December 14, 2024 • 45 mins
URGENT: The very existence of public lands in the United States of America is under the greatest threat conceivable. What would the loss of public lands mean for you, your family and the activities you enjoy? What if the road leading to your favorite trailhead or camping spot was gated and locked? What if you were blocked from your favorite hiking or fishing spot by "PRIVATE-NO TRESPASSING" signs. Whether you enjoy visiting National Parks, wildlife refuges, lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service, all of these places are currently at risk of becoming private property. The elimination of federally managed public lands in the United States would have drastic and far-reaching consequences for the quality of life for all Americans. If you hunt and fish on public land you should be hyper aware of the current efforts spawned by the state of Utah. If you make a living grazing cattle on public lands the ramifications of Utah succeeding in this heist will severely impact your livelihood. In this very important conversation, Aaron Kindle, Director of Sporting Advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation sits down with Jesse Deubel to discuss the latest updates in the case, how we got here and what you can do to get involved. If you love public lands and all the opportunities they provide this is not an episode you will necessarily enjoy listening to. This one isn't for entertainment. Please listen to this emergency 45 minute episode to become informed so you can join the fight. In this episode Aaron Kindle refers to this issue as "the fight of our life."
HELP NOW! HALT THE HEIST! CLICK HERE!
HELP NOW! HALT THE HEIST! CLICK HERE!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, everybody, Welcome back to another very very special episode
of the AIVA Podcast. Today we're going to be talking
about something that is actually quite scary. We're going to
be discussing a threat that's currently facing our federally managed
public lands all across this country. The hunters and anglers
(00:21):
of the United States depend heavily on public lands for
our preferred recreation types.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And so today I've got a guest.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
A good friend of mine from Colorado who is very
very educated and has a thorough understanding of this particular issue,
and joining me on the show today is Aaron Kindall,
the director of Sporting Advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation
Erin Thanks for joining me today.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Thanks for having me, sir. I'm glad. I think you're
one of the best voices to help illuminate this issue
as well, so I'm glad we get to talk about it.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
The New Mexico Wildlife Federation presents the AHIVA Podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, well, thanks, thanks for coming on.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And this issue is a little complex, it's kind of
hard to understand, and basically it stems from a lawsuit
that's been filed by the Utah State Attorney General in
the United States Supreme Court, and we'll get into the
history of how we got to where we are today.
In fact, Darren, I'll have you cover that a little bit.
But I want to warn our listeners right up front
(01:24):
that the State of Utah has engaged in a multi
million dollar multi media campaign. There's a lot of media
circulating around this lawsuit, and there's a lot of efforts being.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Made by the people who would like to get their
hands on our public lands.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
There's a huge effort being made to misinform the general
public as to what this lawsuit would mean for the
people of this country. And we're going to dispel some
of those myths and set straight some of the falsehoods
that are currently being circulated by this media monster. But Erin,
if you would tell us a little bit about the
(01:59):
history of public lands, particularly gtterally managed public lands in
the West and what the situation is that allowed us
to get to the point where at today with this
immit threat.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Yeah. I mean, if you want to start with the
history of public lands, you know, you go back to
when we became a country and then westward expansion. A
lot of it was there through purchase, things like Louisiana
purchase there was also a war, obviously, the Mexican American War,
other little conflicts. Obviously there's a pretty rough history with
(02:32):
Native American tribes and some of the terrible stuff we
did there as a country. But I think for the
purposes of this, we'll just start with what it is.
In August, the state of Utah file a lawsuit with
the Supreme Court, and what they're saying they want is
control over eighteen and a half million acres of air
(02:56):
quote unappropriated lands within their borders. And to just define
that a little, unappropriated lands are simply just lands the
federal government holds without a congressionally defined purpose. So that
means like you know, your regular BLM field office, if
it's not wilderness, it's not a wildlife refuge, if it's
not you know, one of those congressionally designated type of things,
(03:19):
and that would be your unappropriated lands. And so they're
saying that the that the United States doesn't have any
right to these lands, which I think the first thing
that I always try to bring up for people is
is that's a very interesting, you know, angle from a state,
a Western state, particularly because in all the enabling acts
(03:42):
of the Western States which means at the time of statehood,
when they were granted entry into the Union of the
United States. There's a there's a clause right in their
enabling acts of their state, and there's one line that
that kind of really takes care of a lot of this.
They agree and I quote to forever disclaim all right
(04:04):
and title to the unappropriated again we'll quote lands within
their borders. And I say that because in order to
become a state, you know, become part of the United
States and have all the protections and privileges of being
part of the United States, they've already, at their own admission,
when they became a state, gave up the rights that
(04:26):
they're now saying they need and they deserve. So that's
a really big thing I think first off. Second is,
you know, in this lawsuit, they claim that the government
should only own forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings basically administrative type buildings, and that's the only kinds
(04:51):
of lands or buildings that the federal government should own.
So you know, within that you can also look to well, wait,
that's much beyond just unappropriated lands. By definition, they're saying
the government shouldn't own any land except for where you know,
these buildings sit. So that's another key point. And then
(05:11):
one more that I'll make is, you know, for the
Eastern States, which Utah likes to compare themselves to. Within
these arguments, the way that the federal government has disposed
of lands, as Utah is asking for is by selling them.
They're not going to just give Utah eighteen and a
half million acres of lands. They have obligations, fiduciary obligations
(05:35):
to you know, have a return on their investment, things
like that. So if they were to actually dispose of
these lands, we're very likely looking at sell. And then
even further when Utah, when Utah became a state, just
like all the Western states, they were granted some lands.
These are called state trust lands. You have them there
in New Mexico, we have them here in Colorado. Those
(05:57):
were there for the sole purposes of generating revenue for schools.
And even in those lands, Utah has sold over four
million acres of those lands already, so they have a
clear history of disposing and selling and you know, deinvesting
from those lands already. There's actually about a fourteen hundred
(06:19):
acre or twelve hundred acre parcel currently in Utah. That's
controversial because they have leased it to a developer and
then they're for a very cheap price, and then they're
saying they're going to get returned on the investment once
that thing is fully developed. So you know, all this
is to say high likelihood of selling. Don't really have
(06:40):
the right to these lands in the first place. And
the net thing here, Jesse, that I think you and
I and much of us are concerned about is this.
This is really the biggest threat to public lands we've
probably seen in our lifetimes. If this were to happen,
it opens the door for all the Western States to say, hey,
we wanted to bose of our lands too, perhaps try
(07:01):
to gain that revenue, sell them many other things. So
that's why we're so concerned, and that's why we're really
breaking out all hands on deck to try and fight this.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Yeah, So a couple of things there.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
The first one I'll mention, when you talk about the
unappropriated lands, you're talking about these lands that are not
specifically designated for a specific purpose.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
These are the lands that are currently managed.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Under the multi use Mandate by our Federal Land Management
Agency in the case of this suit to Bureau of
Land Management, I just want to ask our listeners to
reflect for a second about their favorite BLM lands on
which to hunt or fish or hike or backpack or camp,
and why they're going to quickly realize is that most
of those places are exactly the unappropriated lands. We've got
(07:46):
some amazing BLM lands that are awesome for tourism and
generate a lot of economic development.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
People come to.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Visit these places, but these are places with named, established
trail systems, oftentimes.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Vault toilets, and some amount of infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
But the unappropriated lands, as defined by the State of
Utah at least, are the very lands that are most
critical for the hunters and anglers who use those lands
on which to pursue wildlife, find solitude and get far
away from the modern world and the hustle and bustle
of cities and towns and tourism and traffic and all
(08:22):
of the things that we seek when we go out
into the wilds to enjoy our activities.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
So that's the first thing I'd like to mention.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Second thing specific for our listeners in New Mexico, as
Aaron said, the state of Utah sold off four million
acres of State Trust land. Well, in New Mexico we've
done the same. We started with thirteen million acres when
we became a state. Now we're down to nine million
acres because we sold off the other four million. Again,
(08:51):
just to reiterate the points that were already made, and
I know this sounds a little redundant, but I want
to make sure that we're.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Clearly explaining the situation.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
There's absolutely no guarantee that the lands, if disposed of,
would go to the states to begin with.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
But even if they did, then a couple of things
are true here in New Mexico.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Number One, we currently don't have the ability to camp
on those lands. We can't camp on them without the
permission from the surface less see, and in my forty
four years of being alive, I've never once been able
to get that permission. So we're not allowed to camp
on the State Trust land. We're not allowed to have
our dogs off leash. In most cases, there's some exceptions,
but there's a lot of rules on the State Trust
(09:29):
land that are very different than bl in land. And
so even for our grazing community, if a local rancher
is grazing.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Cattle on BLM land.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
The rate that they pay, the au M rate on
BLM land is substantially less than what it would be
on state trust land. So this disposal of federal lands
would affect all user groups. This is not just hunters
and anglers. This is also you know, the local cattle
ranching communities and communities and rural parts of this state.
And to the last point you made, Eric, you said, well,
(10:00):
if the court decides this, then all other Western states
would also say, hey, well we can do this too.
