From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This is Cow's Week in Review with Ryan cow Klah. Here's cal what is the national bird of the United States? If you said bald eagle before Christmas Eve twenty twenty four, you'd have been wrong. Prior to that date, we didn't have a national bird. But thanks to Senators Amy klobash, are Mark, Wayne Mullen, Cynthia Loomis, and Tina Smith, this obvious oversight has been corrected. These four senators sponsored a bill passed by Congress and signed by President Biden that officially declares the bald eagle to be America's national bird. The bald eagle was adopted as the coat of arms for the United States Great Seal in seventeen eighty two and has been the unofficial national bird of the United States ever seen. You might wonder why Congress is spending its time making things official, but these symbolic designations do have a conservation purpose. When states or local governments make a bird, tree, or plant an official symbol, it generates interest and attention, which can in turn generate resources for conservation. For example, after the bald eagle became the national bird. A South Carolina newspaper published an article with the headline quote Biden declares bald eagles US national bird. The raptors are still imperiled in South Carolina. That article and the public awareness it generated about how eagles are still imperiled wouldn't have been published if Congress hadn't passed this bill. So the next time you see a bald eagle soaring across a blue sky, or perching a tree, or you know, if you're up in Alaska sitting on a dumpster, gaze upon its majesty with pride as you contemplate the strength, courage, and conservation success it represents as our newly minted national bird and possibly the number one carry an eater in your heart. This week we've got public lands, grizzer bears, legislation, and so much more. But first I'm going to tell you about my week, and my week has been a whirlwind as per usual. First, big thanks to the Arizona Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers for hosting the North American Board of BHA for the annual retreat. Everything was awesome, killer country, great weather, awesome people, new species, they got to meet, all you folks who are volunteering tirelessly and kicking butt while you're doing so. Great discussions, great energy. Love to see it happen, and keep it up. We appreciate you. As for the new species down there in Arizona, we got to hunt for part of the day Manazuma or Merns Quail Merns being the naturalist that identified the species and natural This guy will make you blush. Merns was a New Yorker who got a medical degree and joined the Army in the late eighteen hundreds. He was stationed a bunch of places, but traveled to far flung locales like Guam, which you can imagine in the turn of the century was a bit of a trip. Eventually, he was appointed medical Officer to the International Boundary Commission, that boundary being between Mexico and the United States. In nineteen oh seven, he published Mammals of the Mexican Boundary of the United States. In nineteen oh nine, he retired from the Army with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Then Theodore Roosevelt invited Merns to accompany the Smithsonian Roosevelt African Expedition as a naturalist, which heck of a tip of the hat there. He was doing that from nineteen eleven to nineteen twelve. He scientifically described the Tita thrush, the Appo sunbird, the boren cisticola, the Chewahwan grasshopper mouse, the rufous headed Taylor bird, among others. Eventually, he died in Washington, d C. At the ripe old age of sixty sixty years old. That's a lot by sixty. That's offty old merns. And now for the quail part. What's interesting about this little comparatively non vocal bugger, the merns quail, is that they use their long talons to dig and eat tubers. They got big feet. And when I say dig, we found holes like six to eight inches deep in some areas. And this is like dry, hard, rocky soil, and sixty eight inches may not seem like a lot to summy, but when you're sixty eight inches tall like the merns quail, that's a big hole. The birds I took home are plucked and sitting in a gentle brine before I lightly roast them. I'll let you know how that goes. Incredible camouflage on the merns quail, it is just wild, wild, how they blend in to that grass and of course you know dry, dusty, hard scent conditions for the dogs. Yeah, it is a wonder that you can find those things. Probably wouldn't do it without a dog. What else, As previously talked about, states are in session, go to the askcalpage at the mediat dot com to find out which ones. Randall Williams and I hustled up to Helena, which of course is Montana's capital, to listen in and offer testimony. Last week. We got particularly interested in HB one thirty nine, which is a bill that was put together to address the idea that mule deer rut hunting in our state could be closed at some point. I testified against that one, as Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has the ability to season set with public input already, And if you listen to this podcast, I just prefer regulation over legislation. Fishing game agencies need to be as nimble as possible. I got to tip the hat to Representative Hinkle, who you know, put a lot of work into that thing. The vote is coming up like immediately after this podcast gets record, so I'll have to update you next week on how that goes. But guys, Head's not in the wrong place. I just think the state's already got this one covered. We just don't need a law for it. Let me know what you think, and more importantly, please write in and let me know what is going on in your state. Many of you already did, so let's get to it. Going right over to the public land desk, here's some positive news to start your week. The Supreme Court has declined to hear a lawsuit brought by the state of Utah that would have forced the federal government to dispose of tens of millions of acres of public land. We covered this story on several episodes, but we did a deep dive recently. In episode three point thirty two. Utah was asking the Supreme Court to force the Bureau of Land Management to dispose of so called unappropriated land. This would mean that in Utah alone, the BLM would have to sell a whopping eighteen and a half million acres, and it's not clear whether that land would fall to state or private control or just need to be as it says in the lawsuit disposed of as in sould, Utah, along with several other Western states, were asking the Supreme Court to let them skip all the lower federal courts and go straight to the top. But in a decision release just last week, the justices said not so fast. They didn't comment on the merits of the case or explain their reasoning. They