Ep. 773: Congressman Zinke on Conservation Policy and Turning Down the Heat

Steven Rinella talks with Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke.

Topics discussed: Being red, white, and blue; from the military to politics; the fight for public lands; migration corridors; the Roadless Rule; delisting grizzlies; and more.

Connect with Steve and The MeatEater Podcast Network

Steve on Instagram and Twitter

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the me Eater podcast coming at you shirtless, severely,
bug bitten, and in my case underwere listening podcast.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
You can't predict.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Anything brought to you by first Light. When I'm hunting,
I need gear that won't quit. First Light builds, no compromise,
gear that keeps me in the field longer, no shortcuts,
just gear that works. Check it out at first light
dot com. That's f I R S T L I
T E dot com. All right, everybody, we got a

(00:44):
very special guest today who I'll announce in one minute.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
But uh, first off, oh did you just move that around? Krinn? No, cren,
it moved around.

Speaker 3 (00:53):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
The Christmas tour we staw our Christmas tour going Fayetteville,
Arkansas has sold out, but uh here's run through December seventeenth.
Will be in Birmingham, Alabama. As the lyric, So this
is the meat Eater. Meat Eater Live. The Christmas Tour
December eighteen, Nashville Marathon Music Works, December nineteen, Memphis, Minglewood Hall.

(01:15):
The twentieth is Fayetteville, but those are gone. They've been
gone for a few days. Twenty one Dallas, Texas Theater,
So Texas Theater in Dallas, twenty second Austin, Texas at
the Paramount. What's more, if you're listening on Monday for
the Monday Drop. On Tuesday, we're having a special drop
with a longtime associate, Ronnie Bame, who's going to tell

(01:38):
a dog story that'll warm your little heart.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Joined today by Congressman Ryan Zinky. Ryan Zink is a
fifth generation Montana serves as representative for Montana's first congressional district,
so it covered sixteen counties. If you live in Bozeman, Butte, Missoula,
callspell here in Montana, that's your man. Zinki was first
elected to Congress back in twenty fourteen. He served as

(02:07):
US Secretary of the Interior under the first Trump administration.
Is now serving his fourth term in Congress. UH First off,
Congressman Zink, I want to thank you.

Speaker 2 (02:22):
Again.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
I haven't thanked you in person. I want to thank
you again for your leadership during the recent public land
sales efforts, for articulating the side of it that I
stand on very well and the.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
Value of our public lands, the reason why we live
out West, the reason why Teddy Rooseveld is revered.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Yeah, yeah, Well, thank you because I know.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
I mean, I recognize it, like you know that that
stuff has to come at some kind of costs.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
And but you come from a state where that stuff's
cherished and uh.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
And you were very vocal up front, yeah, and laid
out what you're laid out what you're at expectations, were
laid out what your line was and held firm to it.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
And I think we.

Speaker 1 (03:04):
Had, you know, that land where I wanted to see
it land, and my all my colleagues and friends wanted
to see it land.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
And I appreciate that.

Speaker 3 (03:13):
Well, the fight for freedom is not over, and I
don't think the land battles over either.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
No. Yeh.

Speaker 3 (03:18):
Look, you know I grew up Montana. You know the
reason why a lot of us live out West. And
you know, I think it should be recognized too that
we live out in West from a legacy of the
great ones. You know, he had Roosevelt, you had Pinchot,
you had mirror a lot of our our great thinkers
in the conservation movement. We're blessed to live in an

(03:41):
environment we have public lands, and you know the extent
of our public lands. Uh. You know, I'm a big
management and Teddy Roosevelt guy, with a pin show. Look
on public lands, it's best used, best science, best practices,
longest term, greatest good. That's the model you use. And

(04:01):
you know, during this last dust up, there's a movement
by a few that want to divest of America's greatest asset,
which is our public lands, and the divesting of it
once you sell it, you're not going to get back.
But there's also a process. When I was Secretary, I added,

(04:22):
I subtracted, I exchanged public lands. There's a process to it.
I added Semnoso Wilderness in New Mexico. I added a
number of parcels that were LWCF that provided either public
access or corridors. I also subtracted around Las Vegas. There's

(04:44):
an acronym called Snipplema terrible acronym, but allows areas around
Las Vegas when the county and there's a whole procedure
looking at it to divest in sections, and look, there's
sections the highest and best use of land you know,
probably should be looked at. I'll give you an example
in Montana. There's thirty acres a U. S. Forest Service

(05:07):
property near Lima or Lima and you know, Lineless, a
little small little town, but it's right next to the school.
At one time, I think the Forest Service is going
to put a headquarters in there. They decided not to.
It's not used for recreation, it's not used for habitat,
it's just thirty acres. I think the highest and best

(05:27):
use of that piece of property should be looked at
of transferring to the school. I did the same thing
on an airport that needed a little more runway. I
did it on a school that needed some extra yardage.
But you know there's a process to it. And let
me take you a little journey. Because you know, most
of the land in West was previously occupied by you know,

(05:50):
a native tribe, and because a lot of that land
is public land, is that they are given the right
for cultural activities, for movement, for access to a lot
of our public lands. When you take that out of
the public domain and put it in private on those tribes,

(06:11):
if it's a treaty, which many of the tribes are
a treaty tribe, they would lose that right. And by
law you have to consult. And then let's talk about
water rights, because in the West whiskeys for drinking waters,
for fighting, and when you divest of property, do you
also divest the of the underwater, right do you divest

(06:35):
also of the mineral rights in there? And if you're
going to divest the mineral rights, you have to look
at what minerals are there, what's the scope of the
value so highest and best use. But also the government,
you know, it doesn't give something away for free. And
and also there's things like the Taylor Grazing Act. A

(06:56):
lot of the BLM land on grazing is there at
a discount because the Taylor Grazing Act make sure that
the number of cattle on public land is controlled so
it doesn't overgraze. And also so we had a secure
food production in this country. So when you're talking about
divesting a public land, there's a whole process to it

(07:19):
to include public comment. You know, just because public land
is in New Mexico or Utah or Montana, it belongs
to all citizens and therefore all citizens of the US
should have a comment, you know, on it and be
involved in it. So the whole process. What I didn't

(07:39):
like about about a number of things was this last
assault I think on public lands, and there was no
process to it. It didn't have consultation and a fire
sale on public land. If it's for a debt, you're
not even on the target. You could sell everything, it's
not going to reach thirty six truellion dollars.

Speaker 2 (08:00):
I saw that.

Speaker 1 (08:01):
I saw that expressed in various ways, and I expressed
it in various ways where the actual money into the treasury,
it almost winds up being inconsequential.

Speaker 3 (08:13):
And there's a million acre ranch in Nevada. I think
they want twenty three million dollars for it, all right,
And it has water and it has buildings, you know,
it's a ranch. And then if you're talking about housing, okay,
housing is tens of acres. It's called an apartment complex.
It's not hundreds of thousands of acres. And it's not

(08:34):
you know, when they say family housing, it's not ranchets.
It's not luxury ranchets. So you know, I think we
are fortunate to live in a great country, and we're
fortunate to have the outdoor experience we do, largely driven
by public lands and access. Do we need to manage
it better? Absolutely? Should we deem it acceptable for a

(08:57):
force to burn down you know every season. And look,
if you're a climate change believer or denier, it doesn't
leave you. We leave you the responsibility of managing our
public lands. Get rid of the dead and dying timber.
Put in fire brakes where where they're necessary, make sure
you have diversity of species. Prescribe burns on the shoulder

(09:19):
seasons rather right in the middle on when it gets hot.
So I think you know, you look at where it
is on appalling. You know, I'd love to share it
with you and the viewers. Is that on the Democrat
side of the equation, I think it's ninety eight percent
of the Democrats oppose selling the land on independence, you're

(09:40):
in the high eighties eighty nine. On the Republican side,
only ten percent want to sell public land. The other
don't that don't know about it. When you say public
land sales, is it? Is it thirty acres in in
Lima or is it you know, three million acres around
Glacier Park? So you know it is for the Republican Party.

(10:03):
I can tell you it would be an extinction event
because I could write the advertisement you're giving tax bricks
the rich while you're selling public land, you know, and it
would be true. So stop it. That's focus on managing
public land. And if you look at a parcel of

(10:23):
land that highest and best use. There's a process to it.
So go through the process, go through public comment, you know,
make sure we're not diminishing our federal estate from a
point of view of public access for hunting, fishing, all
those kind of things. Oftentimes exchanges, you know work work magnificently,

(10:44):
or some land may be in a position where you
don't have public access to it all. All four corners
are are are surrounded, and it may be a better
deal for the public to exchange it for someplace that's
next to a river or access somewhere where you can
enjoy the bounty of this great nation.