I'm not sure it would require the states to make
that decision, because if the Supreme Court chose to take
the case and they found it unconstitutional, then regardless of
the state's opinion, it seems to me that the federal
government would be under a mandate at that point to
(10:21):
actually dispose of all of those federally managed lands.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Is that truer.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
I mean, obviously we're making assumptions a little bit because
we don't know. There's never been a situation quite as
dire as this, so we have no experience in this space.
But do you think that that's a possibility that the
Feds would just say we have to dispose of it period,
whether the States wanted to or not.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
I think you're follow the correct line of thinking. That's
what Utah is hoping for. You know, the Supreme Court
cases are complicated. It depends on exactly how they rule.
But yeah, I think that's an implication that could be true.
And you know, I think you bring up so many
different points. You know, public lands are unique across the world.
(11:06):
For one, our system of public lands and they're really
the goose that laid the golden egg. And you know,
and you know, you and I have talked about it before,
and Randy Neuberg says it. Our public lands are six
hundred and forty million acres of public lands are the
largest accumulation of public wealth in the world. You know,
there's minerals, there's timber, there's there's grass, there's all these
(11:28):
different things that are valuable to folks. You talked a
little bit about AUMs. The federal rate for an AUM
and animal unit month a cow and a calf grazing
lands is less than two dollars. Every state I'm aware
of in the in the West is from twelve to
twenty dollars for an AUM. So that immediately times ten.
You know what you might be paying for for a
(11:51):
grazing aum. There's lots of royalties paid to states from
oil and gas revenue. There's pilt payments, payment and lieu
of taxes. Each state Utah gets several hundred million dollars
every year from the federal government in payment and liew
at taxes and royalties and things like that. So A,
they're already gaining substantial revenue with with no cost to
(12:14):
them at all to manage or do any of those things.
But B we also get all those recreational benefits these
little towns. You know, you and I have been across
to Utah in to these small towns Bluff, Utah, Monticello,
all these places that are by bears, Ears, and you know,
just any odd blm lands for mountain biking and hiking
and hunting. Their whole economy is based on having these
(12:37):
public lands nearby. So you know, A, like I said,
it kills the it's the killing the goose that laid
the golden egg. But B it would be a reconfiguration
of everything we know in these rural Western landscapes. I
know of many communities that derive half of their income
just during hunting season. Because there's they're really rural, there's
(13:01):
nothing going on. They're not maybe tourist type economies. But
during hunting season they have that big game habitat that
you were talking about, and hunter's flock in mass to
these places. And really these landscapes are also I think
we'd be remiss if we didn't say they're home to
so much wildlife and so many things that we as
wildlife advocates care about. The habitat the rivers. I think
(13:24):
about the Rio Chama there and in New Mexico Blm Lands.
I've floated many times. It has fishing, it's spectacular scenery,
you know, generates a lot of revenue for those little
communities near there. That's just one example of thousands across
the West that you know are just really economic drivers
(13:44):
that if those were private, nobody would go there except
for those those people who owned it. And you know
that key Randy Newberg quote that you talked about that
largest accumulation of wealth. This would really set up to
transfer that well health to private entities. And you know,
you're you're also well versed in seeing some of the
(14:05):
stuff that happens with the privatization of hunting tags and
other things. When that happens, really the regular Joe and
Jane lose.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Yeah, we would lose big time.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Here here's what's unique, Aaron, I want to talk a
little bit about this.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
This is not the first time this has happened.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
As you said, six hundred and forty million acres represents
the largest concentration of wealth on the planet, so plenty
of people want to go after that, clearly, so I
understand the why. But and this is not brand new.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
This has been happening.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
For you know, a long time. We've been dealing with
this for a really long time. And one of the
most recent attempts also came out of the state of Utah.
But it was when the Representative Jason Schaffitz out of
Utah filed a bill in Congress, a public lands transfer bill.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
At that time, the.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Sporting community blew up in anger and frustration with that attempt,
and I think, you know, Representative Schaef It's lost his
seat over it. But I think still licking his wounds
from that attempt because we launched such a massive attack
on that idea. But what's happening this time, Aaron, is very,
(15:09):
very different, and it's because of that multi million dollar
media campaign I talked about the state of Utah did
such an unbelievable job in marketing this idea that they've
created a lot of supporters for their cause who are
right now today advocating against their own best interests. And
(15:31):
this is a huge problem in New Mexico where numerous
counties in the state, most of our southern counties are
rural counties. Have It's a long, complicated thing, and I
don't want to get too far into the weeds on it,
but they've agreed to join Utah suit. They filed an
amicas brief, many of them without the county Commission even
voting on it. So these are decisions made by a
(15:51):
single individual to represent an entire county. When you look
at say Luna County, for example, Luna Counties included on
this amikas brief that's been filed. Meanwhile, the county hasn't
even voted on a resolution to support or oppose the effort.
They held a County Commission meeting recently to talk about
whether or not to financially support the effort. They were
(16:12):
going to actually send Luna County taxpayer money to Utah
to help support this effort. They voted that down because
their general council said that it would be a violation
of the anti donation clause. Not because commissioners didn't want to,
but because they felt like they would be a violation,
so they chose not to because of language. It's in
our state constitution. But rural communities like that. Rural counties
(16:35):
like that. They're getting a vast majority of their income
many cases, I think from the payment in lieu of taxes,
you know, the money that's coming in because so much
of their county is comprised by federally managed public lands,
and a huge portion of their annual revenue are coming
from the hunting and fishing communities that would not be
going there if they didn't have public land. Many of
(16:56):
the members of the community who are supporting this, supporting
this idea that they should help Utah are the local
cattle ranchers, And what you just stated about the difference
in aum rates should really open the eyes of our
ranching community, because if your cattle rancher anywhere in New
Mexico and you graze cattle on federally managed public lands,
this outcome that UTAH is hoping for has the potential
(17:21):
to literally put you out of business.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Yeah, it sure doesn't. You know, I don't know what
exactly happened in Utah, Jesse, but they are the head
of the snake. I mean they every handful of years
they try to derive a different way to to take
these lands. Really, and there's really no other way to
say it is to steal right because as we said,
(17:45):
they weren't theirs in the first place. They're they're the
property of the American people for the benefit of the
American people. But Utah believes that because they're within Utah's borders,
they have some sort of right to them beyond that.
And you know, I think we can all empathize. Right
something that's near your home, you feel a little bit
more obligated or or you know, you feel a little
(18:07):
bit more ownership as far as you know, taking care
of that land. But these are still the lands of
all the people of the United States. And I think
there's a couple of things that you know, you would
point to if you're trying to determine the merit of
these things. And and one is that you know, Utah
is now spent in the tens of millions of dollars
trying to do this just for this round, the state
(18:31):
legislature and the state itself has set aside about twenty
million dollars to fight this. They're paying lawyers fifteen hundred
dollars an hour. You know, they're they're paying public money
to try and you know, follow this path and attempt
to steal these lands really back from from the people
(18:52):
of the United States. And you know, there's things in
there like ads in the Washington Post, ads in the
Wall Street Journal, major billboard across the land, a huge
marketing campaign, a new website, and they're trying to convince
folks that these will stay public land. But they're not
talking about their own history with public lands, and they're
not talking about if you follow the law and you
(19:15):
follow the constitutional precedents and the court precedents with this,
it doesn't point to them getting these lands. Just getting them.
They would either have to purchase them or they would
be just sold outright to whoever wants to buy them,
according to history and law and the Constitution. So I
don't really know where they're going except for that maybe
(19:38):
they believe that ultimately they don't really care who owns it,
just as long as it's not the federal government, and
that's you know, that's pretty bad for all of our history,
our lives. Right, We've grown up with these public lands
and knowing that they're out there and people can just
go they're the envy of the world.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Yeah, no, you're exactly right. And I mean, I can't
overemphasize the threat.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
It could literally result in the sale of Yellowstone National Park.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
That literally could happen.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
We don't know for sure, but that's a possibility based
on what this suit says. And I'm glad you really
emphasize that the fact that Utah has been the tip
of the spear on this issue for a really long time.
Because there's a couple of things that I'm going to
just mention to our membership. First of all, we're recording
this in the middle of December, and I'm going to
try to get this thing published and out on our
(20:29):
platform as quickly as possible. There's a production process that
has to happen, but I'm going to try to expedite
that because this is such an urgent issue. I want
people to know this is happening. People who love public
lands have a right to know that this conversation threat exists,
and how it's progressing.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Through the system.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
We should learn roughly the first week of July whether
or not the Supreme Court is going to take this case.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
So the case has.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Been filed, the Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether
they're going to hear the case or not. So that's
a really important date that's coming up, is to learn
that fact. But here's going back to the State of
Utah for just the second end. If the US Supreme
Court chooses not to take the case, then inevitably the
State of Utah will file in federal district courts. So
(21:18):
it's not like the issue goes away. If the Supreme
Court says we're not going to take the case. The
State of Utah is not giving up. So that's one
thing that they'll likely do. But another thing that our
listeners should be aware of. Congress has the authority to
dispose of public lands should they choose to. And the
reason that scares me so much right now, even though
(21:39):
they've had that authority forever, I mean, as long as
they've existed, the reason I'm scared right now is because
we've got an interesting political landscape in.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Washington, d C.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
And it just so happens that Senator Mike Lee, the
senior Senator from Utah, is now going to be the
chair of Senate Energy and Natural Resource. He's going to
be the chair of one of the most influential committees
in all of Congress when it relates to what's happening
with the management of our federal lands.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So so these.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Threats are huge, but there's also a diversity of avenues
they might take.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
The first one, of course.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Being whether or not the Supreme Court decides to hear
the cases.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Does that all found accuracy there?
