and stay like hey, you know, yes, And
Speaker 1: then New Mexico fishing game declares or does not declare,
Speaker 1: looks at his or the landowners situation says yeah, this
Speaker 1: applies or does not apply. Um. So far there's been
Speaker 1: five permits applied for and received, two or pending an
Speaker 1: additional to or pending, and so five have been accepted. Yes, yeah, UM.
Speaker 1: I think Pacos and chama um would be uh to
Speaker 1: water any sense of what kind of dude these dudes
Speaker 1: are that are that are trying to get their stuff revoked.
Speaker 1: I would love to get back in there and do
Speaker 1: some proper research and see exactly what the cases are,
Speaker 1: you know, um for you know, public sway reasons. The
Speaker 1: ones that get thrown up are like fishing lodges, you know,
Speaker 1: up at the fishing lodges. Yeah, That's what I'm curious,
Speaker 1: I say, like, what kind of dude is is it?
Speaker 1: Is it like that? Like, what's the motivation is it?
Speaker 1: Is it trophy home? You know? Is it like eighth
Speaker 1: generation ranchers is fly shops? And so you know, from
Speaker 1: the private side of things, it's like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: people are just coming in here and and leaving trash
Speaker 1: and and I'm sick of it, which we can all
Speaker 1: understand nobody likes see trash outside, but anyway, uh. The
Speaker 1: so new Governor Michelle Luhan, a couple of new seats
Speaker 1: on the New Mexico Fishing Game Board and UM. November two, nineteen,
Speaker 1: the State Attorney General, Hector Balderis UM re evaluates because
Speaker 1: he's been asked to by the New Mexico Fishing Game
Speaker 1: Board UM and finds that the new rule, this non
Speaker 1: navigable water rule, is unconstitutional and unenforceable. So I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make sure I'm getting this right. All waters, historically all
Speaker 1: water is regarded as public. They make a rule that
Speaker 1: says you can pull your ship out of it. Then
Speaker 1: the new administration comes in and the point he's there
Speaker 1: say you know what, you shouldn't be able to pull
Speaker 1: your ship out of it. Yes, and this was has
Speaker 1: been tested several times. UM. The case that gets brought
Speaker 1: up the most was went up all the way through
Speaker 1: the Mexico Supreme Court. The new New Mexico Supreme Court
Speaker 1: at that time said you know, according to the state constitution,
Speaker 1: all water belongs to the people of New Mexico. UM.
Speaker 1: And then just to kind of like show support for
Speaker 1: this and this is this was just at the beginning
Speaker 1: of I'm sorry at the end of two thousand nineteen,
Speaker 1: just a couple of months ago, Senator you Doll and
Speaker 1: Heinrich and U S. Rep. Deb Hayland. Uh, they wrote
Speaker 1: in in support of a moratorium on non evigable permits.
Speaker 1: So folks that wanted to apply for this non navigable status,
Speaker 1: which is obviously in great question. Um, uh you do
Speaker 1: all Heinrich Halan, They rode into the Fishing Game Board said, hey,
Speaker 1: for all these reasons that benefit our state, we'd appreciate
Speaker 1: it if he has would put a moratorium on this. UM.
Speaker 1: And now to get into really the um the gossip
Speaker 1: section of this, the intrigue is. Um. There Joanna Prucup,
Speaker 1: who was a department head for Fishing Game New Mexico
Speaker 1: Fishing Game for over twenty years, was one of the
Speaker 1: new seats on the New Mexico Fishing Game Board commission.
Speaker 1: And um, she just got noticed. She had a lot
Speaker 1: of um, you know, public water folks really happy with
Speaker 1: her and um, and she just got noticed that she
Speaker 1: will not be reinstated. So but she's pro public access,
Speaker 1: not anti public access, correct correct? So um, so she's
Speaker 1: getting she's getting like in trouble for having stuck up
Speaker 1: for stream access law and that that was a question
Speaker 1: in the beginning. Uh. And she just came out and
Speaker 1: and made a formal statement that she says, this is
Speaker 1: all she can come up with. I said, look at
Speaker 1: my background, Um, look at my track record. There's no
Speaker 1: way I should be not asked back to sit on
Speaker 1: this commission. Um. This is what it boils down to,
Speaker 1: is the stream access situation. And um, you know it
Speaker 1: unfortunately gets gets down to this core argument of the
Speaker 1: US versus them type of situation. And if you have,
Speaker 1: if you if you own both sides of the river,
Speaker 1: chances are, um, you have some influence. And folks are like,
Speaker 1: see it's the rich folks swinging their weight around, um
Speaker 1: against the little folks. And yeah, it's it is bummer.
Speaker 1: It affects everybody if if this law were to go through.
Speaker 1: Stream access allows a lot of access. Um, not just
Speaker 1: for fishing. I use it a lot. Used it a
Speaker 1: couple of times for your hunts this year in the
Speaker 1: state of Montana, tubing and drinking beers. Well that's just good,
Speaker 1: good family fund, right. So Heinrich does a lot for people,
Speaker 1: does a lot for access issues. Well, he's got some
Speaker 1: steak in the game because he likes to actually go
Speaker 1: out and do that stuff. Like you. There's a sitting
Speaker 1: US Senator from New Mexico, Martin Heinrich, who went out
Speaker 1: on public land and kill the bull of the muzzleloader.
Speaker 1: She'd be like, coming down the trail, I think you
Speaker 1: got an archery bowl this year too, coming down the
Speaker 1: trail and run into dude and shoot the breeze of
Speaker 1: the dude and then realize he's a sitting senator and
Speaker 1: you have some some common interest parts at the trailhead.
Speaker 1: But I love it. Yeah, So that's Um. You know,
Speaker 1: this is something that's going to go on for a
Speaker 1: long time. But right now, and I should say, you
Speaker 1: can't trespass across private property to get to public water,
Speaker 1: right you have to enter the water legally. Um. And
Speaker 1: in this so right now they're saying that, um, you
Speaker 1: could get issued a warning, but you will not be
Speaker 1: issued a ticket if you are found in these sections
Speaker 1: of water that have been deemed non navigable. UM. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's I I know there was some build
Speaker 1: up back in two thousands seventeen when um, this came
Speaker 1: up in front of the house there in New Mexico.
Speaker 1: But I can't believe this. It was such a good
Speaker 1: rule favoring public access in a place that's got a
Speaker 1: lot of public land, New Mexico. I can't. I can't
Speaker 1: believe it. It passed in two thousands seventeen. Makes me
Speaker 1: wonder what was going on if you assume this is
Speaker 1: gonna get litigated right all the way up probably the
Speaker 1: state Supreme Court. It's in the constitution. Yes, that's what
Speaker 1: happened here in Montana on multiple occasions. Yes, yeah, And
Speaker 1: most recently was Sailor Lane, Right, was that that was
Speaker 1: the most recent one down in the Ruby maybe? And
Speaker 1: then you had the whole Mitchell sleugh over on the
Speaker 1: for that. And you know, this has been sort of
Speaker 1: a constant theme of the states like Montana, New Mexico.
Speaker 1: Then ye know, Utah that have more of these open
Speaker 1: Acts US policies as opposed to wyom in Colorado where
Speaker 1: the landowner owns the stream bottom. Yes, and if if
Speaker 1: man if if the biggest grape is people leaving their
Speaker 1: trash behind, Like, I absolutely get that. I hate seeing
Speaker 1: trash and um for one reason or another when I
Speaker 1: was hunting down But that's a that's a red herring.
Speaker 1: It's like a problem, it's too important, it's not trash
Speaker 1: is annoying, but that's not what it's about. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: if you live in New Mexico or hang out in
Speaker 1: New Mexico, we should watch the issue because it has
Speaker 1: a lot to do with like your ability and people
Speaker 1: to live in states where you have stream axis you
Speaker 1: don't even think about how good you have it. You know,
Speaker 1: we grew up with in Michigan where you go to
Speaker 1: the launch on a river or a lake or whatever.
Speaker 1: You go to the public launch and put your boat in,
Speaker 1: and then you go down the river and you wind
Speaker 1: up in a spot where there's private landowners on either side.
Speaker 1: You don't even think about. You just like paddle down,
Speaker 1: motor down. Um, you can't take that for granted. This
Speaker 1: is like one of the ways that people will attack
Speaker 1: your ability to go outside and join nature. And and
Speaker 1: definitely New Mexico is absolutely gorgeous. I love land of enchantment.
Speaker 1: Right it's did you come up with that? A little
Speaker 1: something I came up? Uh yeah. If it can happen there,
Speaker 1: it can happen where we have it good here in
Speaker 1: Montana and Idaho. Um so I mean, this is everybody's issue.
Speaker 1: We all have the ability to travel to these places
Speaker 1: and and enjoy um you know, the States rights and
Speaker 1: um boy, it's hugely beneficial to have the ability to
Speaker 1: truck down and you know, hike down a stream a
Speaker 1: mile and and hunting some hard to get two spots
Speaker 1: and or just fish the thing, and um something you
Speaker 1: gotta pay attention to, because I just feel like if
Speaker 1: anywhere within the US we demonstrate, you know, a blase attitude,
Speaker 1: you know, not the willingness to fight over this stuff. Man,
Speaker 1: it's just get a slippery slope from there. It's everybody's issue.
Speaker 1: And I think it's really exacerbated in place like New Mexico,
Speaker 1: which just so dry. You just have less rivers, less opportunities.
Speaker 1: So you started taking those away. You know, you've taken
Speaker 1: away a significant portion. Yes, oh yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 1: Well you have limited navigable again or New York where
Speaker 1: I grew up. I mean there's a lot of water
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of access, and you lose the
Speaker 1: stream here or there. You may not notice it. New
Speaker 1: Mexico you would notice it. Yeah, it's a good point.
Speaker 1: All right, went, you're ready you're fired up, let's do it, Okay,
Speaker 1: twenty nights public lands in general. We just covered public waters,
Speaker 1: but we like if you consider public waters being part
Speaker 1: of public lands, which is fair. Uh, thumbs up, thumbs down,
Speaker 1: thumbs up. It was a good year. Then we started
Speaker 1: off good right at the beginning of the year. We
Speaker 1: passed the Senate or Congress past the big public lands bill.
Speaker 1: Break that down a little bit, so it was did
Speaker 1: a bunch of different things. And the way Congress works
Speaker 1: these days, you don't pass individual pieces of legislation like
Speaker 1: a Senior Wilderness bill or anything. It comes in these big,
Speaker 1: omnivous bills because so little passes anymore that whenever something
Speaker 1: is moving, everything gets piled onto it. Oh that's that's
Speaker 1: a strategy. Yeah, So because you know, it's just you
Speaker 1: have very few vehicles moved through so invariably, instead of
Speaker 1: just one provision, it's going to be a hundred provisions.
Speaker 1: And so that's what happened with it. What what forms
Speaker 1: the base in something like that, um, you know, typically
Speaker 1: as you know, and this one you could you could
Speaker 1: argue it was Land and Water Conservation Fund. It could
Speaker 1: be some of these public lands bills, but essentially just
Speaker 1: you need to have stuff. That's what everything is being
Speaker 1: tacked on. Ideally is something that a lot of people
Speaker 1: want to see pass. And really in this bill, yeah,
Speaker 1: there was nothing super controversial. So you had over a
Speaker 1: hundred provisions, You had, you know, a million acres a
Speaker 1: new wilderness created, you had six hundred miles while the
Speaker 1: Scenic River is created. You permanently reauthorized Land Water Conservation Fund,
Speaker 1: which is the primary tool that we use for public access,
Speaker 1: especially to public lands. Then that three percent of that
Speaker 1: has to be used for public access projects. So this
Speaker 1: goes back to things like the ONEX report we did,
Speaker 1: you know, which talks about landlocked public lands, you know,
Speaker 1: both on the federal side as well as on the
Speaker 1: state side, collectively more than sixteen million acres of public
Speaker 1: lands the public can't get to. So three percent of
Speaker 1: this Land and Water Conservation Fund is now targeted for
Speaker 1: projects like that. By a simple section here there and
Speaker 1: easement at someplace that will then open up a lot
Speaker 1: more public land. So a little bit different way of
Speaker 1: thinking about access, and we have in the past the
Speaker 1: past land or Conservation Fund has been thought of as
Speaker 1: a tool to preserve big landscapes. You know, big tracks
Speaker 1: of forests that are Timber company is selling things like that,
Speaker 1: which are still really important. But another use of it
Speaker 1: is these small strategic acquisition is they're based around access,
Speaker 1: and I think we're going to see a lot more
Speaker 1: than that. We saw that reflected in this bill. So
Speaker 1: now that has been permanently reauthorized. When when you say
Speaker 1: this bill was popular with everybody, like, what did it
Speaker 1: pass by? So the overall package passed in the Senate
Speaker 1: and then what was the who? Like, give me a
Speaker 1: profile of the eight. They have various reasons. I remember
Speaker 1: hearing one time that the Wilderness Um when they created
Speaker 1: like the Wilderness Act, that it was in the Senate
Speaker 1: because the one didn't think it went far enough. Is
Speaker 1: that the case with the eight? Oh no, no, it's
Speaker 1: the other way around. I mean you have especially some
Speaker 1: you know, Western senators that honestly just don't like public lands.
Speaker 1: I mean you look at a guy like Mike Lee
Speaker 1: and Utah who's sort of made no he didn't, but
Speaker 1: he's made his name on railing against public land ownership period.
Speaker 1: And you know, some folks slot it spent too much money.
Speaker 1: You know, it didn't spend all that much money, but anyway,
Speaker 1: it was sort of ideological anti public land, you know,
Speaker 1: that's where the eight came from. So the ninety two,
Speaker 1: you know, they were like something more they would like
Speaker 1: to have, you know, land water Conservation one permanently funded
Speaker 1: as well. We didn't get that, but we got at
Speaker 1: least permanently reauthorized, so we don't have to worry about
Speaker 1: it disappearing in three years or five years or one
Speaker 1: of the typical re authorization is um you know. So
Speaker 1: that bill was really important and the fact that it
Speaker 1: passed by that, you know, wid a margin, I think
Speaker 1: really represents kind of a sea change and a lot
Speaker 1: of the public lands. You know, we think about the
Speaker 1: rhetoric over the past ten years. You went from the
Speaker 1: Senate passing, you know, a nine bonding resolution at least
Speaker 1: Makowski offered that basically said all public lands other than
Speaker 1: national parks ought to be divested, and you know that
Speaker 1: was that passed with pretty much all Republican votes. Now
Speaker 1: compare that to this where you're expanding protections on public
Speaker 1: lands are expanding while the scenic rivers, you're expanding the
Speaker 1: acquisition programs to create more public lands. And it passes eight.
Speaker 1: So I think from that original a sort of stage
Speaker 1: brush rebellion, you know, kind of mentality we were seeing
Speaker 1: really a decade ago. That was we saw these bills
Speaker 1: passing on the state levels, like demanding return to public
Speaker 1: lands to the states, which were never there is to
Speaker 1: begin with. But you I think that rhetoric has really
Speaker 1: gotten knocked down pretty good. And I think when you
Speaker 1: saw Jason Chaffitz essentially have to withdraw his bill that
Speaker 1: would have sold off three point three million acres of
Speaker 1: public lands to help balance the budget, that really was
Speaker 1: a sea change. And you saw the Outer Industry Association
Speaker 1: move it show on a Salt Lake city because of
Speaker 1: the bad Utah politics on public lands. So we really
Speaker 1: saw I think the momentum has swung back in favor
Speaker 1: of public lands, and I think that's reflected in this vote,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, you can't do much better than eight.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could do a resolution on motherhood and
Speaker 1: apple Pie that probably wouldn't pass by that margin. Who Yeah,
Speaker 1: it feels like a bill says like we love motherhood
Speaker 1: and apple pie. Yeah, no, forget that, do we I'm
Speaker 1: a ferry pie? Who within who within the administration? Who
Speaker 1: within the Trump administration is uh who's influential there, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean like he signs it, right, he signs, So
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the Secretary Interior clearly this is
Speaker 1: mostly Interior related bill. So that's that's who's weighing up.
Speaker 1: That's who has that's who has the president's year exactly.
Speaker 1: And Dave Parnart has been pretty darn reasonable and most
Speaker 1: of these issues. Mean, he's been great on access issues,
Speaker 1: he's been you know, sort of approachable on land management issues.
Speaker 1: So I think he recognized that this was not only
Speaker 1: was it there's no point in vetoing this, you're gonna
Speaker 1: get crushed on an override, but it also has good
Speaker 1: politics and it makes sense and it's not draconian anyway.