Speaker 1 (11:04):
Do you mind, just by way of introduction to people
that might not follow politics closely, do you do you
mind walking through a little bit of your background. Your
family's been in Montana for a very long time, you know,
and then you had a pretty storied uh you know,
you had a storied military career and were involved in
a lot of stuff. Yeah, involved in a lot of

(11:26):
things that a lot of people heard a lot of things
about over the last twenty years.

Speaker 3 (11:30):
Well, I grew up in Whitefish. When Whitefish, Montana now
a destination, but when I grew up It was a
railroad logging town, you know, smaller town, about five thousand folks.
Over a period of time that expanded into a destination.
I played football. You went to the University of Oregon.
I was a duck, played played ball with it for

(11:50):
the Ducks. But in all honesty, i'd played before Phil
Knight wrote the check for five hundred million. So I
played with Daffy Duck on the side of my helmet
when I went walked in the stadium. It wasn't this
big fear. Oh, it was a It was a Daffy
Duck call. And then I joined in the Navy Seals,
spent twenty three years. I was commander at Seal Team six.

Speaker 1 (12:12):
Tell me real quick the inflection point, like, why did
you join the military.

Speaker 3 (12:16):
Well, to be honest with you, my folks are are
not military. Our family in World War One, some of
them fought on the German side, some of them fought
on our side. But it was when I was at Oregon.
It was a great alumni. Admiral Dick he commanded the
Enterprise during Vietnam War, and he talked to me about

(12:37):
about service, and he talked to me about the United
States Navy seals, which he was a pilot, and he
didn't lie to me like recruiters don't lie, they may
not express the entire truth. Yeah, I remember his words distinctly, said,
you know, if you don't like it, you can leave
at any time.

Speaker 2 (12:56):
Yeah, I remember that like a cycle.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
Yeah, as I was in Bud's training getting tortured in
the surf zone and going, you know what, Yeah, he's right,
you could quit any time. He wasn't lying. Uh, but
the seal training is you know, obviously very hard for
for a reason. And then uh, I enjoyed, uh, being
being a CeAl. I enjoyed being a commander. It's just that,
you know, the more senior become, the less and less

(13:22):
time you're actually in the field and the more time
you're flying what's called a D four was a desk
with four drawers. And it came to the point where,
you know, I was a deputy commander of Special Forces
in Iraq. My destiny was not to go back into command,
but uh, you know, to do the staff and and
there's a god bless those people that want to do it.

(13:45):
So I retired, and I hadn't decided to retire. Was
a state senator in Montana. And then I got this
wacky idea to run for Congress and uh and was
elected uh and then served a term, you know, learned
a lot. And then President Trump and forty five asked
me to be secretary. I enjoyed that, did that for

(14:05):
a command tour for two years, and then took a
wonderful absence away from Washington, d C. And then decided,
because we got another another seat in Montana, to come back,
go back to the front line on the fight for freedom.
And and that's where I am. I enjoy you know,
representing Montana. Montana has you know, a lot of opportunity,

(14:27):
really really good people. Well I has some issues, oh
like like every every state. But I'm an optimist. I
haven't seen anything that's not fixable. But there are some
threats out there. And we talked a little about public Land.
I don't think that threat is doused. I don't think
that campfire is doust I think I think it has
a chance of coming back. So we have to make

(14:49):
sure that we do our part to make sure that
that it doesn't come back, and if it does, it
remains unsuccessful. And in Davy Jones Box where alongs.

Speaker 2 (15:00):
Yeah, you're you're you want to tell people about the
Public Lands Caucus.

Speaker 3 (15:04):
Yeah, so it's bipartisan. Uh, we have twenty members, ten
on on on each side.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
Is that normal for a caucus to be?

Speaker 3 (15:13):
Like?

Speaker 1 (15:14):
I shouldn't say normal because I know there's some that
are both. But is it is it?

Speaker 2 (15:17):
Is it caucus? Is it preferential to be bipartisan? There
are both?

Speaker 3 (15:21):
There are both, uh, partisan and non partisan. This is
a non partisan caucus because you know, again, public lands
isn't the Republican or Democrat or independent issues. It's a red,
white and blue issue. We all enjoy it. But I
think it's important to have both sides of the aisle.
And it's not just about selling public land. It's about
management issues. We have wildlife corridors that we have to

(15:44):
look at and evaluate to make sure we protect. We
have systems, we have watersheds. You know, what happens upstream
affects downstream and in a system approach to make sure
we have healthy systems our environment. And you know we
live in a hyper Parisian world. You know. As a seal,

(16:05):
I fought with Americans for Americans. I don't want to
fight against Americans. I think it's repulsive that there's so
much anger out there that you can't have a normal conversation. Look,
we should be able to agree or disagree, but it's
not be disagreeable and kind.

Speaker 2 (16:23):
Of quote yourself back to you.

Speaker 3 (16:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (16:26):
I saw you speak a couple times in DC this
year where you were honored by Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership,
where I'm a board member, and you had two things
you'd said.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
I told Crane abottom one you gave when you came
to speak to us as a group.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
You talked about this was before it got hot, but
you said we need to turn the heat down. Yeah,
and things got hotter since then.

Speaker 3 (16:53):
I agree.

Speaker 1 (16:53):
And then the other thing you said is you were
talking about you said if you were talking about public lands,
the public estate, and you had said, hey, if you
have a hotel and it's not being managed, well, do
you sell the motel or do you change the management?

Speaker 3 (17:10):
Exactly it is, you know, a great point, my great
friends from Utah. I understand the frustration about getting a
ticket on a county road. I understand the frustration of
being locked out of public land of access. I understand
the frustration of watching the forest burn down every year,
and we burned more too, by fours last year we

(17:31):
ever harvested. So I understand the frustration about mismanagement. But
the solution, again using the hotel analogy, is not sell
the hotel. Let's get better management. And better management is
going back to what best science, best practices, greatest good,
longest term. That's the conservation American conservation ethic that that

(17:54):
Pinchot and Roosevelt and a lot of a lot of
superb scientists over the course of time have adhered to.
And I think we owe it to those that gave
us the legacy to continue that process. And you know,
kind of going back to the hyper partisan you know,
how do you break through, Well, you find something we

(18:17):
both agree on, right, and then you talk about it,
and then you have a working relationship. Because Congress is
a working relationship. It's four hundred and thirty five different
members from different different parts, but you got to work
together in order to get things done. So you work together,
and then if you find something that's easy to work
with together, maybe the next step is finding something a

(18:39):
little more difficult. So then it's relationships. But public land
should be a rallying call for Americans because Americans revere
our public lands, and where the debate is is sometimes
how best to manage it? And I sit in the
in the corner of the conservationists. That's multiple use. If

(19:00):
kind of my background is a boy scout when you
when you have a campground, leave the campground and is
good or better condition you find it so you can mine.
But we're not gonna mine like Butte. We're not gonna
mine like Virginia Beach or Virginia City. You know, you
bring a paddle board up up the river and destroy
the river. If we're gonna minelet's do it correctly. There's

(19:22):
new mind techniques and we need to mind. There's there's
critical minerals rarer some Montana that are are wonderful that
we need. But let's do it right. Let's go through
the process. It's not skip steps, but let's go through
the process and then make sure we have a reclamation
plan that works. And I think all of us would

(19:43):
would would get along a lot better if we looked
at you know, multiple use and management side of it.
And I do agree that you know, wilderness is set
aside because wilderness those areas with the lightest touch. But
it doesn't mean no touch. I'll give you example in
Hawaii when it was secretary, when the Hawaiian volcano on

(20:05):
the Big Island was was blowing up a lot of
that cauldra is actually in proposed wilderness. And if you
by the letter of the law, the superintendent down there
would not allow me as a secretary to put scientific
instrumentation on the type of that on the side of
that cauldron because there was in a proposed wilderness. Now

(20:25):
I had to take a visit out there, uh and
and relook at that. But let's say in our wilderness
in Montana and the Bob Marshall. So what if you
have an appearance of zebra muscles and the and the
and the upper South Fork. Well, you know, I think
when zebra muscles, I think you should use scientific instrumentation
out there. And I think it's okay to put a

(20:46):
wheel in in order to eradicate and eliminate the threat
early enough. We have pine beetle the devastation across. So
you can use management techniques. You know, if you if
you don't like the sound of a chainsaw, clear and trail,
then maybe a couple of times a year you got
to be able to use electric chainsaws and clear the
trail so people have access.