simply refused to take the case. This is great news for public land advocates, but the fight is far from over. Utah and its allies can refile their case with the lower federal court and try to work their way back up to the Supreme Court, or they can try to work with the incoming Trump administration to hand over a federal public land. In a joint statement released last week, Utah said, the incoming Trump administration shares quote our commitments to the principle of multiple use for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management. You got to pay attention to the words here, folks. This is not about land management. This is about the sale of land. Management is just like a red herring argument that has nothing to do with the case. On top of that, the Trump administration has said on multiple occasions that they aren't interested in selling the unbelievable real estate we co own. It's just too darn valuable. We've won the first battle, but we need to stay vigilant. As always, we'll keep you in the loop. Moving on to the grizzer bear desk. Last week, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a new rule that would dramatically change how grizzly bears are managed in the United States. The proposal comes in response to several lawsuits by Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, whose governors were asking that the species be removed from the Endangered Species list. Led by Director Martha Williams, the Fish and Wildlife Service denied these requests. Instead, the Service wants to get rid of the six population segments it had previously used to manage the bears, and will now aim to recover grizzlies within one giant segment that encompasses all of Washington State, as well as most of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. If all that sounds like much ado about nothing, let me explain why this decision is raising the blood pressures of everyone, from the Center of Biological Diversity to our own governor here in Montana, Greg gen Forte. As we've covered several times on this podcast, grizzly bears are broken up into six distinct population segments Northern Cascades in Washington, Selkirk and Cabinet Yak in northern Idaho and Montana, Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem in the northwest Montana, bitter At in Idaho, and Greater Yellowstone in southern Montana and northwest Wyoming a little bit of Schmidga Idaho there too. There are currently a bunch of bears between seven hundred and one thousand in both the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide. That's according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. There are about sixty bears in the Cabinet Yak and about forty bears in Selkirk, but the other recovery areas don't contain any breeding populations, again, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. For the last decade or so, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have been pushing for the bears to be removed from the Endangered Species list in Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide. They argue that the populations here are strong and growing, some would say too strong at this point, and there's no reason that they should still be listed as endangered. Taking them off the ESA. In these two recovery zones would allow the states to manage the species as they do every other non endangered species in their jurisdictions. However, if the Fish and Wildlife Service succeeds in eliminating these population zones and begins managing all grizzlies in the lower forty eight under the same umbrella, you can kiss that argument goodbye. Now. Instead of two populations looking strong and healthy while the other four still need protection, the map looks practically empty. The new single population segment extends well beyond where grizzly bears currently live, and the agency doesn't offer a population goal for when and this giant new population boundary counts as recovered. In fact, they argue that the strength of the populations in Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide are in fact a reason not to delist the bears, They say quote. The Service also recognizes that recovery of small and extirpated populations relies on contributions from highly resilient populations. Maintaining all recovery zones together in one distinct population segment will increase the speed of recovery in remaining ecosystems and the overall viability of grizzly bears, increasing the likelihood of successfully delisting the entire DPS that's distinct population segment by addressing the species recovery needs as a whole. In other words, since bears can't read maps, we need large, healthy populations in some areas so those bears can travel to the other recovery zones and repopulate them. We can't delist those strong populations because we need as many bears in the lower forty eight as possible. The response to this announcement has been about what you'd expect. The Center for Biological Diversity praised the rule, with legal director Andrea Zuccardi saying she's relieved that bears and other recovery zones will have a quote real chance at long term recovery instead of being gunned down and mounted on trophy walls. On the other side of the ledger, the Western Landowners Alliance accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of moving the goalposts. The reality is that grizzly bears are increasing in population and expanding in range, well beyond original recovery targets, said Leslie Allison, the nonprofit CEO. People who live and work in recovery areas continue to experience increasing conflicts, safety concerns, and disproportionate economic costs. To be fair, the Service does acknowledge in their press release that grizzly bear expansion is challenging for local communities and working lands Because of this. The new rule also adds greater flexibility and responsiveness on private lands and areas where grizzly bear pops populations are impacting private landowners and livestock producers. We will have more information in future weeks about what exactly that looks like, but it sounds like the Service is open to removing problem bears more quickly. As of this recording. Most of the hunting orgs have yet to weigh in on this issue, but the Sportsman's Alliance sounded off in a blog post a day after the rule was proposed, and it's safe to say they're not happy. Michael Jean, the group's litigation council, said the rule shows that the Endangered Species Act is quote broken. He continued, we have multiple populations of different species that have surpassed their recovery goals and are thriving. If they cannot be delisted according to the Service because they have not fully recovered in other areas. We'll stay on this story as it moves forward, but in the meantime you have work to do. That's