Speaker 1: And you've got you got t RCP worked hard on this.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah no. And but not just us, I mean
Speaker 1: tons of groups, Wildlife Federation b h A. Yeah, pretty
Speaker 1: much everybody supported this. I mean, I don't think anybody
Speaker 1: in our community opposed this. Because another provision that was
Speaker 1: in this overall bill was clarifying that public lands are
Speaker 1: open for hunting and fishing unless they're specifically closed through
Speaker 1: an open and transparent process. And that was really an
Speaker 1: effort to push back on some of the things the
Speaker 1: animal rights community had attacked, like they did in Michigan
Speaker 1: a few years ago. Yeah, with the HURON, I think
Speaker 1: National Forest sort of trying to get hunting shut down
Speaker 1: there at that time. It was yeah, yeah, I can't remember.
Speaker 1: I can't remember the HURON or wherever, but at that
Speaker 1: time they got somebody who didn't like the noise of
Speaker 1: gunfire to try to shut down an area, and it
Speaker 1: really was back door. That's an interesting approach animal rights
Speaker 1: community to go in and try to shut down public lands.
Speaker 1: And so this is you know, listen, there are some
Speaker 1: public lands that makes sense to shut down, you know,
Speaker 1: near campgrounds, you know, other things like that, but there
Speaker 1: ought to be a public and transparent process to shut
Speaker 1: those down. Yeah. I mean you see buffers like there's
Speaker 1: you know, you go to river access sites and will
Speaker 1: say no discharge of fire. Yeah. So I mean, but
Speaker 1: there ought to be just say, thoughtful process to close
Speaker 1: areas off, not because it may you know, somebody may
Speaker 1: hear a gun shot a few miles away. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: anyway that did this. So even the right side of
Speaker 1: the community that typically does not weigh in on wilderness
Speaker 1: and wilder scenic rivers. You know, they were enthusiastically and
Speaker 1: word of this because of that, because they saw that
Speaker 1: as taking away one of these attacks on hunting and
Speaker 1: fishing on public lands. Do you ever see, um, do
Speaker 1: you ever see a situation where people within the animal
Speaker 1: rights movement UM will like take this thing for instance,
Speaker 1: where it's obviously doing it's beneficial to wildlife, is beneficial
Speaker 1: to habitat preservation. Do you ever see a situation where
Speaker 1: they'll sabotage the movement of something that I'm the whole
Speaker 1: is good for wildlife because it enables harvest of wildlife. Like,
Speaker 1: do you ever see it become like a real actual problem. Sure?
Speaker 1: I mean they opposed that provision that opened less closed
Speaker 1: provision for years, but when it's tacked in with a
Speaker 1: hundred other provisions saying what do they do? Then then
Speaker 1: they swallow their pride and they support the overall pack
Speaker 1: because it's all in all win, even though it's a
Speaker 1: loss for them in there exactly, And I mean maybe
Speaker 1: some of the he I mean I didn't follow what
Speaker 1: pe position was. Yeah, I mean the reasonable players who
Speaker 1: are actually out there trying to nobody gets everything they want.
Speaker 1: And when these packages just why it passed by such
Speaker 1: a large margin because it's sort of the fringe elements
Speaker 1: on either side get knocked out, and you know, so
Speaker 1: something like this makes a ton of sense, and I
Speaker 1: think this is the way you're going to see it again.
Speaker 1: My guess is that earlier this year, you know, Lisa
Speaker 1: Murkowski is going to put together an energy package, which
Speaker 1: would really be a public lands package too, because there'll
Speaker 1: be assortment of these smaller bills, you know that are
Speaker 1: you're ready to go their non controversial and you know,
Speaker 1: before you get into the election you're gridlock. You know,
Speaker 1: this is another Probably I think it's a good chance
Speaker 1: we'll get another package that moves through. We've been trying
Speaker 1: to get Lisa mccowski on the show without new luck.
Speaker 1: She's a tough one to pin down. Yeah, that's why
Speaker 1: I want to get around the show. And you know,
Speaker 1: being from Alaska, I mean I feel like she she
Speaker 1: like would definitely have a lot of opinions. She would
Speaker 1: I would love Yeah, I'd love to ask you some questions. Okay,
Speaker 1: break down the farm bill for me. Man? What I like?
Speaker 1: I think I feel like a lot of people know
Speaker 1: there is such thing as a but don't really understand it. Well,
Speaker 1: one thing I guess to point out that makes things
Speaker 1: uh tough on the education side of things is like,
Speaker 1: we need these certain things within the farm bill the pass,
Speaker 1: but you're talking about the farm bill or the transportation
Speaker 1: bill or the energy bill, and uh, people get really confused.
Speaker 1: So it's hard to be like, no, no, this these
Speaker 1: sportsman's issues are buried within this thing. But it is
Speaker 1: the transportation like the whole package, right is like let's
Speaker 1: say if the farm bill is composed of a hundred
Speaker 1: things to to our directly applied to sportsman or what
Speaker 1: the ratio is? Well, yeah, and there's plenty of people
Speaker 1: out there right who are like, I don't have a farm. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I'll tell you what to tell you what the
Speaker 1: ratios are here? So we have Yeah, they basically nine
Speaker 1: herd million acres in the United States are in farm
Speaker 1: or a commercial forestry production tellon acres. So that's about
Speaker 1: the overall land masks to the US is in you know,
Speaker 1: it basically is you could largely call it in farm
Speaker 1: and of that, about a hundred and forty million acres
Speaker 1: are enrolled in farm bill conservation programs. So that's about
Speaker 1: I gotta I gotta hear these number. What's the number
Speaker 1: how many acres have federally managed public lands we have
Speaker 1: like national forest, national parks, refugees. I think the number
Speaker 1: I see is sixty million, okay. And how many acres
Speaker 1: of land again, are are in egg production, About nine
Speaker 1: hundred million. And of those of those, about a hundred
Speaker 1: and forty million acres are enrolled in farm bill conservation programs.
Speaker 1: What does that mean? But that in context, you know,
Speaker 1: that's society of these are privately held lands. Privately held
Speaker 1: lands enrolled in you know, basically the farm bill, the
Speaker 1: conservation side of the farm bill, which is the single
Speaker 1: largest you know, from a dollar standpoint conservation program in
Speaker 1: the United States, it's thirty billion dollars, and you know,
Speaker 1: so that's but in the broad scheme of things, the
Speaker 1: overall farm bill is eight hundred plus billion, So it's
Speaker 1: a allad ways like seven percent I think, you know, overall,
Speaker 1: I mean, you can add it up different ways, but
Speaker 1: relative a small portion of the world farm bill is conservation.
Speaker 1: The great majority of those things like food stamps, the
Speaker 1: nutrition program, Oh, that's part of the farm buil. And
Speaker 1: that was a they need to haggle over the farm
Speaker 1: bill every five years, and it was a deal that
Speaker 1: was cut a long time ago. You basically to get
Speaker 1: urban members and rural members to support something and the
Speaker 1: food stamp programs in the farm bill, and so maybe
Speaker 1: do that and forgot it. Yeah, I mean that's you know,
Speaker 1: but when you have a farm bill, that's what all
Speaker 1: the debates around. It's around you know, food stamp eligibility
Speaker 1: requirements and figures and things like that. But that was
Speaker 1: a very intentional deal that we're not just sitting around
Speaker 1: arguing about pheasant habitat. No, No, that's I mean, there
Speaker 1: are some of that. We argue about pheasant habitat, but
Speaker 1: in the big scheme of things, we're you know, decimal
Speaker 1: dust in the overall argument, which makes it vulnerable. Well
Speaker 1: it does, but I mean remember this is the you know,
Speaker 1: this reason we able to get a farm bill passes.
Speaker 1: You have that weird coalition between urban inner city you know,
Speaker 1: the Black Caucus, you know, folks like that that really
Speaker 1: want to make sure they have Yeah. There and back
Speaker 1: in the seventies was this is all started. There was
Speaker 1: a real nutrition problem in this country, and so the
Speaker 1: farm you know, the food stamp program at that time
Speaker 1: was really created to address a really particular need in
Speaker 1: this country. But at the same time they realized that
Speaker 1: this also helped farmers who wanted to have basically some
Speaker 1: guaranteed markets within the country of food. So that was
Speaker 1: how the whole deal got created in the first place,
Speaker 1: was urban members coming to go with rural members to
Speaker 1: create a farm bill that was good for farmers, it
Speaker 1: was good for the inner cities. That coalition has stayed
Speaker 1: pretty strong. I mean it's been fraid a little bit
Speaker 1: more in recent years, but you know, that's the reason
Speaker 1: we're able to get a farm bill passed now. So
Speaker 1: go back to your original question in terms of what
Speaker 1: does that look like. So of that thirty billion dollars,
Speaker 1: it's broken out into several remind me again, the thirty
Speaker 1: billion dollars that how do you characterize that chunk of
Speaker 1: the So that is what we call the conservation program
Speaker 1: of the farm bill. That's type too. So so the
Speaker 1: the whole thing with all that everything involved is exactly
Speaker 1: which is that's real money. That's that is real is
Speaker 1: the conservation part of it. So we're talking about the
Speaker 1: thirty billion dollar piece of and unlike other sort of
Speaker 1: environmental legislation. The Farm Bill is voluntary, so this is
Speaker 1: creating incentives on private lands to do the right thing
Speaker 1: for soil, for water, for fish and wildlife. And there
Speaker 1: are a couple of there are two different ways you
Speaker 1: can do that. I mean, there is the essentially what
Speaker 1: they call the land retirement programs, like the conservation reserve program,
Speaker 1: where you pay a landowner to set aside basically the
Speaker 1: most marginal land on his or her farm and manage
Speaker 1: it for conservation, you know, for you get better water quality,
Speaker 1: get more wildlife habitat, and the farmer gets guaranteed income
Speaker 1: for the source of that continent the course of that contract,
Speaker 1: which is typically ten to fifteen years. So right now
Speaker 1: concert from reserve program, they're about twenty two million acres
Speaker 1: that are currently enrolled in that program. Yeah, if you're
Speaker 1: if you're a hunter, and you keep your ears open,
Speaker 1: you will at some point in your life here someone
Speaker 1: say let's go hit that CRP field exactly, and that's
Speaker 1: what we're talking about. And I knew that line. I
Speaker 1: knew the hitting the c RP field line long before
Speaker 1: I knew what in the world that meant. And that's
Speaker 1: a great program. And then it's expensive, but it serves
Speaker 1: multiple benefits made it helps. When it was originally created
Speaker 1: back in the nineteen ages, was during the farm crisis,
Speaker 1: and it really was created as a price support mechanism
Speaker 1: for farmers, a way to pay them for not farming. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and I feel just just jump on this because, uh,
Speaker 1: this is I feel that this is the thing that
Speaker 1: you hear people gripe about so much, like people criticizing
Speaker 1: farm subsidies and pale it's all subsidies and paying farmers
Speaker 1: to do nothing. But I mean, you gotta look at
Speaker 1: sort of world history and American history and it starts
Speaker 1: making a lot more sense. I mean, millions of people
Speaker 1: starved to death during World War two, real hunger crisis
Speaker 1: in the seventies, And it's like if markets collapse in
Speaker 1: some ways, some global thing causes Marcus to collapse, do
Speaker 1: you really want to have it be that everyone that
Speaker 1: has a farm that can't get through that period, that
Speaker 1: they sell the land or turn it into a golf
Speaker 1: course or subdivide it or whatever the hell. Or do
Speaker 1: you give them some way that that you can that
Speaker 1: that you can allow people to hang on to land,
Speaker 1: keep it an egg and be ready for the next
Speaker 1: time there's a global crisis, because you can't expect people
Speaker 1: to go like break ground and stout start a farm
Speaker 1: because we have a impending famine. It's like they've got
Speaker 1: to be ready to roll. But you hear people, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure, I'm sure there are abuses like everything. Like
Speaker 1: you can talk about any government program and if you
Speaker 1: focus on the abuses, would be the same way as
Speaker 1: me saying hunters suck because some people are poachers. It's like,
Speaker 1: of course they're abuses. But may I hear a lot
Speaker 1: of people dogging on to sell program. It's like you're
Speaker 1: kind of like doing it without really thinking about the
Speaker 1: implications of it. If farmers all had to go bankrupt
Speaker 1: every time something happened. And this is very different in
Speaker 1: the back in the nineteen eighties and the nineteen eighties
Speaker 1: when it was you basically just we're paying farmers not
Speaker 1: to farm. Now, you know, CRP and the other wildlife programs,
Speaker 1: conservation programs have been much more refined and so they're
Speaker 1: geared towards really actually helping things like water quality, you know,
Speaker 1: soil quality, fish and wildlife. They're incentives. So if you
Speaker 1: enter your land call into a c RP. You're also
Speaker 1: gonna get some incentives from the federal government to go
Speaker 1: and you know, convert put in pollinator habitat. And so
Speaker 1: it's way more targeted and strategic and beneficial for the
Speaker 1: public at large than it was in the old days.
Speaker 1: And you know, obviously pollinator habitat you know, sounds goofy,
Speaker 1: but it's not to be incredibly important if you like
Speaker 1: value agriculture flowers, you know anything, and we've been losing it,
Speaker 1: and this is a way to encourage bringing a lot
Speaker 1: of that back. You know, monarch butterflies with a poster
Speaker 1: child for you know, loss of pollinator habitat. So I
Speaker 1: don't think that you know, we've seen a big change
Speaker 1: of it. You have c RP, you have the Conservation
Speaker 1: of Stewardship Program, you have the Environmental Quality and Habitat
Speaker 1: Program EQUIP uh you know, AQUI we touch on the
Speaker 1: bugs a little bit more. If you're seeing like in
Speaker 1: areas and intensely uh tilled lands and intensely in lands
Speaker 1: with a lot of intense use of herbicides and pesticides,
Speaker 1: and you're seeing like radical reductions and insect life, Um,
Speaker 1: you gotta wake up to the reality that like that
Speaker 1: goes beyond bugs and maybe you like the hunt turkeys
Speaker 1: a turkey pole se its diet is animal matter. Bugs.
Speaker 1: It's like, you can't act like you're gonna strip out
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, it's just bugs. Who cares. It's like, dude,
Speaker 1: you can't. Actually you're gonna strip that out and the
Speaker 1: life as you know it is going to continue to
Speaker 1: look the same. You can't like knock chunks of ecology
Speaker 1: out and act like it doesn't have it. So when people,
Speaker 1: if someone were to roll their eyes about allinator habitat,
Speaker 1: I'd be like, well, you don't only turkeys, yep, or whatever,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, it's like it's essential stuff, man,
Speaker 1: and this is great. And it's not just Steven Turkey.
Speaker 1: I mean Bob white Quail. It's you know, you name it,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's important for it and that diversity
Speaker 1: is you know, just you know, good for ecological reasons period.
Speaker 1: Things we don't understand right exactly. And it's beautiful. So
Speaker 1: you know, I think there's a whole bunch of benefits.
Speaker 1: So I think that in the days when then, you know,
Speaker 1: you could justly criticize some of the farm programs is
Speaker 1: just straight subsidies with little public benefit other than keeping
Speaker 1: a farmer float. I think it's very different today. I mean,
Speaker 1: these programs have been refined, have been improved, and I
Speaker 1: think you're seeing way broader benefits, which makes it frustrating
Speaker 1: when we have a sort of a dwindling CRP like
Speaker 1: we're seeing right now. Yeah, that's the part I kind
Speaker 1: of I kind of wanted to get to that because
Speaker 1: when we were at the t RCP board meeting, there
Speaker 1: was some talk about um money was available for farmers
Speaker 1: to enroll in CRP, but it wasn't flowing, so they
Speaker 1: were there were people who were armors were putt in
Speaker 1: a tough spot because one hand they wanted to enroll,
Speaker 1: but they couldn't get the the compensation. And we're going
Speaker 1: to be put into a tough spot where they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to try to do something to figure it out.
Speaker 1: It's kind of screwing farmers. So CRP reached its peak
Speaker 1: I think it was in two thousand seven, which is
Speaker 1: about thirty seven million acres enrolled in that program, and
Speaker 1: that there was a direct correlation between you know, low
Speaker 1: you know, commodity prices and enrollment and programs like c RP,
Speaker 1: because when you're not making money off growing corner soy beans,
Speaker 1: ralph alf or whatever it might be, then CRP looks
Speaker 1: a whole lot better. During the you know, sort of
Speaker 1: go go years of the two thousand tens to two
Speaker 1: thousand seventeen. Yeah, when you had seven dollar corn things
Speaker 1: like that, you saw a bunch of land move out
Speaker 1: of c RP and other constants like that. Contract would
Speaker 1: expire and you would go into grain production money. Somebody
Speaker 1: would just break a contract and get the penalty and
Speaker 1: just go straight into touch you. So over that time period,
Speaker 1: we lost about six million acres out of c RP.