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Yeah, And I'll clarify one thing. I think you said July,
but we're expecting this in January, and I think you probably.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Just oh yeah about that.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Yeah, no problem. But in January, we're expecting the Supreme
Court decide whether or not they take up this case
in January. I'll say one other thing, just as in
a side in that you know, the federal government responded,
you know, basically said they had no merit, you know,
cataloged a bunch of case law and history and anyway.
(22:53):
But the Ute tribe also has has filed a complaint
within this and I'm going to get the legal eese wrong.
But on Monday, December sixteenth. We're expecting Utah's response to
the tribe, but basically the tribe is also claiming harm
because some of these unappropriated lands they say they have
(23:14):
a claim to, you know, as their tribal lands. So
that's also interspersed within this whole thing. But yeah, one
of the unique parts about this is that Utah took
this directly to the Supreme Court, which also kind of
his opposite of precedent. Usually kind of work your way
up from lower courts and then you take it to
(23:35):
the Supreme Court. They took it directly to the Supreme Court.
So that's already interesting within and of itself. The Supreme
Court could come back and say, hey, take it to
the district court, and if you work through that, then
maybe it gets to us. So that's one possible outcome.
But I think what you touched on with Congress is
really critical because Mike Lee and a lot of the
(23:56):
Utah congressional delegation, Rob Bishop back in the days if
Jason Chafitz, like you mentioned, was also a huge proponent
of Utah attempting to grab public lands in any way
they could. But so we're very likely to see legislation
and with Mike Lee being in that powerful position, obviously
it would be heard, it would have a hearing that
(24:18):
there would be a lot of you know, expeditious ways
that legislation like that could follow. And as you mentioned,
you know, a lot of this has always been been
within the purview of Congress. Congress is the one that
has the authority to do these kinds of things, not
states and so and or the Supreme Court obviously could
rule like Utah is hoping, but the Congress can write
(24:41):
a bill that says just about anything, right, so they
could say, you know, all federal land is you know, dissolved.
Who knows what they you know, we don't know exactly
what that would mean, but we do know that, like
we said, Utah has been the head of the snake
and they've gone to extreme measures. And there's a very
very concerned, well funded effort by folks who do not
(25:04):
like the federal government, do not like federal land management
or or the fact that the federal government owns and
I say owns an air quote because actually we all
own it. This is this is not you know, own
is a big word in this case because we don't
have title to it. But the United States citizens are
the actual you know, beneficiaries and owners of these landscapes.
(25:26):
So those are pretty critical concepts when it comes to this. Yeah,
it's it's murky, and it's tough for folks to follow.
It's one of the tough things about this campaign because
you're getting into you know, constitution and enabling acts and
you know, property clause and those kinds of things which
regular Joe's and James don't follow very well. But we're
(25:49):
really going out of our way to help people understand.
And one thing I should definitely say, and hopefully we
can put this in the show notes, is if you
go to NWF dot org backslash Halt the Heist, because
this is a heist, you know, you can see some
more information about this. There's a way for you to
write if you're one of the fourteen states. There's thirteen
states that have filed kind of in favor of states
(26:10):
or state legislatures that have kind of been out there
supporting Utah. You can write their ag or their governor,
or you can write Utah you know, if you even
if you're not a Utah citizen. So check that out
and there'll be more information there. And our social media
will be out there and there's going to be a
lot of different increments here where we'll digest this information
(26:33):
for folks and get it out. So I think that's
pretty critical for folks to try to follow this because
it is pretty complicated.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Yeah, it certainly is complicated, and I think from the
organizational side of things, in other words, the mngos like
the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, and
countless other groups across the country.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, we
will get involved.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
We will join the case in an effort to help
the core understand that they must decide on behalf of
the public landowners across this country.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
So we'll make every effort to do that.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
If the Court doesn't take the case, the issues not over,
as we already mentioned. But I say that because I
think there's a role for every listener to this show
to play in this process. And at the very least,
I think it's critical that you make your federal delegation,
those are your United States senators and representatives, make them
very very well aware how you personally feel about public lands,
(27:31):
about your personal passion for the activities that you enjoy
on public lands, and that's a huge step in the
right direction, especially if the court doesn't take the case
and we have to continue to be fighting this effort
from different angles. And I'd like to call out a
plea for unity of our public landowners and public land users, because,
(27:54):
let's face it, the multiple use mandate that our federal
land management agencies are required to honor is challenging.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
I mean, that's a challenging task.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
How do you keep the mountain bikers happy when they
want to build a trail through help caving habitat, and
the wildlife advocates are saying, no, we don't want your
bike trails through here, or when tuil hunters are complaining
that the landscape has been overgraded by cattle there's too
many cattle grazers, or the cattle grazers don't like the
fact that wolves have been reintroduced on the landscape. I mean,
there's four million things we can all argue about as
(28:25):
users of the public lands. And my plea for folks is,
let's make sure we preserve and maintain our ability to
have public lands and to access public land so we
can continue to have something to fight about, you know,
I would much rather be in an argument with a
rancher about a grazing lease or be in a discussion
(28:45):
with a birdwatcher about a particular use of a piece
of public land, then for everybody across the board to
lose because we have no more public land. So for
this issue, I mean, if different user groups want to
continue to picker amongst ourselves, that's fine on all those
specific little issues on the minutia, if you will. But
on this specific issue, I'm calling for every single person
(29:09):
who uses and appreciates public lands to just unite and
be one hundred percent united in our opposition to this
effort by UTAH.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Yeah, Jesse, I love that plea, and we're going to
try to help you do that. And you touched on
something that I talk to folks about a lot, and
one of them is something that I say, and it's
been well before this issue, but no longer can you
just as a citizen expect to show up in your
hunting spot the very next year and do zero about
(29:39):
keeping it that way. There's just too many stresses and
strains on these lands regardless, you know. And so one
of the things that I think we can all agree
on and some of the things that are legitimate are
that sometimes public lands management isn't the greatest right and
it could be better. But I want folks to understand
something really critical about that, and that is that you know,
(30:03):
over about the last two decades, almost twenty five years now,
Congress has steadily decreased the funding for federal land management agencies.
And there's some pretty you know, rough people within that
when I say that in Congress, because there's folks who
have consistently derided and criticized public land managers, the same
(30:27):
people who keep saying less and less and less for
them to do their jobs. And we all know, just
like I said, you can't show up in your spot
and expected to be the same. There is more stress
and strained, more different kinds of users. We have e bikes,
we have drones, we have incredible four wheel drive vehicles,
rock crawlers, we have all of those things. Are you know,
(30:47):
increasing impact on public lands and then just more people
in the West. We've seen every Western state grow over
the past few decades, right, and some of that's leaving
off a little bit. But you have on X, you
have all these ways to know everything that's out there.
So many stresses and strains at the same time when
we're reducing funding and the ability for these for these
(31:07):
folks to manage these these landscapes. And you know, there's
some processes that could probably be more efficient. I think
we all agree with that, you know, NEPA processes sometimes
will take three years to get something done. Most folks go,
you know, we could do that next week. We know,
you know what to do. But I think when you
have something as important and as valuable and critical as
(31:29):
our public lands, it's really imperative to take your time
do it right. NIPA also says the public has to
be involved. One of the reasons it takes a while,
because you have to have public meetings, you have to
take public comment, you have to, you know, consider the
way that all of us who are the stewards and
the you know, the folks who benefit from these public
lands get our say. And that's beautiful. That's something that
(31:51):
is is really we I think we all take for granted,
those of us who live in the West, especially that
have you know, millions of acres of public lands out
our door. But please take this obligation, take it. Learn
these lands, learn who manages them, Go talk to your managers,
sit down and have coffee with them, understand the issues,
(32:12):
talk to other users, become friends with people. You know,
most people aren't out there trying to do anything bad.
Do we have grazing that's a problem in some places, yes,
but my experiences, most ranchers certainly don't want to hurt
these landscapes. Do we have off highway vehicle use. That's
a problem, yes in some places, but I've worked with
many of those folks and they're not trying to, you know,
(32:32):
degrade these landscapes. And so if we work together and
kind of take it as a as an obligation of
public lands with this privilege, you know, comes this obligation.
If we take that, we can turn this thing around,
improve management of public lands, get better funding, and retain
these public lands for us and future generations. And that's
really something that I can't express strong enough that we
(32:55):
need to do.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, you're absolutely right Erin and that was really well said.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
And it's really easy for us sometimes to villainize competing
users of the public land that we love so much.
But we've got to stop that. We've got to learn
to work together I'm going to go back just a
little bit. It's been a selling I'm going backwards, and
I guess to some.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Degree, I am.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
But you you brought up the sometimes poor management of
the agencies on these lands or there's a lot to
be desired sometimes with regard to how the lands are managed.
