Ep. 925: What's Next for Public Lands? with Land Tawney

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Wired to Hunt podcast, your guide to
the whitetail Woods, presented by First Light, creating proven versatile
hunting apparel for the stand, saddle or blind. First Light
Go Farther, Stay Longer, and now your host, Mark Kenyon.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to the Wired to Hunt podcast. This week on
the show, I'm joined by Land Tawny, the co chair
of American Hunters and Anglers, to discuss the recent battle
over public lands and what we should be looking forward
to and expecting in the coming weeks and months when
it comes to public lands and future threats. All right,

(00:40):
welcome back to the Wired to Hunt podcast, brought to
you by First Light and their Camo for Conservation Initiative.
And today we're talking public lands, and we are talking
about a recent controversy that's been brewing the last few
months that hopefully you're aware of. Hopefully you've seen this
either here on my social media or on the wire

(01:00):
Dunt podcast or the Mediator podcast or Kales podcasts, or
across many other platforms that have been talking about what's happening.
But in short, we have been experiencing a series of
different proposals to sell off public lands and these proposals
were a part of the One Big Beautiful Bill that's

(01:20):
been debated in the House and Senate and recently signed
into law by President Trump. And these proposals were talking
about doing everything from selling off hundreds of thousands of
acres of our federal public lands up to maybe as
much as three million acres of public lands. And as
again I hope you are aware, there was this massive

(01:43):
opposition to that, this massive pushback from hunters and anglers
and outdoor folks of all types, and ultimately we were
able to get the sale provision pulled out. There are
many other things still included in this bill that passed
that do impact public lands, but the sale part was
taking out. And so today what I want to do

(02:04):
is talk about what just happened, what we can learn
from it, what we can take from it and apply
to future advocacy and push back when the next thing happens,
when the next threat to our public lands or wildlife
or waters appears, and then finally take a deep dive
into what those next threats might be, what's coming down

(02:25):
the pipeline, what was still included in this bill the
past that impacts hunters and anglers and outdoor people and wildlife,
and what are some of these other things being proposed
right now or that might be coming that could impact
our access to public lands, our abilities to hunt or
fish or do anything out on these places. So that's
the topic today. Our guest is someone who has a

(02:47):
tremendous amount of experience in this world in advocating for
these things and rallying grassroots support to do something like
we just did stop this public land sale. And that
person that guest is Land. Tawny Land was the former
president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. He worked

(03:08):
previously to that for the National Wildlife Federation and the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and he now is the co
chair of a new organization called American Hunters and Anglers,
And he and his organization were deeply involved in the
grassroots pushback against this public land sale as well. And
he's been deeply engaged in many of these previous battles

(03:31):
for more than a quarter century. He's been working on
this stuff, so he has a deep well of knowledge
about what's happening, what's happened in the past, and what's
likely to come down the pipe in the coming weeks, months,
and years. So that's why Land is the guy to
talk to you here today. We're going to cover all
those things, what's happened, what's happening now, what could come

(03:53):
in the future, and then what we can do as
individuals to make sure that we stop the next one
and the next one after that, and making sure that
we have quality places to hunt and fish or backpacking
camp or simply have wild open space or wild animals
still out there or wildfish in the rivers. All of
that is in the game plan today. It's a great chap.

(04:14):
I'm excited for you to tune in. I'm excited for
you to be inspired and educated by Land and to
get out there and continue fighting the good fight yourself.
So that's what we're doing today. Very quick update. This
hat that I'm wearing if you're watching on video, is
a brand new hat for Wired Hunt. It's over on
the meat Eater store. If you're interested in repping this

(04:35):
pretty cool camo vintage whitetail hat yourself, you can check
it out at the meat eater dot com. Navigate to
the shop. You'll find it there, as well as a
whole bunch of new hats and other logo were so
check that out if you're interested in Otherwise, let's get
to my chap with land Tonic. All right, joining me

(04:58):
back on the show is mister land Tawny. Welcome back,
land Mark.

Speaker 3 (05:04):
Great to see you.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
You as well. I'm glad that we have occasion to
spend some time together. I wish he was under better circumstances.
Our topic today is not necessarily a fun one, but
glad to see your face again.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
Land Well, thank you. Sometime we're going to have to
get out in the woods and waters and do this
in a proper way.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
I agree with that one hundred percent agree with that.
I feel like last time, did you float the Smith
this spring? Was that right? I think we were talking
earlier this year and you were just about to or
just had.

Speaker 3 (05:33):
Yeah, no wet the foot of the Smith first week
of May.

Speaker 2 (05:39):
Yeah, okay, So maybe one of these days when you
pull that permit next time, invite me along and then
we can do this.

Speaker 3 (05:46):
Well, see there there could be a trade somewhere. You know,
that's such a special place that you need to experience,
especially if it stays the way it is hopefully right now.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
Yeah, yeah, for sure. So let's let's just get into it,
because there's a lot to talk about. We probably don't
have enough time to talk about everything. Anyone who has
a pulse that has been you know, a hunter or angler,
or really anyone who pays attention to the outdoors in
any kind of way, probably over the last two months
has seen what's been going on with our public lands.

(06:18):
They've heard about this public lands sale that was going
to be included in the One Big Beautiful Bill. We've
talked about it quite a bit across the media to
properties both here and Cal's podcast and Mediator proper. But
what I haven't got to do on this show yet
is really do like a like a what's the right word,
like a debriefing of what just happened, what we can

(06:41):
learn from it, and what's coming next. And so that
is the the job I'm signing you up for. Are
you Are you game to take on that role and
to kind of go down that road with me.

Speaker 3 (06:52):
Let's do this.

Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, okay, so you have been around the block, you
have seen this before, you've been deep engage in this
set of issues. We saw something pretty similar to this
back in twenty seventeen during the whole Chavitz deal. And
I'm curious, you've just seen over the last two months

(07:13):
this multiple different iterations of attempts to sell off public
lands simultaneous to this rising of awareness within the outdoor
and hunting a fishing community around what's happening in opposition
to it what we just saw. How is it different
in any kind of way from what we've seen in
the past.

Speaker 3 (07:33):
Great question, and thank you. I think that, you know,
the first piece that I would say is different is
back when Schaefis was trying to sell over three million
acres of public land that had nothing to do with
like tax breaks for billionaires. Like this is a totally
different mechanism, I would say. And so the iteration you
saw in the House and then in you know, the
two versions or three versions however many you want to

(07:55):
count from Senator Lee in the Senate, those were all
to payoff tax breaks for billionaires. And so I think
that's like a different scenario as far as what happened
with Congressman Schafitz. I would also say that what's different
this time is it's all being talked about as an
affordable housing right. That's kind of like the issue dejure
to talk about how to sell our public lands is

(08:17):
to talk about affordable housing. And so that's a new
tactic I think that Senator Mike Lee in particular has
grabbed onto and one that we're gonna hear more often.
And I think the third thing that I guess I
would say was different. I felt like back in twenty
seventeen it was really the sportsman's community, hunters and anglers
that led the pushback, and that was definitely seeing this

(08:39):
last go around. In fact, I think the breadth and
depth of that was even bigger. I mean, I think
that from brands to influencers, to individuals to organizations, that
pushback this time was way heavier than it was in
twenty seventeen. But I think in addition to that, the
rest of the outdoor community, so the mountain bikers and
the kayakers and the hike and the paddlers, like they

(09:01):
showed up in droves this time too. Like I think
the Outdoor Alliance in particular with Adam Kramer over there,
Nicole Brown, I mean, they just crushed it as far
as getting people to get engaged, and so that you know,
to me, I think it's like probably three big differences
is again kind of the difference of where it was
like proposed and this reconciliation bill. I think that the

(09:24):
overall idea of affordable housing, and then the third is
just the automatic pushback which is had created so different
but very similar.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, and it's one of those things where the whole
time this was going on, I kept thinking that twenty
seven to twenty sixteen, seventeen eighteen, it was all a
dress rehearsal, or it was all like a training ground
for this moment, because I felt like that primed the
pump for our communities and we were able to stop that.
But I felt like this felt like the big one

