00:00:01 Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, welcome the episode number eleven of The Hunting Collective. I'm Ben O'Brien. We're joined this week by John Gale. And John Gale is the conservation director for a group called back Country Hunters and Anglers. And John is a fifth generation Idaho and somebody who just grew up hunting and fishing in the back country, and he's also engaged in politics. I think among all the topics that we want to touch on the Hunting Collective, politics is not one of them, but the politics of hunting, the politics of public lands is one of them, and maybe it's the most important thing we could talk about. And what makes John so qualified to talk about public lands is that he's the conservation director for b h A. And he's somebody who spent has spent his entire life working on and pushing for conservation. He spent nine years of the Wild National Wildlife Federation and was one of the early members of b h A, a group that's if you're not familiar with them, get familiar. We talked about a lot of things we were in Idaho and his home state, to cover everything public lands, because I think not only should you know what public lands are and how to use them. You should know where they came from, who manages them, and why it's important to keep them around, and also how we can keep them around. So I think this conversation, although many of you may have no idea who John is, is as important as any of the other ten we've had on this podcast. So please enjoy John Gayale from b h A Episode number eleven. John Gale, how's it going good? How you doing? Man? We're just drinking beer, that's right, And it's like nude one o'clock do some day drinking? And what is it a Wednesday? Thursday's wednes Thursday is Thursday Thursday? S I'm way off right on your first beer? Yeah, and I don't even know. Well, we're in Idaho and we're here for the BHA Rendezvous. For folks that don't know what b h A is, you can tell them what b h A is because absolutely thanks first for invite me on the podcast. Here, Ben, it's my first podcast, so you get to witness the stumbling, bumbling, droning first time or here. That's why we have That's why the beer is here. Like if we need to break and have three or four more beers and loosen things up. We can always do that if I get a little tight. It sounds like a plan. So um, back Country Hunters and Anglers was found around a campfire and Oregon back in two thousand four. Really, uh, I think all things that are good come from conversations with whiskey and beer around a campfire late at night. And and this maybe uh a little bias of me to say, but I think this is one of the best camp fire conversations that actually came into fruition. It wasn't just whiskey talking. It turned into something real and turned into back Country Hunters and Anglers, the fastest growing sportsman's organization in North America. And we pride ourselves on being the sportsman's voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife. And those those souls around the camp fire back in two thousand four really had a vision for bringing hunters and anglers that care about all things wild together too conserve the back country, to create an organization that was not just dedicated to a single species, but dedicated to all species, and dedicated to all forms of hunting and fishing and um and not just specific ways of hunting or fishing or specif of a species that people like to hunt and fish for, but taking a look at what they cared about most, which was wilderness, back country, the pristine areas. Anyone that hunts the back country knows that the best populations of fish and wildlife are in the wildest places with the least amount of development, the least amount of disturbance, where you have intact migratory corridors, not just terrestrial corridors were big game migrate from winter range to summer range, but intact aquatic corridors too, so so Anadramus species can swim from the ocean and UH comingto tributaries and creeks to spawn every year. And UH, salm and steelhead are incredibly important to the Northwest. And I think that that vision around the Oregon camp fire, you know, fed into what we've become now, which is a robust organization that just clipped twenty dues paying members. We have over two hundred fifty thousand members and supporters that are with us online, social media and giving us money every year. And UH we had our our board meetings started today with our national Board of Directors and UH and Ben, I think you know that adding the chapters that we did today, you know, bumped us up to the representation of thirty nine states in the United States plus two Canadian provinces Alberta and British Columbia's. And I wasn't around the camp fire myself back in two thousand four, but I smelled the smoke and I came running as fast as I possibly could. And UH I joined the Colorado Chapter leadership shortly after they were formed. And then I was asked to join the National Board of Directors and I served there for about five years, and UH helped lead the search committee for the hiring of Lantani, who's the President CEO now. And for me, it's um it's really amazing to look back and reflect on where we were. Even when I came into the organization where we didn't have any professionals half UH, we were scrambling together the foundation and the structure of what a real organization could be, you know, developing by laws and starting to raise money to hire staff. And and when we hired Land Taani really catapulted the organization forward with UH someone at the helm leading the charge. And and if if you if you know Land and many of the listeners of your podcast probably do. He's uh, he's really outspoken. Uh, he's got a fire in his belly, and he really just inspires and motivate. It's not just the staff and the people around him on a day to day basis. And if you see him out on the stump at ah one of our pint nights or something like that, you can feel the emotion and fire and spirit. And I think he is sort of feeding on what all of our members and supporters feel about b h A. And he is the uh, the personification of the movement that b h A has become. And I think all of our people have that same fire and passion. And I think it's because b h A is not afraid to say the right thing, even when it's the unpopular thing to say. We tackle tough conservation issues and we wait into them with a pragmatic approach that uses science and reason rather than emotion and conjecture, and and we uh, we don't second guess any decision that is for the benefit of fishing wildlife and hunting and fishing opportunities in the future of our traditions and an outdoor heritage. And I think walking the line with that type of integrity helps us make sure that we're always on the right side and we're always making the right decisions. Yeah, I mean, you know we in the conservation community. I mean there's as you said, there's groups that are focused on just hel or just turkeys, or any number of issues. Because you're well aware that there's a myriad of issues in this conservation lexicon that we could talk about. Right, we can focus on we can focus on legislation or you know, really uber specific politics, or we can talk about habitat, or we can talk about but the but the one shining star and all that is public lands because it's it's an enduring ideal more than it is just that a tangible thing you can go walk on and hunt on and fish on. I think that's to me, that's why b h A has become what it's become. And for people that don't you know, inside the the lex kind of of conservation, I think b h A has become this youthful, energetic, purposeful energy organization that's that's done and its membership one, but also just in its you know, public relations and it's forward facing voice, it's become something different and that's why it's interesting not to say that Ducks Unlimited or n W T F or R M E F are old and the way they do things, but they're older and they have established ways of being and ways of talking and ways of doing that. B h A was able to break the mold on what do you attribute that breaking the mold to land in some way or just the idea of what public lands are well, I think, uh, one, we we've learned a lot from our partners. You named several of them, and we worked really closely with them, and they're uh, they're sort of legacy leaders in the conservation space, and so many of us that helped grow and and start b h A. We're actually working for many of those partner organizations at the time, and and we loved who we were working for and why we were there, but we also saw the opportunity to grow something new, something different, something that was um an experiment in some ways, like could we try something new and something different? And I feel like the sportsman's community needed something different too, right Like we're working closely with state agencies all over the country, and probably the single most greatest priority for state agencies is recruitment of new hunters and anglers, people that are buying hunting and fishing licenses by in gear and equipment that UH support excise tax dollars, that are supporting state agency management budgets for fishing and wildlife management. These are really important revenue streams that UH a lot of us are concerned about. And so we have that important recruitment UH component. We also need to be retaining existing hunters and anglers and re engaging ones that may have hunted and fished in the past but for whatever reason stopped and and so I think part of what we're trying to do is create enthusiasm around hunting and fishing again, like like, let's make it fun, Let's make it exciting, let's make it accessible. And so we're taking a little bit different approach one UH. Certainly Land Spirit and and the organization's ability to to reach out to young people is is I think mostly attributed to our approach in meeting people where they're at. If you want to reach young people and you want to bring in um diversity of of audiences and can stuents into your organization, you've got to find out what they respond to, what do they care about, where did they like to get their information and what do they like to do in their free time? If you can make people fired up to come to your organization because they would have done something similar in their free time anyways, and you can make that about hunting and fishing and fishing wildlife conservation, and that makes sense. You know, we're doing things like hosting pint nights where we're coming together and uh and having some beers. We're having good times. We're talking about important issues. But I think that uh some groups have uh moved beyond that important social connection with some of their members and supporters. And for us, we're putting that forward as the means to uh engage and educate and bring people into the tent and be a part of who we are and get them excited about what we stand for. And then by talking about issues that they care about, then we're resonating their interest areas and we're you know, I have a kind of values based proposition that says, hey, let's go out and have a great time together. Let's go hunting and fishing together, and let's talk about ways to make sure that hunting and fishing stays great for the generations that follow us and and tying that all together in a way