Ep. 47: The State of Public Lands

Jesse Deubel invites David Willms, Associate Vice President of Public Lands for the National Wildlife Federation onto the show. Before joining the National Wildlife Federation, David served as a natural resources policy advisor to Wyoming Governor Matthew H. Mead, and a natural resource attorney in both the public and the private sector. He also teaches a graduate course on the Endangered Species Act at the University of Wyoming, and writes frequently on various wildlife and land management issues. A regular guest on many national hunting podcasts including Meat Eater and Hunt Talk Radio, David is well respected as a national expert on issues relating to public lands, waters and wildlife.

In this discussion David and Jesse cover the variety of threats currently facing public lands. They also discuss a recent ruling regarding grizzly bears that could have an effect on the future of the Endangered Species Act. David shares his thoughts on the potential for passing the Recovering America's Wildlife Act given the current political landscape in Washington D.C. The two talk about a new partnership between the National Wildlife Federation and NBC that resulted in a brand new documentary series called, "The Americas." This is a ten episode documentary series narrated by Tom Hanks that showcases the wonders, secrets and fragilities of the wild places and wild animals in North and South America.   

Most importantly, Jesse and David explain how and why all Americans who care about public lands should be doing everything in their power to advocate for the places they love. It starts by showing up and making yourself heard. One great place to do that is at the New Mexico Wildlife Federation's "Camo at the Capitol" event being held at the Roundhouse, New Mexico's state capitol on March 7th, 2025 from 12:00pm-3:00pm. Please make plans to be in attendance at this event. Your voice matters, but it's only heard if you show up. Until then, enjoy the listen!   

For more info:
NMWF Website
National Wildlife Federation Website

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to another episode of the i EVA Podcast.
Jesse Dubell here, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation.
I am very excited about today's episode because I have
a good friend of mine on the show today. The
associate vice president of public Lands for the National Wildlife
Federation is joining me here on this twenty fourth day

(00:20):
of February. That's when this is being recorded, and we're
going to talk about all things public lands. So Dave
Wilms again, Associate vice president of public Lands for the
National Wildlife Federation, a good friend of mine and someone
I often look to for guidance when it comes to
all things public lands. So happy you were able to
take some time out of your busy schedule to join
me today.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
I really appreciate the invitation. I'll never say no to you.
Just know that you're a very persuasive guy.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
I'm glad we've got that recorded now so I can
use that for leverage down the road when I have
a real big hard ask. But Dave, I'm so glad
you join your joining me here, and would you take
a moment just to kind of introduce yourself let our
listeners kind of know what your background is and how
you got into this work.

Speaker 3 (01:06):
The New Mexico Wildlife Federation presents the Yahiva podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yeah you bet so. I am an attorney by trade.
I graduated from the University of Wyoming College of Law
and went into the Attorney General's Office in Wyoming. I
spent about eight years working as a natural resource attorney
there in the Water Natural Resources Division, representing the State
Engineer's office in the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. So

(01:34):
water law, wildlife law, land use laws, did a lot
of that. Spent some time in private practice after that
time there doing a lot of the same stuff, just
largely representing landowners and others, and then got a call
one day to join the Governor's office. So I spent
four years the second term of former Wyoming Governor Matt

(01:57):
Meade working as a natural resource policy for him. And
while I was I was actually at a conference in Memphis, Tennessee.
And you'll know this one. It's the American Wildlife Conservation Partnership.
They were meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, and I was an
invited guest to give a presentation there on some work

(02:17):
that we were doing through the Governor's office and CEO
of National Wildlife Federation was there, Colin Omara, and I
gave this talk and he came up to me afterwards
and he said, hey, what are you doing after your
time with the governor? And we started to have a conversation,
and you know, long story short, I wound up at
the Federation working on western wildlife issues. Originally it was

(02:40):
it wasn't really the public lands focus. And then my
old boss there became the director of the Bureau of
Land Management under the Biden administration, Tracy Stone Manning, And
after she left, I was asked to take over this
role of associate vice president at NWF on you know,
overseeing our public lands portfolio of work. So it was

(03:02):
a it's been a fun ride, but and I'm still
Wyoming based. I'm a kind of a Wyoming guy through
and through, and as you know this Jesse, like, you know,
I'm a Wyoming guy because you've never pulled me out
of state, because my elk tags and prong horn tags
and everything that matter a lot to me. You know,
the hunting experiences I have here mean a lot, and
so it's it's tough to get me to leave the state.

(03:24):
But I get to now work on this these issues
on a really national level, which has been really incredible experience,
but I get to do it from the comfort of
the four Corners of Wyoming.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
Yeah, I'm glad you brought up the hunting and the
fishing and the outdoors component because I know that's a super,
super important part of your life. And that's something that
I think is is evident throughout the entire Federation family
is that the people who are engaged in this work
are extremely passionate about it, not just on a professional level,
but also on a personal level. And I know that

(03:57):
you spend a tremendous amount of time out side with
your family, hiking fourteen thousand foot peaks and backpacking into
super remote places to catch trial and obviously you're an
avid big game hunter, and so all of those experiences
really kind of shape and create the foundation for the
passion that you and I share for protecting these places

(04:18):
that allow us to do the things we love.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
One hundred percent. This is one of those it's not
a job, it's not a career, it's a lifestyle, right,
It's one of those. I feel blessed to have the
opportunity where my passion professionally and personally mesh in this
way where I feel like I get to do this work,
to work on these places that matter to you and
to me and to everybody so much that mesh with

(04:43):
the things that give us fuel outside of the office,
or the things that give us fuel in the office
as well. And there's so many people in the country
that don't have that fortune. They go, they go to
work and punch the clock and you don't love being there,
and it's just a means to an end to come
home and spend time with their family. And it's it's
like it's seamless for me, like it's what I do.