(09:55):
that we were now so much better prepared. There were
so many people who learned about this stuff back in
twenty seventeen and eighteen and became aware of it, and
now eight years later it was like, Oh, it's this
thing again. Now we know what's going on. It wasn't
like we were having to convince people that selling or
transferring our public linds were bad. We weren't having to
like establish stuff foundation as much. It was like, Oh,

(10:17):
this this thing is back in a more serious way
than ever, and everyone was able to activate. Did it
feel that way to you.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
Oh, it totally felt like that way to me. I
think that, you know that this time it also felt
like that these are on one side or the other,
right like there like this last time, like I think
that it wasn't quite as much of a call to
action in our community in particular, but this time it
was like if you weren't saying anything about it, like
who the heck are you right, like at that point,
And so I think that was different. But yeah, the

(10:45):
training grounds and I think that you know, a lot
of the tactics that got used back when you know,
Schaefletz was around, when Instagram was just kind of first starting,
right and remember all the comments that were on his
page going back months on posts that he had done
had nothing to do, you know, with with you know,
the sale of public lands, but people were mad. And
so I think that people remembered those tactics. And I

(11:08):
think that, you know, besides the emails that were sent
insides of the phone calls that were made, there was
a ton of stuff that happened on social media. And
I think, you know, one other thing I think it
would be different this time is that individuals stepped up
and did their own videos, you know, and like, these
are people with big followings, These are people with you know,
you know, a couple of hundred followers, but they took
it upon themselves to use social media to voice their opposition.

(11:28):
I think collectively that noise. Man, it was overwhelming for
you know, elected leaders, and that's what we exactly wanted
to do.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
Yeah, so here's another thing that stood up to me.
And I'm curious if you notice this or if it's
just like selective bias on you know, like when you
buy if you buy a Tacoma, all of a sudden,
you start noticing everybody else as Tacoma's right. So maybe
this is that effect. But it did feel like this.
Over the last couple of months, the idea of calling

(11:56):
your elected officials became more public, became more like, the
intimidation factor around it, I think disappeared for a lot
of people I heard. I had stories from more people
than I've ever heard of, average folks who have never
done this before, who all of a sudden were like, Okay,
I'm finally doing it, and then everyone being like, oh,
it's not so bad, it's easy, you should do it.

(12:17):
I've heard of more people making phone calls this time
around than ever before. And I'm wondering if A, if
you think that's true, and it b if that is true,
which I think it is. That's like a huge silver
lining coming out of all this, because I think we
maybe have like removed like a safety off the bear
spray for our community that all of a sudden they realize, Okay,

(12:38):
now we know how to use this thing and we
can use it again that in the past we haven't.
Does that resonate with you?

Speaker 3 (12:43):
Just don't spread on yourself. No, I think it totally
does resonate with me. And I think that you know,
it's easy to send an email, and I think that
you know, the feedback that we're getting is that email
just doesn't really cut through the noise a phone call does, right,
And I think that it is scary, But when you
see other people doing it, and then like when you

(13:06):
have something that you care so much about, mark like
that you care so much about and it's halady to
be taken away from you, you're willing to take that
risk and get on the phone and make a phone
call because it matters so much to you, And then
you realize it's not as big of a deal and
you tell your friends and then they you know, I
think that that that momentum builds. But I would totally
agree that that the phone calls this time around. And

(13:27):
I think, you know, I credit folks like you that
made phone calls like on camera, right, like you know,
this is that easy, right, I'm gonna make a phone
call right here. And I think that when people see that,
they're like, Okay, maybe it doesn't so scary.

Speaker 2 (13:38):
Yeah, yeah, it really isn't. I've yet to have anyone
argue with me or or quibble with my perspective. Uh.
Usually it's it's just a sad, lonely, overworked intern. Just
it's gonna take whatever you say down.

Speaker 3 (13:55):
They're so yeah, they're keeping score right, like they're you know,
they're taking your name and where you're from them, and
it matters if you're from that state, Like it really matters.
Not that should stop us from calling let's say, people
like Mike Lee, but they're keeping a tally, right, and
so they're just and the more that they get then
they're going to go report that to the boss. And
so you may be getting you know that overwork intern.

(14:16):
As you say, one be polite to them, they may
be chief of staff at some point. You should also
just treat everybody with respect anyways, but that stuff does
trickle up.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah, Are there any other I hate to say wins,
but like a silver lining to what we just experienced
and everything that's gone on. Are there any of the
things that came out of this? And I say all
this with the realization that we'll get to the fact
that it's not really done. There's there's much more going on.
But we did just kind of win a battle. We

(14:47):
won a small battle in a larger war. A bunch
of other stuff that's not great still happen, which we'll
talk about here in a second. But coming out of
the fact that one big, beautiful bill has passed, we
got a little portion of it taken out. Is there
any else? Is there anything else you take away from
this moment, from this several month experience, the way as

(15:08):
the community went through through this win, anything else you
would take out either as just a is a key
takeaway or a silver lining or something we can learn from.

Speaker 3 (15:18):
You know, a lot of people say you learn you
know more from losses than you do from wins, and
I kind of think that's bullshit, especially right now, Like,
you know, we think about what just happened, and in
some ways it didn't surprise me. But also you never know, right,
you never know what the people are going to do.
There's so much that are coming at us on so
many fronts. Is this going to be the place? And

(15:38):
it happened to be where everybody came together. And what
everybody should take away from that is, oh my goodness.
Look low democracy works when we all demand something. When
you are a Republican, Democrat, independent, you might not even
have voted in the last election, but when you use
your voice collectively, like when we use our voices collectively,
like look what we can accomplish. And so, you know,

(16:00):
as you said, like this was like a battle. I mean,
I like to I've been using this analogy. You know,
we're celebrating folks that got it out of there, which
I think is totally awesome. But that's like celebrating the waiter,
you know, for plucking the hair out of the soup,
Like that's that hair should have never been in that
soup in the first place. And who are the damn cooks,
you know, and how do we keep it out of
there going forward? And so I think we should celebrate it.

(16:22):
We all came together. The squeaky wheel still gets to
grease in this country. I'm very surprised that this is
kind of the issue, you know, that was the one
that brought us all together, But it also takes solace
in it. And in some ways I'm not surprised because
I know that you know, these lands again, they don't
matter who you are, and they belong to all of us.
And what a legacy that we have. And I think

(16:43):
people are really you know, whether that's you know, the
education that's happened since twenty seventeen. Mark, I think you
made astute observation. You don't have to convince people this
is a bad idea. It was like a hell no,
besides a very very small fraction. So that was great,
and I think we should all take solace in that.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
Yeah, you know, another thing that stood up to me
was that this was another terrific example of the influence
and impact we can have when we come together on
an issue across party lines, when we set aside whatever
team we like to say we're part of and instead
just focused on an issue and said, hey, maybe I'm

(17:22):
a Republican or maybe i'm a Democrat or maybe I'm
an independent, doesn't matter. This idea of selling off republic
lands is a bad idea. So I'm going to go
to a protest and stand next to the Maga hat
wearing or the rainbow T shirt wearing or the whatever
person right who cares, because we care about this thing
so much. And to your point that the wheel was

(17:43):
really squeaky when you stand up with all these different
types of people and you force people in power to listen,
when they can't just say, oh, those are just the
people that hate me anyways, when instead it's like the
people that hate you, the people that are kind of
on the fence about you, and the people who voted
for you, when they say, hey, this is a bad idea.
That influence has changed, and that is something that we

(18:06):
need to remember today with the current administration. It's something
we need to remember three years from now, with the
next administration and the next one and the next one,
no matter who is in power. There are a lot
of folks out there who maybe have a different team
on their T shirt title, but we share many common interests,
especially when it comes to public lands, waters, wildlife. We

(18:26):
can set aside whatever differences we have to come together
on these core shared things and actually see success because.

