September 6, 2024 • 43 mins
This week Cal talks with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers CEO Patrick Berry about the State of Utah's lawsuit, which aims to steal 18.5 million acres of Federally managed land for the state, what would happen, and how we can weigh in.
Connect with Cal and MeatEater
MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Youtube Clips
Subscribe to The MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube
Shop Cal's Week in Review Merch
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is Cow's Week in Review with Ryan cow Klan.
Here's cal, Hey, what's happening there? Every Col's Week in
Review listener. This week we got a very special podcast
following up as per usual with other things that we've
talked about on the pod. Namely, this week we are
(00:36):
talking about this unfortunately recurring situation of a bunch of
knuckleheads wanting to take our publicly accessible, federally managed lands
for reasons unknown, but if we had to put a
guess on it, it'd probably be for short term profit failure.
(00:58):
To look further on the end of your nose from
a land management perspective and value perspective. Last week or
the week before, I had talked probably a little too
long for you about the amazing opportunity that we have
to look at what's happening in the state of Florida
(01:20):
with their state managed land, state owned and managed lands,
where there's a current petition where Ron DeSantis and his
cabinet are just getting their teeth kicked in because they
obviously don't spend any time outside with the people, and
the people are saying this proposal to maximize state profits
(01:43):
on state owned recreation land through the building of hotels,
pickleball courts, golf courses, golf courses in areas where the
average joe public can still access pristine beach see in
danger and threatened wildlife. That stuff's just not not can
(02:04):
fly iron and it's perfect because that's our major fear.
When people bring up this idea of a land transfer
or sale or management trade of federally managed and maintained
(02:26):
lands to the state government, the states are typically mandated
to maximize profits on those state run lands, and this
example in Florida could be the example in Utah. I
say Utah because right now Utah has a lawsuit against
(02:52):
the federal government to try to take eighteen and a
half million acres of federally managed lands for the state
of Utah. That's a little rough shot explanation, but just
as you know in the because I'm self aware, believe
(03:15):
it or not, I have a special guest, Patrick Berry,
CEO of Backhuntry Hunters and Anglers, who's going to help
us run through this situation. We're going to figure out
who the players are, what we need to know, and
how to get involved. So Patrick you've been on the
pod once before, how things gone.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Good? I will tell you that I find this issue
in Utah has supercharged myself along with the rest of
the BHA staff and the Utah chapter as well. We've
got an incredibly effective, experienced BHA chapter in Utah and
(03:58):
we've been coordinatings with them. So I would say, in
addition to that long list of things to do, this
has certainly helped inspire and get everybody pretty fired up, because,
as you well know, cal this exact issue is such
a prime example of the reason why back country hunters
(04:20):
and Anglers exists.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yeah, I think you know North America wide, if people
had to associate BHA with one issue, it would be
access to public lands and the conservation of public lands.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Absolutely, And this is not the first time that we've
ended up doing battle with leaders in the State of
Utah over public lands issues. And in a lot of ways,
the state of Utah has been in ground zero for
public land grabs just like this one. This particular case
(05:00):
is a little bit more concerning, frankly, because the stakes
are incredibly high. It's the implications reach potentially reach well
beyond Utah and just these lands that they identify and
I cannot dig into that one a little bit more.
If you want, cal.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, yeah, do you can you give us a good
synopsis of like, how is this even a possibility?
Speaker 1 (05:29):
What?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
What's the state of Utah trying to prove here?
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Well, I mean, there's a there's a long history within
the state of Utah trying to grab the federally owned
lands within the state's borders, which is really interesting because
Article three of the Utah Constitution expressly says that they
will basically abdicate any claim to federal land at the
(05:56):
time of statehood, So they're going back on what's in
their own constitution. But basically, this is a pattern in
Utah that started back in twenty twelve twenty fourteen with
a lawsuit. As you pointed out, a lot of the
leaders in Utah got their teeth kicked in for trying
(06:16):
to take land owned by all Americans. There was a
retread in twenty seventeen when a Congressional representative Chafits from
Utah tried to do something similar, although not at this
scale it was three million acres, and got his teeth
ticked in and ended up apologizing to the sportsmen and
(06:37):
women in this country for seeing the error of his ways.
And here we are again in this particular case. It
seems to be a bit of a tantrum reacting to
a rule that BLM had moved forward, which basically follows
the VLM mission to make sure that when they're managing
(07:02):
their lands, they're considering a lot of different uses, including
conservation values, which benefit sportsmen and women and other outdoor
recreational enthusiasts tremendously. And they didn't like that, so they
filed this suit and their goal is to and this
is why there are these far reaching implicationscal because what
(07:23):
they're doing is they are questioning the constitutionality of whether
the federal government can own these quote unquote unappropriated lands.
The problem is that in our constitution, there is very
clear authority that Congress has over federal lands, and it
(07:44):
does not distinguish between federal agency or land type. So
with that ambiguity out there, there's the potential that, depending
on how the Supreme Court might rule on this, it
would be far more than just the eighteen and a
half million acres of these quote unquote unappropriated lands, because
(08:05):
there are actually of these subtype of lands there's about
two hundred and ten million acres. But beyond that, if
the authority of the federal government comes into question whether
they can own lands, fend this stretches to every corner
of this country and has far reaching implications. So the
stakes are pretty damn high.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
And as far as you know, the kind of inside
access to folks who really understand policy and this part
of the law where the question really is whether or
not the federal government can own land, which is something
that we've heard over and over and over again, despite
(08:51):
their being from the time the country was established to
now lots of precedent saying that yes, the United States
government can own land. So is this old Sagebrush rebellion
stuff or is this new stuff?
Speaker 1 (09:13):
It's a combination of both. This is a carryover of
the same sentiments that were espouse during the sage Brush
Rebellion and everything that's happened since then. But what's newer
here is the scale not just for the lands identified,
(09:34):
but also the potential for what that means well beyond
the borders of Utah. And what else is new is
I have to say this is about one of the
most polished attempts at gas lighting i've ever seen leaders
within the state of Utah are using the catchphrase that
(09:56):
they are going to keep public lands in public hands,
which I think we all know is akin to the
governor trying to sell some ocean front property around the
Provo area. So that's that's what's new, much more polished
gas lighting effort and far reaching implications well beyond the
(10:19):
borders of the state.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Yet, saying that federally managed lands are not public lands
in public hands and transferring them to the state is
when they then become publicly accessible. Is is It's kind
of like walking past a bowl to go kill a bowl,
(10:41):
walking walking past the steelhead to go catch the steelhead,
right like it's it's ours right now.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Well, I mean if and if you think about the implications,
even for the state, there are no winners here unless
you are the beneficiary. At the end of this, let's
say that Utah prevails, they'll lose. Sportsmen and women across
as country lose. But if you are lucky enough to
be able to I mean, we can well we should
(11:11):
definitely talk about the economics to this. They'll have no
choice but to divest of a lot of these assets.
