October 30, 2025 • 37 mins
Steven Rinella talks with Jeremy Romero of the National Wildlife Federation about yet another attack on our public lands by Sen. Mike Lee's latest Border Lands Conservation Act.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we have a special emergency FOP.
This has dedicated to all the listeners out there who
stay we should just stay out of politics. Join today
by my friend Jeremy Romero, who's a hunter, conservationist and
serves with the National Wildlife Federation. And Jeremy is here
(00:20):
to talk about kind of what I view to be
like one of the most I do. Like, I'm trying
to think choose my words carefully here. Cynical, creative, and
kind of like a little bit like of an exploitive.
Now explain why I'm using these words. A cynical, exploitive
(00:43):
public lands bill that has emerged without a lot of
fanfare and without a lot of reporting. If you, if
you follow the news you've been, you've seen that we've
suffered another a number of conservation setbacks coming out of
the Trump administration where undoing the roleless rule. Okay, that's
(01:11):
going on. We had we'd put the Ambler Road, building
a big industrial corridor into Alaska's Brooks Range that had
again temporarily put to bed. Ambler Road is back on
the table in order to allow a foreign mining company
to drill and export a bunch of mineral wealth out
of Alaska and create a two hundred and fifty mile
industrial corridor going into one of our last vestiges of wilderness.
(01:37):
We have another phenomenal piece of wilderness called the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. We learned a couple of days ago
that they're they're looking to open up and reissue drilling leases.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
In anwar.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
There was a lot of resource management plans, Bureau of
Land Management resource management plans that just got undone, so Montana, Alaska,
North Dakota. So these were management plans that many stakeholders
came together. They served a lot of interests of hunters
and anglers that got thrown out the window. Okay, the
(02:11):
aim for everything we're talking about, what we're going to
talk about in a minute, The aim here is to
be able to a push by the administration to increase
resource extraction and industrialization. If you remember, back before a
lot of this stuff started brewing, a lot of this
stuff was whispers last June. But last June we saw
(02:36):
perhaps one of the most direct assaults on public lands,
and that was Utah Senator Mike Lee's pushed to sell
off a few million acres of public lands that got
enormous pushback. I would say, like enormous bipartisan pushback. We
(02:57):
had seen that happen. Again, what year was it the
Chaf's one, Jared, I'm sorry, do you remember what year
Jason Chafis proposal which was remarkably similar.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Twenty seventeen sounds right, yeah, twenty seventeen. I think I
was right.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Around twenty seventeen, there was another proposal to sell millions
of acres of public land that was met with enormous
bipartisan pushback.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
The media.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Seemed to be that the national media seemed to be
expo surprised by the fact that Hunter's co laced around
pushback on that issue that was by a Utah lawmaker
named Jason Chafits Senator Mike Lee. Just in June twenty
(03:44):
twenty five brought out a new plan to sell off
millions of acres that had different sort of code words.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
You know.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
I find that these plans are a lot of this legislation,
and we'll get into this in greater detail with Jeremy.
A lot of the anti public lands legislation, anti wilderness
aarrea legislation will carry like a a it'll carry fashionable buzzwords. Okay,
So one of Mike Lee's early versions of the sell
off was like, was couched in this language around affordable housing.
(04:18):
But then when you look at the details of the bill,
it didn't really do much to address affordable housing. Before
it was in twenty seventeen, it was like extra or
excess public lands. We have excess public lands. We're going
to get rid of some of them. The bill we're
(04:39):
going to talk about now. It uses another currently fashionable
buzzword in order to accomplish something that really doesn't do
much to serve the buzzword that it's being marketed under.
But going back to June, this big sell off push
was pulled, it was defeated. When that happened, a lot
(05:00):
of people I know in the conservation space were like,
We're cautious about declaring it a victory. They're like, that
was a we want to battle. We didn't win the war.
This will come back up very quickly. One might think
that Senator Lee, like it was kind of a bruising
on that. One might have thought he might retreat from
(05:21):
the idea altogether of kind of weakening protections.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
But but but he hasn't.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
He's he's he has a he's committed to the idea
of opening up, of weakening public lands protections, opening up
undeveloped lands to development.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
That just that's where he is. That's his commitment. Uh.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So we're looking at a new bill here that was
introduced on October second, and this is the one I
was saying that just hasn't, like, for whatever reason, hasn't
received a bunch of news. And I think it's because
it's entering an area that's quite clouded with all these
other things that I laid out, the role this rule
(06:08):
Ambler Road and why are resource management plans? So this
one's kind of flown a little bit under the radar.
And I've asked Jeremy Romero to come on. He was
the one that told me about it. I asked him
to come on and explain to me and explain to
our listeners what the Borderlands Conservation Act is all about.
(06:29):
And it ain't about conservation. So Jeremy, can you can
you talk people through what the Borderlands Conservation Act is, like,
what is it at face value?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And what is it actually about? And then we'll get
into some details.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Yeah, you bet, Steve, Thanks for having me on to
talk about this issue. You know, I think you said
it brilliantly. It's a it's an attack on public LANs.
You know, Senator Lee, I think really took a stab
at at undermining public lands when we went through the
reconciliation process, and you know, the large effort to sell
off public lands, and essentially this is this is no different.
(07:11):
So in October, early October, Senator Lee introduced the Borderlands
Conservation Act with you know, in a nutshell, that bill
is focused on border security. Again, you said, and use
the phrase of kind of these these sexy terms, right,
these terms that are popular in society today, and border
security is one of those. And this bill is aimed
(07:33):
at at just that increasing border security along the northern
and southern borders in the United States, kind of creating
these hundred mile buffer zones in the northern and southern
borders and basically creates and gives Department of Homeland Security
the authority to manage these roads and an effort to
strengthen border security. And it does it by a number
(07:55):
of different measures that we'll talk about this in this conversation.
Really those measures, in my opinion, undermined the importance of
public lands and the protections forwarded to public lands, like
things like the nineteen sixty nineteen sixty four Wilderness Act.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Yeah, which are these points should we jump into first?
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Here?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Yeah, let's just talk about this hundred mile buffer kind
of the rationale behind, you know, inventoring these illegal roads
and trails.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
So yeah, I want to hit that because when we
talk about one hundred mile buffer, this will impact. You
have to appreciate like what we're talking about. So I'm
gonna tell people something obvious here. If we're talking about
if you look at a map of the United States
and then magined coming in from one hundred miles on
(08:47):
all of our borders north and south and Alaska, Okay,
you're taking in wilderness areas in Washington, You're taking in
wilderness areas in Idaho, You're taking wilderness area is in Montana.