Speaker 3 (18:33):
Of it totally. And I you know, I think the
sale of public lands is an easy one to come across.
And we start talking about the management, you know, of
public lands, and that maybe is a different one to
coalesce around, right, But I think you learn some trust,
maybe as you're saying, you know, and some you find
some shared common grounds so you can have conversations about
other issues. And I don't want to be too Pollyannis

(18:53):
and say that you know, now we're going to like
sing off the same sheet of music in our community forever.
That's not going to happen. But I think when you
do have those shared experiences and that shared I guess
just ultimate goal and it's a great way to come together.
And yeah, I mean, you know, so goes public land,
so goes America. And so if we can come together here,

(19:14):
I think we can work on other issues.

Speaker 2 (19:16):
Yeah, okay, so we'd beat back this iteration of Mike
Lee's public land sale. Our work's done, everything's good and
gold and moving forward.

Speaker 3 (19:25):
Right, you know, that would be so awesome if we
could just right off into the sunset, get on the water,
go out get in the woods, you know, and just relax,
which you know, I think. Yeah, there's two things I
would say about that. One is that none of what
we have, this conversation that you and I are having
a day work, none of it happened by accident.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
Right.

Speaker 3 (19:43):
There's been battles and I mean wins and losses for
you know, almost two hundred years of the modern day
kind of conservationist country and even longer than that. But like,
like let's just remember that, you know, like this is
an ongoing thing that will never be over, and then
kind of you know, take some solid that, right, like
we get to be part of what's next. But what's

(20:04):
next is like the onslide is still here, Like you know,
this is just like I think, using your words, like
this was a small victory in the overall war against
our public lands, in our public wildbite. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
So, so I want to talk through some of the
other things that were included in the bill that just passed,
But before that, I just want to see if you
have heard any more details on a rumor that I've
heard a little bit, which is that Lee might be
still trying to introduce something separately in the somewhat near
future with some revised version of a land sell. Do

(20:36):
you have any word on that, any details on that,
anything like that coming down the pipeine anything?

Speaker 3 (20:42):
No. I mean I saw a story from Kirk Siegler
this morning out of National Public Radio that's, you know,
kind of mentioned that Mike Lee is going to you know,
be introducing something soon. He's talked about it, you know,
after he pulled it out. You know, I'm not done,
you know, like, you know, thanks for the feedback, but
I'm coming back for more, you know, And he's coming
back with it. You know what it will look like

(21:03):
and when I'm not sure, you know, if he does
bring it, bring it on, man, Like I just it
gives our community something to colss around. I get worried
at some level. It's a distraction though, from other things
that are going on, right, and so maybe that's there
playing chess and they're trying to distract us, and oh,
we got this, and so now if you use our energy,
we're not going to use it over here, right, And
I worry about that a little bit.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
I wonder the exact same thing, because what was interesting
was during this whole big beautiful bill debate when it
went through the House version, and the House version of
the sale was being debated. It took all the oxygen
out of the room, right Like, everyone in the hunt
fish and environmental space had to talk about the sale
because that was the big one. Nothing else could be

(21:45):
focused on. And then that park got pulled out. And
then all of a sudden like, okay, let's look at
everything else that's in there. Oh, there's too at that time, like, oh,
Boundary Waters is still in there. Oh h the Arctic
National Wilife refuse drilling was still in there. Oh, like
I think at that point, the Ambler Road thing was
still in So everyone's start focusing all these other things
that had been kind of hidden beneath the land sale.
The Senate version comes around, all that stuff's in there,

(22:08):
and then they say, hey, the land sales back. And
then again it sucks all the oxygen out of the room.
Nobody can focus on anything else. Nothing will break through
because importantly we had we focused on that. But there's
no way you can get a bunch of communities like
ours to be able to say like, oh, hey, we're
worry about point A and point B and point C
and point D. That just doesn't doesn't work. So by

(22:30):
putting the land sale in there, it basically secures passage
for almost everything else because you just can't get enough
noise and attention around all these other issues. Yep, I've
wanted the same thing. It wasn't all a ploy to
get everything else through.

Speaker 3 (22:45):
I mean, we could be conspirabs theorists and maybe think that.
I think this has been a ploy since the administration
of New Congress took over, and we're just going to
give you. I mean you talked about earlier. This is
like a shotgun approach, right, We're gonna shoot as many
things at you and you got to dodge all the
bullets are push things back, and so that's eventually something
mix it through, right, And so I think this is
an overall strategy. But do I think that they did

(23:07):
it on purpose for it the Arctic, you know, in particular,
probably not. I think Mike Lee is so dogmatic about this.
That's why. I mean, this guy's asked handed to him
and he's talking about bringing it back right away. You know,
if I was his senate colleagues, I'm like, one, why
are you wasting our time? Because we know what's going
to happen with this, And then Two, why you get
putting us on the spot like this is a the
you know, distraction the other things that we want to do,

(23:28):
and the people have spoken and every single time you
bring this up, you're just gonna get slapped back. And
I you know, Mike Lee is a lot more long
term about this mark as you know. And I think
that he's never going to change his tunes. So I
don't think it was a play on his point. I
think the overall strategy right now has just hit us
with so much flood the zone, right, I think there's
a way to say it, and so that we don't

(23:49):
know what to do right.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
So that said, within this bill, like setting everything else aside,
like I don't care about anything else? Who cares in
this instance? Just focusing on things specific to public lands, waters, wildlife?
Like are this lane that we're talking about here? What
else within the bill that just passed are you most

(24:21):
concerned about or think that we most need to flag
and be aware of, Like, oh, this thing happened, What
are the ramifications of this? Is there any you know,
recourse we have? What stands out to you is the
most concerning things that are still in there.

Speaker 3 (24:36):
Yeah, I mean I talked about one that isn't right.
I think they took out the Boundary Waters, you know,
that House version it got passed, and then there was
this manager's amendment, which gets super nerdy, but they were
basically saying this thing in there is a poison bill
because it's not going to pass the rules mostly than anything.
And so I think the Boundary Waters dots bullet there,
you know. And then I got back over to the

(24:56):
Senate and then that didn't get put in. I think
that was partly because the rule, but I also think
that you know, it's a special place and if you
if you can, Jill, you know, if you can, you know,
do a copper sulfide mine a quarter mile south of
the Boundary Waters, you could do that anywhere, right, I mean,
you know that landscape, how important it is. And so
like I was happy that that was taken out. Something

(25:18):
that did make it through that we've already kind of
talked about is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, you know,
and what I hope people understand about the Artic National
while their refuge, and it was set aside when they
were doing more development, you know on the north slope,
Like this wasn't like this is, hey, let's just set
this thing aside for you know, shits and giggles. It
was done as a way to protect, you know, a

(25:39):
place while you were going to be defiling another place,
right and so this Arctic national wile, that refuge which
I've never been to, but you just were there. I
guess this's I take that in the boundary waters and
I bring them both up almost in the same venue.
Is that if you can go and destroy these places
or defile these places, you can do it anywhere. And
so they're like these things we put up on this pedestal,

(26:00):
and if you can go there, then you can go anywhere.
And I and so that one that made it through,
you know, and the idea there are forcing leases, you know,
four hundred thousand acres. I I just you know, the
last go around of Lises, it didn't go well, you know,
like not many people bought you know, like these leases,
and so we'll see what happens. Just go around with it.

(26:21):
I do that you're forcing leases is just ridiculous to me.
So that's a major one I think in my mind
for sure, not only if you have thoughts about that one.

Speaker 2 (26:31):
Yeah, I mean, I echo everything that you just said. There,
it's a it's a place where you know, the vast
majority of the Arctic is open to drilling and leasing
in many parts on the on the western Arctic side,
there's this rare slice of coastal habitat left that's untouched.
That's part of this last great intact ecosystem, that's the

(26:55):
calving ground for the last caribou herd that's not precipitously declining.
You can go on and on and on with like
the superlatives about this place. I mean, to your point like,
are there a few last places that we don't have
to do this too? And unfortunately it seems like some
folks don't think so. But yeah, after getting to experience

(27:17):
it myself and just really recognize what a rare resource
that is on its own as it is, it's heartbreaking
to think of that changing. But there's there's there's unfortunately
many examples of that, whether it's the Boundary Waters or
the southern part of the Brooks Range where the Ambler
Road is proposed, or I mean many other places I'm

(27:41):
sure we're gonna talk about. So that's uh, as you
mentioned earlier, it's it's been going on for decades and
decades and decades. And it was funny when I wrote
my book, you know, six years ago or seven years
ago or whatever, it was, what I realized was that
thing right there, which is that as long as we
have had this public land system, have had these debates,
we have had these fights, We have had these battles.

