Welcome to the Wired to Hunt podcast, your guide to the White Tail Woods, presented by first Light, creating proven versatile hunting apparel for the stand, saddle or blind. First Light Go Farther, Stay Longer, and now your host, Mark Kenyon.

Welcome to the Wired to Hunt podcast, your guide to the White Tail Woods, presented by first Light, creating proven versatile hunting apparel for the stand, saddle or blind. First Light Go Farther, Stay Longer, and now your host, Mark Kenyon.

Welcome to the Wired to Hunt podcast. This week on the show, I'm joined by Ryan Callahan to get a quick level set on where things stand regarding threats to public lands in early twenty twenty five, and a larger discussion around the best strategies that we can employ to protect those lands now and into the future, whether you are listening to this in twenty twenty five, twenty thirty or thirty more years down the road. All right, welcome back to the Wired to Hunt podcast, brought to you by First Life, and to start today, I want you to close your eyes now. If you're driving, don't do that please, but assuming you are in a safe place, close your eyes. Bear with me here and imagine a piece of public land, a piece of public land that has been special to you, a favorite place, a cherished place, somewhere that has lingered long into your memory because of fishing trip or a hunting trip, or an incredible wildlife encounter or an experience you shared with your son or your daughter, or your mom or your dad. Think about this place, the first place that comes to your mind like that and picture it. Imagine what it looks like, Imagine what it sounds like, the wind through the trees, the river flowing through the rocks, Smell it, touch it, remember what it feels like to be there. And then imagine if that place was gone. Imagine if you couldn't take your son or your daughter, or your grandkids, or your friend or your mentee there. Imagine if you couldn't go back because it was given away, sold off, it was cut down, or if a road was built through the middle of it, whatever it might be. Imagine that that opportunity was no longer available to you. How does that feel? I don't like that thought exercise. I don't like the way that makes me feel, and I don't want that to happen. And that's why we are having this podcast here today, because this podcast, at a very high level, is about what we can do as Americans, as hunters and anglers, to make sure that this never happens to your special place or my special place, or anyone else here that loves our public lands, whether these threats be now or five years from now, or ten years from now or twenty years from now, Because what I learned when I was working on my book was about the history of our public lands and the threats facing them in the future. When you look back in the hundreds of years long history of how we got these places, one of the biggest things that stood out to me while working on that wild country was this fact that these fights happened over and over and over again. Ever since we secured these lands as a shared inheritance for all Americans, there have been people trying to get their hands on them, trying to squeeze every penny they can out of them, trying to find ways to sell them off for milk them for more money, or get them in some other person's control. Whatever it is, it continues and it will continue. And so we today are going to discuss some things going on right now in twenty twenty five that are causing all sorts of buzz. If you've been following the media and the news, of course there's a lot going on nationally, but a lot of that national conversation has ramifications for public lands and hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation. So we today are going to discuss a little bit of what's happening right now. But then I also and what the biggest part of this conversation entails is zooming out, zooming out of twenty twenty five and talking more generally about we what we as hunters and anglers can do to be the absolute most effective advocates for public lands that we possibly can be. This is a strategy session me my buddy Ryan Callahan, a colleague, for me to the host of Kales. We can review so one of the absolute leaders in the conservation in public land space. Today we are going to brainstorm, We are going to spitball. We are going to wipeboard out different ideas and strategies and tactics and best practices for being the best possible version of a public land defense crew that we can possibly be. What have Cal and I learned over the years as we've studied these issues, What have we learned as we have participated in various nonprofit conservation organizations and as volunteers, and as you know folks that have created content around this and spoken to many of the leaders in the space. The game plan today is to try to really uncover the action items that we need to be taking right now and five years from now, and ten years from now, right on down the line. And you know, I think it has to be acknowledged that, you know, to set the context here, to set this stage, there is a real swelling of energy around anti public land ideas right now. The anti public land movement has existed for many years. It's kind of gone up and down with support and power and opportunity and energy around it, and right now it's on the rise. As hell. Herring said maybe six weeks six weeks ago when he was on the podcast with me, he said that that movement is ascendant right now. There is a lot going on in the world right now, a lot going on nationally that's providing an opportunity for those people. So I want to start here with an excerpt from an email that the CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers just sent. This is Patrick Barry, and he wrote this, I quote, the avalanche of foreboding attacks on public lands, combined with calculated misinformation campaigns design to gaslight Americans into believing what's happening is in their best interest, has reached a crisis point. From Utah's US Supreme Court lawsuit aimed at eroding the very foundations of federal land ownership, to the transactional view that public lands are no more than a line at them on a balance sheet, to the recent raft of political maneuvers setting the stage for a public lands liquidation. The drumbeat of selling out and selling off has become deafening end quote. And it's not just BHA who's raising the red flag on this one. Similar concerns have been raised all across the outdoor media and conservation landscape. You can see it in the pages of Field and Stream and Outdoor Life and Meat Eater. You're gonna hear it from folks like Randy Nuberg and Hell Herring, and Andrew McKean and Steve Vanella and so many others. This is a across the board realization from many, many people that there's something going on right now, and it's going to require something on our end. Me and Kail are going to dive into questions and concerns and ideas related to everything from how can we as advocates cut through the noise, how can we reach the people we need to reach even though there's so much other stuff going on. How can we actually get our elected officials to listen to us, How can we rally big, diverse coalitions in support of public lands. How can we get conservation organizations to actually act and move forward on the things that we really need them to. How can we individually speak out about these issues more effectively. How can we be more effective in educating our friends and family members and work colleagues and all that kind of stuff. How can we kind of get outside of the partisan, polarizing, name calling and craft talking that so much of our politics are today. These are some of the things that Cal and I try to discuss. And I will say that, you know, the first thirty minutes or so of the conversation with me and Cal here do kind of get to the you know, context of what's happening right now. We do a level set some of the things that Cal's concerned about, some of the things that I'm concerned about. Some of the current events right now in early twenty twenty five that are you know, giving folks in the public land world from heartburn. So if you know, if you've heard enough, if you're very well aware of the situation in March twenty twenty five and don't need to hear more about that. You can fast forward maybe thirty minutes ish. That's when we get to more of this tactical strategy session. But you know, I don't think that it's I don't think it is, you know, a bad idea to take stock of where we are right now, though, because there is a lot and maybe you've been seeing social media posts or you've been seeing the headlines with concerns raised about public lands, but you're not really sure of the details. I've had a lot of people commenting on some of my things on social media saying, well, you know, what's the big deal? You know, we have to lay off some people. What's the big deal with that? And so I think some people are aware of maybe like one tiny slice of what's happening, but haven't seen the full picture. So Cal and I do try to speak to more of that full picture. But let me give you a very quick rundown here, so you have a sense of, you know, this kind of stack of issues that keeps on piling up, piling up, piling up, and it has been for a number of years now. This isn't something that just began with the new administration. There have been folks, you know, slowly accruing power, pushing for these ideas, you know, for years. So one thing mentioned there in Patrick Barry's email was this lawsuit from the state of Utah asserting that the federal government was breaking the law supposedly by having and managing federal public lands, and the State of Utah demanded that the federal government give eighteen point five million acres of federal public land to the State of Utah. That fortunately was not picked up by the Supreme Court. They decided not to hear that case. But it's very likely that that's gonna rear its ugly head up again in some appeals court or something down the line. I