Speaker 1 (21:08):
We had a fisheries biologist on the show one time. Well,
let me let me real quick, just catch people up
on a point here. What we're talking about is about
two percent of the country is federally designated wilderness, and
it sort of enjoys what I feel is the for
my personal opinion, and enjoys kind of like the perfect

(21:29):
layer of protection where it's non motorized but you can
still hunt it, right, and that picture like a park
where you can hunt.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
Well, it's great.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
And the Wilderness Act was a great compromise between conservationists
between cattlemen. Uh and, And that's why you can hunt
on wilderness. That's why you can they can graze in
the fish camp yep. Uh And and you're you're limited
to what you can do mechanically. You know, you can't

(21:59):
bring a week.

Speaker 1 (22:00):
Yeah, that was the fisheries biologist thing is they were
they were working I think it was in the heat
of wilderness area and they have these strains of cutthroat
trout that's fairly imperiled fish and fires yep will destroy
whole rivers. And he was talking about when they were
trying to get fish stock samples, couldn't use helicopters, and

(22:22):
he wound up.

Speaker 2 (22:24):
They wound up. I think they thought.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
About it a little bit, but in the end he
wound up taking packstock and trying to figure out how
to move fish with packstocks because he couldn't beget a
helicopter in there, you know.

Speaker 3 (22:38):
And then and then you got in New Mexico. You
got a lot of areas where where a guzzlers is required,
which means that there's not a lot of water out there.
So there's guzzlers out there that allow sheep to have
access to water. So and in order to make sure
that those guzzlers have water in them, you know, I
don't have a problem take you to truck and occasionally

(23:00):
feeding the guzzlers. So you have wildlife out there.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
But oh no, well.

Speaker 3 (23:05):
You got you got to put it in a backpack,
you know, one gallon at a time, and it stopped. Guys.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
The point is the argument is it's a slippery slope.
That's a slip.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
Well, you know what, but a lot of things are
a slippy slope. But you know, it's about management. It's
about effective management, and and and have some degree of
common sense to things. Uh, you know, in willness, I
get the lightest, lightest touch because you want to look
at the majesty of nature. But but nature can be

(23:35):
pretty tough too. So if you have ravaging forest fires
and it burns down every tree uh in the watershed,
and it puts so much sediment and and silt in
the in the watershed that the fish will die, you know,
especially if you have you know, a species in trouble,
which we do in Montana. You know, what's the purpose?
So do you did you prevent uh? You know damage? No?

(23:58):
What you did? Is you you allow? How did it happen?
So you can you can't do management practices. It's a
scale of how much and no one, no one's advocating
you know, timber sales in wilderness. But certainly if you
have a disease, if you have in the case of
bill kill or or disease with aquatic invasive species, then

(24:22):
and then I think you do need to be a
judgment to get on it quickly and to make sure
it make sure it doesn't spread.

Speaker 2 (24:30):
Here's here's large Y.

Speaker 1 (24:32):
I'm not large y A big part of why I
want to talk to you, and I'm curious how you
think about things. Is my personal tendency is to be
something of an absolutist on wilderness protections. I have friends
that are very involved in policy, very involved in the
conservation world, and sometimes they'll make this argument and you

(24:54):
made it too, that.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
We can't always just.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
There has to be some compromise in order to turn
the heat down a little bit.

Speaker 2 (25:05):
And that was some of what you were talking about.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
Where there are people like people that advocate for public land,
massive public land sell offs, have sets of.

Speaker 2 (25:14):
Frustrations, right absolutely, and.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
So like I'm open to at least I'd like to
hear articulations of ways in which some of those frustrations
can be addressed where we maintain the integrity of what
we're trying to protect. And then therefore, as you said,
turn down the heat a little bit by having an

(25:37):
open ear and being like okay.

Speaker 3 (25:39):
And this is exactly what the Public Lands Caucus is
intended to do, to turn the heat down and discuss,
you know, areas where we can agree.

Speaker 2 (25:48):
And it seems like fire is a big one, well, fire.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
Wildlife corridors management, I think fishing people, you know, Democrats
and Republicans and independence we all hunt. We want to
make sure our herds are healthy. All right, if you
have you know, whether you know, pick a disease, blue
tongue or or chronic waste disease. There's a lot of
things in there and that's not natural. Is it natural?

(26:13):
Or are we going to just let it, you know,
let it, let it go to the end, or are
we going to intervene? And this is where discussion should
should be made. And also the Wilderness Act, well was
nineteen sixty four. That was a product of compromise. Well,
so is our constitution. And in nineteen sixty four America
was a little different. Back in nineteen sixty four, we're

(26:34):
sitting in boze in Montana. I can show you pictures
from nineteen sixty four. I was born here in sixty one.
Bozeman has changed since then, and sometimes you got to
upgrade the plan in order to protect your assets because
things have changed. What's changed in Montana during my lifetime
is that when I grew up, there was never a
problem with public access because there was was any fenses there,

(26:56):
you know there there there was less people out you know,
in the woods, you know, you know, people just most
people lived in town or but there was never a
problem with public access or hunting, and now there are.
There's a lot more fences set up. Public access is
harder to find corners, you know, that's that's a big discussion.

(27:19):
It wasn't in corners when I grew up because no
one was there. Now the discussion, so, you know, looking
at it, upgrading the plan, so you know what's important.
Public access is important. System health is important, not just
a segment of the river, but the river itself, not
just a segment of the forest, but the health of

(27:39):
the forest and the systems and wildlife corridors and flyways
to make sure the systems operate. And that takes again
going back to best science, best practices. You know, what's
the greatest good, what's the longest term? You know, how
to manage assets for the next one hundred years. And
you know, we talked about a little about our you know,

(28:00):
the legacy we were given, and I think the biggest
challenge is how do we manage it for the next
centerd years give them the change that's happened since Roosevelt
was president and over one hundred years ago, he faced
different challenges of what we face today. We do face
rural interface, forest fires, you know, diseases, invasive species. There's

(28:28):
a lot more on the plate about challenges, and not
all of them are impossible, but I think we do
got to look at innovative ways and maybe maybe find,
you know, how to protect what I think are our
greatest treasures. You know, how are we going to protect
the herds? Because if you don't protect you know, wildlife corridors,

(28:48):
because you know, large game they transit between summer range
and winter range and if that is blocked by sets
offenses or highways or development, and then they lose that
access to their feeding grounds too. So how do we
look at the corridors? How do I identify the corridors?

Speaker 1 (29:07):
Yeah, you prioritize that when you were Secretary of the
Interior and there was and that kickstarted, I mean a
ton of work. Then do you do you feel like,
what do you think is gonna happen with in like
in Trump too, with the current administration, do you feel
that there's gonna be sort of a vocalization or rededication

(29:28):
around some of the work that like that that you
initiated on on corridors.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
I mean you get that kind of that conversation really
came to life during those years.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
Yeah, and I like I like Doug Burgham. He's, you know,
from North Dakota, so he has kind of a Western
tilt to his walk. North Dakota's a little different Montana.
But I've talked to him about wildlife corridors and reorganization,
which I think is important. And a lot of times
it's not more money into the system, it's better utilization

(30:00):
of the funding. And I'll give you an example, and
we've got to follow me on this, but let's say
you have a trout and a salmon in the same stream.
Happens everywhere in the West. Let's say upstream you have
a Forest Service holding a National forest and downstream you
have a dam. I've just described every watershed in the West.

