April 28, 2025 • 54 mins
Cal is on assignment this week hunting turkeys somewhere in the wilds of West Virginia, but not to worry. We have a special interview episode. Last week, Cal sat down with Steve Williams, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 2002 to 2005. They discuss how the recent actions and proposals from the Trump administration will impact future conservation work and what hunters and anglers can do about it.
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. This
is Col's Week in Review with Ryan cal Klan.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Here's Cal.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
All right, everybody, welcome to another episode of Cal's Week
in Review. We're continuing our series with our informed, esteemed
guest folks who are in the know, are have insights
into this big wide world of conservation with me as
always as Jordan Ziller's and again you're listening to Cal's.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Week in Review.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
This week we have former US Fish and Wildlife Service
Director Steve Williams. All Right, well, thank you very much
for coming on. Steve, What would you mind letting our
audience know when you serve for the US Fish and
Wildlife Service as director and how you got to that position.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Yeah, sure, cow. Starting nineteen eighty five, I was a
dear biologist in the state of Massachusetts, then moved on
to a Pennsylvania Game Commission as the deputy executive director,
and then spent seven years after that in Kansas as
Secretary of Wildlife and Parks, And that took me up
to Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. That was
(01:28):
George W. Bush administration.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yeah, so state and federal experience.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Yes, and then another eighteen years after the Fishing Wildlife
Service with the Wildlife Management Institute, which is a non
governmental organization arguably the first professional wildlife organization, not agency,
but it started nineteen eleven and through to this day,
(01:59):
we've worked very us with federal government agencies and state
fish and wildlife agencies. So yeah, I've got about thirty
eight years experience at the state and federal level, and
also you know, with the private.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
NGA, and you're with us here today to help us
kind of understand our current rapidly evolving landscape of wildlife
management here in the early days of the Trump administration
(02:33):
round two, right, and we got in touch with you through.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The Wildlife Society.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Yeah, I've been a member of that since nineteen seventy nine,
I think seventy eight or seventy nine.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
And what you know. So there's so much to cover here.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
We want to keep this kind of short and concise,
but a couple of big bullet points that have rolled
out recently.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I'd love to cover, such.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
As oftentimes I would say, like the rank and file
hunters probably if at all, associate the US fishal Life
Service with migratory birds like are federally regulated duck stamp
associated ducks and geese and the regulation.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Of those species.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
But I think we should also talk about what relationship
is there between the FEDS, US Fish and Wildlife Service
and our state agencies.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
That's one of my primary concerns. Cow You're right, absolutely right,
that migratory bird management and that's you know, also connects
with state fishing wildlife agencies. But at this point, there's
two programs that really tie the FEDS and the state
(04:06):
agencies and then therefore hunters and anglers together in this country.
The first one is run by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and it's the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. Nineteen
thirty seven, Congress passed Pittman Robertson Act, or the Wildlife
Restoration Act. The funds that Act uses are from an
(04:32):
excise tax on a gun and ammunition manufacturers, So those
manufacturers pay an excise tax to the federal government. That
tax flows through the Fish and Wildlife Service to each
of the state Fish and Wildlife agencies. Same thing on
the fish side. That act goes back to nineteen fifty
(04:55):
the Dingle Johnson Act. Same idea that manufacturers a fit equipment,
tackle and so on. Pay an exercise tax to the
federal government that goes through the Fish and Wildlife Service
and out to every state Fish and Wildlife agency. Why
is it important. It's about one point three billion dollars
a year between what hunters and angres pay for their
(05:19):
license fees in these sport Fish and Wildlife rerustration funds.
That's the lifeblood of all state all fifty state Fish
and Wildlife agencies. And the concern that many of us
have is, well, there's a number of concerns, but one
is the staffing levels that run that program throughout the country.
(05:44):
Right now, they're regionally based. There's eight nine regions of
the Fish and Wilife Service, and they work closely with
their states to make sure that one point three billion
dollars is spent on projects that are efficient and effective
and you know, have impact, have an outcome, and there's
a lot of to keep the integrity of the program going.
(06:08):
There's a lot of things states must comply with and
the federal government must comply with to make sure those
dollars are spent legally and again, efficiently and effectively. It
is arguably the engine that drives the greatest conservation successes
in the world, and that is the direct tie between
Fish and Wildlife Service and State Fish and Wildlife Agency.
(06:32):
So as hunter, as a hunter and anger, myself and
everybody that hunts and fishes in this country ought to
be aware that the lands that state wildlife lands were
huntings allowed fishing lands. Some of those were bought with
those dollars. The management of those properties, many of those
(06:52):
are paid for with those dollars, and research and management
of populations are paid for with those dollars. If the
states can't effectively receive those dollars and put them on
the ground, hunters and anglers are going to see that
very quickly. And I'm not sure you know that that
(07:15):
folks are aware of it. I understand whether or not,
because it's you know, it's a long process of great history.
It's one of the best examples of the federal state partnership.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Yeah, So when we say, like, well, what does this
mean for us? Right, like, how how do these actions
affect the end user that the consumer, the customer, the
hunter and angler, It's can be everything from access quality habitat.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
To bag limits.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Yes, absolutely, Yeah, one of one of the big topics
right now. And I literally just had this conversation yesterday
with an uncle of mine, you know, heard something and
I had to try to fact check it, and he said,
will the inability to conduct the annual Migratory Bird Survey,
(08:15):
which is a rumor going around right now that the
US Fish and wild Life Service won't have enough funding
to conduct, you know, the longest running migratory bird survey
in the world, Will that shut down our waterfowl season?
And you know, being an armchair expert, I felt qualified
(08:37):
to say, well, no, I don't think this is going
to stop our hunting season in the near term, but
it is going to create a gap in data. And
my recollection is you don't have to go all that
far back to point to an example and say, Okay,
(08:59):
like during the COVID years, the ability to conduct this
survey was hindered as well, but we still had hunting seasons. However,
going forward, knowing that the state of our migratory birds
isn't as good as most people think it is, we
could in theory, kind of be eating ourselves out of
(09:23):
house and home because we won't have reliable data to
set the bag limits in these flyways.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, So the concern, as I understand it, is not
just the funding concern, although that is one, no doubt,
It's also a matter of staffing in personnel. Same things
with my concern about staffing levels for the Wildlife and
Sport Favorite Restoration program, I have the same concern about
(09:54):
when it comes to migratory waterfowl counts surveys. Those surveys
require pilots that are extremely experienced, most of them have
flown for years and years and years. And with you know,
these current efforts to reduce the reduction in forest or
riff or layoffs or you know, firings, whatever you want
(10:17):
to call them, that may impact the number of qualified
pilots that we even be available to fly. So these,
you know, you can't cut agencies willy nilly in terms
of staffing, not knowing you know who needs to beware
and when. And that seems to be a current with
(10:40):
respect to the seasons. Yeah, I mean, I don't know
at this point. I don't think anybody does. I doubt
there'll be any cancelation of the season. However, as you're aware, Cow,
those waterfowl surveys have been conducted for years, decades. They
(11:01):
cover roots and they're they're counting the number of ponds
and the number of ducks, and those two variables, number
of ponds and number of ducks play an extremely important
role in the fishing Wiler Service and the states coming
together in setting seasoned lengths and bag limits. So in
(11:21):
the absence of that data, yeah, I mean that they're
pardon the pun, but they're kind of flying blind. And
if if it is a pilot situation reducing the number
of folks that can fly those routes. It's not a
one year issue, you know, not anyone can just get
(11:43):
up and start flying waterfowl surveys. If they can't conduct
them this year, I have would have concerns about the
next year, in the year beyond that in terms of,
you know, do we actually have qualified people to conduct
these surveys, and will Fish and Wildlife Service have the
funding to conduct the surveys. That's the issue and the
(12:05):
concern of most of us in the profession is we
don't know where we're headed as a profession.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
And Steve, just to clarify something here, You're not talking
about people who just have the ability to fly a plane.
You're talking about some historical institutional knowledge that has to
be at minimum kind of passed down to the next
(12:37):
pilot in order to make these flights effective.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Yeah. Absolutely, And many of these survey lines are flown
in extremely remote areas Northern Canada, Alaska. It's not like
there's an airport, you know, next door. Refueling you know,
can occur just on the ground with the pilot and
(13:03):
an observer. I mean they're in the remote wilds of Canada,
Northern Canada, so it's not like, you know, you just
pick anybody off the road. You can fly a you
know whatever, each craft Sessna and put them in those
kind of conditions. There's a tremendous amount of training. These
these folks are highly skilled. If you lose those cadre
(13:27):
of pilots, that's you know, I have a concern about
where we're going to be next year. In these buyouts
of you know, early retirement, deferred retirement, I know that
their staff, inefficient wives are taking them, not necessarily because
they want to, but they think if I don't take this,
(13:50):
I may get laid off in a reduction enforced move.