Jumping eastward from there, where this this grabs hold of
all of the boundary waters area. It would come into
(09:12):
areas in Maine National Parks, wilderness areas in California, wilderness
areas in Arizona, wilderness areas in New Mexico, Big Ben
National Park in Texas, Tungus Wilderness Area in Alaska, wrangle
Saint Elias Park and Preserve in Alaska. So this is
a I mean this you can one hand go like, oh,
(09:34):
it's a one hundred mile buffer, but you need to
appreciate what we're talking about when we talk about a
one hundred mile buffer coming in from our borders, like
it's it's grabbing onto a huge swaths of land.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Yeah, that's exactly right. And I'll note that the one
you know, the one type or the types of land jurisdictions,
that this bill is not specific to our tribal land,
state lands, and private lands. Other than that, it's take
can you know, the stroke of a paint brush within
that hundred mile buffer, And any land that's administered by
(10:07):
the federal government under d o I and U s
d A is subject to these measures in this bill.
So as you mentioned everything, everything administered by d U I,
by us DA, all those national parks, all those uh
you know, forest Service units, all those b l M
Field offices, wilderness study areas, wilderness like, they are all
(10:28):
subject to the measures in this bill, all within that
hunter mile buffer, and those are there's a couple of
other key points when we get to the wilderness portion
of this that I'll also I'll make I'll make sure
to distinguish. But you know, basically within this hunter mile
buffer on the northern and southern boundaries, UH Department of
Homeland Security is going to work in coordination with d
U I and U s d A too, inventory what
(10:51):
they would consider illegal roads and trails that are been
that have been created by illegal border crossings. And that's
important because one, how do we herman if in fact
a road or a trail is created by illegal border crossing,
and if these agencies, if these land management agencies determine
that in fact these roads were created by illegal border crossing,
(11:14):
then it's providing DHS Department Homeland Security the authority to
then create and manage these roads as navigable roads for
the sake of border security. So installing infrastructure technology that
can monitor border security and illegal border crossings and put
(11:35):
and prevent those from happening in the future. And so
it really opens up this can of worms of you know,
deciding whether or not these roads actually are illegal, and
whether or not these trails are illegal and if so,
be able to be managed, and it doesn't really consider
the impacts to developing these roads. You know, currently a
(11:56):
lot of these agencies go through travel management plans where
they tory the road use system and determine whether or
not these roads are navigable or innavigable, and create this
kind of access plan, this map that you that I
that others can then access public plans, and they do
a pretty meticulous job of being able to lay out
(12:19):
this footprint of what's considered navigable. Right, you want to
you want to protect wildlife, you want to you know,
protect wildlife habitat, there's cultural resource protection when it comes
to managing these roads, and so allowing for this kind
of unregulated development of roads really I think puts a
(12:39):
lot of important things in the crosshairs along this buffer.
And and like you hinted to you, I mean one
hundred mile buffer to me, is is outrageous, right, I
mean we're talking from the southern the southern border to
almost Tucson, Arizona. Right. It encapsulates a lot of country
that they are claiming be important for border security. And
(13:02):
in my perspective, I think it's a little outrageous to
think that a hundred mile buffer and all the different
types of land jurisdictions and land management UH land jurisdictions
within that hunter mile buffer are really going to lend
to increasing border security.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
So I have struggle a little bit just to understand
even the logic there that it'd be that if you
were to determine if someone were to determine that a
road that an illegal road, say on BLM Land and
illegal road on BLM Land, or like an unregistered road
on BLM Land, or an illegal trail on BLM Land,
(13:39):
that they determined to have been utilized by illegal immigrants
or for my for for illegal immigration of some part,
that that would then give you justification to go in
and make it into a road.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Wilders exactly.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah, in wilderness and non wilderness. It's it's mind boggling
to me to to think about how these how the
mandates in this bill and and those land management agencies,
how they will come to the conclusion saying that these
trails and these roads were created by illegal border crossing.
You know, how how do you determine that? Right?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Like?
Speaker 3 (14:20):
That's I think that's kind of the big question I
have in my mind is you know, when it comes
to a trail, for instance, I mean you and I
hunt a lot where we're in places where you know, livestock,
whether that's a you know, a grazing allotment or what
have you, or in a lot of areas we tend
to occupy. You know, if cattle are utilizing a trail
(14:41):
that they've created, and you know, let's just say there's
a boot track on there, does that mean that that
road was used and created by illegals and now it
gets to be managed by Department of Homeland Security and
in a fashion that allows them to access you know,
these these areas. If a road was created by illegal
(15:01):
OHV use, or it was once determined to be navigable
and has since been deemed innavigable, so it's no longer
accessible to the public, how do you determine that that
road was road was created by by illegal border crossing
and then be able to reopen that road?
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:19):
How The question I have next, next to what I
just pointed out, is then how do you enforce these
roads to be used for the intent in which the
bill describes and not for all this extracurricular activity like
illegal OHV use. I think there's I think there's a
bigger question to be had, which is who's gonna who's
(15:40):
gonna front the cost for developing these roads. I think
right now, when you look at the deferred maintenance to
agencies like uh for service in BLM, there's hundreds of
thousands of miles of roads that are deteriorating because these
agencies don't have the resources to manage the roads that
they have considered and deemed to be navigable through these
(16:00):
travel management plans. And we're asking we're asking these agencies
to create more roads and take away from roads that
they've already seemed to be accessible and the management and
the resources you know that they need to manage those roads.
There's a lot to unpack there, and so I think
(16:21):
there's a lot of questions, and I think the bill
doesn't do a great job of defining how these actions
are going to be conducted. And those are part of
the part of the many problems I have with the bill.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Yeah, in a minute, let's get into a little bit
of the how these bills come up, where they leave
so many details up to one's imagination, and that in
some ways was attributable to the sinking of the sell
off plan, where the sell off plan went through a
handful of versions. They had these permutations, and in the
end someone realized, and it was pointed out, and this
(16:57):
was acknowledged by the office that put it forward. It
was pointed out even though this was put together as
this idea of addressing affordable housing, and the way the
bill was written, you couldn't have prevented foreign governments from
buying the land. Right, So you wind up in this
thing like you're saying it's one thing, but then you're
(17:19):
not clarifying with enough level of detail about how it
would be determined. I would be able to take it
a little more seriously. If someone was talking about a
three mile buffer, a five mile buffer, a ten mile buffer,
I'd be able to look at it and be like, yeah,
I'm willing to at least take this at face value.
But when you've gotten one hundred miles north of the
(17:42):
border with Mexico or one hundred miles south of the
border in Idaho, like, at that point, I don't think
we're talking about immigration anymore, and so it opens up
this question of like, what is it really about. If
it was a five mile thing, I'd be like, Okay,
this is about immigration. One hundred miles is about something
(18:04):
entirely different, and we'll get to that in a minute.