right you. This is a proposed rule, nothing has been finalized, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is asking the public to weigh in. There will be public meetings in Montana, Idaho, in Wyoming, and concerned citizens can also post a comment online. A sixty day public comment period will be open from January fifteen through March seventeen, and we'll post a link to that comment page over at the meat eater dot com forward slash col Just a reminder, just because we're not hunting them doesn't mean people aren't shooting them. You can use whatever like I guess, acronym, synonym, always get those things mixed up anyway, fancy words for saying agencies are killing bears when they come into conflict, but you know that's what they're doing. It would just be great if hunters had the ability to take a few bears if you want to see a really cool episode. And I'm definitely not tooting my own horn, but would be great to talk about the merits and virtues and the awesome work that biologists large carnivore biologists are doing on behalf of grizzly bears. You should check out an old YouTube episode about five years old now on the meteater dot com Idaho Grizzlies, where we work with some incredibly dedicated Idaho fishing game staff to capture and release grizzlies as part of the longest running population grizzly bear study in the world. Awesome, awesome stuff. Moving on to the re wilding desk, someone who has been releasing Links into the Scottish Highlands and what appears to be an ill advised attempt to reintroduce the species to that area. Two pair of the wildcats were released last week and while both were quickly captured by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, the incident has sparked concern about rogue rewilders releasing wild animals on the landscape. You guys did a great job keeping me in the loop on this. On January nine, listeners Ian J and Bob T sent me articles about the first pair of Links being spotted in the car Gorms National Park in northern Scotland. Members of the public were encouraged to avoid the area as police investigated, and it didn't take long for them to learn about a second pair of cats that had been released in the same area. Links are native to Scotland, but they disappeared from the island between five hundred and a thousand years ago. Some preservationist groups have called for the cats to be reintroduced in the area, but from what I can tell, there isn't much appetite for that among the general Scottish public. One of those preservationist groups, the Mammal Society, told the BBC that while it understands the frustration that might have led to these illegal releases, it condemned the actions as irresponsible and not the answer. Police are still investigating where exactly the cats came from. It's also possible these were pets that someone decided they didn't want, but it seems like the consensus is that they were released to rewild the area. Rewilding is a concept we've touched on a few times. It's basically what it sounds like. Advocates seek to restore landscapes to a wilder state by reintroducing ex stirpaid species and limiting the influence of humans on the landscape. While they're responsible and interesting, projects done in the name of rewilding. The movement can also take on an anti human tinge. Some would argue that we should restore natural ecosystems no matter the human cost, and you can see how that mindset might compel someone to release links in a national park. Please say that even though the cats are safe and sound in the Edinburgh Zoo, they're still on the lookout for those responsible for the release. For something super fun for you Scottish listeners. I know I didn't pronounce this stuff right, so if you want to write in with a little sound bite and pronounce your national park, that would be super all right. No, there's no tech talk for Monico's beckman. I know you're coming out of biwally up there, but I'm glad to have you doing your skate fastiles and a weap against the holding. Okay, what moving on to the legislative desk. State legislatures are reconvening in capitals across the nation and we're here to tell you about all the bills and policy that will impact hunters, anglers, conservationists and other public land users. A few quick notes before we dive into our first big legislation desk of the year. First, you can find every call to action or as we say around the office, cal to action, as my producer wants me to say over at the meeteater dot com forward slash col. If you're driving, holding a toddler, or can't reach a pen for some other reason, you can find a quick recap of every item on the legislative desk at the meeteater dot com forward slash cal again the meeteater dot com forward slash cal. Second, we rely heavily on you, our listeners, to tell us what you're seeing in your states. We do our best, but we can't keep track of what's happening in all fifty. So if you see a bill or policy that's concerning, exciting, just darn interesting, let me know about it by writing in to ask Cel that's ask cal at the meaeater dot com. With those business items out of the way, let's dig in down. In Florida, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is officially seeking public input on reopening a black bear hunt. The Sunshine State ran a regulated hunt from nineteen thirty six to nineteen ninety four, but they closed it in nineteen ninety five to help recover the dwindling bear population. As those recovery efforts succeeded and bear numbers rose, officials opened a limited hunt in twenty fifteen, but ironically enough, that hunt went so well that the public backlash forced the Commission to close it almost as soon as it opened. Floridians felt that too many bears were killed too quickly, and the state hasn't seen a hunt since that year. Fortunately, the Commission has voice support for a hunt for the last few years, and now they've taken the first official steps. They've asked the biologists with the Commission to put a hunt plan together, which they say what could be ready as soon as May of this year. If you live in Florida and would like the chance to chase the bear, now is the time to get involved. You can bet that the anti hunting crowd will be out in full force to pressure the Commission to leave the hunt closed. We need to be out in even fuller force. That's a word, right. That means attending the commission meetings and sending in as many calls and emails as you can. We'll post links at the media dot com forward slash you know what cal to the meeting schedule and a page where you can contact all the commissioners at once. Here's a hint. They start with my FWC dot com. Moving over to Oklahoma, the state senator has proposed a bill that would lower the annual bag limit for whitetail bucks from two to one. Current