As much as maybe thirty percent forty percent of the agency.
I mean it's this that agency and wildlife conservation in
this country has been built over one hundred years, proven
to have success. Uh. You know, there's many laws out
(14:12):
there that are again the pr d j AS nineteen
thirty seven. Uh, and it's proven that it works, approved
by Congress, monitored by Congress through you know, through the years.
And then you know, without any real analysis or well
(14:32):
any real analysis, to cut the funding for you know,
these positions, the refuges, the fisheries programs, and the Fishing
Wiligy Service, it just doesn't make sense. I've heard about
efforts to consolidate or centralized personnel that are out in
the regions across the country, the eight regions of the
(14:54):
I'm sorry, the nine regions of the Fishing Oiledge Service,
and to bring some of those functions to d C.
That one really has me scratched in my head because
I understand it. It's counter to what this administration believes
and up said about it's important to put these federal
people out where their constituents are. This is exactly the opposite.
(15:18):
And it's like filling the swamp rather than draining the swamp.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Yeah, DC is a little fire from the Pacific Flyway, right, yes, sir,
and yeah, not to be glib here, but you know,
the messaging that we're hearing out of DC is as
as you said, it's really just doing what matters for
the American people, right and providing those services at the
(15:48):
local level and not having the quote unquote kind of
like big government approach where they don't consult with the
locals and it's just handed down from unseen forces in DZ.
So you know, that's the answer that we need, right,
(16:10):
is like what does the US ficial Aid life service
do for the end consumer? And you know, ideally, if
folks are aware of that and they see value in that,
then they're going to stick.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Up for that.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Yeah, and I think they will cow And I mean,
let me, let me just back up a minute. The
idea that you should come in and and and take
a look at what agencies are doing, how they're spending
their money, where they're spending their money. You know, is
it effective, is it efficient? I am all for that.
I worked for four different state agents or three different
(16:43):
state agencies and Innofficial Auto Service, and we were constantly
looking for ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness. We did
it by evaluating, you know, what was working, what wasn't working,
getting rid of things that didn't work. Adding funding where
we needed it to make it more effective. That's a
(17:04):
common sense, very practical Dare I say a scientific way
about improving agency effectiveness and agency programs. Unfortunately, that's not
what we're seeing. What we're seeing is as folks go
in the dose group go in, they may or may
(17:26):
not have any experience, in this case in conservation and
making decisions quickly that we're going to have a long
term may have a long term impact on a fishing
wildlife service and therefore on the state agencies that work
closely with the Fishing Wildlife Service, and no state fish
and wildlife agencies work directly for hunters, anglers and all
(17:51):
the constituents in their state. I'm retired now, but I've
spent my whole career working in fishing, wildlife conservation, and
my heart breaks for what I see, what's happening and
what may happen to again, conservation programs that are and
viea of the world.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
You know, Like if we were to jump over to
this last round, I think it's the last or the
most recent I should say, round of executive orders titled
zero based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy that popped
out April ninth, and this one if I can read
(18:35):
through it properly, and this is giving some faith to
the federal government right now. The idea is to summarize
regulations that have been amended and added on to for
(18:56):
decades now in some cases, to modernize them, make them
more easily to digestible, get rid of the extra paper
and time it takes to read that paper. And when
we talk about historical knowledge, you know that boots on
the ground, this is how you make things work. The
(19:18):
common sense, level headed part of me is like, well,
I know what that's about. Because if you have somebody
who's brand new to the job and they read something
that says this is the way you're supposed to do this,
the older person on the crew goes, yeah, yeah, that's
what it says. But this is the way we actually
(19:40):
do it, because this way pertains to our actual situation,
whereas the paper is like a broad scope that doesn't
necessarily pertain to the pertinent on the ground, step by
step order of operations, and so like when we dig
(20:03):
into any one of these, but you know, we can
go back to like the Mining Act of eighteen seventy two,
right like eighteen seventy two was a long time ago.
In order to make that pertain with some degree of relevance,
it's been added on to an amended multiple times throughout history.
(20:26):
That one's not the best example, because nobody likes to
touch the Mining Act. But how much of a setback,
I guess is it for us? What would be the
ability for somebody new and out of school who lands
in one of these jobs to perform at a reasonable
(20:47):
level like what doge wants, right, efficiency for our tax
dollar without having that knowledgeable person on the cruise around
for a decade already and knows how things work.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Yeah, that's an interesting question. Cal So, let's just think
about what's really happening. A lot of the older folks,
experienced folks who could retire or are close to retirement,
may do that. We're seeing, you know, an increase in
retirement and retirement in the service. I mean, people are
(21:27):
that can get out. Many of them are getting out.
Some of them are getting out because that may open
up a slot for someone else to stay in, right
but I mean not But and so we're losing some
of the older folks with that institutional knowledge you're talking about.
And at the same time, reducing the number of positions
(21:49):
not just an official Wildays Service, but in the Park
Service and all across the way. So if I were
coming out of college right now, my opportunity to work
for a federal land management agency's way down. You know
that the openings will not be there, So you know,
I don't know what I'll do. I'll look for another
job somewhere else. So it's not just losing the institutional memory,
(22:13):
it's also losing the ability to bring young folks in
and move them up. The first round of these early
retirement and deferred to early retirement and the probationary cuts
also affected people in mid level, not just the people
that have been there a year or so. If you
(22:34):
were promoted, let's say you work for the Fisial Wiolence
Service for twenty five years, you get promoted to some position,
a higher position. If you got caught in that probationary period,
you were out. That doesn't make any sense at all
to anybody, I don't think, But that's the that's the
kind of way that they're dealing with it. But back
(22:55):
to the executive Order, I mean, you're right to be
concerned about have people that have that knowledge to really
know what it means and to put what it means
on the ground. As I read it, and and I
just got it earlier today and read it rather quickly,
(23:16):
but as I understand what it does is it's well,
I'll back up. So Congress passes the law Migratory Bird Act,
Danger Species Act, whatever it might be, and then gives
the agencies some leeway to develop regulations under the law.
So those regulations come, they are developed by agencies, but
(23:38):
they come with the direction from Congress. So Congress doesn't
get weigh down in the weeds, but they provide the
template for the agencies to develop regulations to carry out
those laws. Okay, you know, can regulations be improved? Absolutely?
I mean I wrote regulations in the past that you know,
two three, four years later we got to change. That
(24:01):
doesn't work. But now again, as I read it, these
regulations for all the acts that were identified in an
executive order, those agencies have been instructed to amend those
regulations in sunset them in one year, so they have
(24:21):
until September to look at the regulations. Add to each
of those regulations, and you have to go through the
Federal Register, and it's very involved process and say that
this regulation sunsets a year from now. So if the
first one was done, if play this scenario out, because
(24:42):
this is reality. If the Service or whatever agencies you know,
starts tomorrow and picks ten regulations, they say these things
sunset a year from now, so April whatever we are
seventeenth April seventeenth of twenty twenty six, that regulation is
null and void unless it's amended and go through the regulator,
(25:05):
the regulatory process, which is long involved, expensive, every regulation,
not pick out the ones that really need to be
you know, improved, modified, what have you. You've got to go
through every regulation and every act, every law and one
year sunset. I really hate being chicken little, But what
(25:31):
administration is going to be around one year from now?
We know that answer, So I mean it, if I
were in the Service, I'm not sure how I how
I would do my job because it just does It
doesn't make any sense. Cow. I mean again, there's ways
(25:52):
to do this, and and and these folks are smart enough.