(28:03):
And from one perspective, that can be like really discouraging
when you recognize, like, oh, wow, this has been going
on forever, It's going to continue forever. As long as
we have these places, people will see dollar signs and
want it. So that can be depressing, But on the
flip side, it can also be encouraging because every single
time there's been one of those threats, one of those battles,

(28:25):
one of those fights, there have been hunters and anglers
and outdoor recreators and conservationists of all stripes and types
who have stood up and spoke out and fought back.
And we've won a whole lot of those battles, not
all of them, but we've won a lot. And so
it's kind of like in our in our DNA a
little bit. It's what we do. We protect these places,

(28:45):
and there's precedent that we can win some of them,
So that is encouraging in some ways.

Speaker 3 (28:53):
But one more, it's a lot. It's a lot, right, Like,
and I think again you can be overwhelmed by that,
like this fight's never going to be over, and that
we continue to like have to you know, push back
against these things. It seems like they come in cycles.
You know. I think you talked about, you know, the
Arctic has been a political football for the last twenty years.
You know, I think the sale of public lands seems

(29:15):
to come up every eight to ten years, you know,
and and so these things come back. But it's also,
like I will say what I said before, like it's
so rad that we're still doing stuff that like Theodore
Roosevelt was fighting for that, alder Leopold was fighting for that,
Rachel Carson was fighting for you know. I mean I
think that, like it's kind of cool to be a
part of that whole thing. You talk about that bill

(29:36):
and one more, you know, there's a lot of stuff
in there, but there's another piece in there that takes
you know, infrastructure money away from the National parks. And
so the National Park System got some money to work
on infrastructure. You know, I saw an article a couple
of days ago that in June they had the highest
visitation in Yellowstone and Glacier than they've had ever, you know,

(29:57):
which has been happening for the last decade. And so
you had you know, I think it was like three
hundred and fifty to four hundred million dollars that they
took out, you know, for for actual maintenance and like
infrastructure for our parks. And I'm like, you know, here's
this amazing renewable resource. You know that people are going
to go there because like, this is what they want,
this is where they want to recreate. You've seen all
this data. It contributes to this one point two trillion

(30:20):
dollars of economic output, which is the entire outdoor you
know economy. Why are you taking away from the very
things that care and feed. That doesn't sound it doesn't
sound very like fiscally responsible. I would say to to really,
you know, take away the resources from the very things there.
You know, if you care and feed, not only can

(30:41):
we maintain that one point two chillion, but we can
also grow that. So that is one that I'll call
out every single time just because like I think it's ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (30:50):
Yeah, and you know, On the I love the idea
of being fasically conservative and making sure we're not breaking
the bank for our kids, but it's hard to make
that argument to use that as your defense for, you know,
trying to sell off our public lands or trying to
pull back funding from our land management agencies or anything
like that. In one hand, but then on the other,

(31:11):
in this same bill, you reduce royalty rates on the
gas and oil companies that are extracting oil from our
public lands. So I don't think people realize this that
there's this whole thing that saying, hey, we're trying to
be more basically conservative, but this bill reduced the dollars
the oil and gas companies pay back to the government
for taking oil and gas out of our public lands.

(31:32):
So instead of like trying to make this stuff more profitable,
we just made it less profitable. I have a hard
time spurring that one.

Speaker 3 (31:39):
Yeah, that's uh. I mean, that's again like, don't don't
don't look at what we're saying, look at what we're doing, right,
I think we have to look at what they're doing.
And in that case, these companies have been paying that
for decades and that's the cost of doing business. Like,
it's not like oil and gas is doing horrible right now.
They're having record profits, and so to me, that was
just you know, a nod in the to folks so

(32:00):
they can make more money, which you know that's gonna
be a select few. So it didn't. I mean, the
big beautiful bill was ugly in many ways.

Speaker 2 (32:09):
So here's another one, a big win that we had
back in I guess it was early twenty twenty, maybe
when it signed or late twenty nineteen. It's all blurred now,
but the Great American Outdoors Act was a great win
for us as the honey and fishing and outdoor community.
That was signed into law by the Trump administration, and
they have celebrated that and rightfully, so I'm really glad

(32:32):
they signed into law, and I'm glad that there were
Republican Senators who helped push that across the finishing line.
That's awesome. But now we're seeing some of those funds
pulled back. That authorized permanently authorized the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, but I've been seeing those funds are being pulled. Now,
can you can you fill me in and focus in
a little bit more on what's going on with the

(32:54):
land and Water Conservation Fund and some of those dollars.

Speaker 3 (32:58):
Yep, sure, So I'd say things one, there was some
money that was in the actual Big Beautiful Bill. It
was two hundred million dollars if I'm correct, That was
for a portion of the Land of Water Conservation Fund
dollars it was going to originally get pulled out that
got put back in. So we missed, we dodged a
bullet on that. There airs a budget that's proposed by
the Presence. This is separate from the Big Beautiful Bill.

(33:19):
This will be a budget that will be implemented in
twenty twenty six. But it takes four hundred million dollars
from Land of Water Conservation Fund away in that bill
and puts it back to the General Treasury, which I
want us to like rewind history just a little bit.
Is that when President Trump was president first go around,
he had a budget which totally completely zeroed out the

(33:41):
Land of Water Conservation Fund. So it took it from
you know, its potential at nine hundred million dollars all
the way to zero. Then a couple months later, Senator
Danes and Corey Gardner are running for reelection. You know,
Danes is from Montana, Corey Gardner from Colorado. Both Republicans
came to him and said, man, the Land of Water
Conservation Fund is so important to our constitutions. We need

(34:01):
to get something done that permently authorizes, you know, this
fund at nine hundred million dollars a year. The President's like,
I think his words were sweet, get me something on
my desk and I'll sign it. Well, that's when all
the work out put into describes as it was, awesome bill,
great American outdoors. Actly, I only did it have a
land of Water Conservation Fund in there, but like twelve
billion dollars for you know, maintenance on our national parks,
national force. Amazing sign into law. We all celebrate, which

(34:24):
we should, as you described, like I remember like making
a ton of phone calls. We had centered Danes on
a zoom call when I was back at back up
to under Nador. Is amazing. That's fast forward. Second administration.
The first time he gets to you know, put a
budget forward and here's this bill that he just signed
into law, and I wants to cut it by four
hundred million dollars, right and so almost in half. And

(34:47):
to me, man, that's just like that's straight political talk.
Is what we just saw, Like what happens in politics
is that you they say what you want to hear.
Actually something happens because it was politically salient. But then
the original intent of gutting that pro is now there.
And so the good news is is that's just a
proposal by the president. Right, So the president gets a
budget proposal together. Now only did he gout you know,

(35:09):
landwater controvational phone, but he gutted our you know, our
public land management agencies in a huge way as far
as how they're going to manage. But that goes to Congress.
Then Congress is like, thanks for that. Now we're going
to do our own thing. And we're seeing obviously the
president has a lot of influence over this Congress in particular,
but the Congress starts over and they basically do their
own thing with the idea of thinking about the president's

(35:31):
budget because ultimately he has to sign it. So we
have a lot of time with LWCF, I would say
to push back against this ill fated idea. And you know,
since it's been used in every single county in America,
you know, and every single elected official has some project
in their district that I feel, you know, okay, but
it's going to be one that the people are going
to have to step up on really quick.

Speaker 2 (35:53):
Just in case someone doesn't know what the LWCF is,
can you give us the thirty second cliff notes.