But I want to emphasize to our listeners that this
this effort by Utah, this has been a long time planning.
This isn't something they just they filed in August. This
case was filed with the US Supreme Court in August,
(33:36):
but the plan to do this goes back years and
years and years, and just about five years ago under
you know, the President of the United States at that
time essentially dismantled the Bureau of Land Management. I mean
it was moved the agency headquarters from Washington, d C.
To Grant Junction, Colorado. Lost a whole bunch of key
staff that wasn't able to make the relocation.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Then the next.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
President came into tried to put it all back together.
But when that kind of dysfunction is present within an agency,
it's no wonder why the agency has some challenges with
regard to managing the resources in addition to the point
you brought up, which was a really important one, and
that is the funding the resources. If the agency has
(34:21):
been starved of resources, sure, it's difficult to do a
good job of managing our public land. So, as I
said in a previous rant, that I would encourage every
listener to let their federal delegation know how much these
public lands mean to them and that they will not
tolerate those lands being sold to the highest bidder and
ultimately privatized. In that same correspondence and that same letter
(34:44):
and that same email and that same phone call, advocate
for increased funding to our agencies. Beggar elected officials to
do what's right and provide the resources that these agencies
need to manage the lands we love.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Yeah, a huge point. You know that that loss of
that BLM expertise was a huge brain drain from the
agency and and you know it's going to take a
while to fix that. But you know this is happening
in real time. We just saw not too long ago
that the Forest Service is not going to hire seasonal
employees next summer. That's a federal agency. Those seasonal employees
(35:21):
are out there doing trail work, and you know, campground
maintenance and lots lots of things that when we go
to public lands we kind of expect to have been
done right. We thought, you know, the porta potties have
been serviced, the trees have been cut that have fallen
across the trail over the winter, you know, routine maintenance
things like that. So there you are. There there's an
(35:43):
example we cut that. That's cutting and funding that means
your experience is going to be you know, degraded when
you're in these places. And you know, I think people
just think they go out. I mean I talked to
a hunter this year and I'm up on a mountain.
He's like, oh, there's there's logs all over the trail.
It used to be great in here. And he said
the Division of Wildlife used to do this. And there
(36:05):
was two parts to that. One, the Division of Wildlife
isn't responsible for that. This is a federal agency. You know,
the Forest Service would have been responsible for that. So
he was wrong blaming the wrong people with lots of angst.
And then two, just like we said, if you keep
cutting the agencies which a lot of people support, they
think they do a bad job. So let's not give
them any money. Well, these are the kind of implications
(36:28):
you're going to see, and so that's a really critical point.
We need to take care of these agencies. If you
were managing you know, millions of subsurface acres for minerals,
things like minds, things like endangered species, things like recreation,
that's not a cheap job. You need a lot of expertise,
(36:48):
you need a lot of resources. It's six hundred and
forty million acres. It's not a small chunk of land.
You need real resources, real expertise. You know, that isn't
that isn't something that just happens overnight. You need scientists
and biologists and botanists and hydrologists and petroleum jail. You
need every kind of expert you can kind of imagine
(37:10):
with natural resources. So those things cost money, They take expertise,
and you don't want to lose it like we did
a handful of years ago. When those folks left, many
of them were twenty thirty year veterans of these things
who had those relationships, had that experience. That was a
big loss for us, and we need to go the
other way with public lands management.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Yeah, I'm glad you brought up that hiring Freeze with
the US Forest Service, because just a couple of weeks ago,
I got a call from a district ranger from the
United States Forest Service asking if the New Mexico Wildlife
Federation could help to develop a program that's called adopt.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
The camp Site.
Speaker 1 (37:47):
You know a lot of folks if you drive, if
you do a lot of road trips or drive across
rural parts of the country, some places you'll see signs
it says adopt the highway, and it'll be a local
business or organization who's adopted a stretch of the highway
and doing so has agreed to pick up trash and
keep it clean. And I'm not sure exactly what all
of the responsibilities are, but it's volunteers helping to keep
(38:08):
a place nice. And the Force was literally asked New
Mexico Wilfe Federation if we could develop and adopt a
campsite program because they cannot hire seasonal staff, which historically
they would use to make sure the campsites are well
maintained and all the things you already talked about eron.
But it's crazy that we're to that point that we're
(38:29):
to that point where we have to do that and
I'm not opposed to volunteerism. And I love being involved,
and I love taking care of public lands, and I
love getting our volunteers and our membership to do the same.
And it's a lot of fun and we get the
kids out there, and so it's not all negative, but
it really really illustrates how rough things are from a
resource standpoint at the federal agency if they're making phone
(38:51):
called begging someone to help them maintain the campsite as
a volunteer.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Yeah, And I think the morale is something else you
have to consider there. If you're one of these employees
who you know, has has dedicated your career to this,
you did your schooling to, you know, in these natural
resource management fields, and then you know you're seeing people
yell at you and your funding cut and less resources
(39:15):
to do the same job. I mean, you can imagine
if that were you or I or most people, that
may cause you to leave that job, right, And so
then you keep losing more and more, and so we
need to you know, it used to be in the
seventies sixties, it used to be there was prestige to
work for the Forest Service or the BLM, you know,
and that it's kind of went the other way, and
we need to we need to try to return it
(39:36):
to that because the future management of these lands really
you know, depends on that expertise, those resources and again,
you know, taking care of that goose that's laying this
golden eg We really need that. And you know, I
think getting back to kind of what this is really about,
I just want to make it abundantly clear this this
(39:58):
effort is really just the latest thenly veil the temp
the most dangerous threat to public lands we've seen, maybe ever.
But they're really after trying to attack the system of
public lands one way or the other. They would prefer
there wasn't public LANs, and if they can't get that,
(40:18):
they'll find other ways to. You know, like we said,
degrade the agencies try to give it to states, and
they're really relying on the public to buy this highly
marketed twenty million dollars campaign that they're going to take
care of it for you. But I can assure you
it's a patently terrible idea. If you want and care
(40:40):
about public lands and you want us to have them,
it's a terrible idea.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
Yeah, it's probably the worst thing I've ever heard, and
so we talked about people getting in touch.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
With their federal delegation make it known.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
We've asked folks to stay united when it comes to
this particular effort, regardless of any other differences we have.
Is we talked about the heist again, and that's a
National Wildlife Federation website, Halt.
Speaker 3 (41:03):
Theehist NWF dot org backslash Halt the Heist. Yeah, and
on there, Jesse, there's some information. There's some FAQs you
can you can also click right on there, you know,
to go ahead and write to your folks. There's an
action alert type of thing. There's a lot of other
questions there that you can get answered, and you'll be
(41:24):
able to find more information there and on our social media,
you know, as we as we continue down this road.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
Yeah, well, thank you, Ern and thanks to the National
Wildlife Federation for putting all of that together. A lot
of folks across the country don't realize the magnificent impact
the National Wildlife Federation has had on hunting and angling
in this country. The National Wildlife Federation was founded in
nineteen thirty six, and one of the biggest things that's
(41:50):
ever happened in this country from a conservation standpoint was
the passage of the Pitt mc robertson Act in nineteen
thirty seven, which was led by the National Wildlife Federation,
is one of their first major victories after founding the
New Mexico Wildlife Federation. I mentioned this on the show before,
but a good reminder of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation
is affiliated with the National Wildlife Federation, but we're not
(42:11):
a chapter or a branch of NWF. We're two separate,
autonomous organizations who just work really well together in partnership,
and the New Mexico Wildlife Federation helps to set the
national policy for the National Wildlife Federation.
Speaker 2 (42:25):
So it's a really cool relationship.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
Aaron, and I'm so honored to be able to work
with you and to have the friendship that we share,
and so privileged that you were willing to invest some
of your valuable time to talk to me and our
audience here on the show today. So with that, is
there anything else you'd you'd like to add before we
wrap it up?
Speaker 2 (42:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (42:42):
Well, first, just thank you and I would just echo
everything you said. I think our federation model is unique.
It's a really fun family to be part of and
a really powerful family to be part of. It's a
true federation. A lot of folks don't understand that, meaning
that you're set in New Mexico Wildlife Federation. All of
the state wildlife federations are essentially like being a state
(43:07):
in the Senate. Right when we have our annual meeting,
you guys get a couple of delegates. Each delegates each
one of you do and you vote on our policy
as you said, and you guide us. And so we
work as a true federation to try and combat the
biggest conservation challenges of the day. And we really lean
on and care about and need our affiliates like you guys.
(43:28):
You're the experts on the ground. You have all kinds
of experience and expertise and relationships that really make our federation,
you know, roll down in the tracks in a really
positive and effective way. So thank you for that. And
I think the last thing I'll leave folks with, Jesse,
is that you know, our public clans are a privileged
(43:50):
It's like driving, it's like having a hunting license. You know,
it could be taken away at any minute if you
don't go defend it. And we've seen tons of attack
and this is in our eyes right now, the worst
one we've ever seen. It's the most well funded, it's
got history, it's got things lining up in Congress, it's
got things lining up in Supreme Court. This is the
(44:12):
fight of our lives for public lands advocates and hunters
and anglers and all the other folks that rely on
these lens. So do not sit on your hands. Do
not hope somebody else is going to take care of this.
