July 17, 2025 • 17 mins
This recap episode unpacks a discussion focused on public lands in the United States, highlighting their unique value for recreation, resource provision, and ecological health. It details recent legislative efforts, particularly a proposed bill in Utah, that sought to sell off millions of acres of public land, underscoring the threat of privatisation. The conversation also touches on the socio-political aspects of land use, including conservation challenges, the impact of urbanisation on public awareness, and the influence of political and religious ideologies on land management. Finally, it addresses the importance of public engagement and unified advocacy in protecting these invaluable national assets.
---
We all love The Joe Rogan Experience and much prefer the real thing, but sometimes it's not possible to listen to an entire episode or you just want to recap an episode you've previously listened to. The Joe Rogan Recap uses Google's NotebookLM to create a conversational podcast that recaps episodes of JRE into a more manageable listen.
On that note, for those that would like it, here's the public access link to the Google Notebook to look at the mind map, timeline and briefing doc - https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c5e07abe-dc92-403f-84cc-b20f8ed1d831 - Please note, you must have a Google account to access.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Today we're diving into
something that, well, it affectsevery single one of us, really,
whether we think about it much or not.
America's public lands, you might picture them as just, you
know, nice places to hike or maybe hunt.
But as we're going to unpack today, that this uniquely
American treasure and there are constantly working for us, but
(00:22):
also kind of constantly under threat.
That's right. And our mission here really is
to explore just how unique theselands are.
I mean truly unique on a global scale.
And also to understand this recent pretty big battle to keep
them from being sold off. Yeah, and what that whole fight
sort of tells us about, well, ourselves, our society and how
(00:43):
we relate to the land itself. We're pulling all this from a
really in depth conversation between Joe Rogan and Ryan
Callahan, boiling it down the the key stuff for you.
It really is striking. When you look globally,
America's public land system, it's exceptional.
Outside of maybe Canada, you just don't find anything quite
like it. The source material calls it an
insane resource. A beautiful resource.
It emphasizes that it's ours. It's all of ours.
(01:05):
Exactly. It's a concept that, honestly,
folks in other countries sometimes struggle to get their
heads around. And frankly, a lot of Americans
don't fully appreciate it either.
That's a really good point. And when you say insane
resource, it goes beyond just like pre mountains and forests,
right? How are they constantly working
on our behalf like 247, 365? What does that mean in practical
(01:28):
terms? Well, yeah, beyond the hiking
and camping and all that, which is great, they provide
absolutely essential stuff. Think about clean water.
Fresh cold water for downstream communities often originates on
these lands, and they play this quiet but really critical role
in food production too, just by keeping ecosystems healthy.
(01:48):
So it's like this background engine humming away for our
well-being that we mostly just ignore.
Pretty much, yeah. Often taken for granted.
And the scale, yeah, that's whatreally jumped out in the
discussion. We're talking what, 640 million
acres? Yeah, massive number, the total
public estate. And within that 83,000,000 acres
are national parks. But there was a point about
hunting, even in parks. Right thanks to Alaska, a huge
(02:11):
chunk of that Parkland, 43,000,000 acres is actually
huntable. It breaks that sort of parks are
just for looking idea sometimes.OK.
So beyond the parks, you've still got something like 580
million usable acres. And think about the
infrastructure, over 400,000 miles of roads just on Forest
Service and BLM land. It's this huge living system.
(02:35):
And it's that scale, that value that makes it impactful globally
too, right? And the source mentioned
something about hunters. Yeah, it's an interesting point.
Because the ecosystems here are relatively intact compared to
many places. American hunters actually end up
supporting economies elsewhere. They travel because what we have
here is so good. That's wild.
So our public lands are so good they fuel international travel
and economies. In a way, yeah, it speaks to the
(02:57):
value. And personally, it's described
as this vitamin you didn't know you needed, like it provides
something essential for well-being that's hard to
measure. Exactly.
A unique kind of nutrient. You could say this access, this
wildness, it contributes something fundamental.
But like we said, something thisvaluable, it attracts threats.
Wow. Which brings us to the recent
(03:19):
attempt to sell off parts of it.Yeah, this is crucial.
Why would anyone want to sell this off?
The sources detailed this prettyalarming attempt through
legislation called the Big Beautiful Bill.