think that was a strong signal of what's going on. More than a dozen other states. I thought it was somewhere around almost twenty different states signed on in support of that. So this isn't just a Utah thing. This is also North Dakota thing. This is also an Iowa thing. This is also a bunch of other state governments agreeing and supporting that idea. Speaking of states supporting the idea of getting rid of public lands, the state Senate in Wyoming pushed through a big resolution again demanding that the federal government give over all the federal public lands they've gotten the state of Wyoming. Now, that actually got passed at one point, that resolution was passed at one point by why Ioming State Senate. Fortunately, they don't actually have the powers to do that, to force the federal government to hand over their public lands, but that kind of thing is being proposed by Wyoming and other states. This kind of state control thing continues to get some interest in certain corners, you know. Continuing down that line, a bill was recently introduced that's trying to you know, remove the power of the presidency to use the Antiquities Act, which has been a tremendous tool for protecting public lands. Theodore Roosevelt was the first to do it and secure it incredible places that we all enjoy today, such as the land that's now the Grand Canyon National Park and many others. Let's see, when it comes to you know, more recent high level federal stuff, what probably most of you are aware of are the cuts that have happened at the federal level. And and yes, like there's there's important efficiency measures being taken which I am many people'll kind of appreciate, but when it comes to public lands specifically, there's been some concerns there. More than two thousand folks from the Department of the Interior were laid off, including more than a thousand from the National Park Service. I also saw that another seven hundred I believe took the kind of the pushed on them early retirement offering. So that leads to about seventeen hundred folks not at the National Park Service anymore. In that I believe was almost ten percent of their staff. There was thirty four hundred Forest Service employees that were let go. That's about ten percent of the Forest Service. And you know this isn't official yet, but the latest report I saw is that there is another push happening where they are asking for a push to lay off another seven thousand folks there. And these are agencies that were already understaffed, that were already underfunded. Budgets were slashed last year during the previous administration and that passed Congress. So the agencies that are managing our public lands are facing really really difficult conditions too. This is concerning. And then you also have further cost cutting measures. Many of the grants and funds and budgets for these agencies and habitat programs are being either frozen or slashed. And then on the flip side, there's the cost cutting side, and then there's also the revenue side. And this is an inherent what I would say a good thing about public lands, but also a thing that you always have to be careful about, is the fact that revenues are raised from our public lands. They are a revenue source, They are meant to be a sustainable profit center, a sustainable resource in which there is extraction for gas and oil and minerals and timber and grazing. Those are opportunities that have been available on public lands and should continue to be available. The thing with our shared multi use landscape is that all priorities need to be considered, and sometimes the pendulum swings one way too far, and sometimes the other way. And right now, based on what we're hearing and based on many of the proposals and executive orders that we're seeing right now, it seems like the pendulum is swinging far far to the extraction side. All other things being equal, there's a very high priority on drill baby, drill, extract baby extract. Let's let's milk these things for as much money as we possibly can. So many executive orders recently and secretarial orders have been essentially laying the groundwork and asking for the departments to start building out plans to take action on, you know, fast tracking anything we can to get extraction and development projects underway. Things like getting drilling going in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Things like possibly going and getting the Ambler Road development in Alaska approved even after it was denied last year after hearing from hunters and anglers. Things like taking any mineral withdrawals that were made during the last administration, So any places that you know, the government said, hey, this place is too special to mine or to extract, let's not do it in this spot. Now they're looking to reassess and possibly remove those such as the mineral withdrawal around the Boundary Waters Wilderness area that we've talked a lot about, and a whole bunch of more examples like that. And you know, anytime when you talk national priorities, shifting priorities, and federal government right, it can be touchy, It can make us defensive. And I want to be clear here that in by talking about any of these things whether it's right now in twenty twenty five, or when I talked about these things in twenty twenty one or twenty twenty two or twenty nineteen or twenty seventeen. You know, these aren't attacks on people, These aren't attacks on parties. These are simply you know, at least the way I approach it, I take an issue by issue perspective. I don't care who the president is. I don't care what parties in office. I just care about the specific ideas being put on the table and what they mean for hunting and fishing and the different things that we do on public landscapes. And so you know, right now we have you know, the Republicans's side does have more control right now, and they're doing plenty of good things, plenty of things that I would say, God bless you to them for. I appreciate the support that they are giving our firearm rights. I appreciate the fact that they are incredibly supportive of hunting opportunities and access in our way of life, and you know, so many other things like that. I think most of us listening to this podcast are in support of a more efficient, smart government, absolutely, but at the same token, I do not think that it is unpatriotic or Unamerican or unsupportive to also point out some warts when we see them. And here's the analogy. I've got the thing that kind of came to mind to me when I when I have talked about some of this stuff on social media, a bunch of people would write in and say, well, you know, we got to have these cuts or we have to do this thing because you know, we need to work down the deficit, or we need to make the government more efficient, and because of that, you know, basically apologize and ignore any of these other things because the greater cause or this other cause is important. And my thought to that, my response says, Okay, let's imagine going to the hospital and you got a broken arm, and you recognize that you have a problem. Here's this problem. I got a big old broken arm. I need you to fix it. I need someone to fix it. You go in there to the hospital, and if they all of a sudden, before they fix my broken arm just started cutting off my right leg. I wouldn't just sit there and not ask any questions and just let them take it. No, I would say, hey, man, why do you guys take my right leg too. Are you sure you need to take my right leg? I really love my right leg. Can we think about this? Can we do this carefully? Can we explore other opportunities? Are you looking into every possible recourse you have? Let's be careful. I wouldn't just blindly let them go with it. And I think we maybe should consider a similar approach when it comes to our public lands, because yes, there are other problems that need to be fixed. And this is the case no matter who's in office, there's always going to be some other problem. And it's going to be our job, as hunters and anglers and people that care about our public lands to say, hey, don't forget about our right leg. Don't forget about our public lands. You know, whether it be you know, the current administration wanting to put a new road through the wilderness up in Alaska to open up mind, or whether it be the past administration wanting to put up millions of acres worth of solar panels across wide open landscapes and destroy wildlife habitat in that kind of way, I think our job is to call a spade a spade to whoever's in office, because you know, the wildlife and the wild places of America don't have a voice, but we do. So we need to speak up for them, no matter if we are Republicans or Democrats or independents, no matter if the President or Congress is Republican or Democrat. Regardless, we can, we should, and we need to speak up and take action for these things. So that is my long winded rant to kick off this podcast. This one's gonna be long, so apologies for that, but that's what I got. That's my intro. Like I said, me and cal riff on this a little bit more like I said, for maybe like thirty ish minutes. So if you want to get right to the strategy, fast forward from here. But I do hope this is going to be helpful for you now and well into the future. And while this episode today is about defense, there are offensive strategies that we can consider as well, and that are available even now in the short term. So next week we do have an episode and a couple folks coming on that are going to talk about opportunities that we have over these next few years, ways that we absolutely could have some conservation wins and maybe some public land wins if we do our job and get our elected officials back on the right track. Good things aren't possible. So we're gonna talk defense, We're gonna talk offense. We're gonna talk about whatever we have to do, regardless of political party, regardless of where we live, what we do, whatever we love these places, we love these opportunities.