Speaker 1: All right, excuse me not six million acres of grassland
Speaker 1: and prairie land and pasture land got converted to row crops.
Speaker 1: And the grain prices. Grain prices are through the roof.
Speaker 1: Now you have the exact opposite. Now. So when the
Speaker 1: previous farm bill was done back in two thousand four,
Speaker 1: what made grain prices shoot the roof? Uh? There were
Speaker 1: a variety of things. I mean, it's just you know,
Speaker 1: we had a huge good weather here. I mean, we
Speaker 1: had huge export markets. So I think that was when
Speaker 1: come onside any like bad Russian wheat crops and like that.
Speaker 1: You also had you know, sort of the go go years,
Speaker 1: the ethanol subsidies, so that was driving production of corn.
Speaker 1: It was you know, so that was part of it.
Speaker 1: It was just a really good time to be a farmer,
Speaker 1: and it was not a great time to be a
Speaker 1: conservationist because all this land was getting moved out and
Speaker 1: converted to row crops. Now all of a sudden, you know,
Speaker 1: we have trade wars, and you know, prices are through
Speaker 1: the floor, and there was huge demand to get moved
Speaker 1: land into c RP and other conservation programs at a minimum,
Speaker 1: just to stabilize farm income. You had whether this storm
Speaker 1: because eventually prices are gonna stay abilize again. Yeah, because
Speaker 1: they're they're afraid of farmers. If if they're not able
Speaker 1: to do CRP, they're gonna maybe be in a situation
Speaker 1: where they're further contributing to flooding the market with grain
Speaker 1: and keeping prices down or just mean listen, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know the records suicides out and farm country right now,
Speaker 1: record bankruptcies. I mean, it is is a true crisis
Speaker 1: right now. And instead of giving them a thirty billion
Speaker 1: dollar bailout, which is what we've done to address, you know,
Speaker 1: some of the impacts of the trade war. We ought
Speaker 1: to be moving a buttload of land into conservation where
Speaker 1: they're getting payments which are also doing public good at
Speaker 1: the same time. Yeah, like get like where the tax
Speaker 1: periods are getting more out of it. Right. So in
Speaker 1: the two thousand eighteen farm bill that we passed, which
Speaker 1: was a good farm bill again thirty billion dollars, you know,
Speaker 1: and made improvements to the two thousand fourteen farm bill,
Speaker 1: changed the conservation programs a lot. It got rid of
Speaker 1: a bunch of them, consolidated them, streamlined them, created a
Speaker 1: couple of new ones, like the Regional Conservation Partnership Program.
Speaker 1: This most recent farm bill didn't make any drastic changes
Speaker 1: like that, but really improve toupon what we did in
Speaker 1: two thousand fourteen. And you know, among other things, that
Speaker 1: expanded c RP, which had been down to twenty four
Speaker 1: million acres in the two thousand and fourteen farm bill
Speaker 1: because demand was so low, kicked that back out to
Speaker 1: seven million acres because demand is much higher. Now, tell
Speaker 1: me the two numbers again, twenty four and the previous
Speaker 1: farm bill in the most recent one to make that
Speaker 1: budget neutral, they made a little bit less profitable for farmers.
Speaker 1: They reduced the rental rade a little bit, they reduced
Speaker 1: the incentive payments a little bit, but overall the INDs
Speaker 1: so they're making the same spend and getting three more
Speaker 1: million acres and are those people getting their money now?
Speaker 1: So just in December, for the first time in four years,
Speaker 1: they've done a sign up for c RP, which is
Speaker 1: just insane because you're having you know, acres expire, you
Speaker 1: have huge men in farm country. But we just couldn't
Speaker 1: get these guys to do a new sign up. So
Speaker 1: finally these guys Department Culture, Farm Service Agency because of
Speaker 1: what reason? Alright, so you have so farm bill is
Speaker 1: mandatory funding, so it doesn't have to be appropriated every year.
Speaker 1: So this is essentially, you know, something that has done
Speaker 1: and they don't worry about it, so it's not the
Speaker 1: vagaries of annual appropriations like Land and Waterer Conservation Fund.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously we want to get LBCF off budget
Speaker 1: for the same reasons, so you're stable money is coming
Speaker 1: in and we know what it's going to be. But
Speaker 1: farm Bill programs are truly off budget. So these are
Speaker 1: mandatory programs. However, if you don't spend the money like
Speaker 1: you go and they look o MB will look over
Speaker 1: a few years and say, jeez, you have any to spent.
Speaker 1: You know, a third of this money. We're two years
Speaker 1: from the end. We're gonna basically cut a bunch of
Speaker 1: your money away. So the devious, the cynical of those
Speaker 1: among us, like me who's been in DC a long time,
Speaker 1: feels that this has been basically a backhanded way to
Speaker 1: reduce the baseline, so, in other words, to not spend
Speaker 1: the money that Congress expected them to spend, and then
Speaker 1: have om B say, well, jeez, you're not spending the money,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna reduce that overall amount and officers management
Speaker 1: and budget and uh, and there was there was in
Speaker 1: mendications they didn't like the original farm building that it
Speaker 1: was too expensive, and so this would be basically a
Speaker 1: back doorway of not implementing it the way Congress intended
Speaker 1: it to be implemented and at the same time lose
Speaker 1: that baseline so it makes it less spending for the
Speaker 1: federal government doesn't show you're running quite as big a
Speaker 1: deficit as you're doing it. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: it's not providing the benefits on the ground that Congress intended.
Speaker 1: So finally in December they announced new sign up. So
Speaker 1: if anybody is listening and has friends in farm country,
Speaker 1: tell them to go to the Farm Service Agency, get
Speaker 1: signed up for c RP. Get down there, Get down there,
Speaker 1: dug protectives at the front of the line. Um, and
Speaker 1: if your folks want to learn more about it, then
Speaker 1: go to We have a website called c RP works
Speaker 1: dot org, so you can go there and learn more
Speaker 1: about the program in general. But what we're expecting is
Speaker 1: not going to be a great sign up because they
Speaker 1: lowered and sent up payments significantly, so in other words,
Speaker 1: instead of that the payments for going and putting in
Speaker 1: pollinator habitat that used to be about now in this
Speaker 1: new sign up is down about five, which is you know,
Speaker 1: just it really does not that help. So they also
Speaker 1: moved a bunch of the continuous funding, which is way
Speaker 1: more expensive, which is non competitive, and that's where you
Speaker 1: do things like you know, a lot of the you know,
Speaker 1: like sage grouse restorations work being done on the farm
Speaker 1: bill is in these continuous programs. A lot of the
Speaker 1: Bob White you know, restoration, long leaf pine restoration is
Speaker 1: being done. You know, under this continuous program, there's much
Speaker 1: longer term, but they're also more expensive. And you know,
Speaker 1: but a lot of those wildlife programs that had always
Speaker 1: been in these long term programs now getting moved in
Speaker 1: the general sign up, which makes them much cheaper. So
Speaker 1: the folks like the Landoords will not get the same
Speaker 1: amount of money for him. So we're gonna they think
Speaker 1: that while we should be getting about eight million acres,
Speaker 1: it could get signed up. I mean, I think we'll
Speaker 1: be lucky to see you know, six million. Just in
Speaker 1: so right now they're twenty two million acres enrolled. They're
Speaker 1: about another six or eight million that are basically expiring
Speaker 1: in the next year. So there is a in their
Speaker 1: caps twenty seven million acres. So there's a lot of
Speaker 1: room to add acres, and god, no farm country needs
Speaker 1: it right now. But we're not gonna see that. We're
Speaker 1: gonna see, Yeah, we're gonna see some acres added, probably
Speaker 1: about six million acres and may kick it up to
Speaker 1: from twenty two. You know, I'll put decent amount, but
Speaker 1: given what's expiring, it's not going to come close to
Speaker 1: that cap acres are there's c RP lands in Hawaii
Speaker 1: for instance, Like where where is all this stuff? Um,
Speaker 1: not that I know of, but here, I've got actually
Speaker 1: a map on my computer which I'll I'll show you when.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you gotta gotta give these folks, you know,
Speaker 1: the value of their time and gas. Oh exactly yeah.
Speaker 1: And if if they're going to go spend their time
Speaker 1: and gas, they're gonna look for a better return now,
Speaker 1: exactly right. So anyway, we're gonna be disappointed with the
Speaker 1: sign up is currently going on, but it's better than nothing.
Speaker 1: We're thrilled they finally got to sign up out. But
Speaker 1: you know, long term, yeah, we're gonna have to, you know,
Speaker 1: have a serious discussion between Congress and administration about implementing
Speaker 1: this program the way it's intended. Yeah, will be organizing
Speaker 1: comments on behalf of the broad The administration has been
Speaker 1: uh dragging his feet, not not sort of exercising the
Speaker 1: will of the people in terms of and I mean
Speaker 1: part of the problem here is too is this is
Speaker 1: the one conservation program that is ministered by the Farm
Speaker 1: Service Agency and not NRCS, and that's where Resource Conservation
Speaker 1: Service they wake every day and think about conservation on farmland.
Speaker 1: Farm Service agency doesn't, so they look at the big
Speaker 1: thing things to do today. You know, this is down
Speaker 1: towards the bottom. And Steve's earlier point is the one
Speaker 1: that it's the development threat. You know. I mean farmers
Speaker 1: and ranchers they do what they do not because they
Speaker 1: have to. There's that's their life. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: the way they choose to spend their lives. And eventually
Speaker 1: they're going to get it in a point where it's like, man,
Speaker 1: it's not worth the hassle. And you're in a place
Speaker 1: like the Gallatin Valley here, my mom's plays there outside
Speaker 1: of Billings, where it's let's just cut this sucker up
Speaker 1: and get a paycheck and and moved to Hawaii. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. And that's the real threat long term.
Speaker 1: If you drag your feet on this implementation, there's huge
Speaker 1: ripple effects through a farm country. Much rather have the
Speaker 1: argument of CRP or row crop versus c RP or
Speaker 1: housing development, because once it's housing, it's not coming back
Speaker 1: to Yeah, it's not coming out. Hey, Phil, We're gonna
Speaker 1: move on to um. So there's a map of where
Speaker 1: hot bed CRP and Upper Midwest Great Plains. Boy, things
Speaker 1: get complicated when you move down there towards the Upper
Speaker 1: Midwest and Great Plains into Columbia. Columbia drainage. Uh, hey, Phil,
Speaker 1: you know that noise Cali uses in Cal's weaken review
Speaker 1: where it goes Yeah, moving on, Yeah, put that noise in, right,
Speaker 1: got it? Access? Yeah? Twenty nine thumbs up, thumbs down,
Speaker 1: thumbs up. Yeah again, you kind of are your kind
Speaker 1: of thumbs down in farm bill. Yeah, and I think
Speaker 1: thumbs down in farm bill. Um, just who combs down
Speaker 1: one and a half? So one thumb is one thumb
Speaker 1: the sideways down. Hit me two thumbs on. Hear, give
Speaker 1: me you both your thhonbes on access. Good. It's got
Speaker 1: two thumbs on, two thumbs up on access. So we've
Speaker 1: been you know, honestly, Dave Bernhardt and the Interior Department
Speaker 1: have been really good on this issue. So he's been,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of done a bunch of things in
Speaker 1: terms of opening up hunting and fishing on refuges and places,
Speaker 1: streamlining rigs. I mean, we had a situation in the
Speaker 1: past where you may have a refuge someplace that had
Speaker 1: totally different rigs than the state, which may make sense
Speaker 1: but may not make sense. But it made it really
Speaker 1: confusing for hunters, and so a lot of that has
Speaker 1: been streamlined. They've also you know, there are certain refuges
Speaker 1: and other public lands that got closed for no particular reason,
Speaker 1: and those all got reevaluated and a bunch got reopened,
Speaker 1: So that's good. Perhaps the most important thing he's done
Speaker 1: on the access front is dealing with you know, what
Speaker 1: we call disposable lands for BLM. So under the original FLIPMA,
Speaker 1: which is the Federal Land Management Policy Act, which essentially
Speaker 1: governs b land management, they're required to every time they
Speaker 1: review renew Resource Management Plan in r NP, look at
Speaker 1: areas that don't make sense for them to hold on
Speaker 1: too and are suitable for disposal. Give me an example
Speaker 1: of what that would look like. Yeah, let's say have
Speaker 1: a a plot inside the city limits of Las Vegas
Speaker 1: that happens to still be bland land, just some weed
Speaker 1: plot land, Yeah, I mean, just an historical anomaly. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe it's part of a railroad grant or something, you know,
Speaker 1: long term ago, and but rabbits out there there could
Speaker 1: be so but anyway there and there probably are variety
Speaker 1: of federal lands out there that makes sense to be
Speaker 1: you know, swapped or disposed of. And that's fine and honestly,
Speaker 1: and Jason Chan real quick. So let's say you have
Speaker 1: a you know, a parcel that you know it was
Speaker 1: in the city limits of Las Vegas, and you know
Speaker 1: the city really wants that to expand the strip just
Speaker 1: to use a hypothe a hospital hospital. Okay, then they
Speaker 1: could enter into say, okay, fine, we have we the
Speaker 1: city of Las Vegas has this parcel way outside of town,
Speaker 1: adjacent to a national forest, will swap it to you
Speaker 1: in exchange for this piece in town. Your national forest
Speaker 1: gets bigger, our hospital gets bigger, right, and it's a
Speaker 1: win win for everybody. Now, there's some rules in place
Speaker 1: about swaps have to be you know generally you know
Speaker 1: the same value things like that. Yeah, so people don't
Speaker 1: come in and manipulated. But there's it makes perfectly good
Speaker 1: sense to do things like that, and that's how we
Speaker 1: do a lot of in holdings and places or through
Speaker 1: things like land swaps. But you know, the part of
Speaker 1: the problem was in the original flipmoe or bill when
Speaker 1: it talked about looking at lands suitiful disposal, it you
Speaker 1: basically talked about lands were difficult to manage, isolated, It
Speaker 1: didn't talk anything about recreational access. So you have a
Speaker 1: situation where you may have a section sixty acres a
Speaker 1: b land someplace nowhere near other BLM lands, but it
Speaker 1: may be adjoining state lands or a national forest. Now,
Speaker 1: in the old days, BLM would automatically put that parcel
Speaker 1: on the disposal list because it was isolated. It didn't
Speaker 1: make it was hard to manage, didn't make sense in
Speaker 1: terms of big picture agency management. But so what we
Speaker 1: got Dave Bernhard to do was to change the rules,
Speaker 1: and he issued a secretary order on this three three
Speaker 1: seven three that when you know, the agency comes up
Speaker 1: and looks at area's suitable disposal, it's important for recreation,
Speaker 1: including hunting and fishing, it's awful list. So it is
Speaker 1: again and this is a direct result of some of
Speaker 1: that on X work we've done. You know, that identifies
Speaker 1: the sort of landlocked public lands, because if you're disposing
Speaker 1: of some of these isolated parcels, you're impacting way more
Speaker 1: than that one or that half section that may be
Speaker 1: out there. And that's uh. Well, Eric Siegfried of on
Speaker 1: X and I hunted a chunk this year that is
Speaker 1: so prime, so prime for disposal or land swap because
Speaker 1: it's surrounded by we're not talking mon pockheadle ranchers out
Speaker 1: in eastern Montana were like big, big money um, and
Speaker 1: you know, it's corporate holding type of situation and they're
Speaker 1: not in it for the cattle. And this chunker ground
Speaker 1: that we handed his great recreational value um. But it's
Speaker 1: not something the BLM could even get in and manage
Speaker 1: if it if the landowner around it decided that they
Speaker 1: didn't want them to. Yeah, so wake up in hot
Speaker 1: sweats over something like that because it has tremendous wildlife.
Speaker 1: You just think about like the fewer of the Wilkes
Speaker 1: brothers in Idaho and now Montana, and you know, obviously
Speaker 1: they're gonna if you know, they may have some lifes
Speaker 1: parcels make sense to trade to the federal government, but yeah,
Speaker 1: their exchange. Maybe you know that one section which allows
Speaker 1: the public to get to that national force behind him,
Speaker 1: If you get rid of that and make that private,
Speaker 1: then essentially you privatize all that elk habitat behind him.