They just won't be able to afford to own them all.
So if you're if you've got some deep pockets and
you can buy your own hunting oasis, you'll benefit. And
if you are in the extractive industries and or you
are rancher that wants to graze, you could potentially view
(11:36):
as benefiting from this. But it's also worth noting that
the grazing fees on bl On land are about a
buck thirty five and on Utah owned property it's well
over six bucks. So I don't know if there's a
win there either.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Yeah, you know, I haven't done the math on what
it means when the state has to foot a bill
for wild fire suppression, But that's an example that gets
brought up of like, Okay, here's a huge financial burden
on the state. How do they recoup those expenses all
(12:12):
sorts of natural disasters before federal dollars, ironically enough come
in to help carry that burden, And you know a
number of other things. But like to remind people what
we see across the country with state owned lands is
I mean, just in Idaho, which is highly regarded as
(12:37):
a pro sportsman state, there's state owned property that is
not de facto public access it's there's a very swanky
European style hunt club on a chunk of state section.
There's some more hunt club provisions in that state, and
(13:00):
people would never know about it unless you knew. So
that type of leasing kind of falls in the same
category of a timber lease or grazing lease, a farm
lease that is built into that state revenue model. You know,
(13:23):
in Montana, it's more de facto public access to state land.
Colorado has never been that way. That is de facto
private property, not public access, and people do need to
(13:44):
be aware of this stuff. The other interesting thing that
our dear friend Ted Cook likes to bring up, it's
often the frustrations of federal government management that allows for
a lot of the liberties that we have on federally
(14:05):
managed lands, meaning that yes, there's some burdensome bureaucracy, but
because of the wheels moving so slow there, oftentimes we
don't get crazy swings in management. So when we hear
about these scary things of like, oh, you know, dev
(14:26):
Holland's gonna make it illegal to have firearms on federal ground, right,
which was a rumor when the Secretary of State took
over during the current administration, it takes so long for
something to get enacted that oftentimes we have new management
(14:49):
in place and the pendulum swings back the other way
before anything actually happens. Whereas state government, the potential for
something scary to happen, in my opinion, is much higher.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Well absolutely, I mean, trying to make changes in the
within the federal land system is like trying to turn
a tanker as opposed to you know, the state land system,
which you know, not some one of them sparkly bass
boats that go really fast and can turn quickly, but
certainly it can turn faster. A lot of the state
(15:27):
owned property across the country comes with strings attached, right,
So wildlife management areas we're often funded through US Mishial
Wildlife Service, and there are pretty specific requirements about what
you can and can't do. But and the example of
and that's why you know, you've mentioned the variability from
state to state over you know, different types of management.
(15:51):
But in the example of Utah, there would be no
strings attached. They would simply own that land out right.
And they have certainly shown as I think you reference
when you talked about this last time, Cal I mean,
at the time of statehood. They were granted state trust lands,
which were set aside to help fund schools and presumably
(16:13):
through management and leases and that sort of thing. But
and the best example I can think of the old
burning furniture to eat the house, they've actually managed to
auction off about half of those state trust lands. So
regardless of what they may say, no, of course not,
we would never ever get rid of public access in
(16:34):
public lands. They have a history of doing just that.
And unlike the BLM, which you know, they don't have
bills to pay, right, I mean, in fact, you know
all Americans support the federal agencies that oversee these lands
to make sure that you know, there's well managers can
be based on congressional appropriations. Utah, like a lot of states,
(16:56):
they got to balance budget amendment, so they have no
choice but to balance the budget every year. And I
know that the numbers have changed, and even on the
state's own FAQs. As the remarkable bit of propaganda trying
to get these lands, they acknowledge they have no idea
what the stewardship, maintenance, fire suppression costs would be. But
(17:19):
if you look back and yeah, you know it's about
ten years old. The last time there was an analysis
done of the State of Utah taking you know, basically
grabbing up chunks of better land. It was pretty clear
by third party economists and the University of Utah that
this was an economic death trap for the State of Utah,
(17:41):
that they would bankrupt themselves pretty quickly, which means they'd
have no choice but to auction off land to be
able to pay for the rest of that maintenance. And
they sure as heck wouldn't be able to benefit from
any sort of long term future leases for whatever activities
(18:01):
because they won't own them anymore.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
And you know, just doing some quick and dirty math too,
I think the State of Utah gained about two billion
dollars for the sale of the It was fifty four
of their state owned lands since statehood, and it was
(18:26):
somewhere like four and a half million acres or four
point something. But they equates about five hundred dollars an acre.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Oh yeah, you know, I hadn't done that math. And
actually I saw I think Cali I saw you reference
that too, which is is pretty remarkable. I mean, talk
about a fire sale pun not intended for a lot
of this acreage that you know, once it's gone, it's gone.
For good. And that's the biggest challenge. I mean, I
(19:04):
couldn't even tell you which pieces of federally owned land
I've been on in Utah, but there's been a bunch
of different ones that you know, I feel blessed that
in this country we have, uh there's there's a lot
of unique things about our hunting and fishing heritage that
we enjoy, and public land and the ability to access
(19:26):
that and uh get away and enjoy a lot of
the free time that that we need. That that doesn't
exist for a lot of people because not everyone has
the means to own their you know, own chunk of
property where they can go hunting with themselves and their buddies.
And you know, generations of sportsmen and women have relied
(19:50):
on these public resources that we all own to get
out there and and you know, passed down our hunting
and fishing heritage. And I that's part of the mystery
here too. And pretty much all the material that the
State of Utah is putting out, they keep referencing Utah's
lands and needing to do it's best for the citizens
(20:13):
of Utah. Not only will then not be the case
that Utahon's will benefit, but the reality is these aren't
Utah's lands. They're your lance, cal their mine, right there,
everybody who's an American citizen, and that is just such
an incredible legacy that we need to I mean, this
(20:34):
is again, this is why, you know, one of the
key reasons why VHA exists is to make sure that
we maintain that public land to pass down for generations,
you know, for everyone to enjoy and for a lot
of folks they may not be able to afford to
do anything else except access to those public lands. And
that's a beautiful part of this country.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Oh yeah, absolutely, And and you know, I do think
also too, like some of the people that are screaming
in favor of this lawsuit to go through and a
state transfer to happen, have way more in common with
(21:15):
the general sporting community that's in favor of federally managed lands,
or if not, you know, totally in favor. They are
very much aligned with the fact that the system that
is in place is the best example of public access
(21:40):
and public use in the world. And if you can
bring something better to the table and prove that it's better, sure,
but this ain't it. You know, I sympathize with like
you brought up folks who have grazing leases. You know,
(22:00):
it's it's tough running cattle these days. The folks who
have multi generational hunting traditions at the end of a
road that is all of a sudden closed, or you know,
(22:21):
cut firewood in a certain area and all of a
sudden that's closed. But the reality is is that stuff
doesn't all of a sudden get closed because it is
on federally managed land. There's comment periods and review periods,
and there's so many ways to weigh in.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
That.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
You know, I mean, I'm preaching to the choir when
I'm talking about this stuff with the BHA crowd, because
that's part of the beauty about being involved in BHA.