regulation allows hunters to take two antler deer per year, but SB three three eight, authored by Senator Grant Green, would limit hunters to a single buck per year. As of this recording, Senator Green hasn't provided much public explanation for why he wants to see this change. I assume he's worried about the whitetail population and he thinks lowering the bag limit will keep more bucks on the landscape or help bucks grow bigger antlers. But Tyler Terrio, a listener and lifelong Oklahoma hunter, calls that thinking a fallacy. The hunters who shoot young immature deer will continue to do so regardless of bag limits and restrictions. He wrote in his email calling our attention to this bill. Whatever the motivation for SB three thirty eight, I'd say these decisions are better made by the biologists in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Senator Green might have real data informing this idea, or he might be doing a favor for his cousin's nephew who hasn't seen enough big bucks on his forty acre farm and thinks the bag limit should be lower. Whatever you think, send an email to your Oklahoma state senators. Today. Up in Wyoming, the legislature will once again consider a bill that would make corner crossing legal in the state. Rep. Carly Provenza recently filed House nine, which decriminalizes entering the airspace of a private landowner if the person is traveling from one block of public land to another at the point where the blocks meet. It's important we codify that the people of Wyoming have the right to access their public lands. Representative Provenza told Wilo File I couldn't agree more, but we'll see if this bill has better luck in the Cowboy State than previous versions. Even though a federal court has ruled in favor of corner crossing, the issue is still somewhat up in the air. It is legal right now, and it would be great if Western state legislatures would step in and clarify this issue, But there is still tons of pressure from landowners who currently enjoy exclusive access to public parcels. And this isn't all landowners that about public property gang. This is just a select view that are trying to keep the public out of public land. So if you live in Wyoming, get on the horn with your state rep and tell them to vote in favor of House Bill ninety nine. In Colorado, the legislature will consider a bill that would ban a huge percentage of semi automatic firearms in the state. SB two to five DASH zero zero three would make it illegal to manufacture, distribute, transfer, sell, or purchase semi automatic rifles or shotguns with a detachable magazine, or gas operated semi automatic handguns with a detachable magazine. Many other states have banned so called assault weapons, but the sponsors of this bill claim to be taking a new approach. Rather than trying to describe AR fifteen's, AK forty sevens and other rifles in law and then ban them, this bill is larger in scope. It targets any rifle or shotgun that is semi automatic and accepts any size detachable magazine, as well as any handgun that is gas operated and accepts a detachable magazine. That would ban virtually every AR style rifle or handgun. Since they all accept detachable magasine most are gas operated, Colorados who currently own these firearms would have to transferre it out of state, sell it to a gun dealer, or pass it down to an air The bill does include some exceptions. If the rifle is chambered in twenty two col or smaller, it won't be banned. If the rifle or shotgun has a fixed magazine of less than fifteen rounds, it's also safe. The bill also makes an exception for recoil operated handguns, which would include pretty much every other modern handgun on the market. Dozens of Colorado representatives and senators have sponsored this bill. They say it's aimed at preventing gun related violence. One of those sponsors, state Senator Tom Sullivan, says he was also motivated to introduce the bill to enforce the state's magazine ban. Colorado passed a bill in twenty thirteen that ban the sale of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds, but Sullivan says these illegal mags are still too accessible. He believes this bill, which bans the sale of firearms capable of using those illegal magazines, will do what the older lack couldn't. A SB two to five zero zero three was introduced last week and has been assigned to the State Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. I'd weigh in on this one. There's definitely like some hunting applications here that get smoked in all this verbiage, and man, it's regulating law abiding citizens in order to, you know, I guess, somehow attempt to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Two more quick ones for you, listener. Nicholas Hart sent me a bill being considered in Kentucky that would remove the hunter education requirement for anyone over the age of eighteen years old. It also removes the live fire range day requirements for law enforcement, current military personnel, and military veterans. It was introduced by State Senator Gary Boswell, who you may remember as the legislator who wanted to legalize killing Cooper's and red tailed hawks. He's back now with another brilliant idea. Nicholas rightly points out in his email that Hunter's ed has been credited with dramatically reducing hunting accidents and states from coast to coast. With the large number of adult onset hunters these days, it seems especially irresponsible well, to remove the requirement for hunters in Kentucky or anywhere else. Yeah, irresponsible. Finally, the good folks over at the National Deer Association have made me aware of a proposal in Indiana that would allow landowners to release into the wild captive bread white tailed deer that are supposedly resistant to chronic wasting disease. We've covered this a ton already. It's just crazy talk. Oklahoma passed the same kind of bill last year, and we covered it extensively in a conversation with the NDA's Kip Adams in episode two seventy three. We're not going to get into all the specifics right now because I'm told the bill's language hasn't been finalized, but we'll be bringing you more details in the coming weeks. And I wanted to get in on the radar of Indiana deer hunters so you can be ready to stop this bad bill in its tracks. That's all I've got for you this week. So much more coming down the pipe. We're going to add more episodes if necessary. I'm sure it will be so right in keep us accountable, just like we need to keep our lawmakers accountable. Thank you so much. It's gonna take effort and time, but I know you'll do it. I'll help as much as I can too. Thanks again. Remember to write into a sk C a L that's ASCALT themedia dot com. Tell us what's going on in your neck of the woods. We appreciate it. Talk to you next week.