But let's get into a couple of these components. One
of the ways that they're trying to sell this again
couching it in language that anyone would agree with. This
is like a tactic, right. You say, like, oh, border security, Well,
who wouldn't want border security? Right, must be a good
idea here. They're like, hey, this will help with search
(18:24):
and rescue. Explain that component.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Yeah, And it's important to note that the search and
rescue piece is basically also tied to this amending the
Wilderness Act.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Okay, so I'm out of order. Then let's get into
amending the Wilderness Act.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
You bet so. A big component of this bill is
to amend the nineteen six or nineteen sixty nineteen sixty
four excuse me, Wilderness Preservation Act to allow for the
use of developing roads using motorized mechanized travel of under
the hospice of search and rescue and border security, so
(19:04):
basically allowing the things that the Wilderness Act prevents for
the sake of border security. What's important to note is
that when it comes to search and rescue in wilderness areas,
a lot of the land use management agencies and local
law enforcement, local search and rescue already have plans in
(19:26):
place to one prevent more than is intended to when
it comes to you know, occupying and being in wilderness
areas to conduct those those search and rescue operations. So
they can already go in and use motorized mechanized travel
(19:47):
if it's deemed that they absolutely have to for the
sake of human life. They have these plans in place,
and they can go in there and they can fly
a helicopter, they can take a uh, you know, like
a gurney that's that's got a wheel on it, they
can travel in on potentially on four wheelers, or use
(20:07):
their motorized types of transportation in certain circumstances. These plans
are already coordinated and developed with those land use management agencies,
local law enforcement, search and rescue. And so what this
is trying to do is a you know, amend the
Wilderness Preservation Act to create those roads, to codify the
(20:29):
use of motorized mechanized operation in wilderness Act, which to
me is a really slippery slope. And earlier you mentioned
like how these bills are written and how kind of
things let's just say fly under the radar may not
be explicitly defined. This is an important piece because this
(20:50):
with this section of the bill does not clarify is
when it talks about amending the wilderness to create roads
motorized use with you know, for the sake of border security,
it does not explicitly mention that it's with that it's
wilderness areas within the hundred mile buffer, right, It's just
(21:12):
it's just amending the Wilderness Preservation Act. So technically it
applies to all wilderness areas, you know, aside from those
within that hundred mile buffer. So in my mind that
means if you can justify that building roads in wilderness
areas is for the sake of border security, it can
(21:33):
be it can be any wilderness in our country.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Or building roads is helpful for search and rescue apparently exactly. Yeah, okay,
we got into some of the details here. What is
your take the earlier I use like a term cynical,
and I'm a little I'm not totally happy with word
choice on that. But what you see is again and
(21:59):
again you see see these things that they're they're they're
trying to couch it as one thing, but what they're
talking about is something else. Okay, So here it's taking
this idea of border security, this idea of search and
rescue and and and lo and behold, what does it
really come down to? It comes down to like weakening
protections on wilderness areas and making it easier to.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Develop and do road building.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Uh do you like in your view and your analysis
of this, do you do you feel that that's fair?
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Like it?
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Do you feel that there really is I hate to
use it, but like, is there like a sort of
conspiracy of sorts of trying to use whatever tools are applicable,
whatever national crises we have, affordable housing, border security, whatever
it is, to try to just do anything to weaken
(22:54):
protections on wilderness areas and weakened protections on public lands.
And if that's true, like what is the end game? Like,
how does that ultimately get them what they want?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (23:05):
I mean I think, you know, from like the conspiracy perspective,
it's hard not to think that there's these ulterior motives
when it comes to these types of bills and legislation.
I mean we've seen time and time, you know, time
and time again where individuals like Senator Lee or others
(23:29):
just don't have the same perspective of public lands that
you and I or others do, and therefore I think
their perspective of public LANs is a much more you know,
let's just call it an asset driven mindset, where they
look at public lands and they see different types of
(23:51):
investments that they can return on these assets, right, different
types of ways that these lands can be more profitable
than they already are than just create open spaces where
we can recreate, where we can hunt, where we can fish.
And in their minds, I don't believe that this is
something that they enjoy seeing and how public lands are
used are utilized, and you know, for that reason, I
(24:13):
think we've seen these assaults on public lands through different
different efforts, the reconciliation processes that you that you meant earlier.
And so it's hard for me to think that these
bills when I see them, are just focused on what
the title of the bill is written as right I have.
I can't help but think that there's that there's these
(24:36):
these details, that there's these underlying efforts within within the
these bills that are aimed at attacking and undermining public
lands from multiple perspectives, like getting more access. Therefore you
can potentially have non you know, you can have more
resource extraction or irresponsible use of public lands. I think
(25:00):
it's a slippery slope. And I think they're they're recognizing
that they have to be a little bit craftier, a
little bit more creative and how they attack public lands.
And so you know, you said it, you said it
spot on, Like using terms like affordable housing, border security.
I think terms that maybe hit hit near and dear
to a lot of Americans, you know, lives and homes.
(25:24):
Like I do think by trying to create these kind
of false narratives, by trying to get people on board
for these ideas that really aren't the root of what
is intended by these pieces of legislation, I can't help
I can't help but think there's there's more to it
than than what we're reading.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Yeah, I don't want to use too hyperbolic of language here,
like like I just want to, you know, acknowledge these
things are coming from you know, patriotic people who no
doubt love their families and love their communities. It's just
we're like ideologically opposed an issue. My view is that
(26:03):
undeveloped landscapes are of extreme value and will become more
and more valuable over time, and that preserving them. Conserving
them comes at no cost to us. They're still there,
they will still be there later on. Once as the
world gets developed, as the nation gets developed, as our
(26:25):
last wildernesses get developed, will burned through an asset and
will later regret what we did. And I think that
there are some activities hunting, fishing, hiking, those are things
that I'm interested in. There are some activities that can
go on right now without having adverse impact on these
great American assets. So I don't want to when I
(26:48):
use the word conspiracy, I don't want to act like
someone's objective in putting this forward, that the objective is
to be like evil or something. It's just like a
different thing. Some people look at undevelop landscape and they
see wasted opportunity. I look at undeveloped landscape, and I
see an incredible asset in the nation's bank that can
(27:10):
bring enjoyment and mental health and physical health to all
Americans while we hold it. And it might be h
and I know, like without a doubt to me, will
be of far more value to future generations than it
is to us now. And and in in our in
our undeveloped landscapes are at their most valuable state as
(27:31):
they sit, right, it's like it's an asset. So yeah,
I don't want to put this in terms of of
good versus evil. It's like it's like it's an ideological
battle with real with real results, like like real things
are pivoting on this.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Okay, what now?
Speaker 1 (27:54):
And then you see where people put forward pieces of
legislation that you know aren't to be taken seriously, like
people do it. There's a performative quality to some legislation.