Kind of an ironic name. Yeah, sounds grand.
Right. But in reality, it was designed
to give the federal government way more power to basically
(03:40):
offload these shared landscapes.And that was stopped.
Thankfully, yes, it was thwarted, but only after immense
public pressure, A real mobilization.
And the figure pushing this, according to the source, was
Senator Mike Lee from Utah. That's right, he's apparently
been advocating for selling off federal lands, pretty much
everything except national parks, for like nearly 20 years.
(04:01):
20 years. Wow.
What's the rationale? What's the stated reason for
wanting to sell? Well, the public justification
you often hear is something like, oh, we need land for
housing. Sounds reasonable on the
surface. But the actual language in the
bill, as the source points out, was way broader.
It allowed for selling land thatwas far away and hard to manage.
Basically huge remote tracks. And there was some speculation
(04:24):
in the source about deeper motivations, something about
religious doctrine. Yeah, there's this theory it
discussed, and they're careful to say it's a theory not
representing the whole religion,that maybe Mormon church
doctrine plays a role for Senator Lee, this idea that land
should be developed for profit and not doing so is somehow
speeding God. That's certainly a controversial
(04:46):
take mentioned in the source, yeah.
But regardless of the why, the core argument against selling is
pretty simple, right? Yeah, fundamentally, it's not
theirs to sell. It belongs to all Americans.
And it creates this precedent, this slippery slope.
The source uses this vivid imageof vampire developers just.
Sucking on that blood until there's nothing left.
Yeah, it's a strong metaphor, but it captures the fear.
(05:07):
And the idea that selling land would fix the national debt?
That sounds like a fantasies. Oh, completely.
I mean, $37 trillion in debt selling off even millions of
acres might net, what, a few 100million?
Maybe. A drop in the ocean doesn't even
make a dent. Exactly.
It feels more like a distractionor maybe setting the stage for
(05:28):
something else. And what's really telling is how
this proposal tried to bypass existing rules for land sales,
right? You mentioned things like flip
and out. Yeah, Flip MA and Flip MA, these
are existing federal laws basically that say if federal
land is sold, the money doesn't just vanish into the general
treasury, it has to be reinvested to buy other land
(05:49):
that's maybe more valuable for conservation or public access.
It's meant to benefit the publicestate overall.
So it's a system designed for strategic adjustments, not just
a fire sale. Precisely.
And Lee's bill seemed to want tojust circumvent all that, which
is why it raised so many red flags.
So if the public isn't benefiting financially in any
meaningful way, who does benefitfrom these kinds of sales?
(06:10):
Well, the discussion points to this right of first refusal idea
that was proposed. It would give state and local
governments, tribes, but especially existing land owners
in those checkerboard land patterns.
Where private and public land squares alternate.
Exactly. Those private land owners could
get first dibs, the source callsit potentially a huge handout to
(06:33):
private entities. And they mentioned a specific
company, Iron Bar Holdings. Yeah, a company known for being
involved in some land access disputes.
They could potentially consolidate huge areas if land
around them went up for sale. This way it really shifts the
benefit from public to private. OK, so that big, beautiful bill
was beaten back. That's a win.
A huge win, yeah. But it's really important to
(06:54):
understand that the fight isn't over.
Legislative sales are just one pressure point, right?
These lands face other threats too, like the grasslands issue.
Yes, this was startling. America's grasslands are
apparently the most threatened ecosystem globally.
Globally. Wow.
Yeah. And we're losing them at a rate
of about 2,000,000 acres a year.2,000,000 acres.
Yeah, it's hard to grasp that number.
(07:15):
The source used to grade analogy.
Imagine all the golf courses in the entire United States.
That's roughly the area of grassland we lose every single
year. Oh man, that really puts it in
perspective. What's causing that?
It's a mix of things, development obviously, but also
encroachment by trees like Cedars and junipers.
Historically, bison herds would have helped to keep those trees
(07:37):
in check, maintaining the open grasslands.
Without that pressure, the treesmove in.
So it's not just about losing pretty fields, it's a
fundamental ecosystem shift. Absolutely.
And Speaking of access challenges, the conversation
also detailed that bizarre issueof corner crossing.