It's going to take all of us, and look to us,
look to Jesse, many folks in the conservation world you're
going to hear this from So get engaged. Please.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
Aaron, thank you so much, and I hope you have
a fantastic Alliday season and you.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
And me together will continue the fight.
Speaker 3 (44:42):
Thank you, Sure you too, you will.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Thanks for listening to the Yahiva podcast produced by Drift
with Outdoors at
Hello, everybody, Welcome back to another very very special episode
of the AIVA Podcast. Today we're going to be talking
about something that is actually quite scary. We're going to
be discussing a threat that's currently facing our federally managed
public lands all across this country. The hunters and anglers
(00:21):
of the United States depend heavily on public lands for
our preferred recreation types.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And so today I've got a guest.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
A good friend of mine from Colorado who is very
very educated and has a thorough understanding of this particular issue,
and joining me on the show today is Aaron Kindall,
the director of Sporting Advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation
Erin Thanks for joining me today.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Thanks for having me, sir. I'm glad. I think you're
one of the best voices to help illuminate this issue
as well, so I'm glad we get to talk about it.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
The New Mexico Wildlife Federation presents the AHIVA Podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, well, thanks, thanks for coming on.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
And this issue is a little complex, it's kind of
hard to understand, and basically it stems from a lawsuit
that's been filed by the Utah State Attorney General in
the United States Supreme Court, and we'll get into the
history of how we got to where we are today.
In fact, Darren, I'll have you cover that a little bit.
But I want to warn our listeners right up front
(01:24):
that the State of Utah has engaged in a multi
million dollar multi media campaign. There's a lot of media
circulating around this lawsuit, and there's a lot of efforts being.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Made by the people who would like to get their
hands on our public lands.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
There's a huge effort being made to misinform the general
public as to what this lawsuit would mean for the
people of this country. And we're going to dispel some
of those myths and set straight some of the falsehoods
that are currently being circulated by this media monster. But Erin,
if you would tell us a little bit about the
(01:59):
history of public lands, particularly gtterally managed public lands in
the West and what the situation is that allowed us
to get to the point where at today with this
immit threat.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Yeah. I mean, if you want to start with the
history of public lands, you know, you go back to
when we became a country and then westward expansion. A
lot of it was there through purchase, things like Louisiana
purchase there was also a war, obviously, the Mexican American War,
other little conflicts. Obviously there's a pretty rough history with
(02:32):
Native American tribes and some of the terrible stuff we
did there as a country. But I think for the
purposes of this, we'll just start with what it is.
In August, the state of Utah file a lawsuit with
the Supreme Court, and what they're saying they want is
control over eighteen and a half million acres of air
(02:56):
quote unappropriated lands within their borders. And to just define
that a little, unappropriated lands are simply just lands the
federal government holds without a congressionally defined purpose. So that
means like you know, your regular BLM field office, if
it's not wilderness, it's not a wildlife refuge, if it's
not you know, one of those congressionally designated type of things,
(03:19):
and that would be your unappropriated lands. And so they're
saying that the that the United States doesn't have any
right to these lands, which I think the first thing
that I always try to bring up for people is
is that's a very interesting, you know, angle from a state,
a Western state, particularly because in all the enabling acts
(03:42):
of the Western States which means at the time of statehood,
when they were granted entry into the Union of the
United States. There's a there's a clause right in their
enabling acts of their state, and there's one line that
that kind of really takes care of a lot of this.
They agree and I quote to forever disclaim all right
(04:04):
and title to the unappropriated again we'll quote lands within
their borders. And I say that because in order to
become a state, you know, become part of the United
States and have all the protections and privileges of being
part of the United States, they've already, at their own admission,
when they became a state, gave up the rights that
(04:26):
they're now saying they need and they deserve. So that's
a really big thing I think first off. Second is,
you know, in this lawsuit, they claim that the government
should only own forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings basically administrative type buildings, and that's the only kinds
(04:51):
of lands or buildings that the federal government should own.
So you know, within that you can also look to well, wait,
that's much beyond just unappropriated lands. By definition, they're saying
the government shouldn't own any land except for where you know,
these buildings sit. So that's another key point. And then
(05:11):
one more that I'll make is, you know, for the
Eastern States, which Utah likes to compare themselves to. Within
these arguments, the way that the federal government has disposed
of lands, as Utah is asking for is by selling them.
They're not going to just give Utah eighteen and a
half million acres of lands. They have obligations, fiduciary obligations
(05:35):
to you know, have a return on their investment, things
like that. So if they were to actually dispose of
these lands, we're very likely looking at sell. And then
even further when Utah, when Utah became a state, just
like all the Western states, they were granted some lands.
These are called state trust lands. You have them there
in New Mexico, we have them here in Colorado. Those
(05:57):
were there for the sole purposes of generating revenue for schools.
And even in those lands, Utah has sold over four
million acres of those lands already, so they have a
clear history of disposing and selling and you know, deinvesting
from those lands already. There's actually about a fourteen hundred
(06:19):
acre or twelve hundred acre parcel currently in Utah. That's
controversial because they have leased it to a developer and
then they're for a very cheap price, and then they're
saying they're going to get returned on the investment once
that thing is fully developed. So you know, all this
is to say high likelihood of selling. Don't really have
(06:40):
the right to these lands in the first place. And
the net thing here, Jesse, that I think you and
I and much of us are concerned about is this.
This is really the biggest threat to public lands we've
probably seen in our lifetimes. If this were to happen,
it opens the door for all the Western States to say, hey,
we wanted to bose of our lands too, perhaps try
(07:01):
to gain that revenue, sell them many other things. So
that's why we're so concerned, and that's why we're really
breaking out all hands on deck to try and fight this.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Yeah, So a couple of things there.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
The first one I'll mention, when you talk about the
unappropriated lands, you're talking about these lands that are not
specifically designated for a specific purpose.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
These are the lands that are currently managed.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Under the multi use Mandate by our Federal Land Management
Agency in the case of this suit to Bureau of
Land Management, I just want to ask our listeners to
reflect for a second about their favorite BLM lands on
which to hunt or fish or hike or backpack or camp,
and why they're going to quickly realize is that most
of those places are exactly the unappropriated lands. We've got
(07:46):
some amazing BLM lands that are awesome for tourism and
generate a lot of economic development.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
People come to.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Visit these places, but these are places with named, established
trail systems, oftentimes.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Vault toilets, and some amount of infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
But the unappropriated lands, as defined by the State of
Utah at least, are the very lands that are most
critical for the hunters and anglers who use those lands
on which to pursue wildlife, find solitude and get far
away from the modern world and the hustle and bustle
of cities and towns and tourism and traffic and all
(08:22):
of the things that we seek when we go out
into the wilds to enjoy our activities.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
So that's the first thing I'd like to mention.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Second thing specific for our listeners in New Mexico, as
Aaron said, the state of Utah sold off four million
acres of State Trust land. Well, in New Mexico we've
done the same. We started with thirteen million acres when
we became a state. Now we're down to nine million
acres because we sold off the other four million. Again,
(08:51):
just to reiterate the points that were already made, and
I know this sounds a little redundant, but I want
to make sure that we're.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Clearly explaining the situation.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
There's absolutely no guarantee that the lands, if disposed of,
would go to the states to begin with.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
But even if they did, then a couple of things
are true here in New Mexico.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Number One, we currently don't have the ability to camp
on those lands. We can't camp on them without the
permission from the surface less see, and in my forty
four years of being alive, I've never once been able
to get that permission. So we're not allowed to camp
on the State Trust land. We're not allowed to have
our dogs off leash. In most cases, there's some exceptions,
but there's a lot of rules on the State Trust
(09:29):
land that are very different than bl in land. And
so even for our grazing community, if a local rancher
is grazing.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Cattle on BLM land.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
The rate that they pay, the au M rate on
BLM land is substantially less than what it would be
on state trust land. So this disposal of federal lands
would affect all user groups. This is not just hunters
and anglers. This is also you know, the local cattle
ranching communities and communities and rural parts of this state.
And to the last point you made, Eric, you said, well,
(10:00):
if the court decides this, then all other Western states
would also say, hey, well we can do this too.
I'm not sure it would require the states to make
that decision, because if the Supreme Court chose to take
the case and they found it unconstitutional, then regardless of
the state's opinion, it seems to me that the federal
government would be under a mandate at that point to
(10:21):
actually dispose of all of those federally managed lands.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Is that truer.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
I mean, obviously we're making assumptions a little bit because
we don't know. There's never been a situation quite as
dire as this, so we have no experience in this space.
But do you think that that's a possibility that the
Feds would just say we have to dispose of it period,
whether the States wanted to or not.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
I think you're follow the correct line of thinking. That's
what Utah is hoping for. You know, the Supreme Court
cases are complicated. It depends on exactly how they rule.
But yeah, I think that's an implication that could be true.
And you know, I think you bring up so many
different points. You know, public lands are unique across the world.