You get aware of the processes and you can learn
how to effectively advocate and be there when it matters
instead of being like, oh, all of a sudden, out
(23:04):
of the blue, they just closed this, because that's just
not how the federal government works in regards to land management.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
You know, if you you know, I watched the governor's
press conference with AG and Senate and House leaders in Utah,
and you know, they've got a couple of websites that
do a pretty remarkable job with the propaganda, and you
if you watched it and you didn't know better, which
(23:36):
a lot of people wouldn't, or you didn't think to
dig into the details, it may sound like something worth considering,
but it's the damn pesky details every time that get you.
And one of the claims they make is how awful
it is that there was three hundred and seventeen miles
of road that were closed and cut off public access. Well,
(24:00):
what I've learned is that there was a proposed element
of the management that h you know, they they look
at a bunch of different options, and I think from
what I understand, most of these road closures were in
Grand County and actually aligned with exactly what the county
(24:20):
had requested through that management process. In fact, from what
I understand, the county may have actually been looking for
even more restrictive access with more closures and the the
In the end, the BLM, you know, found that compromise
trying to meet all the interest that with that we're
(24:41):
out there, but it's it's just an example of the
of the bs that is coming out of the state
of Utah regarding a lot of the issues surrounding this
and it's those details that that matter was.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
But you know, oh it does for sure. You know,
during the last or during the Trump administration, you know,
that was something that they were super hot and heavy on.
Why it was trying to find ways to have more
public input and taking into account all the way down
(25:19):
to the county commissionary level. And on top of that,
during the same administration, when asked about the possibility of
transferring federally managed lands to the state, Trump, in a
(25:40):
very genuine off the cuff way, was like, well, why
would we do that? They're too valuable, right right, that
doesn't make business sense. Why why would you get rid
of an asset like that?
Speaker 1 (25:53):
You know, all right, and take a look at the
recreation economy around all of these public lands in part
to the state. Uh. And that's that's another one of
those interesting head scratching twists that you know. On on
one hand, you know, the state will tout the remarkable
(26:14):
economic value to the tune of billions from the recreational
use of of the public lands within the state of Utah.
They'll talk about how they have shown their ability to
you know, work collaboratively with federal agencies. And then the
next sentence. You know, the AG referred to the relationship
(26:34):
with federal agencies as a in a quote unquote an
abusive relationship. And regarding the economic value, they'll talk about
the you know, highest and best sustained yield you know
for these lands. Uh So, there again more of those
pesky details where if you take the time to dig
(26:55):
into this a little bit, you realize that this no
one wins unless you're somebody who actually ends up with
one of these parcels all to yourself.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
And you know, just like anybody who's ever bought and
sold the chunk of ground, you know, like you know,
if you hang on to it long enough, it only
goes up in value, like they only made so much.
And so when we talk about, you know, all the
different short answers that haven't been researched as to why
(27:31):
people think this should happen, right, affordable housing for instance.
And this is you know, my perspective here, This is
an opinion piece. It's like, you know, my own father
scolded me many many times in regards to well, why
would I give you this if you've already proven that
(27:52):
you weren't responsible enough to have right?
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Yeah, And that was my entire childhood.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Cal Yeah, I just think like this is that exact
same thing. On a grander scale. People are like, Oh,
we just need more, We just need more, and then
we won't screw up what we have them, right, And
it's like, we have all this infrastructure out there that
(28:21):
I think people are just looking at and they're like, Oh,
it's too much of a headache to do this here.
If you give us some pristine new land, we'll do
better job with it. And I think that is such
a pipe dream, such a short sighted, ridiculous answer. It
(28:42):
just drives me nuts, right. I mean, look at the
way the Gallaton Valley is exploding, right, Like, we know
and have known that that valley is going to have
water quality issues and we're doing nothing about it right now.
But we're taking more and more land to slap up
the houses in the name of affordable housing, which we
(29:02):
desperately need. But it doesn't mean we're doing it in
a smart way. Now, we're just kicking the can down
the road and letting somebody else deal with the downstream effects.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Yeah, I mean, you know to that example too. Look,
there are a lot of needs that we have in
you know, in this country and in this world, right,
I mean, whether it's you know, uh, mining, ranching, logging,
you know, any number of industries. You know, I'm not
(29:36):
necessarily about exporting our problems, you know and our needs
someplace else to another country. But there's definitely a right
way to do it, and there's definitely a way to
do it that you know, can balance all of those uses.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Right.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
That's that's BLM's job, right. I mean, they're not beholden
to any specific interest and they don't have the economic
pressures to have to lean one way or another. Utah
will have no choice. They will have to rely on
either auctioning the land off, as they've shown they've done
to your point, Like you know, they got a history
(30:13):
of this stuff, and you know, why would we give
it more land if they're already you know, selling it
as is right, And even if they don't necessarily have
to you know, sell huge chunks of it right away,
they're definitely going to have to look at allowing private
interests to benefit from those leases. And with the economic
(30:35):
pressure that's going to come with stewardship, maintenance, fier suppression
on a huge you know, chunk of land eighteen and
a half million acres at least they will have no
choice but to err on the side of those uses
that are about profitability, not about balancing the needs of
(30:58):
what Americans need.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
So what what can we do here? Right? Like if
if we we know the threat one of many that
that we're facing here, but on the Utah subject, like
how to folks weigh in?
Speaker 1 (31:16):
Well, first of all, you know, I as soon as
this issue came up, cal I, along with you know,
some handful of VHA staff, we dropped everything and started
working on this issue, because the more we can elevate
the value of public land and these threats, right, whether
(31:36):
it's the Florida example that you gave, or the fact
that the candidate for Senate in Montana is getting his
teeth kicked in by saying that the federal land in
Montana should be should go to the state or the counties.
There's a pretty solid history here of Americans in general,
(31:57):
not just sportsmen and women, pushing back when states or
others try to take this federally owned land. So I
think what people can do frankly is pay attention and
share your just disdain for what's happening and your opposition
(32:18):
for the notion that somehow these lands are only valuable
if they're owned at the most local level possible and
not managed in a way that benefits all Americans too.