(30:24):
So this is how we manage it. So the trout
are managed by Department of Interior through US Fish and
Wildlife Service. The salmon are managed by Department of Commerce
through NOAH. The National forest surface is managed by Department
of Agriculture through US Forest Service subsurfaces Department of Interior
through Bureau of Land Management. Our dam system downstream that

(30:48):
directs the flow, the temperature. It's either the Department of
Army through the Army Corps of Engineers like Libby or
its Department of Interior through Bureau of Reclamation like the
Dam and Hungry Horse. Even though they're almost you almost
can see each other. So let's say you want to
put a redo a bridge, or put a pipeline in

(31:14):
or a dock system, you literally have to go through
multiple departments with different agencies, with oftentimes conflicting regulation in
one hundred and sixty three different regions. Even the regions
don't line up. The regions from Bureau of Reclamation is

(31:36):
not the same region as Department or Bureau of any affairs.
They're not even geographically the same. So it's not exactly
you know, putting more resources in is reorganizing it so
you can make better decisions. So you don't have seven
different biologists from seven different agencies on the same acre

(31:59):
of ground the same section of river giving different views
and a conclusion that that either doesn't move forward or
it it's not a consensus. And thus we were stuck
in the mud and we don't get things done. Decisions.
We have the we have the technology on decisions to

(32:21):
make a decision yes or no within a reasonable amount
of time. But because just the organization of it and
how we're set up. A lot of these decisions wait
and wait and wait and wait and wait. If you're
if you're trying to you know, extract a resource, there's
a lot of fra frustration on that side. You're trying
to protect the resource, there's a lot of frustration on
that side too, So we can do it better.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
Uh, let's jump to one that's heating up right now.
A lot of conversations about the roleless rule. I hate
to see the like, not hate to I really don't
want to see the Roless rule thrown out. Uh, just
I want to hear but people know what I think

(33:07):
from your perspective, right, from from your perspective, like, like,
aren't there some fixes and some adjustments that could be
made to alleviate.

Speaker 2 (33:20):
Some of the concerns?

Speaker 1 (33:22):
Yes, like without like again, I don't want to lecture
people on what I think about the Roles rule.

Speaker 2 (33:27):
I think like the Roles Rule does a great job
of protecting those last bastions of undeveloped landscapes.

Speaker 1 (33:38):
But again, you know, in your role here, you are,
you have a lot of constituents. You're answering to a
lot of you know, a lot of people with a
lot of concerns. I would love to see that there
was a way to more surgically address concerns as they
come up, rather than just saying like to hell with it,
which I feel like we're sinding the role this rules
a little bit like to hell with y'all.

Speaker 3 (34:00):
Yeah, and all right, when one is, I'll hand over
to you. When the roadless road rule was put in,
there wasn't any public comment on that one either. That
was that was President Clinton, we're gonna do the roadless rule.
I don't remember any public comment, So I think there's
public coming on the way out. I think, you know
a blanket. We're just gonna undo every roadless and make

(34:23):
them roadless again, make them roads. I think that is
not best science, it's not best practices, it's not based
on longest term, greatest good. I think there's there's no
doubt some roads that probably should be opened up that
provide access. Remember, not everyone is in great shape. There's
a lot of older folks that they don't walk so

(34:46):
well that maybe would like to drive. There's a snowmobile
out there. They don't.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
There's a lot of promise you I was gonna stop
talking about it. But I don't picture running out of
roads like I'm not I'm not a there's like, there's
no such thing as a road preservation is because there's
always going to be a bunch.

Speaker 3 (35:06):
Of those well all right, and uh and and let's
say northwest Montana, there's a lot of existing roads that
when they shut the roads down they probably should have
been opened up. They went they went too far, and
then and over a period of time, if roads overgrow
and then you do have a fire, you're putting a

(35:28):
lot of firefighters in danger because you've got to have
you gotta have access for machinery and stuff like that.
But again, the right step I think is and they's
we're going to do all this or all this. I
think there's a logical you know midway that's that's evaluate
the road system, that's evaluate we should have open up

(35:49):
you know, public access because public access is important. Uh.
And public access isn't always you know, two feet. I
can tell you there's a lot of veterans that would
wish they had two legs that can't walk very far.
There's a lot of older folks that don't have the
ability to walk that far. But you know that they
used to, uh and so I think you can manage it,

(36:12):
you know, well, but this, you know, one side or
the other, I think leads to you know, tension. So
I do think it's important to look at public access
and evaluate fairly. Look at our roads when when they
were made roadless, there was no comment when when when
if the rule is overturned based on coming what roads

(36:34):
are you going to overturn? I think that's a legitimate discussion.
I think we should have these discussions about where and
why and what purpose. Not every place, you know, some
places have other alternative access points, uh and and a
lot of places of you know, the road probably shouldn't
have been in there in the beginning. So I do

(36:56):
think you got to carefully look at things, and that's
you know, some of these discussions. You know, it isn't
it isn't clear where I have to have it one
way or other. Do I have to have you know,
zero people in it or or zero machinery in the wilderness. Well,
it depends on what the machinery does. If it's scientific

(37:18):
instrumentation on the side of a cauldron in Hawaii, so
you can evaluate the subsurface channels of lava penetrating and threatening,
you know, human life. I think that's a fair the
put put that thing if you if you don't like
to looking at it, then make it look like a rock.

Speaker 2 (37:34):
Listen.

Speaker 1 (37:34):
I I man, I understand those areas, like those examples
of things that happen where it winds up being it
almost becomes like a uh those areas where like some
level of absurdity is demonstrated.

Speaker 2 (37:51):
It drives a lot of frustration, you know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (37:54):
It drives like in places that where like the one
I brought up, where you know, there's almost an irony
to it, like someone trying to preserve a strain of
cutthroat trout being hindered in their activities because of the
roadless rules, so like, and then you're trying to preserve
the integrity, like you're trying to work on behalf of
the integrity of the very thing that's preventing you from

(38:17):
working on the integrity or whatever I'm trying to say.

Speaker 2 (38:20):
And I get all, I get those.

Speaker 3 (38:21):
And then you have a fire, right, they have a
massive fire, and you have so much settlement that the
trout you're trying to protect are gone. Yeah, and and
and those are those are are real cases. So I
think judgment matters and have a little latitude for the
commander to make a decision based on ground truth, situation

(38:41):
and train dictate. So on the roadless rule, I think
it should be looked at, evaluated, a public couplic public comment. Uh,
there's no doubt that's that. There are some places that
the roads network should be replaced, probably repaired. So if
you need to get in there with fire truck equipment,
a can so you can evaluate it and enjoy your

(39:03):
public landca it's jewrs snowmobiles, you know across Montana. I've
never seen a problem or damage from a snowmobil during
the summer. I like a lot unless a snowbill hits
a tree, doesn't do a lot of damage out there.
And the four strokes are are are pretty quiet and
quite frankly, the game if if they're up that high,

(39:23):
where the snowpacks that high, the game is not there.
So as you know, you hunt and.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
I have a couple of snowbills.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
You do.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
Wild and scenic river work, so you recently I'm a
little lost awhare like how the process plays out, but
proposing wild and scenic status for stretches on the Gallatin
and Madison.

Speaker 2 (39:45):
What does that do? Like, what give me your thinking
on that? Like? What does that do? Is it? Is
it a symbolic gesture like.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
You know, all right, and it's looking at the gallat
and you know, and and and and those basins in
the matter. One is that when you when you put
protection on rivers, so you're you're set back, making sure
the flow doesn't get doesn't remains, et cetera. In the

(40:13):
In the case of the River Act, it started at
the county level. They first came to my office in DC,
the group behind it, and said, Oh, I got this
great plan. We're going to do all these rivers, thousands
of miles of rivers, is gonna put them on protection.
And said, well, what do the counties think about it? Oh,
we hadn't talked to the county commissioners.

Speaker 2 (40:31):
Ah, well, going right to the big dog.

Speaker 3 (40:34):
You know what, uh, you know, I'm a congressman, former
former you know, secretary. I go to the county commissioners
because the county commissioners of the front line, you know,
their their sheriff is voted in, the county commissioners are
voted in. There the front line and if you want
my support, you got to go to the county commissioners
and get their support too. And they did, you know,

(40:56):
good on them. They went in, they worked it, They
got county commissions. They they adjusted the scope where you
had all sides. You had the government side, you know
with me, and you had the county commissioners, and you
had the local the local enthusiastic groups. You know there
there are a lot of them that all got together
and said this is the right plan. And then because

(41:16):
I'm a representative and I represent people and I'm glad
to do it, is if everyone agrees you know what,
we'll go forward. Because I also think it's important enough
to make sure that your kids had the same experience
on the Madison and the Gallaton as you did. The
reason why we live in Montana is because the Gallaton
isn't the Sacramento River. That we understand how important it

(41:40):
is on flows and temperature and species in riparian banks
and all that, you know, should be and looked at
as part of Montana our legacy that we're going to
also be behind for the next generation. So I'm glad
to do it. The process is, it starts in the
House we'll get a committee hearing on it. It's not

(42:01):
a contentious issue because I think we did it right.
We went at the front line and it's uh, you know,
frontline driven, and then I'm sure that Senator you know,
she and Danes, well we'll pick it up on that side.
So I'm actually fairly optimistic that the scope is right
and you had a consensus on it, and it protects

(42:21):
you know, two beautiful rivers and I think that you
and I spend a lot of time on rightfully so
because they are gorgeous rivers, and I just want to
make sure that again your kids and your grandchildren can
have the same experience.