that uh makes sense to you know that quick you know, vastly growing demographic is is I think the most important and the other piece I'll add to this, other than the social aspect of just you know, going out having beers and having fun. I think people are excited that b H as an organization that's able to move quickly and be nimble and decisive. And uh we also do a great job of empowering our volunteer leaders are chapter leaders v h as. Chapters are the the core and the lifeblood of who we are. We have a boots on the ground mantra. We work where we have people, and we let people lead. We give them jobs to do. I think people are frustrated by some organizations that uh, um, you know, don't have a job for them to do. Like they want to go be a part of something and be active with something. And certainly we have some people that that like sitting on a board and they like having the board title and and that's great. You know, we need people of all stripes. We need people to give us UH philanthropic capacity in addition to UH sweat capacity and working with us on the ground and helping us engage in meaningful conservation issues. But I think the fact that we UH do give people jobs and we have this really you know, fantastic model that's starting to grow with many of our chapters of you know, setting up habitat watchmen. Where do you let someone be the guardian of the habitat that they care the most about, you know, whether that's where they live or where they hunt and fish. You know, they get on the schedules of proposed action for the National Forest Service, they go to the BLM meetings, they go to their regional state Fish and Wildlife Management Agency meetings, and there are sort of the eyes and ears for their part of the state. And then they work together with other habitat watchman at the state level and they have val wait what they think are the most important priorities for them to focus on that at the state level. And that makes b h A unique in that we're able to show up to Washington, d C. And engage actively in federal and congressional issues while bringing that boots on the ground perspective. We're we're really emerging those two together and operating as as one. B h A from the ground all the way up, and I think that people appreciate that type of model two and that's another reason why we're attracting so much interest. Yeah, and I think that's a lot of That's why I wanted to have yawn. And even when I originally thought about this, I thought, one, I want people to know what b h A really is or you know, how b j A speaks, how it looks in general, and away from just social media channels and emails and websites and policies and things of that nature. I mean, I think the personalities of these organizations are as important as the actions of the organization. So that's one reason I want to have you on. But the other one is I think when certain public land and access issues and conservation issues them up, b h is seen as a leader, a voice, someone who can set the precedent for which direction we should go right. So, for example, National Monuments has been a big one. People are looking to b h A, looking at yourself and looking to land and looking to Ryan Busty, the chairman of the board, to help mold the conversation. You know, guys like Steve Ronella and Remy Warren. These guys are helping fuel the conversation. But I think I even personally look to b h A to to help me understand what it should be important to me and within the prism of of public lands, what I know I already care about. You know, I have the tenants. I'm looking for BHA to kind of guide those tenants and educate me on on that. And I think that's what you can provide to anybody listeners to this. So I want to go through a pretty not exhaustive but just kind of roll through. If you care about public lands, here's what you kind of need to know about the future, what's happening currently, and then what will happen in in the future. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Um and if you know, if you want me to, I'm happy to touch on some some pieces of legislation that I think that hunters and English should be paying attention to and and aware of and uh in ways to engage it. And first I'll say that, you know, while I hope that people continue to join b h A and and even you know, listeners of this podcast, you know, look us up and check us out, I think the most important thing that any hunter and angler can do is find a group that speaks their language, whether it's my organization or one of our partner groups. I think it's important to find an organization that speaks your language and and become a member of that organization give them your money. There's tons of organizations doing great work in this space, and and if you care about trout fishing only, then you should definitely go join Trout Unlimited. But I hope you'll become a member of back Country Hunters and Anglers too, um and realize the value of being a part of an organization that also cares about trout and salmon species and cold water fisheries, but also so big game species and uh, fair chase and public access and opportunity and things like that. I think the reason why it's important for organizations like ours to be collaborative and work with other groups is because there are specialties out there, and sometimes you need specialized organizations that bring expertise into an area. And b h A prides itself on our expertise with regards to to public lands and waters and public access and opportunity and fair chase hunting principles. But you know, we definitely lean on some of our partner groups to help fill the gaps and provide you know, policy expertise where we need it. And and I think that's the beauty of a group like b h A. Like we can convene people and bring people together, but we also reach out to other organizations. So i'd first tell people to to find an organization that they like and and give them money, become a member, and become active in what they're doing. Um. You know. The second thing that I think is is really important is to whether you've never gauge in a civic way or not, whether that's at the local level with your state legislature or decisions happening in your in your county or your municipality. Even members of Congress still have to go home and face the people that vote them into office in the first place. They're still supposed to be representing who their home state folks have uh an interesting like what issues they have an interest in, It's their job to represent those interests. So I think people should remember that their job is to represent the interests of their state, and they can't know what the interests in their state are unless you tell them about it. And so part of what would b h A is doing is providing information to our members and supporters, trying to educate them on issues that we think are most important, so that they'll start making those phone calls, so they'll start taking actions, so they'll use their social media platforms to to post on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and whatever spaces they're into. I really advance, you know, conservation priorities that we think are important, and you know, just we're we're halfway through the year almost um here, coming into springtime, and two thousand and eighteen is an interesting year where we have a mid term election coming up in November, so members of Congress or battling to keep their seats. So we've got new people trying to come in and establish themselves in Congress. You've got a number of Senate seats they're open, and so I think there is a will on both sides of the aisle to start moving legislation that's meaningful. We just uh passed a federal omnibus package for two thousand eighteen funding fiscal year two thousand and eighteen funding and included great things for conservation. We had re authorization for the Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation Act, which is a modified land exchange program that that helps create new access and opportunity on on public land and UH management efficiencies for fish and wildlife management. And and we were able to UH work with congressional leaders to fix wildfire borrowing issues so that agency UH budgets going forward can put their money where it matters the most in in terms of active management on the ground and putting resources where they need it instead of having really expensive wildfire disasters come and raid those budgets so that they don't have them available to do those important things that help enhance away. Our public lands are managed, but there are things that are looming out in front of us still that haven't been done yet that I think are really important for us to focus on. We have the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If you don't know what that is, it's a program that takes offshore oil and gas development royalties. UH uses those revenues, which don't rely on taxpayer dollars at all, sets them aside into a fund that Congress is authorized to appropriate to UH special projects. These projects have touched every single state and every single county in the country. They've done fantastic things like acquisition for fishing access sites in Montana. If you're using a public access site in Montana to go fishing or put your boat in. It was probably paid for by the Land of Water Conservation Fund. It has paid for the acquisition of wetland habitats, creating public access for waterfowl hunters. It's done really great things with big game migratory migratory corridors. You mentioned the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation earlier. They really pioneered, UH the model for using LWCF dollars to expand elk habitat and and look at checkerboard ownership situations where you have opportunities to consolidate habitat into more connected migratory corridors. And so you know, Army f doing great work in that space. And states and local municipalities are using LWCF dollars for things like baseball fields and UH public recreation facilities, UH in rural places where funding is limited and the tax base isn't there to support that type of outdoor recreation. So llp CF is just a really cool program that is supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Yet the gridlock in Congress has prevented it from becoming permanently reauthorized. We were throwing a three year lifeline. Three years ago, we UH were up to expire again in UH the end of September. And so one of the biggest priorities for b h A and and many other organizations out there is to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to create a dedicated funding stream for it so that we don't have to worry about Congress appropriating funding to it. The funds will be there in a dedicated fund and available to UH put on the ground for really important projects. And and I think that people should be aware of fantastic conservation funding programs like that and get behind l WCF. And I think there's been great conversations happening with Democrats and Republicans. All I'll mention Senator Murkowski for Alaska and Senator Cantwell from Washington, who serve as a majority and minority leaders on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They developed a great LWCF compromise in the context of an energy bill in the last Congress that that moved through their committee and