Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, welcome the episode number eleven of The Hunting Collective.
Speaker 1: I'm Ben O'Brien. We're joined this week by John Gale.
Speaker 1: And John Gale is the conservation director for a group
Speaker 1: called back Country Hunters and Anglers. And John is a
Speaker 1: fifth generation Idaho and somebody who just grew up hunting
Speaker 1: and fishing in the back country, and he's also engaged
Speaker 1: in politics. I think among all the topics that we
Speaker 1: want to touch on the Hunting Collective, politics is not
Speaker 1: one of them, but the politics of hunting, the politics
Speaker 1: of public lands is one of them, and maybe it's
Speaker 1: the most important thing we could talk about. And what
Speaker 1: makes John so qualified to talk about public lands is
Speaker 1: that he's the conservation director for b h A. And
Speaker 1: he's somebody who spent has spent his entire life working
Speaker 1: on and pushing for conservation. He spent nine years of
Speaker 1: the Wild National Wildlife Federation and was one of the
Speaker 1: early members of b h A, a group that's if
Speaker 1: you're not familiar with them, get familiar. We talked about
Speaker 1: a lot of things we were in Idaho and his
Speaker 1: home state, to cover everything public lands, because I think
Speaker 1: not only should you know what public lands are and
Speaker 1: how to use them. You should know where they came from,
Speaker 1: who manages them, and why it's important to keep them around,
Speaker 1: and also how we can keep them around. So I
Speaker 1: think this conversation, although many of you may have no
Speaker 1: idea who John is, is as important as any of
Speaker 1: the other ten we've had on this podcast. So please
Speaker 1: enjoy John Gayale from b h A Episode number eleven.
Speaker 1: John Gale, how's it going good? How you doing? Man?
Speaker 1: We're just drinking beer, that's right, And it's like nude
Speaker 1: one o'clock do some day drinking? And what is it
Speaker 1: a Wednesday? Thursday's wednes Thursday is Thursday Thursday? S I'm
Speaker 1: way off right on your first beer? Yeah, and I
Speaker 1: don't even know. Well, we're in Idaho and we're here
Speaker 1: for the BHA Rendezvous. For folks that don't know what
Speaker 1: b h A is, you can tell them what b
Speaker 1: h A is because absolutely thanks first for invite me
Speaker 1: on the podcast. Here, Ben, it's my first podcast, so
Speaker 1: you get to witness the stumbling, bumbling, droning first time
Speaker 1: or here. That's why we have That's why the beer
Speaker 1: is here. Like if we need to break and have
Speaker 1: three or four more beers and loosen things up. We
Speaker 1: can always do that if I get a little tight.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a plan. So um, back Country Hunters
Speaker 1: and Anglers was found around a campfire and Oregon back
Speaker 1: in two thousand four. Really, uh, I think all things
Speaker 1: that are good come from conversations with whiskey and beer
Speaker 1: around a campfire late at night. And and this maybe
Speaker 1: uh a little bias of me to say, but I
Speaker 1: think this is one of the best camp fire conversations
Speaker 1: that actually came into fruition. It wasn't just whiskey talking.
Speaker 1: It turned into something real and turned into back Country
Speaker 1: Hunters and Anglers, the fastest growing sportsman's organization in North America.
Speaker 1: And we pride ourselves on being the sportsman's voice for
Speaker 1: our wild public lands, waters and wildlife. And those those
Speaker 1: souls around the camp fire back in two thousand four
Speaker 1: really had a vision for bringing hunters and anglers that
Speaker 1: care about all things wild together too conserve the back country,
Speaker 1: to create an organization that was not just dedicated to
Speaker 1: a single species, but dedicated to all species, and dedicated
Speaker 1: to all forms of hunting and fishing and um and
Speaker 1: not just specific ways of hunting or fishing or specif
Speaker 1: of a species that people like to hunt and fish for,
Speaker 1: but taking a look at what they cared about most,
Speaker 1: which was wilderness, back country, the pristine areas. Anyone that
Speaker 1: hunts the back country knows that the best populations of
Speaker 1: fish and wildlife are in the wildest places with the
Speaker 1: least amount of development, the least amount of disturbance, where
Speaker 1: you have intact migratory corridors, not just terrestrial corridors were
Speaker 1: big game migrate from winter range to summer range, but
Speaker 1: intact aquatic corridors too, so so Anadramus species can swim
Speaker 1: from the ocean and UH comingto tributaries and creeks to
Speaker 1: spawn every year. And UH, salm and steelhead are incredibly
Speaker 1: important to the Northwest. And I think that that vision
Speaker 1: around the Oregon camp fire, you know, fed into what
Speaker 1: we've become now, which is a robust organization that just
Speaker 1: clipped twenty dues paying members. We have over two hundred
Speaker 1: fifty thousand members and supporters that are with us online,
Speaker 1: social media and giving us money every year. And UH
Speaker 1: we had our our board meetings started today with our
Speaker 1: national Board of Directors and UH and Ben, I think
Speaker 1: you know that adding the chapters that we did today,
Speaker 1: you know, bumped us up to the representation of thirty
Speaker 1: nine states in the United States plus two Canadian provinces
Speaker 1: Alberta and British Columbia's. And I wasn't around the camp
Speaker 1: fire myself back in two thousand four, but I smelled
Speaker 1: the smoke and I came running as fast as I
Speaker 1: possibly could. And UH I joined the Colorado Chapter leadership
Speaker 1: shortly after they were formed. And then I was asked
Speaker 1: to join the National Board of Directors and I served
Speaker 1: there for about five years, and UH helped lead the
Speaker 1: search committee for the hiring of Lantani, who's the President
Speaker 1: CEO now. And for me, it's um it's really amazing
Speaker 1: to look back and reflect on where we were. Even
Speaker 1: when I came into the organization where we didn't have
Speaker 1: any professionals half UH, we were scrambling together the foundation
Speaker 1: and the structure of what a real organization could be,
Speaker 1: you know, developing by laws and starting to raise money
Speaker 1: to hire staff. And and when we hired Land Taani
Speaker 1: really catapulted the organization forward with UH someone at the
Speaker 1: helm leading the charge. And and if if you if
Speaker 1: you know Land and many of the listeners of your
Speaker 1: podcast probably do. He's uh, he's really outspoken. Uh, he's
Speaker 1: got a fire in his belly, and he really just
Speaker 1: inspires and motivate. It's not just the staff and the
Speaker 1: people around him on a day to day basis. And
Speaker 1: if you see him out on the stump at ah
Speaker 1: one of our pint nights or something like that, you
Speaker 1: can feel the emotion and fire and spirit. And I
Speaker 1: think he is sort of feeding on what all of
Speaker 1: our members and supporters feel about b h A. And
Speaker 1: he is the uh, the personification of the movement that
Speaker 1: b h A has become. And I think all of
Speaker 1: our people have that same fire and passion. And I
Speaker 1: think it's because b h A is not afraid to
Speaker 1: say the right thing, even when it's the unpopular thing
Speaker 1: to say. We tackle tough conservation issues and we wait
Speaker 1: into them with a pragmatic approach that uses science and
Speaker 1: reason rather than emotion and conjecture, and and we uh,
Speaker 1: we don't second guess any decision that is for the
Speaker 1: benefit of fishing wildlife and hunting and fishing opportunities in
Speaker 1: the future of our traditions and an outdoor heritage. And
Speaker 1: I think walking the line with that type of integrity
Speaker 1: helps us make sure that we're always on the right
Speaker 1: side and we're always making the right decisions. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know we in the conservation community. I mean there's
Speaker 1: as you said, there's groups that are focused on just
Speaker 1: hel or just turkeys, or any number of issues. Because
Speaker 1: you're well aware that there's a myriad of issues in
Speaker 1: this conservation lexicon that we could talk about. Right, we
Speaker 1: can focus on we can focus on legislation or you know,
Speaker 1: really uber specific politics, or we can talk about habitat,
Speaker 1: or we can talk about but the but the one
Speaker 1: shining star and all that is public lands because it's
Speaker 1: it's an enduring ideal more than it is just that
Speaker 1: a tangible thing you can go walk on and hunt
Speaker 1: on and fish on. I think that's to me, that's
Speaker 1: why b h A has become what it's become. And
Speaker 1: for people that don't you know, inside the the lex
Speaker 1: kind of of conservation, I think b h A has
Speaker 1: become this youthful, energetic, purposeful energy organization that's that's done
Speaker 1: and its membership one, but also just in its you know,
Speaker 1: public relations and it's forward facing voice, it's become something
Speaker 1: different and that's why it's interesting not to say that
Speaker 1: Ducks Unlimited or n W T F or R M
Speaker 1: E F are old and the way they do things,
Speaker 1: but they're older and they have established ways of being
Speaker 1: and ways of talking and ways of doing that. B
Speaker 1: h A was able to break the mold on what
Speaker 1: do you attribute that breaking the mold to land in
Speaker 1: some way or just the idea of what public lands
Speaker 1: are well, I think, uh, one, we we've learned a
Speaker 1: lot from our partners. You named several of them, and
Speaker 1: we worked really closely with them, and they're uh, they're
Speaker 1: sort of legacy leaders in the conservation space, and so
Speaker 1: many of us that helped grow and and start b
Speaker 1: h A. We're actually working for many of those partner
Speaker 1: organizations at the time, and and we loved who we
Speaker 1: were working for and why we were there, but we
Speaker 1: also saw the opportunity to grow something new, something different,
Speaker 1: something that was um an experiment in some ways, like
Speaker 1: could we try something new and something different? And I
Speaker 1: feel like the sportsman's community needed something different too, right
Speaker 1: Like we're working closely with state agencies all over the country,
Speaker 1: and probably the single most greatest priority for state agencies
Speaker 1: is recruitment of new hunters and anglers, people that are
Speaker 1: buying hunting and fishing licenses by in gear and equipment
Speaker 1: that UH support excise tax dollars, that are supporting state
Speaker 1: agency management budgets for fishing and wildlife management. These are
Speaker 1: really important revenue streams that UH a lot of us
Speaker 1: are concerned about. And so we have that important recruitment
Speaker 1: UH component. We also need to be retaining existing hunters
Speaker 1: and anglers and re engaging ones that may have hunted
Speaker 1: and fished in the past but for whatever reason stopped
Speaker 1: and and so I think part of what we're trying
Speaker 1: to do is create enthusiasm around hunting and fishing again,
Speaker 1: like like, let's make it fun, Let's make it exciting,
Speaker 1: let's make it accessible. And so we're taking a little
Speaker 1: bit different approach one UH. Certainly Land Spirit and and
Speaker 1: the organization's ability to to reach out to young people
Speaker 1: is is I think mostly attributed to our approach in
Speaker 1: meeting people where they're at. If you want to reach
Speaker 1: young people and you want to bring in um diversity
Speaker 1: of of audiences and can stuents into your organization, you've
Speaker 1: got to find out what they respond to, what do
Speaker 1: they care about, where did they like to get their
Speaker 1: information and what do they like to do in their
Speaker 1: free time? If you can make people fired up to
Speaker 1: come to your organization because they would have done something
Speaker 1: similar in their free time anyways, and you can make
Speaker 1: that about hunting and fishing and fishing wildlife conservation, and
Speaker 1: that makes sense. You know, we're doing things like hosting
Speaker 1: pint nights where we're coming together and uh and having
Speaker 1: some beers. We're having good times. We're talking about important issues.
Speaker 1: But I think that uh some groups have uh moved
Speaker 1: beyond that important social connection with some of their members
Speaker 1: and supporters. And for us, we're putting that forward as
Speaker 1: the means to uh engage and educate and bring people
Speaker 1: into the tent and be a part of who we
Speaker 1: are and get them excited about what we stand for.