Speaker 1: You can imagine the manipulations that go on. And so
Speaker 1: now with that secred order basically prohibits BLM from doing
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff, which is great and you know,
Speaker 1: I've a lot of credit to you know, Bernhardt and
Speaker 1: Interior if you're doing that one now, i'd say on
Speaker 1: also on the access front of the fact that we
Speaker 1: got permanent reauthorization LWCF huge win for access. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: we now have again another result of this on X project. Yeah,
Speaker 1: which were acting or did he get he's permanent So
Speaker 1: he did get confirmed. But what what about the acting
Speaker 1: director of the BLM. Well that's the whole severe the
Speaker 1: w p P. Yeah, so we'll hold off on that
Speaker 1: one because there's still more to talk about here with
Speaker 1: the access stuff. But you know, another thing we're doing
Speaker 1: the project with ONYX. What we realized is that the
Speaker 1: agencies often have no idea where they have legal accesses.
Speaker 1: So they may have it may be you know, an
Speaker 1: access easement that was granted forty years ago. You know
Speaker 1: that's in the basement of some you know BLM or
Speaker 1: four service office someplace in a cardboard file box. And
Speaker 1: you know what Eric and the company found was that,
Speaker 1: you know, there was a huge need to get that
Speaker 1: information digitized and out in the public sphere because it's
Speaker 1: makes it very hard for you or me or anybody
Speaker 1: to know really where legal access aren't roots are now.
Speaker 1: So we haven't a bill that's being gonna dropped in
Speaker 1: Congress soon. It would give the agencies the money to
Speaker 1: go in and expert digitization of all these access areas.
Speaker 1: And you know that's something I testified in Congress on
Speaker 1: you know, last year about the need to do this,
Speaker 1: because what the agencies told us was it you know,
Speaker 1: if we if we're left to ourselves under current time frame,
Speaker 1: it will probably take us twenty years to get the
Speaker 1: stuff all digitized. And that's just ridiculous. How often do
Speaker 1: you testify in front of Congress? So TRCP and two
Speaker 1: thousand nineteen testified five times. I personally did three. I
Speaker 1: think it fun. I mean if you sort of you
Speaker 1: know your stuff. And for us, it's not bad. I
Speaker 1: mean they're they're no hostile. They don't like bust your
Speaker 1: balls real bad now, Like I just did, you know,
Speaker 1: right in December, I did a c w D you
Speaker 1: know on the Senate side, you know, talked about that
Speaker 1: with the Senate Environment Committee and it was super positive.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, they had good questions, they had
Speaker 1: done their home work. You know, everyone from Barrasso from
Speaker 1: you know, Wyoming to Jill Brand from New York and
Speaker 1: oh god, it's the guy who likes to be outside animals. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: mean again, this is in the weird way. This is
Speaker 1: one of those few issues that actually brings folks together
Speaker 1: in Congress. And I'm not just saying C T, B D.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that in conservation, hunting and fishing broadly. And
Speaker 1: I remember right after the election when Trump got elected,
Speaker 1: you know, Martin Heinrich came and talked to a policy counsel,
Speaker 1: which is the sort of collection of all the NGOs
Speaker 1: are part of the partnership, and he said, almost nothing
Speaker 1: is going to happen in Congress these next four years
Speaker 1: this positive, other than what's in your space. So he says,
Speaker 1: you guys have an unbelievable opportunity. Don't waste it. And
Speaker 1: you know, I think we've taken you know, his advice
Speaker 1: on that one, and we've been pretty aggressive and asking
Speaker 1: for things and honestly been getting most of what we've
Speaker 1: been asking for. So I know, on the access thing,
Speaker 1: I think that's been you know pretty much. Yeah, a
Speaker 1: good story, because no matter what side of the aisle
Speaker 1: and you're on, you want to win if everything else
Speaker 1: is such a pain in the neck and not likely
Speaker 1: to get a win. One Plus, you just want to
Speaker 1: show you can govern and uh and do something that's
Speaker 1: important for your constituents. And it doesn't matter whether you're
Speaker 1: a Sierra Club member or a Safari Club member. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are things that you folks can agree on. Uh.
Speaker 1: In our notes here we have v p A HIP
Speaker 1: and three three seven three. Yeah, So three seven three
Speaker 1: is that tectory order I just mentioned from Dave Bernhardt.
Speaker 1: Vp A HIP is going back to the farm bills.
Speaker 1: We got a program in the two thousand eight farm
Speaker 1: bill at that time was known as open Fields, but
Speaker 1: the technical name was a voluntary public Access Habitat and
Speaker 1: Centives program. So this was a program that we just
Speaker 1: got expanded to fifty million dollars annually, which are competitive
Speaker 1: grants to states to negotiate walk in Easeyman's essention with
Speaker 1: private landers. So you have, you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: the actual money they can use and can they roll
Speaker 1: it into their existing programs. Absolutely, so they'll need to
Speaker 1: start some whole new damn thing. But part of the
Speaker 1: cool thing about the vp A HIP program is that
Speaker 1: you have states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania that have created
Speaker 1: walk in programs because all of a sudden, now there's
Speaker 1: a source of federal funding and you know, and they
Speaker 1: can supplement it with their own ways if they if
Speaker 1: possible exactly, and this has really started back and I
Speaker 1: think Kansas was the first state that really did this
Speaker 1: aggressively back with Steve Williams, who's you know, then became
Speaker 1: Fishing Wilife Service Director under George W. Bush but it
Speaker 1: now runs wilde management and stupid. When he was Fishing
Speaker 1: Game director in Kansas, they created this walking program, you know,
Speaker 1: basically to get people out there, you know, pheasant hunting
Speaker 1: and up on bird hunting, and it became so popular.
Speaker 1: Counties were giving the states grants to create walking programs
Speaker 1: in these areas. Real quick. What what's talking about is
Speaker 1: pro and you know, depending where you are, your state
Speaker 1: has one or needs one. It's programs are landowners are
Speaker 1: compensated to get financial compensation UM to allow people public
Speaker 1: access to hunt fish on their lands. And these programs
Speaker 1: tend to UM are oftentimes UH hunting programs funded through
Speaker 1: hunting or access programs funding through hunting fishing, Like we
Speaker 1: have the beast thing in Montana right now in Montana
Speaker 1: UM it's certain corners of license revenue fund the public
Speaker 1: access programs. So it's not like you're going you know,
Speaker 1: it's an internal thing. It's not like you're going out
Speaker 1: in tax and everyone on the landscape to allow hunting.
Speaker 1: It's something that that that hunters anglers are doing, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of a ford themselves through their agencies, through their
Speaker 1: state agencies, are with federal help. And the cool thing
Speaker 1: about the v p A hip program is it is
Speaker 1: also tied to conservation, so you don't have the risk
Speaker 1: of you know, some dude, you know, getting paid to
Speaker 1: open up his road crops, you know, to hunting and
Speaker 1: fishing where there's no no wildlife. So to the extent
Speaker 1: of that pro that land has already entered into other
Speaker 1: conservation programs c RP, CSP, you know, conservation easements, whatever
Speaker 1: it might be. They score higher, So there's the habitats
Speaker 1: can be much better in these types of programs. The
Speaker 1: other thing this is good about this is it takes
Speaker 1: liability away from the private landowner. So if you know,
Speaker 1: Cal trips and breaks his leg in a ditch, you know,
Speaker 1: he's not going to sue the landowner. State assumes that liability,
Speaker 1: so they will defend you know that, right, which not financially,
Speaker 1: but I mean just like a shoulder to crutch. But
Speaker 1: the reason county would support this program, right is, I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how many counties little townships we go
Speaker 1: through where it's it's very obvious the only money that's
Speaker 1: coming in is from recreation, whether that is hunting, fishing, floating,
Speaker 1: it's a local motel, it's the local diner. All these
Speaker 1: folks are benefiting from this. And that's why you find
Speaker 1: a Sioux Falls in November, and the big banner you
Speaker 1: see is you leave the airport is welcome hunters because
Speaker 1: it's such an economic driver. You station to Orange, the
Speaker 1: big orange bush signs going to a gas station with
Speaker 1: the meat eater crew. They're gonna get heard on snacks.
Speaker 1: I've noticed, uh, Phil play the noise? How do you
Speaker 1: describe that noise? I haven't labeled as a swish like
Speaker 1: yeah the swish? Okay c w D thumbs up. I
Speaker 1: mean it thumbs down, thumbs down, thumbs down. It thumbs
Speaker 1: down in two ways. It thumbs down. I'm guessing the
Speaker 1: primary way it thumbs down is it's spreading more counties
Speaker 1: all the time. I mean there's more testing revealing more spread. Yes,
Speaker 1: how else is it thumbs down? The unwillingness of most
Speaker 1: politicians to accept this is a real issue and deal
Speaker 1: with it. Why are they not scared shitless about what
Speaker 1: this would mean for egg They ought to be everybody
Speaker 1: sawing about like guys like me are like, well, what
Speaker 1: if how horrible would it be? What if a human
Speaker 1: got c w D? But why why is the livestock
Speaker 1: industry not considering what's gonna happen if CWD spreads into
Speaker 1: sheep or cattle? It would be like a would be
Speaker 1: like an egg apocalypse. Well, let's let's take it enough
Speaker 1: step further. Let's say Norway is already banning the import
Speaker 1: of agricultural products from cwdpositive areas because it's trying to
Speaker 1: control CTB outbreak in reindeer in Norway. So how long
Speaker 1: has it told the EU bands agricultural imports from CDB
Speaker 1: depositive areas and as twenty six states right now have it.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of CWD positive areas in NAG country,
Speaker 1: and and they just aren't paying They're not paying attention.
Speaker 1: So I mean, listen, I mean it's it's improving. They were.
Speaker 1: We did I think three hearings this year in the
Speaker 1: House on CDBD, so we're definitely making some progress in
Speaker 1: the sense of getting people be aware of this. You
Speaker 1: know Mark VS, who's a Congressman from Texas around that
Speaker 1: Fort Worth area, who's going to get our big award
Speaker 1: this spring. You know, he went to the floor and
Speaker 1: the agg during the appropriation RCP honors one Democrat, one Republican,
Speaker 1: somebody from the private sector every year as a big
Speaker 1: fundraiser in April. Steve got the Private Sector War a
Speaker 1: few years ago. Uh this year, you know, the congressional
Speaker 1: honorees are Mark Vsy from Texas and Garrett Graves, Republican
Speaker 1: from Louisiana. But Mark VS went to the floor during
Speaker 1: the e appropriations bill and offered amendment to add fifteen
Speaker 1: million dollars to go to state fishing game agencies to
Speaker 1: help with surveillance and testing, which is the first thing
Speaker 1: you need to do to get on top of c
Speaker 1: w D. And that was unanimously adopted. So that comes
Speaker 1: over the Senate, which is great and h then you
Speaker 1: know the Senate Egg Appropriations Committee cuts that down to
Speaker 1: five million of which half went to state state agriculture
Speaker 1: departments for the captive services industry. So I'm to do testing.
Speaker 1: Who knows, maybe do testing. I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have no control to try to bigger. Well, that's
Speaker 1: who knows what it's gonna be. Maybe it's maybe it's
Speaker 1: gonna be used for good things. But given our skepticism
Speaker 1: a U. S D A and how they've dealt with
Speaker 1: c b D, yeah, we have very little. They seems
Speaker 1: like the one if you told me that let's say
Speaker 1: there's two boxes. Let's say I'm on a game show
Speaker 1: and there's two boxes, and behind each box is like
Speaker 1: behind one box is a car, brand new truck, and
Speaker 1: one box says c w D UM spreads to livestock,
Speaker 1: and one box says c w D spreads to humans.
Speaker 1: And if I got the answer right, I'd get the
Speaker 1: truck you're tracking me. I would absolutely be the live
Speaker 1: stock one. Yeah, as much more. They have four legs.
Speaker 1: It's now eating the same grass you know, all the rest,
Speaker 1: and you think that I don't know why, Like so
Speaker 1: see that's one of the things that messages me about
Speaker 1: c w D is I look and I'm like, what
Speaker 1: am I missing? If I'm scared shitless, but if those
Speaker 1: people aren't scared, maybe I'm wrong. Well, I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: I mean you know there's a cottage industry out there
Speaker 1: of folks who are Jason saying this is a hoax
Speaker 1: not to be believed. And I don't understand that part though,
Speaker 1: I get it, Like I don't listen. I try. I
Speaker 1: try not to be like group think dude on this stuff.
Speaker 1: How is it a hoax when a deer dies, is
Speaker 1: laying there dead and it's got the symptomology, Like, where's
Speaker 1: the hoax? Always been around, never jumped to humans, nothing
Speaker 1: to worry about, did not come out of the captain
Speaker 1: served industry, the captain deer farms have nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the spread. Yeah, I agree with you. That's what
Speaker 1: I tell everybody. I'm like, man, yeah, I hope I'm
Speaker 1: wrong on a lot of things every day. But the
Speaker 1: disease transmission stuff, your research, it's funded by the U.
Speaker 1: S d A. Like it all comes down like uh, Iowa, Ohio,
Speaker 1: all these egg schools. The U. S d A is
Speaker 1: paying for a lot of that research. And yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's bizarre to me. Okay, I'm trying to what's the
Speaker 1: late Okay, Texas. How long When did Texas first get
Speaker 1: c w D. I don't know. It was a while ago,
Speaker 1: but it's done a much better job in the other
Speaker 1: states of controlling it. Texas that there was a recent case,
Speaker 1: I think in December. But I'm saying I'm trying to
Speaker 1: I'm trying to better understand, and I got a pretty
Speaker 1: good understand. Like a c w D denier used to
Speaker 1: be someone who didn't think it was a thing. Now
Speaker 1: a c w D denier is someone like this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff changes like being I mentioned this a couple
Speaker 1: weeks ago. Being a Republican used to be you were
Speaker 1: like free trade. Now it doesn't. C w D denier
Speaker 1: used to be that you didn't think it was a thing.
Speaker 1: Now it's morphed into it's a thing. But it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: It's like what it means to deny, it has moved.
Speaker 1: So the current thing are people are there people who
Speaker 1: are saying that a new state to get CWD solder
Speaker 1: are they saying that if you went to Texas twenty
Speaker 1: years ago and did all the monitoring, you would have
Speaker 1: found it like it's always been there. Like what exactly
Speaker 1: I don't want to try to get inside these guys heads. UM,
Speaker 1: but I think that's probably gonna say it that's been
Speaker 1: around that you could have you could have gone out
Speaker 1: and if you did all this testing they were now doing,
Speaker 1: nobody was looking for it. Then yeah, like what you
Speaker 1: know that The thing I think about you here, like
Speaker 1: like Montana had his first case a year or two ago,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, you look like then
Speaker 1: there's like twenty some cases. But I'm like, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, they're monitoring every deer that comes
Speaker 1: out of certain areas, so you see a big increase, UM,
Speaker 1: and then now at least have a baseline. But if
Speaker 1: you go from zero testing to testing, that launch is
Speaker 1: going to give you an increase. What matters is after
Speaker 1: five years of testing, what happens and you know you
Speaker 1: talked to uh, you know, the beautiful and lovely Doug Durn,
Speaker 1: who's really out there in his area, is trying to
Speaker 1: be impactful about this, and he's able to point to
Speaker 1: what is testing. Okay, we were doing exhaustive testing, so
Speaker 1: we have multiple exhaustive testings to look at to see increase.
Speaker 1: But I just don't understand arguing that, um, that it
Speaker 1: was always there, because I'm like where, right, No, I agree,
Speaker 1: if it was always there, it wouldn't be everywhere. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the it's pretty clear, and you can look at
Speaker 1: the maps that show the sort of spread and it's something.
Speaker 1: There's something like it doesn't it spreads like how ship spreads. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: it spreads faster than ship spreads because you can throw
Speaker 1: a captive deer in the back of a truck and
Speaker 1: zip it across the country and you know, on a
Speaker 1: Greyhound bus and you know, it's all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you know, mixing with other deer and getting dropped off
Speaker 1: here and getting one picked up there. So yeah, but
Speaker 1: when I was saying, when you have a a new infection,
Speaker 1: you find a new infection, it spreads like in a
Speaker 1: way you would imagine it would spread, like it's a
Speaker 1: it's a circle that girls and girls and grows exactly
Speaker 1: and you may pop up other places which you know
Speaker 1: you scratch your head about, but you know that's the truck.
Speaker 1: And let's listen, it's not just captive guys. Could be
Speaker 1: you know, me throwing a truck deer in the back
Speaker 1: of my pickup and driving a few states and addressing
Speaker 1: it and dumping it there. Well, if you listen to
Speaker 1: the guys that are really I don't want to use
Speaker 1: the word the people who are sounding the greatest alarm. Um,
Speaker 1: why is it not that you move to hay bail? Yep,
Speaker 1: Because the prions are in the hay bale there, in
Speaker 1: the dirt they touch, you can't kill him. Why is
Speaker 1: it not moving to hay bill? I mean, you're exactly right.