When there was talk of giving an example, when some
guy put forth legislation that would have put Trump on
(28:18):
Mount Rushmore, it was performative, right for a lot of
people that it was good for a laugh. It sparked
a lot of conversation like is there really room on
Mount Rushmore? What is Mount Rushmore made of? Where would
you put it? What's the history of Mount Rushmore? But
in the end, it was like a performative gesture. It
was never something that was meant to be advanced and
(28:39):
signed into law.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Right, is this is this like making a statement?
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Is it trying to like advance an idea that future
generations might pick up on?
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Like what is this? Is this serious?
Speaker 3 (28:56):
I think it can very well be serious, and I
do think it's somewhat performative. I think it's you know,
Senator Lee and other co sponsors, you know, diping their
their toe in the water to do a temperature check
and see how a bill like this is perceived and
whether or not it's going to get the support and
(29:16):
the attention to gain some traction and potentially move forward.
I hope it's it's kind of all smoke no fire
for a lot of the reasons that we've been talking about.
You know, it's it's interesting when you look at this
bill to see who the co sponsors are. And I
say that because there's only one co sponsor that's occupying
(29:36):
a state that is relative to the language and this bill,
and that Senator Cruise out of Texas. You don't see
other Republican or Democratic senators along these these border states
that are co sponsoring this bill.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Well, that's funny you mentioned that, because I mean Utahs,
it's well outside of the hundred Senator Lee's state of Utahs,
it's well outside the buffer. I see your representative from
Wyoming sits outside of the buffer. But you're right, Senator
Ted Cruz of Texas is has portions of his state
in the buffer zone and the very generous buffer zone.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
That's right, And you don't see individuals like Senator Danes,
Senator she He, Senator Rish, like you know, you know,
those senators on the northern part of the of the border,
those people who you would who you would think if
this was an issue that was really important, you would
think that the states that are going to be impacted
(30:39):
by this legislation would have more of a of a
perspective on the bill. Maybe that's a maybe that's a sign, right,
Like maybe that's a sign that this this bill really
is just kind of an attention seeker and not going
to get the traction that or the seriousness that people
are going to think when they read it. And for
(31:00):
that reason, like maybe that's why those individuals don't, you know,
aren't sponsoring the bill. And you know, obviously that's me
just being you know, rather presumptuous. But I think when
I when I see the lack of those co sponsors,
I just have to ask those questions.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Got it?
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And what do you think will happen? Like what's the
next step for a piece of legislation like this? Like
remember that remember that cartoon and your little kid, I'm
just a bill on Capitol.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Hill Like like what uh, like, what's what's next?
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Well, it was it was refer to the Committee of
Energy and Natural Resources. So, amongst all the craziness that's
happening in DC right now, this bill has to be
put on the calendar by by E and R, by
sending E and R. And then once it's there, they
have to to listen to the bill and they have
to vote on it to pass it out of committee,
(31:48):
and then there it goes on its own kind of
trajectory to potentially being voted on on the Senate floor.
Has to have a house companion. You know, it still
has a long route before it's even i would say,
remotely considered serious. But the fact that it was introduced
is serious enough for me to want to talk to.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
You about it.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Yeah, and this will come up under an early and
an early person that will get a look at this
as Senator Heinrich from New Mexico, who has you know,
who represents landscape within this buffer. He's a big oh,
you know, like a very informed, very dedicated defender of
(32:30):
public lands.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Like, what's his take on this going to be?
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Well? I imagine Senator Heinrich that, as you mentioned as
a champion for conservation, champion for public lands, somebody who
you know gets out on hunts and fish fishes on
our public lands. I think when he sees a bill
like this, he's gonna ask a lot of questions and
he's gonna pick it apart, kind of as we've been
picking it apart on this conversation. I don't think a
(32:54):
bill like this is going to actually, I know a
bill like this is not going to land well with
with Senator him Rick. I think it will do a
brilliant job of asking those important underlying questions of the
intention and rationale of this bill. And you know, with
that being said, I hope the result is is the
bill doesn't move out of committee and is essentially dead
(33:16):
upon arrival.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Yeah, but it is, man, it's like a very interesting
and like I said, I didn't know about it, and
you know we were together right around this time when
this came out. You're the one that explained it to me,
and I thought that regardless of where it lands, and
it's it's very early to say, it's a very it's
an interesting civics lesson and it's an interesting look into
(33:38):
how people are. And it's the point I keep making
an interesting look at how people could have a historic
extra grind, like a career long set of goals. In
this case, if your career long set of goals is
to reduce protections on public lands and open up developant
(34:00):
and industrialization of wildlands, that's like the career long goal.
The way in which you can look for opportunities in
the national dialogue to be like, oh, that's how I'm
going to talk about my perennial issue, and then the
conversation changes and there's like a lot of talk about
(34:21):
affordable housing.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
Let's say that's how.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
I'm going to talk about my perennial issue, and then
there's a lot of talk about illegal immigration. That's how
I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And it
brings to mind this analogy of that the bottle of
the wine stays the same, but you continue to apply
a new label onto that wine. And so it's just
(34:46):
as it's a fascinating glimpse into the thinking here, I
hope listeners like give like start paying more attention to
that in the years that are coming, as we continue
to have these conversations and thank you Jeremy to come
on and explaining this and telling me about it again.
I think it's, like I said, if nothing else, is
(35:06):
a great civics lesson for people.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Yeah, I uh, I really appreciate you letting me come
on and talk about the bill. You know, any attack
on public land is important to me to get out
there and and and talk about and advocate for public
lands and the right to hunt and fish and protecting
these areas for future generations. So we're going to keep,
you know, our eye on this bill. We're going we're
going to do our due diligence to to make sure
(35:31):
a bill like this doesn't doesn't have a future and
you know in the future, you know, keeping keeping ah,
you know, keeping a close eye on legislation that comes
out and looking at how they are somewhat uh, you know,
disguised in different ways. And I recommend people do their
their due diligence and look at look at bills, look
(35:52):
at legislation, not just for what the title of the
legislation is, but what the actual action items in legislation are.
And I encourage you to be active. Reach out to
you or you know, your congressional members, and you know
be be an engaged member of society. I think has
the reconciliation process and the public lands sealoff kind of
(36:13):
played out, we saw a tremendous amount of support from
everybody on both sides of the aisle, you know, whether
you whether you hunt and fished or didn't like it.
We all came together and pushed back on the public
land sealoff and it was an extraordinary thing to see.
And I just hope that we can continue to have
(36:34):
those shared visions when it comes to pieces of legislation
like this. So Steve, again, I think I thank you
for letting me come on and talk about this bill,
and we'll just keep tracking, keep tracking it.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Okay, uh again you're hearing from Jeremy Romero from the
National Wildlife Federation, a very avid.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Hunter angler out of New Mexico. Thank you, thanks again, Jeremy.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Thanks
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we have a special emergency FOP.