Speaker 1: And then by talking about issues that they care about,
Speaker 1: then we're resonating their interest areas and we're you know,
Speaker 1: I have a kind of values based proposition that says, hey,
Speaker 1: let's go out and have a great time together. Let's
Speaker 1: go hunting and fishing together, and let's talk about ways
Speaker 1: to make sure that hunting and fishing stays great for
Speaker 1: the generations that follow us and and tying that all
Speaker 1: together in a way that uh makes sense to you
Speaker 1: know that quick you know, vastly growing demographic is is
Speaker 1: I think the most important and the other piece I'll
Speaker 1: add to this, other than the social aspect of just
Speaker 1: you know, going out having beers and having fun. I
Speaker 1: think people are excited that b H as an organization
Speaker 1: that's able to move quickly and be nimble and decisive.
Speaker 1: And uh we also do a great job of empowering
Speaker 1: our volunteer leaders are chapter leaders v h as. Chapters
Speaker 1: are the the core and the lifeblood of who we are.
Speaker 1: We have a boots on the ground mantra. We work
Speaker 1: where we have people, and we let people lead. We
Speaker 1: give them jobs to do. I think people are frustrated
Speaker 1: by some organizations that uh, um, you know, don't have
Speaker 1: a job for them to do. Like they want to
Speaker 1: go be a part of something and be active with something.
Speaker 1: And certainly we have some people that that like sitting
Speaker 1: on a board and they like having the board title
Speaker 1: and and that's great. You know, we need people of
Speaker 1: all stripes. We need people to give us UH philanthropic
Speaker 1: capacity in addition to UH sweat capacity and working with
Speaker 1: us on the ground and helping us engage in meaningful
Speaker 1: conservation issues. But I think the fact that we UH
Speaker 1: do give people jobs and we have this really you know,
Speaker 1: fantastic model that's starting to grow with many of our
Speaker 1: chapters of you know, setting up habitat watchmen. Where do
Speaker 1: you let someone be the guardian of the habitat that
Speaker 1: they care the most about, you know, whether that's where
Speaker 1: they live or where they hunt and fish. You know,
Speaker 1: they get on the schedules of proposed action for the
Speaker 1: National Forest Service, they go to the BLM meetings, they
Speaker 1: go to their regional state Fish and Wildlife Management Agency meetings,
Speaker 1: and there are sort of the eyes and ears for
Speaker 1: their part of the state. And then they work together
Speaker 1: with other habitat watchman at the state level and they
Speaker 1: have val wait what they think are the most important
Speaker 1: priorities for them to focus on that at the state level.
Speaker 1: And that makes b h A unique in that we're
Speaker 1: able to show up to Washington, d C. And engage
Speaker 1: actively in federal and congressional issues while bringing that boots
Speaker 1: on the ground perspective. We're we're really emerging those two
Speaker 1: together and operating as as one. B h A from
Speaker 1: the ground all the way up, and I think that
Speaker 1: people appreciate that type of model two and that's another
Speaker 1: reason why we're attracting so much interest. Yeah, and I
Speaker 1: think that's a lot of That's why I wanted to
Speaker 1: have yawn. And even when I originally thought about this,
Speaker 1: I thought, one, I want people to know what b
Speaker 1: h A really is or you know, how b j
Speaker 1: A speaks, how it looks in general, and away from
Speaker 1: just social media channels and emails and websites and policies
Speaker 1: and things of that nature. I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: personalities of these organizations are as important as the actions
Speaker 1: of the organization. So that's one reason I want to
Speaker 1: have you on. But the other one is I think
Speaker 1: when certain public land and access issues and conservation issues
Speaker 1: them up, b h is seen as a leader, a voice,
Speaker 1: someone who can set the precedent for which direction we
Speaker 1: should go right. So, for example, National Monuments has been
Speaker 1: a big one. People are looking to b h A,
Speaker 1: looking at yourself and looking to land and looking to
Speaker 1: Ryan Busty, the chairman of the board, to help mold
Speaker 1: the conversation. You know, guys like Steve Ronella and Remy Warren.
Speaker 1: These guys are helping fuel the conversation. But I think
Speaker 1: I even personally look to b h A to to
Speaker 1: help me understand what it should be important to me
Speaker 1: and within the prism of of public lands, what I
Speaker 1: know I already care about. You know, I have the tenants.
Speaker 1: I'm looking for BHA to kind of guide those tenants
Speaker 1: and educate me on on that. And I think that's
Speaker 1: what you can provide to anybody listeners to this. So
Speaker 1: I want to go through a pretty not exhaustive but
Speaker 1: just kind of roll through. If you care about public lands,
Speaker 1: here's what you kind of need to know about the future,
Speaker 1: what's happening currently, and then what will happen in in
Speaker 1: the future. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Um and if you know,
Speaker 1: if you want me to, I'm happy to touch on
Speaker 1: some some pieces of legislation that I think that hunters
Speaker 1: and English should be paying attention to and and aware
Speaker 1: of and uh in ways to engage it. And first
Speaker 1: I'll say that, you know, while I hope that people
Speaker 1: continue to join b h A and and even you know,
Speaker 1: listeners of this podcast, you know, look us up and
Speaker 1: check us out, I think the most important thing that
Speaker 1: any hunter and angler can do is find a group
Speaker 1: that speaks their language, whether it's my organization or one
Speaker 1: of our partner groups. I think it's important to find
Speaker 1: an organization that speaks your language and and become a
Speaker 1: member of that organization give them your money. There's tons
Speaker 1: of organizations doing great work in this space, and and
Speaker 1: if you care about trout fishing only, then you should
Speaker 1: definitely go join Trout Unlimited. But I hope you'll become
Speaker 1: a member of back Country Hunters and Anglers too, um
Speaker 1: and realize the value of being a part of an
Speaker 1: organization that also cares about trout and salmon species and
Speaker 1: cold water fisheries, but also so big game species and uh,
Speaker 1: fair chase and public access and opportunity and things like that.
Speaker 1: I think the reason why it's important for organizations like
Speaker 1: ours to be collaborative and work with other groups is
Speaker 1: because there are specialties out there, and sometimes you need
Speaker 1: specialized organizations that bring expertise into an area. And b
Speaker 1: h A prides itself on our expertise with regards to
Speaker 1: to public lands and waters and public access and opportunity
Speaker 1: and fair chase hunting principles. But you know, we definitely
Speaker 1: lean on some of our partner groups to help fill
Speaker 1: the gaps and provide you know, policy expertise where we
Speaker 1: need it. And and I think that's the beauty of
Speaker 1: a group like b h A. Like we can convene
Speaker 1: people and bring people together, but we also reach out
Speaker 1: to other organizations. So i'd first tell people to to
Speaker 1: find an organization that they like and and give them money,
Speaker 1: become a member, and become active in what they're doing. Um.
Speaker 1: You know. The second thing that I think is is
Speaker 1: really important is to whether you've never gauge in a
Speaker 1: civic way or not, whether that's at the local level
Speaker 1: with your state legislature or decisions happening in your in
Speaker 1: your county or your municipality. Even members of Congress still
Speaker 1: have to go home and face the people that vote
Speaker 1: them into office in the first place. They're still supposed
Speaker 1: to be representing who their home state folks have uh
Speaker 1: an interesting like what issues they have an interest in,
Speaker 1: It's their job to represent those interests. So I think
Speaker 1: people should remember that their job is to represent the
Speaker 1: interests of their state, and they can't know what the
Speaker 1: interests in their state are unless you tell them about it.
Speaker 1: And so part of what would b h A is
Speaker 1: doing is providing information to our members and supporters, trying
Speaker 1: to educate them on issues that we think are most important,
Speaker 1: so that they'll start making those phone calls, so they'll
Speaker 1: start taking actions, so they'll use their social media platforms
Speaker 1: to to post on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and
Speaker 1: whatever spaces they're into. I really advance, you know, conservation
Speaker 1: priorities that we think are important, and you know, just
Speaker 1: we're we're halfway through the year almost um here, coming
Speaker 1: into springtime, and two thousand and eighteen is an interesting
Speaker 1: year where we have a mid term election coming up
Speaker 1: in November, so members of Congress or battling to keep
Speaker 1: their seats. So we've got new people trying to come
Speaker 1: in and establish themselves in Congress. You've got a number
Speaker 1: of Senate seats they're open, and so I think there
Speaker 1: is a will on both sides of the aisle to
Speaker 1: start moving legislation that's meaningful. We just uh passed a
Speaker 1: federal omnibus package for two thousand eighteen funding fiscal year
Speaker 1: two thousand and eighteen funding and included great things for conservation.
Speaker 1: We had re authorization for the Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation Act,
Speaker 1: which is a modified land exchange program that that helps
Speaker 1: create new access and opportunity on on public land and
Speaker 1: UH management efficiencies for fish and wildlife management. And and
Speaker 1: we were able to UH work with congressional leaders to
Speaker 1: fix wildfire borrowing issues so that agency UH budgets going
Speaker 1: forward can put their money where it matters the most
Speaker 1: in in terms of active management on the ground and
Speaker 1: putting resources where they need it instead of having really
Speaker 1: expensive wildfire disasters come and raid those budgets so that
Speaker 1: they don't have them available to do those important things
Speaker 1: that help enhance away. Our public lands are managed, but
Speaker 1: there are things that are looming out in front of
Speaker 1: us still that haven't been done yet that I think
Speaker 1: are really important for us to focus on. We have
Speaker 1: the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If you don't know
Speaker 1: what that is, it's a program that takes offshore oil
Speaker 1: and gas development royalties. UH uses those revenues, which don't
Speaker 1: rely on taxpayer dollars at all, sets them aside into
Speaker 1: a fund that Congress is authorized to appropriate to UH
Speaker 1: special projects. These projects have touched every single state and
Speaker 1: every single county in the country. They've done fantastic things
Speaker 1: like acquisition for fishing access sites in Montana. If you're
Speaker 1: using a public access site in Montana to go fishing
Speaker 1: or put your boat in. It was probably paid for
Speaker 1: by the Land of Water Conservation Fund. It has paid
Speaker 1: for the acquisition of wetland habitats, creating public access for
Speaker 1: waterfowl hunters. It's done really great things with big game
Speaker 1: migratory migratory corridors. You mentioned the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation earlier.
Speaker 1: They really pioneered, UH the model for using LWCF dollars
Speaker 1: to expand elk habitat and and look at checkerboard ownership
Speaker 1: situations where you have opportunities to consolidate habitat into more
Speaker 1: connected migratory corridors. And so you know, Army f doing
Speaker 1: great work in that space. And states and local municipalities
Speaker 1: are using LWCF dollars for things like baseball fields and
Speaker 1: UH public recreation facilities, UH in rural places where funding
Speaker 1: is limited and the tax base isn't there to support
Speaker 1: that type of outdoor recreation. So llp CF is just
Speaker 1: a really cool program that is supported by both Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats. Yet the gridlock in Congress has prevented it
Speaker 1: from becoming permanently reauthorized. We were throwing a three year lifeline.
