Roundup 162 || Warning Not To Eat Maine Wild Deer/Turkey, Ostrich Cull in Canada, and an LA Menhaden Ruling

Summary

---

The Origins Foundation Podcast: Roundup 162

Warning Not To Eat Maine Wild Deer/Turkey, Ostrich Cull in Canada, and an LA Menhaden Ruling

Date: November 12, 2025
Hosts: The Origins Foundation team (speakers: "A" and "B")

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Origins Foundation Podcast, "Roundup 162," navigates several urgent conservation and wildlife management stories: a state-issued warning about consuming wild game in Maine due to PFAS contamination, a controversial mass ostrich cull in Canada related to avian flu control policies, and recent disappointing policy news for menhaden fisheries in Louisiana. The hosts dissect these issues with their trademark blend of humor, lived experience, and insightful critique—highlighting failures and wins in wildlife policy, the importance of sustainable use, and the real human and ecological stakes at play.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Community, Conservation, and Hunting Culture (00:02–09:46)

• Reaffirming the Podcast’s Mission:

  • The hosts revisit the founding purpose of The Origins Foundation: “We need to champion the truth around what we do and who we are.” (A, 00:02)
  • Emphasis on narrative control and the social role of hunting in funding and implementing effective conservation.

• Personal Detours & Humor:

  • Anecdotes about home cooking (brisket and seafood feasts), field gear, and coffee preferences add authenticity, camaraderie, and entertainment value (especially, playful confessions about Starbucks orders, 10:06–10:55).

2. Maine’s “Do Not Eat” Advisory for Wild Game (14:19–21:15)

• PFAS Contamination and Health Risks:

  • Maine expands its “do not eat” advisory for deer and turkey due to “forever chemicals,” namely PFAS. PFAS can cause immune issues, cancer, and more (B, 14:47–15:14).
  • Bioaccumulation and industrial legacy pollution—particularly in areas with historic manufacturing—are major underlying causes.

• Discussion and Speculation:

  • Is Maine uniquely at risk, or simply uniquely proactive in monitoring/testing?
  • Widespread presence of PFAS makes isolation difficult: “These things are everywhere... literally just about anything that we touch now.” (B, 15:14)
  • PR concern: Could advisories undermine public/hunter perceptions of wild game as a healthy, sustainable protein source?
  • “Still probably safer than farmed animals shot through with hormones...” (B, 19:36)

• Call to Action: Listeners invited to weigh in and share local perspectives, especially those with relevant experience (20:47–20:54).

Notable Quote:
“I don’t think it’s widespread at levels that are dangerous to humans.” (A, 18:47)

3. Bear Conflicts in Japan and North America (21:15–27:00)

• Japanese Bear Management:

  • Spike in human-bear conflicts. Japanese bear control is hampered by an aging hunter population and cumbersome procedures: “The guy that shot the bear was 78 years old.” (A, 23:06)
  • Japanese law mandates survival testing before euthanizing trapped bears—inefficient and stressful for all involved.

• Sustainable Use Model Discussion:

  • Japan’s situation showcases the need for more sustainable use strategies and generational succession in wildlife management.

• North American Context:

  • Recent grizzly attacks in Canada and Montana, with increasing human–wildlife conflict as wild biomass shrinks and human populations expand.
  • Reference to Don Pinnock’s opinion piece and the landmark “Global biomass of mammals since 1850” paper.

Notable Moment:
“No young people want to come into this... It’s dangerous, it’s hard.” (A, 23:54)

4. Decline of Global Wild Mammal Biomass & Conservation Efforts (27:00–36:29)

• Key Stats from the Nature Communications study:

  • In 1850, wild mammals’ global biomass was roughly equal to that of humans and domesticated mammals.
  • Today, humans and their animals outweigh wild mammals 10:1.
  • Dramatic declines in marine mammal biomass (70% since 1850) and mixed results for terrestrial wildlife—some species (like whitetail deer and alligator in North America) are rebounding, unlike large species (bison, elephants, big cats).

• Role of Conservation Models:

  • North American conservation and sustainable hunting approaches credited for bouncing back certain populations.
  • Success stories: Bison recovery, modeled in part on what hosts compare to alligator management policies.

