Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We've returned with another classic episode for you. You guys
like wildlife refuges.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
It's fine concept, do I do? Actually very much.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
I think it's an important concept and, as we know,
something that probably we wouldn't even have if it weren't
for certain forward thinking founding fathers.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Yeah, The National park system or wildlife conservation areas of
the United States are pretty fascinating. This classic episode looks
at a wildlife refuge that was created in nineteen o
eight to protect one of your favorite things, migratory water fowl.
You know me so well, Ben, Yeah, sure, Ed. This
(00:42):
is as we'll see, This is a spark that leads
to a fire of ridiculous controversy.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Let's jump right in.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Ridiculous History is a production of iHeartRadio Nowadays. Here in
(01:22):
the States, national parks are national perks, or at least
they're considered that way. Do you like how that rhyme?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Noel?
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Yeah, like perks like like they're good? Yes, p e
r k s that's the wordplay?
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Is there a different perks? I'm sorry, I need some
coffee to get perked up because we go. I'm kind
of fading right now. Oh and your band by the way.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Yes, the rumors are true. Of fellow ridiculous historians, we
hope you have found the podcast you were looking for.
With our super producer, Casey Pegram and most importantly with you,
specifically you, we have formed Ridiculous History. Today's episode is
(02:04):
about something that I think the three of us were
all pretty big fans of national parks.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Yeah, they're cool, they're so cool. Natural splendor in the
grass or the mountain.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
The stream, Purple Mountain's majesty.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
All that stuff. Super magistical. Have you seen a Hunt
for the Wilder People? I still have not watched it,
he says, magistical a lot. The kid that was in
Deadpool too, he's a Kiwi and he is a delight.
Watch that movie if you haven't seen hi Yah unrelated
total non sexual.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Oh but worth it, worth it because that also has
a lot of natural beauty in the story, right, exciting.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Yeah, it's about a family that lives out on the
in the bush of New Zealand. And yeah, I imagine
they have some sort of system over there to designate
land to keep people from you know, messing it up,
mucking it about.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Right, Sure, even if only because of the Lord of
the Rings and but I always loved about growing up
here in the States was this preponderance of land wherein
you can just go camp, you can just go adventuring.
I know it's one of our mutual dreams to write
a burrow into the Grand Canyon.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
We have discussed that multiple times. Now that you mention it,
the thing is, though, and so I'm assuming that you
are saying you stand squarely in the four National Parks camp.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Yes, absolutely, And are you a little more divided on
this one?
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Well, after what I've read in today's story, I maybe
have to have one foot in, one foot out, because
it turns out that National parks could be a real
thorn in the side of working Americans throughout history and
well today.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Right because the National Park System was created way back
in nineteen sixteen or August twenty fifth in this country,
and we're going to explore how how these became a
surprisingly controversial concept to a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
So our story.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Begins today in nineteen oh eight, when President Theodore Roosevelt
established something called the Lake Malheur Reservation in Oregon. And
I believe that our friend Casey Pegram has a little
more insight for us on Lake malheur.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Yeah, so the word malur in French could be considered
like an antonym for bonar, which is happiness boner. So
maluur kind of means a lot of things depending on
the context, but they're all bad. You could say it's
a misfortune, a calamity, an ordeal, an accident. So yeah,
(04:50):
there you go, malir lake bad.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Yeah, well that's said, that's foreshadowing. Oh, also, Casey on
the case. Indeed, let's just get a few Let's deal
with some semantics up front right here. Okay, we talked
about national parks, like that's what we're talking about. And
while the system that created national parks is very much
the same system that created wilderness refuges and designates, you know,
(05:17):
wildlife reserves and things like that, they're not exactly the same.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Right, Yeah, there's an important distinction to make because when
President Roosevelt established this reservation, it was the nineteenth of
fifty one wildlife refuges that were ultimately created by Roosevelt.