(05:05):
The work is what I do because it matters so
much to me to have these places to go, hunt, fish, recreate,
you know, all the things you described. Just unbelievably blessed
to be able to do this kind of work.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
No, that's really powerful, what you just said regarding the
public lands, and so now here you and I are
passionate about this issue. And as you said, it's a lifestyle.
It certainly is for me as well, and it also
is for our colleague Aaron Kendall, who I had on
the show just a couple episodes ago. As we were
talking about the halt the heist effort out of Utah,

(05:39):
and would you be willing to just provide a real
quick update on what's going on with the lawsuit from
the AG's office out of Utah against the federal government
regarding the disposal of you know, eight million acres of
federally managed BLM lands in the state of Utah.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
Yeah, you bet. Actually I think it was eighteen and
a half million acres.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
I think you're right, Dave. I think I misspoke there,
but yeah, definitely.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
Yeah. So, Utah had filed that case before the US
Supreme Court asking for the court. Really what it was
was it was asking for the court to accept jurisdiction
to hear the case. So in the US Supreme Court
you have to ask permission to file your complaint, and
in this instance, the court, in a twelve word order
in January, declined to accept jurisdiction. And what I tell

(06:27):
people is, don't read anything into that. Don't presume that
because the court declined to accept jurisdiction that it doesn't
think there's a valid legal argument there, or that the
claim lacks any kind of merit. They don't signal anything.
This is pretty pro forma. It is very very rare

(06:48):
for the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction in an original case,
meaning a case that didn't start at the district court
that it starts at the US Supreme Court. Just very
very rare. So it was unlikely that the Court was
going to accept it in the first instance. They just
confirmed that in this twelve ord order. So what that
means is, right now as we're talking, there is no

(07:12):
case in controversy, like there's no litigation. But the other
thing I would mention is just because there's not litigation
right now doesn't mean that there won't be in the
next month or two. I fully expect that the State
of Utah is going to do to go back and
file this case in federal District Court in Utah. What

(07:34):
I've been telling people is, if to use a football analogy,
when they filed their claim in the US Supreme Court,
it's like they threw a hail mary on the first
play of the game and never really expected to complete
that pass and have the court accept the jurisdiction. So
normally you'd throw the hail mary on the last play
of the game. They threw it on the first play

(07:55):
of the game, and now they're going to go back
to the playbook and just play the game, which means
they're probably going to file in front of federal District
Court in probably in Utah, but either Utah or Washington,
d C. And then you'll have a case in controversy
and it's going to go through the normal procedure. You'll
end up with a decision from the district court, whether
it's on a motion to dismiss or emotion for summary judgment,

(08:16):
You're going to end up with a decision. It'll get
appealed to the circuit court. Likely that either the Tenth
Circuit Court if this case arises out of Utah, or
the DC Circuit if it starts in DC. And then
after that, whichever side is the non prevailing side in
that litigation will likely file a petition with the United

(08:38):
States Supreme Court to see if the court will accept
that appeal. So there's a potential there's potentially another path
for the Supreme Court to hear this case. And that's
the thing I try and reaffirm with folks, is it,
while it was a nice victory for public land advocates,
that the court did not accept jurisdiction because it would
have sent a really strong signal if they had accepted jurisdiction.

(09:04):
We shouldn't read it too much into it. It went
as we'd hoped and planned and probably as Utah figured
it would go, where the court didn't accept it. Now
we go back to square one, and we're probably in
the looking at having to defend against a federal district
court case asking for something similar here in the not
too distant future.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
Okay, that's really really helpful, Dave. I appreciate the explanation
on that, and thanks for the summary. That was very
comprehensive and complete but also concise, and so thanks for that.
The way I see it, and I'm asking this as
a question, I'm just giving you my thoughts on the
current threat to public lands across the United States, particularly
across the western half of the US. I feel like

(09:46):
there's four threats that are present right now. One of
those is the one that you were just talking about,
and that's a threat through the judicial branch of government
that the courts are being asked to rule essentially on
the legality of federally managed public lands. But I think
there's two potential threats from the executive branch of government.

(10:09):
One of those I think we're seeing playing out a
little bit, and that's the dismantling of some of our
federal land management agencies. Right now. What we're seeing are
some massive layoffs and funding cuts, and we're seeing kind
of the disintegration of some of the agencies that are
tasked with managing our lands. And then if the lands
aren't properly managed, of course, it becomes easier to make
the case that the Feds don't have the ability to

(10:31):
manage public land, which is an argument that many have
been making for a long time. I think also out
of the executive branch, though there's a potential for executive
orders to be signed that could have a negative impact
on public lands. And then I feel like there's a
legislative threat, especially because we have Mike Lee as chair
of a key committee in the Senate. And I'm just

(10:53):
thinking that there's those four different, I guess threats that
we as advocates should be thinking about and strategizing on
how to combat. And I'm just curious, from your perspective, Dave,
if those sound accurate to you, if you think that
list is complete, if you think there are other threats.
I didn't mention, or if any of the ones I
did mention are not as big of an issue in

(11:13):
your mind.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
I would add one more. I think you did a
great job. I think that's a great summary of some
of the main threats. I would probably add one more.
And it's connected in ways to both the executive and
legislative threats, and maybe in some ways to the judicial threats.
But it's the impact that individual states might be able

(11:39):
to have on those outcomes. Right, So I mean, let
me use an example. There is a process in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act FLIPMA of nineteen seventy six.
There's a process for disposing of federal lands. And this

(12:00):
I give you a very specific, articulated example. So where
I live, state of Wyoming, you have the governor who
had been working with our state Land Board on a
sale of what was called the Kelly Parcel in Grand
Teeton National Park. So there was a state parcel six
hundred and forty acres within Grand Teeton National Park that

(12:23):
was just sold to the National Park for one hundred
million dollars. And this was the second parcel. There was
a parcel sold about ten years earlier in a similar
fashion to the Park Service for about half that and
the governor quietly submitted a proposal to the Bureau of
Land Management wanting to use the money from those two

(12:46):
sales to purchase ten thousand acres of BLM land in
northeast Wyoming. So that's why I say there's this additional
layer of states using processes laid out in federal law
and doing it relatively quietly to ask for transfers or

(13:09):
not transfers. In this case, it would be asking for
the sale of public lands to the state.

Speaker 1 (13:17):
Okay, yeah, thank you, Dave, I appreciate that. So maybe
we can just quickly walk through each of these threats
and you can kind of maybe elaborate on what the
threat is, why it matters, and whether or not there's
a role for our listeners to play and kind of
combating these threats, and maybe we can start with the layoffs.
What we've seen recently here is massive layoffs all across

(13:40):
the country. I don't have numbers to substantiate, you know,
I can't quantify exactly how many individuals have been laid
off from say the United States Forest Service or the
National Park Service, but it seems like it's happening at
an alarming rate. And many of these are our key personnel,
people who are maintaining trails, people who are taking care
of the camping areas on the public And there's a

(14:00):
lot of concern about fire in New Mexico because we
are in the middle of an incredible drought right now.
It's Albuquerque, I'm almost six thousand feet of elevation, it's
late February. We don't have any snow on the ground.
I can't remember the last time we had any meaningful precipitation,
and it's like seventy five degrees outside, so I feel
like we're facing potentially one of the worst fire seasons

(14:23):
in history. Meanwhile, I'm also hearing that many many public
lands workers who specialize in fighting public land wildfires have
been let go from their posts, and so this is
kind of a scary time, and I'm curious if you
could just elaborate why this is such a problem and
what you think we might be able to do to

(14:44):
push back against this. And recognizing, you know that the
president went into office with a commitment to increase government
efficiency and to reduce waste and all of those things,
which I think everybody could agree those are good priorities.
Those are strong actions to take, but I feel like
the way that the current administration is going about that
is completely misguided and quite frankly, I think it's it's

(15:07):
very very dangerous, especially for public lands and people who
depend on them.