Memorable Analogy:
“It’s like snakes and ladders. You guys are climbing the ladder, and then somebody does something stupid and you just slide down.” (A, 00:31)

5. The Bison Comeback and Challenges (36:29–40:43)

• Bison Recovery Updates:

  • More than 2,300 bison reintroduced to tribal lands since 2020; over 500,000 in N. America (80% privately managed).
  • Desirability of bison meat, limitations of reproductive biology, and tension between private production and wild-nature goals.
  • Calls for bison repopulation on public and tribal lands, but logistical and economic hurdles remain.

• Farm Model Comparisons:

  • Alligator population management cited as a template for balancing farm and wild populations (B, 39:18–40:01).

6. Louisiana Menhaden Buffer Zone Ruling (40:43–47:03)

• Menhaden (Pogie) Fishery Conflict:
  • Recent Louisiana Wildlife Commission vote reduces protective “buffer zones” for commercial menhaden harvest, against widespread conservationist opposition.
  • Bycatch (accidental catch of non-target species) and ecosystem impacts spotlighted—“they suck in everything...sport fish...dolphins...tarpon.” (B, 42:19).
  • Conservation community feels outgunned by industry influence and political pressure.
  • Next steps: 35-day public comment period, with hope that listener action can help influence final outcome.

Notable Quote:
“It’s a loss for conservationists… There's a large coalition that has been fighting this, fighting this, fighting this.” (B, 43:22)

7. Canadian Ostrich Cull Controversy (47:03–53:33)

• Avian Influenza Outbreak and Government Response:

  • Two ostriches tested positive for H1N1; government invoked “stamp out” protocol, killing almost 400 ostriches, despite only a handful testing positive and legal opposition from the farm.
  • Policy designed for poultry, indiscriminately applied to ostrich operation.
  • Legal appeals failed; harrowing culling footage galvanized public protest, politicians condemned “a poorly executed operation.”

• Policy Critique:

  • Lack of case-by-case, evidence-based management underscored: “Following a policy for the sake of following the policy is the overriding theme.” (A, 49:57)
  • International (WHO) pandemic protocols influenced domestic action, limiting flexibility.

Powerful Moment:
“...a policy is blindly followed without the need for evidence-based decision making...300 ostriches, more than a thousand rounds of ammunition was used.” (A, 49:57 & 51:52)

8. Listener Engagement and Closing (53:33–54:29)

• Future Episodes: Next roundup expected from South Africa.
• Invitation for Feedback: Listeners encouraged to text thoughts or news to 601-790-0607.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the challenge of conservation narrative:

  “We need to champion the truth around what we do and who we are.”
  (A, 00:02)

• Analogy for the state of wildlife management:

  “It's like snakes and ladders. You guys are climbing the ladder, and then somebody does something stupid and you just slide down.”
  (A, 00:31)

• On the impact of PFAS:

  “These things are everywhere... literally just about anything that we touch now.”
  (B, 15:14)

• Sustainable use in Japan:

  “No young people want to come into this... It's dangerous, it's hard.”
  (A, 23:54)

• Biomass shift since 1850:

  “Today, the human population is more than 8 billion, which is crazy.”
  (B, 28:31)

• Menhaden ruling frustration:

  “It’s a loss for conservationists... there's a large coalition that has been fighting this, fighting this, fighting this.”
  (B, 43:22)

• On the ostrich cull:

  “Following a policy for the sake of following the policy is the overriding theme…300 ostriches, more than a thousand rounds of ammunition was used.”
  (A, 49:57, 51:52)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Why We Started (Championing Hunting’s Narrative): 00:02–00:45
• Maine PFAS Advisory and Wild Meat Safety: 14:19–21:15
• Bear Attacks and Problem Bear Management in Japan/Canada: 21:15–27:00
• Biomass Study Discussion & Conservation Models: 27:00–36:29
• Bison Recovery and Farming Challenges: 36:29–40:43
• Louisiana Menhaden Ruling Explained: 40:43–47:03
• Canada Ostrich Cull Story and Policy Critique: 47:03–53:33
• Listener Callouts & Episode Wrap-Up: 53:33–end

---

Episode Tone

Relaxed, conversational, and at times irreverent, but also deeply committed to science-based conservation and the real-world impacts of wildlife policy. The hosts balance humor, outrage, and expertise, inviting listener participation and critical thinking.