During his tenure, he was just making refuges left and right.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
You know, he was a bit of an outdoorsman.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
He was, indeed noll he was Indeed.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
My question though, is can we can we spell it
out for the listeners and for my dumb ass exactly
what the difference is between a wildlife refuge, a national
park and a wildlife reserve.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yes, we can, with a little help from Ali Berman
writing for mother Nature Network with the article parks versus
refuge what's the difference? So in this article, which is fantastic,
pretty comprehensive by the way, we learn that there are
several different manners in which government land can be set
(06:20):
aside for specific purposes. So first, there's the National park.
Everybody knows that idea think of Yellowstone, right, and Yellowstone
was established way back in eighteen seventy two, so it's
the predecessor to the early nineteen hundred's plans laid by
Woodrow Wilson with the National Park Service. Then there are
(06:42):
also state parks, which are like national parks, but they're
under the management of an individual state. Then there are
national forests, which are also different. And the difference here
comes in terms of the level of conservation. National parks
have preservation at the forefront of their priorities. National forest
(07:07):
have a larger array of activities like cutting down trees
for timber cattle, grazing, which will come into play later,
and mining. National preserves are open to the public and
the differences that preserves typically allow activities like hunting, trapping,
or mining. And then, of course there are national monuments,
(07:29):
things like Statue of Liberty, Mount Saint Helen's National Recreation areas.
State preserves state nature preserves make environmental preservation a top priority.
For instance, Indiana calls its state preserves living museums, so
these are protected for scientific research and educational resources. That
(07:51):
means that human activities are much more regulated.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
But the reason that Teddy Roosevelt swooped Inn to designate
the Malleor Wildlife Reserve, it was because of ladies fancy hats. Yes,
did you know that?
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Yes, it's apps.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
I'm sure sure it could be men's. I'm size any
fancy hats in general, because at the TIMEIMIM, which was
the nineteen early nineteen hundreds, they were quite in fashion,
these hats, these fancy hats of all shapes and sizes,
but an important feature was the plume.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Right, yes, you see milliners, which is our word for today.
People who make fancy hats, specifically for women, were always
searching for feathers to put in this headgear, and the
search for birds to supply these feathers was quite a
profitable industry, right. So, in the increasingly desperate efforts to
(08:52):
satisfy this wild demand for fancy hats, people had nearly
wiped out several species of birds that supplied these fetching,
colorful plumes, including birds like snowy egrets and rouseate spoon bills.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Ah, the spoon bill also the great egret, I believe,
was also very much in danger. And it was this
guy named William L. Finley, who was a conservationist of
the time, who had particularly hung out around that area
and taken a survey and he discovered only two egrets
(09:29):
in a month's time. And here's the thing. There's another
article I saw. Do you know who Audubon is of
the Audubon Society and.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Painter, right, John James Audubon, that's.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
Right, Ben, the great American painter of birds who lived
from the late seventeen hundreds to the late eighteen hundreds.
And he was quoting in his day, as you know,
he would go out and paint these birds from real life,
and he would say that he had no doubt in
his mind that any amount of progress that America could
possibly make, including building cities, increasing population, hunting, what have you,
(10:04):
that there were just so many of these damn birds
that there is never going to be any threat. Obviously,
he wasn't a scientist, and he was completely.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Wrong, right, because we know that the US civilization was
also incorrect about the passenger pigeon, which used to blacken
the skies as they flew overhead. And they don't do
it anymore because they are extinct. So back to Finley.
Here you can see how this is a splash of
(10:31):
cold water. So Audubon dies in eighteen fifty one, and
beforehand he makes this comment about the plenitude of these
beautiful birds. Finley in that search you mensioned, Finley is
searching in nineteen oh eight and only sees those two
egrets during a full month. But he also does something else.
He does a little bit of investigative journalism. He interviews
(10:55):
a plume hunter, one of the people who supplies these
feathers to milliners, and he learns that a good plume
hunter on a good day can make five hundred dollars
cash in nineteen oh eight dollars. Now, could you do
us a favorite whip? Out the inflation calculator for.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
That I can. In fact, I don't even have to,
because the Pacific Standard dot Com did it for us
in the article the Odd History of Opposition to America's
National Parks, And according to them, five hundred dollars per
day in those days translates to more than twelve thousand
dollars in today's.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Cash, which means twenty fifteen.