Speaker 3 (35:59):
Sir Water Conservation Fund, established in nineteen sixty four, takes
money from offshore oil development in the Gulf of Mexico
puts it back towards conservation access. And like I said,
every single county, if you've ever been to a swimming pool,
a golf course, or a soccer field and a small
community in particular, that's probably paid for by the Land
Water Conservation Fund. Any single time you've been on a

(36:20):
boat ramp or a river access site, that's usually paid
for by the Land Water Conservation Fund. And so not
only that was used for you know, big kind of
purchase conservation easements across this country, for wildlife corridors and
for sportsman's access. So it is like one of the
tools for access and conservation and just recreation in general
in this country. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
Huge, Okay. So, so we've talked about the big beautiful
bill the past. What's still in it, what's not still
in it. We've talked about some of this budget stuff
a little bit. What's what's the next big thing you
think you can back to, like flood the zone. There's
a lot of stuff going on. There's many different proposals

(37:01):
and potential legislation and administrative actions that will influence public lands, waters, wildlife.
But what's the next big one that you want to
shine a light on that we should be aware of.

Speaker 3 (37:13):
So I talked about like the three d's right, So
in the first D would be defund and we'll talk
a little bit more about that in a second. Then
you talk about dismantle, and then all towards the idea
of divest and divest is just the fancy word for
sell it, you know off. And so let's talk about
the defund We've already talked about that already. Like this budget,

(37:34):
just to put a finer point on it, is going
to be a major deal for a public lands management
agencies in twenty twenty six. They've already you know, taken
huge hits on staffing in particular, but they've been you know,
underfunded for a couple of decades leading up to this already. Right,
we haven't kept up with inflation, we haven't kept up
with like the you know, the amount of UH, I

(37:55):
would say, use these public LANs are getting, which continues
to go up I described earlier, and so that defund
and I think is huge. The next one, so we've
already talked about that. The next one I would talk
about is just just dismantling. And so Supreme Court just
ruled last week that it's okay for the Trump administration
to go around Congress and do reductions in force through

(38:15):
the agencies. And so all the firing basically that happened
through DOGE has now kind of been said to the
advice the Supreme Court that was okay, and it opens
up the door to do it again. And so, you know,
I've got friends within the agency. I have, you know,
retired folks that have folks that have just left calling me,
and they're so nervous about what this next one's going

(38:36):
to look like, especially you know, as we're facing fire season.
You know here in Montana it's not as bad yet
as as it probably could be, but it's starting and
and you know we've already gonna be working on a
really skeleton crew there. And so what happens I think
that's that's dismantling. And I say these two things. You
if you break it and somebody's got to fix it,

(38:57):
and how do you fix it. You privatize it, and
that's kind of like the game plan that we're seeing.
So then you get to that, you know, that last
word divest and so those two we got to be
paying attention. And so how do we push back against that? Well,
I think first go around, when the national parks were
in such trouble, in particular, because national parks are you know,
again like celebrated probably as the crown jewel, you know,

(39:19):
of all of our public lands. When they were being
reduced in staff, people started pushing back, and that's an
administration said, well, we're going to hire back, you know,
some people temporarily, right. I think Doug Bergen came out
and said that, and if they have not done yet,
by the way, but that was because there was so
much pushback from the people. And I think to senators
in particular, you don't think the administrations THAT'SAI thely going
to listen, but when senators start calling them, they have
to listen to those senators for two reasons. One because

(39:42):
they're senators and they're one of the checks and balances
on the administration. But two, they have to be elected.
In order for the administration to get done what they
want to do, they have to have, you know, a
party and leadership. So push back against the defunding, pushed
back against this next riff or reduction in force. I
guess that is what it's called when it happens, because
I think that and even preemptively doing that right now

(40:05):
with your senators and you know, other elected leaders I
think will help push back against. But those are two
that I'm pretty nervous about.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
I'm just gonna say. You know, there's kind of like
an in between between the dismantle and divest, which is
decry right where it's they defund they dismantle, and then
they call foul on our public land management, and they say, see,

(40:34):
the federal government should be should not be managing these lands.
The federal government shouldn't have these places, because look at
what a lousy job they're doing managing your force. Look
at what a lowsy job they're doing dealing with traffic
in the national parks. Look at what a lousy job
they're doing on a B or C. All the while
the Congress is the ones who are controlling the purse strings.

(40:56):
Who are making it nearly impossible for these agencies to
do their job. So it's it's wild, it's a it's
an incredibly effective strategy probably, and it's it's a shame
that they can get away with this, because yes, they
are basically creating these circumstances themselves that allow themselves to

(41:20):
tell the story that gives them rationale to say transfer it,
sell it, get rid of it, or let us just
like you know, extract as much resources as we could
off of it because you know, the A, B and
C isn't working. So it's it's, uh, I don't know this.
This sounds hyperbolic maybe, but it's kind of malevolent, like

(41:41):
it's it's it's a pretty uh I'm not I'm sure
there's plenty of people who aren't, you know, in on
some kind of like deep dark plan to get rid
of our public lands. But there's a few people probably
there like, hey, this is how we're going to do it.
There's think tanks that have been writing about how to
do this for years, for decades, and some of the
people have positions of power influence. Now, so's it's not

(42:03):
something you know, I don't care if you are a
Republican or a Democrat or somewhere in between. If you
use these places to go on your elcons or your
deer hunts or trout fishing trips or whatever, this is
stuff that matters that we got to step outside of
our teams and just say, hey, this isn't the place
to be messing around.

Speaker 3 (42:22):
You're totally right, and I do. I think it is systematic, right,
And I think that if you think about Project twenty
five or I don't know if you've seen Homesteading two
point zero, but it's all this is all about divesting
public lands. These are people written by like, you know,
William Perry Penley, who was Director of Bureau Plant Management
in the last Trump administration. Like, these are things that

(42:42):
have been talked about for a long time and I've
said it, you know, Center Mike Lee is not going anywhere,
and this affordable housing is just the latest kind of
piece like that he's talking about. But what he really
is going to be talking about soon is going to
be this, oh they're broken, let's, you know, you know,
solve them and privatize them. So no, you're totally right.
I think I'm going to start using that word to cry.
I like it well done.

Speaker 2 (43:03):
So of the you know, as we've been talking about,
there's been all of this noise, all these different things
kind of clouding the waters, and this public land sale
definitely did that in a big way. We've been talking
about the kind of the defund divast or the defund, dismantle,
divest and and that kind of trajectory of things. But

(43:28):
you know, outside of that, or maybe expanding on that,
what are some of like the other, if any any
other specific actions that you expect we need to be
you know, starting to get educated on or start moving on,
because this funding stuff is kind of it's kind of
high level, it's kind of I don't I don't know

(43:51):
how to quite put the words to it. But when
we hear about funding, there's all these different budgets, as
you mentioned, there's the budget from the President and the
Congress puts together their budget, and there's all these many,
many move in parts. It's less tangible, I guess than
what I'm getting at the firings seem somewhat tangible, but
again maybe a little bit outside of I can't quite
draw a circle around who talked to for every one

(44:12):
of these issues or how to address every one of
these issues. Are there any other more tangible specific threats
outside of that that we can keep tabs on? I mean,
you mentioned bounder waters earlier. That's probably one because that's
back on the table in a different kind of way.
But are there any other specifics you want to make
sure we cover here?