---

For Further Engagement

• Feedback & News: Text or message the show at 601-790-0607
• Podcast references: Details and links to specific research articles, reports, and related podcasts are posted on The Origins Foundation’s social media channels.

---

Transcript

[A]

So five years ago, there was a reason why I started this movement. And the truth then is the truth now that we need to champion our narrative. We need to champion the truth around what we do and who we are. There's a sweet spot where they got, you know, too heavy, and it's a burden to walk with. Too light and you whipping it. Why is the project so important to the hunting community? It's. It's a. I think it's not only important, I think it's. I think it's vital. I think it's. It's just in time. It's like snakes and ladders. You guys are climbing the ladder, and then somebody does something stupid and you just slide down. That is such an amazing analogy. Snakes and ladders. Yeah. You know, ivory, in my opinion, was the plastic of its age. Okay.

[B]

The expenses were going up. It goes a long way with families. We have families that do need it.

[A]

Let me close this door because I have a little wiener dog. What are you laughing? Because I said wiener.

[B]

I'm really glad you finished the sentence out. I'm sorry. The first half. What are we doing here today?

[A]

You're telling the whole world.

[B]

You're always in a different corner.

[A]

There's always something off the screen.

[B]

There's always something new in your background.

[A]

No, this is the same background. Same door. Same bow and arrow.

[B]

Same.

[A]

Same horns. Sometimes Springbok of my grandfathers. Bushbuck of my grandfathers.

[B]

Sometimes I see hats. Sometimes I see windows. Sometimes I see mounts.

[A]

Oh, yes, yes, yes. But for Roundup, you're always in the same place. I'm always in the same place. Roundup. I'm always in the same place.

[B]

I don't think that's true. Well, but it has been so long since. Since we have rounded up. Oh, maybe I forgot.

[A]

Maybe. I think you did forget. You got a lot of things happening. You got lots of little kids running around. You got puppies.

[B]

Not lots. Not lots.

[A]

Puppies. You got puppies.

[B]

I do not have a lot of kids running around.

[A]

Jeez.

[B]

I, well, built a brisket. It kind of felt like I built a brisket. I cooked a brisket, I grilled a brisket all day long on Saturday. And I now understand why these people. And I'm from Memphis, so, I mean, I grew up around competition, barbecue events. And I finally understand why people enter these events. Because after cooking a giant piece of meat for 10, 12 hours, 24 hours, whatever, you feel like you deserve an award if the thing's edible.

[A]

Was it edible?

[B]

I mean, it was edible. It was edible. I mean, it should have been after all of the research and preparation and time and monitoring and you just didn't.

[A]

Have the squeeze of the juice. Huh? Is what you said.

[B]

I, I, look, I am highly critical, and I was aiming for perfection. I didn't think I was going to get it, but it tasted really good. It had all the things. It had the bark, it had the smoke rings. It was really good. I, I was taking my temperature from the thickest part of the meat, and I really should have been doing it from all the different angles. I also had a herd of hungry people waiting on it, and it was cooking a little faster than I expected it to cook. And once I got past a stall in, it really, really got to temperature faster than I thought it was going to. I should have taken it off a little bit sooner and, and earlier temperature than I did because it obviously continued cooking a little bit. So I now know whenever I attempt one again, which may not be for a while, I think what to do. So, yeah, I wanted it to be, like, juicy, and it was just kind of. I mean, it was very tender, but it was not, like, oozing juice.

[A]

Well, I had brisket on Friday night down fields, Kevin's Fields Day at a game fair that we attended. Shout out to Anna and Kevin and Kathleen Kelly, the owners of Kevin's. Amazing. The brisket was amazing. The brisket was like.

[B]

No, I'm sure at Kevin's event you probably had, like, Franklin cooking your biscuit.

[A]

Yeah. No, so the, the brisket was okay. It was good. It was okay. In terms of the, the, the, the star of the, the two nights of eating the fresh seafood that came in from Apalachicola, fresh oysters, the fresh shrimp, and the fried grouper.