Speaker 3 (11:32):
That's insane. Yeah, twenty fifteen. Let's just be real obvious here.
He's not just going around plucking feathers. He's killing the birds,
and they're skinning them and taking their carcasses home right
and wiping out entire populations. And he boasted this guy
that he was going to take that all the way
to Mexico and just hunt them like a like a
(11:53):
murderous criminal across the west. So yeah, it was this
report when delivered to Roosevelt, it shocked Roosevelt into action,
and he wanted to help out these birds, these three
birds that were left. There were other species, I'm sure,
but sure.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
And of course there were probably other birds that he
had not been able to find during that month of searching.
But still the problem is apparent. So Roosevelt sets the
land aside that same year, nineteen oh eight. He works fast, right,
(12:31):
And for a while this seemed to be a workable solution.
The population was beginning to recover the population of birds,
that is. But by nineteen twenty things started to go
wrong because there were still agriculture happening around the area.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Right.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
They're taking resources that are in this area and they're
sucking them out the same way Daniel de lux Us
in there will be blood says, I drink your milkshake.
Farmers in nearby areas are draining water from the rivers
that feed into Lake Malure, the Sylvis and Blitzen rivers specifically,
(13:16):
And this means that the lake begins drying up. And
what happens as a result of.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
That the lake goes well, yeah, it turns into a
dust bowl, right.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Yeah, it becomes a terrible place for these birds. It
becomes alkaline.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Right And what does that mean exactly? That does that
have to do with like the balance of the nutrients
in the water. I mean, if it's dried up entirely,
that's one thing, But as an alkaline kind of that's
what happens before it dries up entirely. I believe.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Yeah, it's the pH scale goes off. So an alkaline lake,
also known as a soda lake, has a pH value
between nine and twelve. One extreme example of this, there's
an excellent Smithsonian article I found about an alkaline lake
(14:04):
in Africa. And this article is written in twenty thirteen
by a guy named Joseph Stromberg. It's got some scary pictures.
He's looking at Tanzania's Lake Natron and the title is
this alkaline African lake turns animals into stone.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
And that's the article I've been looking for this whole time.
I actually thought that this Lake Malor was that one,
but no, you got to see these pictures, folks. They
are outraged, stuff of nightmares.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Hoorrif ie. We'll post them on ridiculous historians. So bad things,
bad things.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
And that's, you know, per our previous casey on the
case foreshadowing the lake is basically called bad lake, and
bad things happen.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
This group of people in Oregon starts thinking, why don't
we just get rid of this whole thing entirely?
Speaker 3 (14:50):
Who needs a lake?
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Just call it off.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
It's just it's become a dirt hole. Let's make use
of it. Let's sell it to farmers. They're good at dirt. Yeah,
they need it, literally a prerequisitiever being a farmer, you
gotta have some dirt.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
But they knew people might already be against this, you know,
early environmentalists and conservationists, so they did a little bit
of marketing, right to try to really sell the idea.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Yeah, they really did. They agreed that the proceeds would
go to benefit oh, public works and schools. I want
to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. So in this
article from PS mag, there's a fantastic ad from of
the day that's posted in a tweet from Danielle Brigida,
who works for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
And it's a picture of I'm assuming one of these
(15:36):
spoon bills because it has a very spoon like bill
and a baby, arms out stretched as though they were
both posed in front of like what looks like a
floppy gray cloth backdrop, and.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
The birds in profile looking a bit threatening toward it looks.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Like it's gonna eat the child and is every bit
as big as the child. And the headline is which
is best of all, Oh I got and this baby,
all this bird. Oh that's tough, and then the bottom
says vote for the baby three seventeen times no. So yeah,
this bill was basically fighting against the people that were
trying to keep this thing going despite the bad conditions.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
And we should read a little bit of the copy
here just so you can see how ardently they were
endeavoring to phrase this as birds versus babies. Right under
the headlines that we read to you, there's another headline
that says the Malard Bird Reserve. Oh, I'll do, trans
Atlantic voice, what take fum oh again, forty seven thousand
(16:35):
acres of its most valuable school lands? So wait, forty
seven thousand acres of school lands.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Yeah, that's that's the hook. It's giving them a cause, right, Yeah,
Because who do you think it would win in a
fight between a bird and a baby?