through the Senate unopposed. It was something widely supported, just couldn't get it over the finish line. But it's a model for how we can do a couple of important things. There's a massive maintenance backlog on Park Service lands, on BLM lands, on National forest lands, and on you know, refuge lands, all places that are important. We think that deferred maintenance is incredibly important to address, but we need to do so simultaneously with the re authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If we can permanently excuse me, permanently reauthorized LWCF and also addressed deferred maintenance issues and make sure that Congress is creating funding stream for that too, and work on them together, we're really solving a problem in a holistic, complementary way that uh it's thoughtful and addresses two k needs at the same time and avoids, you know, a situation that we're we're facing a little bit right now where you have some sides suggesting we should do deferred maintenance first and then focus on you know, land and water conservation. But I don't think it has to be in either or a conversation. It's not mutually exclusive. Let's do both at the same time. And uh and Murkowski and can't Well have have come together and created a really great bipartisan model for moving that idea forward, and so we're hoping to advance that this year uh in advance of the expiration looming and at the end of September there that's one of the big priorities for us well. And those midterm elections are going to be, Oh, I'm going to be they are always are huge for these types of these types of things. I want to go back all the way because I think if I'm a new member to b h A or a new hunter trying to think of what information I want to know write off the bat, I think the first thing is defining what our public lands are because it's a pretty as you well know, there's a lot types of public lands. There a lot of uses. There's a lot of complications as to what's what, who owns, who owns who, and who benefits from this and benefits from that. How we stand to lose this piece as opposed to this other piece. So if I was a brand new b h A member, I knew I wanted to hunt and fishing on public lands or recreate on public lands, and I needed to be able to explain to someone else who wanted to join behind me what public lands are in both in the collective sense, in the singular sense, how would you approach that. Yeah, that's a great question, and I think everyone loves the romantic notion of do it yourself, hunt or or fishing trip on public lands where you know it is your it is your land. Every everyone in America as a public landowner. And I think that's the first thing I would I would want to remind people about this legacy that visionary conservation leaders like Theodore Roosevelt helped us establish at the turn of the twentieth century. Really propelled forward a unique legacy that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. Every single citizen of the United States owns these lands equally, and whether you live in proximity to them or not, uh doesn't diminish your equal ownership. And it's a way that levels the playing field a little bit. You don't have to be wealthy to enjoy public lands. You don't have to belong to an exclusive club to be able to hunt or fish. It's it's every man's part of that, I would say, part of that in our European roots, as we settled this country, we were trying to escape that aristocracy, the and the and in the European tradition. Really even still in the European tradition, it's the aristocracy that goes hunting. It's the upper crust that owns the land and the animals, and it's and they don't. There is no trust it is. It is there. So I think that's as you say, it's huge part of what this country is founded on. And then beyond that, there's how many millions of acres across this country? That's a great question, um, and I should know the answer off the top of my head. But there's just over sixty million acres of public lands across the Country's answer, it's it's massive, and I don't have the exact number, but I should hunt that down. I should be able to rattle it up right like my job. I should here. I should know the exact number, and just saying it's about a website exactly, it should always be going up. Not that right right, Um? But I think you raise a good point, Um. Our public lands is unique model. But hunting and fishing on public lands also depends on managing fish and wildlife populations in the public trust. And the difference between our North American model of fish and wildlife management versus UH the aristocratic approach of Europe and other countries where it's the king's dominion. Public land and fish and wildlife populations in the United States truly our public and I think for any new member to b h A someone that wants to learn more. In addition to finding out what public lands mean and what they mean to you and your state, no matter where you live at, you should also learn more about the public trust doctrine and the North American model of fish and wildlife conservation. Those two things are critically important to the the The idea that every fish and wildlife species belongs equally to the people of this country is also a unique model that UH. I wouldn't use the word innovative, but I think it's the right way to approach it. Fishing wild the word successful. Absolutely. Fish and wildlife shouldn't belong to any one single person. They should be free roaming, they should be free arranging, and they should be managed for the benefit of the people of North America. Whether you live in Canada or the United States. Mexico is a little bit more of a complicated story, but in general, like the North American model is a modocle, is a model that is highly successful, and the ability to hunt and fish on public lands is is an access issue in many ways to not just the physical area to hunting fishing, but the opportunity to be able to hunt fish there. You need to have robust populations of fish and wildlife in order to have successful hunting and fishing opportunities. So so I think the two go hand in hand and UM and so I like to, you know, educate people about that piece to reminding them that it's important to interface with your state Fish and Wildlife management agency UH leaders as much as it is leaders of federal public lands management agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, like the Forest Service. And I think UH understanding the different types of public lands is a is a whole other. That was my next That was so, I I feel like you're we're going down the same track because I want, really want some of you to listen to this and kind of follow along. Sixty million acres of public land that's held in that's held in public trust, it's owned by the federal government or the state government at some level. I think the types of public land one form ownership. So just go through to your knowledge all the types of public land real briefly and kind of what they are and the tapestry of all the Yeah. So at the at the federal level, you have UH public lands management agencies essentially divided into two areas. You have UH the U S. Department of Agriculture, which houses the United States Forest Service, so that's one side, and then you have the Department of Interior, which houses the majority of our public lands management agencies. You have the Bureau of Land Management, you have US Fish and Wildlife Service, and you have the National Park Service. All those different UH land ownership designations come with a little bit different types of management UH paradigms. And if you look at something like the Park Service units, you can't hunt and fishing a lot of National Park Service units, right. You can't go into Yellowstone National Park and go on an elk hunt. Would be great because it would be pretty easy. Just go to the visitors center, right, put some corn in your hand. But you can go to Colorado and hunt in the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve for elk, which is managed by the Park Service. And so I think it's about understanding what land designations are to the American people too, and and where is a good place to go hunting and fishing in general, National Force Service lands administered under the depart A bit of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management lands Adminster under the Parma Interior or wide open for hunting and fishing and um. You know, outside of restrictions placed on method of take and seasons for hunting and fishing that are set by the states, you you essentially have unfittered access to those places. You know. Certainly there's travel management issues where you know roads are open to some motorized vehicles and and not, and you have places like roadless areas and wilderness designations where motorized vehicles aren't allowed. So I think if you're a new member of b h A and you want to understand more about where you can go hunting and fishing on public lands, I think the first step is to reach out to myself or or aning of our staff and and just ask the questions that you're maybe afraid to ask if you're friends, because we don't care what you know or you don't know. We want to help you learn more. And and certainly the the online resources that are set up under the Department Interior and in U s D a forest service really help line those things out too. So I think, uh, if if your listeners are interested in knowing more, those are great places to start to where they can do some self education. And then you know, you have other interesting segments of public lands outside of the federal purview that exists at the state level too. We did a report UM a couple of years ago examining the state trust lands model that exists in Western states, where upon statehood UM a model of state trust lands was created in order to generate revenue for schools. And so some Western states have have largely um you know, sold off or or transferred or somehow you know, give it away their state trust lands that they had as statehood and had as an example of of how most of their lands are are not there anymore. But other states have tremendous amounts of state trust lands and and their primary mandate is to generate revenue for schools for the state. And so hunting and fishing and even things like camping and in public access can be tricky and they differ widely from state to state, and so you have to really educate yourself about how do you even you know access and and understand what state lands you can even hunt and fish on. So it becomes a little bit more difficult when you look at those types of lands to decipher what you can do and what you can do. And our report tried to like outline that in a way that makes sense to people. But I think it's also an interesting illustration of how, um, you know, this this concept that you know originated out of the stage Brush rebellion where where some Western states wanted to capture all federal lands and bring them into you know, state ownership. I think, you know, that's a single example of how it complicates things for hunters and anglers and and why we should be concerned about efforts to take away public lands and shift them into private ownership or even state ownership where the primary purpose of the land is not necessarily for the benefit of the public good and and access