[B]

Oh, my gosh.

[A]

Oh, my gosh.

[B]

I love that area. It's so pretty down there. And I love that store. I do not. It's a good thing I don't live near that store. I, I do get their catalogs, but I usually look at the catalogs in bed at night and fall asleep before I, like, do any ordering damage.

[A]

So that's good.

[B]

Plus, I mean, everything's so fancy in there. It's very fancy.

[A]

Like, I, It's Southern. It's Southern, right? It's. You grew up. You're a Southern belle. Like, that's just the things that people like to wear.

[B]

I mean, they do. But then you get ready to. You put that stuff on and you're like, get ready. You're. You're going to leave the house and you're like, I just me a lot of times don't feel like I can show up in that fancy of a get up. They have awesome stuff. So I bought, I look, I've bought field pants from them that I love. I bought boots from them. Snake boots I love. I just don't necessarily. I, I would really look. One of these days you guys may see me all out. I'm gonna. Well, we're hopefully gonna work myself or something.

[A]

Yeah, we're gonna work with Kevin's. We're gonna do some things. We're gonna potentially have a collab. But big shout out to Kevin was amazing. Couple of days, great little game fair. Also weather was amazing. Big shout out to Quail Covey coffee because they were serving coffee the entire time.

[B]

Did you get asked coffee?

[A]

Yes, I got not serve. I got asked at my booth whether or not we make coffee. And the reason I could ask that is because the coffee that was being served all weekend was our Hunters for Hope blend. Everybody loved it. Look guys, I'm a hunter, right? And when I go hunting, I like to figure out how to get my trophies back home as expeditiously as possible. Well, you don't have to look much further than Safari Specialty Importers. We know that trophy importation can be quite a headache. That's why Safari Specialty Importer strives to make it as easy and hassle free as possible. They have access to a bonded warehouse. You won't be charged storage fees and you get a dedicated team that's readily available and will update you at every step in the process. They'll even go one step further. Safari Specialty importers is working with us and they are going to donate $100 from every shipment that they work with to conservation projects that include anti poaching, community development and wildlife conservation. At the end of the day, choose to spend your money with a team that's dedicated to you and is dedicated to helping show how hunting is a great conservation model. Hassle free logistics, fuel and conservation go with Safari Specialty Importers. Hunting and shooting suppressed have become the norm in over 42 states where suppressors are legal. The growing popularity of suppressors has even led to legislative changes. You might have heard some things around the big beautiful bill, right? Including the reduction of the NFA mandated tax stamp. Before you used to pay 200 bucks. And now starting January 1st of 2026, the tax stamp is going to zero. However, why wait until January 1st? Our partners silence essential great friends of ours, they're going to pay your tax stamp right now. So if you buy a banished suppressor or other popular brands that essentially are qualifying purchases, Silence Essential is going to cover the cost of the tax stand. They're going to save you 200 bucks right now, so make sure you don't miss out. Shooting suppressed if you're in the market for a new suppressor, whether it's your first or your next one, visit silenceesscentral.com or call them 866-811-6536. Silence Essential is going to cover your tax stamp right now. They're going to simplify the submission process and deliver your suppressor right, right to your door. Don't wait. Get your suppressor right now and start shooting. Suppress. This season, Bushnell is eager to help you get set up for conservation success. That's right. They want to help you. The conservation and research community is dominated by good people doing good things and investing significant time and effort for the benefit of habitat and the species. So what do you need to do? Pretty simple. Send us your conservation story and or your conservation wish. Could be managing whitetails, could be understanding your environment or species or something else related to conservation. What would you be able to do if you had a great trail camera setup? We will select the best story every other month and send you a camera bundle, cell camera, normal SD camera, SD cards, as well as optics. Everything you need to get set up for success. I can't wait to see what you submit. You can email us, DM us, message us, whatever you want. We are not hard to find. Good luck.

[B]

And I said you probably got asked because you talk about coffee so much.

[A]

I like coffee in the mornings. I like good coffee. And we invest in good coffee.

[B]

I think you like all coffee.

[A]

Oh, true.

[B]

You love coffee. And tell everyone what you really, really like in your coffee.