Speaker 2 (16:49):
A bird?
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Yeah, I think it depends on the size of the bird.
But looking at this bird and this baby, clearly the
bird has got.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
No question about it, especially that giant spoon. Bill, You're
the size of the baby's entire head.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
I would spoon the spoon the kid's head right off.
But the thing about this was that they also added
concerns about another naturally occurring life form in wetlands mosquitoes,
And in this complaint they talk about the dangers mosquitoes
might pose to Oregonians.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
And not to mention the fact that these birds were
apparently actually stealing grain from the farmers who could potentially
benefit from the land. Right, And that's a big sticking
point in all of this kind of national park wildlife
refuge argument, at least when it comes to certain parts
(17:41):
of the country where folks could really benefit from those lands.
Right here in the city, we think about a national park,
we're like, cool, that's awesome, save the egrets or whatever.
But if you're a farmer and you need somewhere to
graze your cattle and Uncle Sam has swooped in and
taken a huge swath of land, might have a tune
to pay.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Yeah, and I want to spend some more time on
this mosquito threat as well, because we again have the
benefit of being in the modern age. So it may
seem like an exploitative or manipulative point, but the truth
is that the complaints about mosquitoes are less about them
being annoying and more about incredibly dangerous diseases from the time,
(18:24):
like malaria. So I think that is also a valid point,
and that that's another aspect of this incredibly valid or
at least understandable argument, wherein somebody in a rural population
by a national park or by a reserve, or buy
some sort of refuge, maybe saying I feel as though
(18:45):
you are putting the lives of animals over the lives
of myself, my community, and my family.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
That's right, because malaria was still kind of a problem.
Oh yeah in that area. Apparently it had wiped out
a lot of the indigenous people early on in the
eighteen thirties, but yeah, it still had stuck around. And
if you've got a breeding ground for mosquitoes, malarial mosquitoes,
no less, that's a real problem and a pretty good
selling point for this campaign.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
So what happened next? They did one of the most
American things you can do. They took it to court. Baby,
you defeated it. I mean it, it went away right.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Well, the state said that the Feds had stole it.
They said, more or less, Uncle Sam stole this land.
They didn't have President Roosevelt as commander in chief and
as the leader of the executive branch, never really had
the right to call the shots for this land in
the first place, and went all the way to the
(19:43):
Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
It kind of reminds me of that story we talked
about with your pops about Franklin. Oh, there was just
like a bunch of land that they just kind of
took it upon themselves to do something with. There was
once a time where that was a thing.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Yes, yeah, this happens, not so not so far after it.
So by nineteen thre five, the Supreme Court, having considered
the issue air quotes the issue right, they juticated there
we go. Yes, they ruled in favor of the federal government,
(20:15):
and they said that this land does in fact belong
to the Feds. This refuge, this reserve is legitimate, and
Uncle Sam had the authority to protect the wetlands from people,
even if you know it endangered the livelihood of those
same people. So you may be wondering, friends and neighbors,
(20:43):
where this story goes. How does it end? It feels
like you might be thinking that Nolan and I did
a little bit of an abrupt cut. But we're not
ending the story. We're moving ahead because this argument that
occurred way back in nineteen twenty resonates today and remains
(21:09):
important today, we see many similar arguments as a matter
of fact, happening as recently as what No. Twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Yeah, that's right. What are we talking about? The militant
takeover of the Malor National Wildlife Refuge. Is this what
we're talking about?
Speaker 2 (21:26):
Yes, yes, all of one.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
So could you tell us just a little bit about
this and how it transpired?