and opportunity on public lands, it becomes a revenue generation um priority. And you know, if the state you know, finds himself in a tight spot in the rough budget ear, it's pretty easy to sell off a huge block of lands to generate a short term revenue game. And once once they're gone, they're gone. Right, we have what we have and fish and wildlife already lived in the best possible places. They are already occupying the best possible habitat. If we marginalize the habitat, if we uh eliminate the status of the habitat in some way, then we're only serving to possibly see population declines as as as populations of fishing wilife are pushed into more marginal habitat areas. And if we if we destroy or lose their habitat forever, then uh, it's hard to make the case for improving enhancing hunting and fishing opportunities. Well, in most state, is it the governor and the state legislator that have a mandate to balance the budget. Is that part of part of their marching orders in their job description for sure? Um, And with state trust lands, they're supposed to generate revenue for schools, right, that's there, that's their primary purpose, and and that could contribute to balancing state budgets and and having them, you know, serve their fiduciary obligations at the state level too, So that's definitely part of it. Yeah, And so yeah, we kind of have a definition of what is the idea of public lands, What are they in the tangible form. And then where we all get to next, where you you're bridging the gap already. How are these things threatened? Like what are the main ways that's someone that's a beach a member or non bachman members should be worried about. And we can also talk about I think the history of from the beginning of the public land the idea of what a public piece of public land could be. There was robber barons and railroad tide us fighting against the idea of this public trust and this thing that was a shared resource. They want the resource for their own benefit. Um, so just in the in the current context, let's start with the current context. What is the threat to us losing these public lands and they're right to use them? Well, I think, Um, there's a couple of things. Uh, I'm glad you you mentioned sort of the historical background of public lands. It's it's a reminder that public lands didn't happen by accident and they won't continue to to to be there without diligent attention to maintaining what we have. We have I think a collective obligation to the future of our public lands and the legacy we leave for future generations of hunters and anglers to stand up and and defend against the threats to our national public lands heritage, and today is not that much different than it was in the nineteen thirties, when you had a lot of people eyebawling public lands and and you had visionaries like Theodore Roosevelt working to create public lands that were productive for the benefit of the country, while at the same time ensuring that they were being rated and decimated and gone forever too. You know, we we may be facing slightly different threats than we were before, but they're not that much different. There's people that want to privatize public lands for mineral and resource extraction, and you have people that you know, have definitely shortsighted vision on what public lands could do for them. I think b h A and other organizations over the last five years have have done a great job of pushing back against eight proposals to transfer public lands, which uh by all opinions put forth by legal scholars and everyone else that have looked into the issue, is illegally to do in the first place, and they have no claim to public lands in the first place. Um the idea that there's people that want to pull pull them out of federal ownership. I think that idea is um becoming less popular than it was. I think they're realizing that it was a bit of a fool's errant to even try. And and members of Congress are you know, at the point I think we're they're annoyed by anyone that's trying to bring forth things like that. I think the more credible threat that we face is UH impacts efficient wildlife, habitat quality and and and even um more veiled attempts to take away public lands by shifting management authority to states and other entities. I think that's a dangerous proposition that UH it really sets up an equation where each state is not being managed consistently from state to state. And you have a state that as a government in place that wants to prioritize resource extraction, mineral extraction, whether that's you know, oil and gas development or coal mining or whatever it is. If that state wants to do that and they have the authority to do it, UM, how is that helping fishing while they habitati hung and fishing opportunities. If one state is acting in good faith and and doing the right thing for fishing while they had to have at the state right next door that's also connected to the same migratory corridor is making bad decisions. And so I think the federal government, while you know, I think there's always going to be a sense of uh, you know, pushback against the federal government in the Western States in particular, I think the federal government plays a really important oversight role and they are there as stewards managing to the best of their ability our public lands in a way it allows for multiple use and hopefully one use doesn't come at the expense of another. And and I think our role as an advocacy organization is working with members of Congress and states and decision makers to say we want fish and wildlife habitat and hunting fishing opportunities to be considered as a priority instead of an afterthought. And and we support things like responsible energy development, We support things like responsible mining and multiple use, and and sustainable timber harvest and uh, you know, active management practices. We support all those things. We just want to make sure that none of those activities and multiple uses on public lands come at the expense of our hunting and fishing heritage. And and if we do a good job of coming together in a collaborative way and looking at landscape level planning approaches that enable us to avoid and mitigate impacts. You know, we can't have our cake and eat it too. And it's just about getting together and and doing a better job. And so I think that's uh, you know, fundamental to ensuring that we avoid threats in the first place, instead of deal with them after they're already upon us. And I think, you know, there there are a number of other threats that sometimes people don't consider to and you know, we talk about the fragmentation of fish and wildlife habitat. It's not always a development related activity that's fragmenting habits at. We have huge problems with invasive species all around the country, uh, and invasive species across all taxes. So we're not just talking about you know, cheat grass or tamarrisk. We're we're talking about you know, uh invasive you know, Asian carp species in our waterways, and and our and our friends up in the Great Lakes that are dealing with uh ballast water issues and uh, we have we have a number of these problems that I think really demand our attention, right now and and part of what b h A wants to do is be an organization at educates people about the breadth and depth of all these different threats across all different spaces and create engagement points for each one. So if you're someone who does care a lot about fisheries and you live in the Great Lakes region, you might gravitate towards UH. You know, working with some of the great partners up there that are focused on Asian carp and what b h A may not be doing a whole bunch of work on Asian carp ourselves. We probably know who is and we can pull you in the right direction, but we also care about those things, you know, or or it might be something that we are playing a stronger leadership role on, like the Boundary Waters. You know, there's a proposed mine and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness one of I think it is America's most visited wilderness area. It's a phenomenal place and they have tremendous water resources there. You know, people literally dip their cups in the waters and the Boundary Waters and drinks straight from them. And UH, and I think the fisheries and the wildlife that thrive, there are an indication of that habitat health. And when you have proposed mining development really teetering on the edge of you know, polluting something like that, I think it shows us that there's some places that are just the wrong places to do to development. And and while we support responsible development, we think there's a right place in a wrong place. And and maybe the boundary waters is is a wrong place to put a massive mining development. Maybe, Uh, if you love to fish in Alaska, or you have dreams of uh, you know, catching a massive Sakay salmon Alaska and and getting up into Bristol Bay, maybe you have a problem with the proposed pebble mind that is going in in Bristol Bay, and and you want to work with groups like b h A and and Trout Unlimited and and some of the other organizations that are rallying against pebble mine in order to maintain the integrity of of Bristol Bay in the world's largest Sacay salmon fishery. You know, there's there's a lot of issues like that going on right now that are pretty serious for us. And I think that, uh, what anyone the cares about hunting and fishing and fishing, wildlife conservation can do. Like I said before, find an organization that you feel is paying attention to these things, become a member of it, become aware of what they're doing, and then learn how to engage in how to make a difference. And people think that making phone calls and sending emails and letters to their members of Congress and decision makers, UH doesn't make a difference, but it does. We've we've shown that it does before. There's you know, just last year, we saw Congressman chaf It's from Utah drop a bill that would have disposed of over two million acres of public lands, and UH and hunters and anglers and and people that care about public lands responded on mass and he withdrew that legislation and something we've never seen before. And so we were uh hardened to see that UH civic engagement still matters. And that was a great example of how an uprising, you know, really turned the corner for hunters and anglers and people that care about public lands. Yeah. I mean, I think that gets into the politics of it because Jason Schaefitz was a Republican and sometimes I think about when it comes to the federal government. Say I joined b h A. I'm a new member. I'm a Republican. I'm for smaller government, smaller federal government. That's that's my stance. But I'm also conversely, I'm also I really care about public lands. I really care about hunting and fishing, and I really care about multiple use, and I care about the environment. But I'm a staunch Republican, and I think the government mostly is inept and I can't do the job it's meant to do. I think about that guy all the time. That guy must be thinking, what the fuck? What would you say to that guy? I imagine you might say, Okay, maybe the federal government's inept in certain ways. It's convoluted. Politics are um cumbersome in a lot of ways, but in this particular way, the federal government