Right, I remember reading about this where people were getting
arrested for literally stepping from one piece of public land to
(07:59):
another just because the cornerstouched at a point owned by
someone private. Exactly.
Sometimes crossing mere inches, not even feet, and boom,
trespassing charges. It blocked access to huge areas
of public land behind those corners.
Just seems incredibly petty and counter to the whole idea of
public land. Any good news there?
Actually, yes, big news, especially out of Wyoming.
(08:20):
Thanks to efforts from groups like Wyoming Backcountry Hunters
and Anglers and also Meat Eater was involved, it is now
considered legal to step across those corners in Wyoming.
Really. Two federal court cases
basically affirmed the public's right to access their land this
way. That's.
Huge. It is, and technology helps to
GTS apps on your phone like Go Hunt on X Spartan Forge.
(08:43):
They show property lines with incredible accuracy now.
So the old argument from privateland owners about accidental
trespass are causing harm. It kind of falls apart when you
can see exactly where the boundary is down to the inch on
your phone. Yeah, you can't accidentally
step across if your phone tells you precisely where the wine is.
Right. It really undermines the harm
claims. So amidst these pressures, are
(09:04):
there also efforts to actively restore or improve public access
and lands? Definitely.
The source highlights the American Prairie Reserve in
Montana as a really ambitious example.
What? Are they doing?
It's fascinating. They're using private donations,
philanthropic funds to buy private ranches that are
adjacent to or mixed in with existing BLM land.
The goal is to stitch together this huge landscape, restore the
(09:27):
native Prairie ecosystem and reintroduce species like the
American Buffalo. Wow, that sounds amazing.
Are there concerns about it being, you know, private money,
effectively managing public resources?
That concern does come up, yeah,the idea of privatization.
But the source clarifies that currently at least, they provide
public access. They have kiosks, information,
(09:49):
even yurts people can rent to stay out there.
So it's accessible. OK.
And that ties into the whole Buffalo situation, right?
The conversation touched on their history and management.
Yeah, it brought up that interesting theory from Dan
Flores. Oh, the historian, right.
His idea is that bison populations might have actually
spiked unnaturally high historically, not just because
of fewer wolves, but because European diseases wiped out such
(10:11):
huge numbers of Native Americans, who were a major
predator of bison for millennia.Removing that human hunting
pressure allowed bison numbers to explode temporarily.
I had never heard that angle before.
It complicates the romantic image of endless herds.
It does, and it leads into how complex managing bison is today,
like in Yellowstone. Yeah.
(10:31):
How do they handle the numbers there and the disease issue,
Brucellosis. Right.
Brucellosis is a big concern because it can spread to cattle
outside the park. So Yellowstone has what they
call a zone of tolerance outsidethe park boundaries.
It's basically a designated areawhere bison that wander out can
be haunted to manage numbers andlimit disease spread.
(10:51):
So hunting is part of the management strategy.
It is. There's also trapping bison
within or near the park. They're tested, monitored.
Some are allocated to Native American tribes, which is a huge
deal culturally and for food sovereignty.
Others might be sold. It's a complex operation.
And they mentioned the animals getting used to people
habituation. Yeah, just a brief point about
how Yellowstone animals, bison included, often become
(11:14):
incredibly nonchalant around tourists in cars almost tame,
which is its own weird phenomenon.
It really feels like this whole issue, the fight for public
lands, it never really ends, does it?
The source said. It's cyclical, like every 5-7
years. Yeah, that seems to be the
pattern. These big pushes to sell off or
restrict access flare up. They get beaten back by public
(11:35):
outcry, things quite down for a bit and then it starts again.
Requires constant vigilance. The good news from that last big
fight over the big beautiful bill was the unity.
You said it was bipartisan. Absolutely.
That was key. Democrats, Republicans, people
who feel kind of politically homeless, they all came
together. The rallying cry was simple and
powerful. Not one acre.
(11:57):
No selling off public land. Period.
In that unity, that public pressure actually worked.
It made a difference in DC it. Absolutely did.
It essentially turned the idea of selling public lands into a
third rail issue, meaning it became politically radioactive,
too dangerous for politicians totouch.