And so you know, whether it's your social media channels
or with your friends or wherever, I think spreading the
word is really really important to avoid this from happening again. Second,
(32:41):
I would encourage everyone to call the governor's office in
Utah tell them to drop the lawsuit. I think a
lot of us are still scratching our heads why they're
pushing this because of the implications economically for Utah and
the implications for all you know, federally owned land will
on this as well. Third, b h A has a
(33:04):
petition that we've got online. It's pretty easy to find
if you go to Backcountry Hunters dot org and and
sign that petition, and you know it's something you know
you have chatted about with you before. Cal too is
you know, Uh, We've got a lot of great partners
in our space and you know the world of hunting, fishing,
and conservation, but there really isn't another organization who is
(33:27):
willing to dive in and take on these kinds of
fights where we we may not have the resources. We
didn't get some kind of earmark funding to tackle this issue,
but it's what we do, it's what matters, and and frankly,
you know, we need support to make sure we keep
fighting the good fight here. Uh that if it's it
(33:49):
may not just be this issue, It's going to be
another issue and another state too. So uh, that's you know,
it's really important folks to join b h A and
and support what we do because we'll take on these
fights without some kind of earmark sitting in a bank somewhere,
because we know it is what we do and because
it's the right thing to do. So, Yeah, call the
(34:09):
governor's office, sign a petition, share your opposition, frustration and
anger with anyone who'll listen, and you know, keep supporting
us to make sure we can keep taking these fights on.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
Yeah, I think I think a great example of why
there's great things that individuals can do without the help
of an organization. One of the things that an organization
like BHA helps with is being there when the individuals can't.
(34:43):
It's the BHA job to be in that room while
everybody else has to go to their nine to five job. So,
you know, recently a great example right, is like the
California Marine Protected Areas situation that we talked about on
this show quite bit. You know, those public meetings, those
(35:05):
public hearings that the public is involved, you know, invited to.
They're supposed to be there, they're supposed to comment, they're
being held when a huge amount of the parties that
benefit from public access to public water, public wildlife just
cannot financially be in that room.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
No question. And I can't tell you. Look, you know,
cal I've only been on the job here, you know,
for eight months. And you know, fortunately since I was
a director of a state fish wildlife agency, still know
a lot of great folks in the field of conservation
and hunting at fishing advocacy, and I can't tell you
how often I hear no one shows up like VHA
(35:51):
shows up. And whether it's our staff or ore you know,
our chapters to your point right when and everybody else
is who loves you know, public land, waters, wildlife, hunting,
those wild places where you know all that magic happens,
can't show up. We're there to represent our community. And
(36:17):
and again, you know we man I hear at least
once a week the value of what we're able to
do and what we're able to provide, but there's a
you know, there's a cost to that, and that's why
we you know, love to get support from from conservation
minded hunters and anglers who appreciate what we do.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
And good way to get an idea of what we
do and and what your membership supports or donation supports
is just signing up for the newsletters. Right, you get
call to actions and you'll get these act Now emails
(36:59):
that outline these issues in a non partisan way, and
you get to at least sign on, and then those
sign on letters can be presented to say, hey, here's
the size of the community that we represent. You need
(37:19):
to rethink your position on this one.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Yep. And similarly, I often here too, the impact that
those folks willing to sign onto those letters make, phone calls,
show up, they move the needle, and have have quite
(37:41):
literally changed the course of a debate that boy, you
thought it was a foregone conclusion that they were gonna,
you know, move the Agent Fish Wildlife Department into the
Agency of Agriculture, as they tried in Kentucky, or you know,
just given landowners handfuls of tags like they tried and
can'ts and or basically completely politicizing the wildlife management process. Uh,
(38:08):
you know right here in Vermont and it is. It's
it's that active Baha community along with a lot of
our partners. I mean, you know, like when we work together,
I think all too often the sporting community has done
this an amazing job at creating a circular firing squad,
which is exactly what the bad guys want. But you
(38:30):
know when when we work together to get people to
show up and make calls and write letters, it really
does often change the course of bad things that we
don't want to have happen and move the good things
that we do want to have happened.
Speaker 2 (38:47):
Heck yeah, heck yeah. Well what obviously you can head
over to backhuntry hunters dot org and the associated social
media sites. I encourage everybody to do so, just you know,
learn more and throw your thirty bucks in for the
(39:10):
year for membership and and read that info that you
get sent. And more importantly, after you read that info,
sign the petitions, make the phone calls, hit the email
now buttons, and get active. This situation in Utah is real,
(39:33):
even though it sounds made up. But this is our
way of life, the heritage, whatever you want to call it,
that really is at stake.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
I can tell you from personal experience that my learning
curve in hunting, fishing, camping, exploring, I cut my teeth
on public land resources all across this country because that's
those are the places that I could go. And I
(40:08):
know that I am one of millions of people who
had that same experience and recognize that same value. And
I would love to have everyone out there who you know,
values that experience and that opportunity and and knows the
importance of that legacy to help us out and get involved.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Oh absolutely, you know, I got to be honest. We
created an entire outdoor clothing brand through public lands, right,
Like the materials that we use, the technology that we've
found and adapted, that came from pushing ourselves on big,
connected pieces of public land, things that you just cannot
(40:56):
find in the in the private estate. You know, Yeah,
there's a lot of private acres dedicated to wildlife, but
if you don't have access to them, it's hard to
know what that's like. So it's it's integral to hunting
in North America, and we got to keep it that way.
So public public landowner, right, public Land's proud. That's right.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
I've got about six of those shirts just so that
since I don't do my laundry, but about every couple
of months, I always have a fresh one I can
pull out of the drawer.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Yeah, yeah, sure, Well that's awesome, Patrick, Thank you so
much for coming on. Anything else you want to throw
out there before we go.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
No, I just appreciate you taking the time to talk
through this. This is what we do, and you know
I and I and I appreciate the uh the call
to sign up for the newsletter man every day across
the b Aha community, there's remarkable stuff that happens on
behalf of hunters, anglers and people who care about conservation
and wild places in man If. I'm pleasantly surprised every
(42:05):
time I see it, and I'm inspired every time I
see it. I got to imagine that there are a
lot of people out there who would be as well,
and I appreciate you putting that out.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
Cal well, thank you keep up the good work and
the old col's We can review Cow's World podcast here.
We got a lot of movers and shakers, folks who
like to get their hands dirty, so we're going to
weigh in on our side too. Thank you very much everybody.
That's all we got for you today. As always, right
(42:35):
in to ask C A L. That's ask Cal at
the Meat Eater dot com. Let me know what's going
on in your neck of the woods, and let me
know if you have any questions about this Utah land
transfer idea, what the heck's going on in Florida. What's
going on with Patrick Barry and BHA. We can always
(42:57):
have Patrick back on or I can collect all those questions,
get him answered for you and hit him on the podcast.