is the best way to manage it. And I think the other way I like. The other thing I like to hear from you on this particular point is how exactly the federal management of these lands work? How did they get trickled back down to the states, And what is your you know, the synthesis of all those ideas, your hypothesis of how the federal government may not always be the best thing for a lot of situations, but in this situation, it's the best to manage that land. It's a great point. And the the profile you describe, like, we have those members in our ranks, you know, b h A, you know has probably half Democrats and and half Republicans. But you know, the last survey we did indicated that we have more Republicans than we do Democrats. And and I spent a lot of time talking to our people, and I know that there are people in our ranks to feel that way, um, And I think what helps them overcome their their loath of government and big government is the idea that public lands are big. Public lands are connected landscapes that span across state lines, and it's expensive to manage these places. States cannot afford to manage such vast amounts of public lands, and especially if a wildfire disaster or something tragic like that happens, the cost of dealing with those natural disasters would cripple a state in bankrupt it overnight, literally. And I think that's an economic equation that a lot of you know, people writing the ideological horse all the way to Washington failed to consider. And integrate into their um well crafted talking points that are pretty narrow and focus. And so I think the idea that we have a public obligation to manage these public lands for the benefit of future generations in a way that uh like I think I said before, you know, I think public lands are the great equalizer. You have access to them regardless of your means and income. And the only possible way that we can manage public lands across all fifty states in a in a way that is consistent and considers all the different multiple uses that that we should be managing our public lands for like, the only way to possibly do is through the federal government. Could they do a better job, of course they can. We are advocating for practices and policies that improve and enhance the way public lands are being managed in you know, one of the biggest problems I see there is congressional appropriators are not doing their job to give adequate funding the state management agencies, and they have the luxury of talking out of both sides of their mouth. They get to complain that public lands are not being managed the way they should be, while at the same time starving them into a state of Anebia as they said on the Appropriations Committee refused to give them funding to do it. I don't think that's right, and I think we should all be doing our individual jobs as citizens of this country and public landers to call bullshit on that and demand that we fixed that problem. And and I mentioned earlier, we we fixed a wildfire borrowing issue in the in the most recent fiscal year two thousand eighteen omnibus package that the past a couple of weeks ago. I think that was a big one, right, Like fire issues were robbing funding from agencies non fire budgets and their operational funds were being compromised, and they weren't able to do what they wanted to do. And that's not really their fault. It's the fault of the members of Congress that should be helping our public lands management agencies do a better job, that should be working with stakeholders like hunters and anglers to advance thoughtful ways to improve active management and and get boots back on the ground working to manage public lands. You know the other you know the thing I say to that that member that doesn't like big government and thinks that decisions are happening and washing d C ne vacuum. I think that's a I think that's a false narrative. Decisions on public lands are being made absolutely locally. If you live in the West and you drive around your state, there are local offices of the Forest Service, of the Bureau of Land Management, of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. These are people with families and local communities, rural towns, big cities, working on behalf of the federal government to manage local lands publicly. They live there, They live in these places that they're managing. They have invested interest in doing the best they possibly can. So I think that that narrative is a false. Decisions are not being made in Washington, d c uh about how public lands are being managed out was with no input at the local or state level. Yeah, that's huge, that's huge and I and I really like, even for my own edification, I like to to set up what's happening here because I think a lot of people are not cherry picking, but are are being allowed to cherry pick certain parts of this issue. Wouldn't really I think everything you're saying is part of this tapestry, the part of the what the lands are, why they're there, how they're managed, how they how we could lose them, but then also how politics um endangers us doing what's best for these lands. And so that brings me to the Bears Ears and the National monument Um review of this last I guess a year in change from the Trump administration on down the Secretary Zinky the point that I've made in the past, and I'd like to just kind of have you go through this the whole thing, from soup to nuts, because it was was obviously a big deal. The fact that that Bears Ears specifically became a political football to be thrown back and forth. You know, we're going to protect these lands. Now we're gonna we're gonna pull that protection back a little bit. We're gonna protect pull them back seemingly is an argument between one side that favors extraction and one side that favors the environment. Was that is that a correct characterization in the general sense of how that works. And so you get back into politics, because that's we manage the government is our lands, but politics manages the government in the way it functions, in the way the Caesar fails. You spend a lot of time immersed in those politics. So in the you know, in the sense of the national monument debate. Just frame that up from one side believes this, one side believes that, and then how you believe it's best managing for the future of that land and what a national monument classification really means for all in the boots on the ground conservation. I feel like you're right. The debate launched in the last year over national monuments was purely driven by political differences in ideology and and national monuments and and the Antiquities Act itself became sort of the political football that was being lobbed back and forth. And it wasn't that they felt like national monument designations were really infringing on anything other than their ability to uh do resource extraction in the state of Utah. Like you know, this really became Utah versus Clinton administration and Obama administration issue. And you know, at the end of President Clinton's term when Grand Staircase Escalante was designated under the Antiquities Act. And for your listeners that don't know what the Antiquities Act is, it was an an act that was championed by President Theodore Roosevelt, passed by Congress two give executive authority to the President to identify lands that had unique scientific characteristics and cultural values that needed UH quick protection. Where Congress UH failed to act or didn't have time to act, the president could step in and do the right thing because it was important to preserving antiquities, you know, things like UM tribal sites and cultural sites and places of scientific value which you know extended things like fish and wildlife habitat and uh iconic landscapes. You know, the Grand Canyon before it was the National Park, was actually a National monument um. So that's how Grand Staircase, Escalante and Bearsiers both were designated in the state of Utah, both at the end of a term of a sitting Democratic president, against the wishes of Republicans in the state of Utah that we're concerned that these designations were going to prevent their ability to um facilitate resource extraction, namely oil and gas development and coal development. And so this review process was largely instigated at the behest of of the Utah delegation and their interest in sort of rolling back what the Claim administration and the Obama administration had done over over national monuments, and it was it was less about what monuments themselves were actually doing as a designation. For the most part, monument designations really enable lots of traditional uses like grazing and even existing mining claims to to operate as they always have been. And in a way, national monuments can preserve and perpetuity things like grazing and hunting and fishing and uh protection of fishing, walife, habitat because under under a national mind him it development is limited, so you know, things like new resource extraction is disallowed, um things like road building. You know, there is a new level of of conservation protections put in place by monument designations, and that's why they're great for fishing while they have habitat and hunting and fishing opportunities. Not every national monument has great fishing while they have tad and not every national monument has great hunting and fishing opportunities, but some of them do, especially some of the larger Western monuments. And that's where we grew really concerned about this debate. And it wasn't necessarily about a specific place like Bears Ears. It was about setting a precedent that any administration in the future could unravel what a previous president had done before. This has never been touched. No presidents ever tried to do this before, and any time there have been adjustments to a prior designation, they were very minor and character had to do with some boundary adjustment tweaks that made sense, and we're widely supported and had no opposition to them. This is not the case. Americans responded overwhelmingly in the monument review process UH. It was in April of last year when President Trump asked Secretary Zinkie to conduct this review process, and at the end of the day, after overwhelming opposition from Americans all across the country that cared about national monuments, they still moved forward with UH making adjustments to both Grand Staircase Escalante and Bears Ears in Utah, with potential I still being set in in other monuments in the West. They have yet to act in some of the utter monuments in the West. But the Utah ones were sort of the the main prize and the goal and and something that mattered to the Utah delegation. And like I said before, it was the political football and it got thrown back the other direction. And so now we find ourselves in a place where groups are bringing litigation to push back against the decision that the administration made to make these monument boundary adjustments. The legal opinion is certainly that the president does have the authority to rescind or significantly alter monument designations, only create new ones. So I think we're gonna see this play out in the courts. In the meantime, the Utah delegation is hedging their bets. They probably deep down uh think that it's also illegal. So there they have developed and introduced