Speaker 2 (42:34):
What's the timeline on something like that look like that, Well, we're.

Speaker 3 (42:37):
In government shutdown right now, so I'm sure not not
not much as moving at the at the moment, but
I'm pretty optimist that it'll move forward. You things take time, Uh,
good things take take more time. But you know, I
think I think we're on a good role because we
did it right.

Speaker 1 (42:54):
Yeah, you know, on right right, meaning that that procedure
high that local commission.

Speaker 3 (43:02):
You know, people in Utah got really upset when monuments
were put in place that they had no say. Matter
of fact, not only did they not have a say,
they had just the opposite. They were stoniestly against it.
Both the State House, the State Senate, and the representation
all were against that, and yet happened. And you've gotta

(43:25):
you gotta, you gotta be sensitive the state's rights, even
though it's federal property and and monuments. For everyone's listening,
you know, the president's authority to designated monument. Teddy Roosevelt
really pushed it. And it's called the Antiquities Act, and
it's delightfully short. It's it's only about a page and
as four conditions. One, you have to have an object

(43:47):
to protect that object by by law, by definition is
sign as historic, prehistoric, you know, or geologic. Example, historic
would be Battleground geologic, the Devil's Tower, which, by the way,
that's what I was gonna throw out that that's the
first monument. Like Teddy Roseil, I visited that place amazing.

Speaker 1 (44:11):
And secondly, it's very understandable when you look at it,
it's like, yeah, I know where you're going. You're like
where it's like that thing?

Speaker 2 (44:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:17):
Well, and you know, the monument at the time was
twelve hundred acres, so there's a pushback is a landgrap
but again you have to have something something that to preserve.
And secondly, it has to be on federal land. You
can't designate a monument on state or private land. It
has to be federal. So some of the recent designations

(44:40):
and monuments also were on state and private land, which
is illegal and I think also important.

Speaker 1 (44:48):
Well because they were those places were encompassed within the encompassed.

Speaker 3 (44:51):
But what happens is you start restricting access. You you
start changing prescription on grazing, on time, and so you
put a lot of pressure on either the state for
income because a lot of state properties like Montana best
and highest use the schools, generate income from the property.

(45:14):
Or as your private land rights, you do have some
right to the enjoyment of your property, and when that's
diminished because of a government either it's a action, then
that's a taking. But it lastly, is smallest area compatible
to protection of the object, and that's important. For instance,

(45:37):
if you're going to designate a battlefield a monument, then
it would be logical and the extent of that battlefield
would be where the battle took place or very close by.
It's not in the case of Bear's Ears, which was
a famous one. It's not fifteen hundred square miles. Then

(45:59):
you go, well, fifteen hundred square miles, and for listeners
that remember Bearsiers, it.

Speaker 2 (46:04):
Was, oh, this is quite a toll.

Speaker 3 (46:06):
So President Clinton went in and he designated Bearziers. I
didn't see the property, but Bearziers was about fifteen hundred
square miles of which eight hundred thousand acres was wilderness.
Now tell me in a wilderness what protections in the wilderness?
You don't have none. And then there was an entirety

(46:29):
of a national forest in there that had no monuments.
I mean it had no areas of known existence of
anything historical, no Indian artifacts, no dwellings. What it was
was there could be, there could be.

Speaker 2 (46:45):
What is that?

Speaker 3 (46:47):
So you can't designate the monument of what could be?
And it's small or sty compatible. So when I did
a review with the state of Utah and with the
governor and locals, I I looked at it and I
made the recommend recommendation. Then President Trump is that on
the eight hundred thousands of wilderness, return it back to wilderness.

(47:10):
It has all the protection it needs. On the national forest.
Return it to National Forest the rest of it a
reasonable boundary. Uh. And the boundary that I recommended was
larger than Bryce Canyon and Zion Park combined. And still

(47:31):
there was there was pushback from it. But at the
end of the day, it was the right decision. You've
got to follow the law on monuments.

Speaker 4 (47:38):
Same thing with but you got you got absolutists like
you got absolutes like like like like, I'm kind of well,
you got absolutists like me who would look, would look
and be like, maybe.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
Uh, I'm gonna I'm gonna.

Speaker 1 (47:56):
Admit like a certain level of manipulation here where you'd
look and you'd be like, I I.

Speaker 2 (48:03):
Like the the goal. I like the goal of preserving
untouched landscape.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
And and if this is how we got to get there,
then this is how we got to get there. And
I understand that that winds up, you know, being something
that's that's legally exposed, and it's an approach that's legally vulnerable,
as we see with a lot of these ping pong
issues that aren't acts of Congress.

Speaker 3 (48:28):
Well, and it's interesting the Bears Ears. You have two
sections of the Great Navo Nation, the Navajo Nation in
Utah was against the monument, primarily because they didn't want notoriety.
They do a lot of ceremonial, you know, events on
that land, and they were staunchly against the monument. They

(48:53):
Navajos and Arizona, where you just had the oposite of you.
They wanted the monument, and they they viewed the monument
as a step towards a national park, or they viewed
the monument as a step towards a reconciliation of a
land return, and so that was kind of their their view.

(49:14):
At the end of the day, I viewed it in
the terms of what was written in the law as that, yes,
there is app there's ZOONI, there's a there's a lot
of historical and geological features that I think they would qualify.
I wasn't President Obama, so I gave President Obama deference.
I wasn't President he was, so he decided that he
would sign it, and so I gave deference of it

(49:36):
within the law. But again, the boundaries that I proposed
is still in litigation, by the way, were larger than
Zion and Bryce Canyon combined. There's not one inch, by
the way, that left the federal state, not one inch
of land left the federal state is how it was
designated in for what use and when. But that's an example.

(49:59):
I think you're rightfully brought it up. There's there's people
that will give no quarter on either side because either
they think it's a slippery slope or the government doesn't
have the right or states rights. There's a lot of
people that are lined up that that get angry when't
you even have a discussion about it. And you know

(50:20):
this leads to the largest thing is we need to
get the anger out of the discussion. It's the distraction
of getting things done. And and look at what's what's
the purpose? The purpose is to maintain and preserve and
protect our outdoor legacy, to improve public access where we can,

(50:40):
and to manage our forests and our wildlife, to make
sure that the herds are are healthy into the future
and our force remain the same. Uh. You know that's
that's the goal, right and and and and how do
you reach the goal? Well, you work together to do it.
You you look at that at threats and there are you

(51:03):
identify what's the source of the threat. Why do people
want to sell land?

Speaker 2 (51:07):
Why?

Speaker 3 (51:07):
Why why are people so angry? Is it because of
housing costs, well, housing costs are high. But and housing
it's say you have a million dollar home, which impostman. Yeah,
it's hard to believe it. There's hardly any home that's
not a million dollars.

Speaker 1 (51:24):
But yeah, look at a million homes someone coming from
So I'm not I'm not like picking on or I'm
just pulling the state out of you know, thin air,
like someone coming from Missouri. And if you said, hey,
point out a million dollar homes, well they're not going
to be pointing out a million dollars.

Speaker 3 (51:39):
Yeah, and even Missouri, you know, so fort of a
cost of a home is permitting, and and permitting includes
curbs and sewer and water. Right, then you have construction costs.
Materials are not coming down, you're then you have to
have some profit. Uh. And then you have land costs.

(52:00):
Of that group, land costs generally and oftentimes are are
the least the least expensive part. And again we talked
about if it's public housing we want, that's tens of acres,
it's not. It's not hundreds or hundreds of thousands of acres. Right,
And if the purpose is to provide housing, then then yeah,

(52:24):
but if you don't have infrastructure. Then building a house
in the middle of the dirt farm without without water
and sewer, it's not going to get very far. So
you have to, you know, look at it and evaluate.
You know, what's the purpose again. You know, if you

(52:44):
sell land public land. Once you sold, it's gone, you're
not going to get it back. George Will said that
you're not making any more land. So I think again again,
the point is, I think you look at things, evaluate
highest and best use, and go back to the American
conservation ethic that gid us to this point of why
we have the federal state we do.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
I want to move to one where I believe you
and I are in perfect agreement.