You know, businesses don't operate like this. They again, they
collect information, they analyze that, they make changes, they monitor,
there's changes. They then they change, you know, incrementally, this
is one hundred year history of conservation in the country,
(26:15):
and we're at the precipice of having one hundred years
of experience go out the window because of some of
these things that are coming out, you know, reduction in people,
sun setting regulations again, review, modify, change regulations that they
(26:35):
need to be. That's that's a common occurrence and an
important occurrence. But to sunset all the regulations in one year,
that's unprecedented. That's never happened in the history of this quest.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And for the for the listeners here, and this is
out of the Executive Order for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
This order applies to all regulations issued pursuing to the
following statutes and any amendments there too, the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
nineteen eighteen, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of nineteen
(27:11):
thirty four, the Anadramus Fish Conservation Act of nineteen sixty five,
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of nineteen seventy two, the
Endangered Species Act of nineteen seventy three, the Magnus and
Stephens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of nineteen seventy six
and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of nineteen eighty two.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
A lot more going on.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Here too, I would ask, is, so you take the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of nineteen seventy two, and we've
seen in certain areas a pretty significant rebound sea lions, seals,
sea otters, those types of species that you know to
(27:57):
the work in everyday angler and even the creational angler
can be a pain in the butt when it comes
to nets or even fish on hook and line. Would
we I know this is forecasting here, but is there
a possibility that we would see something like the Marine
(28:19):
Mammal Protection Act in nineteen seventy two amended in a
way that would be reflective of changes in those populations
in a positive sense? Or is it literally because of
the regulatory framework, are we going to be in a
position where all of these acts and the regulations pursuant
(28:44):
or in so much flux that they're just not essentially
going to be in effect.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
Yeah, that's a workload issue, I think. Count I don't
know how with less staff, considerably less staff, as I understand,
how are there going to be able to process all
those regulations and there are thousands of them again built time,
(29:11):
you know, over time, based on experience, modified, amended, and
so on, based on experience. So I think that the
overall I answered that just to your question is could
this have an impact on hunters and angusy, Yes, absolutely not,
just could will It may be positive in some ways,
(29:32):
maybe negative in some ways, But that executive order, as
I'm sitting here talking to you, I'm thinking about it again,
go in surgically and say we have issues with these,
with these one hundred regulations, that executive order is lazy.
(29:54):
It's inefficient. If you follow what I'm saying. If you've
got issues with those, regular dig in, find which ones
you have problems with, and work to amend them to
whatever ends you want. In a send, you know, it's energy,
energy of development. And again I mean I drive a
(30:15):
Chevy fifteen hundred Silver Autum and a Chevy Suburban, so
I understand the need for energy, oil and gas. But
to put out an executive versus okay, you guys again,
a reduced staff at the Service and every other federal agency.
You've got to look at every one of these laws
and the thousands of regulations that go along with it.
(30:36):
Sunset every one of them in a year, and then
we'll decide what we're going to do that is as
inefficient as I can imagine. I mean, I don't know
where the Department of Government efficiency falls. I know where
they fall down on it, but I would say, you know,
they need to do their job and identify what the
(30:58):
problems are, not just you know, wholesale blanket over everything,
and then leave it up to a federal workforce which
is going to be quite less than it is today.
It's it's a recipe for disaster. And trying to go
(31:19):
through all these regulations and through the regulatory process, I
don't I really don't see how it can even happen.
I can't imagine how you can possibly practically practically go
through that process. And I suspect the folks that help
write that executive order have had no experience going through
(31:42):
the regulatory process. I'd like to know, you know, who
is behind all that, and then ask them, you know,
have you ever gone through this process. It's lengthy, it
costs money, it takes people, it takes public input. It's
not a simple. It's not as simple as they seem
to make it. And I think it's because they don't
(32:04):
have experience dealing with it.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
You know, all of these are you know, it's it's
like forecasting. It's kind of unfair questions here, So I apologize, Steve,
but no problem. What is like if it's a disaster
in the making, Like what if you could pick one
out of that list, Like what is the effect going
to be on the hunter and angler here? Like what's
(32:30):
the felt effect? And just to kind of throw out
where my mind goes, right, is like part of the
the value to I would say the American people of
like that migratory bird survey, right is knowing how many
prairie potholes there are, specifically how many we have left
(32:53):
due to habitat destruction. And the fewer there are, the
more valuable they are. Right now, a good buddy mine
in the in the Pacific Flyway, Central Valley, California, you know,
sent me the updated regulations and for the first time
in a very long time, you're going to be able
(33:15):
to shoot I think it's three pintail this season, and
it used to be just one. And boy did those
Californians scream like mash cats over the fact that they
they can only shoot one pintail because yeah, you see
a ton of pintails, but you know one to three
(33:38):
is a big shift, and it's you know, it's an
either sex regulation. It's not not a drake only. I
believe that's correct. And you know what without that survey,
if in fact it doesn't go through, Like, how do
we really know the effects of that regulation change? And
(33:58):
how do we know the value of the quantity and
value of the nesting areas those those potholes, those intermittent
wetlands that we have left.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Yeah, we won't. And and the fact that you know,
you go from one to three bird limit on pintails.
Obviously that's you know, that's a function of water levels
and breeding conditions and so on. But how did we
get to that? Through science? Through the waterfouse surveys, through
(34:31):
building more and more confidence, you know, in the harvest structure,
and we learn year to year to year and those
things get better. There's ability to predict and increase bag
limits and so on season lengths. That's built on again,
(34:52):
you know, almost one hundred years of experience doing something
and improving upon it, throwing out what does and work?
Emphasizing what does work? I mean, that's how you get
to a situation where you can go from one to
three pin deals with confidence. You know, it's not just
the ficial Ology service scientists. It's also state fishing WILFE
(35:15):
agency waterfowl biologists who sit down and you know, they're
obviously concerned about conservation of those species as well as
providing you know, the optimum or maximum of hunting opportunity.
If if they go through some migratory bird TREATI ACT
(35:38):
for instance, and many others, and those regulations change, it throws,
you know, a monkey wrench into the whole process. It could,
I mean, it may or may not, but my thinking
is it certainly will. And then those acts, there's many
(36:03):
of them, address habitat, not just a species, but habitat.
So how will UH hunter and angler be impacted by
potential changes in those regulations? And again, as the viewing
those regulations through the lens of energy development, all right,
you know what impedes energy development? I mean that's the
(36:25):
way I read it. And I may read it wrong.
I freely admit that. But if I may, if I
read it right, those regulations will be modified in order
to promote encourage energy development that occurs on private land
and on public lane that may occur on some of
(36:48):
your favorite big game migration corridors. Uh, you know, flyways,
winter habitat for big game, summer habitat for big game
impact of fisheries. I mean, all those things are in
play in terms of reviewing changing regulations within a year
(37:10):
or so in order to you know, have the US
become energy dominant, which which by the way, we pretty
much are right now.
Speaker 1 (37:26):
Okay, so we've we've talked a little bit about the
well a lot ultimately about migratory birds and some some
season settings and and possible impacts of regulation. What else,
as we see kind of a curtail of the ability
of US Fish and Wildlife Service to work in a
(37:47):
lot of ways. I don't know how else to put it.
Where else are we going to get hurt here? As
this as the end consumer.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
So there's a lot of land management agencies, you know,
for service, park service, fishing, wology or as BLM and
so on. But we haven't talked about is US Geological Survey,
which is a science based agency that serves a lot
of the agencies, particularly in the Department of material But actually,
(38:15):
I mean many different agencies in the US Geological Survey
they have a biological component, if you will, and I
understand again through some sources that have looked at the
President's budget request that zero is out all that biological
(38:38):
capacity of the US Geological Survey, and within that is
the Cooperative Fish and wild Life Research Units, or I'll
just call them the cooperative Research Units. I don't know
a lot of folks know about them. They've been around
since nineteen thirty four. The cooperative research units are the
(38:58):
cooperation between a state fish and Wildlife agency, universities, the USGS,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and also the Wildlife Management Institute,
which is a private partner in that group. And that
I was the president of Wildlife Management Institute. I've been
involved with the cooperative research units since my PhD nineteen
(39:22):
eighty five or so eighty four, and those age the
cooperative research units. There's about forty of them across the country. Again,
they're affiliated with the university in the state and state
fish and wildlife agencies who have real world questions, real
world problems can go to the cooperative research unit bring
(39:48):
some funding to the table. The USGS pays only for
the staff the researchers in that state and typically there's
three or four leaders and assistant leaders in each one
of these co op units who have grad students who
work on all kinds of different wildlife issues. They have
(40:09):
expertise that some of them or many of the state
fish and wildlife agencies don't, So they get together with
the university with the cooperative research units and conduct research
on all kinds of things fisheries, on trustrial mammals. One
example probably best known right now is the Migratory Core
(40:32):
Big Game Migratory Corridor that was driven primarily through the
Wyoming Cooperative Research Unit Matt Kaufman. There. That work probably
could never have gotten done by an individual state. They're
critical to state fish and wildlife agencies. The demand for
additional cooperative research units is out there. There's other states.
(40:55):
There's ten or so states that don't have cooperate research units,
and many of them, you know, just anxious to get that.
So they're the guys that do the research that answers
real world questions the state agencies can't do on their own.
