00:00:10 Speaker 1: From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This is Cow's Week in Review with Ryan cow Calai. Here's cal. A nineteen year old duck hunter in Wisconsin, says he and his hunting buddies were surrounded by wolves last weekend, as he was forced to kill one with his twelve gage shotgun. Chase Meltin told local outlet wjf W that he and his friends had set up their blind and decoys at a spot near Saint Germain and we're waiting for the ducks to arrive. But as daylight started to break, one of Melton's hunting partners saw what he thought was a deer. When Meltain looked closer, he realized the silhouetted animal was actually a wolf. Melton and his friends tried to make noise to scare the canines away, but they didn't budge. One got within five yards of the trio, and another nearby hunter told local media that he saw fire five wolves around the blind and four more in the area. Melton kept as cool until one of the wolves came towards them and didn't stop. The young hunter says he didn't want to shoot the wolf, but he felt like he and his friends were in danger, so he took his shotgun loaded with waterfowl shot I'm assuming steal number twos eh maybe and hit the wolf in the face at close range. The Wisconsin dn R confirmed in an email with meat Eater that Meltain killed the wolf and called game wardens right away. Biologists arrived on the scene later that morning, and they say the investigation is ongoing. Since wolves are still listed as federally endangered in Wisconsin, that investigation will involve the US Fish and Wildlife Service and will let you know if we hear any updates. Meanwhile, the incident has sparked quite a debate among outdoor folks in Wisconsin, some of which you can see for yourself in the comments section of this article over at the meat eater dot com. Wisconsin deer hunters aren't happy with how wolves are being managed in their state, and many blame wolves for load deer numbers up nor What's more, twenty hunting dogs have been killed by wolves so far this year, and another seven have been injured. The DNR estimates that there are nearly one thousand wolves in Wisconsin, the majority of which are located in the northern third of the state. The agency says they don't have any records of a wolf killing or injuring a person, though they frequently kill livestock and pets. This week we've got noises, elections, inde or near death experience, and so much more. But first I'm going to tell you about my week, and my week well, it's interesting as always. Last night I attended a political event highlighting the value of Montana's stream access law. A panel of speakers with various ties and viewpoints to stream access spoke, and then in an ideal world, we'd have had all candidates running for office show up and reassure us that Montana's stream access law is something that is so valuable to voters in my mind, and tourists who spend money with Montana businesses that fear not stream access is not a bargaining chip. But instead of that happening, only the Democratic Canada's showed up, which is great that they took advantage of this opportunity because it is such kind of like a ride or die Montana issue, But it greatly frustrates me that we didn't get everybody there. Now to give you some inside Montana perspective on the politics in the state. By and large, our Democrats are fairly conservative, and although the Republican Party platform clearly states that the Montana Republican Party supports relinquishing federally managed public lands to the states in order to secure statehood equality and provide for better management of public lands, we support the granting of federally managed public lands to the state and development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer. Any lands transferred from the federal government to the state shall be administered for the purpose in which they are conveyed, while maintaining public access and usage. We support the release of expired wilderness study areas. We support maintaining and increasing access within federal lands in Montana. Even though that's the Republican Party platform, most Montana Republicans know that the overwhelming majority of Montanas do not support land transfer and hold our federally managed public lands as one of our greatest assets. In fact, increasingly so, as everything else in the state has gotten so damned expensive that us normal Montana kids are basically only going to have federally managed public lands. It's a don't mess with this type of issue in the state, and I gotta say, unfortunately, you don't see a lot of Republicans trying to increase access to federal lands through corner crossing, which would be like the easiest of the low hanging fruit if they were serious about that part of the Republican platform too. Now that being said, the vast majority of Republicans in the state, even though that's part of the Republican platform, they do not push that issue because it's just a non starter with again, the overwhelming majority of voters in this state. Right How they justify living under that platform, I don't know. Is it kind of like having a dearly loved, well intentioned, charitable, yet kind of racist old person in your family where you occasionally have to say, hey, ignore them. They're truly quite nice, they love everybody. They just come from an age where they can't not use certain racist colloquialisms. I don't know. I do know that there's an example out there. Our incumbent United States Representative Ryan Zinki did break quite famously with the Republican Party over the inclusion of that land transfer language in the Republican Party platform, which is a very classy thing to do. So that example does exist. Out there. But to go back to last night, I was impressed with all the speakers. They did a great job. In particular, there's a gentleman there who did take the time to remind everybody that even if you weren't going to vote for somebody who was there last night, it's your job to hold your elected officials accountable, whether they're a Democrat or Republican, an independent or whatever. Our job is to hold those people accountable, to get them to vote correctly, to act correctly in our best interests. And that's whether you