Speaker 3 (53:16):
That's scary.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
Grizzly bear delisting absolutely, and why it fits in with
some of the theme of what we're talking about for listeners.
Grizzly bears were listed for Endangered Species Act protection very.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Early on in the Act.

Speaker 1 (53:35):
When they were listed, we, I mean, the American people,
all the system agreed on what recovery would look like.

Speaker 2 (53:44):
They put numbers to it.

Speaker 1 (53:47):
Grizzly bears reached that agreed upon recovery threshold.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
Thirty years ago. I'm a little bit lost in time twenty.

Speaker 1 (53:57):
Five years ago, thirty years ago, they they hit the
numbers that everyone agreed would be recovery. A thing about
the Endangered Species Act. I think that only two percent
of the things that go on the Endangered Species Act
come off because they recovered. Things might come off because
we realized they were extinct. Things might come off because

(54:19):
we realized that they weren't actually warranted in the first place.
But rarely does an animal just rarely do we recover
an animal. We did with peregrine falcons, we did with
bald eagles. When we when bald eagles hit recovery, it
was a big celebration. They were removed from the Endangered

(54:39):
Species Act protection. But somehow with grizzlies we hit recovery
and they won't delist them, and and and speaking to
the frustrations, is it winds up making a mockery of
the Endangered Species Act, and it turns the Endangered Species
Act into a thing where people hear it and they

(55:01):
reflexively go oh brother, yeah, Like it breeds the frustration
because you're like, we set up, we set up plan,
we achieved the plan, and then someone says, nope, I'm
moving the goalpost because I don't want to live in
a world where someone might do something bad to a
grizzly bear.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
So I no longer care about what the Act intended.
I just cared about using it as a legal weapon
to protect my own personal interests.

Speaker 3 (55:28):
Well and in Danger Species Act, by the way, Dick Nixon,
people forget about that. Yeah, Dick Nixon and uh in space,
in Danger Species Act, Clean and Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act. It was all Dick nixonble No, he had
Democratic Congress. But you know Dick Nixon, all right, he's
a He's the one that signed it.

Speaker 1 (55:47):
I had someone there to explain to me that he
didn't actually care about any of that stuff, and I didn't.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
I didn't look into it.

Speaker 3 (55:52):
He signed it. But you know, on two points. One
is is when is you rightfully point out the Endangered
Species Act, the solid idea about it is absolutely essential
to protecting species and make sure we leave a legacy.
But it can be abused, and when it is abused,

(56:13):
that creates anger and frustration.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
And people just want to be done with the But.

Speaker 3 (56:18):
It spills out into other species, right because if they
if they see the grizzly bear, which has recovered. I mean,
if you go to Wilvando, every outbuilding has you know,
hot wire on it. They had had a tourist camping
right next to the restaurant and got mauled killed.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
You see it.

Speaker 3 (56:38):
You know you can't go out there in a bike
anymore with a b begun. We have too many grizzlies.
There's the right number of grizzlies. Let's go by science
and manage the grizzly. And then there's then they have
somehow concocted. Now there's three separate species of grizzlies. There's
the Continental. The Continental, there is the Greater Yellowstone, and

(57:00):
there the Yak, and each of those are different. The
study was completed on the Greater Yellowstone that population has recovered.
When I was Secretary, I led the effort, took it
off the list, and then was put on back on
the list when I left the Continental. That study has
recently been completed that species are recovered, and those are

(57:22):
the ones that are in Levando in the Northwest, and
the Yak there was never endangered because the way the
Endangered Species Act is, you only count the ones that
are in North America, only count the ones that are
in the United States. We don't, we're blind. The ones
that are in in Canada, well, this the northern or

(57:43):
the Yak grizzly Only a small section of their habitat
is actually in the US. Most of the habitat is north.
But all of a sudden, if if the numbers in
the in the South, the smaller, you know, the smaller
section where they live, if that numbers can't prommegate the
entire species, then they remain in the list. And it's

(58:04):
nuts with.

Speaker 2 (58:04):
No acknowledgement of the habitats.

Speaker 3 (58:06):
With no acknowledgement, and you got and if you've been
up there, the forests are dead. They have the canopy.
Everything below the canopy is dead because the tree density
is too great. They're dead and dying trees. There is
no grasses. Grizzly bears don't eat grass, and underlets do.
But if less there's grass, you know, there's nothing to
feed on. Pretty you know, pretty much they're having the

(58:29):
transit hundreds of miles for food. Uh and their food
oftentimes in the Northwest, and Libby happens to be a
garbage can because garbage cans are available because there's food.
There's no food out there, but you know, it's a
management issue, and we should celebrate that the species has recovered.
I mean we we all should do a barn dance

(58:49):
and celebrate and then go, all right, these are the
numbers we're gonna We're gonna monitor that species very closely.
It's just off the list. This is the numbers that
we're going to target it to and manage. Just like
we manage elk herds, we manage cattle, we manage things.
The only thing, the only two things we seem not
to manage are grizzly bears and wild horses and burroughs. Yeah,

(59:11):
and both of them become dude.

Speaker 1 (59:13):
I don't even put that on our list. But that's
another one. But we'll not we can avoid that one.
But let's stand grizzlies for a minute, because what like
one of the things like being an optimist, you know,
try to be an optimist.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
I look, I'm an optimist.

Speaker 2 (59:26):
We should be well, I.

Speaker 1 (59:27):
Look, and I'm like, you got republican you know, you
got a republican government Montana.

Speaker 2 (59:33):
You got a republican governor Idaho. You get a republican
government Wyoming.

Speaker 1 (59:37):
We have a Republican delegation, We have a Republican in
the White House. I'm like, perhaps in the next four
years would be great. It seems like everything's really aligned
to delist the Grizzly Bears and hand them back to
state management.

Speaker 2 (59:52):
Is that enough timers is just too legally complicated.

Speaker 3 (59:55):
No, I I think we should in can we have
a little problem with a couple of judges.

Speaker 1 (01:00:02):
Like it's like a person a person a person in Missia,
person in Mozilla.

Speaker 3 (01:00:07):
He's from Malta.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
I know, but it's like it's like a god. It's
like a godlike position.

Speaker 3 (01:00:14):
Yeah, every time it's always moved the bar. But I look,
you know, you don't you don't give up. It's the
right thing to do because the numbers in the science
behind it is that it's truthful. So I do think
and it's not you know, republic and Democrats not really
quite frankly, the way I see the world, you know,
I'm kind of red, white and black.

Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
I know.

Speaker 1 (01:00:32):
But what I'm saying is what I'm saying is, uh,
the power, the power.

Speaker 3 (01:00:37):
Should align to get things done when we don't need to.

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
Like without fully understood like what And I know everybody
has their own priority about just saying when I looked
at it, I'm like, that would be a great outcome here.
You know, there's other things I care about that will
be compromised, but would love to see this come through.
But it's like you gotta you moved, like you move
to D list, like the US Fishwaliley Service moves to

(01:01:03):
D list.

Speaker 2 (01:01:04):
Then they make a plan, but then it just gets
it just gets litigated.

Speaker 3 (01:01:08):
Right, Yeah, And I would say that's part of the
issue is Congress has to do our job to make
sure that there is an off ramp based on science
on the Endangered Species Act. But when it's abused, it
creates anger on both sides. One is that you are
thinking about taking an animal off the list, so I'm

(01:01:30):
angry about that, and you're not taking the animal off
off the list because it's recovered. I'm angry about that.
So I think it's always better look at what's the goal.
The goal is independent of opinion. The goal is to
have a healthy number of species, but make sure the
species that was identified, once it meets that objective, then

(01:01:51):
it's off the list. Congress has to do our job
to make sure that once those numbers have been verified,
that in fact gets off the list, and doesn't get
litigated for another series of discovery. Oh what about the
relationship between the monarch butterfly and the grizzly? Have you
looked at that? Yeah, No, I haven't looked at it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
That's that's always the play.

Speaker 3 (01:02:13):
The play.

Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
The play is not to question how many bears are
out there. The play is the goal, like but did
you consider this?

Speaker 3 (01:02:19):
But but did you discovery?