If you supported selling off public lands, you'd face
(12:17):
immediate, intense backlash froma very broad, very motivated
coalition of voters. It demonstrated the power of
mobilization. And who is driving that
mobilization? Any key figures or groups
mentioned? Yeah, they credited influential
voices like Hunter, Cam Haynes and Josh Smith from Montana
Knife Company. They really spoke out.
(12:38):
Interesting. Not just the usual environmental
groups. Right.
And businesses got involved too,which was significant.
Wren House Brewing even put QR codes on their beer cans linking
to action alerts. That's creative.
Yeah, and bigger names too. REI, Patagonia, Rivian, but also
firearm companies like Sig Sauerand Weatherby.
(12:59):
A really diverse coalition. Plus the conservation groups, of
course. Oh yeah, the big ones were
crucial. National Wildlife Federation,
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers,BHA, Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, RMEF Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, National
Wild Turkey Federation all rallied their members.
So is this combination of grassroots energy, influential
voices, business support, and established organizations public
(13:22):
persistence being public and loud?
Exactly. But even with that success, the
source points out challenges in the process itself, like making
sure public voices are actually heard.
How so? What are the roadblocks?
Well, things like omnibus bills,these giant pieces of
legislation where controversial items can get buried, among
hundreds of other things, it makes transparency really
(13:43):
difficult. Yeah, hard to track what's
really in them. And just the general
responsiveness, or lack thereof,from congressional offices.
The source mentions an example in Montana, where public
testimony was overwhelmingly against a state lawsuit aiming
to restrict stream access. And the elected officials.
Ignored it, moved forward anyway.
It's frustrating and highlights the difficulty in holding
(14:05):
officials accountable sometimes even when the public speaks
clearly. That leads to this broader idea
discussed in the source, this kind of disconnect especially
between urban populations and the source of their food and
water. Yeah, the slightly tongue in
cheek comment that for many people food just comes from
DoorDash. Right.
There's a lack of connection to the land, the agriculture, the
ecosystems that actually produceit all.
(14:27):
And this disconnect is linked toa critique of modern industrial
agriculture, mono cropping, you know, planting vast areas with
just one thing and also the riseof highly processed foods,
including lab grown or fake meatalternatives.
What's the criticism there? The source connects these trends
to health problems, mentioning seed oils potential cancer
(14:49):
links, but also argues it fundamentally devalues the land
itself. It treats food production as an
industrial process divorced fromnatural systems.
And they contrast this with whatwas it, regenerative
agriculture? Exactly, citing Will Harris at
White Oaks Pastures as an example of farming that works
with the ecosystem, rebuilding soil health, integrating
animals, a totally different philosophy.
(15:11):
And layered on top of all this is the social media environment.
The source had some warnings there too.
Oh yeah, a pretty strong cautionabout how social media can be
manipulated, specifically mentioning coordinated bot
farms. How do they work?
They can create this illusion ofconsensus, making it seem like
an idea is widely supported or widely condemned, when really
it's just automated accounts. And they often flood comment
(15:35):
sections with negativity to discourage genuine discussion or
critical thinking makes people hesitant to speak up.
And it mentioned actual arrests for online speech in some
places, yeah. England and Brazil were cited as
examples where people are facinglegal trouble for things they
post online. The chilling effect is real.
It leads to self censorship. Wow, so the battle for informed
(15:55):
public opinion is happening in this?
Really challenging online space too.
Definitely. And one last kind of provocative
theory. The source revisited this idea
that some politicians are actually uncomfortable with
Americans just having fun freelyon public lands.
Uncomfortable with fun? What does that mean?
The idea is that they get nervous about unstructured fun,
(16:16):
the fact that you can often go out onto vast areas of public
land without checking in, without paying a fee at a kiosk,
without signing a liability waiver, basically, yeah.
A kind of freedom that isn't easily controlled, monitored or
monetized. The theory suggests this lack of
structure makes some people in power uneasy.
It's a different lens than just seeing land as dollar signs.
(16:40):
That's a really interesting thought.
So pulling this all together, what's the main take away for
you, the listener? I think it boils down to
vigilance and unity being absolutely crucial.
This isn't a fight that gets oneonce and is over.
We need to actively support and lift up, as the source says, the
people and organizations who arestanding up for these lands.
Yeah, like becoming a member of groups like Backcountry Hunters
(17:01):
and Anglers. For others we mentioned it makes
a tangible difference. Absolutely.