Welcome to the Wired to Hunt podcast. This week on the show, I'm joined by Ryan Callahan to get a quick level set on where things stand regarding threats to public lands in early twenty twenty five, and a larger discussion around the best strategies that we can employ to protect those lands now and into the future, whether you are listening to this in twenty twenty five, twenty thirty or thirty more years down the road. All right, welcome back to the Wired to Hunt podcast, brought to you by First Life, and to start today, I want you to close your eyes now. If you're driving, don't do that please, but assuming you are in a safe place, close your eyes. Bear with me here and imagine a piece of public land, a piece of public land that has been special to you, a favorite place, a cherished place, somewhere that has lingered long into your memory because of fishing trip or a hunting trip, or an incredible wildlife encounter or an experience you shared with your son or your daughter, or your mom or your dad. Think about this place, the first place that comes to your mind like that and picture it. Imagine what it looks like, Imagine what it sounds like, the wind through the trees, the river flowing through the rocks, Smell it, touch it, remember what it feels like to be there. And then imagine if that place was gone. Imagine if you couldn't take your son or your daughter, or your grandkids, or your friend or your mentee there. Imagine if you couldn't go back because it was given away, sold off, it was cut down, or if a road was built through the middle of it, whatever it might be. Imagine that that opportunity was no longer available to you. How does that feel? I don't like that thought exercise. I don't like the way that makes me feel, and I don't want that to happen. And that's why we are having this podcast here today, because this podcast, at a very high level, is about what we can do as Americans, as hunters and anglers, to make sure that this never happens to your special place or my special place, or anyone else here that loves our public lands, whether these threats be now or five years from now, or ten years from now or twenty years from now, Because what I learned when I was working on my book was about the history of our public lands and the threats facing them in the future. When you look back in the hundreds of years long history of how we got these places, one of the biggest things that stood out to me while working on that wild country was this fact that these fights happened over and over and over again. Ever since we secured these lands as a shared inheritance for all Americans, there have been people trying to get their hands on them, trying to squeeze every penny they can out of them, trying to find ways to sell them off for milk them for more money, or get them in some other person's control. Whatever it is, it continues and it will continue. And so we today are going to discuss some things going on right now in twenty twenty five that are causing all sorts of buzz. If you've been following the media and the news, of course there's a lot going on nationally, but a lot of that national conversation has ramifications for public lands and hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation. So we today are going to discuss a little bit of what's happening right now. But then I also and what the biggest part of this conversation entails is zooming out, zooming out of twenty twenty five and talking more generally about we what we as hunters and anglers can do to be the absolute most effective advocates for public lands that we possibly can be. This is a strategy session me my buddy Ryan Callahan, a colleague, for me to the host of Kales. We can review so one of the absolute leaders in the conservation in public land space. Today we are going to brainstorm, We are going to spitball. We are going to wipeboard out different ideas and strategies and tactics and best practices for being the best possible version of a public land defense crew that we can possibly be. What have Cal and I learned over the years as we've studied these issues, What have we learned as we have participated in various nonprofit conservation organizations and as volunteers, and as you know folks that have created content around this and spoken to many of the leaders in the space. The game plan today is to try to really uncover the action items that we need to be taking right now and five years from now, and ten years from now, right on down the line. And you know, I think it has to be acknowledged that, you know, to set the context here, to set this stage, there is a real swelling of energy around anti public land ideas right now. The anti public land movement has existed for many years. It's kind of gone up and down with support and power and opportunity and energy around it, and right now it's on the rise. As hell. Herring said maybe six weeks six weeks ago when he was on the podcast with me, he said that that movement is ascendant right now. There is a lot going on in the world right now, a lot going on nationally that's providing an opportunity for those people. So I want to start here with an excerpt from an email that the CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers just sent. This is Patrick Barry, and he wrote this, I quote, the avalanche of foreboding attacks on public lands, combined with calculated misinformation campaigns design to gaslight Americans into believing what's happening is in their best interest, has reached a crisis point. From Utah's US Supreme Court lawsuit aimed at eroding the very foundations of federal land ownership, to the transactional view that public lands are no more than a line at them on a balance sheet, to the recent raft of political maneuvers setting the stage for a public lands liquidation. The drumbeat of selling out and selling off has become deafening end quote. And it's not just BHA who's raising the red flag on this one. Similar concerns have been raised all across the outdoor media and conservation landscape. You can see it in the pages of Field and Stream and Outdoor Life and Meat Eater. You're gonna hear it from folks like Randy Nuberg and Hell Herring, and Andrew McKean and Steve Vanella and so many others. This is a across the board realization from many, many people that there's something going on right now, and it's going to require something on our end. Me and Kail are going to dive into questions and concerns and ideas related to everything from how can we as advocates cut through the noise, how can we reach the people we need to reach even though there's so much other stuff going on. How can we actually get our elected officials to listen to us, How can we rally big, diverse coalitions in support of public lands. How can we get conservation organizations to actually act and move forward on the things that we really need them to. How can we individually speak out about these issues more effectively. How can we be more effective in educating our friends and family members and work colleagues and all that kind of stuff. How can we kind of get outside of the partisan, polarizing, name calling and craft talking that so much of our politics are today. These are some of the things that Cal and I try to discuss. And I will say that, you know, the first thirty minutes or so of the conversation with me and Cal here do kind of get to the you know, context of what's happening right now. We do a level set some of the things that Cal's concerned about, some of the things that I'm concerned about. Some of the current events right now in early twenty twenty five that are you know, giving folks in the public land world from heartburn. So if you know, if you've heard enough, if you're very well aware of the situation in March twenty twenty five and don't need to hear more about that. You can fast forward maybe thirty minutes ish. That's when we get to more of this tactical strategy session. But you know, I don't think that it's I don't think it is, you know, a bad idea to take stock of where we are right now, though, because there is a lot and maybe you've been seeing social media posts or you've been seeing the headlines with concerns raised about public lands, but you're not really sure of the details. I've had a lot of people commenting on some of my things on social media saying, well, you know, what's the big deal? You know, we have to lay off some people. What's the big deal with that? And so I think some people are aware of maybe like one tiny slice of what's happening, but haven't seen the full picture. So Cal and I do try to speak to more of that full picture. But let me give you a very quick rundown here, so you have a sense of, you know, this kind of stack of issues that keeps on piling up, piling up, piling up, and it has been for a number of years now. This isn't something that just began with the new administration. There have been folks, you know, slowly accruing power, pushing for these ideas, you know, for years. So one thing mentioned there in Patrick Barry's email was this lawsuit from the state of Utah asserting that the federal government was breaking the law supposedly by having and managing federal public lands, and the State of Utah demanded that the federal government give eighteen point five million acres of federal public land to the State of Utah. That fortunately was not picked up by the Supreme Court. They decided not to hear that case. But it's very likely that that's gonna rear its ugly head up again in some appeals court or something down the line. I think that was a strong signal of what's going on. More than a dozen other states. I thought it was somewhere around almost twenty different states signed on in support of that. So this isn't just a Utah thing. This is also North Dakota