Speaker 2 (15:12):
Yeah, no, I mean you've said it pretty well. I
think when you're looking at this, there's a way, there's
a way to effectively audit an agency, right, and prior
administrations have done this sort of thing. This administration could
still do it right, there's still the chance to the

(15:34):
chance to do this, which is you institute of hiring freeze, right,
you start looking at open positions, do we need them anymore?
Do we not need them anymore? Do we maybe eliminate
those positions that we had hired before, and then do
we set up a plan to address, you know, some
of the cutbacks we want to make through attrition over

(15:56):
some period of time to make sure that at least
in the end and we're identifying the most important services
in making sure that we have the staffing to be
able to provide the services that the public needs. Because
the difference between the government and say a private business,
and I hear a lot of people say, well, we
should run government like a private business. But I think

(16:17):
there are some differences. And one of the differences is
the government these agencies. And let's talk about the public
land agencies. There are statutory charges. You know, all of
these land agencies are created by statute. You know, Congress
passes a law and creates this and funds it and
then directs here are here are the policy reasons we're

(16:40):
doing this, and here are the outcomes we expect. And
then they're managed to achieve those outcomes. They're not managed
to achieve maximum profit, not like a business. They're managed
to achieve the statutory outcomes that are required. And for
something like the Bureau of Land Management, it's this new
multiple use mandates. So you're charged with managing this federal

(17:03):
estate for Bureau of Land Management lands, not in a
way that returns the most income, but then in a
way that provides them you know, accomplishes this multiple use
mandate of you know of stewardship of lands, protection of lands, watersheds,

(17:24):
but also you know, managing for timber harvest, managing for grazing,
managing for oil and gas, managing for wind and solar development.
There are a lot of resources on these public lands
that contribute to the economy in a lot of ways,
maybe help keep consumer prices down, for example. That might
be one of the policy reasons.

Speaker 1 (17:40):
To have it.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
And when you when you lay off kind of indiscriminately,
you big parts of that workforce, it compromises your ability
to actually meet the statutory requirements. You know, the things
Congress told you are the expectations of these lands, of

(18:03):
the managing these lands, as opposed to taking that scalpel
approach where you do very targeted things to make sure
that you're still meeting the objective. So it does put
us in a really challenging spot right now where all
employees that were under a certain classification are let go,
regardless of the importance of that job to fulfilling the

(18:24):
mission of the agency. And you know, i'd like to
think that in the coming weeks and months, as there's
this realization that some critical services aren't able to be
provided and you mentioned firefighting and I share the same
concerns you do about that, then maybe the administration will
revisit some of these decisions and look to bring people

(18:45):
back on board, recognizing, you know, there are some critical
needs here for managing lands that we just we're required
to do and we need to do in the public
depends on it.

Speaker 1 (18:56):
Yeah, so you do you think there's a role to play,
and if so, what is that role for the listeners
of this show? I mean, if I'm a backcountry bow
hunter in New Mexico and I'm seeing what's playing out
at the at the federal level, what do I do
to get involved? What can I do to make a difference,
What can I do to kind of communicate to the
administration that this is this is not what I necessarily

(19:19):
voted for.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
So I think there are all kinds of things that
you can do, but but maybe we should talk about
what are maybe the most effective things that can be
done the most Think about who the most effective men.
So you want to get your message into your elected representatives,
for example in your state and in other states, and

(19:41):
I mean at all levels, because you want to get
your message to the person that has the most influence,
for example, with your member of Congress, and maybe that's
a county commissioner or a mayor or you know, I
did you know fill in the blank on somebody else
that's an elected official. You might want to reach out

(20:01):
to a local elected official a state legislator, somebody like that, right,
that that can help carry your message to an elected official.
You want to reach to your congressional delegation. You want
to reach out to that congressional delegation as well. But
I think it's important for that congressional delegation to be
hearing from not just I mean not just their constituents.

(20:24):
They're going to hear from their constituents, but other elected
officials in the state, to say to have county commissioners
calling up and saying, look, here's what's happening in my county.
Here's the impact of these decisions that are occurring in
my county. Because ultimately it's Congress that, you know, that
has the power of the purse, right, they control the
funding and can provide some influence and impact to the administration.

(20:49):
They're also you know, to the extent that there are
people that have relationships with the Secretary of Interior, you know,
who oversees a lot of these land management agencies, or
the Secretary of Agriculture who oversees the National Forest Service.
You know, getting in an audience with cabinet level members
of the administration and getting that message in in a

(21:12):
respectful way. I mean, you don't. The worst thing you
can do is call pick up the phone and call,
or send letters that are named calling or you know,
calling somebody a horrible person. You want to stay away
from that, and you want to just talk about Look,
here are the very real, let's be fact based. Here
are the very real impacts that are happening in my community.

(21:35):
To me personally to my neighbors and get that message across.
And I also think that it's valuable to provide supporting data.
And I'm sure you know this, Jesse. There's last week
Colorado College released its annual Conservation in the West Pole
and there's some really really valuable information in there that

(21:58):
shows that these public lands issue and these staffing issues,
they're not partisan. They're very much nonpartisan. They're just American values.
And you can see that sixty six sixty seven percent
of the of the population of the West opposes transferring
public lands. But you can see you know, numbers in

(22:20):
eighty percent of folks that want professionals making land management decisions,
like want the scientists and you know, you know, the
biologists and the rangers, and you know they want those
people making decisions rather than elected folks that are coming
in on short term with agendas. They want the professionals

(22:41):
making the decision that's nonpartisan, Like we're talking across party lines,
you know, a spread of less than ten points and
overwhelmingly supporting this. So I think highlighting some of those
data points can be really helpful too, to show that
this isn't a partisan issue, this is just an American
values issue.

Speaker 1 (23:01):
Yeah, that's that's super helpful, Dave. Now, I think you
did a really good job already of explaining the threats
to public lands that could take the path through the
judicial branch of government. Now we just talked about this
potential executive threat. Do you want to talk a little
bit about what a threat through Congress might look like?

(23:22):
If what would a threat to our public lands that
would be taken through the legislative branch of government look like?