And remembering the value here isn't just monetary, it's tied
to freedom. It's tied to shared experience.
It's about the legacy we leave. It really challenges you to
think about what holds true lasting value in life.
Is it just convenience, short term profit?
Or is it something deeper, something these vast, open,
(17:23):
shared landscapes represent thatenduring worth?
So the question back to you is, what does this deep dive spark
for you? What questions does it make you
ask about the places you care about and what you want the
future of these shared landscapes to look like?
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Today we're diving into
something that, well, it affectsevery single one of us, really,
whether we think about it much or not.
America's public lands, you might picture them as just, you
know, nice places to hike or maybe hunt.
But as we're going to unpack today, that this uniquely
American treasure and there are constantly working for us, but
(00:22):
also kind of constantly under threat.
That's right. And our mission here really is
to explore just how unique theselands are.
I mean truly unique on a global scale.
And also to understand this recent pretty big battle to keep
them from being sold off. Yeah, and what that whole fight
sort of tells us about, well, ourselves, our society and how
(00:43):
we relate to the land itself. We're pulling all this from a
really in depth conversation between Joe Rogan and Ryan
Callahan, boiling it down the the key stuff for you.
It really is striking. When you look globally,
America's public land system, it's exceptional.
Outside of maybe Canada, you just don't find anything quite
like it. The source material calls it an
insane resource. A beautiful resource.
It emphasizes that it's ours. It's all of ours.
(01:05):
Exactly. It's a concept that, honestly,
folks in other countries sometimes struggle to get their
heads around. And frankly, a lot of Americans
don't fully appreciate it either.
That's a really good point. And when you say insane
resource, it goes beyond just like pre mountains and forests,
right? How are they constantly working
on our behalf like 247, 365? What does that mean in practical
(01:28):
terms? Well, yeah, beyond the hiking
and camping and all that, which is great, they provide
absolutely essential stuff. Think about clean water.
Fresh cold water for downstream communities often originates on
these lands, and they play this quiet but really critical role
in food production too, just by keeping ecosystems healthy.
(01:48):
So it's like this background engine humming away for our
well-being that we mostly just ignore.
Pretty much, yeah. Often taken for granted.
And the scale, yeah, that's whatreally jumped out in the
discussion. We're talking what, 640 million
acres? Yeah, massive number, the total
public estate. And within that 83,000,000 acres
are national parks. But there was a point about
hunting, even in parks. Right thanks to Alaska, a huge
(02:11):
chunk of that Parkland, 43,000,000 acres is actually
huntable. It breaks that sort of parks are
just for looking idea sometimes.OK.
So beyond the parks, you've still got something like 580
million usable acres. And think about the
infrastructure, over 400,000 miles of roads just on Forest
Service and BLM land. It's this huge living system.
(02:35):
And it's that scale, that value that makes it impactful globally
too, right? And the source mentioned
something about hunters. Yeah, it's an interesting point.
Because the ecosystems here are relatively intact compared to
many places. American hunters actually end up
supporting economies elsewhere. They travel because what we have
here is so good. That's wild.
So our public lands are so good they fuel international travel
and economies. In a way, yeah, it speaks to the
(02:57):
value. And personally, it's described
as this vitamin you didn't know you needed, like it provides
something essential for well-being that's hard to
measure. Exactly.
A unique kind of nutrient. You could say this access, this
wildness, it contributes something fundamental.
But like we said, something thisvaluable, it attracts threats.
Wow. Which brings us to the recent
(03:19):
attempt to sell off parts of it.Yeah, this is crucial.
Why would anyone want to sell this off?
The sources detailed this prettyalarming attempt through
legislation called the Big Beautiful Bill.
Kind of an ironic name. Yeah, sounds grand.
Right. But in reality, it was designed
to give the federal government way more power to basically
(03:40):
offload these shared landscapes.And that was stopped.
Thankfully, yes, it was thwarted, but only after immense
public pressure, A real mobilization.
And the figure pushing this, according to the source, was
Senator Mike Lee from Utah. That's right, he's apparently
been advocating for selling off federal lands, pretty much
everything except national parks, for like nearly 20 years.
(04:01):
20 years. Wow.