From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This is Cow's Week in Review with Ryan cow Klah. Here's cal what is the national bird of the United States? If you said bald eagle before Christmas Eve twenty twenty four, you'd have been wrong. Prior to that date, we didn't have a national bird. But thanks to Senators Amy klobash, are Mark, Wayne Mullen, Cynthia Loomis, and Tina Smith, this obvious oversight has been corrected. These four senators sponsored a bill passed by Congress and signed by President Biden that officially declares the bald eagle to be America's national bird. The bald eagle was adopted as the coat of arms for the United States Great Seal in seventeen eighty two and has been the unofficial national bird of the United States ever seen. You might wonder why Congress is spending its time making things official, but these symbolic designations do have a conservation purpose. When states or local governments make a bird, tree, or plant an official symbol, it generates interest and attention, which can in turn generate resources for conservation. For example, after the bald eagle became the national bird. A South Carolina newspaper published an article with the headline quote Biden declares bald eagles US national bird. The raptors are still imperiled in South Carolina. That article and the public awareness it generated about how eagles are still imperiled wouldn't have been published if Congress hadn't passed this bill. So the next time you see a bald eagle soaring across a blue sky, or perching a tree, or you know, if you're up in Alaska sitting on a dumpster, gaze upon its majesty with pride as you contemplate the strength, courage, and conservation success it represents as our newly minted national bird and possibly the number one carry an eater in your heart. This week we've got public lands, grizzer bears, legislation, and so much more. But first I'm going to tell you about my week, and my week has been a whirlwind as per usual. First, big thanks to the Arizona Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers for hosting the North American Board of BHA for the annual retreat. Everything was awesome, killer country, great weather, awesome people, new species, they got to meet, all you folks who are volunteering tirelessly and kicking butt while you're doing so. Great discussions, great energy. Love to see it happen, and keep it up. We appreciate you. As for the new species down there in Arizona, we got to hunt for part of the day Manazuma or Merns Quail Merns being the naturalist that identified the species and natural This guy will make you blush. Merns was a New Yorker who got a medical degree and joined the Army in the late eighteen hundreds. He was stationed a bunch of places, but traveled to far flung locales like Guam, which you can imagine in the turn of the century was a bit of a trip. Eventually, he was appointed medical Officer to the International Boundary Commission, that boundary being between Mexico and the United States. In nineteen oh seven, he published Mammals of the Mexican Boundary of the United States. In nineteen oh nine, he retired from the Army with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Then Theodore Roosevelt invited Merns to accompany the Smithsonian Roosevelt African Expedition as a naturalist, which heck of a tip of the hat there. He was doing that from nineteen eleven to nineteen twelve. He scientifically described the Tita thrush, the Appo sunbird, the boren cisticola, the Chewahwan grasshopper mouse, the rufous headed Taylor bird, among others. Eventually, he died in Washington, d C. At the ripe old age of sixty sixty years old. That's a lot by sixty. That's offty old merns. And now for the quail part. What's interesting about this little comparatively non vocal bugger, the merns quail, is that they use their long talons to dig and eat tubers. They got big feet. And when I say dig, we found holes like six to eight inches deep in some areas. And this is like dry, hard, rocky soil, and sixty eight inches may not seem like a lot to summy, but when you're sixty eight inches tall like the merns quail, that's a big hole. The birds I took home are plucked and sitting in a gentle brine before I lightly roast them. I'll let you know how that goes. Incredible camouflage on the merns quail, it is just wild, wild, how they blend in to that grass and of course you know dry, dusty, hard scent conditions for the dogs. Yeah, it is a wonder that you can find those things. Probably wouldn't do it without a dog. What else, As previously talked about, states are in session, go to the askcalpage at the mediat dot com to find out which ones. Randall Williams and I hustled up to Helena, which of course is Montana's capital, to listen in and offer testimony. Last week. We got particularly interested in HB one thirty nine, which is a bill that was put together to address the idea that mule deer rut hunting in our state could be closed at some point. I testified against that one, as Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has the ability to season set with public input already, And if you listen to this podcast, I just prefer regulation over legislation. Fishing game agencies need to be as nimble as possible. I got to tip the hat to Representative Hinkle, who you know, put a lot of work into that thing. The vote is coming up like immediately after this podcast gets record, so I'll have to update you next week on how that goes. But guys, Head's not in the wrong place. I just think the state's already got this one covered. We just don't need a law for it. Let me know what you think, and more importantly, please write in and let me know what is going on in your state. Many of you already did, so let's get to it. Going right over to the public land desk, here's some positive news to start your week. The Supreme Court has declined to hear a lawsuit brought by the state of Utah that would have forced the federal government to dispose of tens of millions of acres of public land. We covered this story on several episodes, but we did a deep dive recently. In episode three point thirty two. Utah was asking the Supreme Court to force the Bureau of Land Management to dispose of so called unappropriated land. This would mean that in Utah alone, the BLM would have to sell a whopping eighteen and a half million acres, and it's not clear whether that land would fall to state or private control or just need to be as it says in the lawsuit disposed of as in sould, Utah, along with several other Western states, were asking the Supreme Court to let them skip all the lower federal courts and go straight to the top. But in a decision release just last week, the justices said not so fast. They didn't comment on the merits of the case or explain their reasoning. They