thing. This is also an Iowa thing. This is also a bunch of other state governments agreeing and supporting that idea. Speaking of states supporting the idea of getting rid of public lands, the state Senate in Wyoming pushed through a big resolution again demanding that the federal government give over all the federal public lands they've gotten the state of Wyoming. Now, that actually got passed at one point, that resolution was passed at one point by why Ioming State Senate. Fortunately, they don't actually have the powers to do that, to force the federal government to hand over their public lands, but that kind of thing is being proposed by Wyoming and other states. This kind of state control thing continues to get some interest in certain corners, you know. Continuing down that line, a bill was recently introduced that's trying to you know, remove the power of the presidency to use the Antiquities Act, which has been a tremendous tool for protecting public lands. Theodore Roosevelt was the first to do it and secure it incredible places that we all enjoy today, such as the land that's now the Grand Canyon National Park and many others. Let's see, when it comes to you know, more recent high level federal stuff, what probably most of you are aware of are the cuts that have happened at the federal level. And and yes, like there's there's important efficiency measures being taken which I am many people'll kind of appreciate, but when it comes to public lands specifically, there's been some concerns there. More than two thousand folks from the Department of the Interior were laid off, including more than a thousand from the National Park Service. I also saw that another seven hundred I believe took the kind of the pushed on them early retirement offering. So that leads to about seventeen hundred folks not at the National Park Service anymore. In that I believe was almost ten percent of their staff. There was thirty four hundred Forest Service employees that were let go. That's about ten percent of the Forest Service. And you know this isn't official yet, but the latest report I saw is that there is another push happening where they are asking for a push to lay off another seven thousand folks there. And these are agencies that were already understaffed, that were already underfunded. Budgets were slashed last year during the previous administration and that passed Congress. So the agencies that are managing our public lands are facing really really difficult conditions too. This is concerning. And then you also have further cost cutting measures. Many of the grants and funds and budgets for these agencies and habitat programs are being either frozen or slashed. And then on the flip side, there's the cost cutting side, and then there's also the revenue side. And this is an inherent what I would say a good thing about public lands, but also a thing that you always have to be careful about, is the fact that revenues are raised from our public lands. They are a revenue source, They are meant to be a sustainable profit center, a sustainable resource in which there is extraction for gas and oil and minerals and timber and grazing. Those are opportunities that have been available on public lands and should continue to be available. The thing with our shared multi use landscape is that all priorities need to be considered, and sometimes the pendulum swings one way too far, and sometimes the other way. And right now, based on what we're hearing and based on many of the proposals and executive orders that we're seeing right now, it seems like the pendulum is swinging far far to the extraction side. All other things being equal, there's a very high priority on drill baby, drill, extract baby extract. Let's let's milk these things for as much money as we possibly can. So many executive orders recently and secretarial orders have been essentially laying the groundwork and asking for the departments to start building out plans to take action on, you know, fast tracking anything we can to get extraction and development projects underway. Things like getting drilling going in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Things like possibly going and getting the Ambler Road development in Alaska approved even after it was denied last year after hearing from hunters and anglers. Things like taking any mineral withdrawals that were made during the last administration, So any places that you know, the government said, hey, this place is too special to mine or to extract, let's not do it in this spot. Now they're looking to reassess and possibly remove those such as the mineral withdrawal around the Boundary Waters Wilderness area that we've talked a lot about, and a whole bunch of more examples like that. And you know, anytime when you talk national priorities, shifting priorities, and federal government right, it can be touchy, It can make us defensive. And I want to be clear here that in by talking about any of these things whether it's right now in twenty twenty five, or when I talked about these things in twenty twenty one or twenty twenty two or twenty nineteen or twenty seventeen. You know, these aren't attacks on people, These aren't attacks on parties. These are simply you know, at least the way I approach it, I take an issue by issue perspective. I don't care who the president is. I don't care what parties in office. I just care about the specific ideas being put on the table and what they mean for hunting and fishing and the different things that we do on public landscapes. And so you know, right now we have you know, the Republicans's side does have more control right now, and they're doing plenty of good things, plenty of things that I would say, God bless you to them for. I appreciate the support that they are giving our firearm rights. I appreciate the fact that they are incredibly supportive of hunting opportunities and access in our way of life, and you know, so many other things like that. I think most of us listening to this podcast are in support of a more efficient, smart government, absolutely, but at the same token, I do not think that it is unpatriotic or Unamerican or unsupportive to also point out some warts when we see them. And here's the analogy. I've got the thing that kind of came to mind to me when I when I have talked about some of this stuff on social media, a bunch of people would write in and say, well, you know, we got to have these cuts or we have to do this thing because you know, we need to work down the deficit, or we need to make the government more efficient, and because of that, you know, basically apologize and ignore any of these other things because the greater cause or this other cause is important. And my thought to that, my response says, Okay, let's imagine going to the hospital and you got a broken arm, and you recognize that you have a problem. Here's this problem. I got a big old broken arm. I need you to fix it. I need someone to fix it. You go in there to the hospital, and if they all of a sudden, before they fix my broken arm just started cutting off my right leg. I wouldn't just sit there and not ask any questions and just let them take it. No, I would say, hey, man, why do you guys take my right leg too. Are you sure you need to take my right leg? I really love my right leg. Can we think about this? Can we do this carefully? Can we explore other opportunities? Are you looking into every possible recourse you have? Let's be careful. I wouldn't just blindly let them go with it. And I think we maybe should consider a similar approach when it comes to our public lands, because yes, there are other problems that need to be fixed. And this is the case no matter who's in office, there's always going to be some other problem. And it's going to be our job, as hunters and anglers and people that care about our public lands to say, hey, don't forget about our right leg. Don't forget about our public lands. You know, whether it be you know, the current administration wanting to put a new road through the wilderness up in Alaska to open up mind, or whether it be the past administration wanting to put up millions of acres worth of solar panels across wide open landscapes and destroy wildlife habitat in that kind of way, I think our job is to call a spade a spade to whoever's in office, because you know, the wildlife and the wild places of America don't have a voice, but we do. So we need to speak up for them, no matter if we are Republicans or Democrats or independents, no matter if the President or Congress is Republican or Democrat. Regardless, we can, we should, and we need to speak up and take action for these things. So that is my long winded rant to kick off this podcast. This one's gonna be long, so apologies for that, but that's what I got. That's my intro. Like I said, me and cal riff on this a little bit more like I said, for maybe like thirty ish minutes. So if you want to get right to the strategy, fast forward from here. But I do hope this is going to be helpful for you now and well into the future. And while this episode today is about defense, there are offensive strategies that we can consider as well, and that are available even now in the short term. So next week we do have an episode and a couple folks coming on that are going to talk about opportunities that we have over these next few years, ways that we absolutely could have some conservation wins and maybe some public land wins if we do our job and get our elected officials back on the right track. Good things aren't possible. So we're gonna talk defense, We're gonna talk offense. We're gonna talk about whatever we have to do, regardless of political party, regardless of where we live, what we do, whatever we love these places, we love these opportunities.