legislation that essentially codifies the administration's boundary adjustments for both of those monuments. So there are legislative vehicles now too, um attempt to do legally what the president probably unlawfully can't do on his own. Sure, and then in so in the public eye that plays out, Yeah, there's no there's no nuance, there's no pragmatism. There's just this like scream from the mountain top on both sides. And so the examples that everyone would always point it would be one patigo and your posts on their website, a black, fully black template that just says in white lettering, the president stole your land, and and not as dramatic fashions, some of the pro Zinkie fleet of opinions would say, thanks Secretary Zinky for establishing more access for hunters. National monuments restrict access in some ways, thank you for being such a wonderful Secretary of the Interior. So at some point you have one side characters that characterizing as it all win for hunters and anglers, and the other side character you know, making this a loss for all Americans. How are they there? But I feel like they're both kind of wrong. They're somewhere in the middle. Is the right answer? How would you characterize what the right answer is? Um? And feel free to just say this is how Patagoon you got it wrong, and this is how the other side got it wrong. Sorry, patagon They weren't the only ones, but they were just they happened to speak the loudest and most concisely about the issue on their side of things. Yeah. Uh, Patagonia is a great company that we align them with on many things. UM. I appreciate the spirit in which they they responded to that, but in some ways their statements misleading. I mean, the president didn't steal your public lands like they've always been your public lands. And even this decision now you know, didn't take the public lands away. What it did was strip protections for these places and calling the question some of the the future conservation of these resources, Like you know, things that were protected before are now maybe threatened. And there are are looters and people, you know, robbing tribal burial sites and and um, you know what they call pot hunters, people looking for pottery and and artifacts. You know, it's only going to exacerbate those existing problems and uh open up opportunities for um, you know, criminal acts like that. And so I think it's there. Their statement was perhaps a little misleading, but the spirit of it was, uh, you know, responding in frustration to what the president was doing that they felt was a glaring overreach of executive authority. And and we're taking sort of a more middle of the road approach on this. You know, there weren't really any access issues before the monuments. Monuments weren't preventing people from going and hunting and fishing. Uh. The only thing that monuments could possibly have done would be, uh, to prevent you from blazing a new trail in your off road vehicle through the middle of a sensitive fishing wild the habitat which if you're a real hunter preventing you from being an asshole. That's what we're gonna this was the title of this part, is going to be national monity to prevent you from being an asshole. So if you don't like a national monus, you're an asshole? Right? What what did you say on the other side? Right? And I will say I'm not afraid to just say, like I've I heard from RMDF and some different hunting organizations and WTF and others lauding this UH decision because it helped hunting access or helped hunters gain access to this national monity. Talk me through that. I sort of don't understand it, and I've tried to find out more on why some organizations feel that way. I don't fully understand it because there's not any new access created by this administrative action that didn't exist before. Um, you know, in the case of Grand Staircase Escalante, you know, maybe there may be an access issue, but it might be related to something like once it became a national monument, the popularity of Grand Staircase Escalani grew tremendously. People started visiting there more. They had to deal with the flow of traffic and things like that, so they created designated parking areas. So maybe if you're an old timer and you punted there your whole life, and there's a spot on the side of the road that used to always pull your truck over and hike into and go hunting, maybe you can't park on the side of the road like he used to because there's so many people traveling that road now, so you you have to make other arrangements for for parking your vehicle. But you still can walk in, and you can still hunt the same place as you did before. And there's no restrictions at all on hunting and fishing. Um So you know, I tend to push back a little bit on that, and and and really fall back to what I said in the beginning, is it This is less about you know, whether or not hunting and fishing in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalani is the best place to go hunting and fishing. This is about the potential unraveling of all national monuments anywhere. If you can do it Embarrassiers in Grand Staircase Esclanni, then you could do it in the Missouri River breaks in Montana, which is UH famous for upland game hunting and UH and and deer hunting and provides tremendous opportunities. Um it could unravel you know, hunting and fishing opportunity in places like uh Brown's Canyon in Colorado where you have tremendous blue ribbon fishery on the Arkansas River and you're you're catching huge brown trout, or uh el Rio Grande del Norte in northern Mexico where you have tremendous big game populations that are benefiting from the protections afforded by national monument designation. If if this administration is not looking to unravel monument designations in those states, that doesn't mean that a future administration wouldn't. And by creating the precedent now that that you can and that executive authority exists, you compromise in perpetuity every single other monument designation that that's out there. And that's that's why b h A responded the way we did, is because we we looked at it as an assault on our public land's heritage but also a potential diminishing of of access and opportunity. And for us, you know, those are bread and butter issues and we're we're never afraid to stand by those breader bread and butter issues, and and um, you know, I'm not sure why some organizations you know, um, you know, propelled some of the misinformation that's being spread by the administration to support their actions. Um. You know, the truth is, with very few exceptions, monument designations haven't really impaired access, and where they have, we're actively working to restore access. You know, we're currently working with a number of organizations in California to restore hunting access to Castle Mountains National Monument. You know, not through any uh specific nefarious um motivations. It was purely oversight. When that monument was designated, it moved into a Park Service management and as we as we discussed before, the Park Service managing certain public lands units means that hunting is no longer allowed because of how the organic Act that created the Park services interpreted and has been interpreted by legal scholars. So we're working with Congressman Cook's office, with Senator Feinstein's office, and um, you know, quite a number of both state and national sportsman groups to say, hey, this is wrong. We need to restore hunting access here, and we're looking at solutions to be able to do that. And so so b H as you know, not out there with the Superman shirt that says national monuments are the best thing ever without you know, you know, any UH sort of qualification. We're saying monument designations can be great for fish and while they have habitsat We worked with a number of UH Sportsman partners to create a report that shows how monument designations can be done right, and we have we established a set of tenants for doing monuments the right way and when used judiciously, the Antiquities Act to create monuments can be a very powerful conservation tool. But we also acknowledge that they can be done wrong and and mistakes can happen. And Castle Mounts is as an example of where they got it wrong and how we're working to correct that so that hunting access can be restored. So, you know, I think that um, both sides tend to get comfortable and the polarity that exists in our political spectrum, and and they dig their heels in and they they're afraid to come out of their trenches to you know, shake hands in the middle once in a while. And b H is trying to be a moderate group that's coming to the middle and putting together thoughtful solutions that helped vance the conversations around you know, figuring out ways to address some of these complex conservation issues that we're dealing with. And and we want to be a centrist organization that UM acknowledges that, you know, both sides have pieces that they're right about, but sometimes mistakes are made and uh, and that's human nature. And the best thing we can do as an organization and as hunters and anglers has helped be uh peace brokers. And you know, I grew up out west in Idaho, and uh, the way you get things done out here is you sit around the breakfast table together and you figure it out, and you walk away and you be a good neighbor and you make responsible choices and at the end of the day, you do what's right because it's the right thing to do, and you don't need to ask any other questions than that. Yeah, And I think that's one of the reasons why I wanted to have yawn UM, just because I that to me that the bears of yours national money situation codifies the problem that exists in the extreme points of view on both sides, I imagine, and you can tell me if you disagree with this, that those extreme points of view. We're very grounded in environmentalism, protection of wild places and lands across the board, and then on the other side the desire to extract resources and make money off those lanes. So those two points have developed into these extreme polars And in the center is this void where hall of people that just want to enjoy public lands and want to enjoy national monuments and would probably always defer to the people on the ground and say what what do you want? What's best for you? UM? And I think that situation to me was concerning because it was so polar it got kind of sucked into the vacuum that is our media cycle, and it got turned into that spit back out as this very polarizing situation. And and they're just needed to be education. And I hope that Beach A can continue to be a center for education and pushing just as you said, pragmatic policy that is that pushes forward what's good for hunters and anglers. And I could tell you I was telling Land earlier today, UM, in our meeting, that I've gotten just from this podcast. I've gotten a lot of people that would say I'm thirty five years old, I have two kids. I never thought about hunting until this happened to me. Then I started to think about it. I went out in research and researched. Then I joined b h A. Then I went out and got a bow. Then I went I got a rifle. And I think there's a growing number of people that are realizing as you're well aware, I mean twenty thousand members from how many when you when you started, how many members were