If they are eliminated, that research ability will will be gone.
(41:19):
I mean, there's nobody else that can provide that right now,
and it's a cost effective program. These guys that are
the men and women that are unit leaders and assistant
unit leaders train hundreds of grad students every year. Those
grad students go on, you know, to all kinds of positions.
(41:41):
I've been both the student of the cooperative research unit.
I've interacted three state fish and wildlife agencies with cooperative
research units. They are essential to fish and wildlife conservation
in this country. They do their work again, effectively, efficiently,
and if the President's budget request goes through as planned,
(42:04):
they will cease to exist, leaving a gaping hole again
in a history that started back in nineteen thirty four
and here we are in twenty twenty five. And you know,
there have been adjustments through the years, but total elimination
is something I've never heard of. It's unprecedented.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
And that migration corridors are literally buzzword in conservation these
days because of that research, right, connectivity migration corridors and honestly,
like wildlife overpasses too.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Yeah, and here's the thing that is even more puzzling.
Based on that research, in the first Trump administration, they
came out with an executive order secretary order that provided
a lot of funding and tremendous work was done.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Well yeah, right, Ryan Zink right here in Montana, right,
he was migration corridor champion.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
Yeah, and he was, and he helped push that through.
And a good friend of mine, Casey Stembler, we played
a huge role.
Speaker 2 (43:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
Uh, you know, and and to see that work undone,
it boggles my mind. I mean, and in the Trump
administration to be fair, in the first round, I mean,
the you know, Great America Now Doors Act, the migrant
migration corridors, there was a lot of good work done
for concertiation. But this just seems like a different animal,
(43:44):
a different situation we're dealing with. And you know, we
talked about instead of putting folks in the regions to
to you know, to deal with those regional issues, collapsing
them to d C, some of those functions to d C.
It seems to be contrary to some of the success
(44:04):
that we, you know, we saw on the first Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Yeah, again, starting with the with local input on the
local level exactly, and then finding that that support at
the federal level to implement the good ideas coming off.
Speaker 2 (44:20):
From the ground.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Yes, yeah, what was the executive order, the Migration Quarter
executive order that that Casey worked on five five three something.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
Well, now you're putting me on yeah, it was three
three three zero five.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
I have to look at three seven nine, So I
don't know, you can.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
All I know. All I know is it was effective
and it really and it's really working well.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Yeah, I brought money on the ground and just as important,
it put a big spotlight on.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
The need and the issue.
Speaker 1 (45:03):
And the need and the issue wouldn't have been there
without the research exactly.
Speaker 2 (45:09):
You know, I really hold out.
Speaker 3 (45:11):
I hate to be a total pessimist, and I'm not
a chicken little guy. I really hold out a lot
of hope that you know, in time and shortly, the administration,
you know, hears from folks that you know, are sharing
some of the concerns that I have. I know that
that Donald Trump Junior in the first Trump administration, you know,
(45:35):
got involved in some of these conservation issues and influenced
decisions that we're very positive for conservation. You know. I
hope that you know, he might be able to I
know he can understand. I hope I have some opportunity
to provide some influence. I mean, he obviously is is
(45:56):
you know a big hunter and angler himself, who's done
one of the kinds of things that you and I do,
and sees some of the best intentions, you know, end
up wrong with unintended consequences. And the speed at which
this progress, if you will, is going on is what
really concerns me. And you know, I hope at some point,
(46:20):
you know, perhaps he could be a major influence in
the administration, and I know he can. I'm not sure
that he you know, he's aware of all this stuff
because it's fast moving and a lot of it's in
the weeds, and it takes people with decades of experience
to kind of look through and say, Okay, I do
understand what they're trying to do, and I'm very supportive
of that, but I have concerns about the way it's
(46:44):
being done. You know, status quo is you're falling behind
if you're sticking with the status quo. But the only
way to move forward is if you have a path forward,
a well thought out plan with input from everybody. And
you know, that's the way to make changes, in my opinion,
(47:04):
not you know, just just based on numbers, how many dollars,
how many people can we cut and eliminate that's not
going to make an effective government. It's much more detailed
than that.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
Well, you know, we certainly used to say all the
time that I think when we would talk about like
the greatest threats, my answer was always apathy. Hunters and
anglers are fantastic people. That's certainly who I choose to
spend my time with, but often times they don't get
(47:41):
motivated until there's a direct threat in their backyard. And
I think speed at which this administration is moving the
party politics, being so divisive through the campaign process has
put people all on their heels a little bit, and
(48:03):
we just need to remind them that just as you said,
you can say, hey, I love the intention here, but
this stuff's really important to me, and we need to
use the scalpel, not not the machete approach or however
you want to spin it, because you know that there
are some very real consequences to losing funding and personnel
(48:31):
in some of these areas, for you know, the the
hunter and angler.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
So yeah, I'm doing the machine that got us here
where we are today, the conservation machine. I'm dooing that
without careful thought and planning is my greatest concern and
you know, not just mine selfishly, but again for my kids,
for my grandkids who fish on hunt. I hate to say,
(48:58):
you know, ten years down the road to my grandkids,
that all the glory days were ten years ago in
twenty twenty five, and then things changed. And I'm sorry
that you don't have the opportunity, you don't have the habitats.
You know, you don't have the science behind wildlife conservation
like I did during my career, and that thought is
(49:23):
really depressing to me.
Speaker 1 (49:25):
And it is, it is, And I think there's a
heck of a lot of hunters and anglers out there
that know the very real feeling of pointing to a
spot where they caught a big fish or killed a
big buck or whatever, and now it's a house or
the access has been closed off, right Like, we all
have those experiences and have told those stories on occasion,
(49:51):
so we know that's real. And I am very confident
in the fact that this audience UH is well motivated
and they can call and write and advocate for themselves
and their pursuits and their their love and appreciation for
(50:12):
these landscapes and these animals as well, right So, and
I think that can and should go hand in hand
with with running our government in a in a good way.
Speaker 3 (50:24):
So yeah, and I and you're right, it's the folks
listening to this podcast that can make a difference.
Speaker 1 (50:33):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (50:33):
And I go even further and say they have a
responsibility to do that. They've enjoyed so much and future
generations deserve to have what we've had are better. So
the responsibility relies with all of us right now to say, hey,
let's just pause from it, figure out how to do
(50:53):
this in the right way, make government more efficient, get
rid of waste, fraud, in abuse. But let's do it
in a careful plan way, the same way that we've
had the conservation successes of today. It hasn't been a
hurcy jerky you know, try this, try that. It's been
done through a you know, a careful, carefully thought out
(51:13):
scientific method, you know, trial error, learn from mistakes, reevaluate
what you're doing. And that's how we've got to where
we are today. And the folks listen to this, you know,
they know their legislative of folks in there where they live,
(51:34):
and I would just ask them to reach out and
say this stuff is important to me, Please keep an
eye on it. You know, and let's don't ruin the
future for my kids and my grandkids. Because I've had
a great career hunting fishing and it's so important to
my quality of life. I just fear for the future.
(51:56):
I really do. I mean, I'm sixty eight. Who knows
how long I'll be hunting as long as I can,
so I'm trying to do what I can do. I've
tried to do what I could do af throughout my career.
So it's up to everybody else and me and everybody
else to affect change the way the way.
Speaker 2 (52:12):
That makes sense, darn right, darn right.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
And Kyle, I'll say, I really appreciate you guys getting
this out because a lot of folks don't know how
would they know this, you know, without podcasts like yours
that really double into the issues. And I hope and
I know people will be better informed and they'll make
better decisions because of the work you guys do. They're
a meat eat or getting a word out and and
(52:37):
you know on some stuff that's that's pretty complicated, pretty complex,
but we all share the same thing, you know, and
that's a better future for hunting and fishing.
Speaker 1 (52:49):
Absolutely well. I appreciate your service there, Steve. This has
been Steve Williams with formerly the US Fish and Wildlife
Service Director and George W. And I'm gracious enough to
hop on and share some experience and thoughts regarding some
(53:09):
of the changes that are real and potential that we're
seeing today. So thank you very much, Steve, and I
think our takeaway as or usual right is, at a minimum,
get to know your elected officials as well as their
staff call right email and let them know that, hey,
(53:32):
this stuff is important to you, and so much so
that you need to make sure it's around for the
next generation. If you have any questions for Steve Williams,
please write into a s k C A L. That's
ask heal at the meeteater dot com and we'll either
get him back on or we'll ask him and let
you know on the podcast. Thanks again, we'll talk to
(53:52):
you next week.