(11:06):
For one, our system of public lands and they're really
the goose that laid the golden egg. And you know,
and you know, you and I have talked about it before,
and Randy Neuberg says it. Our public lands are six
hundred and forty million acres of public lands are the
largest accumulation of public wealth in the world. You know,
there's minerals, there's timber, there's there's grass, there's all these
(11:28):
different things that are valuable to folks. You talked a
little bit about AUMs. The federal rate for an AUM
and animal unit month a cow and a calf grazing
lands is less than two dollars. Every state I'm aware
of in the in the West is from twelve to
twenty dollars for an AUM. So that immediately times ten.
You know what you might be paying for for a
(11:51):
grazing aum. There's lots of royalties paid to states from
oil and gas revenue. There's pilt payments, payment and lieu
of taxes. Each state Utah gets several hundred million dollars
every year from the federal government in payment and liew
at taxes and royalties and things like that. So A,
they're already gaining substantial revenue with with no cost to
(12:14):
them at all to manage or do any of those things.
But B we also get all those recreational benefits these
little towns. You know, you and I have been across
to Utah in to these small towns Bluff, Utah, Monticello,
all these places that are by bears, Ears, and you know,
just any odd blm lands for mountain biking and hiking
and hunting. Their whole economy is based on having these
(12:37):
public lands nearby. So you know, A, like I said,
it kills the it's the killing the goose that laid
the golden egg. But B it would be a reconfiguration
of everything we know in these rural Western landscapes. I
know of many communities that derive half of their income
just during hunting season. Because there's they're really rural, there's
(13:01):
nothing going on. They're not maybe tourist type economies. But
during hunting season they have that big game habitat that
you were talking about, and hunter's flock in mass to
these places. And really these landscapes are also I think
we'd be remiss if we didn't say they're home to
so much wildlife and so many things that we as
wildlife advocates care about. The habitat the rivers. I think
(13:24):
about the Rio Chama there and in New Mexico Blm Lands.
I've floated many times. It has fishing, it's spectacular scenery,
you know, generates a lot of revenue for those little
communities near there. That's just one example of thousands across
the West that you know are just really economic drivers
(13:44):
that if those were private, nobody would go there except
for those those people who owned it. And you know
that key Randy Newberg quote that you talked about that
largest accumulation of wealth. This would really set up to
transfer that well health to private entities. And you know,
you're you're also well versed in seeing some of the
(14:05):
stuff that happens with the privatization of hunting tags and
other things. When that happens, really the regular Joe and
Jane lose.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Yeah, we would lose big time.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Here here's what's unique, Aaron, I want to talk a
little bit about this.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
This is not the first time this has happened.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
As you said, six hundred and forty million acres represents
the largest concentration of wealth on the planet, so plenty
of people want to go after that, clearly, so I
understand the why. But and this is not brand new.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
This has been happening.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
For you know, a long time. We've been dealing with
this for a really long time. And one of the
most recent attempts also came out of the state of Utah.
But it was when the Representative Jason Schaffitz out of
Utah filed a bill in Congress, a public lands transfer bill.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
At that time, the.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Sporting community blew up in anger and frustration with that attempt,
and I think, you know, Representative Schaef It's lost his
seat over it. But I think still licking his wounds
from that attempt because we launched such a massive attack
on that idea. But what's happening this time, Aaron, is very,
(15:09):
very different, and it's because of that multi million dollar
media campaign I talked about the state of Utah did
such an unbelievable job in marketing this idea that they've
created a lot of supporters for their cause who are
right now today advocating against their own best interests. And
(15:31):
this is a huge problem in New Mexico where numerous
counties in the state, most of our southern counties are
rural counties. Have It's a long, complicated thing, and I
don't want to get too far into the weeds on it,
but they've agreed to join Utah suit. They filed an
amicas brief, many of them without the county Commission even
voting on it. So these are decisions made by a
(15:51):
single individual to represent an entire county. When you look
at say Luna County, for example, Luna Counties included on
this amikas brief that's been filed. Meanwhile, the county hasn't
even voted on a resolution to support or oppose the effort.
They held a County Commission meeting recently to talk about
whether or not to financially support the effort. They were
(16:12):
going to actually send Luna County taxpayer money to Utah
to help support this effort. They voted that down because
their general council said that it would be a violation
of the anti donation clause. Not because commissioners didn't want to,
but because they felt like they would be a violation,
so they chose not to because of language. It's in
our state constitution. But rural communities like that. Rural counties
(16:35):
like that. They're getting a vast majority of their income
many cases, I think from the payment in lieu of taxes,
you know, the money that's coming in because so much
of their county is comprised by federally managed public lands,
and a huge portion of their annual revenue are coming
from the hunting and fishing communities that would not be
going there if they didn't have public land. Many of
(16:56):
the members of the community who are supporting this, supporting
this idea that they should help Utah are the local
cattle ranchers, And what you just stated about the difference
in aum rates should really open the eyes of our
ranching community, because if your cattle rancher anywhere in New
Mexico and you graze cattle on federally managed public lands,
this outcome that UTAH is hoping for has the potential
(17:21):
to literally put you out of business.
Speaker 3 (17:24):
Yeah, it sure doesn't. You know, I don't know what
exactly happened in Utah, Jesse, but they are the head
of the snake. I mean they every handful of years
they try to derive a different way to to take
these lands. Really, and there's really no other way to
say it is to steal right because as we said,
(17:45):
they weren't theirs in the first place. They're they're the
property of the American people for the benefit of the
American people. But Utah believes that because they're within Utah's borders,
they have some sort of right to them beyond that.
And you know, I think we can all empathize. Right
something that's near your home, you feel a little bit
more obligated or or you know, you feel a little
(18:07):
bit more ownership as far as you know, taking care
of that land. But these are still the lands of
all the people of the United States. And I think
there's a couple of things that you know, you would
point to if you're trying to determine the merit of
these things. And and one is that you know, Utah
is now spent in the tens of millions of dollars
trying to do this just for this round, the state
(18:31):
legislature and the state itself has set aside about twenty
million dollars to fight this. They're paying lawyers fifteen hundred
dollars an hour. You know, they're they're paying public money
to try and you know, follow this path and attempt
to steal these lands really back from from the people
(18:52):
of the United States. And you know, there's things in
there like ads in the Washington Post, ads in the
Wall Street Journal, major billboard across the land, a huge
marketing campaign, a new website, and they're trying to convince
folks that these will stay public land. But they're not
talking about their own history with public lands, and they're
not talking about if you follow the law and you
(19:15):
follow the constitutional precedents and the court precedents with this,
it doesn't point to them getting these lands. Just getting them.
They would either have to purchase them or they would
be just sold outright to whoever wants to buy them,
according to history and law and the Constitution. So I
don't really know where they're going except for that maybe
(19:38):
they believe that ultimately they don't really care who owns it,
just as long as it's not the federal government, and
that's you know, that's pretty bad for all of our history,
our lives. Right, We've grown up with these public lands
and knowing that they're out there and people can just
go they're the envy of the world.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Yeah, no, you're exactly right. And I mean, I can't
overemphasize the threat.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
It could literally result in the sale of Yellowstone National Park.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
That literally could happen.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
We don't know for sure, but that's a possibility based
on what this suit says. And I'm glad you really
emphasize that the fact that Utah has been the tip
of the spear on this issue for a really long time.
Because there's a couple of things that I'm going to
just mention to our membership. First of all, we're recording
this in the middle of December, and I'm going to
try to get this thing published and out on our
(20:29):
platform as quickly as possible. There's a production process that
has to happen, but I'm going to try to expedite
that because this is such an urgent issue. I want
people to know this is happening. People who love public
lands have a right to know that this conversation threat exists,
and how it's progressing.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Through the system.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
We should learn roughly the first week of July whether
or not the Supreme Court is going to take this case.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
So the case has.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
Been filed, the Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether
they're going to hear the case or not. So that's
a really important date that's coming up, is to learn
that fact. But here's going back to the State of
Utah for just the second end. If the US Supreme
Court chooses not to take the case, then inevitably the
State of Utah will file in federal district courts. So
(21:18):
it's not like the issue goes away. If the Supreme
Court says we're not going to take the case. The
State of Utah is not giving up. So that's one
thing that they'll likely do. But another thing that our
listeners should be aware of. Congress has the authority to
dispose of public lands should they choose to. And the
reason that scares me so much right now, even though
(21:39):
they've had that authority forever, I mean, as long as
they've existed, the reason I'm scared right now is because
we've got an interesting political landscape in.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Washington, d C.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
And it just so happens that Senator Mike Lee, the
senior Senator from Utah, is now going to be the
chair of Senate Energy and Natural Resource. He's going to
be the chair of one of the most influential committees
in all of Congress when it relates to what's happening
with the management of our federal lands.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
So so these.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
Threats are huge, but there's also a diversity of avenues
they might take.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
The first one, of course.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Being whether or not the Supreme Court decides to hear
the cases.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Does that all found accuracy there?