This has dedicated to all the listeners out there who
stay we should just stay out of politics. Join today
by my friend Jeremy Romero, who's a hunter, conservationist and
serves with the National Wildlife Federation. And Jeremy is here
(00:20):
to talk about kind of what I view to be
like one of the most I do. Like, I'm trying
to think choose my words carefully here. Cynical, creative, and
kind of like a little bit like of an exploitive.
Now explain why I'm using these words. A cynical, exploitive
(00:43):
public lands bill that has emerged without a lot of
fanfare and without a lot of reporting. If you, if
you follow the news you've been, you've seen that we've
suffered another a number of conservation setbacks coming out of
the Trump administration where undoing the roleless rule. Okay, that's
(01:11):
going on. We had we'd put the Ambler Road, building
a big industrial corridor into Alaska's Brooks Range that had
again temporarily put to bed. Ambler Road is back on
the table in order to allow a foreign mining company
to drill and export a bunch of mineral wealth out
of Alaska and create a two hundred and fifty mile
industrial corridor going into one of our last vestiges of wilderness.
(01:37):
We have another phenomenal piece of wilderness called the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. We learned a couple of days ago
that they're they're looking to open up and reissue drilling leases.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
In anwar.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
There was a lot of resource management plans, Bureau of
Land Management resource management plans that just got undone, so Montana, Alaska,
North Dakota. So these were management plans that many stakeholders
came together. They served a lot of interests of hunters
and anglers that got thrown out the window. Okay, the
(02:11):
aim for everything we're talking about, what we're going to
talk about in a minute, The aim here is to
be able to a push by the administration to increase
resource extraction and industrialization. If you remember, back before a
lot of this stuff started brewing, a lot of this
stuff was whispers last June. But last June we saw
(02:36):
perhaps one of the most direct assaults on public lands,
and that was Utah Senator Mike Lee's pushed to sell
off a few million acres of public lands that got
enormous pushback. I would say, like enormous bipartisan pushback. We
(02:57):
had seen that happen. Again, what year was it the
Chaf's one, Jared, I'm sorry, do you remember what year
Jason Chafis proposal which was remarkably similar.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Twenty seventeen sounds right, yeah, twenty seventeen. I think I
was right.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Around twenty seventeen, there was another proposal to sell millions
of acres of public land that was met with enormous
bipartisan pushback.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
The media.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Seemed to be that the national media seemed to be
expo surprised by the fact that Hunter's co laced around
pushback on that issue that was by a Utah lawmaker
named Jason Chafits Senator Mike Lee. Just in June twenty
(03:44):
twenty five brought out a new plan to sell off
millions of acres that had different sort of code words.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
You know.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
I find that these plans are a lot of this legislation,
and we'll get into this in greater detail with Jeremy.
A lot of the anti public lands legislation, anti wilderness
aarrea legislation will carry like a a it'll carry fashionable buzzwords. Okay,
So one of Mike Lee's early versions of the sell
off was like, was couched in this language around affordable housing.
(04:18):
But then when you look at the details of the bill,
it didn't really do much to address affordable housing. Before
it was in twenty seventeen, it was like extra or
excess public lands. We have excess public lands. We're going
to get rid of some of them. The bill we're
(04:39):
going to talk about now. It uses another currently fashionable
buzzword in order to accomplish something that really doesn't do
much to serve the buzzword that it's being marketed under.
But going back to June, this big sell off push
was pulled, it was defeated. When that happened, a lot
(05:00):
of people I know in the conservation space were like,
We're cautious about declaring it a victory. They're like, that
was a we want to battle. We didn't win the war.
This will come back up very quickly. One might think
that Senator Lee, like it was kind of a bruising
on that. One might have thought he might retreat from
(05:21):
the idea altogether of kind of weakening protections.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
But but but he hasn't.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
He's he's he has a he's committed to the idea
of opening up, of weakening public lands protections, opening up
undeveloped lands to development.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
That just that's where he is. That's his commitment. Uh.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So we're looking at a new bill here that was
introduced on October second, and this is the one I
was saying that just hasn't, like, for whatever reason, hasn't
received a bunch of news. And I think it's because
it's entering an area that's quite clouded with all these
other things that I laid out, the role this rule
(06:08):
Ambler Road and why are resource management plans? So this
one's kind of flown a little bit under the radar.
And I've asked Jeremy Romero to come on. He was
the one that told me about it. I asked him
to come on and explain to me and explain to
our listeners what the Borderlands Conservation Act is all about.
(06:29):
And it ain't about conservation. So Jeremy, can you can
you talk people through what the Borderlands Conservation Act is, like,
what is it at face value?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
And what is it actually about? And then we'll get
into some details.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Yeah, you bet, Steve, Thanks for having me on to
talk about this issue. You know, I think you said
it brilliantly. It's a it's an attack on public LANs.
You know, Senator Lee, I think really took a stab
at at undermining public lands when we went through the
reconciliation process, and you know, the large effort to sell
off public lands, and essentially this is this is no different.
(07:11):
So in October, early October, Senator Lee introduced the Borderlands
Conservation Act with you know, in a nutshell, that bill
is focused on border security. Again, you said, and use
the phrase of kind of these these sexy terms, right,
these terms that are popular in society today, and border
security is one of those. And this bill is aimed
(07:33):
at at just that increasing border security along the northern
and southern borders in the United States, kind of creating
these hundred mile buffer zones in the northern and southern
borders and basically creates and gives Department of Homeland Security
the authority to manage these roads and an effort to
strengthen border security. And it does it by a number
(07:55):
of different measures that we'll talk about this in this conversation.
Really those measures, in my opinion, undermined the importance of
public lands and the protections forwarded to public lands, like
things like the nineteen sixty nineteen sixty four Wilderness Act.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Yeah, which are these points should we jump into first?
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Here?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Yeah, let's just talk about this hundred mile buffer kind
of the rationale behind, you know, inventoring these illegal roads
and trails.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
So yeah, I want to hit that because when we
talk about one hundred mile buffer, this will impact. You
have to appreciate like what we're talking about. So I'm
gonna tell people something obvious here. If we're talking about
if you look at a map of the United States
and then magined coming in from one hundred miles on
(08:47):
all of our borders north and south and Alaska, Okay,
you're taking in wilderness areas in Washington, You're taking in
wilderness areas in Idaho, You're taking wilderness area is in Montana.