Speaker 3 (53:53):
Thank you, Ca, it's been a pleasure. En Aten D
From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This
is Col's Week in Review with Ryan cal Klan.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Here's Cal.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
All right, everybody, welcome to another episode of Cal's Week
in Review. We're continuing our series with our informed, esteemed
guest folks who are in the know, are have insights
into this big wide world of conservation with me as
always as Jordan Ziller's and again you're listening to Cal's.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Week in Review.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
This week we have former US Fish and Wildlife Service
Director Steve Williams. All Right, well, thank you very much
for coming on. Steve, What would you mind letting our
audience know when you serve for the US Fish and
Wildlife Service as director and how you got to that position.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Yeah, sure, cow. Starting nineteen eighty five, I was a
dear biologist in the state of Massachusetts, then moved on
to a Pennsylvania Game Commission as the deputy executive director,
and then spent seven years after that in Kansas as
Secretary of Wildlife and Parks, And that took me up
to Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. That was
(01:28):
George W. Bush administration.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yeah, so state and federal experience.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Yes, and then another eighteen years after the Fishing Wildlife
Service with the Wildlife Management Institute, which is a non
governmental organization arguably the first professional wildlife organization, not agency,
but it started nineteen eleven and through to this day,
(01:59):
we've worked very us with federal government agencies and state
fish and wildlife agencies. So yeah, I've got about thirty
eight years experience at the state and federal level, and
also you know, with the private.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
NGA, and you're with us here today to help us
kind of understand our current rapidly evolving landscape of wildlife
management here in the early days of the Trump administration
(02:33):
round two, right, and we got in touch with you through.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The Wildlife Society.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Yeah, I've been a member of that since nineteen seventy nine,
I think seventy eight or seventy nine.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
And what you know. So there's so much to cover here.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
We want to keep this kind of short and concise,
but a couple of big bullet points that have rolled
out recently.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I'd love to cover, such.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
As oftentimes I would say, like the rank and file
hunters probably if at all, associate the US fishal Life
Service with migratory birds like are federally regulated duck stamp
associated ducks and geese and the regulation.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Of those species.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
But I think we should also talk about what relationship
is there between the FEDS, US Fish and Wildlife Service
and our state agencies.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
That's one of my primary concerns. Cow You're right, absolutely right,
that migratory bird management and that's you know, also connects
with state fishing wildlife agencies. But at this point, there's
two programs that really tie the FEDS and the state
(04:06):
agencies and then therefore hunters and anglers together in this country.
The first one is run by the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and it's the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. Nineteen
thirty seven, Congress passed Pittman Robertson Act, or the Wildlife
Restoration Act. The funds that Act uses are from an
(04:32):
excise tax on a gun and ammunition manufacturers, So those
manufacturers pay an excise tax to the federal government. That
tax flows through the Fish and Wildlife Service to each
of the state Fish and Wildlife agencies. Same thing on
the fish side. That act goes back to nineteen fifty
(04:55):
the Dingle Johnson Act. Same idea that manufacturers a fit equipment,
tackle and so on. Pay an exercise tax to the
federal government that goes through the Fish and Wildlife Service
and out to every state Fish and Wildlife agency. Why
is it important. It's about one point three billion dollars
a year between what hunters and angres pay for their
(05:19):
license fees in these sport Fish and Wildlife rerustration funds.
That's the lifeblood of all state all fifty state Fish
and Wildlife agencies. And the concern that many of us
have is, well, there's a number of concerns, but one
is the staffing levels that run that program throughout the country.
(05:44):
Right now, they're regionally based. There's eight nine regions of
the Fish and Wilife Service, and they work closely with
their states to make sure that one point three billion
dollars is spent on projects that are efficient and effective
and you know, have impact, have an outcome, and there's
a lot of to keep the integrity of the program going.
(06:08):
There's a lot of things states must comply with and
the federal government must comply with to make sure those
dollars are spent legally and again, efficiently and effectively. It
is arguably the engine that drives the greatest conservation successes
in the world, and that is the direct tie between
Fish and Wildlife Service and State Fish and Wildlife Agency.
(06:32):
So as hunter, as a hunter and anger, myself and
everybody that hunts and fishes in this country ought to
be aware that the lands that state wildlife lands were
huntings allowed fishing lands. Some of those were bought with
those dollars. The management of those properties, many of those
(06:52):
are paid for with those dollars, and research and management
of populations are paid for with those dollars. If the
states can't effectively receive those dollars and put them on
the ground, hunters and anglers are going to see that
very quickly. And I'm not sure you know that that
(07:15):
folks are aware of it. I understand whether or not,
because it's you know, it's a long process of great history.
It's one of the best examples of the federal state partnership.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Yeah, So when we say, like, well, what does this
mean for us? Right, like, how how do these actions
affect the end user that the consumer, the customer, the
hunter and angler, It's can be everything from access quality habitat.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
To bag limits.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Yes, absolutely, Yeah, one of one of the big topics
right now. And I literally just had this conversation yesterday
with an uncle of mine, you know, heard something and
I had to try to fact check it, and he said,
will the inability to conduct the annual Migratory Bird Survey,
(08:15):
which is a rumor going around right now that the
US Fish and wild Life Service won't have enough funding
to conduct, you know, the longest running migratory bird survey
in the world, Will that shut down our waterfowl season?
And you know, being an armchair expert, I felt qualified
(08:37):
to say, well, no, I don't think this is going
to stop our hunting season in the near term, but
it is going to create a gap in data. And
my recollection is you don't have to go all that
far back to point to an example and say, Okay,
(08:59):
like during the COVID years, the ability to conduct this
survey was hindered as well, but we still had hunting seasons. However,
going forward, knowing that the state of our migratory birds
isn't as good as most people think it is, we
could in theory, kind of be eating ourselves out of
(09:23):
house and home because we won't have reliable data to
set the bag limits in these flyways.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, So the concern, as I understand it, is not
just the funding concern, although that is one, no doubt,
It's also a matter of staffing in personnel. Same things
with my concern about staffing levels for the Wildlife and
Sport Favorite Restoration program, I have the same concern about
(09:54):
when it comes to migratory waterfowl counts surveys. Those surveys
require pilots that are extremely experienced, most of them have
flown for years and years and years. And with you know,
these current efforts to reduce the reduction in forest or
riff or layoffs or you know, firings, whatever you want
(10:17):
to call them, that may impact the number of qualified
pilots that we even be available to fly. So these,
you know, you can't cut agencies willy nilly in terms
of staffing, not knowing you know who needs to beware
and when. And that seems to be a current with
(10:40):
respect to the seasons. Yeah, I mean, I don't know
at this point. I don't think anybody does. I doubt
there'll be any cancelation of the season. However, as you're aware, Cow,
those waterfowl surveys have been conducted for years, decades. They
(11:01):
cover roots and they're they're counting the number of ponds
and the number of ducks, and those two variables, number
of ponds and number of ducks play an extremely important
role in the fishing Wiler Service and the states coming
together in setting seasoned lengths and bag limits. So in
(11:21):
the absence of that data, yeah, I mean that they're
pardon the pun, but they're kind of flying blind. And
if if it is a pilot situation reducing the number
of folks that can fly those routes. It's not a
one year issue, you know, not anyone can just get
(11:43):
up and start flying waterfowl surveys. If they can't conduct
them this year, I have would have concerns about the
next year, in the year beyond that in terms of,
you know, do we actually have qualified people to conduct
these surveys, and will Fish and Wildlife Service have the
funding to conduct the surveys. That's the issue and the
(12:05):
concern of most of us in the profession is we
don't know where we're headed as a profession.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
And Steve, just to clarify something here, You're not talking
about people who just have the ability to fly a plane.
You're talking about some historical institutional knowledge that has to
be at minimum kind of passed down to the next
(12:37):
pilot in order to make these flights effective.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Yeah. Absolutely, And many of these survey lines are flown
in extremely remote areas Northern Canada, Alaska. It's not like
there's an airport, you know, next door. Refueling you know,
can occur just on the ground with the pilot and
(13:03):
an observer. I mean they're in the remote wilds of Canada,
Northern Canada, so it's not like, you know, you just
pick anybody off the road. You can fly a you
know whatever, each craft Sessna and put them in those
kind of conditions. There's a tremendous amount of training. These
these folks are highly skilled. If you lose those cadre
(13:27):
of pilots, that's you know, I have a concern about
where we're going to be next year. In these buyouts
of you know, early retirement, deferred retirement, I know that
their staff, inefficient wives are taking them, not necessarily because
they want to, but they think if I don't take this,
(13:50):
I may get laid off in a reduction enforced move.