Speaker 2 (23:30):
Yeah, there could be There could be a number of
examples here, and maybe I'll use two rather than going
through a whole list of them. But maybe the two,
you know, maybe two, maybe three most likely scenarios. One is,
and you heard this in the presidential debates or debate

(23:51):
in the in the fall before the election, there was
it sounded like even bipartisan support for this among our
elected officials. But I'd actually say before I say this,
that if you go to this Colorado this Colorado College poll,
you'll find that the public sentiment doesn't match the political
rhetoric on this. But it's this idea of using public

(24:14):
lands to build housing. You know that we have this
housing crisis in the country and that one of the
ways to solve it is by using public lands for that.
And so I do think, because we've seen it before,
you're going to see bills introduced to that would encourage
using public lands to build housing. And i'd also remind

(24:37):
you that under FLIMA, the you know, the Federal Policy
Management Act, there's a provision in there that allows the
sale already the sale of public lands to build housing.
So there's a process to do that. I think what
you might see, excuse me, what you might see congressionally
is an effort to make that process faster and easier
and remove some of the roadblocks. So that's one thing

(24:59):
that I think is out there. I also think you
might see as Congress goes through. You've probably seen this
reconciliation discussion that's going on with the House and the
Senate right now their proposed budget, and you know, the
effort to institute some of the Trump administration's policies, one

(25:20):
of the big ones being the tax cuts proposal that
was approved in twenty seventeen. The idea of making it
permanent and adding some additional tax cuts, Well, you have
to offset those summer. You have to have a pay
for for those tax cuts somewhere, and for the lost revenue,
how are you going to recover that lost tax revenue
in another place? And you could see conversations through that

(25:42):
process that talk about using the federal estate portions of
it to sell those to sell some of the federal
estate to offset some of the tax cut costs. You know,
those are those are a couple of places where I
could see it happening. And the third place is you

(26:04):
might see some nibbling around the edges, some process things
around some of the Federal Land Management Agency statutes like
the National Forest Management and Act or FLIPMA that I
keep referencing, maybe some bills that try and amend those
statutes to make it easier to sell or transfer public lands.

(26:27):
I actually don't think. Now I could be wrong about this,
but I don't think you're going to see a bill
for the wholesale disposal of public lands. I think it's
going to be more of this nibbling around the edges thing,
you know, ten thousand acres here, fifty thousand acres there,
one hundred thousand there, not a let's dispose of all
of it.

Speaker 1 (26:47):
That's interesting insight, and I appreciate you sharing that, Dave. So,
you know, the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, we really pride
ourselves in being a non partisan organization. We're going to
work with leadership at the state level, at the federal level,
you know, even the presidential staff to the extent that
we can, regardless of which party is occupying those positions.

(27:08):
One of the things that's really important for a president
to do, though, one of the responsibilities of a new
president is to appoint leaders to some of the key agencies.
And so, because you're so well connected and you have
your finger on the pulse of this stuff so closely,
I was hoping you might be willing to just share
a couple of thoughts on some of the key appointments
that have been made by this president recently. Maybe we

(27:30):
could start with the appointment for Secretary of Interior a
gentleman by the name of Doug Bergham, And I'm wondering
if you know Secretary Burgham or have familiarity with his history,
and if there's anything you think would be important for
our listeners to know to understand challenges that we might
be facing, and potential of shared common interests where we

(27:51):
can work together with Secretary of the Interior to get
good work done.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Sure, So, I don't have a relationship with Secretary other
than I've met him a few times, but I did
work when he was elected governor. We were in the
last couple of years of our time there with Governor Meade,
and so we did work with Governor then Governor Bergham's
staff on things pretty regularly, and I felt like his

(28:19):
ethos was very similar to the ethos of my former boss,
Governor Meade, which was this recognition of we need there
are certain things we need out of our public lands,
like you know, we need energy, like there's this country
needs a lot of energy and public lands can provide

(28:40):
some of that. But I remember my boss used to
give this line, and I think Governor Burgham at the
time now Interior Secretary kind of talked about it the
same way of people came to my state not to
tour a coal mine or to see an oil field
or a gas well. They came to my state for
the wide open places and the wildlife, and so it

(29:04):
was really important when you're looking at potential industrial development
on public lands that it be done in a way
that doesn't that minimizes as much as possible the impact
on wildlife and water and air and open spaces. And
my understanding is that Secretary Burgham shares that ethos right,

(29:28):
and that he also worked very well in New Mexico
with his wildlife agency and really deferred to them a
lot and relied heavily upon the recommendations of the state
wildlife agency when citing projects and how to avoid or
minimize disturbance or impact to wildlife. So you knows as secretary,

(29:50):
In my mind, it means that that there's opportunity if
that's the ethos, and you go in recognizing that, Okay,
he's got a marching order there are the President has
issued executive orders with very clear expectations on increasing energy production,

(30:12):
and so you know that the Secretary is going to
be charged with implementing those executive orders which he started
doing by writing secretarial orders that are consistent with those
executive orders. So you know that if you go in
with a recognition of look, that's the policy that's going
to happen, that's the charge of the administration, and it's

(30:32):
his job is to implement that charge, then it's okay,
how do you work with that? And the way you
work with that is you recognize that that's the objective,
but you also know that he has this ethos of balance.
And if you know that he has that and you
know that there's that objective and you're not fighting on
we have to end everything, we have to prevent these
things from happening, and you can work in the space

(30:54):
of how do we help facilitate these happening in a
way that minimizes impact of much as possible, you might
be able to get some stuff done. And I also
think in the in the context of things like you know,
large ungeal migration corridors, right like, there's going to be
opportunity to do a lot of work there. Invasive species mitigation.

(31:17):
There's going to be a lot of opportunity to do
stuff there, fire mitigation, There's going to be a lot
of opportunities there so I just say, like, don't close
the door on working with them. I think there's going
to be opportunity there.

Speaker 1 (31:30):
Yeah, and I really appreciate that that realistic approach to
accomplishing important work. So often in the advocacy world and
in the NGO or non governmental organization space, it feels
like a lot of groups or organizations just really become
obstructionists to try to oppose everything and protest every decision,

(31:52):
rather than being a little bit more pragmatic and recognizing.
What you just said is that you know there there
are clear things that happen when you elect a new leader,
and one of the things that happens is that that
leader works to initiate or implement their platform priorities. And
it's important to recognize what those priorities are, and as

(32:13):
you just said, then in that context or within that frame,
identify how you can continue to work together to find solutions.
And I think that's important for folks in advocacy to
remember all the time, because so often I just see
a lot of energy and effort being spent on things
that are going to really have no impact whatsoever and

(32:35):
aren't going to move the needle in any way.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
Yeah, you said that perfectly. Yep, you couldn't have said
it better.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
Awesome, man. Well, we're moving on with the appointments. Another
key appointment obviously where the new Mexico Wildlife Federation. You're
the National Wildlife Federation, so wildlife is what we focus on.
And we've got a new appointment to the director for
US Fish and Wildlife Service. And being that you're in Wyoming,
I would guess that you probably have had the opportunity