vote for them or not after election day, right, So that is something worth bringing up. I'm going to keep bringing it up. Our job never ends gang whether you vote for him or not. The onus is on us to call rite in and say, hey, this is what's important. You better act accordingly. Moving on to the noise complaint desk. If you've ever felt like our modern world is just too noisy, you're not alone. Killer whales are with you. A new study published in the scientific journal Global Change Biology has found that vessel noise can significantly hamper a killer whale's ability to find and capture food. Orcas, which is the more friendly name for killer whales use echolocation to see their prey. This is the same biological technology that bats used to fly in the dark. They emit high frequency clicks, and that sound bounces off objects and tells the whales where they are located. Scientists wanted to know whether the rumble and churn from ocean going vessels might disrupt this ability. Not surprisingly, it does. They attached sensors to the whales that recorded their movements as well as the sounds the whales made and heard. For every one decibel increase in maximum noise level, there is a four percent increase in the odds of searching for prey by both sexes, a fifty eight percent decrease in the odds of pursuit by females, in a twelve and a half percent decrease in the odds of prey capture by both sexes. In other words, the noisier the ocean got, the more difficult it was for the whales to capture prey. Females with calves tended to delay hunting until the ocean quieted down, while males tried to push through the noise but weren't as successful. This is obviously a bigger problem in areas with high boat traffic, but whales often hunt near the coast where these boats also travel. Whether any regulatory changes occur as the result of this study is unlikely, but it offers another important data point as we work to live alongside the animals that make the natural world so darn cool. Moving on to the solar desk. A few months ago, I told you about a new proposal by the Bureau of Land Management to open up more acreage to solar farms and streamline the approval process. Many of you express concern about this proposal because solar panels aren't great wildlife habitat. You wondered about the location of these farms and whether they would interfere with wild species or migration routes. We can speculate about this all day, but the only way we're going to know or have a chance to impact the situation is by keeping an eye on the BLM. The good news is that as a federal agency, they have to give the public notice about much of what they do. Last week, that's exactly what the BLM did. They submitted for public comment a rule that would set aside just over eleven five hundred acres in Lapause County in western Arizona for three solar farm projects. The Scoro Solar Project would take up about four thousand acres, the Parker Solar Project would take up about two thousand acres, and the Eagle Eyed Solar Project would take up about fifty six hundred acres. Under this rule, these acres will be segregated from the operation of public land laws. This basically means the BLM won't be approving any new uses for the next two years while they study whether or not these areas would make good solar farms. Whether or not hunt and anglers should support or repose these solar farms is best determined by the people who live there. Looking at satellite images of these areas, they appear to be a desert environment located near Interstate ten. They aren't the kind of lush habitat hunters and anglers worry will be covered with solar panels. But then again, I don't live there. Local residents probably know something I don't. This county is home to part of the Kafa and Sebela National Wildlife Refuges. Maybe these solar farms will harm the wildlife in these areas. Maybe not. But if you live in Lapause County. You'll want to weigh in. We'll post a link over at the meat eater dot com forward slash col where you can comment. Moving on to the pandemic desk. Whitetail seasons are ramping up in states across the country, but Indiana is seeing an unusually high number of dead deer, and not from arrows or bullets. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources reports that a quote significant EHD event is affecting Allen, Porter, and Wabash Counties. EHD stands for epizootic camorrhagic disease, as a viral disease that mainly affects whitetail. Is most often found in Midwestern states and is spread by a biting insect called imidge. Now this gets conflated with blue tongue all the time. EHD and blue tongue are slightly different. Real close cases pop up in Indiana every year, but some outbreaks are more severe than others. As of the middle of last month, the DNR had received one hundred and three reports of dead or sick deer in Allen County, two hundred and seventy nine reports in Porter County, and one hundred and twenty two reports in Wabash County. The problem has gotten so bad that the DNR has decided to lower the bonus antlerless deer quotas from two to one in the affected counties to offset the losses from EHD. In Porter County, the Northwest Indiana Paddling Association actually called off a canoe trip on the east branch of the Little Calumet River because event organizers had found dozens of deer carcasses along the river. Deer that can train EHD often have a fever, so they seek water to drink and try to cool off. They're often found floating in rivers and lakes, and hunters that kill deer with EHD often do so near water. Biologists with the DNR are quick to point out that even though this year's outbreak in these counties is bad, it's not as bad as a twenty twenty two outbreak in Franklin County. That year, the agency received three hundred and forty five reports of sick or dead deer in a county with only twenty three thousand residents. After the deer season was over, the DNR estimated a seventy percent reduction in the country's deer population, with EHD responsible for about sixty percent of the reduction. The good news is that deer populations can bounce back from these outbreaks, especially with some timely management decisions. Hunters also don't have to worry about contracting