Speaker 3 (21:31):
Yeah, Well, I mean there was a group of armed
militiamen and the Bundy family and their followers, headed up
by a guy named Aimon Bundy.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Yes, Aman Bundy, not to be confused with Solomon Grundy
though they just rhyme or Ted Bundy or Ted definitely
not to be confused with Ted Bundy.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Or Al Bundy.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
You know what, I'll allow it, okay, all right?
Speaker 1 (21:56):
So Aman Bundy participated in something in twenty fourteen called
the Bundy Standoff at his father's ranch in Nevada.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
This was a very.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Controversial and sensitive topic because other members of his group,
the one that you had mentioned, this Bundy group, were
loosely affiliated with militias and something called the Sovereign Citizen Movement. So,
without getting too far into the Bundy Standoff, we wanted
to give you just some background on this guy. He
(22:34):
is an American car fleet manager and his father was
a rancher named Cliven Bundy, and his father was a
leader of this twenty fourteen Bundy standoff in which Aimon
took part. And their problem was that they were refusing
(22:54):
to pay grazing fees for taking their livestock on federally
owned public land. And they said, well it's public land.
We're just trying to make a living, right, why are
you putting this land over the livelihood of human beings?
Speaker 3 (23:09):
And it's that same argument Uncle Sam stole it.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Right, This argument from nineteen twenty still thematically applied in
twenty fourteen. But before we get to twenty sixteen, there
are some things that led up to the twenty fourteen
Bundee standoff there in Nevada.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Right, Well, yeah, it was sort of a bit of
a domino effect situation. So a guy named Dwight Hammond
Junior and his son, Steven Hammond were actually sentenced to
pretty significant jail time. Believe they both were sentenced to
five years, and that is because they set wildfires on
this protected land. Well you don't set wildfires, I guess,
(23:47):
but they set fires on the printed land. To prevent
wildfires from damaging their you know, you burn things to
keep things from burning, which seems weird, but.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
To make a break where there's no combustible material, yeah,
or relatively little.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
They set one fire in two thousand and one and
one in two thousand and six, and then in twenty twelve.
They were both charged in relation to these fires.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
And I believe, you know, the way they said it
was that one of them got out of hand. But
according to an article on CNN, Bundy who did the standoff?
Who was you know, one of the guys who was
the leader of the of the militia group that you know,
overtook the refuge headquart which apparently, by all accounts was
completely uninhabited and the doors were open, and this standoff
(24:35):
was like not really much of a standoff at all,
and he never really led on to exactly how many
people he had there, and it was kind of a
whole lot of sound and fury signifying not a whole lot.
But their arguments were that the government should give up
control of this refuge so that hardworking you know, ranchers
and farmers can do what they need to do, whether
(24:58):
it be grazed, their cattle or you know, mitigate these
wildfires in order to make a living. So it's that
same argument of like this is more of a problem
than it is a benefit.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
So concurrently, while they're going through the legal issues with this,
the Hammonds the Bundies are having their twenty fourteen standoff.
In twenty fifteen, US courts vacate the charges against Stephen
and Dwight Hammond, and this has already attracted the Bundy
family to their cause. And the idea is that when
(25:33):
the court vacated these sentences, they didn't just let them out.
They re sentenced them pretty much immediately to a mandatory
minimum of five years in prison.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
And the Bundy said, you know what, we're going to
protest this, and the Hammond said, apparently, guys, we don't
really need your help.
Speaker 3 (25:51):
Yeah, a lot of people apparently said that. I mean,
it kind of had the look of that the Bundies
were overreaching a little bit and kind of doing something
that maybe no one quite asked them to do. Because
there's this great Vice documentary where they go to a
town hall and a lot of the folks, the ranchers,
the community is like, these guys are jerks, like they're
making us look bad, and they're making us look like
a bunch of militant whack jobs, and that's not cool.
(26:14):
It's not a good look. So it did seem like
their gesture was not appreciated by all.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Let's say that absolutely.