Speaker 1: Three years ago, we UH were up to expire again
Speaker 1: in UH the end of September. And so one of
Speaker 1: the biggest priorities for b h A and and many
Speaker 1: other organizations out there is to permanently reauthorize the Land
Speaker 1: and Water Conservation Fund and to create a dedicated funding
Speaker 1: stream for it so that we don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about Congress appropriating funding to it. The funds will be
Speaker 1: there in a dedicated fund and available to UH put
Speaker 1: on the ground for really important projects. And and I
Speaker 1: think that people should be aware of fantastic conservation funding
Speaker 1: programs like that and get behind l WCF. And I
Speaker 1: think there's been great conversations happening with Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 1: All I'll mention Senator Murkowski for Alaska and Senator Cantwell
Speaker 1: from Washington, who serve as a majority and minority leaders
Speaker 1: on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They developed
Speaker 1: a great LWCF compromise in the context of an energy
Speaker 1: bill in the last Congress that that moved through their
Speaker 1: committee and through the Senate unopposed. It was something widely supported,
Speaker 1: just couldn't get it over the finish line. But it's
Speaker 1: a model for how we can do a couple of
Speaker 1: important things. There's a massive maintenance backlog on Park Service lands,
Speaker 1: on BLM lands, on National forest lands, and on you know,
Speaker 1: refuge lands, all places that are important. We think that
Speaker 1: deferred maintenance is incredibly important to address, but we need
Speaker 1: to do so simultaneously with the re authorization of the
Speaker 1: Land and Water Conservation Fund. If we can permanently excuse me,
Speaker 1: permanently reauthorized LWCF and also addressed deferred maintenance issues and
Speaker 1: make sure that Congress is creating funding stream for that too,
Speaker 1: and work on them together, we're really solving a problem
Speaker 1: in a holistic, complementary way that uh it's thoughtful and
Speaker 1: addresses two k needs at the same time and avoids,
Speaker 1: you know, a situation that we're we're facing a little
Speaker 1: bit right now where you have some sides suggesting we
Speaker 1: should do deferred maintenance first and then focus on you know,
Speaker 1: land and water conservation. But I don't think it has
Speaker 1: to be in either or a conversation. It's not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 1: Let's do both at the same time. And uh and
Speaker 1: Murkowski and can't Well have have come together and created
Speaker 1: a really great bipartisan model for moving that idea forward,
Speaker 1: and so we're hoping to advance that this year uh
Speaker 1: in advance of the expiration looming and at the end
Speaker 1: of September there that's one of the big priorities for
Speaker 1: us well. And those midterm elections are going to be, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm going to be they are always are huge for
Speaker 1: these types of these types of things. I want to
Speaker 1: go back all the way because I think if I'm
Speaker 1: a new member to b h A or a new
Speaker 1: hunter trying to think of what information I want to
Speaker 1: know write off the bat, I think the first thing
Speaker 1: is defining what our public lands are because it's a
Speaker 1: pretty as you well know, there's a lot types of
Speaker 1: public lands. There a lot of uses. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of complications as to what's what, who owns, who owns who,
Speaker 1: and who benefits from this and benefits from that. How
Speaker 1: we stand to lose this piece as opposed to this
Speaker 1: other piece. So if I was a brand new b
Speaker 1: h A member, I knew I wanted to hunt and
Speaker 1: fishing on public lands or recreate on public lands, and
Speaker 1: I needed to be able to explain to someone else
Speaker 1: who wanted to join behind me what public lands are
Speaker 1: in both in the collective sense, in the singular sense,
Speaker 1: how would you approach that. Yeah, that's a great question,
Speaker 1: and I think everyone loves the romantic notion of do
Speaker 1: it yourself, hunt or or fishing trip on public lands
Speaker 1: where you know it is your it is your land.
Speaker 1: Every everyone in America as a public landowner. And I
Speaker 1: think that's the first thing I would I would want
Speaker 1: to remind people about this legacy that visionary conservation leaders
Speaker 1: like Theodore Roosevelt helped us establish at the turn of
Speaker 1: the twentieth century. Really propelled forward a unique legacy that
Speaker 1: doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. Every single citizen
Speaker 1: of the United States owns these lands equally, and whether
Speaker 1: you live in proximity to them or not, uh doesn't
Speaker 1: diminish your equal ownership. And it's a way that levels
Speaker 1: the playing field a little bit. You don't have to
Speaker 1: be wealthy to enjoy public lands. You don't have to
Speaker 1: belong to an exclusive club to be able to hunt
Speaker 1: or fish. It's it's every man's part of that, I
Speaker 1: would say, part of that in our European roots, as
Speaker 1: we settled this country, we were trying to escape that aristocracy,
Speaker 1: the and the and in the European tradition. Really even
Speaker 1: still in the European tradition, it's the aristocracy that goes hunting.
Speaker 1: It's the upper crust that owns the land and the animals,
Speaker 1: and it's and they don't. There is no trust it is.
Speaker 1: It is there. So I think that's as you say,
Speaker 1: it's huge part of what this country is founded on.
Speaker 1: And then beyond that, there's how many millions of acres
Speaker 1: across this country? That's a great question, um, and I
Speaker 1: should know the answer off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: But there's just over sixty million acres of public lands
Speaker 1: across the Country's answer, it's it's massive, and I don't
Speaker 1: have the exact number, but I should hunt that down.
Speaker 1: I should be able to rattle it up right like
Speaker 1: my job. I should here. I should know the exact number,
Speaker 1: and just saying it's about a website exactly, it should
Speaker 1: always be going up. Not that right right, Um? But
Speaker 1: I think you raise a good point, Um. Our public
Speaker 1: lands is unique model. But hunting and fishing on public
Speaker 1: lands also depends on managing fish and wildlife populations in
Speaker 1: the public trust. And the difference between our North American
Speaker 1: model of fish and wildlife management versus UH the aristocratic
Speaker 1: approach of Europe and other countries where it's the king's dominion.
Speaker 1: Public land and fish and wildlife populations in the United
Speaker 1: States truly our public and I think for any new
Speaker 1: member to b h A someone that wants to learn more.
Speaker 1: In addition to finding out what public lands mean and
Speaker 1: what they mean to you and your state, no matter
Speaker 1: where you live at, you should also learn more about
Speaker 1: the public trust doctrine and the North American model of
Speaker 1: fish and wildlife conservation. Those two things are critically important
Speaker 1: to the the The idea that every fish and wildlife
Speaker 1: species belongs equally to the people of this country is
Speaker 1: also a unique model that UH. I wouldn't use the
Speaker 1: word innovative, but I think it's the right way to
Speaker 1: approach it. Fishing wild the word successful. Absolutely. Fish and
Speaker 1: wildlife shouldn't belong to any one single person. They should
Speaker 1: be free roaming, they should be free arranging, and they
Speaker 1: should be managed for the benefit of the people of
Speaker 1: North America. Whether you live in Canada or the United States.
Speaker 1: Mexico is a little bit more of a complicated story,
Speaker 1: but in general, like the North American model is a modocle,
Speaker 1: is a model that is highly successful, and the ability
Speaker 1: to hunt and fish on public lands is is an
Speaker 1: access issue in many ways to not just the physical
Speaker 1: area to hunting fishing, but the opportunity to be able
Speaker 1: to hunt fish there. You need to have robust populations
Speaker 1: of fish and wildlife in order to have successful hunting
Speaker 1: and fishing opportunities. So so I think the two go
Speaker 1: hand in hand and UM and so I like to,
Speaker 1: you know, educate people about that piece to reminding them
Speaker 1: that it's important to interface with your state Fish and
Speaker 1: Wildlife management agency UH leaders as much as it is
Speaker 1: leaders of federal public lands management agencies like the Bureau
Speaker 1: of Land Management, like the Forest Service. And I think
Speaker 1: UH understanding the different types of public lands is a
Speaker 1: is a whole other. That was my next That was so,
Speaker 1: I I feel like you're we're going down the same
Speaker 1: track because I want, really want some of you to
Speaker 1: listen to this and kind of follow along. Sixty million
Speaker 1: acres of public land that's held in that's held in
Speaker 1: public trust, it's owned by the federal government or the
Speaker 1: state government at some level. I think the types of
Speaker 1: public land one form ownership. So just go through to
Speaker 1: your knowledge all the types of public land real briefly
Speaker 1: and kind of what they are and the tapestry of
Speaker 1: all the Yeah. So at the at the federal level,
Speaker 1: you have UH public lands management agencies essentially divided into
Speaker 1: two areas. You have UH the U S. Department of Agriculture,
Speaker 1: which houses the United States Forest Service, so that's one side,
Speaker 1: and then you have the Department of Interior, which houses
Speaker 1: the majority of our public lands management agencies. You have
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Land Management, you have US Fish and
Speaker 1: Wildlife Service, and you have the National Park Service. All
Speaker 1: those different UH land ownership designations come with a little
Speaker 1: bit different types of management UH paradigms. And if you
Speaker 1: look at something like the Park Service units, you can't
Speaker 1: hunt and fishing a lot of National Park Service units, right.
Speaker 1: You can't go into Yellowstone National Park and go on
Speaker 1: an elk hunt. Would be great because it would be
Speaker 1: pretty easy. Just go to the visitors center, right, put
Speaker 1: some corn in your hand. But you can go to
Speaker 1: Colorado and hunt in the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve
Speaker 1: for elk, which is managed by the Park Service. And
Speaker 1: so I think it's about understanding what land designations are
Speaker 1: to the American people too, and and where is a
Speaker 1: good place to go hunting and fishing in general, National
Speaker 1: Force Service lands administered under the depart A bit of
Speaker 1: Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management lands Adminster under the
Speaker 1: Parma Interior or wide open for hunting and fishing and um.
Speaker 1: You know, outside of restrictions placed on method of take
Speaker 1: and seasons for hunting and fishing that are set by
Speaker 1: the states, you you essentially have unfittered access to those places.
Speaker 1: You know. Certainly there's travel management issues where you know
Speaker 1: roads are open to some motorized vehicles and and not,
Speaker 1: and you have places like roadless areas and wilderness designations
Speaker 1: where motorized vehicles aren't allowed. So I think if you're
Speaker 1: a new member of b h A and you want
Speaker 1: to understand more about where you can go hunting and
Speaker 1: fishing on public lands, I think the first step is
Speaker 1: to reach out to myself or or aning of our
Speaker 1: staff and and just ask the questions that you're maybe
Speaker 1: afraid to ask if you're friends, because we don't care
Speaker 1: what you know or you don't know. We want to
Speaker 1: help you learn more. And and certainly the the online
Speaker 1: resources that are set up under the Department Interior and
Speaker 1: in U s D a forest service really help line
Speaker 1: those things out too. So I think, uh, if if
Speaker 1: your listeners are interested in knowing more, those are great
Speaker 1: places to start to where they can do some self education.
Speaker 1: And then you know, you have other interesting segments of
Speaker 1: public lands outside of the federal purview that exists at
Speaker 1: the state level too. We did a report UM a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago examining the state trust lands model
Speaker 1: that exists in Western states, where upon statehood UM a
Speaker 1: model of state trust lands was created in order to
Speaker 1: generate revenue for schools. And so some Western states have
Speaker 1: have largely um you know, sold off or or transferred
Speaker 1: or somehow you know, give it away their state trust
Speaker 1: lands that they had as statehood and had as an
Speaker 1: example of of how most of their lands are are
Speaker 1: not there anymore. But other states have tremendous amounts of
Speaker 1: state trust lands and and their primary mandate is to
Speaker 1: generate revenue for schools for the state. And so hunting
Speaker 1: and fishing and even things like camping and in public
Speaker 1: access can be tricky and they differ widely from state
Speaker 1: to state, and so you have to really educate yourself
Speaker 1: about how do you even you know access and and
Speaker 1: understand what state lands you can even hunt and fish on.
Speaker 1: So it becomes a little bit more difficult when you
Speaker 1: look at those types of lands to decipher what you
Speaker 1: can do and what you can do. And our report
Speaker 1: tried to like outline that in a way that makes
Speaker 1: sense to people. But I think it's also an interesting
Speaker 1: illustration of how, um, you know, this this concept that
Speaker 1: you know originated out of the stage Brush rebellion where
Speaker 1: where some Western states wanted to capture all federal lands
Speaker 1: and bring them into you know, state ownership. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, that's a single example of how it complicates
Speaker 1: things for hunters and anglers and and why we should
Speaker 1: be concerned about efforts to take away public lands and
Speaker 1: shift them into private ownership or even state ownership where
Speaker 1: the primary purpose of the land is not necessarily for
Speaker 1: the benefit of the public good and and access and
Speaker 1: opportunity on public lands, it becomes a revenue generation um priority.