So thanks again. We'll talk to you next week.
From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is Cow's Week in Review with Ryan cow Klan.
Here's cal, Hey, what's happening there? Every Col's Week in
Review listener. This week we got a very special podcast
following up as per usual with other things that we've
talked about on the pod. Namely, this week we are
(00:36):
talking about this unfortunately recurring situation of a bunch of
knuckleheads wanting to take our publicly accessible, federally managed lands
for reasons unknown, but if we had to put a
guess on it, it'd probably be for short term profit failure.
(00:58):
To look further on the end of your nose from
a land management perspective and value perspective. Last week or
the week before, I had talked probably a little too
long for you about the amazing opportunity that we have
to look at what's happening in the state of Florida
(01:20):
with their state managed land, state owned and managed lands,
where there's a current petition where Ron DeSantis and his
cabinet are just getting their teeth kicked in because they
obviously don't spend any time outside with the people, and
the people are saying this proposal to maximize state profits
(01:43):
on state owned recreation land through the building of hotels,
pickleball courts, golf courses, golf courses in areas where the
average joe public can still access pristine beach see in
danger and threatened wildlife. That stuff's just not not can
(02:04):
fly iron and it's perfect because that's our major fear.
When people bring up this idea of a land transfer
or sale or management trade of federally managed and maintained
(02:26):
lands to the state government, the states are typically mandated
to maximize profits on those state run lands, and this
example in Florida could be the example in Utah. I
say Utah because right now Utah has a lawsuit against
(02:52):
the federal government to try to take eighteen and a
half million acres of federally managed lands for the state
of Utah. That's a little rough shot explanation, but just
as you know in the because I'm self aware, believe
(03:15):
it or not, I have a special guest, Patrick Berry,
CEO of Backhuntry Hunters and Anglers, who's going to help
us run through this situation. We're going to figure out
who the players are, what we need to know, and
how to get involved. So Patrick you've been on the
pod once before, how things gone.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Good? I will tell you that I find this issue
in Utah has supercharged myself along with the rest of
the BHA staff and the Utah chapter as well. We've
got an incredibly effective, experienced BHA chapter in Utah and
(03:58):
we've been coordinatings with them. So I would say, in
addition to that long list of things to do, this
has certainly helped inspire and get everybody pretty fired up, because,
as you well know, cal this exact issue is such
a prime example of the reason why back country hunters
(04:20):
and Anglers exists.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yeah, I think you know North America wide, if people
had to associate BHA with one issue, it would be
access to public lands and the conservation of public lands.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Absolutely, And this is not the first time that we've
ended up doing battle with leaders in the State of
Utah over public lands issues. And in a lot of ways,
the state of Utah has been in ground zero for
public land grabs just like this one. This particular case
(05:00):
is a little bit more concerning, frankly, because the stakes
are incredibly high. It's the implications reach potentially reach well
beyond Utah and just these lands that they identify and
I cannot dig into that one a little bit more.
If you want, cal.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, yeah, do you can you give us a good
synopsis of like, how is this even a possibility?
Speaker 1 (05:29):
What?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
What's the state of Utah trying to prove here?
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Well, I mean, there's a there's a long history within
the state of Utah trying to grab the federally owned
lands within the state's borders, which is really interesting because
Article three of the Utah Constitution expressly says that they
will basically abdicate any claim to federal land at the
(05:56):
time of statehood, So they're going back on what's in
their own constitution. But basically, this is a pattern in
Utah that started back in twenty twelve twenty fourteen with
a lawsuit. As you pointed out, a lot of the
leaders in Utah got their teeth kicked in for trying
(06:16):
to take land owned by all Americans. There was a
retread in twenty seventeen when a Congressional representative Chafits from
Utah tried to do something similar, although not at this
scale it was three million acres, and got his teeth
ticked in and ended up apologizing to the sportsmen and
(06:37):
women in this country for seeing the error of his ways.
And here we are again in this particular case. It
seems to be a bit of a tantrum reacting to
a rule that BLM had moved forward, which basically follows
the VLM mission to make sure that when they're managing
(07:02):
their lands, they're considering a lot of different uses, including
conservation values, which benefit sportsmen and women and other outdoor
recreational enthusiasts tremendously. And they didn't like that, so they
filed this suit and their goal is to and this
is why there are these far reaching implicationscal because what
(07:23):
they're doing is they are questioning the constitutionality of whether
the federal government can own these quote unquote unappropriated lands.
The problem is that in our constitution, there is very
clear authority that Congress has over federal lands, and it
(07:44):
does not distinguish between federal agency or land type. So
with that ambiguity out there, there's the potential that, depending
on how the Supreme Court might rule on this, it
would be far more than just the eighteen and a
half million acres of these quote unquote unappropriated lands, because
(08:05):
there are actually of these subtype of lands there's about
two hundred and ten million acres. But beyond that, if
the authority of the federal government comes into question whether
they can own lands, fend this stretches to every corner
of this country and has far reaching implications. So the
stakes are pretty damn high.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
And as far as you know, the kind of inside
access to folks who really understand policy and this part
of the law where the question really is whether or
not the federal government can own land, which is something
that we've heard over and over and over again, despite
(08:51):
their being from the time the country was established to
now lots of precedent saying that yes, the United States
government can own land. So is this old Sagebrush rebellion
stuff or is this new stuff?
Speaker 1 (09:13):
It's a combination of both. This is a carryover of
the same sentiments that were espouse during the sage Brush
Rebellion and everything that's happened since then. But what's newer
here is the scale not just for the lands identified,
(09:34):
but also the potential for what that means well beyond
the borders of Utah. And what else is new is
I have to say this is about one of the
most polished attempts at gas lighting i've ever seen leaders
within the state of Utah are using the catchphrase that
(09:56):
they are going to keep public lands in public hands,
which I think we all know is akin to the
governor trying to sell some ocean front property around the
Provo area. So that's that's what's new, much more polished
gas lighting effort and far reaching implications well beyond the
(10:19):
borders of the state.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Yet, saying that federally managed lands are not public lands
in public hands and transferring them to the state is
when they then become publicly accessible. Is is It's kind
of like walking past a bowl to go kill a bowl,
(10:41):
walking walking past the steelhead to go catch the steelhead,
right like it's it's ours right now.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Well, I mean if and if you think about the implications,
even for the state, there are no winners here unless
you are the beneficiary. At the end of this, let's
say that Utah prevails, they'll lose. Sportsmen and women across
as country lose. But if you are lucky enough to
be able to I mean, we can well we should
(11:11):
definitely talk about the economics to this. They'll have no
choice but to divest of a lot of these assets.