As much as maybe thirty percent forty percent of the agency.
I mean it's this that agency and wildlife conservation in
this country has been built over one hundred years, proven
to have success. Uh. You know, there's many laws out
(14:12):
there that are again the pr d j AS nineteen
thirty seven. Uh, and it's proven that it works, approved
by Congress, monitored by Congress through you know, through the years.
And then you know, without any real analysis or well
(14:32):
any real analysis, to cut the funding for you know,
these positions, the refuges, the fisheries programs, and the Fishing
Wiligy Service, it just doesn't make sense. I've heard about
efforts to consolidate or centralized personnel that are out in
the regions across the country, the eight regions of the
(14:54):
I'm sorry, the nine regions of the Fishing Oiledge Service,
and to bring some of those functions to d C.
That one really has me scratched in my head because
I understand it. It's counter to what this administration believes
and up said about it's important to put these federal
people out where their constituents are. This is exactly the opposite.
(15:18):
And it's like filling the swamp rather than draining the swamp.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Yeah, DC is a little fire from the Pacific Flyway, right, yes, sir,
and yeah, not to be glib here, but you know,
the messaging that we're hearing out of DC is as
as you said, it's really just doing what matters for
the American people, right and providing those services at the
(15:48):
local level and not having the quote unquote kind of
like big government approach where they don't consult with the
locals and it's just handed down from unseen forces in DZ.
So you know, that's the answer that we need, right,
(16:10):
is like what does the US ficial Aid life service
do for the end consumer? And you know, ideally, if
folks are aware of that and they see value in that,
then they're going to stick.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Up for that.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Yeah, and I think they will cow And I mean,
let me, let me just back up a minute. The
idea that you should come in and and and take
a look at what agencies are doing, how they're spending
their money, where they're spending their money. You know, is
it effective, is it efficient? I am all for that.
I worked for four different state agents or three different
(16:43):
state agencies and Innofficial Auto Service, and we were constantly
looking for ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness. We did
it by evaluating, you know, what was working, what wasn't working,
getting rid of things that didn't work. Adding funding where
we needed it to make it more effective. That's a
(17:04):
common sense, very practical Dare I say a scientific way
about improving agency effectiveness and agency programs. Unfortunately, that's not
what we're seeing. What we're seeing is as folks go
in the dose group go in, they may or may
(17:26):
not have any experience, in this case in conservation and
making decisions quickly that we're going to have a long
term may have a long term impact on a fishing
wildlife service and therefore on the state agencies that work
closely with the Fishing Wildlife Service, and no state fish
and wildlife agencies work directly for hunters, anglers and all
(17:51):
the constituents in their state. I'm retired now, but I've
spent my whole career working in fishing, wildlife conservation, and
my heart breaks for what I see, what's happening and
what may happen to again, conservation programs that are and
viea of the world.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
You know, Like if we were to jump over to
this last round, I think it's the last or the
most recent I should say, round of executive orders titled
zero based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy that popped
out April ninth, and this one if I can read
(18:35):
through it properly, and this is giving some faith to
the federal government right now. The idea is to summarize
regulations that have been amended and added on to for
(18:56):
decades now in some cases, to modernize them, make them
more easily to digestible, get rid of the extra paper
and time it takes to read that paper. And when
we talk about historical knowledge, you know that boots on
the ground, this is how you make things work. The
(19:18):
common sense, level headed part of me is like, well,
I know what that's about. Because if you have somebody
who's brand new to the job and they read something
that says this is the way you're supposed to do this,
the older person on the crew goes, yeah, yeah, that's
what it says. But this is the way we actually
(19:40):
do it, because this way pertains to our actual situation,
whereas the paper is like a broad scope that doesn't
necessarily pertain to the pertinent on the ground, step by
step order of operations, and so like when we dig
(20:03):
into any one of these, but you know, we can
go back to like the Mining Act of eighteen seventy two,
right like eighteen seventy two was a long time ago.
In order to make that pertain with some degree of relevance,
it's been added on to an amended multiple times throughout history.
(20:26):
That one's not the best example, because nobody likes to
touch the Mining Act. But how much of a setback,
I guess is it for us? What would be the
ability for somebody new and out of school who lands
in one of these jobs to perform at a reasonable
(20:47):
level like what doge wants, right, efficiency for our tax
dollar without having that knowledgeable person on the cruise around
for a decade already and knows how things work.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Yeah, that's an interesting question. Cal So, let's just think
about what's really happening. A lot of the older folks,
experienced folks who could retire or are close to retirement,
may do that. We're seeing, you know, an increase in
retirement and retirement in the service. I mean, people are
(21:27):
that can get out. Many of them are getting out.
Some of them are getting out because that may open
up a slot for someone else to stay in, right
but I mean not But and so we're losing some
of the older folks with that institutional knowledge you're talking about.
And at the same time, reducing the number of positions
(21:49):
not just an official Wildays Service, but in the Park
Service and all across the way. So if I were
coming out of college right now, my opportunity to work
for a federal land management agency's way down. You know
that the openings will not be there, So you know,
I don't know what I'll do. I'll look for another
job somewhere else. So it's not just losing the institutional memory,
(22:13):
it's also losing the ability to bring young folks in
and move them up. The first round of these early
retirement and deferred to early retirement and the probationary cuts
also affected people in mid level, not just the people
that have been there a year or so. If you
(22:34):
were promoted, let's say you work for the Fisial Wiolence
Service for twenty five years, you get promoted to some position,
a higher position. If you got caught in that probationary period,
you were out. That doesn't make any sense at all
to anybody, I don't think, But that's the that's the
kind of way that they're dealing with it. But back
(22:55):
to the executive Order, I mean, you're right to be
concerned about have people that have that knowledge to really
know what it means and to put what it means
on the ground. As I read it, and and I
just got it earlier today and read it rather quickly,
(23:16):
but as I understand what it does is it's well,
I'll back up. So Congress passes the law Migratory Bird Act,
Danger Species Act, whatever it might be, and then gives
the agencies some leeway to develop regulations under the law.
So those regulations come, they are developed by agencies, but
(23:38):
they come with the direction from Congress. So Congress doesn't
get weigh down in the weeds, but they provide the
template for the agencies to develop regulations to carry out
those laws. Okay, you know, can regulations be improved? Absolutely?
I mean I wrote regulations in the past that you know,
two three, four years later we got to change. That
(24:01):
doesn't work. But now again, as I read it, these
regulations for all the acts that were identified in an
executive order, those agencies have been instructed to amend those
regulations in sunset them in one year, so they have
(24:21):
until September to look at the regulations. Add to each
of those regulations, and you have to go through the
Federal Register, and it's very involved process and say that
this regulation sunsets a year from now. So if the
first one was done, if play this scenario out, because
(24:42):
this is reality. If the Service or whatever agencies you know,
starts tomorrow and picks ten regulations, they say these things
sunset a year from now, so April whatever we are
seventeenth April seventeenth of twenty twenty six, that regulation is
null and void unless it's amended and go through the regulator,
(25:05):
the regulatory process, which is long involved, expensive, every regulation,
not pick out the ones that really need to be
you know, improved, modified, what have you. You've got to go
through every regulation and every act, every law and one
year sunset. I really hate being chicken little, But what
(25:31):
administration is going to be around one year from now?
We know that answer, So I mean it, if I
were in the Service, I'm not sure how I how
I would do my job because it just does It
doesn't make any sense. Cow. I mean again, there's ways
(25:52):
to do this, and and and these folks are smart enough.
You know, businesses don't operate like this. They again, they
collect information, they analyze that, they make changes, they monitor,
there's changes. They then they change, you know, incrementally, this
is one hundred year history of conservation in the country,
(26:15):
and we're at the precipice of having one hundred years
of experience go out the window because of some of
these things that are coming out, you know, reduction in people,
sun setting regulations again, review, modify, change regulations that they
(26:35):
need to be. That's that's a common occurrence and an
important occurrence. But to sunset all the regulations in one year,
that's unprecedented. That's never happened in the history of this quest.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And for the for the listeners here, and this is
out of the Executive Order for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
This order applies to all regulations issued pursuing to the
following statutes and any amendments there too, the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
nineteen eighteen, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of nineteen
(27:11):
thirty four, the Anadramus Fish Conservation Act of nineteen sixty five,
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of nineteen seventy two, the
Endangered Species Act of nineteen seventy three, the Magnus and
Stephens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of nineteen seventy six
and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of nineteen eighty two.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
A lot more going on.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Here too, I would ask, is, so you take the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of nineteen seventy two, and we've
seen in certain areas a pretty significant rebound sea lions, seals,
sea otters, those types of species that you know to
(27:57):
the work in everyday angler and even the creational angler
can be a pain in the butt when it comes
to nets or even fish on hook and line. Would
we I know this is forecasting here, but is there
a possibility that we would see something like the Marine
(28:19):
Mammal Protection Act in nineteen seventy two amended in a
way that would be reflective of changes in those populations
in a positive sense? Or is it literally because of
the regulatory framework, are we going to be in a
position where all of these acts and the regulations pursuant
(28:44):
or in so much flux that they're just not essentially
going to be in effect.