Speaker 1: And you know, if the state you know, finds himself
Speaker 1: in a tight spot in the rough budget ear, it's
Speaker 1: pretty easy to sell off a huge block of lands
Speaker 1: to generate a short term revenue game. And once once
Speaker 1: they're gone, they're gone. Right, we have what we have
Speaker 1: and fish and wildlife already lived in the best possible places.
Speaker 1: They are already occupying the best possible habitat. If we
Speaker 1: marginalize the habitat, if we uh eliminate the status of
Speaker 1: the habitat in some way, then we're only serving to
Speaker 1: possibly see population declines as as as populations of fishing
Speaker 1: wilife are pushed into more marginal habitat areas. And if
Speaker 1: we if we destroy or lose their habitat forever, then uh,
Speaker 1: it's hard to make the case for improving enhancing hunting
Speaker 1: and fishing opportunities. Well, in most state, is it the
Speaker 1: governor and the state legislator that have a mandate to
Speaker 1: balance the budget. Is that part of part of their
Speaker 1: marching orders in their job description for sure? Um, And
Speaker 1: with state trust lands, they're supposed to generate revenue for schools, right,
Speaker 1: that's there, that's their primary purpose, and and that could
Speaker 1: contribute to balancing state budgets and and having them, you know,
Speaker 1: serve their fiduciary obligations at the state level too, So
Speaker 1: that's definitely part of it. Yeah, And so yeah, we
Speaker 1: kind of have a definition of what is the idea
Speaker 1: of public lands, What are they in the tangible form.
Speaker 1: And then where we all get to next, where you
Speaker 1: you're bridging the gap already. How are these things threatened?
Speaker 1: Like what are the main ways that's someone that's a
Speaker 1: beach a member or non bachman members should be worried about.
Speaker 1: And we can also talk about I think the history
Speaker 1: of from the beginning of the public land the idea
Speaker 1: of what a public piece of public land could be.
Speaker 1: There was robber barons and railroad tide us fighting against
Speaker 1: the idea of this public trust and this thing that
Speaker 1: was a shared resource. They want the resource for their
Speaker 1: own benefit. Um, so just in the in the current context,
Speaker 1: let's start with the current context. What is the threat
Speaker 1: to us losing these public lands and they're right to
Speaker 1: use them? Well, I think, Um, there's a couple of things. Uh,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you you mentioned sort of the historical background
Speaker 1: of public lands. It's it's a reminder that public lands
Speaker 1: didn't happen by accident and they won't continue to to
Speaker 1: to be there without diligent attention to maintaining what we have.
Speaker 1: We have I think a collective obligation to the future
Speaker 1: of our public lands and the legacy we leave for
Speaker 1: future generations of hunters and anglers to stand up and
Speaker 1: and defend against the threats to our national public lands heritage,
Speaker 1: and today is not that much different than it was
Speaker 1: in the nineteen thirties, when you had a lot of
Speaker 1: people eyebawling public lands and and you had visionaries like
Speaker 1: Theodore Roosevelt working to create public lands that were productive
Speaker 1: for the benefit of the country, while at the same
Speaker 1: time ensuring that they were being rated and decimated and
Speaker 1: gone forever too. You know, we we may be facing
Speaker 1: slightly different threats than we were before, but they're not
Speaker 1: that much different. There's people that want to privatize public
Speaker 1: lands for mineral and resource extraction, and you have people
Speaker 1: that you know, have definitely shortsighted vision on what public
Speaker 1: lands could do for them. I think b h A
Speaker 1: and other organizations over the last five years have have
Speaker 1: done a great job of pushing back against eight proposals
Speaker 1: to transfer public lands, which uh by all opinions put
Speaker 1: forth by legal scholars and everyone else that have looked
Speaker 1: into the issue, is illegally to do in the first place,
Speaker 1: and they have no claim to public lands in the
Speaker 1: first place. Um the idea that there's people that want
Speaker 1: to pull pull them out of federal ownership. I think
Speaker 1: that idea is um becoming less popular than it was.
Speaker 1: I think they're realizing that it was a bit of
Speaker 1: a fool's errant to even try. And and members of
Speaker 1: Congress are you know, at the point I think we're
Speaker 1: they're annoyed by anyone that's trying to bring forth things
Speaker 1: like that. I think the more credible threat that we
Speaker 1: face is UH impacts efficient wildlife, habitat quality and and
Speaker 1: and even um more veiled attempts to take away public
Speaker 1: lands by shifting management authority to states and other entities.
Speaker 1: I think that's a dangerous proposition that UH it really
Speaker 1: sets up an equation where each state is not being
Speaker 1: managed consistently from state to state. And you have a
Speaker 1: state that as a government in place that wants to
Speaker 1: prioritize resource extraction, mineral extraction, whether that's you know, oil
Speaker 1: and gas development or coal mining or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: If that state wants to do that and they have
Speaker 1: the authority to do it, UM, how is that helping
Speaker 1: fishing while they habitati hung and fishing opportunities. If one
Speaker 1: state is acting in good faith and and doing the
Speaker 1: right thing for fishing while they had to have at
Speaker 1: the state right next door that's also connected to the
Speaker 1: same migratory corridor is making bad decisions. And so I
Speaker 1: think the federal government, while you know, I think there's
Speaker 1: always going to be a sense of uh, you know,
Speaker 1: pushback against the federal government in the Western States in particular,
Speaker 1: I think the federal government plays a really important oversight
Speaker 1: role and they are there as stewards managing to the
Speaker 1: best of their ability our public lands in a way
Speaker 1: it allows for multiple use and hopefully one use doesn't
Speaker 1: come at the expense of another. And and I think
Speaker 1: our role as an advocacy organization is working with members
Speaker 1: of Congress and states and decision makers to say we
Speaker 1: want fish and wildlife habitat and hunting fishing opportunities to
Speaker 1: be considered as a priority instead of an afterthought. And
Speaker 1: and we support things like responsible energy development, We support
Speaker 1: things like responsible mining and multiple use, and and sustainable
Speaker 1: timber harvest and uh, you know, active management practices. We
Speaker 1: support all those things. We just want to make sure
Speaker 1: that none of those activities and multiple uses on public
Speaker 1: lands come at the expense of our hunting and fishing heritage.
Speaker 1: And and if we do a good job of coming
Speaker 1: together in a collaborative way and looking at landscape level
Speaker 1: planning approaches that enable us to avoid and mitigate impacts.
Speaker 1: You know, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
Speaker 1: And it's just about getting together and and doing a
Speaker 1: better job. And so I think that's uh, you know,
Speaker 1: fundamental to ensuring that we avoid threats in the first place,
Speaker 1: instead of deal with them after they're already upon us.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, there there are a number
Speaker 1: of other threats that sometimes people don't consider to and
Speaker 1: you know, we talk about the fragmentation of fish and
Speaker 1: wildlife habitat. It's not always a development related activity that's
Speaker 1: fragmenting habits at. We have huge problems with invasive species
Speaker 1: all around the country, uh, and invasive species across all taxes.
Speaker 1: So we're not just talking about you know, cheat grass
Speaker 1: or tamarrisk. We're we're talking about you know, uh invasive
Speaker 1: you know, Asian carp species in our waterways, and and
Speaker 1: our and our friends up in the Great Lakes that
Speaker 1: are dealing with uh ballast water issues and uh, we
Speaker 1: have we have a number of these problems that I
Speaker 1: think really demand our attention, right now and and part
Speaker 1: of what b h A wants to do is be
Speaker 1: an organization at educates people about the breadth and depth
Speaker 1: of all these different threats across all different spaces and
Speaker 1: create engagement points for each one. So if you're someone
Speaker 1: who does care a lot about fisheries and you live
Speaker 1: in the Great Lakes region, you might gravitate towards UH.
Speaker 1: You know, working with some of the great partners up
Speaker 1: there that are focused on Asian carp and what b
Speaker 1: h A may not be doing a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: work on Asian carp ourselves. We probably know who is
Speaker 1: and we can pull you in the right direction, but
Speaker 1: we also care about those things, you know, or or
Speaker 1: it might be something that we are playing a stronger
Speaker 1: leadership role on, like the Boundary Waters. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a proposed mine and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness
Speaker 1: one of I think it is America's most visited wilderness area.
Speaker 1: It's a phenomenal place and they have tremendous water resources there.
Speaker 1: You know, people literally dip their cups in the waters
Speaker 1: and the Boundary Waters and drinks straight from them. And UH,
Speaker 1: and I think the fisheries and the wildlife that thrive,
Speaker 1: there are an indication of that habitat health. And when
Speaker 1: you have proposed mining development really teetering on the edge
Speaker 1: of you know, polluting something like that, I think it
Speaker 1: shows us that there's some places that are just the
Speaker 1: wrong places to do to development. And and while we
Speaker 1: support responsible development, we think there's a right place in
Speaker 1: a wrong place. And and maybe the boundary waters is
Speaker 1: is a wrong place to put a massive mining development. Maybe, Uh,
Speaker 1: if you love to fish in Alaska, or you have
Speaker 1: dreams of uh, you know, catching a massive Sakay salmon
Speaker 1: Alaska and and getting up into Bristol Bay, maybe you
Speaker 1: have a problem with the proposed pebble mind that is
Speaker 1: going in in Bristol Bay, and and you want to
Speaker 1: work with groups like b h A and and Trout
Speaker 1: Unlimited and and some of the other organizations that are
Speaker 1: rallying against pebble mine in order to maintain the integrity
Speaker 1: of of Bristol Bay in the world's largest Sacay salmon fishery.
Speaker 1: You know, there's there's a lot of issues like that
Speaker 1: going on right now that are pretty serious for us.
Speaker 1: And I think that, uh, what anyone the cares about
Speaker 1: hunting and fishing and fishing, wildlife conservation can do. Like
Speaker 1: I said before, find an organization that you feel is
Speaker 1: paying attention to these things, become a member of it,
Speaker 1: become aware of what they're doing, and then learn how
Speaker 1: to engage in how to make a difference. And people
Speaker 1: think that making phone calls and sending emails and letters
Speaker 1: to their members of Congress and decision makers, UH doesn't
Speaker 1: make a difference, but it does. We've we've shown that
Speaker 1: it does before. There's you know, just last year, we
Speaker 1: saw Congressman chaf It's from Utah drop a bill that
Speaker 1: would have disposed of over two million acres of public lands,
Speaker 1: and UH and hunters and anglers and and people that
Speaker 1: care about public lands responded on mass and he withdrew
Speaker 1: that legislation and something we've never seen before. And so
Speaker 1: we were uh hardened to see that UH civic engagement
Speaker 1: still matters. And that was a great example of how
Speaker 1: an uprising, you know, really turned the corner for hunters
Speaker 1: and anglers and people that care about public lands. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that gets into the politics of
Speaker 1: it because Jason Schaefitz was a Republican and sometimes I
Speaker 1: think about when it comes to the federal government. Say
Speaker 1: I joined b h A. I'm a new member. I'm
Speaker 1: a Republican. I'm for smaller government, smaller federal government. That's
Speaker 1: that's my stance. But I'm also conversely, I'm also I
Speaker 1: really care about public lands. I really care about hunting
Speaker 1: and fishing, and I really care about multiple use, and
Speaker 1: I care about the environment. But I'm a staunch Republican,
Speaker 1: and I think the government mostly is inept and I
Speaker 1: can't do the job it's meant to do. I think
Speaker 1: about that guy all the time. That guy must be thinking,
Speaker 1: what the fuck? What would you say to that guy?
Speaker 1: I imagine you might say, Okay, maybe the federal government's
Speaker 1: inept in certain ways. It's convoluted. Politics are um cumbersome
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, but in this particular way,
Speaker 1: the federal government is the best way to manage it.
Speaker 1: And I think the other way I like. The other
Speaker 1: thing I like to hear from you on this particular
Speaker 1: point is how exactly the federal management of these lands work?