They just won't be able to afford to own them all.
So if you're if you've got some deep pockets and
you can buy your own hunting oasis, you'll benefit. And
if you are in the extractive industries and or you
are rancher that wants to graze, you could potentially view
(11:36):
as benefiting from this. But it's also worth noting that
the grazing fees on bl On land are about a
buck thirty five and on Utah owned property it's well
over six bucks. So I don't know if there's a
win there either.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Yeah, you know, I haven't done the math on what
it means when the state has to foot a bill
for wild fire suppression, But that's an example that gets
brought up of like, Okay, here's a huge financial burden
on the state. How do they recoup those expenses all
(12:12):
sorts of natural disasters before federal dollars, ironically enough come
in to help carry that burden, And you know a
number of other things. But like to remind people what
we see across the country with state owned lands is
I mean, just in Idaho, which is highly regarded as
(12:37):
a pro sportsman state, there's state owned property that is
not de facto public access it's there's a very swanky
European style hunt club on a chunk of state section.
There's some more hunt club provisions in that state, and
(13:00):
people would never know about it unless you knew. So
that type of leasing kind of falls in the same
category of a timber lease or grazing lease, a farm
lease that is built into that state revenue model. You know,
(13:23):
in Montana, it's more de facto public access to state land.
Colorado has never been that way. That is de facto
private property, not public access, and people do need to
(13:44):
be aware of this stuff. The other interesting thing that
our dear friend Ted Cook likes to bring up, it's
often the frustrations of federal government management that allows for
a lot of the liberties that we have on federally
(14:05):
managed lands, meaning that yes, there's some burdensome bureaucracy, but
because of the wheels moving so slow there, oftentimes we
don't get crazy swings in management. So when we hear
about these scary things of like, oh, you know, dev
(14:26):
Holland's gonna make it illegal to have firearms on federal ground, right,
which was a rumor when the Secretary of State took
over during the current administration, it takes so long for
something to get enacted that oftentimes we have new management
(14:49):
in place and the pendulum swings back the other way
before anything actually happens. Whereas state government, the potential for
something scary to happen, in my opinion, is much higher.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Well absolutely, I mean, trying to make changes in the
within the federal land system is like trying to turn
a tanker as opposed to you know, the state land system,
which you know, not some one of them sparkly bass
boats that go really fast and can turn quickly, but
certainly it can turn faster. A lot of the state
(15:27):
owned property across the country comes with strings attached, right,
So wildlife management areas we're often funded through US Mishial
Wildlife Service, and there are pretty specific requirements about what
you can and can't do. But and the example of
and that's why you know, you've mentioned the variability from
state to state over you know, different types of management.
(15:51):
But in the example of Utah, there would be no
strings attached. They would simply own that land out right.
And they have certainly shown as I think you reference
when you talked about this last time, Cal I mean,
at the time of statehood. They were granted state trust lands,
which were set aside to help fund schools and presumably
(16:13):
through management and leases and that sort of thing. But
and the best example I can think of the old
burning furniture to eat the house, they've actually managed to
auction off about half of those state trust lands. So
regardless of what they may say, no, of course not,
we would never ever get rid of public access in
(16:34):
public lands. They have a history of doing just that.
And unlike the BLM, which you know, they don't have
bills to pay, right, I mean, in fact, you know
all Americans support the federal agencies that oversee these lands
to make sure that you know, there's well managers can
be based on congressional appropriations. Utah, like a lot of states,
(16:56):
they got to balance budget amendment, so they have no
choice but to balance the budget every year. And I
know that the numbers have changed, and even on the
state's own FAQs. As the remarkable bit of propaganda trying
to get these lands, they acknowledge they have no idea
what the stewardship, maintenance, fire suppression costs would be. But
(17:19):
if you look back and yeah, you know it's about
ten years old. The last time there was an analysis
done of the State of Utah taking you know, basically
grabbing up chunks of better land. It was pretty clear
by third party economists and the University of Utah that
this was an economic death trap for the State of Utah,
(17:41):
that they would bankrupt themselves pretty quickly, which means they'd
have no choice but to auction off land to be
able to pay for the rest of that maintenance. And
they sure as heck wouldn't be able to benefit from
any sort of long term future leases for whatever activities
(18:01):
because they won't own them anymore.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
And you know, just doing some quick and dirty math too,
I think the State of Utah gained about two billion
dollars for the sale of the It was fifty four
of their state owned lands since statehood, and it was
(18:26):
somewhere like four and a half million acres or four
point something. But they equates about five hundred dollars an acre.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Oh yeah, you know, I hadn't done that math. And
actually I saw I think Cali I saw you reference
that too, which is is pretty remarkable. I mean, talk
about a fire sale pun not intended for a lot
of this acreage that you know, once it's gone, it's gone.
For good. And that's the biggest challenge. I mean, I
(19:04):
couldn't even tell you which pieces of federally owned land
I've been on in Utah, but there's been a bunch
of different ones that you know, I feel blessed that
in this country we have, uh there's there's a lot
of unique things about our hunting and fishing heritage that
we enjoy, and public land and the ability to access
(19:26):
that and uh get away and enjoy a lot of
the free time that that we need. That that doesn't
exist for a lot of people because not everyone has
the means to own their you know, own chunk of
property where they can go hunting with themselves and their buddies.
And you know, generations of sportsmen and women have relied
(19:50):
on these public resources that we all own to get
out there and and you know, passed down our hunting
and fishing heritage. And I that's part of the mystery
here too. And pretty much all the material that the
State of Utah is putting out, they keep referencing Utah's
lands and needing to do it's best for the citizens
(20:13):
of Utah. Not only will then not be the case
that Utahon's will benefit, but the reality is these aren't
Utah's lands. They're your lance, cal their mine, right there,
everybody who's an American citizen, and that is just such
an incredible legacy that we need to I mean, this
(20:34):
is again, this is why, you know, one of the
key reasons why VHA exists is to make sure that
we maintain that public land to pass down for generations,
you know, for everyone to enjoy and for a lot
of folks they may not be able to afford to
do anything else except access to those public lands. And
that's a beautiful part of this country.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Oh yeah, absolutely, And and you know, I do think
also too, like some of the people that are screaming
in favor of this lawsuit to go through and a
state transfer to happen, have way more in common with
(21:15):
the general sporting community that's in favor of federally managed lands,
or if not, you know, totally in favor. They are
very much aligned with the fact that the system that
is in place is the best example of public access
(21:40):
and public use in the world. And if you can
bring something better to the table and prove that it's better, sure,
but this ain't it. You know, I sympathize with like
you brought up folks who have grazing leases. You know,
(22:00):
it's it's tough running cattle these days. The folks who
have multi generational hunting traditions at the end of a
road that is all of a sudden closed, or you know,
(22:21):
cut firewood in a certain area and all of a
sudden that's closed. But the reality is is that stuff
doesn't all of a sudden get closed because it is
on federally managed land. There's comment periods and review periods,
and there's so many ways to weigh in.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
That.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
You know, I mean, I'm preaching to the choir when
I'm talking about this stuff with the BHA crowd, because
that's part of the beauty about being involved in BHA.