[A]

Nothing.

[B]

Nope. That is not true. That is not true.

[A]

I'm a black coffee drinker at home.

[B]

Do not fib on your podcast.

[A]

Okay, I will say this is how I tell them.

[B]

Tell them what? You tell them what you order at Starbucks.

[A]

No, I'll be completely honest. I'll be completely honest at home. I'm a black coffee guy. That's all. I drink black coffee. Dark black coffee. That's what I like. The darker the better, actually. But when I travel, which is.

[B]

Which is like 75% of the time.

[A]

I love a Starbucks Caramel Macchiato.

[B]

You just got red. Wait, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. What do you want?

[A]

I order a Starbucks Caramel Macchiato.

[B]

That's right. That's Right.

[A]

And I will say this. I am in love right now with the pump pumpkin cream ice chai with the cinnamon on top. Oh, my gosh, it's amazing.

[B]

Could you put any more stuff in your coffee?

[A]

That was amazing. Well, that chai is not really coffee, so I flip.

[B]

I look, I love a chai. I love a good chai.

[A]

But anyway, Kevin's was amazing. It was great meeting everybody. Great meeting. The new, the Gunworks guy. I met Derek Davidson, who's one of the twin brothers of Aaron Davidson, the owner of Gunworks. Had a great time with him and hung out with Fraser McKenzie from Venator all weekend. Venator is a conservation club member. Kevin's is a conservation club member. Hopefully Gunworks will become a conservation club member. Just big, big time. Had a great time and now am just pedal to the metal for the next four days before I start traveling. And hopefully this FAA government shutdown doesn't catch me on Thursday when I'm traveling across country before I fly to South Africa.

[B]

Well, we're taping this Monday. It's going to be released Wednesday. The government, the Senate passed its first hurdle bill. They passed a bill to open the the government back up. Thankfully, eight Democrats voted to break the.

[A]

Deadlock.

[B]

Whatever. Yeah, deadlock is a really, really good word. And so now it goes back to the House. And if the House passes it, then the president will sign it. And so hopefully by Wednesday you and everyone else in America will be back.

[A]

Could you imagine, I read somewhere if this didn't happen, and it still isn't a like if, if this didn't happen. I heard it, that air, airplane traffic, airline traffic would go to a trickle over Thanksgiving.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Could you imagine?

[B]

I, I think so many people just wouldn't travel. I mean, I wouldn't. If I knew that was going to happen, I probably would stay put.

[A]

Yeah, I think a lot of people just stay put. Yeah, exactly.

[B]

The highways are just going to get totally clogged. But, and I think that that was, I personally believe that that was major incentive for them to unclog.

[A]

It's almost like everybody in America just says, okay, thanks for making our lives hell. You're all out.

[B]

Right, right, right. Which is, I think what was happening and what was going to happen. I mean, everyone up for reelection knew that their heads were on the chop. Coincidentally, none of the eight Democrats that voted are up for reelection.

[A]

Interesting.

[B]

They're not worried about it. But look, I appreciate all of the people who voted to get the government back to work because so many people are out of Work furloughed, not getting paid. Just a nightmare right now. Now, of course, the bill that they passed only, only funds the government through January 30. So we may be right back in this position again in about, what, what is that, 10 weeks from now?

[A]

So it's. Yeah, 12 weeks.

[B]

12 weeks.

[A]

Crazy.

[B]

But, but at least for now, it'll get everyone through the holidays.

[A]

So crazy, crazy, crazy.

[B]

It is crazy. Speaking of holidays, if you live in Maine and you're thinking about killing your own turkey, you might want to think again.

[A]

Yeah. So listen, this is an interesting thing. This whole, like, legacy chemicals has come up before. Aaron Merrill, who used to work for us, lives in Maine, Big deer hunter in Maine, has done a bunch of articles on this PFAS issue. And it's not just turkeys, but it's also deer here, too.