EHD from an infected deer, so the meat is still edible. Reports of infections usually die down as the weather gets colder, in the insects that spread the virus die big. Thanks to listener Harry Wainwright for sending us that story. Moving on to the bear attack Desk, a third archery hunter this big game season has been attacked by a grizzly bear, this time in Wyoming. The Cowboys State Daily reports that Land and Clement and some friends were hunting elk in a remote area of the Upper Green River basin last week. Clement had set up near a large boulder where he believed the elk might walk by within bow range. He'd only been sitting there a few minutes when he heard and saw three bears coming down the hill from above him. They hadn't smelled or seen him, and so the thirty one year old hoped the sow and two cubs would keep walking past. They almost did. The bears were only about ten yards away and still hadn't seen him. Clement had his ten millimeter glock pistol unholstered and pointed towards the bears, but he didn't fire because he wasn't sure if the bears would attack. Unfortunately, even having the weapon trained at the bear before it charged wasn't enough to stop it. The sow charged Clement and sank her teeth into his left thigh. He managed to get off a few rounds as the bear charged, but as gripped his leg and began to shake him like a rag doll, he realized his pistol wasn't firing. It had jammed, and the bear was still alive. Incredibly, Clement told the Cowboys State Daily that he managed to clear the jam even with the six hundred pound animal on top of him. Once I cleared the jam, I put the gun as close to its head as I could and shot a couple more times. He said, it let go and rolled off me. I knew that I had killed that bear. With the bear dead and the adrenaline still pumping, Clement staggered down the mountain, calling for help. His hunting buddies weren't far away, and before long one of them found him leaning against a tree. They helped him walk for more than a mile before they reached a place where he could get into a side by side. He was treated at the Pinedale Clinic and is expected to make a full recovery. Clement, who is from North Georgia but travels to Wyoming frequently to hunt, hasn't had great luck with gris. In a close encounter during another hunt, he says a griz came within fifteen yards of him and looked him right in the eyes. It either wasn't scared enough to attack or had better things to do, because it ran away. In a different incident, Clement and his father were charged by grizzly as they were walking out from a hunt and knocked Clement to the ground, but kept running and didn't come back. To have three close encounters with adult grizzlies might sound unlucky, but there's a glass half full way to look at this. Clement is still alive after all three incidents, and he has even more reasons to believe he has some kind of divine protection. As he was stumbling down the mountain after his latest attack, He looked down at his handgun and realized it had jammed again, which means he got a couple lucky rounds out in between his jams. He might want to invest in a different handgun moving forward, but he can see why he thinks that luck is on his side. All three bear attacks on archery hunters this year have followed a similar storyline. In Idaho, a hunter was bitten by a grizz but only sustained non life threatening injuries after he and his hunting partner killed it with their handguns. Same story in Montana, where two hunters shot and killed a sow and injured a cub with pistol rounds after the adult female charged him. Hard to say, gang, whether or not bear spray would have been a better choice, or standing up and making sure that those bears knew you were there as soon as you saw him hindsight, which is always twenty twenty. Moving on to an extended edition of the mail Bag Desk. Lots of good emails from listeners this week, and I wanted to highlight a couple first. Scott Baker wrote in with some thoughts on the new Michigan deer hunting rules. We covered last week for those who didn't listen, the Natural Resources Commission for the Minton State decided to prohibit hunters in the youth and disabled hunting seasons from taking antler deer, but Scott doesn't by their reasoning. He points out that in twenty twenty three, only five one hundred and thirty three bucks were taken during the Youth, Liberty and Independence hunts, which represents just three point three percent of the total bucks harvested across Michigan. The idea that making this change would increase the dough harvest, which is what the commission hoped to do, seems a little less reasonable in the light of these numbers. The rule might not impact the deer herd, but Syott believes it will impact the people these hunts were designed to help. He writes, quote for Liberty and Independence hunters, many are veterans dealing with post war physical or mental injuries, and the ability to harvest a buck can be a deeply meaningful experience. For young, mentored hunters, being able to shoot a buck can create lifelong memories and inspire a passion for the outdoors and wildlife conservation. As a father of three, this was a big blow to the younger hunters in our family, none of which have begged a trophy buck during the youth season. Big thanks to Scott for taking the time to write in and share his thoughts. If you live in Michigan and have a different take, feel free to write in askcall at the meeater dot com. Listener Justin Young wrote in with some concerning news out of Illinois. A real estate developer in the town of Alton is pushing to transform the town's Mississippi riverfront into a tourist destination, complete with kayak rentals, bike paths, restaurants, and of course, pickleball courts. That probably doesn't sound too bad for residents of the Saint Louis suburb, but the developer isn't stopping there. Leaders of the outfit known as Alton Works are pushing the federal government to create the Great Rivers National Park along the waterway. They say creating a national park along the same riverfront they want to develop would drive even more investment and growth and turn Alton, Illinois into a real tourist destination. Problem is, according to Justin, the plan right