You get aware of the processes and you can learn
how to effectively advocate and be there when it matters
instead of being like, oh, all of a sudden, out
(23:04):
of the blue, they just closed this, because that's just
not how the federal government works in regards to land management.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
You know, if you you know, I watched the governor's
press conference with AG and Senate and House leaders in Utah,
and you know, they've got a couple of websites that
do a pretty remarkable job with the propaganda, and you
if you watched it and you didn't know better, which
(23:36):
a lot of people wouldn't, or you didn't think to
dig into the details, it may sound like something worth considering,
but it's the damn pesky details every time that get you.
And one of the claims they make is how awful
it is that there was three hundred and seventeen miles
of road that were closed and cut off public access. Well,
(24:00):
what I've learned is that there was a proposed element
of the management that h you know, they they look
at a bunch of different options, and I think from
what I understand, most of these road closures were in
Grand County and actually aligned with exactly what the county
(24:20):
had requested through that management process. In fact, from what
I understand, the county may have actually been looking for
even more restrictive access with more closures and the the
In the end, the BLM, you know, found that compromise
trying to meet all the interest that with that we're
(24:41):
out there, but it's it's just an example of the
of the bs that is coming out of the state
of Utah regarding a lot of the issues surrounding this
and it's those details that that matter was.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
But you know, oh it does for sure. You know,
during the last or during the Trump administration, you know,
that was something that they were super hot and heavy on.
Why it was trying to find ways to have more
public input and taking into account all the way down
(25:19):
to the county commissionary level. And on top of that,
during the same administration, when asked about the possibility of
transferring federally managed lands to the state, Trump, in a
(25:40):
very genuine off the cuff way, was like, well, why
would we do that? They're too valuable, right right, that
doesn't make business sense. Why why would you get rid
of an asset like that?
Speaker 1 (25:53):
You know, all right, and take a look at the
recreation economy around all of these public lands in part
to the state. Uh. And that's that's another one of
those interesting head scratching twists that you know. On on
one hand, you know, the state will tout the remarkable
(26:14):
economic value to the tune of billions from the recreational
use of of the public lands within the state of Utah.
They'll talk about how they have shown their ability to
you know, work collaboratively with federal agencies. And then the
next sentence. You know, the AG referred to the relationship
(26:34):
with federal agencies as a in a quote unquote an
abusive relationship. And regarding the economic value, they'll talk about
the you know, highest and best sustained yield you know
for these lands. Uh So, there again more of those
pesky details where if you take the time to dig
(26:55):
into this a little bit, you realize that this no
one wins unless you're somebody who actually ends up with
one of these parcels all to yourself.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
And you know, just like anybody who's ever bought and
sold the chunk of ground, you know, like you know,
if you hang on to it long enough, it only
goes up in value, like they only made so much.
And so when we talk about, you know, all the
different short answers that haven't been researched as to why
(27:31):
people think this should happen, right, affordable housing for instance.
And this is you know, my perspective here, This is
an opinion piece. It's like, you know, my own father
scolded me many many times in regards to well, why
would I give you this if you've already proven that
(27:52):
you weren't responsible enough to have right?
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Yeah, And that was my entire childhood.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Cal Yeah, I just think like this is that exact
same thing. On a grander scale. People are like, Oh,
we just need more, We just need more, and then
we won't screw up what we have them, right, And
it's like, we have all this infrastructure out there that
(28:21):
I think people are just looking at and they're like, Oh,
it's too much of a headache to do this here.
If you give us some pristine new land, we'll do
better job with it. And I think that is such
a pipe dream, such a short sighted, ridiculous answer. It
(28:42):
just drives me nuts, right. I mean, look at the
way the Gallaton Valley is exploding, right, Like, we know
and have known that that valley is going to have
water quality issues and we're doing nothing about it right now.
But we're taking more and more land to slap up
the houses in the name of affordable housing, which we
(29:02):
desperately need. But it doesn't mean we're doing it in
a smart way. Now, we're just kicking the can down
the road and letting somebody else deal with the downstream effects.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Yeah, I mean, you know to that example too. Look,
there are a lot of needs that we have in
you know, in this country and in this world, right,
I mean, whether it's you know, uh, mining, ranching, logging,
you know, any number of industries. You know, I'm not
(29:36):
necessarily about exporting our problems, you know and our needs
someplace else to another country. But there's definitely a right
way to do it, and there's definitely a way to
do it that you know, can balance all of those uses.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Right.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
That's that's BLM's job, right. I mean, they're not beholden
to any specific interest and they don't have the economic
pressures to have to lean one way or another. Utah
will have no choice. They will have to rely on
either auctioning the land off, as they've shown they've done
to your point, Like you know, they got a history
(30:13):
of this stuff, and you know, why would we give
it more land if they're already you know, selling it
as is right, And even if they don't necessarily have
to you know, sell huge chunks of it right away,
they're definitely going to have to look at allowing private
interests to benefit from those leases. And with the economic
(30:35):
pressure that's going to come with stewardship, maintenance, fier suppression
on a huge you know, chunk of land eighteen and
a half million acres at least they will have no
choice but to err on the side of those uses
that are about profitability, not about balancing the needs of
(30:58):
what Americans need.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
So what what can we do here? Right? Like if
if we we know the threat one of many that
that we're facing here, but on the Utah subject, like
how to folks weigh in?
Speaker 1 (31:16):
Well, first of all, you know, I as soon as
this issue came up, cal I, along with you know,
some handful of VHA staff, we dropped everything and started
working on this issue, because the more we can elevate
the value of public land and these threats, right, whether
(31:36):
it's the Florida example that you gave, or the fact
that the candidate for Senate in Montana is getting his
teeth kicked in by saying that the federal land in
Montana should be should go to the state or the counties.
There's a pretty solid history here of Americans in general,
(31:57):
not just sportsmen and women, pushing back when states or
others try to take this federally owned land. So I
think what people can do frankly is pay attention and
share your just disdain for what's happening and your opposition
(32:18):
for the notion that somehow these lands are only valuable
if they're owned at the most local level possible and
not managed in a way that benefits all Americans too.