[B]

This is crazy. So I have, I mean, I guess not read the right articles, because this is the first time I have heard of a state actually issuing a warning, do not eat the meat that you kill because of pfas. So pfas, of course, being forever Chemicals, we call them Forever chemicals. So they have issued this warning. State officials in Maine have expanded the do not eat game turkey and deer to additional areas due to contamination from the pfas, which, you know, polyfluoroalkyl substances, because they are really worried about people having these food safety concerns. Of course, fertile chemicals cause all sorts of issues. Weakened immune systems, lower infant fetal growth, increased cholesterol, certain types of cancers. But, I mean, look, these things are everywhere. They're everywhere. I mean, we all drink, hopefully less than we used to, but, you know, I'm trying to see what you're drinking out of. All right, you're in a yeti, so you're not right now. But I mean, bottled water, they're in the fish that we fish out of the ocean. Because our oceans are filled with PFAs. I mean, literally just about anything that we touch now. So I'm wondering, like, how, how big is this? Like, and what are, and what are these deer and turkeys eating up in Maine? I mean, I, I, well, it's just.

[A]

A bioaccumulation thing through the, through the. That's all it is, is bioaccumulation through the food chain, through the trophy.

[B]

I think of Maine as being a particularly, like, I think of it as being kind of a more open, rural. You know, they have a lot of public spaces.

[A]

Yeah, I'm looking at a map here that says, is the. I'm looking at the PFAS Do Not Eat advisory area map. Obviously there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 counties, portions of these counties, not all the counties. And it's very specific. There's three dots and then there's a big chunk that goes through Fairfield county right on the border, which is obviously a river, clearly is a river. I'm wondering what is causing these areas?

[B]

Like what is it linked to water contamination? Because it says that the governor, under his leadership, they've taken extensive action to address the PFAS contamination, over a hundred million the past three years, including testing of fish and wildlife, establishing drinking water standards, funds to assist impacted farms, providing safe drinking water, establishing wastewater sludge testing. So I keep hearing water, water, water, water. So I'm just wondering, sludge, contaminated sludge.

[A]

Geez. Maybe it was old school industrial areas because that's what Maine was used for. Used. Right, right. Back in the day it used to be big industry. Old school industry. Right. Wow.

[B]

I don't know. It says that they're what's next. They're going to continue to collaborate with Maine cdc, EPA and the agricultural agencies up there to monitor them in wildlife. But here's my other question. So relatively speaking, Maine has a pretty good, pretty good budget compared to say like some of our southern states. So are they issuing these warnings? Because they are doing all of this testing and monitoring and the rest of us or the majority of states just aren't monitoring and testing. So we don't know what's in there. Like how much is out there. Like just, you know, how much is out there. And I mean, is this really something we need to be concerned about? I, I, I don't know. I would like to know. I'm going to look more into it.

[A]

Well, I, I don't think it's widespread. Okay. I think it's very low.

[B]

I think it's 100% widespread because I don't everywhere. But I'm wondering, is it really.

[A]

Well, let me, let me amend what I, what I, what I said.

[B]

Is there really anything we can do about it?

[A]

Like, I don't think it's widespread at levels that are dangerous to humans.

[B]

So do we really think the Maine though is any worse than, like, I don't know, Connecticut or.

[A]

No, I think every place, New York, I think places that have old historical industry components to them that obviously back in the day environment regulations were well laxed in comparison to today. And there's lots of leakage and lots of spillage and lots of just dumping. Right. Just, you know, we'll just Dump it on the, on the field next door. The waste of whatever industrial byproduct.

[B]

It was probably pretty much everywhere.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. Well, no, oh no, not everywhere.

[B]

I mean I think it is, I think it is. We discovered old dump sites and bad, bad industrial dump sites. We discover them in Mississippi fairly regularly. Well anyway, I'm not gonna stop, I mean we're not gonna stop shooting turkey and deer and not eating them. So, you know. Yeah, what I mean I still, let's hope probably safer than farm. Still probably safer than farmed animals shot through with hormones. You know, unless you're really buying, spending top, top dollar to get your hormone free heritage breed, you know, turkeys, you're going to go to go to Whole Foods and get your 100g million dollar turkey. It's going to be this big.

[A]

Yeah, I hope the, you know, there's no sort of. And I don't think there would be. You know, one of the things that could be taken is that, you know, these hunters say that they're all about conservation, they're all about food and now they're not shooting anything.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. Anyway, if you guys out there, what do y' all think about this Texas?