simply refused to take the case. This is great news for public land advocates, but the fight is far from over. Utah and its allies can refile their case with the lower federal court and try to work their way back up to the Supreme Court, or they can try to work with the incoming Trump administration to hand over a federal public land. In a joint statement released last week, Utah said, the incoming Trump administration shares quote our commitments to the principle of multiple use for these federal lands and is committed to working with us to improve land management. You got to pay attention to the words here, folks. This is not about land management. This is about the sale of land. Management is just like a red herring argument that has nothing to do with the case. On top of that, the Trump administration has said on multiple occasions that they aren't interested in selling the unbelievable real estate we co own. It's just too darn valuable. We've won the first battle, but we need to stay vigilant. As always, we'll keep you in the loop. Moving on to the grizzer bear desk. Last week, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a new rule that would dramatically change how grizzly bears are managed in the United States. The proposal comes in response to several lawsuits by Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, whose governors were asking that the species be removed from the Endangered Species list. Led by Director Martha Williams, the Fish and Wildlife Service denied these requests. Instead, the Service wants to get rid of the six population segments it had previously used to manage the bears, and will now aim to recover grizzlies within one giant segment that encompasses all of Washington State, as well as most of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. If all that sounds like much ado about nothing, let me explain why this decision is raising the blood pressures of everyone, from the Center of Biological Diversity to our own governor here in Montana, Greg gen Forte. As we've covered several times on this podcast, grizzly bears are broken up into six distinct population segments Northern Cascades in Washington, Selkirk and Cabinet Yak in northern Idaho and Montana, Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem in the northwest Montana, bitter At in Idaho, and Greater Yellowstone in southern Montana and northwest Wyoming a little bit of Schmidga Idaho there too. There are currently a bunch of bears between seven hundred and one thousand in both the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide. That's according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. There are about sixty bears in the Cabinet Yak and about forty bears in Selkirk, but the other recovery areas don't contain any breeding populations, again, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. For the last decade or so, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have been pushing for the bears to be removed from the Endangered Species list in Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide. They argue that the populations here are strong and growing, some would say too strong at this point, and there's no reason that they should still be listed as endangered. Taking them off the ESA. In these two recovery zones would allow the states to manage the species as they do every other non endangered species in their jurisdictions. However, if the Fish and Wildlife Service succeeds in eliminating these population zones and begins managing all grizzlies in the lower forty eight under the same umbrella, you can kiss that argument goodbye. Now. Instead of two populations looking strong and healthy while the other four still need protection, the map looks practically empty. The new single population segment extends well beyond where grizzly bears currently live, and the agency doesn't offer a population goal for when and this giant new population boundary counts as recovered. In fact, they argue that the strength of the populations in Yellowstone and the Northern Continental Divide are in fact a reason not to delist the bears, They say quote. The Service also recognizes that recovery of small and extirpated populations relies on contributions from highly resilient populations. Maintaining all recovery zones together in one distinct population segment will increase the speed of recovery in remaining ecosystems and the overall viability of grizzly bears, increasing the likelihood of successfully delisting the entire DPS that's distinct population segment by addressing the species recovery needs as a whole. In other words, since bears can't read maps, we need large, healthy populations in some areas so those bears can travel to the other recovery zones and repopulate them. We can't delist those strong populations because we need as many bears in the lower forty eight as possible. The response to this announcement has been about what you'd expect. The Center for Biological Diversity praised the rule, with legal director Andrea Zuccardi saying she's relieved that bears and other recovery zones will have a quote real chance at long term recovery instead of being gunned down and mounted on trophy walls. On the other side of the ledger, the Western Landowners Alliance accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of moving the goalposts. The reality is that grizzly bears are increasing in population and expanding in range, well beyond original recovery targets, said Leslie Allison, the nonprofit CEO. People who live and work in recovery areas continue to experience increasing conflicts, safety concerns, and disproportionate economic costs. To be fair, the Service does acknowledge in their press release that grizzly bear expansion is challenging for local communities and working lands Because of this. The new rule also adds greater flexibility and responsiveness on private lands and areas where grizzly bear pops populations are impacting private landowners and livestock producers. We will have more information in future weeks about what exactly that looks like, but it sounds like the Service is open to removing problem bears more quickly. As of this recording. Most of the hunting orgs have yet to weigh in on this issue, but the Sportsman's Alliance sounded off in a blog post a day after the rule was proposed, and it's safe to say they're not happy. Michael Jean, the group's litigation council, said the rule shows that the Endangered Species Act is quote broken. He continued, we have multiple populations of different species that have surpassed their recovery goals and are thriving. If they cannot be delisted according to the Service because they have not fully recovered in other areas. We'll stay on this story as it moves forward, but in the meantime you have work to