Speaker 1: How did they get trickled back down to the states,
Speaker 1: And what is your you know, the synthesis of all
Speaker 1: those ideas, your hypothesis of how the federal government may
Speaker 1: not always be the best thing for a lot of situations,
Speaker 1: but in this situation, it's the best to manage that land.
Speaker 1: It's a great point. And the the profile you describe, like,
Speaker 1: we have those members in our ranks, you know, b
Speaker 1: h A, you know has probably half Democrats and and
Speaker 1: half Republicans. But you know, the last survey we did
Speaker 1: indicated that we have more Republicans than we do Democrats.
Speaker 1: And and I spent a lot of time talking to
Speaker 1: our people, and I know that there are people in
Speaker 1: our ranks to feel that way, um, And I think
Speaker 1: what helps them overcome their their loath of government and
Speaker 1: big government is the idea that public lands are big.
Speaker 1: Public lands are connected landscapes that span across state lines,
Speaker 1: and it's expensive to manage these places. States cannot afford
Speaker 1: to manage such vast amounts of public lands, and especially
Speaker 1: if a wildfire disaster or something tragic like that happens,
Speaker 1: the cost of dealing with those natural disasters would cripple
Speaker 1: a state in bankrupt it overnight, literally. And I think
Speaker 1: that's an economic equation that a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: people writing the ideological horse all the way to Washington
Speaker 1: failed to consider. And integrate into their um well crafted
Speaker 1: talking points that are pretty narrow and focus. And so
Speaker 1: I think the idea that we have a public obligation
Speaker 1: to manage these public lands for the benefit of future
Speaker 1: generations in a way that uh like I think I
Speaker 1: said before, you know, I think public lands are the
Speaker 1: great equalizer. You have access to them regardless of your
Speaker 1: means and income. And the only possible way that we
Speaker 1: can manage public lands across all fifty states in a
Speaker 1: in a way that is consistent and considers all the
Speaker 1: different multiple uses that that we should be managing our
Speaker 1: public lands for like, the only way to possibly do
Speaker 1: is through the federal government. Could they do a better job,
Speaker 1: of course they can. We are advocating for practices and
Speaker 1: policies that improve and enhance the way public lands are
Speaker 1: being managed in you know, one of the biggest problems
Speaker 1: I see there is congressional appropriators are not doing their
Speaker 1: job to give adequate funding the state management agencies, and
Speaker 1: they have the luxury of talking out of both sides
Speaker 1: of their mouth. They get to complain that public lands
Speaker 1: are not being managed the way they should be, while
Speaker 1: at the same time starving them into a state of
Speaker 1: Anebia as they said on the Appropriations Committee refused to
Speaker 1: give them funding to do it. I don't think that's right,
Speaker 1: and I think we should all be doing our individual
Speaker 1: jobs as citizens of this country and public landers to
Speaker 1: call bullshit on that and demand that we fixed that problem.
Speaker 1: And and I mentioned earlier, we we fixed a wildfire
Speaker 1: borrowing issue in the in the most recent fiscal year
Speaker 1: two thousand eighteen omnibus package that the past a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago. I think that was a big one, right,
Speaker 1: Like fire issues were robbing funding from agencies non fire
Speaker 1: budgets and their operational funds were being compromised, and they
Speaker 1: weren't able to do what they wanted to do. And
Speaker 1: that's not really their fault. It's the fault of the
Speaker 1: members of Congress that should be helping our public lands
Speaker 1: management agencies do a better job, that should be working
Speaker 1: with stakeholders like hunters and anglers to advance thoughtful ways
Speaker 1: to improve active management and and get boots back on
Speaker 1: the ground working to manage public lands. You know the
Speaker 1: other you know the thing I say to that that
Speaker 1: member that doesn't like big government and thinks that decisions
Speaker 1: are happening and washing d C ne vacuum. I think
Speaker 1: that's a I think that's a false narrative. Decisions on
Speaker 1: public lands are being made absolutely locally. If you live
Speaker 1: in the West and you drive around your state, there
Speaker 1: are local offices of the Forest Service, of the Bureau
Speaker 1: of Land Management, of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Speaker 1: These are people with families and local communities, rural towns,
Speaker 1: big cities, working on behalf of the federal government to
Speaker 1: manage local lands publicly. They live there, They live in
Speaker 1: these places that they're managing. They have invested interest in
Speaker 1: doing the best they possibly can. So I think that
Speaker 1: that narrative is a false. Decisions are not being made
Speaker 1: in Washington, d c uh about how public lands are
Speaker 1: being managed out was with no input at the local
Speaker 1: or state level. Yeah, that's huge, that's huge and I
Speaker 1: and I really like, even for my own edification, I
Speaker 1: like to to set up what's happening here because I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people are not cherry picking, but
Speaker 1: are are being allowed to cherry pick certain parts of
Speaker 1: this issue. Wouldn't really I think everything you're saying is
Speaker 1: part of this tapestry, the part of the what the
Speaker 1: lands are, why they're there, how they're managed, how they
Speaker 1: how we could lose them, but then also how politics
Speaker 1: um endangers us doing what's best for these lands. And
Speaker 1: so that brings me to the Bears Ears and the
Speaker 1: National monument Um review of this last I guess a
Speaker 1: year in change from the Trump administration on down the
Speaker 1: Secretary Zinky the point that I've made in the past,
Speaker 1: and I'd like to just kind of have you go
Speaker 1: through this the whole thing, from soup to nuts, because
Speaker 1: it was was obviously a big deal. The fact that
Speaker 1: that Bears Ears specifically became a political football to be
Speaker 1: thrown back and forth. You know, we're going to protect
Speaker 1: these lands. Now we're gonna we're gonna pull that protection
Speaker 1: back a little bit. We're gonna protect pull them back
Speaker 1: seemingly is an argument between one side that favors extraction
Speaker 1: and one side that favors the environment. Was that is
Speaker 1: that a correct characterization in the general sense of how
Speaker 1: that works. And so you get back into politics, because
Speaker 1: that's we manage the government is our lands, but politics
Speaker 1: manages the government in the way it functions, in the
Speaker 1: way the Caesar fails. You spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: immersed in those politics. So in the you know, in
Speaker 1: the sense of the national monument debate. Just frame that
Speaker 1: up from one side believes this, one side believes that,
Speaker 1: and then how you believe it's best managing for the
Speaker 1: future of that land and what a national monument classification
Speaker 1: really means for all in the boots on the ground conservation.
Speaker 1: I feel like you're right. The debate launched in the
Speaker 1: last year over national monuments was purely driven by political
Speaker 1: differences in ideology and and national monuments and and the
Speaker 1: Antiquities Act itself became sort of the political football that
Speaker 1: was being lobbed back and forth. And it wasn't that
Speaker 1: they felt like national monument designations were really infringing on
Speaker 1: anything other than their ability to uh do resource extraction
Speaker 1: in the state of Utah. Like you know, this really
Speaker 1: became Utah versus Clinton administration and Obama administration issue. And
Speaker 1: you know, at the end of President Clinton's term when
Speaker 1: Grand Staircase Escalante was designated under the Antiquities Act. And
Speaker 1: for your listeners that don't know what the Antiquities Act is,
Speaker 1: it was an an act that was championed by President
Speaker 1: Theodore Roosevelt, passed by Congress two give executive authority to
Speaker 1: the President to identify lands that had unique scientific characteristics
Speaker 1: and cultural values that needed UH quick protection. Where Congress
Speaker 1: UH failed to act or didn't have time to act,
Speaker 1: the president could step in and do the right thing
Speaker 1: because it was important to preserving antiquities, you know, things
Speaker 1: like UM tribal sites and cultural sites and places of
Speaker 1: scientific value which you know extended things like fish and
Speaker 1: wildlife habitat and uh iconic landscapes. You know, the Grand
Speaker 1: Canyon before it was the National Park, was actually a
Speaker 1: National monument um. So that's how Grand Staircase, Escalante and
Speaker 1: Bearsiers both were designated in the state of Utah, both
Speaker 1: at the end of a term of a sitting Democratic president,
Speaker 1: against the wishes of Republicans in the state of Utah
Speaker 1: that we're concerned that these designations were going to prevent
Speaker 1: their ability to um facilitate resource extraction, namely oil and
Speaker 1: gas development and coal development. And so this review process
Speaker 1: was largely instigated at the behest of of the Utah
Speaker 1: delegation and their interest in sort of rolling back what
Speaker 1: the Claim administration and the Obama administration had done over
Speaker 1: over national monuments, and it was it was less about
Speaker 1: what monuments themselves were actually doing as a designation. For
Speaker 1: the most part, monument designations really enable lots of traditional
Speaker 1: uses like grazing and even existing mining claims to to
Speaker 1: operate as they always have been. And in a way,
Speaker 1: national monuments can preserve and perpetuity things like grazing and
Speaker 1: hunting and fishing and uh protection of fishing, walife, habitat
Speaker 1: because under under a national mind him it development is limited,
Speaker 1: so you know, things like new resource extraction is disallowed,
Speaker 1: um things like road building. You know, there is a
Speaker 1: new level of of conservation protections put in place by
Speaker 1: monument designations, and that's why they're great for fishing while
Speaker 1: they have habitat and hunting and fishing opportunities. Not every
Speaker 1: national monument has great fishing while they have tad and
Speaker 1: not every national monument has great hunting and fishing opportunities,
Speaker 1: but some of them do, especially some of the larger
Speaker 1: Western monuments. And that's where we grew really concerned about
Speaker 1: this debate. And it wasn't necessarily about a specific place
Speaker 1: like Bears Ears. It was about setting a precedent that
Speaker 1: any administration in the future could unravel what a previous
Speaker 1: president had done before. This has never been touched. No
Speaker 1: presidents ever tried to do this before, and any time
Speaker 1: there have been adjustments to a prior designation, they were
Speaker 1: very minor and character had to do with some boundary
Speaker 1: adjustment tweaks that made sense, and we're widely supported and
Speaker 1: had no opposition to them. This is not the case.
Speaker 1: Americans responded overwhelmingly in the monument review process UH. It
Speaker 1: was in April of last year when President Trump asked
Speaker 1: Secretary Zinkie to conduct this review process, and at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, after overwhelming opposition from Americans all
Speaker 1: across the country that cared about national monuments, they still
Speaker 1: moved forward with UH making adjustments to both Grand Staircase
Speaker 1: Escalante and Bears Ears in Utah, with potential I still
Speaker 1: being set in in other monuments in the West. They
Speaker 1: have yet to act in some of the utter monuments
Speaker 1: in the West. But the Utah ones were sort of
Speaker 1: the the main prize and the goal and and something
Speaker 1: that mattered to the Utah delegation. And like I said before,
Speaker 1: it was the political football and it got thrown back
Speaker 1: the other direction. And so now we find ourselves in
Speaker 1: a place where groups are bringing litigation to push back
Speaker 1: against the decision that the administration made to make these
Speaker 1: monument boundary adjustments. The legal opinion is certainly that the
Speaker 1: president does have the authority to rescind or significantly alter
Speaker 1: monument designations, only create new ones. So I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna see this play out in the courts. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: the Utah delegation is hedging their bets. They probably deep
Speaker 1: down uh think that it's also illegal. So there they
Speaker 1: have developed and introduced legislation that essentially codifies the administration's
Speaker 1: boundary adjustments for both of those monuments. So there are
Speaker 1: legislative vehicles now too, um attempt to do legally what
Speaker 1: the president probably unlawfully can't do on his own. Sure,
Speaker 1: and then in so in the public eye that plays out, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no there's no nuance, there's no pragmatism. There's just
Speaker 1: this like scream from the mountain top on both sides.