(33:03):
to work at some level with Brian Nesvik, who was
the director of the State Wildlife Agency in Wyoming for
a period of time. Is that right.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Yeah, I've known Brian for oh man, fifteen sixteen years,
long time. Yeah, And I go way back to back
when I was at the Attorney General's office and he
was a game warden in Pinedale and I was representing
the Game and Fish Department. I got to know him there.
He became a game warden supervisor and then ultimately was

(33:33):
promoted to being the chief game Warden. And then later
when I was finishing up my time with Governor Mead
and so our new Governor Gordon was elected, he moved
from being chief game Warden and became the director of
the Game and Fish Department. So yeah, I've had a
long standing personal relationship with Brian and think very highly

(33:56):
of him.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Yeah, that's that's excellent. So are there things that would
anticipate changing at the US Fish and Wildlife Service under
new leadership? Are there things that you think where improvements
can be made and things that advocates should be focused
on communicating to leadership there as to what we want.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
That's a great question. I mean, I think there's going
to be, you know, especially coming from you know, somebody
that that was a state agency director, I think you're
going to see a lot more. I don't know if
it's deference to, or reliance upon, or consultation with. I
don't know the right descriptor to use here, but I

(34:37):
think state wildlife the influence of state wildlife agencies is
going to be significant with with this new director. That's
at least That's what what I would say, is the
priorities and the information there's there's going to be a

(34:57):
lot of collaboration with and trying to implement priorities of
state wildlife agencies as well. So having relationships, strong relationships
with your state wildlife agencies I think is going to
be pretty it could be pretty impactful in this type
of an environment. I know he's I don't want to
put words in Brian's mouth, obviously he'll do that for himself.

(35:19):
But he's a he's definitely a pro states rights kind
of leader. You know, he's very passionate about the state's
abilities to manage their own wildlife, and I think you'll
see a lot of leaning in on that and partnerships
in that way. Obviously, he also would be in you know,

(35:40):
tasked with leading the there's an Ecological Services division to
the Fish and Wildlife Service which oversees the Threatening Endangered
Species program, and so he'll have a role in the
listing and delisting and regulatory processes for threatening endangered species.
You know, always, regardless of administrations, that's always something that

(36:04):
that directors are looking at, is are there, you know,
how how should we be doing T and E threatening
endangered species management? And so you'll probably see some uh
some some effort there on, you know, revisiting some of
the regulatory structure. I don't know what. I don't know

(36:25):
what the priorities will be there, but I just say
that might be a place and you know, obviously he
comes from a a really strong hunting background and believes
deeply in the North American model and as I said,
in states management and wildlife, but also the importance of
hunters and anglers in conservation, and so I can I

(36:47):
could also see when it comes to expanding opportunities for
hunting and angling on you know, fish and Wildlife Service
owned lands which are typically thought of as the the
national Wildlife refuge system, you might see some more discussions
and opportunities there in the refuge system for more hunting opportunities.

(37:09):
So those are those are some of the spaces I think,
but there are probably some I'm missing.

Speaker 1 (37:14):
Yeah, well that's a really a really great explanation, and
thank you for the analysis. I do remember in the
last Trump administration, we saw an increase in hunting access
on our wildlife refuges right here in New Mexico, and
I know it happened elsewhere across the country. So the
thought that we could see some more of that in
this administration is pretty encouraging.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
Yeah, for sure, Absolutely, access is a big deal, and
you have to balance that access with the priorities of
the refuge as well, and so you know there might
be places where access just doesn't make sense because the
refuge was set up to be exactly that, a refuge
from those types of activities. But to the point that
you know that there are refuges where there might be more,
you know, hunting opportunities that might be permissible, I think

(37:58):
this administration is going to be open to it.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
Yeah, that's awesome, David. So I'm gonna shift gears just
a little bit. You were with me in New Mexico
in January, and being that we were just talking about
US Fish and Wildlife Service, we talked about threatening endangered species.
While you were in Santa Fe at our affiliate chief
Executive's conference, a decision was released regarding grizzly bears in Wyoming.

(38:24):
And I recognize that that's a contentious issue and there's
a lot of controversy surrounding it, but I'm curious if
you could talk about what that decision was and what
the implications of that decision could be in this new administration.

Speaker 2 (38:38):
Oh man, you want to open that can of worms.

Speaker 1 (38:40):
Huh if you're comfortable with it not, I'll understand.

Speaker 2 (38:43):
I will, I'll tell you what. I'll do my best
to kind of explain what it was. It gets a
little wonky though, but I'll you know, I kind of
a wonky guy. So here we go, so grizzly bears,
and I think it's important to go back in time
just a little bit to better understand what this decision
really was on. So grizzly bears were originally listed in

(39:08):
the lower forty eight States in nineteen seventy five as
threatened throughout their historic effectively their historic range, so all
over the place. Subsequent to that, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
working with the states, created recovery plans and recovery zones
for the recovery of grizzly bears. And there are really

(39:32):
six recovery zones for grizzly bears in the West, and
the two most notable are the Greater Yellowstone Area and
the Northern Continental Divide Area, which is the area in
and around Glacier National Park in northwest Montana. And so
you have these those the strongholds of grizzly bears were,
and then you had these other areas like the Bitter

(39:54):
Roots and the North Cascades that maybe in Idaho and
Washington that maybe had a handful of grizzly bears, and
in some instances no grizzly bears for the last thirty years,
and so these areas were created, and then grizzly bear
recovery started, and there were targets. The idea all along

(40:17):
was let's use the Greater Yellowstone example, because this is
the one we'll really focus on Greater Yellowstone. The idea was, Okay,
we're going to put in in place a recovery plan
for that population, this recovery area, and once it reaches
those objectives, will make an attempt to delist just that
portion of the population, which is they would call a

(40:38):
distinct population segment. So the recovery went, you know, went
in place until it was moving along, and he went
from having like one hundred and thirty seven bears a
low of those one hundred and thirty seven bears in
the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem in nineteen seventy five too. You know,
today we're looking at probably twelve thirteen hundred in that area.