there? We had about a thousand members, I think, and we've been doubling our membership every year for the last several years. It's twenty fold increase. And these people are understanding that that not only do not only do they need to buy a license and contribute that way, if they when they buy uns and bows and the emo and arrows, they'll contribute via excess tax I think people are starting to understand that. But what they also understand is that they have to be a player in this game for this to continue, because, as you said, when when public land or wilderness goes away, when we cut a road through a place, we can know we can't go back and get what what we lost. And so that's why I think as many people that I've talked to that have listened to some of the topics that we've had here in the past, are including B h A in their conversation of I'm thirty, I'm forty, I'm fifty, I've never thought about hunting. Now I do because they understand the need for that pragmatism, and you guys have been a leader in that. And I think that's to me, why if we could have if we could bring every group to the center, especially in the political spectrum. I don't think National Wild Turkey Federation, there's not polarizing topics inside of Turkey hunting. So they're pretty lucky in that way. Yeah, they're like I mean, they to stand on top of the mountain and essentially declare victory, like they've been one of the most effective conservation organizations and fully restoring uh Turkey populations all around the country. And they've also done a great job after they after it was no longer you know, a need to go transferred Turkey populations and and habitat seemingly was improving and then being codified. Then they then they switched over to youth. How can we get really smart people, really smart choice the way to do it, and so they've had that. But when it comes to the politics of it, um, they've stepped in sometimes and and made some statements about national monuments or Zinki's action here or Zinky's action there. Um. Same with our army YEF. They've done great things with easements and habitat and there's never been more elk. I don't believe in this continent that there are right now, um. But there's also that political side where they feel like they may have to speak in one way or the other way. So I just think that those are great organizations. They do a great job with what what their missions are and you guys have taken a broader mission um and made it yours, and I think that's why it's important. Yeah, we've learned a lot from those legacy sportsman groups and they're you know, incredibly important partners to us, and uh we want to you know, build on the successes that they've achieved, but also maybe occupy a space that is less comfortable for some of those organizations too. Like you know, we do a lot of work on accountability and holding decision makers accountable for their decisions, and you know that can come with consequences if not done the right way. And I know that, UM A lot of groups tend to shy away from that because you don't want to close off your relationships and access with decision makers and leaders. And and I think that's important UM and and b h A is UH taking a pretty strong, uh brave approach to dealing with decision makers in a way that we feel is UM, you know, without without any obligation to sensitivities on either side of the political political spectrum. We don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. If you're making bad votes that work against fishing while they habitat and hunting and fishing opportunities, we're gonna come after you. Uh. We support the Second Amendment, but public lands and waters are our second second Amendment, and UH, we're gonna put you in the crosshairs if you come after public lands and waters. And I think it's okay to be bold when you're being bold for the right reasons and and you deal with integrity, you do with respect and sincerity. I think that's why some of our members are responding to the way we handle ourselves in the conservation space because we're we're not afraid to say some of those things. And I think it gives some of our partner organizations a little more elbow room to be successful in their spaces. And uh, we can you know, going back to what I said earlier about having expertise and you know, individualized areas of specialty. You know, maybe the advocacy accountability side of conservation sportsman's organizations is where b h A is creating a specialty that didn't really exist there before. And we're taking some of the hard hits on the nose, but we're throwing some punches ourselves too, and it feels pretty good, you know, like, uh, you know, we're scrappy and uh and while we prefer to settle things in a civilized way, uh, sometimes you've got to get down into the mud and roll around in the weeds a little bit too. Well. I mean, I think I hate to keep bringing up Patagon because I never I never really do. But we're you know, we're wearing Patago and you vesta ch a logoes on him and you've tion artists coming into Idaho. Yeah, it's like two boise for the for the Ron Davy, we'll probably be here what tomorrow gonna be speaking on Saturday and speaking a little bit um tomorrow. That's fairly that's a huge deal for somebody like art. Folks don't know. He's the founder of Padagoon and a big activist in many ways and many issues, and a huge voice, monumental voice in the outdoor recreation community. And he's a serious angler and love. Yeah, so we got I mean, and I think it would probably have been I don't know if it would have been completely out of bounds to think that he would come to a gathering of hunters and anglers at some point in the last decade, but I know it was a whole lot less probable that he would have done so. And so then when I found out he was coming to speak to this group, I thought, that's just the perfect And even in our earlier conversation about what Patganny did we didn't agree with. It's the perfect magam of like, yeah, do we agree with everything that Ivan Grenard has ever done? No, or his company for that matter, No, But is he an advocate for public lands and for what we believe? And are we willing to fight with him for the things that we agree upon? Absolutely? And he having him here helps more than hurts UM and don't know that it hurts at all for for anyone that has a problem with Van Shard. And I think b h A has heard some of that UM rolling into this. Yeah, and I would I would say, I would say that anyone who doesn't believe we need to make a stronger alliance with that actual recreation user, especially when it comes to public lands, is foolish And anyway that we can do that in any organization that's facilitating that should be applauded every time. I totally agree with you, and I think part of the part of the reason we aren't being as successful as we could be is because we're doing a bad job of coming together and uniting around a common cause. You know, we're not always gonna be able to hold hands and and work together on issues that we agree with with any organization, whether it's you know, someone on the left or someone on the right. But I think there is a huge number of groups and organizations on both sides, both within the sportsman's community and the outdoor recreation community that share our values for fish and wild iife conservation, and we want to create a space for us to come together and do more in a unified way that's compelling and instead of getting caught up in UH you know, patriarchical ways of doing things of of the past and looking at ways to be more innovative and and sometimes that that means working with UH brands and corporations and organizations and people that don't hunt and fish because they care about public lands and water is the same way we do. If we can work together, I think we can advance a lot of things. And and that doesn't mean that we can't, you know, go back to our respective camps and focus in on the things that you know, our constituents care about, and and it doesn't mean that we can't disagree with each other from time to time. I think if you do those things respectfully, and if you're acting in a professional manner and you're working together, we can get things done and put aside differences when they exist. And I think the sportsman's community in general, you know, should be working more with the outdoor industry groups. There is a number of outdoor recreation interests. Whether you're a mountain bike group or a backpacking group or a climbing group, and whether you're a business that that makes gear and clothing to support those entities. We all have a lot in common, we have a lot to lose. It's all in the line for all of us. So we should be marshaling our resources instead of getting distracted by what uh maybe separates us or what we disagree about, and instead focus on the things that we do care about. So we're working together to push things down the field and make a difference for conservation. And I think that you know, at some point in time, you gotta you gotta look your kids in the eyes and say you did the right things, and you tried as hard as you could to do the best you could to ensure that their future is as bright as yours was. And hopefully you leave things in a better place than when you came into this world. And we have this collective obligation to stewardship to sort of hand down this legacy of stewardship that I think is is really important and and if we look at it from a valuous perspective and instead of getting caught up in some of the political rhetoric, I think that benefits us all. And uh, you know, taking it back to the idea of like your legacy of stewardship and how you want to treat the wild places that give back to us so much. You know, I think, um, and maybe I'm biased, but hunting and fishing to me is deeply personal and it's a part of my soul and a part of who I am. It's not paying playing tennis on the weekend, right, Like, hunting and fishing is something I have to do, and these wild places are something that are part of my soul. And when I'm up there and on top of a mountain, it's a spiritual experience. You don't get that by playing golf on the weekends. And I think that just because I do it with a bow or a rye full or a fly rod in my hand, doesn't mean that the same person doing it with binoculars are taking their family on a backpacking trip isn't having that same type of experience. So I think if we can come back and relate to each other that really basic values way, then that's the right way to move things forward. And I think telling stories two decision makers about why these places are meaningful and important to us will help them understand why we care about it, And it helped get outside of the politics of conservation. Yeah, that's a huge thing for me to just just understanding how we can better articulate these things to each other. I mean, we could. We could lose a lot if we said listen, listen, Yvonne. Uh. We don't agree on predator hunting. You don't want any predator hunting, We don't. We we think kill all the wolves and tis of course that's not what we think. But if we were unwilling to see the ties that bind us and we're only going to focus on the things that don't, the things that don't bind us together, were never gonna win. And as as you said, I have a young son, and I always think about part of my