Speaker 1: And so the examples that everyone would always point it
Speaker 1: would be one patigo and your posts on their website,
Speaker 1: a black, fully black template that just says in white lettering,
Speaker 1: the president stole your land, and and not as dramatic fashions,
Speaker 1: some of the pro Zinkie fleet of opinions would say,
Speaker 1: thanks Secretary Zinky for establishing more access for hunters. National
Speaker 1: monuments restrict access in some ways, thank you for being
Speaker 1: such a wonderful Secretary of the Interior. So at some
Speaker 1: point you have one side characters that characterizing as it
Speaker 1: all win for hunters and anglers, and the other side
Speaker 1: character you know, making this a loss for all Americans.
Speaker 1: How are they there? But I feel like they're both
Speaker 1: kind of wrong. They're somewhere in the middle. Is the
Speaker 1: right answer? How would you characterize what the right answer is? Um?
Speaker 1: And feel free to just say this is how Patagoon
Speaker 1: you got it wrong, and this is how the other
Speaker 1: side got it wrong. Sorry, patagon They weren't the only ones,
Speaker 1: but they were just they happened to speak the loudest
Speaker 1: and most concisely about the issue on their side of things. Yeah. Uh,
Speaker 1: Patagonia is a great company that we align them with
Speaker 1: on many things. UM. I appreciate the spirit in which
Speaker 1: they they responded to that, but in some ways their
Speaker 1: statements misleading. I mean, the president didn't steal your public
Speaker 1: lands like they've always been your public lands. And even
Speaker 1: this decision now you know, didn't take the public lands away.
Speaker 1: What it did was strip protections for these places and
Speaker 1: calling the question some of the the future conservation of
Speaker 1: these resources, Like you know, things that were protected before
Speaker 1: are now maybe threatened. And there are are looters and people,
Speaker 1: you know, robbing tribal burial sites and and um, you
Speaker 1: know what they call pot hunters, people looking for pottery
Speaker 1: and and artifacts. You know, it's only going to exacerbate
Speaker 1: those existing problems and uh open up opportunities for um,
Speaker 1: you know, criminal acts like that. And so I think
Speaker 1: it's there. Their statement was perhaps a little misleading, but
Speaker 1: the spirit of it was, uh, you know, responding in
Speaker 1: frustration to what the president was doing that they felt
Speaker 1: was a glaring overreach of executive authority. And and we're
Speaker 1: taking sort of a more middle of the road approach
Speaker 1: on this. You know, there weren't really any access issues
Speaker 1: before the monuments. Monuments weren't preventing people from going and
Speaker 1: hunting and fishing. Uh. The only thing that monuments could
Speaker 1: possibly have done would be, uh, to prevent you from
Speaker 1: blazing a new trail in your off road vehicle through
Speaker 1: the middle of a sensitive fishing wild the habitat which
Speaker 1: if you're a real hunter preventing you from being an asshole.
Speaker 1: That's what we're gonna this was the title of this part,
Speaker 1: is going to be national monity to prevent you from
Speaker 1: being an asshole. So if you don't like a national monus,
Speaker 1: you're an asshole? Right? What what did you say on
Speaker 1: the other side? Right? And I will say I'm not
Speaker 1: afraid to just say, like I've I heard from RMDF
Speaker 1: and some different hunting organizations and WTF and others lauding
Speaker 1: this UH decision because it helped hunting access or helped
Speaker 1: hunters gain access to this national monity. Talk me through that.
Speaker 1: I sort of don't understand it, and I've tried to
Speaker 1: find out more on why some organizations feel that way.
Speaker 1: I don't fully understand it because there's not any new
Speaker 1: access created by this administrative action that didn't exist before. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, in the case of Grand Staircase Escalante, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe there may be an access issue, but it might
Speaker 1: be related to something like once it became a national monument,
Speaker 1: the popularity of Grand Staircase Escalani grew tremendously. People started
Speaker 1: visiting there more. They had to deal with the flow
Speaker 1: of traffic and things like that, so they created designated
Speaker 1: parking areas. So maybe if you're an old timer and
Speaker 1: you punted there your whole life, and there's a spot
Speaker 1: on the side of the road that used to always
Speaker 1: pull your truck over and hike into and go hunting,
Speaker 1: maybe you can't park on the side of the road
Speaker 1: like he used to because there's so many people traveling
Speaker 1: that road now, so you you have to make other
Speaker 1: arrangements for for parking your vehicle. But you still can
Speaker 1: walk in, and you can still hunt the same place
Speaker 1: as you did before. And there's no restrictions at all
Speaker 1: on hunting and fishing. Um So you know, I tend
Speaker 1: to push back a little bit on that, and and
Speaker 1: and really fall back to what I said in the beginning,
Speaker 1: is it This is less about you know, whether or
Speaker 1: not hunting and fishing in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase
Speaker 1: Escalani is the best place to go hunting and fishing.
Speaker 1: This is about the potential unraveling of all national monuments anywhere.
Speaker 1: If you can do it Embarrassiers in Grand Staircase Esclanni,
Speaker 1: then you could do it in the Missouri River breaks
Speaker 1: in Montana, which is UH famous for upland game hunting
Speaker 1: and UH and and deer hunting and provides tremendous opportunities.
Speaker 1: Um it could unravel you know, hunting and fishing opportunity
Speaker 1: in places like uh Brown's Canyon in Colorado where you
Speaker 1: have tremendous blue ribbon fishery on the Arkansas River and
Speaker 1: you're you're catching huge brown trout, or uh el Rio
Speaker 1: Grande del Norte in northern Mexico where you have tremendous
Speaker 1: big game populations that are benefiting from the protections afforded
Speaker 1: by national monument designation. If if this administration is not
Speaker 1: looking to unravel monument designations in those states, that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that a future administration wouldn't. And by creating the
Speaker 1: precedent now that that you can and that executive authority exists,
Speaker 1: you compromise in perpetuity every single other monument designation that
Speaker 1: that's out there. And that's that's why b h A
Speaker 1: responded the way we did, is because we we looked
Speaker 1: at it as an assault on our public land's heritage
Speaker 1: but also a potential diminishing of of access and opportunity.
Speaker 1: And for us, you know, those are bread and butter
Speaker 1: issues and we're we're never afraid to stand by those
Speaker 1: breader bread and butter issues, and and um, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure why some organizations you know, um, you know,
Speaker 1: propelled some of the misinformation that's being spread by the
Speaker 1: administration to support their actions. Um. You know, the truth is,
Speaker 1: with very few exceptions, monument designations haven't really impaired access,
Speaker 1: and where they have, we're actively working to restore access.
Speaker 1: You know, we're currently working with a number of organizations
Speaker 1: in California to restore hunting access to Castle Mountains National Monument.
Speaker 1: You know, not through any uh specific nefarious um motivations.
Speaker 1: It was purely oversight. When that monument was designated, it
Speaker 1: moved into a Park Service management and as we as
Speaker 1: we discussed before, the Park Service managing certain public lands
Speaker 1: units means that hunting is no longer allowed because of
Speaker 1: how the organic Act that created the Park services interpreted
Speaker 1: and has been interpreted by legal scholars. So we're working
Speaker 1: with Congressman Cook's office, with Senator Feinstein's office, and um,
Speaker 1: you know, quite a number of both state and national
Speaker 1: sportsman groups to say, hey, this is wrong. We need
Speaker 1: to restore hunting access here, and we're looking at solutions
Speaker 1: to be able to do that. And so so b
Speaker 1: H as you know, not out there with the Superman
Speaker 1: shirt that says national monuments are the best thing ever
Speaker 1: without you know, you know, any UH sort of qualification.
Speaker 1: We're saying monument designations can be great for fish and
Speaker 1: while they have habitsat We worked with a number of
Speaker 1: UH Sportsman partners to create a report that shows how
Speaker 1: monument designations can be done right, and we have we
Speaker 1: established a set of tenants for doing monuments the right
Speaker 1: way and when used judiciously, the Antiquities Act to create
Speaker 1: monuments can be a very powerful conservation tool. But we
Speaker 1: also acknowledge that they can be done wrong and and
Speaker 1: mistakes can happen. And Castle Mounts is as an example
Speaker 1: of where they got it wrong and how we're working
Speaker 1: to correct that so that hunting access can be restored. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that um, both sides tend to
Speaker 1: get comfortable and the polarity that exists in our political spectrum,
Speaker 1: and and they dig their heels in and they they're
Speaker 1: afraid to come out of their trenches to you know,
Speaker 1: shake hands in the middle once in a while. And
Speaker 1: b H is trying to be a moderate group that's
Speaker 1: coming to the middle and putting together thoughtful solutions that
Speaker 1: helped vance the conversations around you know, figuring out ways
Speaker 1: to address some of these complex conservation issues that we're
Speaker 1: dealing with. And and we want to be a centrist
Speaker 1: organization that UM acknowledges that, you know, both sides have
Speaker 1: pieces that they're right about, but sometimes mistakes are made
Speaker 1: and uh, and that's human nature. And the best thing
Speaker 1: we can do as an organization and as hunters and
Speaker 1: anglers has helped be uh peace brokers. And you know,
Speaker 1: I grew up out west in Idaho, and uh, the
Speaker 1: way you get things done out here is you sit
Speaker 1: around the breakfast table together and you figure it out,
Speaker 1: and you walk away and you be a good neighbor
Speaker 1: and you make responsible choices and at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, you do what's right because it's the right
Speaker 1: thing to do, and you don't need to ask any
Speaker 1: other questions than that. Yeah, And I think that's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why I wanted to have yawn UM,
Speaker 1: just because I that to me that the bears of
Speaker 1: yours national money situation codifies the problem that exists in
Speaker 1: the extreme points of view on both sides, I imagine,
Speaker 1: and you can tell me if you disagree with this,
Speaker 1: that those extreme points of view. We're very grounded in environmentalism,
Speaker 1: protection of wild places and lands across the board, and
Speaker 1: then on the other side the desire to extract resources
Speaker 1: and make money off those lanes. So those two points
Speaker 1: have developed into these extreme polars And in the center
Speaker 1: is this void where hall of people that just want
Speaker 1: to enjoy public lands and want to enjoy national monuments
Speaker 1: and would probably always defer to the people on the
Speaker 1: ground and say what what do you want? What's best
Speaker 1: for you? UM? And I think that situation to me
Speaker 1: was concerning because it was so polar it got kind
Speaker 1: of sucked into the vacuum that is our media cycle,
Speaker 1: and it got turned into that spit back out as
Speaker 1: this very polarizing situation. And and they're just needed to
Speaker 1: be education. And I hope that Beach A can continue
Speaker 1: to be a center for education and pushing just as
Speaker 1: you said, pragmatic policy that is that pushes forward what's
Speaker 1: good for hunters and anglers. And I could tell you
Speaker 1: I was telling Land earlier today, UM, in our meeting,
Speaker 1: that I've gotten just from this podcast. I've gotten a
Speaker 1: lot of people that would say I'm thirty five years old,
Speaker 1: I have two kids. I never thought about hunting until
Speaker 1: this happened to me. Then I started to think about it.
Speaker 1: I went out in research and researched. Then I joined
Speaker 1: b h A. Then I went out and got a bow.
Speaker 1: Then I went I got a rifle. And I think
Speaker 1: there's a growing number of people that are realizing as
Speaker 1: you're well aware, I mean twenty thousand members from how
Speaker 1: many when you when you started, how many members were there?
Speaker 1: We had about a thousand members, I think, and we've
Speaker 1: been doubling our membership every year for the last several years.