Speaker 1 (01:02:22):
It's never like, hey, there's not actually enough of them.
It's always like some it's like a technicality.

Speaker 3 (01:02:28):
And and you know, we also reward lawsuits because they
you if you bring a loaf lawsuit forward, you have
eleven tenants of that of that lawsuit, and you lose
on ten of them. But when a minor one, you're
still going to get fully funded. So you're you're our taxpayers,

(01:02:49):
you'll pay for this nonsense. Enough's enough, We're thirty six
trillion dollars in debt. I can spend. I can see
a lot better expense of taxpayer dollars. Then to defend
a species that by all numbers and by science has
recovered enough enough, but Congress has to adjust it to

(01:03:10):
make sure that the abuse is stopped.

Speaker 1 (01:03:14):
So if you crystal balled it like, when will that happen?
I mean, we eventually got there on wolves, right, it
took a long time. We got there on wolves, at
least in the northern Rockies. The northern Great Lakes are
still dealing with the.

Speaker 3 (01:03:26):
Problem, and in Colorado is just being introduced to the
problem and they're not very happy about it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
But what are the odds or not, however you want
to put it, like, what are the chances that we
would see grizzly dlisting in the next handful of years?

Speaker 3 (01:03:40):
Well, you know, you have influence.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
I've been talking about this since I was.

Speaker 3 (01:03:46):
But look, you don't. You don't give up. That's you
never quit, uh, you know, with with with Danes and
she he and Montana before of us, you know, I yeah,
it's certainly if priority. I think probably the number one
priority is is peace. But after peace, you know, the environment.

(01:04:08):
You know, I'm an optimist. It can get done. I
think Berghum understands the importance of it. And you know,
if you're in New York or Florida, you know, grizzly
bears probably aren't at the top.

Speaker 2 (01:04:20):
Of your list. But look, we what black bears are?

Speaker 3 (01:04:25):
Black bears? You know, think of a bigger black bear,
a lot bigger. But you know this is where you know,
the four of us we get along well. We talk
at least once, if not twice a week, and I'm
pretty confident we'll see the Greater Yellowstone Grizzly go off

(01:04:46):
the list. I think it won't be too long before
the Continental and the Yak. We're gonna have to change
the laws so we can we can. You know, it's
ridiculous if you if you have again, if your if
your habitat is just a small area, but but but
absentte boundaries. If the proponers the bears live up up

(01:05:09):
in Canada, then there should be some formula to have
some compensation for those bearris. A lot of them are
coming from Canada and coming down, eating and returning.

Speaker 1 (01:05:18):
I'm trying to resist the urge to give listeners my
standard thirty minute explanation of distinct population segments. But when
we're one, uh, when when one Congress from Zinkie talking
about the Northern Continal Divide the Greater Yellstone. Basically, it's
a it's a geographical sort of system by which we

(01:05:41):
point out areas that could potentially even have grizzlies or
that have suitable habitat. So instead of talking about grizzlies
in Golden Golden Gate Park, where there were grizzlies once
upon a time, we're talking about the places where there's
suitable habitat and the potential for a population that.

Speaker 3 (01:05:59):
Yeah, And then they go, well, it's just a subspecies.
Is a greater Yellowstone so much different than the continental
in the act, The answer is no. And then if
you got to go to another subspecies, there's a subspecies.
If you go further out Montana, there's a cornfield out
by Chester that the grizzly bears have gone all the

(01:06:21):
way out. The chest corn.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
Corn that sit in that cornfield, you know, more or
less all fall.

Speaker 3 (01:06:28):
Now, that could be a subspecies too. It's it's the
it's the corn grizzly. Of course I'm being facetious.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
But no, I understand there is there is a tool.
There's an environmental tool that gets used where if someone
you know, you might point out like, hey, we're this
species is imperiled, and and people will say, well, it's
not because they're all over the place. And then what
you do is your place, you say, well, this one's
a little different well, and you know, and it's like

(01:06:58):
there's like splitters and lumpers into if.

Speaker 3 (01:07:00):
You're worried about d n A, then they're doing transplanting,
you know, programs, and then they'll they'll grab a bear
from one area and send another bear. If if you
if you're worried about the gene pool is beginning, you know,
so reduced, yeah, and yeah, et cetera. But it goes
back to science. But I'm an optimist on on that

(01:07:21):
and then danger species. You need sixty votes in the Senate.
That's one of the hurdles. So it has to be bipartisan,
and I think a vehicle for that is we should
have the discussion in the public Lands Caucus. That's very
very bipartison and very full spectrum by the way of

(01:07:41):
political tone, from the ultra conservative to the l ultraliberal.
But the common thread, uh is public lands and and
there and both sides are deeply passionate about public lands.
The management is a little different in the perspective of

(01:08:02):
how to manage it, but they're passion That's a great start.
At least people are passionate about about about the team.
A lot of people are passionate about you know, the
Bobcats and until the Grizzly Bobcat game.

Speaker 1 (01:08:16):
I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you something I don't want
you to take personally. You and I don't agree on everything,
but I don't agree with my wife on everything.

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
Well, so you're you're in her company. Yeah, I gave
you a hit.

Speaker 3 (01:08:28):
You know, I don't agree with myself all the time.
Ask my wife. So but but you know, but again,
it helps if a person has passion, right, and it
also helps to listen.

Speaker 1 (01:08:39):
Well, that's that's kind of what I wanted to end on.
Here is a thing that I've appreciated being uh, you know,
one one of your constituents. The thing I've appreciated about
you is you have a you cultivate intentionally or naturally.
You cultivate a tonal that implies compromise, that implies giving

(01:09:04):
people the benefit of the doubt, that implies like, let's
hear all the ideas made the best idea win. You
point out, you know, talking what we're talking about red
and blue. You point out being red, white and blue. Right,
you talk about taking the heat down. Like, dude, this
is stuff that that I love to hear. I haven't

(01:09:27):
read the article yet. I saw a thing this morning
that most it was a poll. I didn't read ain
the details of the poll. Who did the poll, I
don't know, but just said in a poll, most Americans
think that the divisions in this country cannot be resolved.
Which is just sickening to hear that. What's your take?

(01:09:48):
I mean, you go, you go, you go out of
your way to like you said, you go audio way
to take the heat down, and you go audio way
to like be a gentleman and to point out this
is America. Let's figure things out, like like are you
gonna how do you keep that up well?

Speaker 3 (01:10:04):
And and how do you how do you get the
tone and the anger out of it? Right? I guess
leadership leadership at every level. Uh, the school teachers should
be talking about looking tone. You know. That's that's celebrate
our diversity of thought. That celebrate critical thinking, and that's
that celebrate the solution minded people. Uh. That that celebrate

(01:10:28):
our ability as a as a as a great nation
to get things done. But it has I think it
has to happen both from the top, uh, and and
also from from from the from the bottom up. And
anyone that has a voice I think should be saying
the same voice. Uh, you know, related as a Charlie
Kirk incident. You know, terrible. Yeah, anyone that would celebrate

(01:10:51):
the death of a father, to celebrate the death of
a husband over political descent is a is a real problem.
And and where where they get it from. I don't know. Man.

Speaker 2 (01:11:01):
My kids would come home from school and they would
tell me insane things that are being said at school.
I'm like, listen my kids in speech and debate. I'm like,
that man was.

Speaker 1 (01:11:10):
Killed at a debate where he's inviting the people that
disagree with him most to come up and share their opinion.

Speaker 2 (01:11:20):
He was killed at a debate.

Speaker 3 (01:11:22):
To your point, he advocated debate. He had debated do
you approve me wrong? On an intellectual capacity?

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
And whoever disagrees most is the front of the line.

Speaker 3 (01:11:35):
And and and and have at it. But it was
a It was an event of communication, of deliberation, of debate.
It should never resolve to violence. And I can tell
you this is not my first rodeo. The anger out
there is a distraction from getting things done. When you

(01:11:57):
have anger. It doesn't allow a con conversation on affordable housing.
It doesn't allow conversation on economics and prosperity and and
and how to break through an environment that that's really
difficult for especially young people to get a job and
get a house. Uh, you know, how do we how

(01:12:20):
do we address that when there's so much anger you
can't even have the discussion if you want to talk
about affordable housing to talk about you know, things like
title when you buy a house. You don't buy a house,
you buy a title, right, and it's the title.

Speaker 2 (01:12:39):
It's the title you buy and sell.