Jumping eastward from there, where this this grabs hold of
all of the boundary waters area. It would come into
(09:12):
areas in Maine National Parks, wilderness areas in California, wilderness
areas in Arizona, wilderness areas in New Mexico, Big Ben
National Park in Texas, Tungus Wilderness Area in Alaska, wrangle
Saint Elias Park and Preserve in Alaska. So this is
a I mean this you can one hand go like, oh,
(09:34):
it's a one hundred mile buffer, but you need to
appreciate what we're talking about when we talk about a
one hundred mile buffer coming in from our borders, like
it's it's grabbing onto a huge swaths of land.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Yeah, that's exactly right. And I'll note that the one
you know, the one type or the types of land jurisdictions,
that this bill is not specific to our tribal land,
state lands, and private lands. Other than that, it's take
can you know, the stroke of a paint brush within
that hundred mile buffer, And any land that's administered by
(10:07):
the federal government under d o I and U s
d A is subject to these measures in this bill.
So as you mentioned everything, everything administered by d U I,
by us DA, all those national parks, all those uh
you know, forest Service units, all those b l M
Field offices, wilderness study areas, wilderness like, they are all
(10:28):
subject to the measures in this bill, all within that
hunter mile buffer, and those are there's a couple of
other key points when we get to the wilderness portion
of this that I'll also I'll make I'll make sure
to distinguish. But you know, basically within this hunter mile
buffer on the northern and southern boundaries, UH Department of
Homeland Security is going to work in coordination with d
U I and U s d A too, inventory what
(10:51):
they would consider illegal roads and trails that are been
that have been created by illegal border crossings. And that's
important because one, how do we herman if in fact
a road or a trail is created by illegal border crossing,
and if these agencies, if these land management agencies determine
that in fact these roads were created by illegal border crossing,
(11:14):
then it's providing DHS Department Homeland Security the authority to
then create and manage these roads as navigable roads for
the sake of border security. So installing infrastructure technology that
can monitor border security and illegal border crossings and put
(11:35):
and prevent those from happening in the future. And so
it really opens up this can of worms of you know,
deciding whether or not these roads actually are illegal, and
whether or not these trails are illegal and if so,
be able to be managed, and it doesn't really consider
the impacts to developing these roads. You know, currently a
(11:56):
lot of these agencies go through travel management plans where
they tory the road use system and determine whether or
not these roads are navigable or innavigable, and create this
kind of access plan, this map that you that I
that others can then access public plans, and they do
a pretty meticulous job of being able to lay out
(12:19):
this footprint of what's considered navigable. Right, you want to
you want to protect wildlife, you want to you know,
protect wildlife habitat, there's cultural resource protection when it comes
to managing these roads, and so allowing for this kind
of unregulated development of roads really I think puts a
(12:39):
lot of important things in the crosshairs along this buffer.
And and like you hinted to you, I mean one
hundred mile buffer to me, is is outrageous, right, I
mean we're talking from the southern the southern border to
almost Tucson, Arizona. Right. It encapsulates a lot of country
that they are claiming be important for border security. And
(13:02):
in my perspective, I think it's a little outrageous to
think that a hundred mile buffer and all the different
types of land jurisdictions and land management UH land jurisdictions
within that hunter mile buffer are really going to lend
to increasing border security.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
So I have struggle a little bit just to understand
even the logic there that it'd be that if you
were to determine if someone were to determine that a
road that an illegal road, say on BLM Land and
illegal road on BLM Land, or like an unregistered road
on BLM Land, or an illegal trail on BLM Land,
(13:39):
that they determined to have been utilized by illegal immigrants
or for my for for illegal immigration of some part,
that that would then give you justification to go in
and make it into a road.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
Wilders exactly.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah, in wilderness and non wilderness. It's it's mind boggling
to me to to think about how these how the
mandates in this bill and and those land management agencies,
how they will come to the conclusion saying that these
trails and these roads were created by illegal border crossing.
You know, how how do you determine that? Right?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Like?
Speaker 3 (14:20):
That's I think that's kind of the big question I
have in my mind is you know, when it comes
to a trail, for instance, I mean you and I
hunt a lot where we're in places where you know, livestock,
whether that's a you know, a grazing allotment or what
have you, or in a lot of areas we tend
to occupy. You know, if cattle are utilizing a trail
(14:41):
that they've created, and you know, let's just say there's
a boot track on there, does that mean that that
road was used and created by illegals and now it
gets to be managed by Department of Homeland Security and
in a fashion that allows them to access you know,
these these areas. If a road was created by illegal
(15:01):
OHV use, or it was once determined to be navigable
and has since been deemed innavigable, so it's no longer
accessible to the public, how do you determine that that
road was road was created by by illegal border crossing
and then be able to reopen that road?
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:19):
How The question I have next, next to what I
just pointed out, is then how do you enforce these
roads to be used for the intent in which the
bill describes and not for all this extracurricular activity like
illegal OHV use. I think there's I think there's a
bigger question to be had, which is who's gonna who's
(15:40):
gonna front the cost for developing these roads. I think
right now, when you look at the deferred maintenance to
agencies like uh for service in BLM, there's hundreds of
thousands of miles of roads that are deteriorating because these
agencies don't have the resources to manage the roads that
they have considered and deemed to be navigable through these
(16:00):
travel management plans. And we're asking we're asking these agencies
to create more roads and take away from roads that
they've already seemed to be accessible and the management and
the resources you know that they need to manage those roads.
There's a lot to unpack there, and so I think
(16:21):
there's a lot of questions, and I think the bill
doesn't do a great job of defining how these actions
are going to be conducted. And those are part of
the part of the many problems I have with the bill.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Yeah, in a minute, let's get into a little bit
of the how these bills come up, where they leave
so many details up to one's imagination, and that in
some ways was attributable to the sinking of the sell
off plan, where the sell off plan went through a
handful of versions. They had these permutations, and in the
end someone realized, and it was pointed out, and this
(16:57):
was acknowledged by the office that put it forward. It
was pointed out even though this was put together as
this idea of addressing affordable housing, and the way the
bill was written, you couldn't have prevented foreign governments from
buying the land. Right, So you wind up in this
thing like you're saying it's one thing, but then you're
(17:19):
not clarifying with enough level of detail about how it
would be determined. I would be able to take it
a little more seriously. If someone was talking about a
three mile buffer, a five mile buffer, a ten mile buffer,
I'd be able to look at it and be like, yeah,
I'm willing to at least take this at face value.
But when you've gotten one hundred miles north of the
(17:42):
border with Mexico or one hundred miles south of the
border in Idaho, like, at that point, I don't think
we're talking about immigration anymore, and so it opens up
this question of like, what is it really about. If
it was a five mile thing, I'd be like, Okay,
this is about immigration. One hundred miles is about something
(18:04):
entirely different, and we'll get to that in a minute.