And so you know, whether it's your social media channels
or with your friends or wherever, I think spreading the
word is really really important to avoid this from happening again. Second,
(32:41):
I would encourage everyone to call the governor's office in
Utah tell them to drop the lawsuit. I think a
lot of us are still scratching our heads why they're
pushing this because of the implications economically for Utah and
the implications for all you know, federally owned land will
on this as well. Third, b h A has a
(33:04):
petition that we've got online. It's pretty easy to find
if you go to Backcountry Hunters dot org and and
sign that petition, and you know it's something you know
you have chatted about with you before. Cal too is
you know, Uh, We've got a lot of great partners
in our space and you know the world of hunting, fishing,
and conservation, but there really isn't another organization who is
(33:27):
willing to dive in and take on these kinds of
fights where we we may not have the resources. We
didn't get some kind of earmark funding to tackle this issue,
but it's what we do, it's what matters, and and frankly,
you know, we need support to make sure we keep
fighting the good fight here. Uh that if it's it
(33:49):
may not just be this issue, It's going to be
another issue and another state too. So uh, that's you know,
it's really important folks to join b h A and
and support what we do because we'll take on these
fights without some kind of earmark sitting in a bank somewhere,
because we know it is what we do and because
it's the right thing to do. So, Yeah, call the
(34:09):
governor's office, sign a petition, share your opposition, frustration and
anger with anyone who'll listen, and you know, keep supporting
us to make sure we can keep taking these fights on.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
Yeah, I think I think a great example of why
there's great things that individuals can do without the help
of an organization. One of the things that an organization
like BHA helps with is being there when the individuals can't.
(34:43):
It's the BHA job to be in that room while
everybody else has to go to their nine to five job. So,
you know, recently a great example right, is like the
California Marine Protected Areas situation that we talked about on
this show quite bit. You know, those public meetings, those
(35:05):
public hearings that the public is involved, you know, invited to.
They're supposed to be there, they're supposed to comment, they're
being held when a huge amount of the parties that
benefit from public access to public water, public wildlife just
cannot financially be in that room.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
No question. And I can't tell you. Look, you know,
cal I've only been on the job here, you know,
for eight months. And you know, fortunately since I was
a director of a state fish wildlife agency, still know
a lot of great folks in the field of conservation
and hunting at fishing advocacy, and I can't tell you
how often I hear no one shows up like VHA
(35:51):
shows up. And whether it's our staff or ore you know,
our chapters to your point right when and everybody else
is who loves you know, public land, waters, wildlife, hunting,
those wild places where you know all that magic happens,
can't show up. We're there to represent our community. And
(36:17):
and again, you know we man I hear at least
once a week the value of what we're able to
do and what we're able to provide, but there's a
you know, there's a cost to that, and that's why
we you know, love to get support from from conservation
minded hunters and anglers who appreciate what we do.
Speaker 2 (36:37):
And good way to get an idea of what we
do and and what your membership supports or donation supports
is just signing up for the newsletters. Right, you get
call to actions and you'll get these act Now emails
(36:59):
that outline these issues in a non partisan way, and
you get to at least sign on, and then those
sign on letters can be presented to say, hey, here's
the size of the community that we represent. You need
(37:19):
to rethink your position on this one.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Yep. And similarly, I often here too, the impact that
those folks willing to sign onto those letters make, phone calls,
show up, they move the needle, and have have quite
(37:41):
literally changed the course of a debate that boy, you
thought it was a foregone conclusion that they were gonna,
you know, move the Agent Fish Wildlife Department into the
Agency of Agriculture, as they tried in Kentucky, or you know,
just given landowners handfuls of tags like they tried and
can'ts and or basically completely politicizing the wildlife management process. Uh,
(38:08):
you know right here in Vermont and it is. It's
it's that active Baha community along with a lot of
our partners. I mean, you know, like when we work together,
I think all too often the sporting community has done
this an amazing job at creating a circular firing squad,
which is exactly what the bad guys want. But you
(38:30):
know when when we work together to get people to
show up and make calls and write letters, it really
does often change the course of bad things that we
don't want to have happen and move the good things
that we do want to have happened.
Speaker 2 (38:47):
Heck yeah, heck yeah. Well what obviously you can head
over to backhuntry hunters dot org and the associated social
media sites. I encourage everybody to do so, just you know,
learn more and throw your thirty bucks in for the
(39:10):
year for membership and and read that info that you
get sent. And more importantly, after you read that info,
sign the petitions, make the phone calls, hit the email
now buttons, and get active. This situation in Utah is real,
(39:33):
even though it sounds made up. But this is our
way of life, the heritage, whatever you want to call it,
that really is at stake.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
I can tell you from personal experience that my learning
curve in hunting, fishing, camping, exploring, I cut my teeth
on public land resources all across this country because that's
those are the places that I could go. And I
(40:08):
know that I am one of millions of people who
had that same experience and recognize that same value. And
I would love to have everyone out there who you know,
values that experience and that opportunity and and knows the
importance of that legacy to help us out and get involved.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Oh absolutely, you know, I got to be honest. We
created an entire outdoor clothing brand through public lands, right,
Like the materials that we use, the technology that we've
found and adapted, that came from pushing ourselves on big,
connected pieces of public land, things that you just cannot
(40:56):
find in the in the private estate. You know, Yeah,
there's a lot of private acres dedicated to wildlife, but
if you don't have access to them, it's hard to
know what that's like. So it's it's integral to hunting
in North America, and we got to keep it that way.
So public public landowner, right, public Land's proud. That's right.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
I've got about six of those shirts just so that
since I don't do my laundry, but about every couple
of months, I always have a fresh one I can
pull out of the drawer.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Yeah, yeah, sure, Well that's awesome, Patrick, Thank you so
much for coming on. Anything else you want to throw
out there before we go.
Speaker 1 (41:39):
No, I just appreciate you taking the time to talk
through this. This is what we do, and you know
I and I and I appreciate the uh the call
to sign up for the newsletter man every day across
the b Aha community, there's remarkable stuff that happens on
behalf of hunters, anglers and people who care about conservation
and wild places in man If. I'm pleasantly surprised every
(42:05):
time I see it, and I'm inspired every time I
see it. I got to imagine that there are a
lot of people out there who would be as well,
and I appreciate you putting that out.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
Cal well, thank you keep up the good work and
the old col's We can review Cow's World podcast here.
We got a lot of movers and shakers, folks who
like to get their hands dirty, so we're going to
weigh in on our side too. Thank you very much everybody.
That's all we got for you today. As always, right
(42:35):
in to ask C A L. That's ask Cal at
the Meat Eater dot com. Let me know what's going
on in your neck of the woods, and let me
know if you have any questions about this Utah land
transfer idea, what the heck's going on in Florida. What's
going on with Patrick Barry and BHA. We can always
(42:57):
have Patrick back on or I can collect all those questions,
get him answered for you and hit him on the podcast.
So thanks again. We'll talk to you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.