do. That's right you. This is a proposed rule, nothing has been finalized, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is asking the public to weigh in. There will be public meetings in Montana, Idaho, in Wyoming, and concerned citizens can also post a comment online. A sixty day public comment period will be open from January fifteen through March seventeen, and we'll post a link to that comment page over at the meat eater dot com forward slash col Just a reminder, just because we're not hunting them doesn't mean people aren't shooting them. You can use whatever like I guess, acronym, synonym, always get those things mixed up anyway, fancy words for saying agencies are killing bears when they come into conflict, but you know that's what they're doing. It would just be great if hunters had the ability to take a few bears if you want to see a really cool episode. And I'm definitely not tooting my own horn, but would be great to talk about the merits and virtues and the awesome work that biologists large carnivore biologists are doing on behalf of grizzly bears. You should check out an old YouTube episode about five years old now on the meteater dot com Idaho Grizzlies, where we work with some incredibly dedicated Idaho fishing game staff to capture and release grizzlies as part of the longest running population grizzly bear study in the world. Awesome, awesome stuff. Moving on to the re wilding desk, someone who has been releasing Links into the Scottish Highlands and what appears to be an ill advised attempt to reintroduce the species to that area. Two pair of the wildcats were released last week and while both were quickly captured by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, the incident has sparked concern about rogue rewilders releasing wild animals on the landscape. You guys did a great job keeping me in the loop on this. On January nine, listeners Ian J and Bob T sent me articles about the first pair of Links being spotted in the car Gorms National Park in northern Scotland. Members of the public were encouraged to avoid the area as police investigated, and it didn't take long for them to learn about a second pair of cats that had been released in the same area. Links are native to Scotland, but they disappeared from the island between five hundred and a thousand years ago. Some preservationist groups have called for the cats to be reintroduced in the area, but from what I can tell, there isn't much appetite for that among the general Scottish public. One of those preservationist groups, the Mammal Society, told the BBC that while it understands the frustration that might have led to these illegal releases, it condemned the actions as irresponsible and not the answer. Police are still investigating where exactly the cats came from. It's also possible these were pets that someone decided they didn't want, but it seems like the consensus is that they were released to rewild the area. Rewilding is a concept we've touched on a few times. It's basically what it sounds like. Advocates seek to restore landscapes to a wilder state by reintroducing ex stirpaid species and limiting the influence of humans on the landscape. While they're responsible and interesting, projects done in the name of rewilding. The movement can also take on an anti human tinge. Some would argue that we should restore natural ecosystems no matter the human cost, and you can see how that mindset might compel someone to release links in a national park. Please say that even though the cats are safe and sound in the Edinburgh Zoo, they're still on the lookout for those responsible for the release. For something super fun for you Scottish listeners. I know I didn't pronounce this stuff right, so if you want to write in with a little sound bite and pronounce your national park, that would be super all right. No, there's no tech talk for Monico's beckman. I know you're coming out of biwally up there, but I'm glad to have you doing your skate fastiles and a weap against the holding. Okay, what moving on to the legislative desk. State legislatures are reconvening in capitals across the nation and we're here to tell you about all the bills and policy that will impact hunters, anglers, conservationists and other public land users. A few quick notes before we dive into our first big legislation desk of the year. First, you can find every call to action or as we say around the office, cal to action, as my producer wants me to say over at the meeteater dot com forward slash col. If you're driving, holding a toddler, or can't reach a pen for some other reason, you can find a quick recap of every item on the legislative desk at the meeteater dot com forward slash cal again the meeteater dot com forward slash cal. Second, we rely heavily on you, our listeners, to tell us what you're seeing in your states. We do our best, but we can't keep track of what's happening in all fifty. So if you see a bill or policy that's concerning, exciting, just darn interesting, let me know about it by writing in to ask Cel that's ask cal at the meaeater dot com. With those business items out of the way, let's dig in down. In Florida, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is officially seeking public input on reopening a black bear hunt. The Sunshine State ran a regulated hunt from nineteen thirty six to nineteen ninety four, but they closed it in nineteen ninety five to help recover the dwindling bear population. As those recovery efforts succeeded and bear numbers rose, officials opened a limited hunt in twenty fifteen, but ironically enough, that hunt went so well that the public backlash forced the Commission to close it almost as soon as it opened. Floridians felt that too many bears were killed too quickly, and the state hasn't seen a hunt since that year. Fortunately, the Commission has voice support for a hunt for the last few years, and now they've taken the first official steps. They've asked the biologists with the Commission to put a hunt plan together, which they say what could be ready as soon as May of this year. If you live in Florida and would like the chance to chase the bear, now is the time to get involved. You can bet that the anti hunting crowd will be out in full force to pressure the Commission to leave the hunt closed. We need to be out in even fuller force. That's a word, right. That means attending the commission meetings and sending in as many calls and emails as you can. We'll post links at the media dot com forward slash you know what cal to the meeting schedule and a page where you can contact all the commissioners at once. Here's a hint. They start with my FWC dot com. Moving over to Oklahoma, the state senator has proposed a bill that would lower the annual bag limit for whitetail bucks from two to