We're gonna fight.

We're gonna fight.

All right now with me on the line. We've got the one and only mister Ryan Callahan. Uh. First off, Scuss, I thank you for hopping right out of bed this morning and joining me early on a on a Monday morning. I do appreciate that.

All right now with me on the line. We've got the one and only mister Ryan Callahan. Uh. First off, Scuss, I thank you for hopping right out of bed this morning and joining me early on a on a Monday morning. I do appreciate that.

To eight thirty in the morning. Mark left bed a long time ago.

To eight thirty in the morning. Mark left bed a long time ago.

But a lot of you don't have kids. I don't know what world you're living in, cal it might be.

But a lot of you don't have kids. I don't know what world you're living in, cal it might be.

No, I got a doctor making up her mind whether to puke or not, so it's kind of like having kids, So that's no figure. But no, Yeah, thank thank you for having me on. I know we've been talking about joining Forrests here for a long time and we're honestly doing a pretty piss poor job of it, so I'm sure this is a good, good step one here.

No, I got a doctor making up her mind whether to puke or not, so it's kind of like having kids, So that's no figure. But no, Yeah, thank thank you for having me on. I know we've been talking about joining Forrests here for a long time and we're honestly doing a pretty piss poor job of it, so I'm sure this is a good, good step one here.

So yeah, I gotta start somewhere in in while. While we've done a piss poor job so far, I have pie in the sky aspirations for what we're gonna do here today. We're gonna do something that that may not be possible, but I hope it is. So hear me out on this. I'm hoping that we can have a discussion today that is not just about current events. It will be about current events, but it's hopefully something that somebody could return to two years from now, or four years from now, or ten years from now and still find helpful and relevant to whatever version of this world is happening for them. Then that's kind of my goal for what we're gonna do here, because what I the idea for this kale was that, you know, I've been, as you have, thinking a lot about what's going on right now related to public lands, related to kind of this rising tide of energy for some ideas around you know, changing what we're doing with public lands, whether it be transferring them or defunding them, or divesting of them, or any other number of ways that this incredible public land inheritance that we have might be damaged. There's a lot of different stuff in the floating in the ether right now in that front. So I've been thinking a whole lot about what can I do, what should I do, what shouldn't I do, What can we use a community do. There's all these different ideas, and there's all these different questions I have, And I got to thinking that maybe it would be best to do that kind of brainstorming and spitballing and figuring out the answers to those questions, not just an isolation, but actually with somebody else who's also doing the same kind of stuff. So rather than you and me sitting in our own little rooms thinking about this stuff and try and figure out what the hell to do, maybe we should talk about together and see if we can come up with some ideas or some lessons learned, or look back on the past at what's worked and what's not. Maybe that can help inform us about what we should do moving forward. And gosh, I bet there's a whole lot of people that'd be interested in that conversation between the two of you, so that this just doesn't benefit us, but also maybe is a toolbox or a game plan or a blueprint that could be used by all sorts of people now and in the future. So that's that's the pie in the sky hope. Is that asking too much? Or is that possible? Oh?

So yeah, I gotta start somewhere in in while. While we've done a piss poor job so far, I have pie in the sky aspirations for what we're gonna do here today. We're gonna do something that that may not be possible, but I hope it is. So hear me out on this. I'm hoping that we can have a discussion today that is not just about current events. It will be about current events, but it's hopefully something that somebody could return to two years from now, or four years from now, or ten years from now and still find helpful and relevant to whatever version of this world is happening for them. Then that's kind of my goal for what we're gonna do here, because what I the idea for this kale was that, you know, I've been, as you have, thinking a lot about what's going on right now related to public lands, related to kind of this rising tide of energy for some ideas around you know, changing what we're doing with public lands, whether it be transferring them or defunding them, or divesting of them, or any other number of ways that this incredible public land inheritance that we have might be damaged. There's a lot of different stuff in the floating in the ether right now in that front. So I've been thinking a whole lot about what can I do, what should I do, what shouldn't I do, What can we use a community do. There's all these different ideas, and there's all these different questions I have, And I got to thinking that maybe it would be best to do that kind of brainstorming and spitballing and figuring out the answers to those questions, not just an isolation, but actually with somebody else who's also doing the same kind of stuff. So rather than you and me sitting in our own little rooms thinking about this stuff and try and figure out what the hell to do, maybe we should talk about together and see if we can come up with some ideas or some lessons learned, or look back on the past at what's worked and what's not. Maybe that can help inform us about what we should do moving forward. And gosh, I bet there's a whole lot of people that'd be interested in that conversation between the two of you, so that this just doesn't benefit us, but also maybe is a toolbox or a game plan or a blueprint that could be used by all sorts of people now and in the future. So that's that's the pie in the sky hope. Is that asking too much? Or is that possible? Oh?

I think very possible. You know, like the realistic building blocks, like the foundation for anything like this is really not going to change.

I think very possible. You know, like the realistic building blocks, like the foundation for anything like this is really not going to change.

So yeah, well, it's funny you say that because you know, in writing my book on this topic handful of years ago, maybe the very biggest takeaway I had from that is that these same fights and battles and debates have been happening for decades. You know that the specifics are a little bit different. But you know, supposedly Mark Twain said this. I don't know if it's actually him, but he says that history doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes. And there's a lot of truth to that, and I think that I think that will prove true with our current situation and what's to come. You know, who knows how many years down the road. So that's a long winded wind up kel to this. I think it would be useful with all this about timeless being said, I do think it would be useful to have kind of a level set of where things stand right now with public lands. There's been tons in the news, you guys have talked about on your podcast. There's been some discussion around it on the Mediator podcast. We've all had social media posts that have brought up something related to these things. All the major media outlets are discussing, you know, everything from layoffs to funding, to executive orders to you know, every other which way and another. Me and hell Herring had a conversation about this prior to the new administration coming on board back in January sixteenth. We have not had a conversation on this podcast, this specific podcast, about you know, what's gone on in six weeks since then. So to kind of get our foundation, I guess you could you run me through maybe the things right now that have you the most concerned or that you're really paying attention to or related to public lands over the last six weeks. So, what are the things that have been getting you, you know, stand up late at night doing a lot of research, doing a lot of thinking, wanting to be involved in these kinds of conversations. What are those top things right now?

So yeah, well, it's funny you say that because you know, in writing my book on this topic handful of years ago, maybe the very biggest takeaway I had from that is that these same fights and battles and debates have been happening for decades. You know that the specifics are a little bit different. But you know, supposedly Mark Twain said this. I don't know if it's actually him, but he says that history doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes. And there's a lot of truth to that, and I think that I think that will prove true with our current situation and what's to come. You know, who knows how many years down the road. So that's a long winded wind up kel to this. I think it would be useful with all this about timeless being said, I do think it would be useful to have kind of a level set of where things stand right now with public lands. There's been tons in the news, you guys have talked about on your podcast. There's been some discussion around it on the Mediator podcast. We've all had social media posts that have brought up something related to these things. All the major media outlets are discussing, you know, everything from layoffs to funding, to executive orders to you know, every other which way and another. Me and hell Herring had a conversation about this prior to the new administration coming on board back in January sixteenth. We have not had a conversation on this podcast, this specific podcast, about you know, what's gone on in six weeks since then. So to kind of get our foundation, I guess you could you run me through maybe the things right now that have you the most concerned or that you're really paying attention to or related to public lands over the last six weeks. So, what are the things that have been getting you, you know, stand up late at night doing a lot of research, doing a lot of thinking, wanting to be involved in these kinds of conversations. What are those top things right now?

Boy? I've been learning a lot about the national debt, you know, for better or worse.

Boy? I've been learning a lot about the national debt, you know, for better or worse.

I do.

I do.