Speaker 1: It's twenty fold increase. And these people are understanding that
Speaker 1: that not only do not only do they need to
Speaker 1: buy a license and contribute that way, if they when
Speaker 1: they buy uns and bows and the emo and arrows,
Speaker 1: they'll contribute via excess tax I think people are starting
Speaker 1: to understand that. But what they also understand is that
Speaker 1: they have to be a player in this game for
Speaker 1: this to continue, because, as you said, when when public
Speaker 1: land or wilderness goes away, when we cut a road
Speaker 1: through a place, we can know we can't go back
Speaker 1: and get what what we lost. And so that's why
Speaker 1: I think as many people that I've talked to that
Speaker 1: have listened to some of the topics that we've had
Speaker 1: here in the past, are including B h A in
Speaker 1: their conversation of I'm thirty, I'm forty, I'm fifty, I've
Speaker 1: never thought about hunting. Now I do because they understand
Speaker 1: the need for that pragmatism, and you guys have been
Speaker 1: a leader in that. And I think that's to me,
Speaker 1: why if we could have if we could bring every
Speaker 1: group to the center, especially in the political spectrum. I
Speaker 1: don't think National Wild Turkey Federation, there's not polarizing topics
Speaker 1: inside of Turkey hunting. So they're pretty lucky in that way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're like I mean, they to stand on top of
Speaker 1: the mountain and essentially declare victory, like they've been one
Speaker 1: of the most effective conservation organizations and fully restoring uh
Speaker 1: Turkey populations all around the country. And they've also done
Speaker 1: a great job after they after it was no longer
Speaker 1: you know, a need to go transferred Turkey populations and
Speaker 1: and habitat seemingly was improving and then being codified. Then
Speaker 1: they then they switched over to youth. How can we
Speaker 1: get really smart people, really smart choice the way to
Speaker 1: do it, and so they've had that. But when it
Speaker 1: comes to the politics of it, um, they've stepped in
Speaker 1: sometimes and and made some statements about national monuments or
Speaker 1: Zinki's action here or Zinky's action there. Um. Same with
Speaker 1: our army YEF. They've done great things with easements and
Speaker 1: habitat and there's never been more elk. I don't believe
Speaker 1: in this continent that there are right now, um. But
Speaker 1: there's also that political side where they feel like they
Speaker 1: may have to speak in one way or the other way.
Speaker 1: So I just think that those are great organizations. They
Speaker 1: do a great job with what what their missions are
Speaker 1: and you guys have taken a broader mission um and
Speaker 1: made it yours, and I think that's why it's important. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we've learned a lot from those legacy sportsman groups and
Speaker 1: they're you know, incredibly important partners to us, and uh
Speaker 1: we want to you know, build on the successes that
Speaker 1: they've achieved, but also maybe occupy a space that is
Speaker 1: less comfortable for some of those organizations too. Like you know,
Speaker 1: we do a lot of work on accountability and holding
Speaker 1: decision makers accountable for their decisions, and you know that
Speaker 1: can come with consequences if not done the right way.
Speaker 1: And I know that, UM A lot of groups tend
Speaker 1: to shy away from that because you don't want to
Speaker 1: close off your relationships and access with decision makers and leaders.
Speaker 1: And and I think that's important UM and and b
Speaker 1: h A is UH taking a pretty strong, uh brave
Speaker 1: approach to dealing with decision makers in a way that
Speaker 1: we feel is UM, you know, without without any obligation
Speaker 1: to sensitivities on either side of the political political spectrum.
Speaker 1: We don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
Speaker 1: If you're making bad votes that work against fishing while
Speaker 1: they habitat and hunting and fishing opportunities, we're gonna come
Speaker 1: after you. Uh. We support the Second Amendment, but public
Speaker 1: lands and waters are our second second Amendment, and UH,
Speaker 1: we're gonna put you in the crosshairs if you come
Speaker 1: after public lands and waters. And I think it's okay
Speaker 1: to be bold when you're being bold for the right
Speaker 1: reasons and and you deal with integrity, you do with
Speaker 1: respect and sincerity. I think that's why some of our
Speaker 1: members are responding to the way we handle ourselves in
Speaker 1: the conservation space because we're we're not afraid to say
Speaker 1: some of those things. And I think it gives some
Speaker 1: of our partner organizations a little more elbow room to
Speaker 1: be successful in their spaces. And uh, we can you know,
Speaker 1: going back to what I said earlier about having expertise
Speaker 1: and you know, individualized areas of specialty. You know, maybe
Speaker 1: the advocacy accountability side of conservation sportsman's organizations is where
Speaker 1: b h A is creating a specialty that didn't really
Speaker 1: exist there before. And we're taking some of the hard
Speaker 1: hits on the nose, but we're throwing some punches ourselves too,
Speaker 1: and it feels pretty good, you know, like, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we're scrappy and uh and while we prefer to settle
Speaker 1: things in a civilized way, uh, sometimes you've got to
Speaker 1: get down into the mud and roll around in the
Speaker 1: weeds a little bit too. Well. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I hate to keep bringing up Patagon because I never
Speaker 1: I never really do. But we're you know, we're wearing
Speaker 1: Patago and you vesta ch a logoes on him and
Speaker 1: you've tion artists coming into Idaho. Yeah, it's like two
Speaker 1: boise for the for the Ron Davy, we'll probably be
Speaker 1: here what tomorrow gonna be speaking on Saturday and speaking
Speaker 1: a little bit um tomorrow. That's fairly that's a huge
Speaker 1: deal for somebody like art. Folks don't know. He's the
Speaker 1: founder of Padagoon and a big activist in many ways
Speaker 1: and many issues, and a huge voice, monumental voice in
Speaker 1: the outdoor recreation community. And he's a serious angler and love. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we got I mean, and I think it would
Speaker 1: probably have been I don't know if it would have
Speaker 1: been completely out of bounds to think that he would
Speaker 1: come to a gathering of hunters and anglers at some
Speaker 1: point in the last decade, but I know it was
Speaker 1: a whole lot less probable that he would have done so.
Speaker 1: And so then when I found out he was coming
Speaker 1: to speak to this group, I thought, that's just the
Speaker 1: perfect And even in our earlier conversation about what Patganny
Speaker 1: did we didn't agree with. It's the perfect magam of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: do we agree with everything that Ivan Grenard has ever done? No,
Speaker 1: or his company for that matter, No, But is he
Speaker 1: an advocate for public lands and for what we believe?
Speaker 1: And are we willing to fight with him for the
Speaker 1: things that we agree upon? Absolutely? And he having him
Speaker 1: here helps more than hurts UM and don't know that
Speaker 1: it hurts at all for for anyone that has a
Speaker 1: problem with Van Shard. And I think b h A
Speaker 1: has heard some of that UM rolling into this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I would I would say, I would say that
Speaker 1: anyone who doesn't believe we need to make a stronger
Speaker 1: alliance with that actual recreation user, especially when it comes
Speaker 1: to public lands, is foolish And anyway that we can
Speaker 1: do that in any organization that's facilitating that should be
Speaker 1: applauded every time. I totally agree with you, and I
Speaker 1: think part of the part of the reason we aren't
Speaker 1: being as successful as we could be is because we're
Speaker 1: doing a bad job of coming together and uniting around
Speaker 1: a common cause. You know, we're not always gonna be
Speaker 1: able to hold hands and and work together on issues
Speaker 1: that we agree with with any organization, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: someone on the left or someone on the right. But
Speaker 1: I think there is a huge number of groups and
Speaker 1: organizations on both sides, both within the sportsman's community and
Speaker 1: the outdoor recreation community that share our values for fish
Speaker 1: and wild iife conservation, and we want to create a
Speaker 1: space for us to come together and do more in
Speaker 1: a unified way that's compelling and instead of getting caught
Speaker 1: up in UH you know, patriarchical ways of doing things
Speaker 1: of of the past and looking at ways to be
Speaker 1: more innovative and and sometimes that that means working with
Speaker 1: UH brands and corporations and organizations and people that don't
Speaker 1: hunt and fish because they care about public lands and
Speaker 1: water is the same way we do. If we can
Speaker 1: work together, I think we can advance a lot of things.
Speaker 1: And and that doesn't mean that we can't, you know,
Speaker 1: go back to our respective camps and focus in on
Speaker 1: the things that you know, our constituents care about, and
Speaker 1: and it doesn't mean that we can't disagree with each
Speaker 1: other from time to time. I think if you do
Speaker 1: those things respectfully, and if you're acting in a professional
Speaker 1: manner and you're working together, we can get things done
Speaker 1: and put aside differences when they exist. And I think
Speaker 1: the sportsman's community in general, you know, should be working
Speaker 1: more with the outdoor industry groups. There is a number
Speaker 1: of outdoor recreation interests. Whether you're a mountain bike group
Speaker 1: or a backpacking group or a climbing group, and whether
Speaker 1: you're a business that that makes gear and clothing to
Speaker 1: support those entities. We all have a lot in common,
Speaker 1: we have a lot to lose. It's all in the
Speaker 1: line for all of us. So we should be marshaling
Speaker 1: our resources instead of getting distracted by what uh maybe
Speaker 1: separates us or what we disagree about, and instead focus
Speaker 1: on the things that we do care about. So we're
Speaker 1: working together to push things down the field and make
Speaker 1: a difference for conservation. And I think that you know,
Speaker 1: at some point in time, you gotta you gotta look
Speaker 1: your kids in the eyes and say you did the
Speaker 1: right things, and you tried as hard as you could
Speaker 1: to do the best you could to ensure that their
Speaker 1: future is as bright as yours was. And hopefully you
Speaker 1: leave things in a better place than when you came
Speaker 1: into this world. And we have this collective obligation to
Speaker 1: stewardship to sort of hand down this legacy of stewardship
Speaker 1: that I think is is really important and and if
Speaker 1: we look at it from a valuous perspective and instead
Speaker 1: of getting caught up in some of the political rhetoric,
Speaker 1: I think that benefits us all. And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: taking it back to the idea of like your legacy
Speaker 1: of stewardship and how you want to treat the wild
Speaker 1: places that give back to us so much. You know,
Speaker 1: I think, um, and maybe I'm biased, but hunting and
Speaker 1: fishing to me is deeply personal and it's a part
Speaker 1: of my soul and a part of who I am.
Speaker 1: It's not paying playing tennis on the weekend, right, Like,
Speaker 1: hunting and fishing is something I have to do, and
Speaker 1: these wild places are something that are part of my soul.
Speaker 1: And when I'm up there and on top of a mountain,
Speaker 1: it's a spiritual experience. You don't get that by playing
Speaker 1: golf on the weekends. And I think that just because
Speaker 1: I do it with a bow or a rye full
Speaker 1: or a fly rod in my hand, doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the same person doing it with binoculars are taking their
Speaker 1: family on a backpacking trip isn't having that same type
Speaker 1: of experience. So I think if we can come back
Speaker 1: and relate to each other that really basic values way,
Speaker 1: then that's the right way to move things forward. And
Speaker 1: I think telling stories two decision makers about why these
Speaker 1: places are meaningful and important to us will help them
Speaker 1: understand why we care about it, And it helped get
Speaker 1: outside of the politics of conservation. Yeah, that's a huge
Speaker 1: thing for me to just just understanding how we can
Speaker 1: better articulate these things to each other. I mean, we could.
Speaker 1: We could lose a lot if we said listen, listen, Yvonne. Uh.
Speaker 1: We don't agree on predator hunting. You don't want any
Speaker 1: predator hunting, We don't. We we think kill all the
Speaker 1: wolves and tis of course that's not what we think.
Speaker 1: But if we were unwilling to see the ties that
Speaker 1: bind us and we're only going to focus on the
Speaker 1: things that don't, the things that don't bind us together,
Speaker 1: were never gonna win. And as as you said, I
Speaker 1: have a young son, and I always think about part
Speaker 1: of my reason for being here this weekend has won
Speaker 1: my job, but two moreover, just thinking about him and
Speaker 1: thinking about how am I gonna make sure when he's
Speaker 1: old enough that he understands what this is like. And
Speaker 1: you live in Illinois or Iowa or Texas and places
Speaker 1: that there aren't big tracts of public land, your life,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, is considerably different than if you live
Speaker 1: in Idaho, if you live in Montana, or you've lived
Speaker 1: in Utah or Idaho, um any of these states that
Speaker 1: have large tracks public land. Colorado isn't another example. Your
Speaker 1: life is just totally different. You don't have the same
Speaker 1: feeling um of wandering that you can just get up
Speaker 1: on in the morning and go for a hike and
Speaker 1: get lost and and find yourself on a mountain you've
Speaker 1: never been on. You just don't have that um in Texas.