(41:01):
And so in two thousand and eight, these recovery objectives
under this recovery plan, or maybe it was two thousand
and seven, I all get the year slightly off, they
were met and the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed
creating a distinct population segment, which is a wonky thing
under the Endangered Species Act, proposed creating it and delisting it,

(41:25):
and so they did that, and then that was legally
challenged and a court came back and said Fish and
Wildlife Service, you failed to account for X, Y, and Z,
and so grizzly bears have to go back on the list.
Were reinstating that rule, and so grizzly bears went back
on the list, and the Fish and Wildlife Service in

(41:46):
the States worked on addressing the issues that the court
raised to try and get to the point of being
able to delist again. And then in twenty seventeen or
twenty eighteen, I'm going to get there. It might even
been twenty nineteen now I can't remember the specific years,
but it was in that timeframe. The Fish and Wireless
Service again said met all of these recovery objectives. The

(42:11):
grizzly bear population is recovered. There are adequate regulatory mechanisms
in place in the States to ensure that grizzly bears
will be remain delisted for the foreseeable future if we
take them off list. So they proposed a second rule
and a second attempt to delist grizzly bears by creating
this distinct population segment and then delisting it, and that

(42:34):
one was challenged in court, and that one as well
was deemed to be inadequate, and the court reinstated the
listing rule, and so they went back on the list.
Now fast forward to twenty twenty five and the states
had petitioned. The states all three Montana, Wyoming, Idaho had

(42:57):
all petitioned the Fish Wildlife Service in three separate petitions
seeking the delisting of portions of grizzly bear populations and
what the to summarize them to make a long story long,
The Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed these petitions and made

(43:24):
a determination that was significantly different from the prior to
that involved the Greater Yellowstone Area. They looked at the
range of grizzly bears and where they were, and they
had to use their Distinct Population Segment policy. This DPS policy,
which is if they're going to create a distinct population

(43:46):
segment to delist it, it has to meet certain legal
criteria and one of them is called discreetness, meaning it
cannot be genetically connected to another population of the same species,
or it's not distinct from the rest of the population,
so you wouldn't be able to delist this subset anymore.

(44:07):
And they did this analysis and said, look, we grizzly
bear populations have really expanded into new areas we haven't
seen them before in a long long time. And in
some of these places, some of these recovery areas, now
you have genetic connectivity between so you actually cannot create
a distinct population segment anymore of that smaller segment to

(44:30):
delist one of these recovery areas because it's now connected
to another population. If you delisted that, you'd have this
remnant population leftover that's not delisted, and you'd never be
able to delist it because it's connected to this other population.
So they said, we're going to delist grizzly bears everywhere

(44:51):
where we don't want them to be or where they
are not currently, and we are then going to reclassify
grizzly bears every place else as threatened as a distinct
population segment. So effectively, what they did is they created
this huge geographic boundary that's a distinct population segment that
includes almost all of Montana. Maybe it was not quite

(45:15):
all of almost all of Montana, a good chunk of Wyoming,
almost all of Idaho, and eastern Washington, and said this
is our distinct population segment, but we're going to leave
it listed as threatened. And so that was the outcome,
and uh, you know, obviously that created a lot of

(45:36):
frustration from the states who's who have been saying sitting here, saying,
grizzly bears, You've told us twice before that they're recovered
in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, and now you're saying you
can't delist them there because they don't meet your discreetness
test anymore under the DPS policy. So it's created some controversy.

(45:58):
And then you know, there's another side of the argument
of folks that are saying, well, we should be managing
these bears as a metapopulation and they aren't totally recovered
yet because they have these populations haven't all come together
yet to form this one metapopulation, and really to truly
have grizzly bear recovery, we need to do that in
all these places. And so they like this this reclassification, thinking, okay,

(46:20):
we finally have the goals, like the it's finally set
up the way it should be to recover grizzly bears westwide.
So you have two schools of thought on this, and
it's creating a lot of tension and controversy, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service is going to be tasked with
addressing that controversy. So long answer, Sorry about that.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
No, No, that's great. It's a super thorough which is
what we need, I think, because it's a complex and
nuanced issue. So do you have any predictions for how
Endangered Species Act might attempt to be adjusted by the
new administration? Do you anticipate adjustments to EESA protections or
how the program is implemented. Just curious what your thoughts

(47:03):
are there, if you can, if you had the ability
to try to make predictions, what you might predict?

Speaker 2 (47:08):
Oh man, I mean, I do think that the administration
will will do whatever it can to try and delist
at the very least the greater Yellowstone population of grizzly
bears and potentially the Northern Cascades, or not Northern Cascades,
the Northern Continental Divide population and Gruzil bears. I think
there will be a concerted effort to try and chart

(47:28):
a path to get those two populations delisted. I don't
know if they'll be successful with that, but I think
that's one thing they might look at. But that's a
single species thing as opposed to maybe your question over
overall of the ESA as a whole. I really don't know.
I don't really have a crystal ball or any predictions

(47:50):
on are they going to look at amending any particular
regulations or implementation regulations for how the essay is is implemented.
I suspect they probably will, because every administration takes a
run at something. I just don't know what that would
be yet, because they really I don't think they've really
signaled that.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
Okay, Yeah. One of the reasons I'm so interested in
it is because, of course, in New Mexico we've got
the Mexican gray wolf that we've been working on the
wolf Recovery program and trying to get that population recovered essentially,
and so currently Mexican gray wolves are a federally listed
endangered species. At one point you probably know this day,
but in the nineties we were down to seven individual

(48:32):
animals of that species left on the planet, and now
we've got around two hundred and fifty between New Mexico
and Arizona, and the New Mexico Wildlife Federation feels strongly
that we support recovery of Mexican gray wolves. There a
native species and they belong on the landscape, but we
also believe that it's important to get the species delisted.

(48:52):
I mean, the idea of the success of the Endangered
Species Act to me is dlisting species, notntinuing to keep
species on the list permanently. And so you know, I'm
hopeful that as we get the Mexican gray wolf recovered,
we could somehow avoid decades long battles in court in
accomplishing a dlisting of the species. So that was kind

(49:14):
of the reason for my interest in what was going
on with the grizzly bears, because I think it might
provide some indication is what we as to what we
can expect in the wolf recovery program.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
Yeah, you're probably right, and you can look back to
gray wolves in the Northern Rockies as well as as
sort of providing an example of what your future looks
like there in New Mexico with with wolf, Mexican wolf
dlisting or downlisting, whatever path you're looking at taking. It's
in the large carnivore pieces of the Endangered Species Act

(49:45):
are some of the most polarizing and litigious. In fact,
they're mainly the only ones that are. When you look
at the ESA as a whole, it's it's largely not
that contentious. Most of the litigation on the dlisting side,
out of the seventy plus species that have been delisted,

(50:08):
are the challenges tend to come on these carnivores. It's
people are very very passionate about it, and it's you know,
it becomes protracted. These these litigation battles become protracted. I
think when on the gray wolves and the Northern Rockies
there have been no and the Western Great Lakes combined,
there have been no fewer than ten different lawsuits involving

(50:29):
dlisting of those populations. So getting something that survives judicial
review is hard. In fact, there's only one if you believe,
if you can believe this, and I only I'm not
telling this to freaky out or anything, Jesse, but I'm
just letting you know. There is only one case that