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Yeah, And I'll clarify one thing. I think you said July,
but we're expecting this in January, and I think you probably.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Just oh yeah about that.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Yeah, no problem. But in January, we're expecting the Supreme
Court decide whether or not they take up this case
in January. I'll say one other thing, just as in
a side in that you know, the federal government responded,
you know, basically said they had no merit, you know,
cataloged a bunch of case law and history and anyway.
(22:53):
But the Ute tribe also has has filed a complaint
within this and I'm going to get the legal eese wrong.
But on Monday, December sixteenth. We're expecting Utah's response to
the tribe, but basically the tribe is also claiming harm
because some of these unappropriated lands they say they have
(23:14):
a claim to, you know, as their tribal lands. So
that's also interspersed within this whole thing. But yeah, one
of the unique parts about this is that Utah took
this directly to the Supreme Court, which also kind of
his opposite of precedent. Usually kind of work your way
up from lower courts and then you take it to
(23:35):
the Supreme Court. They took it directly to the Supreme Court.
So that's already interesting within and of itself. The Supreme
Court could come back and say, hey, take it to
the district court, and if you work through that, then
maybe it gets to us. So that's one possible outcome.
But I think what you touched on with Congress is
really critical because Mike Lee and a lot of the
(23:56):
Utah congressional delegation, Rob Bishop back in the days if
Jason Chafitz, like you mentioned, was also a huge proponent
of Utah attempting to grab public lands in any way
they could. But so we're very likely to see legislation
and with Mike Lee being in that powerful position, obviously
it would be heard, it would have a hearing that
(24:18):
there would be a lot of you know, expeditious ways
that legislation like that could follow. And as you mentioned,
you know, a lot of this has always been been
within the purview of Congress. Congress is the one that
has the authority to do these kinds of things, not
states and so and or the Supreme Court obviously could
rule like Utah is hoping, but the Congress can write
(24:41):
a bill that says just about anything, right, so they
could say, you know, all federal land is you know, dissolved.
Who knows what they you know, we don't know exactly
what that would mean, but we do know that, like
we said, Utah has been the head of the snake
and they've gone to extreme measures. And there's a very
very concerned, well funded effort by folks who do not
(25:04):
like the federal government, do not like federal land management
or or the fact that the federal government owns and
I say owns an air quote because actually we all
own it. This is this is not you know, own
is a big word in this case because we don't
have title to it. But the United States citizens are
the actual you know, beneficiaries and owners of these landscapes.
(25:26):
So those are pretty critical concepts when it comes to this. Yeah,
it's it's murky, and it's tough for folks to follow.
It's one of the tough things about this campaign because
you're getting into you know, constitution and enabling acts and
you know, property clause and those kinds of things which
regular Joe's and James don't follow very well. But we're
(25:49):
really going out of our way to help people understand.
And one thing I should definitely say, and hopefully we
can put this in the show notes, is if you
go to NWF dot org backslash Halt the Heist, because
this is a heist, you know, you can see some
more information about this. There's a way for you to
write if you're one of the fourteen states. There's thirteen
states that have filed kind of in favor of states
(26:10):
or state legislatures that have kind of been out there
supporting Utah. You can write their ag or their governor,
or you can write Utah you know, if you even
if you're not a Utah citizen. So check that out
and there'll be more information there. And our social media
will be out there and there's going to be a
lot of different increments here where we'll digest this information
(26:33):
for folks and get it out. So I think that's
pretty critical for folks to try to follow this because
it is pretty complicated.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
Yeah, it certainly is complicated, and I think from the
organizational side of things, in other words, the mngos like
the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, the National Wildlife Federation, and
countless other groups across the country.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, we
will get involved.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
We will join the case in an effort to help
the core understand that they must decide on behalf of
the public landowners across this country.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
So we'll make every effort to do that.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
If the Court doesn't take the case, the issues not over,
as we already mentioned. But I say that because I
think there's a role for every listener to this show
to play in this process. And at the very least,
I think it's critical that you make your federal delegation,
those are your United States senators and representatives, make them
very very well aware how you personally feel about public lands,
(27:31):
about your personal passion for the activities that you enjoy
on public lands, and that's a huge step in the
right direction, especially if the court doesn't take the case
and we have to continue to be fighting this effort
from different angles. And I'd like to call out a
plea for unity of our public landowners and public land users, because,
(27:54):
let's face it, the multiple use mandate that our federal
land management agencies are required to honor is challenging.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
I mean, that's a challenging task.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
How do you keep the mountain bikers happy when they
want to build a trail through help caving habitat, and
the wildlife advocates are saying, no, we don't want your
bike trails through here, or when tuil hunters are complaining
that the landscape has been overgraded by cattle there's too
many cattle grazers, or the cattle grazers don't like the
fact that wolves have been reintroduced on the landscape. I mean,
there's four million things we can all argue about as
(28:25):
users of the public lands. And my plea for folks is,
let's make sure we preserve and maintain our ability to
have public lands and to access public land so we
can continue to have something to fight about, you know,
I would much rather be in an argument with a
rancher about a grazing lease or be in a discussion
(28:45):
with a birdwatcher about a particular use of a piece
of public land, then for everybody across the board to
lose because we have no more public land. So for
this issue, I mean, if different user groups want to
continue to picker amongst ourselves, that's fine on all those
specific little issues on the minutia, if you will. But
on this specific issue, I'm calling for every single person
(29:09):
who uses and appreciates public lands to just unite and
be one hundred percent united in our opposition to this
effort by UTAH.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Yeah, Jesse, I love that plea, and we're going to
try to help you do that. And you touched on
something that I talk to folks about a lot, and
one of them is something that I say, and it's
been well before this issue, but no longer can you
just as a citizen expect to show up in your
hunting spot the very next year and do zero about
(29:39):
keeping it that way. There's just too many stresses and
strains on these lands regardless, you know. And so one
of the things that I think we can all agree
on and some of the things that are legitimate are
that sometimes public lands management isn't the greatest right and
it could be better. But I want folks to understand
something really critical about that, and that is that you know,
(30:03):
over about the last two decades, almost twenty five years now,
Congress has steadily decreased the funding for federal land management agencies.
And there's some pretty you know, rough people within that
when I say that in Congress, because there's folks who
have consistently derided and criticized public land managers, the same
(30:27):
people who keep saying less and less and less for
them to do their jobs. And we all know, just
like I said, you can't show up in your spot
and expected to be the same. There is more stress
and strained, more different kinds of users. We have e bikes,
we have drones, we have incredible four wheel drive vehicles,
rock crawlers, we have all of those things. Are you know,
(30:47):
increasing impact on public lands and then just more people
in the West. We've seen every Western state grow over
the past few decades, right, and some of that's leaving
off a little bit. But you have on X, you
have all these ways to know everything that's out there.
So many stresses and strains at the same time when
we're reducing funding and the ability for these for these
(31:07):
folks to manage these these landscapes. And you know, there's
some processes that could probably be more efficient. I think
we all agree with that, you know, NEPA processes sometimes
will take three years to get something done. Most folks go,
you know, we could do that next week. We know,
you know what to do. But I think when you
have something as important and as valuable and critical as
(31:29):
our public lands, it's really imperative to take your time
do it right. NIPA also says the public has to
be involved. One of the reasons it takes a while,
because you have to have public meetings, you have to
take public comment, you have to, you know, consider the
way that all of us who are the stewards and
the you know, the folks who benefit from these public
lands get our say. And that's beautiful. That's something that
(31:51):
is is really we I think we all take for granted,
those of us who live in the West, especially that
have you know, millions of acres of public lands out
our door. But please take this obligation, take it. Learn
these lands, learn who manages them, Go talk to your managers,
sit down and have coffee with them, understand the issues,
(32:12):
talk to other users, become friends with people. You know,
most people aren't out there trying to do anything bad.
Do we have grazing that's a problem in some places, yes,
but my experiences, most ranchers certainly don't want to hurt
these landscapes. Do we have off highway vehicle use. That's
a problem, yes in some places, but I've worked with
many of those folks and they're not trying to, you know,
(32:32):
degrade these landscapes. And so if we work together and
kind of take it as a as an obligation of
public lands with this privilege, you know, comes this obligation.
If we take that, we can turn this thing around,
improve management of public lands, get better funding, and retain
these public lands for us and future generations. And that's
really something that I can't express strong enough that we
(32:55):
need to do.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, you're absolutely right Erin and that was really well said.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for that.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
And it's really easy for us sometimes to villainize competing
users of the public land that we love so much.
But we've got to stop that. We've got to learn
to work together I'm going to go back just a
little bit. It's been a selling I'm going backwards, and
I guess to some.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Degree, I am.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
But you you brought up the sometimes poor management of
the agencies on these lands or there's a lot to
be desired sometimes with regard to how the lands are managed.
But I want to emphasize to our listeners that this
this effort by Utah, this has been a long time planning.
This isn't something they just they filed in August. This
case was filed with the US Supreme Court in August,
(33:36):
but the plan to do this goes back years and
years and years, and just about five years ago under
you know, the President of the United States at that
time essentially dismantled the Bureau of Land Management. I mean
it was moved the agency headquarters from Washington, d C.
To Grant Junction, Colorado. Lost a whole bunch of key
staff that wasn't able to make the relocation.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Then the next.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
President came into tried to put it all back together.