What's the rationale? What's the stated reason for
wanting to sell? Well, the public justification
you often hear is something like, oh, we need land for
housing. Sounds reasonable on the
surface. But the actual language in the
bill, as the source points out, was way broader.
It allowed for selling land thatwas far away and hard to manage.
Basically huge remote tracks. And there was some speculation
(04:24):
in the source about deeper motivations, something about
religious doctrine. Yeah, there's this theory it
discussed, and they're careful to say it's a theory not
representing the whole religion,that maybe Mormon church
doctrine plays a role for Senator Lee, this idea that land
should be developed for profit and not doing so is somehow
speeding God. That's certainly a controversial
(04:46):
take mentioned in the source, yeah.
But regardless of the why, the core argument against selling is
pretty simple, right? Yeah, fundamentally, it's not
theirs to sell. It belongs to all Americans.
And it creates this precedent, this slippery slope.
The source uses this vivid imageof vampire developers just.
Sucking on that blood until there's nothing left.
Yeah, it's a strong metaphor, but it captures the fear.
(05:07):
And the idea that selling land would fix the national debt?
That sounds like a fantasies. Oh, completely.
I mean, $37 trillion in debt selling off even millions of
acres might net, what, a few 100million?
Maybe. A drop in the ocean doesn't even
make a dent. Exactly.
It feels more like a distractionor maybe setting the stage for
(05:28):
something else. And what's really telling is how
this proposal tried to bypass existing rules for land sales,
right? You mentioned things like flip
and out. Yeah, Flip MA and Flip MA, these
are existing federal laws basically that say if federal
land is sold, the money doesn't just vanish into the general
treasury, it has to be reinvested to buy other land
(05:49):
that's maybe more valuable for conservation or public access.
It's meant to benefit the publicestate overall.
So it's a system designed for strategic adjustments, not just
a fire sale. Precisely.
And Lee's bill seemed to want tojust circumvent all that, which
is why it raised so many red flags.
So if the public isn't benefiting financially in any
meaningful way, who does benefitfrom these kinds of sales?
(06:10):
Well, the discussion points to this right of first refusal idea
that was proposed. It would give state and local
governments, tribes, but especially existing land owners
in those checkerboard land patterns.
Where private and public land squares alternate.
Exactly. Those private land owners could
get first dibs, the source callsit potentially a huge handout to
(06:33):
private entities. And they mentioned a specific
company, Iron Bar Holdings. Yeah, a company known for being
involved in some land access disputes.
They could potentially consolidate huge areas if land
around them went up for sale. This way it really shifts the
benefit from public to private. OK, so that big, beautiful bill
was beaten back. That's a win.
A huge win, yeah. But it's really important to
(06:54):
understand that the fight isn't over.
Legislative sales are just one pressure point, right?
These lands face other threats too, like the grasslands issue.
Yes, this was startling. America's grasslands are
apparently the most threatened ecosystem globally.
Globally. Wow.
Yeah. And we're losing them at a rate
of about 2,000,000 acres a year.2,000,000 acres.
Yeah, it's hard to grasp that number.
(07:15):
The source used to grade analogy.
Imagine all the golf courses in the entire United States.
That's roughly the area of grassland we lose every single
year. Oh man, that really puts it in
perspective. What's causing that?
It's a mix of things, development obviously, but also
encroachment by trees like Cedars and junipers.
Historically, bison herds would have helped to keep those trees
(07:37):
in check, maintaining the open grasslands.
Without that pressure, the treesmove in.
So it's not just about losing pretty fields, it's a
fundamental ecosystem shift. Absolutely.
And Speaking of access challenges, the conversation
also detailed that bizarre issueof corner crossing.
Right, I remember reading about this where people were getting
arrested for literally stepping from one piece of public land to
(07:59):
another just because the cornerstouched at a point owned by
someone private. Exactly.
Sometimes crossing mere inches, not even feet, and boom,
trespassing charges. It blocked access to huge areas
of public land behind those corners.
Just seems incredibly petty and counter to the whole idea of
public land. Any good news there?
Actually, yes, big news, especially out of Wyoming.
(08:20):
Thanks to efforts from groups like Wyoming Backcountry Hunters
and Anglers and also Meat Eater was involved, it is now
considered legal to step across those corners in Wyoming.