(50:50):
I can think of involved of these ten involving wolves
that survived judicial review, and it was the last one.
It was Wyoming's delisting. Every other one Western Great Lakes
Northern Rockies did not survive judicial review. In fact, the
Montana and Idaho if you'll remember that delisting was a

(51:14):
result of the court finding against the Fish and Wildlife
Service and reinstating protections in Idaho and Montana, and so
Senator John Tester of Montana was the force behind congressional
action to reinstate that delisting rule and get them congressionally

(51:34):
delisted in Idaho and Montana but not in Wyoming. So
and then make that rule not subject to judicial review.
So it's just it is really really hard with these
large predators, just really hard.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
Yeah, and I'm anticipating it being a huge challenge here
in the state, but something we're already essentially trying to
prepare for. But I really appreciate that, David, and I
know your time is valuable, so I'm going to keep
you a lot longer. But since I've got you and
you're such an expert when it comes to so many
of these national level issues, I do have two more
things I want to talk about. The first one is

(52:10):
if you could provide us with a what you would
anticipate the future of the recovering recovering America's Wildlife Act
might be in this administration. After the election, I was
concerned that maybe rawl was going to be put on hold.
But then I attended the National Assembly of Sportsman Caucuses
conference in Baton Rouge in November, and a lot of

(52:31):
the conversations that occurred at that conference gave me hope
that maybe we could really keep the Recovering America's Wildlife
Act a priority in this administration. And I'm curious if
you have any thoughts on that.

Speaker 2 (52:44):
I mean, I mean, we probably have people at NWF.
Not probably, We certainly have people at NWF that have
more experience with this than I do and can speak
in a lot more detail that with it than I do.
But I would, you know, I would. I would put
it out there as it remains one of our singular
highest priorities Recovering America's Wildlife Act does with this administration too,

(53:09):
and I know it remains a priority for like states
across the country, state wildlife agencies across the country. I
think you're going to see I mean, I'm not going
to predict that it passes or anything like that, but
I think you're going to see interest in it it's

(53:29):
it's one of the most bipartisan conservation ideas I've seen
in a long time, and the only reason that it
hasn't passed yet is because you have to figure out
how to pay for it, right, It's this, it's this
pay for piece, like how do we how do we
pay for recovering America's Wildlife Act? And so like if
if ideas come that that that can coalesce around that

(53:52):
pay for side of it, I get the impression that
there is interest, and so it's just like it's just
stay in diligent with it and keeping keeping up with
our respective delegations and talking to the administration and talking
to folks in Congress, and you know, we're continuing to
prioritize it. I can tell you that the director that
you know, you know, the incoming director, the director nominee,

(54:14):
Brian Neswick, it was he was a champion for recovering
America's Wildlife Act when he was at the state level.
So you're inheriting a champion right there at the federal level.
So yeah, that's I try and stay positive about it.

Speaker 1 (54:28):
Yeah, that's that's really great news because here in New Mexico,
we've we've got an extremely underfunded state wildlife agency, and
we're working this legislative session to help put a band
aid on their funding crisis. But a real, long term
solution needs to be found, and I'm still very, very
hopeful that that solution could come in the form of
a passage of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. And speaking

(54:50):
of wildlife, I want to jump into something else real quick,
and then I'm going to make an announcement for our
camera at the Capital event, and then I'll turn it
over to you, Dave, for any final thoughts and anything
else that you'd like to mention to our listeners before
I let you get back to your busy work day.
But there was just I just saw this today. In fact,
if I'd even know this is going on, maybe I'm
a little disconnected at the moment, but I just I
saw you put something on Facebook about a new show

(55:14):
called The Americas, and that was super exciting. It sounds
like it's going to be narrated by Tom Hanks, and
I think one of the episodes might have already aired.
But this sounds like kind of a partnership with the
National Wildlife Federation. Are you able to talk to our
listeners a little bit about that.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
Yeah, I mean just really briefly, I think it's I'm
not involved in it in any way, shape or form,
but we have people at the organization that helped facilitate
this partnership with NBC and this development of this show
called The Americas, which is really the supposed to be
this captivating story across North and South America about the

(55:49):
really the importance of wildlife. I mean, that's really what
it boils down to you. So think you know, if
you think of the our planet and Planet Earth and
a number of these programs over the years that that
are really leaning in on wildlife and wildlife conservation, you know,
on a global scale. This one brings it. This one
brings it in a little bit closer. We're talking North

(56:10):
and South America. Yeah, the first one was so we're
talking right now on the twenty fourth, and the first
one aired yesterday. So I think they all air on
Sunday evenings on NBC and it's a ten part series. Uh.
And if you can't catch it on NBC when it
when it airs live, you can catch it on on
the Peacock Afterwards. They'll be archived there and you can binge.

(56:33):
Watch them when you're ready to do it. But it's
a it's a really cool partnership between NBC and National
Wildlife Federation and just really really thrilled for our organization
and as somebody that's a like I, you know, on
an a side. You know, Tom Hanks is one of
my favorite actors of all time. I just it's hard
to find a bad movie that he's ever done, So

(56:54):
I find it hard to believe that he would put
his name to any kind of a bad product. So
this is you know, he's he's going to be he's
narrating it, and that means it's going to be an
awesome product.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Yeah, that's great man. Well, congratulations to the National Wildlife
Federation on securing that partnership and really elevating the importance
of wildlife because obviously that's what we exist for, that's
what we do every day in our work, and you know,
the wildlife is super important, but we always talk about habitat.
You know, the land that that wildlife exists on is critical.
Without that, you don't have any wildlife. And so that's

(57:27):
the reason one of the reasons where the New Mexico
Wildlife Federation is hosting our Camo at the Capital event
on March the seventh. We'll be at the Roundhouse from
twelve to three. We've invited all the partner organizations who
focus on public lands and public lands access. Obviously, the
New Mexico Wilie Federation and many of the affiliates of
the National Wildlife Federation participate in CAMO at the Capital

(57:48):
every year. This is an opportunity for our membership, the hunters,
the anglers, sportsmen and women across the state to show
up at the Capitol and let our lawmakers know that
we're a large contingency. There are a lot of us,
and that we are paying attention, and that we do vote,
and that we matter, and that we really really care
about having access to wild places in wild animals. So

(58:09):
March seventh, from twelve to three, I'll be there, of course,
and I certainly hope to see all of our listeners
at CAMO at the Capitol. I participated with you, Dave,
I think a number of years ago in Wyoming at
the Cameo at the Capital event, which was super fantastic.
So it's one of my favorite events of the year.
We're doing that on March seventh, but Before I let
you go, Dave, I just want to see if there's
anything else you're working on that we should be aware

(58:30):
of that the New Mexico Wildlife Federation can support you
on or any other thoughts that you'd like to share
with our listeners.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
I mean, obviously I have to mention one piece about
the Camo at the Capitol because I think, don't you
have some sort of a battle scar from your time
coming to our Camo at the Capitol here.