But let's get into a couple of these components. One
of the ways that they're trying to sell this again
couching it in language that anyone would agree with. This
is like a tactic, right. You say, like, oh, border security, Well,
who wouldn't want border security? Right, must be a good
idea here. They're like, hey, this will help with search
(18:24):
and rescue. Explain that component.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Yeah, And it's important to note that the search and
rescue piece is basically also tied to this amending the
Wilderness Act.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Okay, so I'm out of order. Then let's get into
amending the Wilderness Act.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
You bet so. A big component of this bill is
to amend the nineteen six or nineteen sixty nineteen sixty
four excuse me, Wilderness Preservation Act to allow for the
use of developing roads using motorized mechanized travel of under
the hospice of search and rescue and border security, so
(19:04):
basically allowing the things that the Wilderness Act prevents for
the sake of border security. What's important to note is
that when it comes to search and rescue in wilderness areas,
a lot of the land use management agencies and local
law enforcement, local search and rescue already have plans in
(19:26):
place to one prevent more than is intended to when
it comes to you know, occupying and being in wilderness
areas to conduct those those search and rescue operations. So
they can already go in and use motorized mechanized travel
(19:47):
if it's deemed that they absolutely have to for the
sake of human life. They have these plans in place,
and they can go in there and they can fly
a helicopter, they can take a uh, you know, like
a gurney that's that's got a wheel on it, they
can travel in on potentially on four wheelers, or use
(20:07):
their motorized types of transportation in certain circumstances. These plans
are already coordinated and developed with those land use management agencies,
local law enforcement, search and rescue. And so what this
is trying to do is a you know, amend the
Wilderness Preservation Act to create those roads, to codify the
(20:29):
use of motorized mechanized operation in wilderness Act, which to
me is a really slippery slope. And earlier you mentioned
like how these bills are written and how kind of
things let's just say fly under the radar may not
be explicitly defined. This is an important piece because this
(20:50):
with this section of the bill does not clarify is
when it talks about amending the wilderness to create roads
motorized use with you know, for the sake of border security,
it does not explicitly mention that it's with that it's
wilderness areas within the hundred mile buffer, right, It's just
(21:12):
it's just amending the Wilderness Preservation Act. So technically it
applies to all wilderness areas, you know, aside from those
within that hundred mile buffer. So in my mind that
means if you can justify that building roads in wilderness
areas is for the sake of border security, it can
(21:33):
be it can be any wilderness in our country.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Or building roads is helpful for search and rescue apparently exactly. Yeah, okay,
we got into some of the details here. What is
your take the earlier I use like a term cynical,
and I'm a little I'm not totally happy with word
choice on that. But what you see is again and
(21:59):
again you see see these things that they're they're they're
trying to couch it as one thing, but what they're
talking about is something else. Okay, So here it's taking
this idea of border security, this idea of search and
rescue and and and lo and behold, what does it
really come down to? It comes down to like weakening
protections on wilderness areas and making it easier to.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Develop and do road building.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Uh do you like in your view and your analysis
of this, do you do you feel that that's fair?
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Like it?
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Do you feel that there really is I hate to
use it, but like, is there like a sort of
conspiracy of sorts of trying to use whatever tools are applicable,
whatever national crises we have, affordable housing, border security, whatever
it is, to try to just do anything to weaken
(22:54):
protections on wilderness areas and weakened protections on public lands.
And if that's true, like what is the end game? Like,
how does that ultimately get them what they want?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (23:05):
I mean I think, you know, from like the conspiracy perspective,
it's hard not to think that there's these ulterior motives
when it comes to these types of bills and legislation.
I mean we've seen time and time, you know, time
and time again where individuals like Senator Lee or others
(23:29):
just don't have the same perspective of public lands that
you and I or others do, and therefore I think
their perspective of public LANs is a much more you know,
let's just call it an asset driven mindset, where they
look at public lands and they see different types of
(23:51):
investments that they can return on these assets, right, different
types of ways that these lands can be more profitable
than they already are than just create open spaces where
we can recreate, where we can hunt, where we can fish.
And in their minds, I don't believe that this is
something that they enjoy seeing and how public lands are
used are utilized, and you know, for that reason, I
(24:13):
think we've seen these assaults on public lands through different
different efforts, the reconciliation processes that you that you meant earlier.
And so it's hard for me to think that these
bills when I see them, are just focused on what
the title of the bill is written as right I have.
I can't help but think that there's that there's these
(24:36):
these details, that there's these underlying efforts within within the
these bills that are aimed at attacking and undermining public
lands from multiple perspectives, like getting more access. Therefore you
can potentially have non you know, you can have more
resource extraction or irresponsible use of public lands. I think
(25:00):
it's a slippery slope. And I think they're they're recognizing
that they have to be a little bit craftier, a
little bit more creative and how they attack public lands.
And so you know, you said it, you said it
spot on, Like using terms like affordable housing, border security.
I think terms that maybe hit hit near and dear
to a lot of Americans, you know, lives and homes.
(25:24):
Like I do think by trying to create these kind
of false narratives, by trying to get people on board
for these ideas that really aren't the root of what
is intended by these pieces of legislation, I can't help
I can't help but think there's there's more to it
than than what we're reading.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Yeah, I don't want to use too hyperbolic of language here,
like like I just want to, you know, acknowledge these
things are coming from you know, patriotic people who no
doubt love their families and love their communities. It's just
we're like ideologically opposed an issue. My view is that
(26:03):
undeveloped landscapes are of extreme value and will become more
and more valuable over time, and that preserving them. Conserving
them comes at no cost to us. They're still there,
they will still be there later on. Once as the
world gets developed, as the nation gets developed, as our
(26:25):
last wildernesses get developed, will burned through an asset and
will later regret what we did. And I think that
there are some activities hunting, fishing, hiking, those are things
that I'm interested in. There are some activities that can
go on right now without having adverse impact on these
great American assets. So I don't want to when I
(26:48):
use the word conspiracy, I don't want to act like
someone's objective in putting this forward, that the objective is
to be like evil or something. It's just like a
different thing. Some people look at undevelop landscape and they
see wasted opportunity. I look at undeveloped landscape, and I
see an incredible asset in the nation's bank that can
(27:10):
bring enjoyment and mental health and physical health to all
Americans while we hold it. And it might be h
and I know, like without a doubt to me, will
be of far more value to future generations than it
is to us now. And and in in our in
our undeveloped landscapes are at their most valuable state as
(27:31):
they sit, right, it's like it's an asset. So yeah,
I don't want to put this in terms of of
good versus evil. It's like it's like it's an ideological
battle with real with real results, like like real things
are pivoting on this.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Okay, what now?
Speaker 1 (27:54):
And then you see where people put forward pieces of
legislation that you know aren't to be taken seriously, like
people do it. There's a performative quality to some legislation.