Really. Two federal court cases
basically affirmed the public's right to access their land this
way. That's.
Huge. It is, and technology helps to
GTS apps on your phone like Go Hunt on X Spartan Forge.
(08:43):
They show property lines with incredible accuracy now.
So the old argument from privateland owners about accidental
trespass are causing harm. It kind of falls apart when you
can see exactly where the boundary is down to the inch on
your phone. Yeah, you can't accidentally
step across if your phone tells you precisely where the wine is.
Right. It really undermines the harm
claims. So amidst these pressures, are
(09:04):
there also efforts to actively restore or improve public access
and lands? Definitely.
The source highlights the American Prairie Reserve in
Montana as a really ambitious example.
What? Are they doing?
It's fascinating. They're using private donations,
philanthropic funds to buy private ranches that are
adjacent to or mixed in with existing BLM land.
The goal is to stitch together this huge landscape, restore the
(09:27):
native Prairie ecosystem and reintroduce species like the
American Buffalo. Wow, that sounds amazing.
Are there concerns about it being, you know, private money,
effectively managing public resources?
That concern does come up, yeah,the idea of privatization.
But the source clarifies that currently at least, they provide
public access. They have kiosks, information,
(09:49):
even yurts people can rent to stay out there.
So it's accessible. OK.
And that ties into the whole Buffalo situation, right?
The conversation touched on their history and management.
Yeah, it brought up that interesting theory from Dan
Flores. Oh, the historian, right.
His idea is that bison populations might have actually
spiked unnaturally high historically, not just because
of fewer wolves, but because European diseases wiped out such
(10:11):
huge numbers of Native Americans, who were a major
predator of bison for millennia.Removing that human hunting
pressure allowed bison numbers to explode temporarily.
I had never heard that angle before.
It complicates the romantic image of endless herds.
It does, and it leads into how complex managing bison is today,
like in Yellowstone. Yeah.
(10:31):
How do they handle the numbers there and the disease issue,
Brucellosis. Right.
Brucellosis is a big concern because it can spread to cattle
outside the park. So Yellowstone has what they
call a zone of tolerance outsidethe park boundaries.
It's basically a designated areawhere bison that wander out can
be haunted to manage numbers andlimit disease spread.
(10:51):
So hunting is part of the management strategy.
It is. There's also trapping bison
within or near the park. They're tested, monitored.
Some are allocated to Native American tribes, which is a huge
deal culturally and for food sovereignty.
Others might be sold. It's a complex operation.
And they mentioned the animals getting used to people
habituation. Yeah, just a brief point about
how Yellowstone animals, bison included, often become
(11:14):
incredibly nonchalant around tourists in cars almost tame,
which is its own weird phenomenon.
It really feels like this whole issue, the fight for public
lands, it never really ends, does it?
The source said. It's cyclical, like every 5-7
years. Yeah, that seems to be the
pattern. These big pushes to sell off or
restrict access flare up. They get beaten back by public
(11:35):
outcry, things quite down for a bit and then it starts again.
Requires constant vigilance. The good news from that last big
fight over the big beautiful bill was the unity.
You said it was bipartisan. Absolutely.
That was key. Democrats, Republicans, people
who feel kind of politically homeless, they all came
together. The rallying cry was simple and
powerful. Not one acre.
(11:57):
No selling off public land. Period.
In that unity, that public pressure actually worked.
It made a difference in DC it. Absolutely did.
It essentially turned the idea of selling public lands into a
third rail issue, meaning it became politically radioactive,
too dangerous for politicians totouch.
If you supported selling off public lands, you'd face
(12:17):
immediate, intense backlash froma very broad, very motivated
coalition of voters. It demonstrated the power of
mobilization. And who is driving that
mobilization? Any key figures or groups
mentioned? Yeah, they credited influential
voices like Hunter, Cam Haynes and Josh Smith from Montana
Knife Company. They really spoke out.
(12:38):
Interesting. Not just the usual environmental
groups. Right.
And businesses got involved too,which was significant.
Wren House Brewing even put QR codes on their beer cans linking
to action alerts. That's creative.
Yeah, and bigger names too. REI, Patagonia, Rivian, but also
firearm companies like Sig Sauerand Weatherby.