Speaker 1: The frustrating part is an apple. I heard that recently
Speaker 1: members of Congress have staff and they ought to be
Speaker 1: better informed on this. I mean I had a member,
Speaker 1: you know, say to me, well, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, I we just gonna have to cook our
Speaker 1: meat longer. Yeah, well done. I think we should be
Speaker 1: throwing you know what, if you're a guy, if you're
Speaker 1: a denier, whatever the hell that means these days, God
Speaker 1: bless you. Um. I feel like, if you're a denier,
Speaker 1: you should be just saying. I feel like we should
Speaker 1: throw a lot of money at it so I could
Speaker 1: be proven right, right, dude. I I would when I
Speaker 1: have an argument with someone, I would spend money to
Speaker 1: prove I'm right, So prove you're right. I think we
Speaker 1: should be throwing a lot of money at it because
Speaker 1: this is like a huge, mongous deal and it's not
Speaker 1: a hunting deal, as you already it is. That's my
Speaker 1: avenue into it. But I would but if you care
Speaker 1: about even if you care about the livestock industry, and
Speaker 1: I do, I'm like, you know, how's it going save
Speaker 1: a cow stop a condo? What's that? Bumpers? Yeah, like
Speaker 1: col's not condos? Whatever? Yeah, dude. Yeah. So anyway, that's
Speaker 1: been that's been really frustrating because we thought we had
Speaker 1: that fifteen million, then the Senate cut it down to
Speaker 1: two and a half million, and you'd divide two and
Speaker 1: a half million up between fifty states. Yeah, that's just
Speaker 1: meaningless practically hilarious to think about when we talk about
Speaker 1: these amounts of money. Then to think about like the
Speaker 1: wealth held by person uh you know we're always talking
Speaker 1: about like Pittman Roberts the money. Then um, like Jeff
Speaker 1: Bezos could Jeff Bezos could give that amount of money
Speaker 1: every year and not and not notice it. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's hilarious. I said, I was working with those guys
Speaker 1: in sacrament on the one game. Turned to me and
Speaker 1: he's like, yeah, you know this issue. It's just not
Speaker 1: you know, there's not enough private money to fix this.
Speaker 1: And I was like, can you say, the dude who
Speaker 1: owns this ranch owns three sports franchises. I think you
Speaker 1: just doesn't want to pay for it. All's all right.
Speaker 1: What we gotta do is we gotta get Congress to
Speaker 1: really step up on this issue. Now, they did kick forward,
Speaker 1: you know, one point seven two million. They're going to U.
Speaker 1: S g s for additional research into CWD, and that's good.
Speaker 1: There's also a National Academy Science study is gonna be
Speaker 1: going into look at transmission vectors, look at the U.
Speaker 1: S D A herd certification program, which is a joke,
Speaker 1: and other things. So there's gonna be some positive stuff
Speaker 1: that comes out of this year. But just given the
Speaker 1: threat and how fast this thing is spreading, the notion
Speaker 1: that you know, we're gonna you know, kick out two
Speaker 1: and a half million dollars to state fishing walife agents
Speaker 1: expect that to make a difference is just incredibly frustrating. No,
Speaker 1: it is. You know, Yeah, when you wake up in
Speaker 1: a few years and you're watching news footage of people
Speaker 1: are using heavy equipment to dig bassive trenches that are
Speaker 1: burning millions of sheep and cattle like you did from
Speaker 1: Ireland when Mad Colin scrapy. Yeah, then you'd be like, uh,
Speaker 1: pr modernization. This is I'm a little like Cal. I'm
Speaker 1: a little I like if I'm a little skeptical. Yeah down,
Speaker 1: So you love it? Thumbs up, you love it, Cal,
Speaker 1: He's like thumbs even. No, I mean listen, I mean
Speaker 1: I originally had the same reaction you guys did. No, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I'm just skeptical, skeptical, curious. So let me give a
Speaker 1: little background here so folks know what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: So Pitt and Robertson program is the exercise tax that
Speaker 1: hunters pay, you know, on you know, guns, MMO archery
Speaker 1: equipment that basically funds you know, goes out to the
Speaker 1: states and funds conservation. There's an equivalent on the fish side,
Speaker 1: which was the Dingle Johnson program, then got changed the
Speaker 1: right name for Dingle Johnson, Dingle Johns names, and that's
Speaker 1: the exercise TAXI pittn. Robinson past I think in nineteen
Speaker 1: thirties six or thirty seven, Uh, Dingle Johnson past in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty I think. And so which kicks off more morning,
Speaker 1: The fish and one, or the fishing tackle one or
Speaker 1: the hunting equipment one. I think they're more or less
Speaker 1: even there are a lot more or fishermen, but the
Speaker 1: hunters buy a lot more, especially Amo. Yeah, but the
Speaker 1: fisherman man when they buy boat gas, they buy boat
Speaker 1: gas that goes by gas that's hit by an excise
Speaker 1: tax exactly. So, but in the fish side they can
Speaker 1: use a states can use a small percentage of that
Speaker 1: for marketing, essentially to for the R three as we
Speaker 1: call it, you know, to recruit, retain, reactivate anglers. So
Speaker 1: that's why you see things like they take Me Fishing program. Uh,
Speaker 1: they've done a similar one reaching out Hispanic community of
Speaker 1: almost the scar program. My Spanish is terrible, I apologize,
Speaker 1: but those have really changed the decline and fishing the
Speaker 1: philis down that's like two years of French. So yeah,
Speaker 1: three thumbs down if I could do so. Anyway, So
Speaker 1: that the that take Me Fishing campaign has really reversed
Speaker 1: the decline and fishing numbers and it's going back up
Speaker 1: and you know a pretty aggressive rate, and it's reaching
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, his communities like Hispanic community
Speaker 1: that typically get you know, left in the crack you know,
Speaker 1: by our hunting and fishing community. So but because in
Speaker 1: the nineteen thirties, nobody could envision the need to advertise
Speaker 1: and recruit hunters because basically had everybody was hunting at
Speaker 1: that point, either because it was during the depression they
Speaker 1: needed food or you know, post World War One going
Speaker 1: into World War Two, you had a large ye like
Speaker 1: I don't know, like a quarter as many Americans, but
Speaker 1: the same number of hundreds exactly. And so there was
Speaker 1: no idea that we actually would need to use some
Speaker 1: of this money for you know, the marketing. But you
Speaker 1: know that's changed and the fish Walleye surveys in the
Speaker 1: last year two surveys for five year period, hunting went
Speaker 1: from you know, thirteen and a half million people to
Speaker 1: eleven and a half I mean, and so you know,
Speaker 1: the long term impacts implications of that on conservation funding
Speaker 1: are huge. So we wanted to do like fighting the
Speaker 1: animal rights movement absolutely, yeah, So what we want to
Speaker 1: make sure is that we give the States the same
Speaker 1: ability on the hunting side as you have on the
Speaker 1: fishing side to use a small amount of those funds
Speaker 1: for marketing. Now, I had groups like you know, Wildlife
Speaker 1: Society and Wildlife Federation argue that money is dedicated for
Speaker 1: bat you know, and a little pulls it off mission.
Speaker 1: And I would say, we are in the desk spiral,
Speaker 1: so you know, if you want more money for habitat
Speaker 1: and good stuff coming out of PR, you better get
Speaker 1: more hunters into the game. And that that's the argument
Speaker 1: that swayed me because they were also trying to make
Speaker 1: it that you could use PR money to create public
Speaker 1: shooting ranges. You can already do that, you could know?
Speaker 1: That was like, but that was like recent. I don't
Speaker 1: think so. No. I think you just might be the
Speaker 1: first time in your life that I've ever known more
Speaker 1: than you. This might be the first time I've ever
Speaker 1: known more on you about something. But I think that
Speaker 1: it was like PR money couldn't go to public shooting
Speaker 1: ranges until something happened, like some point in time in
Speaker 1: the last handful of years. Well, we'll figure that out.
Speaker 1: You could be right about that. I thought, I know
Speaker 1: that that would pay money to know that I'm right,
Speaker 1: like I mentioned earlier, But let me but here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Here's what I remember about the debate. Debate was one
Speaker 1: that everyone went out and shot old washing machines up
Speaker 1: out in the woods, and it was trying to like
Speaker 1: get that centralise shooting so that everybody didn't have their
Speaker 1: own patch of their own gravel pit where they went
Speaker 1: and through cans and bottles and appliances out and blue
Speaker 1: holes in it. So you're trying to reduce that, and
Speaker 1: everything was did. It would if people have more places
Speaker 1: to shoot and feel more comfortable shooting, they're buying more
Speaker 1: sporting this equipment, they're buying more ammunition and more money.
Speaker 1: And so it was like viewed as like an investment
Speaker 1: in the PR fund because most of the PR money
Speaker 1: doesn't come from hunters. Most of PR money comes from shooters.
Speaker 1: If an old granny New Jersey has a pocket pistol,
Speaker 1: she probably paid into PR exactly. She might be an
Speaker 1: anti hunter, yea. And if you're a you're a decent hunter,
Speaker 1: you're maybe do one box off m a year. That's
Speaker 1: a guy that's a friend's mind. Like at the NSSF
Speaker 1: they're laughing about is Um one of these guys Like,
Speaker 1: you know, I hunt all the time. I got like
Speaker 1: a gun that I got from my dad. I buy
Speaker 1: like a box of shells every few years. I'm not
Speaker 1: the guy kicking into this fund. The guy kicking into
Speaker 1: this fund is shooting is two two three down the range. Now,
Speaker 1: granted there's a lot of cross over there. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: I mean just this funny point, and it's like hunters
Speaker 1: are the ones that are eyes like pr PR pivot robbers,
Speaker 1: and you know, a little bit blind like where the
Speaker 1: bulk of that money is coming from. But I just
Speaker 1: think we need to do something out there to you know,
Speaker 1: engage attract people because you know, the demographics hunting are
Speaker 1: not great either. I mean it's an old white and
Speaker 1: getting older and at some point they're going to drop
Speaker 1: off that cliff because Phil starting to hunt, how do you, Phil? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're all set now I'll get at But you know,
Speaker 1: and again we actually are seeing some good growth. I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously women are coming into hunting, you know, in a
Speaker 1: way they haven't in the past, which is great. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you guys have been instrumental as we're getting
Speaker 1: that food side of people coming into hunting because they
Speaker 1: want to have harvest their own, locally sourced, high protein,
Speaker 1: non GMO meat. Yeah. So I think those areas are
Speaker 1: seeing growth, which is why you combine things like CWD,
Speaker 1: which is scary and may push people away from hunting.
Speaker 1: And and the fact that we haven't the all the
Speaker 1: advertise hunting you know those are you know, that's the
Speaker 1: death spiral. So you love it. I love it two thumbs,
Speaker 1: two thumbs. Oh not even kind of tipped to the side.
Speaker 1: And again you can't use No state is gonna yet
Speaker 1: they can't. But no state would take all that money
Speaker 1: and just do advertising campaigns because that's not what they do.
Speaker 1: So it's just you know, that didn't happen on the
Speaker 1: you know, the fishing side. So yeah, the Recreational Boating
Speaker 1: and Fishing Foundation was funded through the Dingle Johnston funds,
Speaker 1: the wallet Bro funds, and you know they get you know,
Speaker 1: maybe like seven million dollars a year to run these
Speaker 1: big national campaigns on take me fishing. And it's worked
Speaker 1: and we've showed this worked. Okay, Phil, play the sound.
Speaker 1: If you want a primer on big grain migrations, you
Speaker 1: should go listen to scroll back down through the episodes.
Speaker 1: Here's a good research question for someone sitting here. Uh no,
Speaker 1: I remember the name of it. Scroll back down and
Speaker 1: listen to a podcast episode that we did called land
Speaker 1: Escape of Fear and it's a primer on big game migration.
Speaker 1: So pause the episode right now before it starts talking.
Speaker 1: Listen to Landscape of Fear, and then in a couple
Speaker 1: of hours we'll see you as you come back to
Speaker 1: hear whether we has thumbs up or thumbs down big
Speaker 1: game migrations meaning uh, basically, what that comes down to
Speaker 1: is meaning the viability and productiveness of lands that are
Speaker 1: used by migrating big game. They're used by big game.
Speaker 1: How do we how are we doing? We know a
Speaker 1: lot more about it. That's because of what you learned
Speaker 1: when you listen to the Landscape of Fear. Is like
Speaker 1: how we're starting to learn about how animals use the
Speaker 1: landscape because of emerging technologies exactly. And this is something
Speaker 1: that you know has really I think Wyoming to a
Speaker 1: large degreece where pioneered this, you know, with a lot
Speaker 1: of beginning with Path of the prong Horn, but then
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff that Hall Sawyer and you know,
Speaker 1: guys like that have done in terms Matt Kaufman in
Speaker 1: terms of the mule deer migrations, and not only did
Speaker 1: they get good data, they got such cool video footage
Speaker 1: and really captured the imagination and national geographic picked it
Speaker 1: up and pushed it out, and so all of a
Speaker 1: sudden it became sexy. And then you know, Dave Bernhardt,
Speaker 1: his predecessor, Ryan Zinky, you know, did a Secretary order
Speaker 1: I think three to something like that that, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: basically told the federal agencies within the Department the Interior
Speaker 1: to work together to identify these migration corridors and to
Speaker 1: take the conservation actions necessary to protect them. Yeah. When
Speaker 1: you listen to Landscape, I fear there everyone that just
Speaker 1: rejoined us. You you'll remember the part where we're talking
Speaker 1: about with emerging technologies around GPS and and things, um,
Speaker 1: identifying little things that could be patches of ground seventy
Speaker 1: five yards wide along the edge of a lake that
Speaker 1: literally hundreds of animals passed through. And the ability to
Speaker 1: be so targeted about like this little thing really matters.
Speaker 1: It allows you to be It allows you be really precise.
Speaker 1: You know. So we are arguing with the Department of
Speaker 1: Interior early on this. You know, this administration and are
Speaker 1: you know, are encouraging them to do this. You know,
Speaker 1: the points are pretty simple. I mean, it's an inter agency,
Speaker 1: so you want to talk about you know, we're breaking
Speaker 1: down the silence between the different agencies, a state, federal,
Speaker 1: private collaboration. It's you know, highly charismitic megafauna. It is
Speaker 1: relatively small areas of actual conservation because you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're gonna need to protect some broader areas, but otherwise
Speaker 1: it's just a pinch point here or there. And I said,
Speaker 1: you can use a bunch of other people's money, you know,
Speaker 1: for example, in the transportation bill, the highway bill. You know,
Speaker 1: we just got two and two and fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: in the Senate version for an experimental program over five
Speaker 1: years for highway crossings, for big game migrations, and for
Speaker 1: aquatic connectivity. Are you weird? Are you awhere that those
Speaker 1: are controversial? Well, I know they are in place like
Speaker 1: Island Parkatto. In general, No, they're not that controversial. Tell
Speaker 1: you where it is. The massive government take over this
Speaker 1: country really went downhill and they made an overpass so
Speaker 1: so many animals didn't get killed on the highway. That's
Speaker 1: when I knew America had I'd had enough of this country.
Speaker 1: I want right to hit a deer if I can. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I mean, most of the time it's not controversial, and
Speaker 1: I think that you know. So the way it happened
Speaker 1: under this administration is they put out in order all
Speaker 1: Western states and focused on three species mule, deer, elk,
Speaker 1: and pronghorn. Told the states to nominate three to five
Speaker 1: core migration corridors and you know, then the Partment of
Speaker 1: the Interior would you know, basically commit resources to helping
Speaker 1: protect those. Joe was a rumor. Uh, let me to
Speaker 1: keep interrupting about this a lot, du because I'm doing it.
Speaker 1: But it was a rumor that they're using it to
Speaker 1: um move the deer away from public hunting areas. I
Speaker 1: hadn't heard that one channel them there. It's it's in viros,
Speaker 1: channeling the deer into helping them pick routes where they
Speaker 1: won't be uh subject to getting shot at. It was
Speaker 1: it was hard training those initial gears with the tall
Speaker 1: callers to go those different routs they've never been before.
Speaker 1: After they got through that hurdle, then yeah, no, I
Speaker 1: mean that's just you know, it's just that crazy talk.