When there was talk of giving an example, when some
guy put forth legislation that would have put Trump on
(28:18):
Mount Rushmore, it was performative, right for a lot of
people that it was good for a laugh. It sparked
a lot of conversation like is there really room on
Mount Rushmore? What is Mount Rushmore made of? Where would
you put it? What's the history of Mount Rushmore? But
in the end, it was like a performative gesture. It
was never something that was meant to be advanced and
(28:39):
signed into law.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Right, is this is this like making a statement?
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Is it trying to like advance an idea that future
generations might pick up on?
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Like what is this? Is this serious?
Speaker 3 (28:56):
I think it can very well be serious, and I
do think it's somewhat performative. I think it's you know,
Senator Lee and other co sponsors, you know, diping their
their toe in the water to do a temperature check
and see how a bill like this is perceived and
whether or not it's going to get the support and
(29:16):
the attention to gain some traction and potentially move forward.
I hope it's it's kind of all smoke no fire
for a lot of the reasons that we've been talking about.
You know, it's it's interesting when you look at this
bill to see who the co sponsors are. And I
say that because there's only one co sponsor that's occupying
(29:36):
a state that is relative to the language and this bill,
and that Senator Cruise out of Texas. You don't see
other Republican or Democratic senators along these these border states
that are co sponsoring this bill.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Well, that's funny you mentioned that, because I mean Utahs,
it's well outside of the hundred Senator Lee's state of Utahs,
it's well outside the buffer. I see your representative from
Wyoming sits outside of the buffer. But you're right, Senator
Ted Cruz of Texas is has portions of his state
in the buffer zone and the very generous buffer zone.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
That's right, And you don't see individuals like Senator Danes,
Senator she He, Senator Rish, like you know, you know,
those senators on the northern part of the of the border,
those people who you would who you would think if
this was an issue that was really important, you would
think that the states that are going to be impacted
(30:39):
by this legislation would have more of a of a
perspective on the bill. Maybe that's a maybe that's a sign, right,
Like maybe that's a sign that this this bill really
is just kind of an attention seeker and not going
to get the traction that or the seriousness that people
are going to think when they read it. And for
(31:00):
that reason, like maybe that's why those individuals don't, you know,
aren't sponsoring the bill. And you know, obviously that's me
just being you know, rather presumptuous. But I think when
I when I see the lack of those co sponsors,
I just have to ask those questions.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Got it?
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And what do you think will happen? Like what's the
next step for a piece of legislation like this? Like
remember that remember that cartoon and your little kid, I'm
just a bill on Capitol.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Hill Like like what uh, like, what's what's next?
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Well, it was it was refer to the Committee of
Energy and Natural Resources. So, amongst all the craziness that's
happening in DC right now, this bill has to be
put on the calendar by by E and R, by
sending E and R. And then once it's there, they
have to to listen to the bill and they have
to vote on it to pass it out of committee,
(31:48):
and then there it goes on its own kind of
trajectory to potentially being voted on on the Senate floor.
Has to have a house companion. You know, it still
has a long route before it's even i would say,
remotely considered serious. But the fact that it was introduced
is serious enough for me to want to talk to.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
You about it.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Yeah, and this will come up under an early and
an early person that will get a look at this
as Senator Heinrich from New Mexico, who has you know,
who represents landscape within this buffer. He's a big oh,
you know, like a very informed, very dedicated defender of
(32:30):
public lands.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Like, what's his take on this going to be?
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Well? I imagine Senator Heinrich that, as you mentioned as
a champion for conservation, champion for public lands, somebody who
you know gets out on hunts and fish fishes on
our public lands. I think when he sees a bill
like this, he's gonna ask a lot of questions and
he's gonna pick it apart, kind of as we've been
picking it apart on this conversation. I don't think a
(32:54):
bill like this is going to actually, I know a
bill like this is not going to land well with
with Senator him Rick. I think it will do a
brilliant job of asking those important underlying questions of the
intention and rationale of this bill. And you know, with
that being said, I hope the result is is the
bill doesn't move out of committee and is essentially dead
(33:16):
upon arrival.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Yeah, but it is, man, it's like a very interesting
and like I said, I didn't know about it, and
you know we were together right around this time when
this came out. You're the one that explained it to me,
and I thought that regardless of where it lands, and
it's it's very early to say, it's a very it's
an interesting civics lesson and it's an interesting look into
(33:38):
how people are. And it's the point I keep making
an interesting look at how people could have a historic
extra grind, like a career long set of goals. In
this case, if your career long set of goals is
to reduce protections on public lands and open up developant
(34:00):
and industrialization of wildlands, that's like the career long goal.
The way in which you can look for opportunities in
the national dialogue to be like, oh, that's how I'm
going to talk about my perennial issue, and then the
conversation changes and there's like a lot of talk about
(34:21):
affordable housing.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
Let's say that's how.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
I'm going to talk about my perennial issue, and then
there's a lot of talk about illegal immigration. That's how
I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And it
brings to mind this analogy of that the bottle of
the wine stays the same, but you continue to apply
a new label onto that wine. And so it's just
(34:46):
as it's a fascinating glimpse into the thinking here, I
hope listeners like give like start paying more attention to
that in the years that are coming, as we continue
to have these conversations and thank you Jeremy to come
on and explaining this and telling me about it again.
I think it's, like I said, if nothing else, is
(35:06):
a great civics lesson for people.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Yeah, I uh, I really appreciate you letting me come
on and talk about the bill. You know, any attack
on public land is important to me to get out
there and and and talk about and advocate for public
lands and the right to hunt and fish and protecting
these areas for future generations. So we're going to keep,
you know, our eye on this bill. We're going we're
going to do our due diligence to to make sure
(35:31):
a bill like this doesn't doesn't have a future and
you know in the future, you know, keeping keeping ah,
you know, keeping a close eye on legislation that comes
out and looking at how they are somewhat uh, you know,
disguised in different ways. And I recommend people do their
their due diligence and look at look at bills, look
(35:52):
at legislation, not just for what the title of the
legislation is, but what the actual action items in legislation are.
And I encourage you to be active. Reach out to
you or you know, your congressional members, and you know
be be an engaged member of society. I think has
the reconciliation process and the public lands sealoff kind of
(36:13):
played out, we saw a tremendous amount of support from
everybody on both sides of the aisle, you know, whether
you whether you hunt and fished or didn't like it.
We all came together and pushed back on the public
land sealoff and it was an extraordinary thing to see.
And I just hope that we can continue to have
(36:34):
those shared visions when it comes to pieces of legislation
like this. So Steve, again, I think I thank you
for letting me come on and talk about this bill,
and we'll just keep tracking, keep tracking it.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Okay, uh again you're hearing from Jeremy Romero from the
National Wildlife Federation, a very avid.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Hunter angler out of New Mexico. Thank you, thanks again, Jeremy.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Thanks
Host
Steven Rinella
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!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.