(12:59):
A really diverse coalition. Plus the conservation groups, of
course. Oh yeah, the big ones were
crucial. National Wildlife Federation,
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers,BHA, Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, RMEF Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, National
Wild Turkey Federation all rallied their members.
So is this combination of grassroots energy, influential
voices, business support, and established organizations public
(13:22):
persistence being public and loud?
Exactly. But even with that success, the
source points out challenges in the process itself, like making
sure public voices are actually heard.
How so? What are the roadblocks?
Well, things like omnibus bills,these giant pieces of
legislation where controversial items can get buried, among
hundreds of other things, it makes transparency really
(13:43):
difficult. Yeah, hard to track what's
really in them. And just the general
responsiveness, or lack thereof,from congressional offices.
The source mentions an example in Montana, where public
testimony was overwhelmingly against a state lawsuit aiming
to restrict stream access. And the elected officials.
Ignored it, moved forward anyway.
It's frustrating and highlights the difficulty in holding
(14:05):
officials accountable sometimes even when the public speaks
clearly. That leads to this broader idea
discussed in the source, this kind of disconnect especially
between urban populations and the source of their food and
water. Yeah, the slightly tongue in
cheek comment that for many people food just comes from
DoorDash. Right.
There's a lack of connection to the land, the agriculture, the
ecosystems that actually produceit all.
(14:27):
And this disconnect is linked toa critique of modern industrial
agriculture, mono cropping, you know, planting vast areas with
just one thing and also the riseof highly processed foods,
including lab grown or fake meatalternatives.
What's the criticism there? The source connects these trends
to health problems, mentioning seed oils potential cancer
(14:49):
links, but also argues it fundamentally devalues the land
itself. It treats food production as an
industrial process divorced fromnatural systems.
And they contrast this with whatwas it, regenerative
agriculture? Exactly, citing Will Harris at
White Oaks Pastures as an example of farming that works
with the ecosystem, rebuilding soil health, integrating
animals, a totally different philosophy.
(15:11):
And layered on top of all this is the social media environment.
The source had some warnings there too.
Oh yeah, a pretty strong cautionabout how social media can be
manipulated, specifically mentioning coordinated bot
farms. How do they work?
They can create this illusion ofconsensus, making it seem like
an idea is widely supported or widely condemned, when really
it's just automated accounts. And they often flood comment
(15:35):
sections with negativity to discourage genuine discussion or
critical thinking makes people hesitant to speak up.
And it mentioned actual arrests for online speech in some
places, yeah. England and Brazil were cited as
examples where people are facinglegal trouble for things they
post online. The chilling effect is real.
It leads to self censorship. Wow, so the battle for informed
(15:55):
public opinion is happening in this?
Really challenging online space too.
Definitely. And one last kind of provocative
theory. The source revisited this idea
that some politicians are actually uncomfortable with
Americans just having fun freelyon public lands.
Uncomfortable with fun? What does that mean?
The idea is that they get nervous about unstructured fun,
(16:16):
the fact that you can often go out onto vast areas of public
land without checking in, without paying a fee at a kiosk,
without signing a liability waiver, basically, yeah.
A kind of freedom that isn't easily controlled, monitored or
monetized. The theory suggests this lack of
structure makes some people in power uneasy.
It's a different lens than just seeing land as dollar signs.
(16:40):
That's a really interesting thought.
So pulling this all together, what's the main take away for
you, the listener? I think it boils down to
vigilance and unity being absolutely crucial.
This isn't a fight that gets oneonce and is over.
We need to actively support and lift up, as the source says, the
people and organizations who arestanding up for these lands.
Yeah, like becoming a member of groups like Backcountry Hunters
(17:01):
and Anglers. For others we mentioned it makes
a tangible difference. Absolutely.
And remembering the value here isn't just monetary, it's tied
to freedom. It's tied to shared experience.
It's about the legacy we leave. It really challenges you to
think about what holds true lasting value in life.
Is it just convenience, short term profit?
Or is it something deeper, something these vast, open,
(17:23):
shared landscapes represent thatenduring worth?
So the question back to you is, what does this deep dive spark
for you? What questions does it make you
ask about the places you care about and what you want the
future of these shared landscapes to look like?
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.