now would see this national park absorb one hundred and thirty five thousand acres and one hundred and forty four miles of shoreline along the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers. He says, quote almost every community along the river has spoken out against this proposal for the national park. The major issue is the loss of hunting and fishing rights on the rivers and the already established public land under state control. Justin acknowledges that some national parks allow hunting and fishing, though most do not, and he's not opposed to a national park in general, but he doesn't like the idea of a big developer coming in and dictating how these acres should be used. Quote. The surrounding communities are fearful that our voices will not be heard in this matter. We do not want this company to come in and raise land prices, take our hunting rights, and change our way of life. It's worth noting that, according to on X, seventy five of the total four hundred and nineteen units managed by the National Park Service allows some form of recreational subsistence or tribal hunting. In terms of size, However, those seventy five units make up sixty percent of the National Park system. It's unclear right now what the regulations would look like in this new national park, especially since some of the acres are controlled by the state. I don't know the ins and outs of public land hunting in this area, so I'm going to reserve judgment until i learn more. But I will say on its face that using a federal land designation to make your real estate project more profitable does sound like a money maker for you. The Alton Works founders, a couple named Jane and John Simmons, have on their website a photo of themselves with Illinois Governor JB. Pritzker, who attended their company's ribbon cutting ceremony. If the governor attends your ribbon cutting ceremony, you have some serious political influence. We'll see if these developers can turn that political influence into a national park. But if you like to hunt and fish in the Saint Louis area, this is one you'll want to pay attention to. Big thanks to Justin for sending this one in. A few weeks ago, I asked my Minnesota listeners to let me know if they go Upland bird hunting and participate in the state's bird hunting Diary initiative. This initiative is asking upland hunters to keep detailed logs of their observations so the state can have more robust information on the bird populations. I'm happy to say that listener Mike Eaton answered the call. He went hunting in northern Minnesota with a fellow firefighter and new hunter named Bradford. Mike said the theme of the weekend was quote fair opportunity and minimal success. That describes a lot of upland grouse hunting in my experience, but the pair was still able to bag a few rough grouse. Mike also sent me a copy of the diary he filled out for the Minnesota DNR. He recorded where he was, whether the land was public or private, his target species, how long he hunted, how many times he flushed a bird, how old the birds were, and a few other data points. It doesn't look like it took too much time, and when the DNR collects all that info from hunters across the state, they'll have a much deeper understanding of how upland species are doing. Big Atta Boy goes out to Mike and Bradford and any other Minnesota hunters who took time to give back and make sure the DNR has what they need to make good management decisions. Because you participated in citizen science, you're going out there anyway and you're helping the resource. It's amazing. Join these folks who are in the lead right now for a new final rise upland bird vest and remember, I'm gonna throw in some awesome FHF cal Amo pouches too. Lastly, to circle back with a Paul politics related email, and this one is about the Montana Stream Access rally. I enjoyed the event, but it has me once again grappling with the intersection of partisan politics and conservation. Our elected officials obviously have a huge impact on conservation, land access, and many other issues important to outdoorsmen and women. Politics and these issues are not mutually exclusive. However, in today's heated political climate, it feels harder and harder to engage friends and family in conversations around issues impacting hunters and anglers. People often share a common stance on the issues, but as soon as political candidates get involved, they shut down. What advice do you have for navigating conversations around conservation with other passionate outdoor recreationists in a way that is productive but doesn't enable politics to be an elephant in the room. It's a great question, you know, off and we say policy not politics. And the way we lose right is by saying, oh, you voted for that person by default or de facto you agree with their policy because you've voted for them. That's definitely not how it works. We can vote for different people. Unfortunately, in my opinion my view here, like party line voting is crazy and ineffective in a lot of ways, but policies do matter, and where you can meet in the middle, even if you're diametrically opposed with who to vote for. Right is agreement on policy like what should happen, And when we're talking about outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, we agree on so much more than we disagree on. And when you part ways with whoever you're speaking with, the agreement that you need to have Right is like we're going to both lobby on behalf of this policy. I or you may come at it from a hey, I didn't vote for you, but like it or not, you represent me. This is an area that I need you to step up on, or you're saying, hey, I did vote for you. I am in support of you on these other issues. But right here you are crossing the line. You're not getting it. Do not do this, and that's just kind of like the simple fact of how this stuff works. And you got to be consistent, and you got to participate. You don't weigh in, you can't wrestle. That's all I got for you this week. Thank you so much for listening. Remember to write in to ask c. A L. That's ask Cal at the Meat Eater dot com and let me know what's going on in your neck of the woods. Thanks again, talk to you next week.

Save this episode