Kind of aggregate consistent arguments, and you hear the national debt brought up a lot. So I've been reaching out to folks whose job, you know, economists that work on the national debt or teach classes courses on the national debt and picking their brains and asking the same questions of everybody, and then you know, expanding a little bit, so spending time there because that just seems to be like, well, it's for the national debt or or this is all happening because we have to reduce the national debt. And then I also am interested in you know, because like I I'm kind of like a true believer, right, Like that'd be the category that I fall in, where I see immense value in public land, public water, public wildlife. That's where I've spent my life. That's where I've gotten a lot of personal growth and enjoyment, and and I'm just anchored to it, right So I do also pay attention to some of the arguments that kind of come from that same angle, but from the opposition point of view, So like public lands, water and wildlife are a socialist ideal or a communist ideal. So I've spent some time going through some of those which are interesting, and I think you know, right now it's safe to say that there's a very very good chance that public lands as we know them, which should be the big asterisk there, like as we know them is, are are going to change. We know and have always known that there are you know, redundancies in just like anybody who works for any sort of big corporation, there's a lot of redundancies. That's where like the B word bureaucracy comes in, and there's some waste for sure. But we also know that with the recent round of layoffs and impending layoffs like the there's no consultation happening with leaders in the space. So nobody went to like, you know, like the the best foresters in the Forest Service and said, hey, this is our goal. What do we need to do. Nobody went to the best district rangers and said, hey, this is our goal. This is what we do, right, you run the best forest by these metrics in all of our national forests. Here's our goal. What do we need to do? That that did not happen. And when you look at like these legacy federal employment rates, we peekked more or less uh in the you know, late seventies, early eighties for federal employees but really we've maintained a more or less steady employment rate and it's just where those employees are that has changed. And you know, relative to our population growth and user growth visitation to these places right where, we're at an all time low relative to those rates. So you hear this other argument when we talk about employment, of like, oh, well, they're just uh, they're doing what corporations do and they're they're laying everybody off and then they'll they'll backfill in. Well, a, you've ever been in that position. It sucks. It's not a good thing. People are going on unemployment. It drastically affects not only their lives, but the lives of people around them and our gross domatic domestic product, which is tied to the unemployment rate in this country. And I think if there's we want to get to like the good things that you can do, and here's like the positive message, and I think people bond around public land, public water, public wildlife for sure, So I'm very optimistic there. But I do want people to come away with this other thing, like what is going on right now is not reducing nor in my estimation and all of my research, will we see a reduction in national debt. In the debt this tree carries. Even if you were to do the Mark Twain thing and like jump back and look at the last time an attempt was made to do this, our national debt still rose. Right, So like Reaganomics in the eighties would be like the thing that people are pointing to. We didn't reduce debt. Then we changed how we spent. And anybody listening to this show, anybody you run into on the street, will tell you without a doubt, saving money does not affect your debt. If you have a mortgage, a credit card, car loan, student loan, whatever, you can save all the money you have and put it in that jar. But unless you put it towards the principle, you are not reducing your debt. Like we know that. That is a fact. So it is very irksome to me when people are like, well, we got to reduce the national debt, that would be great. That is not what's happening here. I don't think it's the plan at all. And the only time that we're gonna see reduction in the national debt is if, like President Trump came on and said yesterday, past tense, we matured all these treasury bills and notes, paid them off, and we will not issue them again. If that were to happen, that would be a reduction in national debt, and that I don't think that's going to happen, right. I'd be super super shocked if we don't see coming up here very soon and a raising the lid on the national debt again. So we are saving money, but it's money that's already already spent. We're putting it in I don't even know what bucket. There's an optimistic view that once we reshuffle the deck and we have a surplus, which would again be in quotations to reassign to other things, then we can fight to have that reassigned towards things that we care about, right, Like, everybody's gonna be fighting for that cash. There's a chance that we could fight hard enough and get that cash towards you know, new efficient ass kicking management of the Forest Service to the BLM bureau, breck all that stuff. But I just like to think that we're reducing national debt is just not I am a D minus macro economic one class University of Montana, dude, right, And this is a fact, like I've corresponded with a bunch of folks who do this as a as a living. Like when we talk about reducing the national debt in the in those terms, all it means is that we are going to attempt to raise our gross domestic product in relation to the national debt.

Kind of aggregate consistent arguments, and you hear the national debt brought up a lot. So I've been reaching out to folks whose job, you know, economists that work on the national debt or teach classes courses on the national debt and picking their brains and asking the same questions of everybody, and then you know, expanding a little bit, so spending time there because that just seems to be like, well, it's for the national debt or or this is all happening because we have to reduce the national debt. And then I also am interested in you know, because like I I'm kind of like a true believer, right, Like that'd be the category that I fall in, where I see immense value in public land, public water, public wildlife. That's where I've spent my life. That's where I've gotten a lot of personal growth and enjoyment, and and I'm just anchored to it, right So I do also pay attention to some of the arguments that kind of come from that same angle, but from the opposition point of view, So like public lands, water and wildlife are a socialist ideal or a communist ideal. So I've spent some time going through some of those which are interesting, and I think you know, right now it's safe to say that there's a very very good chance that public lands as we know them, which should be the big asterisk there, like as we know them is, are are going to change. We know and have always known that there are you know, redundancies in just like anybody who works for any sort of big corporation, there's a lot of redundancies. That's where like the B word bureaucracy comes in, and there's some waste for sure. But we also know that with the recent round of layoffs and impending layoffs like the there's no consultation happening with leaders in the space. So nobody went to like, you know, like the the best foresters in the Forest Service and said, hey, this is our goal. What do we need to do. Nobody went to the best district rangers and said, hey, this is our goal. This is what we do, right, you run the best forest by these metrics in all of our national forests. Here's our goal. What do we need to do? That that did not happen. And when you look at like these legacy federal employment rates, we peekked more or less uh in the you know, late seventies, early eighties for federal employees but really we've maintained a more or less steady employment rate and it's just where those employees are that has changed. And you know, relative to our population growth and user growth visitation to these places right where, we're at an all time low relative to those rates. So you hear this other argument when we talk about employment, of like, oh, well, they're just uh, they're doing what corporations do and they're they're laying everybody off and then they'll they'll backfill in. Well, a, you've ever been in that position. It sucks. It's not a good thing. People are going on unemployment. It drastically affects not only their lives, but the lives of people around them and our gross domatic domestic product, which is tied to the unemployment rate in this country. And I think if there's we want to get to like the good things that you can do, and here's like the positive message, and I think people bond around public land, public water, public wildlife for sure, So I'm very optimistic there. But I do want people to come away with this other thing, like what is going on right now is not reducing nor in my estimation and all of my research, will we see a reduction in national debt. In the debt this tree carries. Even if you were to do the Mark Twain thing and like jump back and look at the last time an attempt was made to do this, our national debt still rose. Right, So like Reaganomics in the eighties would be like the thing that people are pointing to. We didn't reduce debt. Then we changed how we spent. And anybody listening to this show, anybody you run into on the street, will tell you without a doubt, saving money does not affect your debt. If you have a mortgage, a credit card, car loan, student loan, whatever, you can save all the money you have and put it in that jar. But unless you put it towards the principle, you are not reducing your debt. Like we know that. That is a fact. So it is very irksome to me when people are like, well, we got to reduce the national debt, that would be great. That is not what's happening here. I don't think it's the plan at all. And the only time that we're gonna see reduction in the national debt is if, like President Trump came on and said yesterday, past tense, we matured all these treasury bills and notes, paid them off, and we will not issue them again. If that were to happen, that would be a reduction in national debt, and that I don't think that's going to happen, right. I'd be super super shocked if we don't see coming up here very soon and a raising the lid on the national debt again. So we are saving money, but it's money that's already already spent. We're putting it in I don't even know what bucket. There's an optimistic view that once we reshuffle the deck and we have a surplus, which would again be in quotations to reassign to other things, then we can fight to have that reassigned towards things that we care about, right, Like, everybody's gonna be fighting for that cash. There's a chance that we could fight hard enough and get that cash towards you know, new efficient ass kicking management of the Forest Service to the BLM bureau, breck all that stuff. But I just like to think that we're reducing national debt is just not I am a D minus macro economic one class University of Montana, dude, right, And this is a fact, like I've corresponded with a bunch of folks who do this as a as a living. Like when we talk about reducing the national debt in the in those terms, all it means is that we are going to attempt to raise our gross domestic product in relation to the national debt.

Mm hmmm.

Mm hmmm.

That that's it.

That that's it.