Speaker 3 (26:22):
So we know that the Bundies were big fans of
arms standoffs.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Right right, and they were they saw themselves on the
right side of history.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Isn't standoff though if you do it at your own ranch.
Who was after them at their own ranch? I'm confused
about that one.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
Yeah as well. Right.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
But in twenty sixteen, this group of armed militants, seeking
to I guess, bring more attention to the Hammond case,
they seize the headquarters of the Malor National Wildlife Refuge
there in Harney County, Oregon, and they occupy it until
law enforcement finally arrests everbody on February eleventh, twenty sixteen.
(27:03):
Their leader aim in Bundy not to be confused with
anyone but out, and their motivation for this was again
to bring more attention to that same old argument from
the nineteen twenties. They wanted to persuade the public to
side with them in the idea that the United States
(27:25):
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and other
similar organizations are constitutionally required to turn over federal public
land to individual states. So no federal parks, no federal reserves,
only state level stuff.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Got it? So does that did it really accomplish anything?
Was that a positive step? Because, I mean, the guys
that set the fires originally were pardoned by President t
Rump recently too, So does that mean that the current
administration is more sympathetic to the need of these farmers
and more likely to maybe get rid of some of
these refuges. It's kind of seem that way.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
That's an that's an interesting question to know. I mean,
there's always been some degree of tension between the federal
level of governance and the state level of governance, you
know what I mean. For instance, well, we've already done
several episodes wherein we learned that a handful of states
we're completely okay being their own countries.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
For a while.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Right, So, as.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Of today, this argument continues, and we have to ask
ourselves what is the solution, if indeed a solution exists?
You know, are we are we to put ourselves in
a situation where the quality of life for human beings
is sacrificed for the sake of biodiversity. Are we to
(28:52):
put ourselves in a situation where we sacrifice biodiversity and
wildlife or natural ecosystems for people's livelihoods?
Speaker 3 (29:02):
And then obviously it's got to be somewhere perfectly in
the middle, right right right, You got any ideas.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
If so, we would like to hear them, so right
to us directly. We are ridiculous at HowStuffWorks dot com and.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
We know this was kind of a circuitous, weird one,
but I thought it was fun do a little backstory,
bring a full circle to the now.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
And I think you did a really good job man,
by the way, especially considering your bird thing.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
Oh god, I didn't even think about that.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Well, I had to. I had to hold it to
the very end.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
But if you would like to learn more about this,
if you would like to see some of those insane
pictures of animals from the Alkaline Lake.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
I almost looked at those, dude. It's like I shed
my bird fear just for this episode, and then you
reminded me and it all came flooding back and like
a like a murder of crows.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Flapping back, flying back.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
I'm gonna need you to finish that one.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
So yeah, you can see those pictures on our community page,
Ridiculous Historians. You can find us on Instagram, you can
find us on Twitter, and you can check out our
website for every single show we have ever done. You
don't tweet, Dewey, we're you and I spend more time
(30:18):
on the Instagram and.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
The Facebook page.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
That's true. We need we need to get a little
more personal with that Instagram though. I looked at the
other day and it was kind of a sad site.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Let us know what you would like to see on
the Instagram and we will. We will pop in there ourselves,
well watch and get a little bit ridiculous with it.
But in the meantime, our website is Ridiculous historyshow dot com.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
And we'd also like to say, you know what, listen
not a positive note, nol. What's your favorite national park?
If you're not in the States, what does your country have?
Speaker 2 (30:49):
In equivalent?
Speaker 3 (30:49):
Yeah, let us know, and we'd also, of course I
have to thank super producer Casey Pegram Alex Williams, who
composed our theme. I like to thank you, Ben, and
thank you NOL for waiting till the end to mention
the fact of this episode was about.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
Birds, cacaw, bro cuckaw, and yeah it.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
Most importantly, thank you guys for listening and tuning in
and join us next time when we talk about something else.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
That's right, and we'll tune in for our next episode
when we explore these surprising origins of Oregon.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
See you then, folks. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
your favorite shows