reason for being here this weekend has won my job, but two moreover, just thinking about him and thinking about how am I gonna make sure when he's old enough that he understands what this is like. And you live in Illinois or Iowa or Texas and places that there aren't big tracts of public land, your life, in my opinion, is considerably different than if you live in Idaho, if you live in Montana, or you've lived in Utah or Idaho, um any of these states that have large tracks public land. Colorado isn't another example. Your life is just totally different. You don't have the same feeling um of wandering that you can just get up on in the morning and go for a hike and get lost and and find yourself on a mountain you've never been on. You just don't have that um in Texas. I live in Texas. There is not. You just don't have the same feeling when you wake up in the morning and you know that you can't just go out and find a place that's that belongs to you and everybody else. And so I think that's it's tangible. It isn't. It's not something that's so opaque that we can't see it in our own lives. If you're listening to this and you live in a place where you have to drive six hours of public land, and you're listening to this, and you live in a place where you can literally hop on a bike, you can go right around in a wilderness area or or better yet, walk around in the wilderness area you're live, you're a lot. Those two lives are completely different. UM. And what you're fighting for and what I what I feel strongly about the same is the ability for anyone to go out and have that experience, because that experience is way more than just a one or two or three day haul. It's a lifetime of feeling that there's something out there that belongs to everybody. Yeah, and I think I think that's a great point. And one thing that you know, we try and do as an organization too, is there's meet people where they're at. And uh, back country can be a state of mind as much as a physical place. And back country to you might mean Bayou in the backwoods of Louisiana someplace, and your cruising around in flooded timber and and you're lost, I mean you're in the back country, you know, back country for you might be uh, you know, offshore fishing in the Gulf Coast somewhere and you can't see a spec and land in sight. Maybe ocean is the original back country and and one of the wildest frontiers. There's people that think that way about the ocean. There's people that live in Maine. And while it's not the same as hunting public lands in the West, where you have beer of land management lands or for service lands, you might be hunting uh, timber company lands and in the main way of life and main traditions. UH timber companies do a great service to hunters by providing public access and opportunities on lands where you don't have like these large blocks of lands in the West. And so one of the reasons I think people find b h A appealing and why we're growing in places like the Southeast and the Northeast and the mid Atlantic is because we're not confining ourselves to just public lands in the West. We're looking at what does back country mean to you? And and we're also looking at public access and opportunity, and that might mean forging relationships with state and local governments and private landowners that facilitate access for hunting and fishing. And you might be in Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia somewhere, but you can find a piece of land where you're the only person on it and you're you know, you're hunting, and and you don't see a single soul the other day, and you're having the same experience of solace and and silence and and that quietude of outdoor recreation that the same person you know, climbing a fourteen thousand foot peak in Colorado as having, or the same person that's doing a seven day backpacking trip for Elk and the Bob Marshall alwerness is having you know, we're all having similar experiences, and the topography and the landscapes that we're doing it in might be different. But back countries is a state of mind as much as it is a place. And we like to consider both and we give equal weight and importance to both because part of why we care about these places is because they're wild, and because they give us time to reflect and recharge your batteries and get our boots dirty and get our souls clean, and and I think that that's ultimately, at the end of the day, what helps bring people together. If we can focus on those elements and do things that extend those opportunities no matter where you live, helps bring us together in a way that is very compelling and our most basic, you know, fundamental level of human nature. Like you know, having those connects is I think is really important and helps bind us together. Yeah. Well, I appreciate you being on the front lines of of all that. And it's your daily life. It's what you do, it's what you live and breathe, and I appreciate all you do. Yeah, well, I do we do what we can. But um, like you said, I I think about my young son and and for all all. Honestly, I'm on the h A National board and when Lantani was talking to me about coming on, and he said, why would you want to do that? You have all this other stuff going on. Why is it important you to be a part of an organization like this in this way? And my only response was, I have a son and I don't and I want him to have the opportunities I've had, and I wanted to know about the things that I've known about, and I want him to understand what why that's important not only for him and I to enjoy, but for the generations that come after us. And that's that's why I believe in it, and that's why why all of us are doing what we're doing. So I mean, it sounds, you know, it sounds preachy to say something like that. I don't normally try not to get it. I have a daughter two and I think, uh, a lot of people think that way, Like when you become a parent, things change in your life. And I've always been dedicated to conservation and and this type of work even before my daughter was born. But when she was born, things change. You become a parent, You become responsible for another life. And part of your job as a parent is to make sure your your child has a good life. And and for me, providing a good life means being able to take her hunting and fishing in the same places that my dad took me hunting and fishing in, to pass on those family traditions and those experiences, and uh, and so it makes it deeply personal and very emotional. And uh, I think I think that's why it's special and why we care so much, and as part of why I think people get fired up too, and sometimes that escalates in a in a media space and and in the halls of Capitol Hill, and ultimately, at the end of the day, like if you distill things down and understand why people are being passionate about the things they're passionate about up, you can never go wrong if you go down that path. And I think people respect you when you you know, at least attempt to do that and understand what the better side is motivated by, for sure. And that's what I have always said. There has to be a moment in your life where you just decide when you come to this either it's an epiphany or it's just a lifelong slog where you're like, this is what I'm passionate about. And I'm sure there's people listening to this who already have the passion we have, and there's probably some people listening that haven't quite discovered that passion yet. And what I would tell people, as man, if you already have the passion for public LANs, for hunting, for fishing, whatever it is, keeps stoking that thing and keep beating the doors down if if something's in your way, if you haven't found it yet, go like, give this a shot. Because I think hunting is pretty kick ass. I think fishing is pretty kick ass, and if you're not doing it, then just give it a shot. Um. And I think b h A has been a great vehicle for a lot of people to get it done. So, UM, that's a pretty good first podcast. You did. Fine, Thanks man. We've got housekeeping coming. Welcome to the already housekeeping housekeeping came in. Hey housekeeping, UM set him up on the mic residents in thanks appreciate it, good time. Um, Yeah, man, I really just appreciate everything that you do and coming on and talking to me and un yeah you too. It was great. Awesome brother, let's do it again. We will cheers. So yeah, back to simpler times, Simple times lagger. That's it the episode number eleven in the books. Really appreciate John for sitting down and talking about public lands and talking about some of the more in depth policies, but also more some of the more broad strokes that have to do with public lands, because I think it's important to both understand even the most simple ideas about public land, but also uh be pushed to get a little more in depth. And John certainly lives the life public land policy and conservation policy in this country, so he was a great resource for this conversation. I want to thank everybody who came out into back Country hundred and Anglers, Rendezvous and Idaho this past weekend. I was there a couple of days. I didn't get to really see as many people as I wanted to. I had to roll out for my little niece's first birthday, which was an awesome event in our lives. I wish I could have stayed for the Friday and Saturday events. I had to jump out a little early, but I followed along and everybody's social media looked like everything from the brew fest to the storytelling event, everything that was there, it was a good time. There's a lot of great energy in the room. And another thing I wanted the sushion one is Yvonne Channard as the founder of of Patagonia. He's a seminal voice in the outdoor wreck industry and somebody who now we can count as a part of our public men's team. The man showed up to a hunting and fishing gathering and spoke highly of not only the people in the room, but the purpose for why they assembled, and that is I can't tell you how much that means to me, how much that means to b H and I think how much that means to everybody in that room in Idaho. So I'm sure Yvonne will never listen to this, but I would thank him for coming and being a part of arnimal community and speaking highly of the hunters in the room, which I think for anybody who knows patagon and knows their history is a big damn deed. So we appreciate having yvon and Patagon in the house for that event. So that's all I gotta say about that. Hopefully we'll be talking to some more folks from h and keep chronicling this organization because I am a part of it, but it is also just a badass place to be a lot of energy, and I'm biased, but I think if you had to next year's rounding vou you'll find out why I'm biased. So the Honey Collective dot Com is there for you to check out if you want to listen to all the other podcasts we've done, Steve Rinella, Remy Run, John Dudley, Johnny Gale that you just heard from a bunch of them. I can't think of them all now, but they're all there, so you just go check it out. Click on podcasts, clip on articles, clip on videos, click on or whatever, and it's all there. We're on iTunes, Stitcher, We're now on Google Play and morticome. Hopefully we'll add YouTube to that list, knocking those down and get more outlets for you to listen to The Honey Club. That's it. That's all, Episode number eleven, Bye Bye,