But when that kind of dysfunction is present within an agency,
it's no wonder why the agency has some challenges with
regard to managing the resources in addition to the point
you brought up, which was a really important one, and
that is the funding the resources. If the agency has
(34:21):
been starved of resources, sure, it's difficult to do a
good job of managing our public land. So, as I
said in a previous rant, that I would encourage every
listener to let their federal delegation know how much these
public lands mean to them and that they will not
tolerate those lands being sold to the highest bidder and
ultimately privatized. In that same correspondence and that same letter
(34:44):
and that same email and that same phone call, advocate
for increased funding to our agencies. Beggar elected officials to
do what's right and provide the resources that these agencies
need to manage the lands we love.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Yeah, a huge point. You know that that loss of
that BLM expertise was a huge brain drain from the
agency and and you know it's going to take a
while to fix that. But you know this is happening
in real time. We just saw not too long ago
that the Forest Service is not going to hire seasonal
employees next summer. That's a federal agency. Those seasonal employees
(35:21):
are out there doing trail work, and you know, campground
maintenance and lots lots of things that when we go
to public lands we kind of expect to have been
done right. We thought, you know, the porta potties have
been serviced, the trees have been cut that have fallen
across the trail over the winter, you know, routine maintenance
things like that. So there you are. There there's an
(35:43):
example we cut that. That's cutting and funding that means
your experience is going to be you know, degraded when
you're in these places. And you know, I think people
just think they go out. I mean I talked to
a hunter this year and I'm up on a mountain.
He's like, oh, there's there's logs all over the trail.
It used to be great in here. And he said
the Division of Wildlife used to do this. And there
(36:05):
was two parts to that. One, the Division of Wildlife
isn't responsible for that. This is a federal agency. You know,
the Forest Service would have been responsible for that. So
he was wrong blaming the wrong people with lots of angst.
And then two, just like we said, if you keep
cutting the agencies which a lot of people support, they
think they do a bad job. So let's not give
them any money. Well, these are the kind of implications
(36:28):
you're going to see, and so that's a really critical point.
We need to take care of these agencies. If you
were managing you know, millions of subsurface acres for minerals,
things like minds, things like endangered species, things like recreation,
that's not a cheap job. You need a lot of expertise,
(36:48):
you need a lot of resources. It's six hundred and
forty million acres. It's not a small chunk of land.
You need real resources, real expertise. You know, that isn't
that isn't something that just happens overnight. You need scientists
and biologists and botanists and hydrologists and petroleum jail. You
need every kind of expert you can kind of imagine
(37:10):
with natural resources. So those things cost money, They take expertise,
and you don't want to lose it like we did
a handful of years ago. When those folks left, many
of them were twenty thirty year veterans of these things
who had those relationships, had that experience. That was a
big loss for us, and we need to go the
other way with public lands management.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Yeah, I'm glad you brought up that hiring Freeze with
the US Forest Service, because just a couple of weeks ago,
I got a call from a district ranger from the
United States Forest Service asking if the New Mexico Wildlife
Federation could help to develop a program that's called adopt.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
The camp Site.
Speaker 1 (37:47):
You know a lot of folks if you drive, if
you do a lot of road trips or drive across
rural parts of the country, some places you'll see signs
it says adopt the highway, and it'll be a local
business or organization who's adopted a stretch of the highway
and doing so has agreed to pick up trash and
keep it clean. And I'm not sure exactly what all
of the responsibilities are, but it's volunteers helping to keep
(38:08):
a place nice. And the Force was literally asked New
Mexico Wilfe Federation if we could develop and adopt a
campsite program because they cannot hire seasonal staff, which historically
they would use to make sure the campsites are well
maintained and all the things you already talked about eron.
But it's crazy that we're to that point that we're
(38:29):
to that point where we have to do that and
I'm not opposed to volunteerism. And I love being involved,
and I love taking care of public lands, and I
love getting our volunteers and our membership to do the same.
And it's a lot of fun and we get the
kids out there, and so it's not all negative, but
it really really illustrates how rough things are from a
resource standpoint at the federal agency if they're making phone
(38:51):
called begging someone to help them maintain the campsite as
a volunteer.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Yeah, And I think the morale is something else you
have to consider there. If you're one of these employees
who you know, has has dedicated your career to this,
you did your schooling to, you know, in these natural
resource management fields, and then you know you're seeing people
yell at you and your funding cut and less resources
(39:15):
to do the same job. I mean, you can imagine
if that were you or I or most people, that
may cause you to leave that job, right, And so
then you keep losing more and more, and so we
need to you know, it used to be in the
seventies sixties, it used to be there was prestige to
work for the Forest Service or the BLM, you know,
and that it's kind of went the other way, and
we need to we need to try to return it
(39:36):
to that because the future management of these lands really
you know, depends on that expertise, those resources and again,
you know, taking care of that goose that's laying this
golden eg We really need that. And you know, I
think getting back to kind of what this is really about,
I just want to make it abundantly clear this this
(39:58):
effort is really just the latest thenly veil the temp
the most dangerous threat to public lands we've seen, maybe ever.
But they're really after trying to attack the system of
public lands one way or the other. They would prefer
there wasn't public LANs, and if they can't get that,
(40:18):
they'll find other ways to. You know, like we said,
degrade the agencies try to give it to states, and
they're really relying on the public to buy this highly
marketed twenty million dollars campaign that they're going to take
care of it for you. But I can assure you
it's a patently terrible idea. If you want and care
(40:40):
about public lands and you want us to have them,
it's a terrible idea.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
Yeah, it's probably the worst thing I've ever heard, and
so we talked about people getting in touch.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
With their federal delegation make it known.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
We've asked folks to stay united when it comes to
this particular effort, regardless of any other differences we have.
Is we talked about the heist again, and that's a
National Wildlife Federation website, Halt.
Speaker 3 (41:03):
Theehist NWF dot org backslash Halt the Heist. Yeah, and
on there, Jesse, there's some information. There's some FAQs you
can you can also click right on there, you know,
to go ahead and write to your folks. There's an
action alert type of thing. There's a lot of other
questions there that you can get answered, and you'll be
(41:24):
able to find more information there and on our social media,
you know, as we as we continue down this road.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
Yeah, well, thank you, Ern and thanks to the National
Wildlife Federation for putting all of that together. A lot
of folks across the country don't realize the magnificent impact
the National Wildlife Federation has had on hunting and angling
in this country. The National Wildlife Federation was founded in
nineteen thirty six, and one of the biggest things that's
(41:50):
ever happened in this country from a conservation standpoint was
the passage of the Pitt mc robertson Act in nineteen
thirty seven, which was led by the National Wildlife Federation,
is one of their first major victories after founding the
New Mexico Wildlife Federation. I mentioned this on the show before,
but a good reminder of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation
is affiliated with the National Wildlife Federation, but we're not
(42:11):
a chapter or a branch of NWF. We're two separate,
autonomous organizations who just work really well together in partnership,
and the New Mexico Wildlife Federation helps to set the
national policy for the National Wildlife Federation.
Speaker 2 (42:25):
So it's a really cool relationship.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
Aaron, and I'm so honored to be able to work
with you and to have the friendship that we share,
and so privileged that you were willing to invest some
of your valuable time to talk to me and our
audience here on the show today. So with that, is
there anything else you'd you'd like to add before we
wrap it up?
Speaker 2 (42:42):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (42:42):
Well, first, just thank you and I would just echo
everything you said. I think our federation model is unique.
It's a really fun family to be part of and
a really powerful family to be part of. It's a
true federation. A lot of folks don't understand that, meaning
that you're set in New Mexico Wildlife Federation. All of
the state wildlife federations are essentially like being a state
(43:07):
in the Senate. Right when we have our annual meeting,
you guys get a couple of delegates. Each delegates each
one of you do and you vote on our policy
as you said, and you guide us. And so we
work as a true federation to try and combat the
biggest conservation challenges of the day. And we really lean
on and care about and need our affiliates like you guys.
(43:28):
You're the experts on the ground. You have all kinds
of experience and expertise and relationships that really make our federation,
you know, roll down in the tracks in a really
positive and effective way. So thank you for that. And
I think the last thing I'll leave folks with, Jesse,
is that you know, our public clans are a privileged
(43:50):
It's like driving, it's like having a hunting license. You know,
it could be taken away at any minute if you
don't go defend it. And we've seen tons of attack
and this is in our eyes right now, the worst
one we've ever seen. It's the most well funded, it's
got history, it's got things lining up in Congress, it's
got things lining up in Supreme Court. This is the
(44:12):
fight of our lives for public lands advocates and hunters
and anglers and all the other folks that rely on
these lens. So do not sit on your hands. Do
not hope somebody else is going to take care of this.
It's going to take all of us, and look to us,
look to Jesse, many folks in the conservation world you're
going to hear this from So get engaged. Please.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
Aaron, thank you so much, and I hope you have
a fantastic Alliday season and you.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
And me together will continue the fight.
Speaker 3 (44:42):
Thank you, Sure you too, you will.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Thanks for listening to the Yahiva podcast produced by Drift
with Outdoors at
Popular Podcasts
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.