Speaker 3 (44:33):
I mean, that's a good question. I mean I think
you know, within the budget, it's sure it gets like
it's it gets pretty complicated pretty quickly, and it kind
of feels like I think you were searching for a word.
Maybe that's like like it's not tangible, right, Like it's
hard to like put your arms around it. That said,
you know, there's also you know, there's pushes within the

(44:54):
budget to let's say, take away kind of the bird
banding program in this country, right, bird banding, especially on
waterfowls one of the ways that we count waterfowl, one
of the ways we see what kind of hunter take
is on waterfowl. And so that program goes away, it's
going to be a lot harder to count ducks and
a lot harder to set seasons on ducks. And so
I think as this budget kind of rolls out, I

(45:15):
think they'll be individual things that we can all point
to that are much more specific and tangible versus just
like kind of these large numbers and what does that
mean to these agencies? Right So, I think point that's
something to look at when you talk about boundary waters.
You know, you got Congressman Stauber's bill in the House
that's like basically, let's open it up and let's just
get this copper mind, you know done. Then you have

(45:37):
Senator Tina Smith's bill that's like, no, hold on, like
this is a special place, let's not you know, you know,
put a comprom sulfied mind, put a mile south. And
so those two are competing, they're in different chambers, one
to say hell no to and the other one to
say hell yes too. So I think those are some things.
I think we'll find more things like that. Like I
know that they're starting to be talk about what we're

(45:58):
going to study areas in particular. There's some conversations going
on around road those lands right now as well, And
so I think there'll be specific areas. You know, you
talked about the Ambler Road, Like we're not done with
that one either, you know. We let's talk about like
the Eisenbeck National Wildlife Refuge, which is up in Alaska too,
which is amazing place that they want to put a

(46:20):
road right to the middle of that. And that's actually
the portion they want to put it through is wilderness,
and so you do it there, you can kind of
do it anywhere. There's another kind of one of those ideas,
and so I think we'll have specific places, you know,
there'll be some positive things in like that too. You know,
there's been a bill that's been floating around for a
long time here in Montana called the Blackfoot Clearwater Conservation
Act that's basically been working with loggers and with snowmobilers,

(46:44):
with hikers, with hunters to come up with what the
landscape looks like and some places you're going to have,
you know, more timber development, which wasn't been a part
of this build but that's been in other bills. But
that's why the timber companies still support it. But it'll
be like new wilderness here in Montana, which would be
absolutely awesome and hasn't happened in decades. And I think
now having Senator Tester gone, there's much more of an

(47:06):
opportunity probably for this to happen. Even though he was
a champion. I think that there was others in this
state that didn't want him to get a win, and
so they were not supportive of that bill. But I
think these answer to your question is more directly, I
think there's gonna be these individual opportunities to get involved
in individual landscapes, which you know, in those landscapes will
mean something to those people on the ground, but obviously

(47:27):
some of these bigger places to all of us across
the country.

Speaker 2 (47:40):
Yeah. And also I think, kind of piggybacking off of that,
what I'm starting to learn is that even if I
am never going to go to one of these places,
or if I've yet to go to one of these places,
or if they are far from home, they oftentimes still
have like trickle down effects on the places that I
do visit or places that are close to my home,
because they set a precedent. Like you said, like, hey,

(48:02):
if we can if this reconciliation package can force through
drilling in a wildlife refuge it was created originally specifically
for wildlife and to preserve this area. If that place
can get opened up despite public opposition, that opens up
the door for many more of these things to happen.
Through a similar process, or whether it be the boundary

(48:25):
waters issue or Ambler road or things going on in
the Everglades, whatever it is. I think something I'm starting
to see is that every one of these things is
like a home waters or home land kind of issue,
because it will eventually impact me or you or us
in one way or another. And so at least I'm

(48:45):
finding that more and more. I'm trying to be educated
and doing something for as many of these things as
I can. It's same with the hunting rights. I mean,
we've talked about this in the past too, like if
we lose the right to hunt mountain lions in Colorado,
all that very well could impact you in Montana, or
me and Idaho or wherever down the line. So it's
I think the tiny silos that we used to live in,

(49:07):
like I'm a Michigan or I'm an Idaho and or
I'm a white tail hunter or whatever. I think, by
necessity we might need to start increasing the sphere of
of what we focus on and what we try to
help out on. Like I'm going to chip in on
this one today, even though it might not directly impact
me tomorrow, because the next day or the next day,
it's going to be me, and I sure hope that

(49:28):
someone in Florida, or someone in Alaska or someone in
you know, Washington will also chip in on that issue too.
Does that is that something that you've thought all about?

Speaker 3 (49:38):
I mean, it totally resonates with me, Mark, and I
think that you know, we're all in this together, and
we just showed what happens when we can all work together,
what kind of collective power we have. And so I
think that precedent setting is one that is super important
that we need to pay attention to that you know,
it can happen over there, it could happen in my backyard.
I think another piece is that clean air and clean

(49:59):
water belongs to us. And like you know, wh I
think about clean water in particular, seventy percent of our
clean water starts on our public lands, and so that
clean water whether you and you probably live in Arizona,
it's probably even more important to you than maybe up
in uh, you know, in Minnesota. But they're all connected
at some level, right, and this water belongs to us all.
So I think there's that piece. And then I think,
you know, for those that don't, you know, like like

(50:23):
think about that piece, like there's that tillion dollar one
point two trillion dollar economic you know driver that's in
this country. That should be something that we as all
Americans should care about, right, that we have something that
you know, contributes significant amounts of the economy, especially in
rural America, especially in rural America, I think we should
maintain that. And then the last one I guess is

(50:44):
like why we should care about this stuff, man, is
that I don't know about you, but when I've faced
adversity in the woods, like I've learned something from it
every single time. And sometimes you know that means like
pack up and get the heck out of there, because
that's the only probably decision. There are times you face
that adversity and then you know, helps you with other things.
And so they have places where my kids can go

(51:05):
face adversity and learn from that, you know, like my
daughter in particular, as she goes off to school next year,
Like these are why we should be paying attention to this,
whether it is you know, in your backyard or not,
is because these places can provide all those things that
we just talked about and some and if we take
them away, they're never going to function the same way again, right,
They never will function the same way again, so they

(51:27):
matter to us all.

Speaker 2 (51:28):
Yeah, So, so we really need to focus on this
budget and staffing and management of our public lands now.
Moving forward, there's going to be some specific location focused
attacks that we need to be focusing on. There's been
a lot of these kind of rule or regulation rollbacks
that impact our public lands and waters, things like the
road this rule being rescinded, et cetera. Long story short,

(51:54):
there's going to be more action needed.

Speaker 3 (51:55):
Right.

Speaker 2 (51:56):
Our work is not done. The land sale pushback that
we all contributed to, that was just the beginning. You
have been involved in a lot of different campaigns over
the years, whether it be prior to BHA or your
time a top back hunter Hunters and Anglers or now
with AHA American Hunters and Anglers. You've seen what doesn't work,

(52:18):
You've seen what does work as far as building grassroots
opposition or support for these various things. Can you talk
to me about some of the major takeaways you've had
as far as what we as individuals can do or
as members of an organization to move the needle on
some of these issues that are already coming down the line,

(52:40):
and that inevitably will what are some of the big
like you, what's what's your theory of change land? What
are the individual actions and largerly collective actions that really
can help us moving forward when we when we're gonna
need to do something.

Speaker 3 (52:56):
Huge question and thank you for this. I mean I'd
be a little flip it and stay. First of all,
he's like, stop bitching and start a revolution, right Like,
I think there's like a lot of this armchair quarterbacks
that are sitting around and are like, oh, I don't
like this and I don't like that, and they don't
ever do anything about it, right Like, You've got to
get off the couch and do something about it. And
so I think action taking is always again, we're going

(53:20):
to lose some of these fights, but if you are
not taking action, you are definitely going to lose, and
you're not going to learn anything from being engaged in
that fight either. And so I think that is like
the fundamental one that I've probably learned over my twenty
five years. It's just takes some action, right Like, it
doesn't really matter exactly what that action is, but take
an individual action. Part of that I think is really

(53:43):
in the community building piece is talking to your friend circle,
you know, like we all have friends that go for
many different walks of life, and there are friends for
many different reasons, right Like they may be you know,
we may sit around on the soccer sidelines with them
because our kids are playing, or we may you know,
you know, actually hunt together. I mean, crazy thing that
some of us still hunt together. Right But I think

(54:04):
that like all the people that you know and that
are in your sphere, the more that we're talking to
them about these issues how much they matter to us,
and then asking them questions on you know, like you know,
what do these places mean to you? Like that overall,
I think question is really important. And part of what
you're doing there is you're telling your own story and
so that theory of change, like continue to tell your

(54:24):
own story online in particular, it's this great venue to
kind of you know, go out to your favorite you know,
phishing access site and talk about how this was put
to there by the Land of Water Conservation Fund. Right Like,
I think there's ways for you to for everybody to
tell that story and so that it becomes you know,
Land of Water Conservation Fund. Nobody used to really know

(54:45):
what it was. And I was glad that you had
me explain it today because sometimes I you know, I'm
talking to people and they know exactly what it is
now because we've been educating for over a decade, but
there's still people that don't know that. And so the
more that we tell that story, I think the better.
And then, you know, my theory of change, one of
the things that I think really works is that we

(55:06):
got to stop just trying to like be nice all
the time and and and not hold people accountable. And
I think accountability it can be thanks as well, but
it definitely has to be spanks. And I think that
ultimately that elected leaders in particular, they got to feel
some heat. And when they feel some heat and that
stove gets hot, then they back off and they try
to figure out how to get out of that corner

(55:26):
that we put him in. And Mike Lee, I think
is a different cat. I think he's a totally different cat.
Let's not let's put him in a different box. But
I think a lot of people that he's trying to
convince to get on his team are still very much clay,
and that we by pushing back against them, we're letting
them know that we want them to do things in
a certain way that they will listen to the people.