Speaker 1: This does even makes sense for everybody. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think that you know, we've seen the you know,
Speaker 1: the Highway bill is going to contain this program. We've
Speaker 1: seen states you know, Wyoming, has you know, done, has
Speaker 1: sort of been lead on this, but they're even Mark
Speaker 1: Gordon is doing executive order right now that you know,
Speaker 1: is laying out how to formalize this process moving forward
Speaker 1: as they designate new ones. Those big lefties over in Wyoming. Yeah, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Poles administration in Colorado pushed through an executive
Speaker 1: order on migration quarters. So you're seeing it have ripple
Speaker 1: effects in a variety of different states in the West.
Speaker 1: On the one on one right, um to um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that the wildlife crossing over the one on one freeway
Speaker 1: in California outside of l A, there's anything using it. Wait,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be complete sometime this year, I think,
Speaker 1: is what they're saying. But that's the going to be
Speaker 1: the most expensive overpass in the United States imate we
Speaker 1: heard from one guy. Never fact checked him on this,
Speaker 1: but an angry listener wrote in and I was talking
Speaker 1: about all this money they spent building one. Maybes in
Speaker 1: Washington State. Someone they spent a bunch of money building
Speaker 1: one and then it just didn't work. I mean that
Speaker 1: was said like a coyote went over that. Never fact check.
Speaker 1: You gotta give these things time. And you know, at
Speaker 1: our net did a pretty good video that's on our
Speaker 1: website that's one of talks about this. Yeah, you gotta
Speaker 1: give them a little bit of time to work. A second,
Speaker 1: you have to have fencing, you know, that goes along
Speaker 1: with them, because you have to funnel the animals towards this,
Speaker 1: because getting to do something they don't normally do. But
Speaker 1: you know, I think they they certainly in Wyoming, you know,
Speaker 1: the evidence is overwhelming along with other places that once
Speaker 1: they figure this out, they use them like crazy, and
Speaker 1: not just you know, one species, but a host of
Speaker 1: different space small mammals, birds preferred to fly over them.
Speaker 1: They've got like reptile crossings in New Jersey. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: it's you know they've got you know, it makes sense
Speaker 1: on a number of different levels. I remember when I
Speaker 1: was a kid, snapper turtles eys get hit real bad
Speaker 1: when you're driving Nord to Mouskegan Marsh and um, they
Speaker 1: put up this really low fence, like a knee high
Speaker 1: fence that channeled snapping turtles into the right thing. I
Speaker 1: remember people feeling mad about it, just like kind of
Speaker 1: like this, like those idiots. It's like and I remember
Speaker 1: thinking like what, like what exactly is the problem, right,
Speaker 1: But it just insulted people that someone would spend effort
Speaker 1: to have lots of snapping turtles every June when they're
Speaker 1: going to lay eggs not get killed. They wanted to
Speaker 1: see them get killed. If you had a snapping turtle
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night, it keeps you awake. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they're like insulted by I remember calling people in
Speaker 1: my own family were like, I rolly about the fact
Speaker 1: that you would try to keep all your snapping turtles
Speaker 1: from getting crushed on the highway When they come up
Speaker 1: to lay it's this giant marsh and it's like, really
Speaker 1: for them, it looks like suitable nesting habitats. They need
Speaker 1: to get out and dig a home in the sand.
Speaker 1: And you build this big artificial thing and every turtle
Speaker 1: in the area tries to come up there and get
Speaker 1: smacked by a thing, and people are like, just I
Speaker 1: don't know, no, I don't know. Well, anyway, I think overall,
Speaker 1: the the migration corridor stuff has been really a positive thing.
Speaker 1: I think it's spreading and it's got good momentum, and
Speaker 1: the exception of a few weird places, it's not controversial.
Speaker 1: Something again that I think everyone can agree on that
Speaker 1: sure things though, fisheries i'd say mixed bag, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of sideways seat thumbs. You know. So a lot
Speaker 1: of the fisheries one of the big issues with fisheries,
Speaker 1: well we got you know, fisheries is a broad term.
Speaker 1: You mean, there's fresh water to the salt water up.
Speaker 1: So you know, a lot of the folcus we've been
Speaker 1: doing is on the you know, the saltwater side of
Speaker 1: the marine fisheries. Now, we did get a bill passed
Speaker 1: and you know late last year the year before called
Speaker 1: the Modern Fish Act, which for the first time recognized
Speaker 1: that recreational fish should be managed differently than commercial fish.
Speaker 1: Commercial fish, you know, are really managed for maximum stained yield.
Speaker 1: So you're gonna you need instantaneous data. You're pushing that
Speaker 1: species right to the edge, and you have to have
Speaker 1: really good data for that. And you can do that
Speaker 1: with commercial fishing because you have a limited number of
Speaker 1: ports and you can actually count the fish wreck fishing,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. I mean, you have people spread
Speaker 1: out everywhere, a million little docks, marinas, and there is
Speaker 1: always but you can't manage them the same way. So
Speaker 1: instead of trying to you push that commercial management paradigm
Speaker 1: downe on the wreck fishing, which is what Noah National
Speaker 1: Maale and Fishery Service has always done, and to the
Speaker 1: point where we're getting a ton of controversy and things
Speaker 1: like red snapper in the Gulf where the lack of
Speaker 1: certainty on numbers were causing the agencies to shut down
Speaker 1: the fishery in nine days and seven days and three days.
Speaker 1: So if you and I were planning a trip down there,
Speaker 1: we'd have no idea. We booked our hotel room, we
Speaker 1: booked our guide with the season would actually be open
Speaker 1: or not. It's just not the way to manage recreational fishing.
Speaker 1: So Modern Fish Act passed and it did a few
Speaker 1: different things, I mean the main one said to the
Speaker 1: National Marie and fisher Reservice, you have the ability to
Speaker 1: try these different things that may work better for recreational fishermen.
Speaker 1: Let's use the waterfowl model. Yeah, So go out and
Speaker 1: you do surveys and the Arctic of what the breeding
Speaker 1: populations are going to be. You look at how many
Speaker 1: ducks get shot, and then you set a season. You
Speaker 1: know when it opens, you know what the bag them.
Speaker 1: It's going to be the end of that season to reevaluate.
Speaker 1: Now you have to be pretty conservative and for that
Speaker 1: to work because you can't be way off or else
Speaker 1: you just crush the species. So honestly, it's better for
Speaker 1: conservation anyway, if you were to apply that model for
Speaker 1: breck fishing, which is the same way with the model
Speaker 1: we do on fresh water fisheries, you know, be at
Speaker 1: largemouth bass or trout or anything else. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a bag limit, you know what it is. You know
Speaker 1: when the season starts, you know when it ends, And
Speaker 1: we just haven't been doing that recreational side. So now
Speaker 1: that's gonna get changed. And a lot of these sort
Speaker 1: of hot button fisheries, and the hot button fisheries are
Speaker 1: the ones where you have nicked stocks. So part of
Speaker 1: its commercial, part of it's recreational, red snapper being a
Speaker 1: classic case. The all recreational stocks, things like red fish,
Speaker 1: you know, bone fish, tarpin, those are all well managed
Speaker 1: because they're managed with that same sort of precautionary principle
Speaker 1: that we managed water fell with. And so so we
Speaker 1: finally got that changed. Now the agencies, in the process
Speaker 1: of going through a bunch of rulemaking, determined how it
Speaker 1: might use that and there are different ways you could
Speaker 1: do it. You could do a tag system, you could
Speaker 1: do you know, these bag limits. You could do fathom
Speaker 1: limits where you know, outside for ground fish under a
Speaker 1: certain levels, wreck fishing outside of its commercial that's like
Speaker 1: in Washington's a lot of things like you can fish
Speaker 1: within at different times a year, within certain depths, so
Speaker 1: you deal with a lot of the bycatch issues with
Speaker 1: things like that. Yeah, so it's us being a little
Speaker 1: bit more creative. But the agency, because that wasn't the
Speaker 1: way it was used to doing things on commercial side,
Speaker 1: was always very reluctant to do that. Now it has
Speaker 1: a green light to do it. The other thing that
Speaker 1: the agency was where you're reluctant to do was to
Speaker 1: use you know, different data collection techniques. So it would,
Speaker 1: you know, do telephone surveys and mail surveys asking you
Speaker 1: how many fish you count, you know, last summer, which
Speaker 1: needless to say, we're not highly accurate, highly accurate, not
Speaker 1: instant talking to a bunch of let me tell you
Speaker 1: about this one in particular, take your arm off. So
Speaker 1: the state's got so frustrated with that's a bunch of
Speaker 1: the states period their own and basically you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: iPhone based systems where you're basically doing instantaneous reporting. You
Speaker 1: don't have to tell where your honey hoole is, but
Speaker 1: you tell, you know, how many fish you caught, what
Speaker 1: general size, and you know. So all of a sudden
Speaker 1: you have, you know, this instantaneous data on the wreck side,
Speaker 1: which the agencies had never had before. And so part
Speaker 1: of what the Modern Fish Act did was again give
Speaker 1: them a National Maine Fisheries Service the green light to
Speaker 1: use these alternative data mechanisms, you know, to manage the fisheries.
Speaker 1: And l a creole is one Louisiana. There's a separate
Speaker 1: one in Florida. There's a separate one in Texas. But
Speaker 1: they just make a ton more sense than you know,
Speaker 1: this modern age than a telephone survey months after the fact,
Speaker 1: I mean, the telephone series in Montana. I wholly buy
Speaker 1: into the system. I do, but every year I'm like, uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: you got a buck? Well what region um? And what
Speaker 1: unit my aunt's place? You know? Okay, do you know
Speaker 1: this that um in South like at our fish shack
Speaker 1: and in Southeast Alaska. No, there's just like an order
Speaker 1: to come down no nonplagic rock fish whatsoever. God, those
Speaker 1: things are tasty. I saw the yellow I mean obviously yellow.
Speaker 1: No non player. I think it's to protect the yellow eye,
Speaker 1: but no non plagics, which has major implications for US fishing,
Speaker 1: because you're gonna be no matter what you're doing, you're
Speaker 1: pulling up a lot of rock fish, you're gonna be
Speaker 1: like sending a lot of rockfish down to the bottom
Speaker 1: with release devices. Yeah, and no more targeting yellow eyes.
Speaker 1: I bought a new Damn Rod four jigging yellow and
Speaker 1: talk about an easy getting a kid fishing fish. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But I've been putting a lot of energy into um
Speaker 1: pioneering some new green ling and flounder spots. So it's gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, Brodie Henderson, right now it's timey some flounder flies.
Speaker 1: Uh say, may do. We're still gonna we're we'll still um,
Speaker 1: we'll still put some food on the plate. Yeoh okay.
Speaker 1: So uh I just got sent this last night a
Speaker 1: Texas Parks and Wildlife apparently just um try a case convicted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got fined twenty six thousand dollars for being sixteen
Speaker 1: or seventeen red snapper over the limit from last year. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's as far as I got into it, So
Speaker 1: that's I got right. So obviously red snapper is pretty
Speaker 1: hot button for a while, and it's I think a
Speaker 1: lot of the controversy and when it snappers calmed down.
Speaker 1: Since you know this, you know, the Modern Fish Act
Speaker 1: passed and basically the FEDS turned over management to the
Speaker 1: States and the States are doing a good job. Tell
Speaker 1: about the Manhattan deal. So man hayden Is is the
Speaker 1: basically the base of the food chain on the East Coast.
Speaker 1: It's also in the Gulf. It's a little fish, it's
Speaker 1: called bunker, it's called pogy and super oily. You don't
Speaker 1: want to eat it, but everything else wants to eat it.
Speaker 1: And the bat fish of choice, right, great fish of choice,
Speaker 1: and not just for you know, striped bass and wheat
Speaker 1: fish and blue fish, but for whales, for eagles, for osprey,
Speaker 1: you name it. And that's one of my that's one
Speaker 1: of the areas where I have least experience hanging around,
Speaker 1: like the Atlantic. All right, we can that part of it,
Speaker 1: that chunk of the Atlantic. So you know, in the
Speaker 1: in the old days, back in the nine hundreds, there
Speaker 1: were these you know, basically reduction industries up and down
Speaker 1: the East coast, and the reduction industries will go out
Speaker 1: in the perse se reduction so they would catch these
Speaker 1: you know, the man Hayden, bring them back, grind them up,
Speaker 1: reduce them to fish food, to pellets, to fish oil,
Speaker 1: fertilize er, to variety of others. So you go down
Speaker 1: to the drug store and buy ere olmate, you're you're
Speaker 1: eating probably man haden, your your fish oil pills. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: which are useless, but it's fine, um yeah, so over
Speaker 1: time because it keep you alive forever. So you tell
Speaker 1: me that that the supplementary, I have no drug industries
Speaker 1: lied to me. I actually have no idea a way
Speaker 1: outside my comfort zone on that. We call that big Vita.
Speaker 1: Big Vitas lied to me. So back in the turn
Speaker 1: of century, you had these reduction fisheries up and down
Speaker 1: the East coast and to the point where they almost
Speaker 1: wiped out Manhadian and basically almost wiped out everything that
Speaker 1: eats them because big schooling fishing just get on them
Speaker 1: and claw room. Right, yeah, I mean the way it's
Speaker 1: done today and today so basically a state by state
Speaker 1: band started banning this type of fishing. Only one state
Speaker 1: still allows it in the Atlantic and that's Virginia and
Speaker 1: has one plant owned by a company called Omega Seafood,
Speaker 1: which was recently purchased by cook which is the you know,
Speaker 1: they they have big aquaculture salmon farming, no different cooking.
Speaker 1: They have salmon farming operations on the Atlantic up in
Speaker 1: Canada and Maine. They have had a mountain Puget Sound.
Speaker 1: They got kicked out of Washington State because are such
Speaker 1: bad actors. Tons of Clean Water Act violations, tons of
Speaker 1: escapements for Atlantic salmon and steel that habitat. So not
Speaker 1: a great company. But anyway, they own Omega, so one
Speaker 1: plant still owns it. You can imagine when that guy
Speaker 1: gets sitting around and complaining big cigar in his mouth,
Speaker 1: I'd love to hear it. So anyway, so this one plant,
Speaker 1: you know, catches eighty plus percent of all the commercial
Speaker 1: Menhayden in the Atlantic, and it has your big boats,
Speaker 1: has Spotter plant. The only fishing Virginia waters they can
Speaker 1: fish in, you know, so federal internet. So they go
Speaker 1: outside three miles three miles that three to two hundred
Speaker 1: that's the federal waters. So they can do out there.
Speaker 1: And then they also been fishing there. It's three to
Speaker 1: two d oh, where to get seventy miles from something
Speaker 1: that it's based off the bank, like with the drop off.
Speaker 1: Maybe this was all done back and then you know
Speaker 1: when Magnuson Act came into early in the nineties seventies,
Speaker 1: go off R three miles you can catch menhaden and
Speaker 1: federal waters. Yeah. Oh, then he's going off anyone's coast.
Speaker 1: So that's where you was front page of New York
Speaker 1: Times past year because you know, they the big bunker
Speaker 1: schools were up there off a long island, and whales
Speaker 1: and all the whale watching boats were out there, you know,
Speaker 1: watching this spectacle of nature. And here comes Omega with
Speaker 1: a spotter planes and it's a little you know, big
Speaker 1: factory ships and this you know, this persone boats and
Speaker 1: comes out circling around them, scooping them up, while the
Speaker 1: whales are out there hitting them, and while the recreational
Speaker 1: angles around the spite stripe bastard blitzing them. Everyone's pissed.
Speaker 1: And here it goes gets brought back so ground up
Speaker 1: in a fish food to be sent to Canada to
Speaker 1: feed alcuaculture salmon, another totally unsustainable industry, and to get
Speaker 1: shipped back into the US you know. It's so you
Speaker 1: can buy salmon that has an ingredients list on it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know when you buy salmon and you see this
Speaker 1: gut ingredients because like normally you don't need a label stuff.
Speaker 1: But since they died, it red and all sorts of
Speaker 1: antibiotics should say sam yep sam with the asterix. So anyway,
Speaker 1: so Omega we've been trying to do is change the
Speaker 1: way men Hayden are managed to go from single species management,
Speaker 1: which is basically how many fish can you kill before
Speaker 1: you crash the stock, to an ecosystem management, meaning what
Speaker 1: does the ecosystem need? And then based on that, how
Speaker 1: many can take out without messing things up. And that's
Speaker 1: probably gonna happen this coming year. And it's been a
Speaker 1: pretty nasty fight all along. Meantime, this past year, OMEGA
Speaker 1: decided it didn't like, you know, the federal limits, the
Speaker 1: Atlanta States Marine Fisheries Commission limits on Man Hayden and
Speaker 1: so it just decided to give a big middle finger
Speaker 1: to the agency and went in and blew through its
Speaker 1: cap for the chest Peak Bay and so caught you know,
Speaker 1: millions of extra pounds of fish. So they were I
Speaker 1: think expecting and who knows what was inside their head
Speaker 1: that you know, they could go to Secretary of the Interior,
Speaker 1: Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and get him to waive
Speaker 1: any sort of penalties. Now, you know, we as the
Speaker 1: wreck fishing community as well as Atlanta States Marine Fisheries
Speaker 1: Commission and every single state on the Atlantic, including Virginia.