Speaker 1: I live in Texas. There is not. You just don't
Speaker 1: have the same feeling when you wake up in the
Speaker 1: morning and you know that you can't just go out
Speaker 1: and find a place that's that belongs to you and
Speaker 1: everybody else. And so I think that's it's tangible. It isn't.
Speaker 1: It's not something that's so opaque that we can't see
Speaker 1: it in our own lives. If you're listening to this
Speaker 1: and you live in a place where you have to
Speaker 1: drive six hours of public land, and you're listening to this,
Speaker 1: and you live in a place where you can literally
Speaker 1: hop on a bike, you can go right around in
Speaker 1: a wilderness area or or better yet, walk around in
Speaker 1: the wilderness area you're live, you're a lot. Those two
Speaker 1: lives are completely different. UM. And what you're fighting for
Speaker 1: and what I what I feel strongly about the same
Speaker 1: is the ability for anyone to go out and have
Speaker 1: that experience, because that experience is way more than just
Speaker 1: a one or two or three day haul. It's a
Speaker 1: lifetime of feeling that there's something out there that belongs
Speaker 1: to everybody. Yeah, and I think I think that's a
Speaker 1: great point. And one thing that you know, we try
Speaker 1: and do as an organization too, is there's meet people
Speaker 1: where they're at. And uh, back country can be a
Speaker 1: state of mind as much as a physical place. And
Speaker 1: back country to you might mean Bayou in the backwoods
Speaker 1: of Louisiana someplace, and your cruising around in flooded timber
Speaker 1: and and you're lost, I mean you're in the back country,
Speaker 1: you know, back country for you might be uh, you know,
Speaker 1: offshore fishing in the Gulf Coast somewhere and you can't
Speaker 1: see a spec and land in sight. Maybe ocean is
Speaker 1: the original back country and and one of the wildest frontiers.
Speaker 1: There's people that think that way about the ocean. There's
Speaker 1: people that live in Maine. And while it's not the
Speaker 1: same as hunting public lands in the West, where you
Speaker 1: have beer of land management lands or for service lands,
Speaker 1: you might be hunting uh, timber company lands and in
Speaker 1: the main way of life and main traditions. UH timber
Speaker 1: companies do a great service to hunters by providing public
Speaker 1: access and opportunities on lands where you don't have like
Speaker 1: these large blocks of lands in the West. And so
Speaker 1: one of the reasons I think people find b h
Speaker 1: A appealing and why we're growing in places like the
Speaker 1: Southeast and the Northeast and the mid Atlantic is because
Speaker 1: we're not confining ourselves to just public lands in the West.
Speaker 1: We're looking at what does back country mean to you?
Speaker 1: And and we're also looking at public access and opportunity,
Speaker 1: and that might mean forging relationships with state and local
Speaker 1: governments and private landowners that facilitate access for hunting and fishing.
Speaker 1: And you might be in Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia somewhere,
Speaker 1: but you can find a piece of land where you're
Speaker 1: the only person on it and you're you know, you're hunting,
Speaker 1: and and you don't see a single soul the other day,
Speaker 1: and you're having the same experience of solace and and
Speaker 1: silence and and that quietude of outdoor recreation that the
Speaker 1: same person you know, climbing a fourteen thousand foot peak
Speaker 1: in Colorado as having, or the same person that's doing
Speaker 1: a seven day backpacking trip for Elk and the Bob
Speaker 1: Marshall alwerness is having you know, we're all having similar experiences,
Speaker 1: and the topography and the landscapes that we're doing it
Speaker 1: in might be different. But back countries is a state
Speaker 1: of mind as much as it is a place. And
Speaker 1: we like to consider both and we give equal weight
Speaker 1: and importance to both because part of why we care
Speaker 1: about these places is because they're wild, and because they
Speaker 1: give us time to reflect and recharge your batteries and
Speaker 1: get our boots dirty and get our souls clean, and
Speaker 1: and I think that that's ultimately, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, what helps bring people together. If we can
Speaker 1: focus on those elements and do things that extend those
Speaker 1: opportunities no matter where you live, helps bring us together
Speaker 1: in a way that is very compelling and our most basic,
Speaker 1: you know, fundamental level of human nature. Like you know,
Speaker 1: having those connects is I think is really important and
Speaker 1: helps bind us together. Yeah. Well, I appreciate you being
Speaker 1: on the front lines of of all that. And it's
Speaker 1: your daily life. It's what you do, it's what you
Speaker 1: live and breathe, and I appreciate all you do. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I do we do what we can. But um, like
Speaker 1: you said, I I think about my young son and
Speaker 1: and for all all. Honestly, I'm on the h A
Speaker 1: National board and when Lantani was talking to me about
Speaker 1: coming on, and he said, why would you want to
Speaker 1: do that? You have all this other stuff going on.
Speaker 1: Why is it important you to be a part of
Speaker 1: an organization like this in this way? And my only
Speaker 1: response was, I have a son and I don't and
Speaker 1: I want him to have the opportunities I've had, and
Speaker 1: I wanted to know about the things that I've known about,
Speaker 1: and I want him to understand what why that's important
Speaker 1: not only for him and I to enjoy, but for
Speaker 1: the generations that come after us. And that's that's why
Speaker 1: I believe in it, and that's why why all of
Speaker 1: us are doing what we're doing. So I mean, it sounds,
Speaker 1: you know, it sounds preachy to say something like that.
Speaker 1: I don't normally try not to get it. I have
Speaker 1: a daughter two and I think, uh, a lot of
Speaker 1: people think that way, Like when you become a parent,
Speaker 1: things change in your life. And I've always been dedicated
Speaker 1: to conservation and and this type of work even before
Speaker 1: my daughter was born. But when she was born, things change.
Speaker 1: You become a parent, You become responsible for another life.
Speaker 1: And part of your job as a parent is to
Speaker 1: make sure your your child has a good life. And
Speaker 1: and for me, providing a good life means being able
Speaker 1: to take her hunting and fishing in the same places
Speaker 1: that my dad took me hunting and fishing in, to
Speaker 1: pass on those family traditions and those experiences, and uh,
Speaker 1: and so it makes it deeply personal and very emotional.
Speaker 1: And uh, I think I think that's why it's special
Speaker 1: and why we care so much, and as part of
Speaker 1: why I think people get fired up too, and sometimes
Speaker 1: that escalates in a in a media space and and
Speaker 1: in the halls of Capitol Hill, and ultimately, at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, like if you distill things down
Speaker 1: and understand why people are being passionate about the things
Speaker 1: they're passionate about up, you can never go wrong if
Speaker 1: you go down that path. And I think people respect
Speaker 1: you when you you know, at least attempt to do
Speaker 1: that and understand what the better side is motivated by,
Speaker 1: for sure. And that's what I have always said. There
Speaker 1: has to be a moment in your life where you
Speaker 1: just decide when you come to this either it's an
Speaker 1: epiphany or it's just a lifelong slog where you're like,
Speaker 1: this is what I'm passionate about. And I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: people listening to this who already have the passion we have,
Speaker 1: and there's probably some people listening that haven't quite discovered
Speaker 1: that passion yet. And what I would tell people, as man,
Speaker 1: if you already have the passion for public LANs, for hunting,
Speaker 1: for fishing, whatever it is, keeps stoking that thing and
Speaker 1: keep beating the doors down if if something's in your way,
Speaker 1: if you haven't found it yet, go like, give this
Speaker 1: a shot. Because I think hunting is pretty kick ass.
Speaker 1: I think fishing is pretty kick ass, and if you're
Speaker 1: not doing it, then just give it a shot. Um.
Speaker 1: And I think b h A has been a great
Speaker 1: vehicle for a lot of people to get it done. So, UM,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty good first podcast. You did. Fine, Thanks man.
Speaker 1: We've got housekeeping coming. Welcome to the already housekeeping housekeeping
Speaker 1: came in. Hey housekeeping, UM set him up on the
Speaker 1: mic residents in thanks appreciate it, good time. Um, Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: I really just appreciate everything that you do and coming
Speaker 1: on and talking to me and un yeah you too.
Speaker 1: It was great. Awesome brother, let's do it again. We
Speaker 1: will cheers. So yeah, back to simpler times, Simple times lagger.
Speaker 1: That's it the episode number eleven in the books. Really
Speaker 1: appreciate John for sitting down and talking about public lands
Speaker 1: and talking about some of the more in depth policies,
Speaker 1: but also more some of the more broad strokes that
Speaker 1: have to do with public lands, because I think it's
Speaker 1: important to both understand even the most simple ideas about
Speaker 1: public land, but also uh be pushed to get a
Speaker 1: little more in depth. And John certainly lives the life
Speaker 1: public land policy and conservation policy in this country, so
Speaker 1: he was a great resource for this conversation. I want
Speaker 1: to thank everybody who came out into back Country hundred
Speaker 1: and Anglers, Rendezvous and Idaho this past weekend. I was
Speaker 1: there a couple of days. I didn't get to really
Speaker 1: see as many people as I wanted to. I had
Speaker 1: to roll out for my little niece's first birthday, which
Speaker 1: was an awesome event in our lives. I wish I
Speaker 1: could have stayed for the Friday and Saturday events. I
Speaker 1: had to jump out a little early, but I followed
Speaker 1: along and everybody's social media looked like everything from the
Speaker 1: brew fest to the storytelling event, everything that was there,
Speaker 1: it was a good time. There's a lot of great
Speaker 1: energy in the room. And another thing I wanted the
Speaker 1: sushion one is Yvonne Channard as the founder of of Patagonia.
Speaker 1: He's a seminal voice in the outdoor wreck industry and
Speaker 1: somebody who now we can count as a part of
Speaker 1: our public men's team. The man showed up to a
Speaker 1: hunting and fishing gathering and spoke highly of not only
Speaker 1: the people in the room, but the purpose for why
Speaker 1: they assembled, and that is I can't tell you how
Speaker 1: much that means to me, how much that means to
Speaker 1: b H and I think how much that means to
Speaker 1: everybody in that room in Idaho. So I'm sure Yvonne
Speaker 1: will never listen to this, but I would thank him
Speaker 1: for coming and being a part of arnimal community and
Speaker 1: speaking highly of the hunters in the room, which I
Speaker 1: think for anybody who knows patagon and knows their history
Speaker 1: is a big damn deed. So we appreciate having yvon
Speaker 1: and Patagon in the house for that event. So that's
Speaker 1: all I gotta say about that. Hopefully we'll be talking
Speaker 1: to some more folks from h and keep chronicling this
Speaker 1: organization because I am a part of it, but it
Speaker 1: is also just a badass place to be a lot
Speaker 1: of energy, and I'm biased, but I think if you
Speaker 1: had to next year's rounding vou you'll find out why
Speaker 1: I'm biased. So the Honey Collective dot Com is there
Speaker 1: for you to check out if you want to listen
Speaker 1: to all the other podcasts we've done, Steve Rinella, Remy Run,
Speaker 1: John Dudley, Johnny Gale that you just heard from a
Speaker 1: bunch of them. I can't think of them all now,
Speaker 1: but they're all there, so you just go check it out.
Speaker 1: Click on podcasts, clip on articles, clip on videos, click
Speaker 1: on or whatever, and it's all there. We're on iTunes, Stitcher,
Speaker 1: We're now on Google Play and morticome. Hopefully we'll add
Speaker 1: YouTube to that list, knocking those down and get more
Speaker 1: outlets for you to listen to The Honey Club. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's all, Episode number eleven, Bye Bye,