So all these conversations around the national debt, and and there's been interestingly a number of you know, a number of people talking about this outside of our world too, Like there's several opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal talking about this in waste, that the federal lands, our public lands might be used in this capacity to on that or something. But but here's the thing. When this is brought up and the issues of you know, pulling back funding of public lands, or divesting of public lands, or laying off the workforce to cut costs, all these different things, one thing I've noticed when someone like you or myself or Steve or anyone from any other media organization or any individual brings up these things and says, well, this might not be such a good idea for a reason A, B and C. There's a whole flurry of voices who say what you just said, well we have to pay off the debt. Well, we have to sacrifice across the board to deal with these things. And I don't disagree, and that there's plenty of as you said too, plenty of room to improve efficiency, plenty of fat that could probably be cut, plenty of ways we need to make our government work better for us. Agree on all of those fronts. But what I would also say, and I made this analogy in the introduction to this separate but you know, if I go to the hospital and I've got a broken arm and I say, hey, you know, we fix my broken arm for me. If they come in and say, yep, we see that's a problem you've got there. We're going to fix your broken arm, that's great. But if at the same time they also mentioned, oh, by the way, we're also going to cut off your leg. I'm not just going to be like, all right, fine, yeah, got to fix my broken arm, so take my leg with it too? Why not? No, I'm going to ask some serious questions. I'm gonna say, are you sure you need to cut off my leg? Is there anything we can do about that? Are there some alternative solutions? Can you very thoroughly explain to me why you're cutting off my leg. I'm going to fight for my leg. I'm not just going to willingly ask no questions, say well, yeah, sure, you're my doctor. I love you, Take my arm, take my leg, whatever you need. No, of course not. So I think that there is there's no reason why we can't ask serious questions about this. There's no reason we should feel bad about raising some concerns around it, because I really like my leg. I'd like to keep it around. And I'm not gonna, you know, feel like I'm not supporting my doctor just because he's doing something that maybe isn't going to help me all the way across the board. So in that case, I think these questions that the other people are bringing up and that we're bringing up around the debt and the best way to deal with that problem, or around government efficiency and the best way to solve those problems, and making sure that in doing those important things, at least when it comes to the public land and wildlife issues that we know a lot about and care a lot about, that we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I think that's where we come into some serious concerns about what's happening right now, because, as you mentioned, there's a chainsaw approach that's maybe being taken right now, where a scalpel is probably more appropriate, and a scalpel being used very carefully with something that matters a lot to a lot of people. Right. I think that's like my entry point to a lot of this is like, we have it's okay to engage in that kind of way because this stuff really matters, and a chainsaw is a power perful tool, but also a very dangerous one if not use carefully.

So all these conversations around the national debt, and and there's been interestingly a number of you know, a number of people talking about this outside of our world too, Like there's several opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal talking about this in waste, that the federal lands, our public lands might be used in this capacity to on that or something. But but here's the thing. When this is brought up and the issues of you know, pulling back funding of public lands, or divesting of public lands, or laying off the workforce to cut costs, all these different things, one thing I've noticed when someone like you or myself or Steve or anyone from any other media organization or any individual brings up these things and says, well, this might not be such a good idea for a reason A, B and C. There's a whole flurry of voices who say what you just said, well we have to pay off the debt. Well, we have to sacrifice across the board to deal with these things. And I don't disagree, and that there's plenty of as you said too, plenty of room to improve efficiency, plenty of fat that could probably be cut, plenty of ways we need to make our government work better for us. Agree on all of those fronts. But what I would also say, and I made this analogy in the introduction to this separate but you know, if I go to the hospital and I've got a broken arm and I say, hey, you know, we fix my broken arm for me. If they come in and say, yep, we see that's a problem you've got there. We're going to fix your broken arm, that's great. But if at the same time they also mentioned, oh, by the way, we're also going to cut off your leg. I'm not just going to be like, all right, fine, yeah, got to fix my broken arm, so take my leg with it too? Why not? No, I'm going to ask some serious questions. I'm gonna say, are you sure you need to cut off my leg? Is there anything we can do about that? Are there some alternative solutions? Can you very thoroughly explain to me why you're cutting off my leg. I'm going to fight for my leg. I'm not just going to willingly ask no questions, say well, yeah, sure, you're my doctor. I love you, Take my arm, take my leg, whatever you need. No, of course not. So I think that there is there's no reason why we can't ask serious questions about this. There's no reason we should feel bad about raising some concerns around it, because I really like my leg. I'd like to keep it around. And I'm not gonna, you know, feel like I'm not supporting my doctor just because he's doing something that maybe isn't going to help me all the way across the board. So in that case, I think these questions that the other people are bringing up and that we're bringing up around the debt and the best way to deal with that problem, or around government efficiency and the best way to solve those problems, and making sure that in doing those important things, at least when it comes to the public land and wildlife issues that we know a lot about and care a lot about, that we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I think that's where we come into some serious concerns about what's happening right now, because, as you mentioned, there's a chainsaw approach that's maybe being taken right now, where a scalpel is probably more appropriate, and a scalpel being used very carefully with something that matters a lot to a lot of people. Right. I think that's like my entry point to a lot of this is like, we have it's okay to engage in that kind of way because this stuff really matters, and a chainsaw is a power perful tool, but also a very dangerous one if not use carefully.

Yeah, and you know it matters to everyone. So the frustrating part here is is, you know, public lands have been almost like a co op approach for a long time. Right. Mother Nature's a beast. It throws a lot of curveballs at individuals and agencies. You could have a forest management plan that says we're going to, you know, clear one thousand miles of trail this summer. That's what our trail crews are going to do, and there could be a microburst and a windstorm and they could very well clear a thousand miles of trail, but it ends up being the same trail that they worked on all summer long because of you know, crazy wind events, and that leaves thousands of miles of trail that is not going to get the attention of that trail crew and the horse packers and the recreational folks, right they're the ones who are clearing trail, and that that is That's the way it's always been, really, you know, I think there's some frequency of some of those crews that I remember seeing a lot more when I was younger and hoofing it around. But you know, I don't have like the hard numbers to support how many trail crews are on the landscape right now, but I do know that, you know, there's been a heavy reliance on independent contractors to take care of all sorts of things on our public lands in the last over a decade, you know, and a lot of those independent contractors who have built whole businesses in the private sector around these things are are really hurting right now too because of the federal funding freezes. So those things are going to have an impact on users, if I'm being honest, Is it going to impact me a whole lot? Not that much, because I've spent a ton of my time parking on the in a wide spot on the road and heading up, you know, terrain that is not family friendly or all that accessible to somebody who doesn't like to suffer a little bit, But it is darn sure going to impact the people who rely on maintain campgrounds and and just you know, come to expect a certain level of service maintained roads for one to get that fifth wheel into those spots. Stuff like that, garbage removal, pumping toilets. So like, you know, and how many you're of this age, and so many of my friends are right, It's like I never thought, ever thought we'd have a camper, but then you have a kid, it's two kids, and it's like, couldn't do it without it, right, just just makes things more enjoyable. You eat a little time back, stuff like that, And those are the people that are going to see some real effects this spring and summer for sure. Another super important thing, right, like we got wildfires ripping in the Carolinas right now. Something that's not talked about is like a ton of this seasonal employee base, although not specifically assigned to fire, they plan on being assigned to fire in emergency capacity, filling in extra spots when when fire season starts to go, so they all have you know, what's called a red card. They're they're fire certified in order to do that. So it even though they're not specifically fire personnel, they absolutely do work on on fire, especially once once seasons get get big. You know, So you know that that's one part of this. Then we jump over to the announcement that was made over the weekend for like increasing timber harvest on on public land. You know, hunters certainly know that there can be some real benefit to that new edge habitat that's created through timber harvest. Not always a bad thing by any means. It's certainly renewable resource. We need timber. It can be done really well. The interesting thing here is, you know this is like your normal blanket statement government bureaucracy stuff, right, Like that's one of the other pet peeves of mine, right It's like there's no clearer example of big government than what's going on right now of just like, uh yeah, fire all these people don't need to know what they do, don't need to know what's going on. So we've laied laid off a ton of folks whose job it is to go through our timber stands and calculate how many commercially viable board feet of lumber there are mark off zones. Let's say, hey, these trees have to remain in order to hold back stream bank sediment, allow fish to spawn, keep our streams and rivers healthy, you know, places where a road can be established in order to get that commercially viable timber to market. Those people just got laid off.