Speaker 1: Because the recent governor does not like that fishery voted,
Speaker 1: you know, to basically find Virginia and Omega out of
Speaker 1: compliance and penalize them. So that fishery Virginia itself find
Speaker 1: yes absolutely and so that you know, Wilbur Ross, to
Speaker 1: his credit, you have rule in favor of the commission
Speaker 1: and shut down that fishery. Now that doesn't really mean
Speaker 1: anything because the fisher is shut down the winter anyway.
Speaker 1: This just happened in December, um. But what it means
Speaker 1: is that now the state has to come into compliance
Speaker 1: and there's gonna be a penalty for all those fish
Speaker 1: extra that it caught out of the Chesspeak Bay. It's
Speaker 1: going to get reduced that from its overall quota. Now, listen,
Speaker 1: I think they ought to be kicked out of the
Speaker 1: Chesspeak Bay altogether. I'd love to see this, you know
Speaker 1: type of fishing end. If bait fishermen want to do
Speaker 1: man Hayden, that's great. I mean, we've so wiped out
Speaker 1: herrying fisheries. A lot of lobstermen in Maine and other
Speaker 1: places are looking for other bait. Man Hayden is a
Speaker 1: logic one for that. All four using that. That's awesome
Speaker 1: going up to Maine for lobster basing. So you're saying
Speaker 1: like that, like like small scale stuff like that, but
Speaker 1: you're saying like the industrial harvest, yeah exactly, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean the big reduction fisheries, which where you grind them
Speaker 1: up and you know, tourna into oil and pellets. That's
Speaker 1: just it just doesn't make any sense now. And the
Speaker 1: crazy thing on this too is that you know, Omega
Speaker 1: decided during this process to add political weight to its
Speaker 1: cause to get it self certified on the Marine Stewardship
Speaker 1: Council as sustainable, which doesn't make any sense. For a
Speaker 1: host of reasons. We fought that. You know, they got
Speaker 1: it on the Atlantic, and they got it in the Gulf,
Speaker 1: and there's not even a catch limit in place in
Speaker 1: the Gulf. I mean, it's totally the wild West down there.
Speaker 1: And you know, so it's just crazy. So anyway, but
Speaker 1: what it has done is galvanized the fish community, the
Speaker 1: fit recreational fish community behind this cause. We won on
Speaker 1: the compliance fight in the Atlantic and the chest Peake Bay.
Speaker 1: You know we're gonna win. I think on ecological management,
Speaker 1: changing the framework, and then we need to go down
Speaker 1: to the Gulf and put hard cash limits in place
Speaker 1: down there. Okay, Phil Pebble mind man minds two thumbs down.
Speaker 1: So we thought this thing was, you know, pretty much dead,
Speaker 1: and you know we're putting nails in the coffin a
Speaker 1: few years ago. It's been hard to track, it's been
Speaker 1: hard to follow. So issue fatigue, well there's some of
Speaker 1: that too, but let's a things. This is one thing
Speaker 1: where it is a sea change from the last three years.
Speaker 1: So the administration, I think, to their credit, basically put
Speaker 1: up some very hard sideboards on any mind that could
Speaker 1: be developed in an area, which can you can you
Speaker 1: give people not just real quick bring people up speed,
Speaker 1: Like when when people say pedal mind, what are they
Speaker 1: talking about? They're talking about? One would be one of
Speaker 1: the world's largest open pit mines at the headwaters in
Speaker 1: a golden copper mind headwaters of the two most productive
Speaker 1: sak I salmon rivers in North America, the Queejack and
Speaker 1: the new she Gack in the world in the world.
Speaker 1: So you know, they're basically it's the backbone of a
Speaker 1: half billion dollar a year commercial fishery which it creates
Speaker 1: a surface lake of highly it creates it would create
Speaker 1: a surface lake of highly contaminated water. They would have
Speaker 1: to be maintained in perpetuity, an active fault zone behind behind,
Speaker 1: you know, an empowerment structure that this water would never
Speaker 1: be cleaned and you would need to keep it in
Speaker 1: place because should it. And not only that, because of
Speaker 1: what would eventually be the size of the c M.
Speaker 1: And you're gonna have to put in not only roads
Speaker 1: and harbors, but you know, utility basically power plant, and
Speaker 1: you're going to open up an entire area to other impacts.
Speaker 1: So and this is like from moose hunters, salmon fisherman,
Speaker 1: bear hunters. Everybody hates this, a couple of people except
Speaker 1: for some Canadian speculators who want to know basically, this
Speaker 1: Northern Dynasty which is a company that's pushing this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: once essentially sort of you know, to make a bunch
Speaker 1: of money on this thing, sell it off to somebody else,
Speaker 1: and get out of the business. So anyways, it was
Speaker 1: on life support. Then Presidents the story hasn't and I
Speaker 1: have no idea if this is true. President Stuffs on
Speaker 1: his way back from North Korea, stops to refuel on Anchorage,
Speaker 1: Alaskan governor who likes the mind, likes any story of
Speaker 1: development project, spends time with him on Air Force one.
Speaker 1: Trump goes back to d C, tells EPA to make
Speaker 1: this thing happen, and the core of engineers and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the core of engineers, which takes six
Speaker 1: years for a restoration project to do the permitting in
Speaker 1: a place like Florida or Louisiana is you know, has
Speaker 1: never moved faster on any project ever. And we're gonna
Speaker 1: basically moving creaning toward approving the permit on this, you know.
Speaker 1: And you're right about now. Now they've kicked it back
Speaker 1: a few months because everybody, including the State of Alaska,
Speaker 1: including Lisa Makowski, including Department of the Interior, have said, WHOA,
Speaker 1: your analysis is woefully inadequate. You're not looking all these
Speaker 1: potential impacts. So but we still think the core of
Speaker 1: engineer is going to issue a permit, which means litigation
Speaker 1: is going to begin. But what it also means is that,
Speaker 1: you know, the mining company, Northern Dynasty may get an
Speaker 1: infusion of cash because the stock price is bound to
Speaker 1: go up at that point, and it makes this thing
Speaker 1: far more viable than it's been any time in the
Speaker 1: past fifteen years. Yeah, I don't want to say about
Speaker 1: this crazy bet I have about pebble mind, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna tell you about it, okay, with my sister in law.
Speaker 1: It's a brutal thing. Like you're talking about a landscape
Speaker 1: where you couldn't maintain a kiddie pool out there from
Speaker 1: overflowing or rupturing for any amount of time. I mean,
Speaker 1: the groundwater is on the surface and then the surface
Speaker 1: water comes down and freaking day louse buckets constantly. It's
Speaker 1: an active fault zone. I mean, you have volcano was
Speaker 1: erupting within, you have seventy five miles so but I mean,
Speaker 1: and listen, there are a lot of places in Alaska
Speaker 1: to make total sense for mining. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of really good minds in Alaska. This is not about
Speaker 1: being anti mining. This is about about the worst place
Speaker 1: you could ever pick to put a mind, is the
Speaker 1: top of Bristol Bay. Well, I'm curious to see. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't say this lightly, and I wouldn't say about
Speaker 1: a lot of things, but I'm curious to see a
Speaker 1: role that civil disobedience would come into play were they
Speaker 1: to actually go in and break ground to start extracting resources.
Speaker 1: It's become such a line in the sand issue for
Speaker 1: such a broad array of individuals from the native community,
Speaker 1: Native Alaskans, sportsman, commercial environmentalists, commercial fishermen. I wonder if
Speaker 1: it would be that there would be UM. I just
Speaker 1: feel like if it's not like that, this would be
Speaker 1: the kind of thing that inspire civil disobedience. It's so
Speaker 1: hard though, because it's like, look at where it is,
Speaker 1: you know, like the winner population of King sam and
Speaker 1: Alaska is like very very few. The summer population in
Speaker 1: anything that would probably be hard to make a human
Speaker 1: chain out of that too. No, no, but it's like
Speaker 1: if if if we can't pretend, I think people look
Speaker 1: at as a lion saying issue, because if you can't
Speaker 1: protect Bristol Bay, if it's not worth protecting Bristol Bay,
Speaker 1: than people will be like, so that means nothing is
Speaker 1: that wasn't good enough. Yeah, that mean that would mean
Speaker 1: to a lot of people like we're okay, We're just
Speaker 1: we're done because nothing is sacred. Yea. Anyway, this is
Speaker 1: gonna just you know, I don't think they're gonna be
Speaker 1: breaking ground anytime soon. This is gonna be extensively litigated
Speaker 1: if the permit is issued. So you know, and yeah,
Speaker 1: part of us, you know, running out of the clock
Speaker 1: and hope you got a more friendly administration and that
Speaker 1: we'll you know, actually do something good for Bristol Bay
Speaker 1: or the current administration change tack, which is entirely possible. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he listened to the public opinion on a lot of issues.
Speaker 1: I just gotta hit him on the Twitter feedlook, thumbs in,
Speaker 1: thumbs out down. You know, I think we're gonna get
Speaker 1: some stuff done. Um yeah, I mean it's gonna play
Speaker 1: feel you got you got the noise in there, um
Speaker 1: you know the noise. Yeah. Uh. Obviously you have two
Speaker 1: things that are gonna make progress on anything difficult, impeachment
Speaker 1: and the election progress on anything anything. Do you wish
Speaker 1: the impeachment hadn't happened just because it makes everything so
Speaker 1: hard to do? There's not something you're comfortable getting into it.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to get into that one. So I
Speaker 1: just think that it is what it is now, the
Speaker 1: way it happened, I gotta deal with it, and we
Speaker 1: gotta deal with that another way. The rules are set up,
Speaker 1: they're gonna basically the impeachment sounds like they're gonna convene
Speaker 1: at one o'clock every day, so which means we have
Speaker 1: some period in the morning to get a little bit
Speaker 1: of business done. But basically it's, uh, you know, it's
Speaker 1: a different distraction. So I know that I'll just tell
Speaker 1: you what this isn't what talking to me talking what's
Speaker 1: been frustrating about this thing is going through is something
Speaker 1: that you know it won't happen. It's not gonna happen,
Speaker 1: that's all. Ye. It feels to me like like let's
Speaker 1: say I was gonna um, I'm like, I'm gonnag hole
Speaker 1: and Cow's like, uh, no, matter how how much you dig,
Speaker 1: I will fill that hole back in. And I can
Speaker 1: get I can guarantee you that I will fill the
Speaker 1: hole back in. But I'm like, yeah, I'm gonna do
Speaker 1: it anyway, and then spend a bunch of money doing it.
Speaker 1: We'll go on. So again, you could be right, but
Speaker 1: it is what it is, and we're gonna work around it.
Speaker 1: I am right. In election year, you know, there you
Speaker 1: really have until say they May to get stuff done,
Speaker 1: and then everything gets too tied up with politics, and
Speaker 1: then you have another window after the election until you
Speaker 1: know the new colors, and some radical stuff can happen
Speaker 1: during that wind. So the first of all, you're trying
Speaker 1: to clear the deck of a lot of easy stuff
Speaker 1: in the right now in the next month or two,
Speaker 1: and I think that you know, I'm sorry, real quick,
Speaker 1: how much time Okay, the impeachments going on now? You
Speaker 1: know the Senate trial is going on now and not
Speaker 1: yet but it will start some time soon. So how
Speaker 1: much so forget that part of it. How much time
Speaker 1: of activity do we have before the election cycle just
Speaker 1: throws everything into chaos and May end of May and
Speaker 1: then everybody's just thinking about that. Yeah, I mean here
Speaker 1: you made some few things odds and ends get done,
Speaker 1: but basically it's just everybody's out campaigning. It's too political,
Speaker 1: so everything gets put on hold until after the election,
Speaker 1: in which case you when you come back at a
Speaker 1: buttload of stuff gets done between you know that first
Speaker 1: week in November and the new Congress gets whether it's
Speaker 1: an outgoing whether it's an outgoing administration or an empowered administration,
Speaker 1: it doesn't need to worry about re election. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: you have the dynamic of what happens with the Senate,
Speaker 1: what happens with the House, what happens to the president.
Speaker 1: But at a minimum, you know, it's a place so
Speaker 1: you can get a bunch of stuff done. And because
Speaker 1: you have retiring members and there are a lot of
Speaker 1: them on you know, on both sides. Yeah, who are
Speaker 1: going to say, you know that? All right, there's a
Speaker 1: chance so I don't actually have to be political. I
Speaker 1: can do us right for a change because I'm not
Speaker 1: run from election and you know, get stuff done there.
Speaker 1: So anyway, I think there are some opportunities. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think there is a you know, sort of broad
Speaker 1: wildlife billy know that we've been you know, putting through
Speaker 1: that has you know, really a bunch of non controversial stuff.
Speaker 1: Knock a reauthorization North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which funds
Speaker 1: wetland restoration and protection around the country. It's about funded
Speaker 1: about fifty million dollars. That gets reauthorized they're creating a
Speaker 1: CWD task force. Um, there is the National Fish and
Speaker 1: Wildlife Foundation reauthorization, the authorization of a National Fish Habitat Bill,
Speaker 1: which is essentially the fish equivalent of the North American
Speaker 1: Wetlands Conservation Act. All this stuff is non controversial and
Speaker 1: has been passed by committees or by houses or one
Speaker 1: body or the other. This is all going to get
Speaker 1: bundled and doing right now. We expect to actually to
Speaker 1: pass the Senate last night, it didn't, probably passed today,
Speaker 1: then go over to the House. So this becomes you know,
Speaker 1: a bunch of good stuff which is not controversial and
Speaker 1: everybody agree on. We can get that done quick. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's good. Besides, I mentioned the
Speaker 1: fact that Murkowski wants to do an energy bill as
Speaker 1: soon as basically impeachment wraps up before things get too political.
Speaker 1: That may be another opportunity for a bunch of public
Speaker 1: lands provisions. Um. You know, so I think there will
Speaker 1: be some things like that to get done, but a
Speaker 1: lot of the focus is going to be on the
Speaker 1: election and what happens after the election. And honestly, what
Speaker 1: you know TRCP will do is, yeah, we will start
Speaker 1: developing we'll do it for scenario planning. You know, if
Speaker 1: Trump loses, if Trump wins, if the Senate flips, Senate
Speaker 1: doesn't flip, all these different scenarios, and that's sort of
Speaker 1: you know, how are you going to keep conservation at
Speaker 1: the front of and then what do we need to
Speaker 1: do and what are the priorities and how do we
Speaker 1: present them? I mean, climate is going to be a
Speaker 1: big issue because you know, even you know, the denier
Speaker 1: is recognizing that they can't, you know, not deal with
Speaker 1: this for very much long. Yeah, I would imagine, I
Speaker 1: mean everyone does. I mean if if the administration I
Speaker 1: mean never mind, like what will happen in the House
Speaker 1: and Senate if the administration is switches, there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a ton of I'm guessing a ton of Climate Act.
Speaker 1: I think even if it doesn't switch to is gonna
Speaker 1: be a bunch. If you look at the polling, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you look at Republicans under the age of thirty, climate
Speaker 1: is number one or one of the top issues. So
Speaker 1: you know the party is has to deal with that
Speaker 1: younger folks who recognize this as an issue and need
Speaker 1: to deal with in some fashion. So I think you're
Speaker 1: now you're not going to see a green new deal maybe,
Speaker 1: but you're going to see particularly on them come in again.
Speaker 1: What you're going to see though, I think there's things
Speaker 1: that folks again generally agree on. Yeah, you gotta reduce
Speaker 1: some missions, but you also have to do an investment
Speaker 1: on land sequestration, adaptation, resilience, and those are things that
Speaker 1: our community loves, that are great for fishing, wildlife, and
Speaker 1: that I think Democrats and Republicans can agree on. So
Speaker 1: you could see some smart climate package with that sort
Speaker 1: of focus moving forward. So I think there are gonna
Speaker 1: be some opportunities moving forward. A lot of it is
Speaker 1: what we do this year is positioning ourselves for one
Speaker 1: and beyond. You know what's interesting is uh in uh
Speaker 1: coming up pretty soon. Through my kids schools, there's this
Speaker 1: night where they can go do It's like this technology night.