Speaker 3 (28:49):
Yeah, that's a workload issue, I think. Count I don't
know how with less staff, considerably less staff, as I understand,
how are there going to be able to process all
those regulations and there are thousands of them again built time,
(29:11):
you know, over time, based on experience, modified, amended, and
so on, based on experience. So I think that the
overall I answered that just to your question is could
this have an impact on hunters and angusy, Yes, absolutely not,
just could will It may be positive in some ways,
(29:32):
maybe negative in some ways, But that executive order, as
I'm sitting here talking to you, I'm thinking about it again,
go in surgically and say we have issues with these,
with these one hundred regulations, that executive order is lazy.
(29:54):
It's inefficient. If you follow what I'm saying. If you've
got issues with those, regular dig in, find which ones
you have problems with, and work to amend them to
whatever ends you want. In a send, you know, it's energy,
energy of development. And again I mean I drive a
(30:15):
Chevy fifteen hundred Silver Autum and a Chevy Suburban, so
I understand the need for energy, oil and gas. But
to put out an executive versus okay, you guys again,
a reduced staff at the Service and every other federal agency.
You've got to look at every one of these laws
and the thousands of regulations that go along with it.
(30:36):
Sunset every one of them in a year, and then
we'll decide what we're going to do that is as
inefficient as I can imagine. I mean, I don't know
where the Department of Government efficiency falls. I know where
they fall down on it, but I would say, you know,
they need to do their job and identify what the
(30:58):
problems are, not just you know, wholesale blanket over everything,
and then leave it up to a federal workforce which
is going to be quite less than it is today.
It's it's a recipe for disaster. And trying to go
(31:19):
through all these regulations and through the regulatory process, I
don't I really don't see how it can even happen.
I can't imagine how you can possibly practically practically go
through that process. And I suspect the folks that help
write that executive order have had no experience going through
(31:42):
the regulatory process. I'd like to know, you know, who
is behind all that, and then ask them, you know,
have you ever gone through this process. It's lengthy, it
costs money, it takes people, it takes public input. It's
not a simple. It's not as simple as they seem
to make it. And I think it's because they don't
(32:04):
have experience dealing with it.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
You know, all of these are you know, it's it's
like forecasting. It's kind of unfair questions here, So I apologize, Steve,
but no problem. What is like if it's a disaster
in the making, Like what if you could pick one
out of that list, Like what is the effect going
to be on the hunter and angler here? Like what's
(32:30):
the felt effect? And just to kind of throw out
where my mind goes, right, is like part of the
the value to I would say the American people of
like that migratory bird survey, right is knowing how many
prairie potholes there are, specifically how many we have left
(32:53):
due to habitat destruction. And the fewer there are, the
more valuable they are. Right now, a good buddy mine
in the in the Pacific Flyway, Central Valley, California, you know,
sent me the updated regulations and for the first time
in a very long time, you're going to be able
(33:15):
to shoot I think it's three pintail this season, and
it used to be just one. And boy did those
Californians scream like mash cats over the fact that they
they can only shoot one pintail because yeah, you see
a ton of pintails, but you know one to three
(33:38):
is a big shift, and it's you know, it's an
either sex regulation. It's not not a drake only. I
believe that's correct. And you know what without that survey,
if in fact it doesn't go through, Like, how do
we really know the effects of that regulation change? And
(33:58):
how do we know the value of the quantity and
value of the nesting areas those those potholes, those intermittent
wetlands that we have left.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
Yeah, we won't. And and the fact that you know,
you go from one to three bird limit on pintails.
Obviously that's you know, that's a function of water levels
and breeding conditions and so on. But how did we
get to that? Through science? Through the waterfouse surveys, through
(34:31):
building more and more confidence, you know, in the harvest structure,
and we learn year to year to year and those
things get better. There's ability to predict and increase bag
limits and so on season lengths. That's built on again,
(34:52):
you know, almost one hundred years of experience doing something
and improving upon it, throwing out what does and work?
Emphasizing what does work? I mean, that's how you get
to a situation where you can go from one to
three pin deals with confidence. You know, it's not just
the ficial Ology service scientists. It's also state fishing WILFE
(35:15):
agency waterfowl biologists who sit down and you know, they're
obviously concerned about conservation of those species as well as
providing you know, the optimum or maximum of hunting opportunity.
If if they go through some migratory bird TREATI ACT
(35:38):
for instance, and many others, and those regulations change, it throws,
you know, a monkey wrench into the whole process. It could,
I mean, it may or may not, but my thinking
is it certainly will. And then those acts, there's many
(36:03):
of them, address habitat, not just a species, but habitat.
So how will UH hunter and angler be impacted by
potential changes in those regulations? And again, as the viewing
those regulations through the lens of energy development, all right,
you know what impedes energy development? I mean that's the
(36:25):
way I read it. And I may read it wrong.
I freely admit that. But if I may, if I
read it right, those regulations will be modified in order
to promote encourage energy development that occurs on private land
and on public lane that may occur on some of
(36:48):
your favorite big game migration corridors. Uh, you know, flyways,
winter habitat for big game, summer habitat for big game
impact of fisheries. I mean, all those things are in
play in terms of reviewing changing regulations within a year
(37:10):
or so in order to you know, have the US
become energy dominant, which which by the way, we pretty
much are right now.
Speaker 1 (37:26):
Okay, so we've we've talked a little bit about the
well a lot ultimately about migratory birds and some some
season settings and and possible impacts of regulation. What else,
as we see kind of a curtail of the ability
of US Fish and Wildlife Service to work in a
(37:47):
lot of ways. I don't know how else to put it.
Where else are we going to get hurt here? As
this as the end consumer.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
So there's a lot of land management agencies, you know,
for service, park service, fishing, wology or as BLM and
so on. But we haven't talked about is US Geological Survey,
which is a science based agency that serves a lot
of the agencies, particularly in the Department of material But actually,
(38:15):
I mean many different agencies in the US Geological Survey
they have a biological component, if you will, and I
understand again through some sources that have looked at the
President's budget request that zero is out all that biological
(38:38):
capacity of the US Geological Survey, and within that is
the Cooperative Fish and wild Life Research Units, or I'll
just call them the cooperative Research Units. I don't know
a lot of folks know about them. They've been around
since nineteen thirty four. The cooperative research units are the
(38:58):
cooperation between a state fish and Wildlife agency, universities, the USGS,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and also the Wildlife Management Institute,
which is a private partner in that group. And that
I was the president of Wildlife Management Institute. I've been
involved with the cooperative research units since my PhD nineteen
(39:22):
eighty five or so eighty four, and those age the
cooperative research units. There's about forty of them across the country. Again,
they're affiliated with the university in the state and state
fish and wildlife agencies who have real world questions, real
world problems can go to the cooperative research unit bring
(39:48):
some funding to the table. The USGS pays only for
the staff the researchers in that state and typically there's
three or four leaders and assistant leaders in each one
of these co op units who have grad students who
work on all kinds of different wildlife issues. They have
(40:09):
expertise that some of them or many of the state
fish and wildlife agencies don't, So they get together with
the university with the cooperative research units and conduct research
on all kinds of things fisheries, on trustrial mammals. One
example probably best known right now is the Migratory Core
(40:32):
Big Game Migratory Corridor that was driven primarily through the
Wyoming Cooperative Research Unit Matt Kaufman. There. That work probably
could never have gotten done by an individual state. They're
critical to state fish and wildlife agencies. The demand for
additional cooperative research units is out there. There's other states.
(40:55):
There's ten or so states that don't have cooperate research units,
and many of them, you know, just anxious to get that.
So they're the guys that do the research that answers
real world questions the state agencies can't do on their own.
If they are eliminated, that research ability will will be gone.
(41:19):
I mean, there's nobody else that can provide that right now,
and it's a cost effective program. These guys that are
the men and women that are unit leaders and assistant
unit leaders train hundreds of grad students every year. Those
grad students go on, you know, to all kinds of positions.