Yeah, and you know it matters to everyone. So the frustrating part here is is, you know, public lands have been almost like a co op approach for a long time. Right. Mother Nature's a beast. It throws a lot of curveballs at individuals and agencies. You could have a forest management plan that says we're going to, you know, clear one thousand miles of trail this summer. That's what our trail crews are going to do, and there could be a microburst and a windstorm and they could very well clear a thousand miles of trail, but it ends up being the same trail that they worked on all summer long because of you know, crazy wind events, and that leaves thousands of miles of trail that is not going to get the attention of that trail crew and the horse packers and the recreational folks, right they're the ones who are clearing trail, and that that is That's the way it's always been, really, you know, I think there's some frequency of some of those crews that I remember seeing a lot more when I was younger and hoofing it around. But you know, I don't have like the hard numbers to support how many trail crews are on the landscape right now, but I do know that, you know, there's been a heavy reliance on independent contractors to take care of all sorts of things on our public lands in the last over a decade, you know, and a lot of those independent contractors who have built whole businesses in the private sector around these things are are really hurting right now too because of the federal funding freezes. So those things are going to have an impact on users, if I'm being honest, Is it going to impact me a whole lot? Not that much, because I've spent a ton of my time parking on the in a wide spot on the road and heading up, you know, terrain that is not family friendly or all that accessible to somebody who doesn't like to suffer a little bit, But it is darn sure going to impact the people who rely on maintain campgrounds and and just you know, come to expect a certain level of service maintained roads for one to get that fifth wheel into those spots. Stuff like that, garbage removal, pumping toilets. So like, you know, and how many you're of this age, and so many of my friends are right, It's like I never thought, ever thought we'd have a camper, but then you have a kid, it's two kids, and it's like, couldn't do it without it, right, just just makes things more enjoyable. You eat a little time back, stuff like that, And those are the people that are going to see some real effects this spring and summer for sure. Another super important thing, right, like we got wildfires ripping in the Carolinas right now. Something that's not talked about is like a ton of this seasonal employee base, although not specifically assigned to fire, they plan on being assigned to fire in emergency capacity, filling in extra spots when when fire season starts to go, so they all have you know, what's called a red card. They're they're fire certified in order to do that. So it even though they're not specifically fire personnel, they absolutely do work on on fire, especially once once seasons get get big. You know, So you know that that's one part of this. Then we jump over to the announcement that was made over the weekend for like increasing timber harvest on on public land. You know, hunters certainly know that there can be some real benefit to that new edge habitat that's created through timber harvest. Not always a bad thing by any means. It's certainly renewable resource. We need timber. It can be done really well. The interesting thing here is, you know this is like your normal blanket statement government bureaucracy stuff, right, Like that's one of the other pet peeves of mine, right It's like there's no clearer example of big government than what's going on right now of just like, uh yeah, fire all these people don't need to know what they do, don't need to know what's going on. So we've laied laid off a ton of folks whose job it is to go through our timber stands and calculate how many commercially viable board feet of lumber there are mark off zones. Let's say, hey, these trees have to remain in order to hold back stream bank sediment, allow fish to spawn, keep our streams and rivers healthy, you know, places where a road can be established in order to get that commercially viable timber to market. Those people just got laid off.

But when the executive order just came out saying they want to increase timber production dramatically, et cetera, et cetera, but now we don't have the staffing to do that in a smart way, right.

But when the executive order just came out saying they want to increase timber production dramatically, et cetera, et cetera, but now we don't have the staffing to do that in a smart way, right.

Yeah, exactly. And you know it's really interesting that you need these people on the ground in order, you know, in order to actually make this stuff happen. We don't have a nationalized timber program, right. It's not the federal government going out there and taking trees to market independent contractors, right, it's oftentimes like small, independent, like family owned timber operations. And you know, like kids I grew up with and at Hellgate High School that you know, as soon as football season was over, they quit high school to go cut timber with their dads. Right, it's those people that are out there doing this, and like there's not that much timber in certain areas, areas that are under this big government, like, hey, this is where we want timber to come from, Black Hills being a great example, Like there's not a lot of good timber there right now. So we're kind of back in this situation of like, yes, we want to reduce fuels for wildfire mitigation, but the fuels that are there, there's not really a strong market for, especially if you've got to burn a bunch of gas and time to get them. So we kind of go into this zone of us, the taxpayer federal government, are we going to pay these timber producers to go in there and extract timber that you know, basically like subsidize timber at the mill. And it could not be a mill, right, it could just be a chipping facility or a pellet facility type of thing, because that timber isn't what's going to go into building somebody's house.

Yeah, exactly. And you know it's really interesting that you need these people on the ground in order, you know, in order to actually make this stuff happen. We don't have a nationalized timber program, right. It's not the federal government going out there and taking trees to market independent contractors, right, it's oftentimes like small, independent, like family owned timber operations. And you know, like kids I grew up with and at Hellgate High School that you know, as soon as football season was over, they quit high school to go cut timber with their dads. Right, it's those people that are out there doing this, and like there's not that much timber in certain areas, areas that are under this big government, like, hey, this is where we want timber to come from, Black Hills being a great example, Like there's not a lot of good timber there right now. So we're kind of back in this situation of like, yes, we want to reduce fuels for wildfire mitigation, but the fuels that are there, there's not really a strong market for, especially if you've got to burn a bunch of gas and time to get them. So we kind of go into this zone of us, the taxpayer federal government, are we going to pay these timber producers to go in there and extract timber that you know, basically like subsidize timber at the mill. And it could not be a mill, right, it could just be a chipping facility or a pellet facility type of thing, because that timber isn't what's going to go into building somebody's house.

Well, and I think that this is just one example of many in which, you know, there's a bunch of things happening right now that I think it is fair to say is representative of just a pendulum shift strongly in one direction towards you know, fast tracking all extraction possible from these public lands, like milking every dollar we can from that. That's that's a higher priority right now for folks who are at the levers of power than it was. And so what you have is, as you just described, situation where there might be some subsidizing of of getting that stuff going on within our national force, but maybe pushing it into overdrive. Same thing with gas and oil, same thing with minerals. You know, there's been this slew of executive orders trying to unleash you know, Alaska's energy potential, declaring it energy emergency, fast tracking any and all potential energy projects in the lower forty eight you know, review and possible recision of any mineral withdrawals basically anywhere, or any kind of protection was put into place or speed bump was raised. You know, with the new priorities, they're trying to remove that let's let's get as much oil, let's get as much timber, let's get as much every mine, et cetera, et cetera. That is kind of the trend that things are heading towards. You have places that we as hunters and anglers have you know, fought for years and years to protect places like the Boundary Waters or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or you know the Brooks Range there. With the Ambler Road being proposed to be pushed through there, these places are back on the cutting block. I guess you could say.