Speaker 3 (01:12:40):
Right, And so we should look at you know, how
do we open up so people can have access to
a title? Is it? Is it? Uh? You know six
pluses eight plexes is a condos making it easier for
people to own title because that's what gains equity and
so but if if your life is destined to rent,
uh the entirety of your existence. Uh yeah, you know

(01:13:03):
that's that's a change from the American dream.

Speaker 2 (01:13:07):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:13:08):
The American dream is a couple of cars, a house.
You know, send the kids to school. They're gonna have
more opportunity than you did. Diminishing it. You know, it's
probably not possible to if you live in New York
City to buy it, buy a building or a block.
But you can buy a long term lease on on
an apartment with title and sell that. So there's other

(01:13:29):
ways to do it. But you can't get there if
you're so angry. You clinch your fists and you shut
off your ears, and all you're going to do is
is become angry.

Speaker 2 (01:13:40):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:13:40):
And you know, I've been a seal. I've seen a
lot of things in my life. I've seen I've seen
the very best of humanity and I have seen the worst.
I have absolutely seen the worst in humanity. But I
remain an optimist. Uh that always good will prevail. And
you know, one of the nice things about it is
that we do live in Montana. We're here in Bozeman.

(01:14:01):
So sometimes the problems are over the horizon. They're concerned
because that they're over horizonment in this country. And I
think the only way to address it is that we
all should address it, because we all rise and fall
on the same tide. And you know, go to the
neighbor you you really dislike and salo, yeah, yeah that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:24):
Yeah, you're talking about divisions making it that we can't
get projects done. I just worry about divisions that make
it the the the American We can't get the American
experience done, the American experiment done, you know, Like I
just I don't know, man, I've just been like really.

Speaker 4 (01:14:40):
Tore up about I think I think it should be
really really hit like with like with with with.

Speaker 1 (01:14:47):
The death of Charlie Kirk. It was like not just
that tragedy, but sort of the the the mindsets that
came out of that and some of the opinions that
came out of that.

Speaker 4 (01:15:00):
Stunning it Like it hit dude, It like hit me
like a I've been having like a cry, like a
like a little bit of a of a like an
emotional crisis about just since those days.

Speaker 2 (01:15:11):
It's been hard since those days, Like not.

Speaker 1 (01:15:14):
Just the like I feel bad, like I feel terrible
for the person's family, but the symbolism of it and
this idea that you would this idea that people would
come out and and act like they were glad about
something like that, and then the way they would just
be leveraged by everybody, and the way the motivations of
the shooter would be leveraged. I don't know, man, just

(01:15:34):
made me feel sick, Like I still feel kind of
sick from it.

Speaker 3 (01:15:37):
But we should feel sick because it's one it should
be unacceptable, and sometimes we're a loss of words. But
I think it's I think it's a value to reflect
and it's only evil if we don't change. And maybe,

(01:16:00):
you know, there's not much of a silver lining in
in Charlie's death, but maybe we'll give us a moment
of reflection in the watershed moments that we don't want
to be that country. We don't want to have shootings
on political disagreements. We don't want to have anger because
what as a results in it results in the dismantling

(01:16:22):
of a great nation, uh, dismantling of our our fabric
as as Americans. We're we are bonded by one nation
under God, so we should hopefully we were rally. I'm
seeing some signs of it. You know. It's it's it's my,
it's my you know, prayer that we don't snap back

(01:16:43):
to where we were, that we actually move forward on
it and and his death will have some positive outcome, uh,
you know if from it. It's only positive if if
it's recognized and we we change our tone and actions
uh to it, and and that that have to come
from from everybody. It didn't happen overnight. This anger was

(01:17:03):
allowed to brew, and in some cases it was promoted. Uh,
you know, calling someone a Nazi three thousand times on TV.
Eventually someone goes, oh, it must be a Nazi because
you said, I is it just just you know, I
understand freedom of speech, but you know you can articulate,

(01:17:24):
you know, and like my mom said, you can you
know you can use your words?

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
Yeah, I told dude.

Speaker 1 (01:17:31):
I told my kids, I'm like, when all this is
going on, I was like, hey, man, I like, I
have opinions that are controversial. I'm an outspoken hunter, which
in some people's minds is controversial.

Speaker 2 (01:17:42):
I go to colleges and give talks and talk to people.

Speaker 3 (01:17:45):
I like, I hear you kill animals.

Speaker 1 (01:17:47):
Well, I imagine, like I'm saying, like, if someone I
told my kids, someone shoots me out of the college campus,
there's gonna be people that are like, well, he deserved it,
And I'm like, how are you going to feel in
that moment?

Speaker 2 (01:17:59):
Do you know what I mean?

Speaker 1 (01:18:00):
It's just like I don't want to keep around that.
I'm sure glad you came by the talk.

Speaker 2 (01:18:05):
Here's there's there are some.

Speaker 3 (01:18:07):
Good things as that you know, the spirit of Americans
that we're all Americans. And I get I've seen I've
seen humanity it's worst and I've seen himanity the best. Uh.
We have an opportunity, uh to make sure we learned
from this and move on. And I think if if
leadership across the board on both sides of the aisle,

(01:18:29):
and there's probably three or fourth different sides in the
aisle of folks out there, but all of this should
should recognize and and and push back. And I'm seeing
that with with you know a lot of tone of
the media, people that are are in the influence you know,
world say the same thing, talk about it not all,

(01:18:50):
but I'm I'm seeing some some good signs. And hey,
why it's not perfect. H You wake up the morning
the best you can. You influence those things as you
can influence and accept kind of the things you can't.
You don't you don't quit, you don't give up. You're
passionate about your ideas and you kind of associate sometimes
with people that are also passionate. And it's not so bad.

(01:19:13):
Once in a while go out and meet someone that
you don't would normally not have a conversation with in
the house. Believe it or not, I'll go over the
Democrats side of the aisle. I'll sit down and uh
I have I have. I have a group of people
with distinctly different backgrounds in mind. Uh, sit down, we

(01:19:34):
have a I have conversation with it. I've I've learned
about the Deep South a lot, uh from from from
comper conversations.

Speaker 1 (01:19:42):
Listen, I watched you. You don't know this. I've watched
you do this now. I watched you go up and
out of your way and engage with of all things,
a democrat.

Speaker 2 (01:19:55):
I watched you go across the room and do it. Well.

Speaker 3 (01:19:58):
I'll tell you a sick I have a lot of
friends that are ras too.

Speaker 1 (01:20:01):
Yeah, but I saw that and I appreciated it. Man,
I appreciated it.

Speaker 3 (01:20:06):
Well. I don't think our problems are going to be
solved from one side of the aisle or the other.
And I think the problems it's always the kind of
the middle lanes that look at and most people, you know,
I just want government to function, and they just just
want to cover cover the basics and make sure you
have a functional government and the resources are put where

(01:20:27):
people need them. I think there's a Christian aspect of it. Look,
if someone someone's hurting and then you shouldn't walk past.
You know, you should provide some help. Handout is always
better than it then, or hand up is better than
a handout. But in some cases, you know, people just
aren't able to be you know, they're going to make

(01:20:50):
a lot of mistakes in life, and they're going to
continue to make stakes.

Speaker 2 (01:20:52):
So what do you do.

Speaker 3 (01:20:53):
You either can incarcrate them or you try to provide
some opportunity to reform. I'm gonna redemption and guy, you know,
try to put him in a program where where you
know they they work and at something. You know, everyone
can do something, and and work is healing. Work provides
purpose a lot of times self worth evaluation. So get

(01:21:17):
them in something that they feel good about, even if
it's picking up garbage. I pick up garbage, I clean
toilets at parks. I'm happy with it.

Speaker 1 (01:21:28):
Yeah, well, congress some zincie, thanks for coming on, uh
talking about conservation issues, talking about American patriotism.

Speaker 3 (01:21:34):
I appreciate it and just and just around around the block.
I always enjoy and thanks for what you do. By
the way, I think, Uh, you're you're You're insightful. I
thank you. You drive the issues.

Speaker 2 (01:21:46):
UH.

Speaker 3 (01:21:46):
You have a great following for a reason is that
I think you bring up some some hard hitting UH
issues and UH and probably most of all, I understand
you're a pretty good hunter.

Speaker 1 (01:21:57):
M I got good I got friends that appoint me
in the right direction.

Speaker 3 (01:22:01):
I heard you got a good scope.

Speaker 2 (01:22:04):
Thank you very much,