(55:48):
And then when somebody does do something bad, we got
to hold them accountable, and I think spank them publicly
in particular. It's really the only kind of like backstop
that we have. And that is like when I say
theory of change, and I won't name names unless you
want me to, but I've worked with a lot of
different politicians that have only done the right thing once
they've gotten spanked. Then once they do the right thing,

(56:09):
then you celebrate them, you know, like they're the best
champions in the world. But also don't say that's the
last thing that we're ever going to say to you, right,
Like it's this constant kind of training. I would say
that you have to do with elected officials, and I
think that negative piece it's hard to do sometimes and sometimes,
you know, maybe even the world that we're living in,
it feels like that's too much of the noise. So
you have to do it in a tackful way. But

(56:30):
I think holding our elected leaders, you know, accountable, is
a great way to create change and long lasting change too.
And then I think, you know, the last thing is
like catching them when they're good. So again I'm talking
about the spank kind of piece. But when they're doing
something good, I think, really, you know, it's like when
you're training a dog, they probably learn more from the

(56:51):
treats that you give them than the shot caller that
you give them, right, and and so when they do
do something good, I think applauding them, but also letting
them know that like this is not like with your dog.
You don't you know, just get to get that one
treat and then you're done being a good dog. You know,
you got to behave that way so you can get
those treets going forward. So that theory of change, I
think I would say those things, and then I you know,

(57:13):
besides that, the storytelling that has to happen from podcasts
like this, from national leaders, I think just it continues
to have to happen, and so that this power that
we all just realize can be maintained and that we're
ready for that next fight. And then I think we
can think about things that are proactive as well. But
right now we're in a pretty big defensive lope.

Speaker 2 (57:33):
Yeah, So imagine a world land where we didn't have
this pendulum swing. Imagine a world where it wasn't like, oh,
all right, stuff's going all right, and then ah no,
now we're crazy on defense, and then okay, now it's
a little better in this front and then all announce
on defense, or you know, as a hunter, my pendulum

(57:56):
is like okay. Sometimes like oh shoot, everyone's trying to
take hunting rights, everyone's trying to take away firearm rights,
et cetera. And then then you get a new administration,
it's like, oh geez, they're trying to take away public lands.
Oh gis they're rolling back every protection on our wildlife
or wild places, and there's this pendulum goes back and forth.
It's like whiplash. How do we ever change that? Land's

(58:21):
the what's the roadmap to someday getting to a point
where it's like, all right, everyone is working to protect
these things in one way or another. They've got different solutions,
different ideas, but at least we're a little bit in
closer alliance on folks on both sides of the aisle
standing up for public lands, or folks on both sides
of the aisle, you know, advocating for some some relatively

(58:45):
long term sustainable solutions to keep our wildlife and wild
places around how do we get their land?

Speaker 3 (58:51):
In your view, we demand it, We demand it, the
people demand it. And I think that you know, this
last public lands fight is a great example, is that
Center Mike Lee thought this all this pushback was like
manufactured by the left. Like you know, he really was
out there. He was tweeting like making a question of money,
yeah exactly, And I was like, I was like, you

(59:13):
are not reading the room, man, Like it is across
the entire spectrum. And so then we demanded it, and
ultimately he had to listen. Now, there was phone calls
being made to people about backing off of like you know,
their soapboxes and like trying to be quieter about this stuff.
And you know those people said, oh, you want me
to be quieter, and then they leaned in even heavier, right,
And so I think this we have to demand it

(59:37):
and we have to like I think we have to
like really try to have to find this like common
ground from the very beginning, right, like here's this public land,
these public wildlife that are unique in this country that
we all care about for the majority, right, like this
is one thing that we can call less around, which
we just showed. Can we start building like that base

(59:59):
then that allows us so depends on doesn't do this,
it just does little teeny ones right in between, because
there's gonna be different ideas about management how much money
we should be spending this part of the budget or another.
But as long as those things aren't way over here,
that's on all three of the things you just talked about, right,
And so you know when Senator Tester you know, and
Senat Heinrich both in the Senate together, like where is

(01:00:21):
like the push from Democrats to help help them, especially
with gun right stuff right like and help help the
other Democrats realize that that's like an issue that once
goes way too far one way right, there can be
a conversation potentially more in that middle or the same
thing with like you know, hunter rights, like like how
do we have these conversations more in here then the
way over here and over here? Now it's we the
people demand it, and like that's how we build you know,

(01:00:42):
there's relationships that hopefully many of us as hunters, I've
been trying to build them for twenty five years, but
hopefully more felt that this last go around. But it's
during this public lands fight when you're talking to other
public lands users. What a great opportunity that was to
like not talk about you know, like, man, you scare
the Elko way with those mountain bikes, you know, when
you're in a certain area at this certain time of year.

(01:01:02):
It was like, No, we're talking about the fundamental thing
that we all care about. We built relationships, and so
if we continue to build relationships with people that don't
necessarily recreate the same way that we do, or don't
look the way that we do, or don't vote the
same way we do, and then collectively do we demand it. Yeah,
we can get in who we want.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
Yeah. So you mentioned earlier about you know, demanding things,
holding people accountable, not mincing We didn't say this, but
I think something you were speaking too is like not
mincing words. Sometimes. I've seen like a couple of different
approaches to like advocacy organizations. There's there's one arm of
our conservation world that is like we're gonna fly the

(01:01:42):
red flag, we're gonna send the red alarm, we're gonna
call a space a spade and call you out and
X Y Z. And then there's another arm which is like, hey,
we need to maintain communication channels with whoever's there, no
matter what their policy is or no matter what administration
they're in, because we're going to try to get some
moderate things done and maintain communication. So because of that,

(01:02:04):
we're going to be very conservative about, you know, how
we say things, or conservative about calling folks out because
we don't want to damage those communication channels or possible
potential collaboration. And I personally can see the value in both.
I would say that it seems like your new organization,
American Hunters and Anglers, as you just mentioned, takes more

(01:02:26):
of the hey, we're going to call it out kind
of approach. Can you can you just expand a little
bit more on what your approaches with this organization in particular,
So what are you guys doing, how are you going
to do things? What makes your organization now different than
BHA or things you've been a part of in the past,

(01:02:47):
And and and then finally how can people learn more
engage anything with what you guys are doing?