Speaker 1 (58:47):
Yeah, man, I've got a chipped tooth, which I'm very
proud of. Actually, it's a point of pride for me.
But I chiped that tooth eating a goose slider that
I think had a steel bebie in there. And I
think that goose was procured by your shotgun, if I
remember correctly.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
Yeah, that's right, I did my best to get all
the shot out of that. Out of all that, but yeah,
I always prepare this. Pulled these pulled goose sliders for
our Camo at the Capital event. They become pretty popular.
But I didn't mean to injure you, so I I
apologize for that.

Speaker 1 (59:23):
No, that's okay, man, I was you know what, it
was fantastic. It didn't slow me down at all. It
didn't curb my appetite. I don't know how many of
those things I ate, but I definitely ate quite a
few of them, and always happy to find a piece
of steel shot. Because, of course, the New Mexico Ilie
Federation is a member of the North American Non Lead Partnership,
and obviously, by law, when we're hunting waterfowl, we have

(59:43):
to use non toxic ammunition, but the New Mexico Ilie
Federation encourages all hunters across the country to voluntarily choose
non lead ammunition. It just makes so much more sense
to ensure that we're maintaining healthy habitat and not impacting
wildlife other than our intended target. So so yeah, a
little steel shot that I feel like, that's a that's

(01:00:04):
a well earned battle scar man.

Speaker 2 (01:00:07):
I'm glad to hear that, and I'm I'm glad you
like the goose. So I'm gonna keep making it. But
I bet I'll be a lot more diligent and thorough
and trying to peel out all the shot in the future.
I don't want to. I don't want a lawsuit on
my hands, attorney buddy, But yeah, as far as everything else,
We've covered so much ground. I won't bore people with

(01:00:29):
other stuff, but I really do appreciate the the time,
the opportunity to come on and visit with you, and
I appreciate all the work I will do. I will
say one thing, I really appreciate the work that New
Mexico Wildlife Federation is done. And and just so your
listeners know the impact that you have even outside the

(01:00:51):
borders of your own state. As you know, Jesse, we
were dealing with an issue here in Wyoming in this
legislative session where we had somebody that ran a bill
a bill looking for transferable licenses for big game to
landowners to be able to turn around and sell those

(01:01:11):
on the market. And I know, knowing that you have
gone through and done a lot of work on that,
on the impacts of that to resident hunters, in particular
in New Mexico, I had reached out to you and
and tried to get some data about, you know, sort
of what the impacts have been there. And I don't

(01:01:32):
know if I followed up with you. I think I
may have, but just so your listeners, no, I used
that data as I was talking to some of the
folks about the bill here, and I think it was
actually incredibly helpful for helping to convince some folks that
maybe that's not the right approach here and maybe we
can look at some other things to help deal with,

(01:01:54):
you know, impacts to landowners and how we support our
landowner community without going to this model of privatizing wildlife.
So I just wanted to extend my thanks to you
for that work, and also just the recognition that the
work that you're doing in New Mexico is helping in

(01:02:15):
other places too.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
Well. I really appreciate those kind words, Dave, And I
was so glad to see that that bill withdrawn from
your state legislature. And I actually saw a Field and
Stream article that was talking about it wherein they linked
and referenced our take Back your Elk report. So I'm
really glad that that was helpful. And the New Mexico
Wildie Federation has been involved in fighting privatization efforts right
now this session, also in Arizona, in Utah, in Montana,

(01:02:41):
so these things are popping up all across the West.
But we're hoping that our cautionary tale can help prevent
other states from going down this terribly challenging path of
dealing with the privatization of wildlife. But to your point,
it's absolutely necessary that we do work closely with our
private landowners who provide critical habitat to the public wildlife,
and so I really appreciate your involvement and your engagement

(01:03:03):
on that issue in Wyoming. You're doing great work, Dave,
and can't thank you enough for your leadership at the
national level and all of the work that the National
Wildlife Federation is doing every single day. It's really great
to be a part of this Federation family and just
can't again, can't thank you for enough for taking so
much time out of your day. I know your time

(01:03:23):
is super valuable, so I won't keep you any longer day,
but I sure do appreciate you. Man.

Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
Oh yeah, the feelings mutual. Thanks thanks again for having
me and I really do appreciate all you do. And
it's it's always fun to come on to a podcast
with a friend.

Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
All right, man, Well, I'm sure glad you're on, And
do you want to real quick plug your podcast. I
think a lot of my listeners would love to be
familiar with your show and tune in and listen to
all of the awesome topics you've covered.

Speaker 2 (01:03:47):
Oh sure, I appreciate that. Yeah, so I have. And
you know, there's my day job and there's my side
hustle for No Pay, which is the Your Mountain podcast,
which is a i'd call it a project of passion
and love that I started six and a half years
ago with a couple of friends and we continue today.

(01:04:08):
It's really a conservation law and policy podcast. So if
you have interest in getting wonky and diving into the
nuts and bolts of the decision making that goes into
a lot of these conservation decisions across the country, maybe
it's for you. Yeah, Your Mountain is the name of it,
and that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
Could be found anywhere you find podcasts, right, Spotify, Stitcher, wherever.

Speaker 2 (01:04:31):
You got it. Probably everywhere you can find them. There's
always new places to find them. So maybe I'm not everywhere,
but we're most places you'll find it Apple, Spotify, Stitcher,
pod Bean, YouTube.

Speaker 1 (01:04:44):
Yeah. Well, as you know, I'm a pretty loyal listener
and you guys cover some great topics and I always
anticipate the next release, So keep up the great work
on that front.

Speaker 2 (01:04:54):
I appreciate it. Like I said, we take every dollar
that we make from it and put it right back
into the which is zero dollars. It's just, you know,
like I said, it's a project of passion, born out
of passion, Like a lot of the work you do, like,
it's just it's part of our DNA. Is this conservation work,

(01:05:15):
and we do it for our day job, and we
do it volunteer time with it in other places, and
you just it's just except part of the DNA.

Speaker 1 (01:05:25):
Yeah. Well, fantastic, Keep up the great work, Dave. Thanks
for all you do for public places, for public wildlife
and to support all of the affiliates around the country.
I'll let you get back to your busy schedule and
I'm sure we'll have you on again before too long
to provide an update and help us keep plugging away
and be the most effective advocates we possibly can.

Speaker 2 (01:05:43):
Sounds great.

Speaker 3 (01:05:44):
Thanks again, thanks for listening to the Yahi Va podcast
produced by Drift with Outdoors.