one. Current regulation allows hunters to take two antler deer per year, but SB three three eight, authored by Senator Grant Green, would limit hunters to a single buck per year. As of this recording, Senator Green hasn't provided much public explanation for why he wants to see this change. I assume he's worried about the whitetail population and he thinks lowering the bag limit will keep more bucks on the landscape or help bucks grow bigger antlers. But Tyler Terrio, a listener and lifelong Oklahoma hunter, calls that thinking a fallacy. The hunters who shoot young immature deer will continue to do so regardless of bag limits and restrictions. He wrote in his email calling our attention to this bill. Whatever the motivation for SB three thirty eight, I'd say these decisions are better made by the biologists in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Senator Green might have real data informing this idea, or he might be doing a favor for his cousin's nephew who hasn't seen enough big bucks on his forty acre farm and thinks the bag limit should be lower. Whatever you think, send an email to your Oklahoma state senators. Today. Up in Wyoming, the legislature will once again consider a bill that would make corner crossing legal in the state. Rep. Carly Provenza recently filed House nine, which decriminalizes entering the airspace of a private landowner if the person is traveling from one block of public land to another at the point where the blocks meet. It's important we codify that the people of Wyoming have the right to access their public lands. Representative Provenza told Wilo File I couldn't agree more, but we'll see if this bill has better luck in the Cowboy State than previous versions. Even though a federal court has ruled in favor of corner crossing, the issue is still somewhat up in the air. It is legal right now, and it would be great if Western state legislatures would step in and clarify this issue, But there is still tons of pressure from landowners who currently enjoy exclusive access to public parcels. And this isn't all landowners that about public property gang. This is just a select view that are trying to keep the public out of public land. So if you live in Wyoming, get on the horn with your state rep and tell them to vote in favor of House Bill ninety nine. In Colorado, the legislature will consider a bill that would ban a huge percentage of semi automatic firearms in the state. SB two to five DASH zero zero three would make it illegal to manufacture, distribute, transfer, sell, or purchase semi automatic rifles or shotguns with a detachable magazine, or gas operated semi automatic handguns with a detachable magazine. Many other states have banned so called assault weapons, but the sponsors of this bill claim to be taking a new approach. Rather than trying to describe AR fifteen's, AK forty sevens and other rifles in law and then ban them, this bill is larger in scope. It targets any rifle or shotgun that is semi automatic and accepts any size detachable magazine, as well as any handgun that is gas operated and accepts a detachable magazine. That would ban virtually every AR style rifle or handgun. Since they all accept detachable magasine most are gas operated, Colorados who currently own these firearms would have to transferre it out of state, sell it to a gun dealer, or pass it down to an air The bill does include some exceptions. If the rifle is chambered in twenty two col or smaller, it won't be banned. If the rifle or shotgun has a fixed magazine of less than fifteen rounds, it's also safe. The bill also makes an exception for recoil operated handguns, which would include pretty much every other modern handgun on the market. Dozens of Colorado representatives and senators have sponsored this bill. They say it's aimed at preventing gun related violence. One of those sponsors, state Senator Tom Sullivan, says he was also motivated to introduce the bill to enforce the state's magazine ban. Colorado passed a bill in twenty thirteen that ban the sale of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds, but Sullivan says these illegal mags are still too accessible. He believes this bill, which bans the sale of firearms capable of using those illegal magazines, will do what the older lack couldn't. A SB two to five zero zero three was introduced last week and has been assigned to the State Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. I'd weigh in on this one. There's definitely like some hunting applications here that get smoked in all this verbiage, and man, it's regulating law abiding citizens in order to, you know, I guess, somehow attempt to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Two more quick ones for you, listener. Nicholas Hart sent me a bill being considered in Kentucky that would remove the hunter education requirement for anyone over the age of eighteen years old. It also removes the live fire range day requirements for law enforcement, current military personnel, and military veterans. It was introduced by State Senator Gary Boswell, who you may remember as the legislator who wanted to legalize killing Cooper's and red tailed hawks. He's back now with another brilliant idea. Nicholas rightly points out in his email that Hunter's ed has been credited with dramatically reducing hunting accidents and states from coast to coast. With the large number of adult onset hunters these days, it seems especially irresponsible well, to remove the requirement for hunters in Kentucky or anywhere else. Yeah, irresponsible. Finally, the good folks over at the National Deer Association have made me aware of a proposal in Indiana that would allow landowners to release into the wild captive bread white tailed deer that are supposedly resistant to chronic wasting disease. We've covered this a ton already. It's just crazy talk. Oklahoma passed the same kind of bill last year, and we covered it extensively in a conversation with the NDA's Kip Adams in episode two seventy three. We're not going to get into all the specifics right now because I'm told the bill's language hasn't been finalized, but we'll be bringing you more details in the coming weeks. And I wanted to get in on the radar of Indiana deer hunters so you can be ready to stop this bad bill in its tracks. That's all I've got for you this week. So much more coming down the pipe. We're going to add more episodes if necessary. I'm sure it will be so right in keep us accountable, just like we need to keep our lawmakers accountable. Thank you so much. It's gonna take effort and time, but I know you'll do it. I'll help as much as I can too. Thanks again. Remember to write into a sk C a L that's ASCALT themedia dot com. Tell us what's going on in your neck of the woods. We appreciate it. Talk to you next week.