Speaker 3 (01:02:55):
Great? So I would like to start with that the analogy, right,
like we're all going down this this river together, right,
we have this destination in mind which is carried on
this culturvation legacy that was gifted to us. Within that river,
there's many different boats that have different rolls like on
that river, right, and so you know, some are gonna
be utilized for, like you say, to kind of like

(01:03:16):
maintain relationships, have these conversations behind closed doors. Others are
going to make some noise on the outside. And that's
really what American Hunters and Anglers are trying to do.
Said another way, we're going to break some eggs, and
so others can make some omeless right, And so I
think that sometimes that you know, there's things that need
to be said, calling it like we see it, and

(01:03:38):
so that others can have those conversations behind those closed
doors and be like, man, that created quite a bit
of noise for you on the outside. Now, let's help
you get out of that corner. And so American Hunters
and Anglers we don't we're we're five on one C
four which a little bit nerdy, but you know, BHA
try to unlimited TIERCP majority of critter organizations or sports

(01:03:59):
organized or five on one C threes. That's their designation
as in the irs. Within that they can only lobby
twenty percent of the time, which means they can only
you know, report about what's going on and call you
the action. That doesn't even mean about you know, individuals
out in Washington, DC calling the people to action twenty
percent of their time. So if you have a million bucks,
that's two hundred thousand dollars. So they're limited there, and

(01:04:21):
they also can't get involved in elections, and that's you know,
that's like, that's a hard hard line for nonprofits and
a C three status CE four unlimited lobbying, which again
like I'm not going out to d C and punting
the doors every single day. I'm not a registered lobbyist.
But what we can do in American hundred anglers is
we can report the news on what's going on and
then call people to action every single day without worry

(01:04:43):
about getting up against that cap. Second piece of that
is so we can't get involved in elections and demand
from our elected leaders when they're most vulnerable. I would
say to the most spongeable vulnerable might be the wrong
way to say it. They're the most spongeable and trying
to like get them in a place where they commit
to one thing or another right and that's on the
campaign trail. And so that's really what we're going to

(01:05:04):
be doing We do that you know, on media, so
social media, we're super heavy on social media, but we're
also doing that with traditional media. So that's like stuff
in print I would say New York Times, Washington Post,
National Public Radio, that kind of stuff traditional press releases.
But like we are, we're not we're not gonna be
a membership organization. We're not going to be a corporate

(01:05:26):
partner organization. We're not going to be you know, necessarily
of volunteers. All across the country. People want to volunteer.
They can you know, cut videos for us and like
we can help get those you know up online, or
we can you know, help them and get engaged and
volunteer their time by calling, sending an email, or going
on social media and addressing people. So American Hunters and
Anglers in short, we're here to like let people know

(01:05:47):
what's going on. When there is some bad actors, we're
gonna punish them and so that others can kind of
have those conversations about how they figure out, you know,
a policy it's a little bit different than what they
put forward in the first place.

Speaker 2 (01:05:58):
Yeah, yeah, I love that analogy. That makes a lot
of sense. There's a lot of different roles to play,
and I can see the need for you know, the
behind the doors, the in front of the doors, the
eggs and the omelets and and everything in between. Whatever
it takes to to get a couple of these battles
one and pointing things in the right direction, I think

(01:06:19):
is his his good news as far as I'm concerned. So, Land,
when you get up in the morning and you're trying
to rally the energy for the day or for the
work week or whatever it is, what are you What
are you thinking about? What keeps you coming back to
this set of issues, what keeps coming, what keeps you

(01:06:41):
coming back to this cause? And finally, what would you
offer to folks as we send people off today as
they consider kind of taking up the same cause and
getting engaged themselves.

Speaker 3 (01:06:58):
So it probably depends on the day. This morning, I
woke up remembering our day that we had yesterday. So
we had this day yesterday down the Bitterroot, on the
Bitterroot National Forests. We went down there to pick huckleberries.
And the amount of people that were out on a
Sunday picking huggle berries, and I'm talking like three year

(01:07:19):
olds to like ninety year olds been built around these
little tiny bushes picking up these little purple like berries.
We call them purple gold, and they're out right now,
and you know, the kids are eating them. They're hardly
you know, putting any in the bucket to have later
with ice cream or you know, I cooked some for
my kids this morning on pancakes. But like seeing that
and seeing the like the people that were out there,

(01:07:40):
and nobody's like that's a Democrat, that's a Republican or
you know, like you know, like how much money do
you have in your bank account? Like like everybody's on the
same playing field, because you got to find the berries
and then you got to pick them, like there's no
way o there to get them, right. So I think
that I was reminded that this morning. And then yesterday
we also found this like tributary to this creek that
we were on that has like this natural like water

(01:08:02):
slide on it, and and so it's like these slate
rocks that have been turned on their sides. The water
goes over the top of them, and you gotta be
a little bit careful, but you know, this time of year,
the water's not so high, and so you can get
on those and watching my kids watching this exchange student
that we have from Spain right now, the pure joy
that they have like going down this slide and like
and so when I woke up this morning, I mean,

(01:08:24):
I I you know, I think it's Edward Abway's quote.
It's like, you know, be a part time advocate, you
got to get out there and touch and feel it, right. Yeah,
well I went out and touch and feel it yesterday.
And oh my god, am I having fired up about
like just making sure that my kids, that your kids
have something to fight for, right like all our jobs are.
It's like I think it's you know, Doug d Doug

(01:08:45):
Durran kind of it's our time kind of right like
we're here right now, Like what are we going to
do about it? And so that's what fires me up.
And then I think for anybody you know that's listening
to this that is a little nervous about gaining engaged,
I get it, Like I get it. Sometimes it's scary,
but hopefully listening to this podcast and watching others take action,
that's all it is is about taking action, whatever that is,

(01:09:07):
you know. And I think that you can do that
again by picking up the phone, sending an email, doing
your own social posts. There's a woman that created these
bumper stickers that were super rad. I saw somebody that
did a remake of this land is Your Land the
other day. You know, I think there's like whatever talent
that you bring, maybe you're like a CPA and you
think I don't really you know, know what to do
about conservation. I guarantee you that every single volunteer conservation

(01:09:29):
organization in this country is looking for a CPA to
help them with the posts right now and make them
straight on their books. And so there's different talents that
you can bring. It doesn't have to be, you know,
just this forward facing, you know, hard hitting conservation stuff.
So I would lead people with that is like take
individual action and know that nothing is ever given to
in this in this country, which is pretty awesome in

(01:09:50):
a lot of ways. We have to go get it
ourselves and we have to earn it. And I think
that's the very position we're in right now, the best
position we've always been in, and the only reason we're
having this conversation having right now is because of those
people that became before us.

Speaker 2 (01:10:02):
So yeah, man, right on land, Well, I will speak
for many, many, many folks out there who would tell
you thank you for everything you've done over the years
in these many different iterations of our fights for public
lands and waters and wildlife. You've been a staunch advocate
for a long time, and I appreciate everything you've done
in the past. I appreciate what you're working on right

(01:10:24):
now and what I'm sure is yet to come. And
let's have another one of these chats down the line
on the Smith River and let's have some good news
to talk about. How about that?

Speaker 3 (01:10:35):
I love it. I love it, and Mark, thank you
for the accolades. But I would be remiss not to
push that right back on you, and I think your
voice and the way you're using it, thank you for
continuing to be an advocate for all things wild in particular,
but the wild, public lands, public waters, and public wild
affe in this country because there's no other place like
on the planet. And you're using your venue, your I guess,

(01:10:56):
your fully pulpit to use the Roosevelt Squares in such
a great way. So thank you. Thank you as well.

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
Last thing website you are where can folks go to
learn more about AHA and what you got going on.

Speaker 3 (01:11:09):
So love this website. No landgrab dot com. Pretty easy
to remember. And then on the Insta it's just America
Hunters Anglers No, and in there you can find us
on the Instagram, so we'll update every single day on Instagram.
Then you can sign up for our newsletter Slash just
that kind of information on our website. Perfect No land

(01:11:29):
grab dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:11:31):
Can't forget that one. All right, let's talk against.

Speaker 3 (01:11:33):
It, all right? Sounds good, Mark, Thank you, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
Thank you all for joining me. I hope you learned
something today. I hope you were inspired to continue taking action,
and I hope you will join me in the You know,
as land said, this this battle that will never quite
end as we continue to stand up for our wild places,
our wildlife, our rights and opportunities to hunt and fish,

(01:11:58):
our public lands, waters, and so much more.

Speaker 3 (01:12:02):
So.

Speaker 2 (01:12:02):
Until next time, thank you, and stay wired to hunt,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Host

Mark Kenyon

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Ep. 925: What's Next for Public Lands? with Land Tawney