Speaker 1: My wife understands better than I do, but anyways, she
Speaker 1: was preventing. She was presenting that with them, the menu
Speaker 1: of things, because you go down and you pick like
Speaker 1: four seminars. Your kids pick four seminars they want to
Speaker 1: go to in our um seven year old, nine year
Speaker 1: old were picking what seminars they wanted to go to
Speaker 1: this night and you roll through them, and that the
Speaker 1: seminars are like the life a year in the life
Speaker 1: of a grizzly sturgeon, migrations, um thing about developing computer apps.
Speaker 1: It's like some while half wildlife stuff at half nine
Speaker 1: wild life stuff. And one of the things was this
Speaker 1: sort of like climate change primer. Um, my daughter very
Speaker 1: readily pick that one along with the other ones you
Speaker 1: wanted to do, and um, my boy, without much uh,
Speaker 1: without too much persuasion, added the climate one in with
Speaker 1: one about Native American games, and uh sturgeon. I really
Speaker 1: wanted him to go into waterfowl migration, but he didn't
Speaker 1: do that one. You can only win so much. But
Speaker 1: it's uh, it was a thing that they're aware of.
Speaker 1: This morning we woke up the check muskrat traps and
Speaker 1: dark and it was warm out. And my son goes this,
Speaker 1: because all the garbage, you're confusing two issues. But let's
Speaker 1: talk about that quick question. Are the kids referring to
Speaker 1: these as seminars. It's gotta be like, I haven't heard
Speaker 1: them use the word seminar. It was more presented them
Speaker 1: to like, you're going to this, I assigned you, we
Speaker 1: signed you up for this thing. You need to pick
Speaker 1: which one sound good, And so we read over dinner.
Speaker 1: My why, I don't know. There's a dozen things that
Speaker 1: choose from whatever. She read through all the descriptions and
Speaker 1: then put their initials by the ones, and they had
Speaker 1: too many, so they had to narrow it down Sturgion migrat.
Speaker 1: I think Sturgeon migrations was top. I told him, you
Speaker 1: gotta go down and then come tell me what you learned. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I like it. I like it. I'm just gonna be
Speaker 1: real confused if I show up at the house and
Speaker 1: your kids are like so cal when it saw a
Speaker 1: seminar the other day. I don't know they'll frame it that.
Speaker 1: I'll be curiously how they tell you about they will
Speaker 1: tell you about it. I don't know what what they'll use.
Speaker 1: I don't think they'll use seminar. They're probably like a thing.
Speaker 1: Maybe we were at a thing, went to a show. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny day. We're out, you know, in
Speaker 1: dark checking muskrat traps dark and we're into spot where
Speaker 1: there's a you know that flex pipe it's like eight
Speaker 1: inch flex pipe plastic and it's coming out of that
Speaker 1: there's a chunk where it's coming out of the ground
Speaker 1: and snakes across the ground and it goes in onto
Speaker 1: the ice on a pond someone's doing like some kind
Speaker 1: of drainage project. And we're hanging around there near there
Speaker 1: in the dark. And then later, my four year old
Speaker 1: it's talking about what's up with the big animal with
Speaker 1: the big tail? And then you can mean a muskrats
Speaker 1: a big long tail, And I'm like, the muskrat, no, huh,
Speaker 1: you know the one that can't move? Can can we
Speaker 1: bring that home? And so I get confused. We're about
Speaker 1: a hundred yards away, and I give him a flash
Speaker 1: that I'm like, I have no idea, Tom, let's go
Speaker 1: back and take a look. And we go back and
Speaker 1: he shines the light at that black flex pipe, twelve
Speaker 1: ft of black flex pipe running between the dirt and
Speaker 1: the ice, and he's like, that thing, that's what what's uh?
Speaker 1: You know what animal has that tail? Big one? That
Speaker 1: would be I would not be standing here were that
Speaker 1: in animals. That's chunk flex pipe. He thought it had
Speaker 1: got frozen in so hard that it was just stuck. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's your state of waterfowl right now? Getting real interesting
Speaker 1: waterfowl again, And it seems like there's the data between
Speaker 1: migratory waterfowl against like our songbird data right now is
Speaker 1: oddly in opposition, so where it's like, well, we've lost
Speaker 1: billions of songbirds in the United States, but waterfowl it
Speaker 1: seems to really be kicking ass with the exception like
Speaker 1: pintails seemed to be taking a hurt. Um Geese in
Speaker 1: the Atlantic Flyer right now are actually down. There's one
Speaker 1: one bird limit in chest Big Bay of Maryland. Interesting.
Speaker 1: So no, I think that you know the answer is
Speaker 1: that you know, we pay a lot more attention to
Speaker 1: war Fell because we have dedicated we have hunters, we
Speaker 1: have dedicated funding for it. It's a priority, whereas you
Speaker 1: know songbirds, you know it's not. And which is really
Speaker 1: there's another bill in Congress called the Restore American's Wildlife
Speaker 1: Act that would put some dedicated funding toward these non
Speaker 1: game species which the states have responsibility for managing but
Speaker 1: really have no dedicated resources to manage. So no, I
Speaker 1: agree with you, is that I think the situation probably
Speaker 1: on a bunch of the songs, even worse than we
Speaker 1: think because our data is pretty poor. Real quick is
Speaker 1: it quick? Is it possible to explain like why from
Speaker 1: a conservation stand point, what's up with ethanol? So like,
Speaker 1: I get it, but I get it a little bit.
Speaker 1: But but tell me what why is ethanol? Part of
Speaker 1: why does it matter? From from what we're looking at, So,
Speaker 1: ethanol has a long and checkered, uh you know, sort
Speaker 1: of environmental history. It was regally created, you know, both
Speaker 1: to supplement markets for farmers, but also when during the
Speaker 1: oil crisis, as you know, a you domestically produced transportation fuel. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you better explained, like from the high, high level what
Speaker 1: we're talking about. Yeah, so this is basically you take
Speaker 1: corn and you can do with other cellulostic you know, plants,
Speaker 1: and you convert it into a fuel. And it's the
Speaker 1: same way you make alcohol. In factor, with ethanol, you've
Speaker 1: got to put a denaturent in let's keep people from
Speaker 1: drinking it. So it's you know the same as grain alcohol,
Speaker 1: you know, and it runs pretty well in cars and
Speaker 1: you have been used for years, going back to Henry
Speaker 1: Ford as a transportation fuel. You can have race car
Speaker 1: drivers use it or methanol in some of their cars today.
Speaker 1: But the issue became and when you know, Congress basically
Speaker 1: created an ethanol man and under the renewable fuel standard
Speaker 1: which expires and I think two essentially ten percent of
Speaker 1: the nation's gasolting fleet has to be ethanol. Now, the
Speaker 1: goal had been originally that that transition from corn ethanol
Speaker 1: to cellulosic ethanol over time, switch grass cud zoo and
Speaker 1: who knows what the hell you make it out of,
Speaker 1: but something other than sure do it for it. I mean,
Speaker 1: it all depends on the starch content I guess of
Speaker 1: the where the plant is. But the problem is that
Speaker 1: that's that transition has never happened and stayed with corn ethanol.
Speaker 1: And when you had that time of like go go
Speaker 1: corn prices, you know, we lost you know, six million
Speaker 1: acres of pasture and grassland to cut road crops. It
Speaker 1: was that ethanol mandate. It was largely driving there. So
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, you know, pheasant hunters, duck
Speaker 1: hunters can't stand ethanol because they see it the mandate,
Speaker 1: as creating basically an artificial incentive to convert habitat for corn.
Speaker 1: And you know a lot of the you know, urban
Speaker 1: you know folks that don't like high food prices see
Speaker 1: it as you know, an abomination too, because it's food
Speaker 1: that's now going to a fuel in basically subsidized way.
Speaker 1: So now I felt a lot more strongly about it.
Speaker 1: You know, when you know prices were high and we're
Speaker 1: seeing all this conversion, it's it's hard to you know.
Speaker 1: You know again, right now, nothing's gonna happen before the
Speaker 1: renewable Fuel Standard comes back up for Congress and Congress
Speaker 1: decides what to do with it. But when you go
Speaker 1: back to the dismal state of the farm economy right now,
Speaker 1: you know, I just think that you know, even groups
Speaker 1: that you don't like the ethenal mandate are backing off
Speaker 1: a little bit right now because it's just hold, yeah,
Speaker 1: because you just don't want to do anything else to
Speaker 1: make you know, life even worse. In agg country. When
Speaker 1: you see a gas station with giant signs talking about
Speaker 1: ethanol free, are they performance, Yeah, that's that's an issue.
Speaker 1: That's that's not them being pro or pro or against
Speaker 1: or whatever. So the a lot of the old equipment,
Speaker 1: especially things like chainsaw snowmobiles, yeah, couldn't handle ethanol. So
Speaker 1: you had when it was first moved into the gas
Speaker 1: stream at ten percent blends, there were a lot of
Speaker 1: problems with some of those, you know, small engines particular.
Speaker 1: Now all those there's talking about how you could get
Speaker 1: good boat gas there now, so all basically you know
Speaker 1: today you know all you know, essentially modern engines can
Speaker 1: deal with timbercent ethanol. The problem is that the ethanol industry,
Speaker 1: which is pretty greedy, has been trying to get the
Speaker 1: you know, the blender percentage kicked up to and e
Speaker 1: p A has approved that now at fifteen percent ethanol.
Speaker 1: You could have a very modern outboard engine on your
Speaker 1: twin two fifties, on your big boat going out off shore.
Speaker 1: It'll screw that up to ethanol. Now in theory, you know,
Speaker 1: it ought to be labeled, and especially marinas won't be
Speaker 1: selling it, but a lot of guys will fill up
Speaker 1: the gas can and take it out to their boat
Speaker 1: and pour it in, and it does really bad things
Speaker 1: to engines. And again it's just another sort of artificial
Speaker 1: subsidy that we really shouldn't be doing. National Marine manufact
Speaker 1: Is Association American Sport Fishing Association have lobbied vigorously increasing
Speaker 1: that ethanol percentage in ghastly because of what it does
Speaker 1: to marine engines. No, kid, yeah, that's interesting, thank you.
Speaker 1: Answering some of my own questions, but it's been improved. Anyway,
Speaker 1: avoid E fifteen on anything in your outboard engines. They're
Speaker 1: hat our our small engine expert with Bosburgh and I've
Speaker 1: just tapped the extend of my knowledge HU small engines.
Speaker 1: All right, man, Any final things, any concluders, any final
Speaker 1: things we didn't get to know. I mean you kind
Speaker 1: of you were influential and making our list. Yah know,
Speaker 1: I think I first of all, I appreciate you guys,
Speaker 1: you know, actually paying attention to stuff and caring about
Speaker 1: it because you know, again, most people rather talk about
Speaker 1: you know, dear stand placement or you know, hunting Coustier
Speaker 1: in Mexico or whatever it is. But yeah, this is Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is the backbone of you know, what we have
Speaker 1: in this country in terms of hunting and fishing. And
Speaker 1: if we don't pay attention to this, we're gonna lose it. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you for paying attention to it. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: guys for paying and thank you for coming on. Um,
Speaker 1: we should just schedule it regularly, but it can't be
Speaker 1: like once a year. Maybe do a midyear check in
Speaker 1: six months check up. You know what. Every time my
Speaker 1: kids go to the Dannis, I'm gonna have you on
Speaker 1: all my six months stuff will just have like the
Speaker 1: like Dennis, I'll be associated with family paying. That's good, okay,
Speaker 1: be good. Like election cycle to be like all right,
Speaker 1: here's our conservation minded candidates. Yeah, you know what, maybe
Speaker 1: you'll come on you want to talk about getting people pissed,
Speaker 1: is if you come on right before you come on
Speaker 1: right before election time. I think I'm gonna appointed that
Speaker 1: one after the election time. Come on, Hey, we're five
Speaker 1: one C three, We don't that's true, Yeah, that's true. Yeah.
Speaker 1: As as t RCPs a nonprofit organization, you guys don't
Speaker 1: you guys don't play. We don't have a C four,
Speaker 1: we don't have a pack, so we just don't get engaged.
Speaker 1: And you guys work. You guys work work. What I
Speaker 1: like about t RCPs you're you're respectful of of bipartisan
Speaker 1: process and you strive to be just like as effective
Speaker 1: as as humanly possible. Well, I think that's a niche
Speaker 1: our community has always had, and I think that's you know,
Speaker 1: when Jim Range created the organization back in two thousand two,
Speaker 1: that's was his idea and I think it stands through
Speaker 1: today that you know, these are issues that auto unite
Speaker 1: and not divide, and they shouldn't be political. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: you hate fishing and nothing. Yeah, well then they're political.
Speaker 1: All right. Thanks again. Oh, Cal, do you have a concluder? Oh?
Speaker 1: I just I don't sure say on it. I can't. Oh,
Speaker 1: I got this for being in a ski race and
Speaker 1: Sun Valley. You're commemorating the fact that Sun Valley was
Speaker 1: what formed a six. I just feel like this is
Speaker 1: a comfortable sweatshirt. I feel it's probably formed the millions
Speaker 1: of years ago. Cal. Uh Yeah, yeah, a highly volcanic area.
Speaker 1: It's pretty young. It was just flat till nineteen thirty
Speaker 1: six and then it became a valley. That's fun, says
Speaker 1: sun Value. Um. Oh, I think on the on the
Speaker 1: your selection of political candidates, I just like to tell people,
Speaker 1: it's like you're gonna always gonna have to fight for something. Right.
Speaker 1: So you have somebody who you feel is going to
Speaker 1: give you an easy out on a topic, You're still
Speaker 1: gonna have to If you select that person to vote
Speaker 1: for and they make it in, you're still gonna have
Speaker 1: to push them on the other things that you believe
Speaker 1: in it. So this is just the way it works.
Speaker 1: One plus, part of our job is to educate. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have less and less members of Congress coming from
Speaker 1: rural America. I mean there are some much more suburban
Speaker 1: urban you know focus now and so if you know
Speaker 1: some members says to you, we're just gonna have to
Speaker 1: cook or and meet more for CWD. That's not because
Speaker 1: they're a bad person, just because they don't understand, and
Speaker 1: that's up to us to educate them. But I think
Speaker 1: that people when it comes to selecting UH candidates that
Speaker 1: you're gonna vote for, I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: look like I picked my purse and and then I
Speaker 1: look to them to see what I think about anything, right,
Speaker 1: So like I just go with what they say. Another
Speaker 1: way of looking, as you pick your person, you're you're
Speaker 1: balancing out. You're making a selection one between two things.
Speaker 1: You pick them, and then I'm gonna pick them, and
Speaker 1: then I'm gonna move them in my direction on all
Speaker 1: the things I don't agree with them on or work
Speaker 1: my hardest. And people get uncomfortable with that because they
Speaker 1: think that when you that your selection of a candidate
Speaker 1: is basically you're saying that's me, rather than saying part
Speaker 1: of that's me. But I really need them to move
Speaker 1: my direction on a bunch of other stuff, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna do everything I can in my power to make
Speaker 1: sure that the whole that things move in my direction.
Speaker 1: I'm choosing you as the person that I want to
Speaker 1: then be heard from and and get you to see
Speaker 1: my side. Uh. Good, feels good. What's your shirt about? Phil?
Speaker 1: You got a wine shirt on? And this is my friends.
Speaker 1: My friend runs a winery in Kalispell, Tailing Loop Wines.
Speaker 1: Check it out next time you grow the grapes up there.
Speaker 1: He buys them from somewhere else. She brings them in
Speaker 1: from different parts of Washington and and puts them in
Speaker 1: barrels in Kalispell. And you like that wine. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: like a fly fishing term, right, Tailing Loop. It's a
Speaker 1: fly fishing themed winery. Yeah, m hm. And you love
Speaker 1: the wine. I like wine fish. I like her wine. No,
Speaker 1: she's got some great art on the labels. Though you start,
Speaker 1: you're gonna start fishing too, now that you're gonna start hunting.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I went fly fishing once with Cal
Speaker 1: and it didn't go well. I had a great time,
Speaker 1: And then it sounds like it went very well. Your
Speaker 1: friends got a very inefficient winery because it's a fly
Speaker 1: fishing theme. P oh, I I own like about eleven
Speaker 1: thousand square feet. I don't think about it. Makers come
Speaker 1: up trap your place from muskrat. Sorry you don't have
Speaker 1: like a pond or anything. That's all getting messed up
Speaker 1: by muskrat's. Okay, no, no um, all right thanks again
Speaker 1: with you, we'll we'll, we'll go out. This is like
Speaker 1: the doctor where you I want on your way out,
Speaker 1: I want you to schedule your next visit. Okay with
Speaker 1: Osburgh TRCP. Thanks for listening.