(41:41):
I've been both the student of the cooperative research unit.
I've interacted three state fish and wildlife agencies with cooperative
research units. They are essential to fish and wildlife conservation
in this country. They do their work again, effectively, efficiently,
and if the President's budget request goes through as planned,
(42:04):
they will cease to exist, leaving a gaping hole again
in a history that started back in nineteen thirty four
and here we are in twenty twenty five. And you know,
there have been adjustments through the years, but total elimination
is something I've never heard of. It's unprecedented.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
And that migration corridors are literally buzzword in conservation these
days because of that research, right, connectivity migration corridors and honestly,
like wildlife overpasses too.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Yeah, and here's the thing that is even more puzzling.
Based on that research, in the first Trump administration, they
came out with an executive order secretary order that provided
a lot of funding and tremendous work was done.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Well yeah, right, Ryan Zink right here in Montana, right,
he was migration corridor champion.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
Yeah, and he was, and he helped push that through.
And a good friend of mine, Casey Stembler, we played
a huge role.
Speaker 2 (43:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
Uh, you know, and and to see that work undone,
it boggles my mind. I mean, and in the Trump
administration to be fair, in the first round, I mean,
the you know, Great America Now Doors Act, the migrant
migration corridors, there was a lot of good work done
for concertiation. But this just seems like a different animal,
(43:44):
a different situation we're dealing with. And you know, we
talked about instead of putting folks in the regions to
to you know, to deal with those regional issues, collapsing
them to d C, some of those functions to d C.
It seems to be contrary to some of the success
(44:04):
that we, you know, we saw on the first Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Yeah, again, starting with the with local input on the
local level exactly, and then finding that that support at
the federal level to implement the good ideas coming off.
Speaker 2 (44:20):
From the ground.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Yes, yeah, what was the executive order, the Migration Quarter
executive order that that Casey worked on five five three something.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
Well, now you're putting me on yeah, it was three
three three zero five.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (44:39):
I have to look at three seven nine, So I
don't know, you can.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
All I know. All I know is it was effective
and it really and it's really working well.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Yeah, I brought money on the ground and just as important,
it put a big spotlight on.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
The need and the issue.
Speaker 1 (45:03):
And the need and the issue wouldn't have been there
without the research exactly.
Speaker 2 (45:09):
You know, I really hold out.
Speaker 3 (45:11):
I hate to be a total pessimist, and I'm not
a chicken little guy. I really hold out a lot
of hope that you know, in time and shortly, the administration,
you know, hears from folks that you know, are sharing
some of the concerns that I have. I know that
that Donald Trump Junior in the first Trump administration, you know,
(45:35):
got involved in some of these conservation issues and influenced
decisions that we're very positive for conservation. You know. I
hope that you know, he might be able to I
know he can understand. I hope I have some opportunity
to provide some influence. I mean, he obviously is is
(45:56):
you know a big hunter and angler himself, who's done
one of the kinds of things that you and I do,
and sees some of the best intentions, you know, end
up wrong with unintended consequences. And the speed at which
this progress, if you will, is going on is what
really concerns me. And you know, I hope at some point,
(46:20):
you know, perhaps he could be a major influence in
the administration, and I know he can. I'm not sure
that he you know, he's aware of all this stuff
because it's fast moving and a lot of it's in
the weeds, and it takes people with decades of experience
to kind of look through and say, Okay, I do
understand what they're trying to do, and I'm very supportive
of that, but I have concerns about the way it's
(46:44):
being done. You know, status quo is you're falling behind
if you're sticking with the status quo. But the only
way to move forward is if you have a path forward,
a well thought out plan with input from everybody. And
you know, that's the way to make changes, in my opinion,
(47:04):
not you know, just just based on numbers, how many dollars,
how many people can we cut and eliminate that's not
going to make an effective government. It's much more detailed
than that.
Speaker 1 (47:18):
Well, you know, we certainly used to say all the
time that I think when we would talk about like
the greatest threats, my answer was always apathy. Hunters and
anglers are fantastic people. That's certainly who I choose to
spend my time with, but often times they don't get
(47:41):
motivated until there's a direct threat in their backyard. And
I think speed at which this administration is moving the
party politics, being so divisive through the campaign process has
put people all on their heels a little bit, and
(48:03):
we just need to remind them that just as you said,
you can say, hey, I love the intention here, but
this stuff's really important to me, and we need to
use the scalpel, not not the machete approach or however
you want to spin it, because you know that there
are some very real consequences to losing funding and personnel
(48:31):
in some of these areas, for you know, the the
hunter and angler.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
So yeah, I'm doing the machine that got us here
where we are today, the conservation machine. I'm dooing that
without careful thought and planning is my greatest concern and
you know, not just mine selfishly, but again for my kids,
for my grandkids who fish on hunt. I hate to say,
(48:58):
you know, ten years down the road to my grandkids,
that all the glory days were ten years ago in
twenty twenty five, and then things changed. And I'm sorry
that you don't have the opportunity, you don't have the habitats.
You know, you don't have the science behind wildlife conservation
like I did during my career, and that thought is
(49:23):
really depressing to me.
Speaker 1 (49:25):
And it is, it is, And I think there's a
heck of a lot of hunters and anglers out there
that know the very real feeling of pointing to a
spot where they caught a big fish or killed a
big buck or whatever, and now it's a house or
the access has been closed off, right Like, we all
have those experiences and have told those stories on occasion,
(49:51):
so we know that's real. And I am very confident
in the fact that this audience UH is well motivated
and they can call and write and advocate for themselves
and their pursuits and their their love and appreciation for
(50:12):
these landscapes and these animals as well, right So, and
I think that can and should go hand in hand
with with running our government in a in a good way.
Speaker 3 (50:24):
So yeah, and I and you're right, it's the folks
listening to this podcast that can make a difference.
Speaker 1 (50:33):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (50:33):
And I go even further and say they have a
responsibility to do that. They've enjoyed so much and future
generations deserve to have what we've had are better. So
the responsibility relies with all of us right now to say, hey,
let's just pause from it, figure out how to do
(50:53):
this in the right way, make government more efficient, get
rid of waste, fraud, in abuse. But let's do it
in a careful plan way, the same way that we've
had the conservation successes of today. It hasn't been a
hurcy jerky you know, try this, try that. It's been
done through a you know, a careful, carefully thought out
(51:13):
scientific method, you know, trial error, learn from mistakes, reevaluate
what you're doing. And that's how we've got to where
we are today. And the folks listen to this, you know,
they know their legislative of folks in there where they live,
(51:34):
and I would just ask them to reach out and
say this stuff is important to me, Please keep an
eye on it. You know, and let's don't ruin the
future for my kids and my grandkids. Because I've had
a great career hunting fishing and it's so important to
my quality of life. I just fear for the future.
(51:56):
I really do. I mean, I'm sixty eight. Who knows
how long I'll be hunting as long as I can,
so I'm trying to do what I can do. I've
tried to do what I could do af throughout my career.
So it's up to everybody else and me and everybody
else to affect change the way the way.
Speaker 2 (52:12):
That makes sense, darn right, darn right.
Speaker 3 (52:15):
And Kyle, I'll say, I really appreciate you guys getting
this out because a lot of folks don't know how
would they know this, you know, without podcasts like yours
that really double into the issues. And I hope and
I know people will be better informed and they'll make
better decisions because of the work you guys do. They're
a meat eat or getting a word out and and
(52:37):
you know on some stuff that's that's pretty complicated, pretty complex,
but we all share the same thing, you know, and
that's a better future for hunting and fishing.
Speaker 1 (52:49):
Absolutely well. I appreciate your service there, Steve. This has
been Steve Williams with formerly the US Fish and Wildlife
Service Director and George W. And I'm gracious enough to
hop on and share some experience and thoughts regarding some
(53:09):
of the changes that are real and potential that we're
seeing today. So thank you very much, Steve, and I
think our takeaway as or usual right is, at a minimum,
get to know your elected officials as well as their
staff call right email and let them know that, hey,
(53:32):
this stuff is important to you, and so much so
that you need to make sure it's around for the
next generation. If you have any questions for Steve Williams,
please write into a s k C A L. That's
ask heal at the meeteater dot com and we'll either
get him back on or we'll ask him and let
you know on the podcast. Thanks again, we'll talk to
(53:52):
you next week.
Speaker 3 (53:53):
Thank you, Ca, it's been a pleasure. En Aten D
Host
Cal Callaghan
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com