[A]

Now Erin, Erin will probably have an opinion. We'll send this podcast to Erin. She's deeply involved in this whole PFAS thing.

[B]

I would like to hear it. Text us your thoughts. Google voice number 601-790-0607. Look at you have a number. Well, I have it right there. Handy. Handy now. Yeah, we haven't done a roundup in a while so we haven't, haven't had anybody weighing in on anything in a little while.

[A]

So we have seen moving on from Maine, we have seen a lot all over the world of bear attacks.

[B]

Have we?

[A]

You got your grizzlies, right?

[B]

Grizzlies. Oh, grizzlies, right. I was thinking black bear when you said that.

[A]

Yeah, grizzlies and black bears. Black bears in Japan. Black bears in Japan made the morning news like the CBS morning news.

[B]

What did they do? They deployed?

[A]

No, they're trying to figure it out. So there's 13.

[B]

Didn't they deploy like army or something?

[A]

They were going to deploy army. They were going to increase the number of hunters in there. But Japan has an aging hunting population. It's unbelievable. Like these guys, if you do some do a YouTube search of Japan bear hunters, there's a little nine minute piece from 60 Minutes. It's fascinating. Okay, so in this little nine minute piece they show a brown bear. So Japan has both brown bear and black bear.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

They show this brown bear trapped. And according to Japan, Japanese law before it, it's. Once it's trapped, you would think, oh, somebody would come up to the trap, euthanize the bear right away, I. E. Shoot it. Okay. No, it has to be tested. It has to be looked at in the cage. So they water and feed the bear in the cage and it is the hunter's responsibility. The local hunter who is the executioner. That's his job. So in this video, you watch this guy with a watering can watering the bear and the bear is lapping the water like a dog at the cage. And you're just like. And then this hunter is given in the AOK by the Japanese government. Kill the bear and he goes in and kills the bear.

[B]

That's how they hunt them.

[A]

No, that's how they, that's how they trap problem bears. It's not hunting bears. Sorry. Oh, oh, sorry, sorry. I was tying it to the, the problem bear situation of humans being killed. And so they will, they will identify a bear that's in an area that's.

[B]

Going to pull them.

[A]

That's how they deal with problem bears. Fascinating. Like I was like, it doesn't seem very efficient, but the guy that shot the bear was 78 years old. And so the Japanese government's not paying anything to trap problem bears, help take care of problem bears. There's no money in it. There's no young people coming into it because it's hard. Hard. Again, you know, lessons from all over the world. It's hard work. No young people want to come into this, into this job. Right. It's dangerous, it's hard.

[B]

Well, yeah. Why would they if they're not paying them? I mean, like all the other governments pay contractors if they need problem species. Cold.

[A]

Yeah, I wish we could use.

[B]

Or if they're not going to be able to eat them. I mean, is that guy get to keep it and eat it?

[A]

I don't know. They didn't, they didn't address it in the documentary or the little piece.

[B]

So they're trying to figure out what to do about all these problem bears though. But they've got a lot. Yeah, they don't allow them to be hunted.

[A]

There is very few hunting opportunities for bear. So it's like the sustainable use model in Japan is like ripe. Like, hey, politicians come in with a sustainable use model example in one area, like one town, one area and show what it can do.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. Sounds like wild origins Japan.

[A]

Yeah, 100%. We've got a couple of Japanese people that listen to this podcast. Japanese hunters, you know that.

[B]

That'd be cool.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

And the grizzlies. We've had two grizzly attacks in Canada, of course.

[A]

Yeah. We talk right on Mark's doors on and off about.

[B]

Yeah, he's been doing some really good. Putting some really good Wild origins. Wild origins. Canada has been putting out some really good grizzly content.

[A]

Yeah. He's got a project called Grizzly Balance that he's raising money for right now to sort of tell the other side of the story. And he's definitely put his head out there on the chopping block and he is getting attention. The aunties know about Mark, so.

[B]

Good for Mark. Mark is right.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And scientific.

[A]

There were some grizzly bear attacks in Montana too.

[B]

I didn't read about those.

[A]

Yeah. Happened two separate instances. Multiple hunters in Montana narrowly escaped dangerous encounters with grizzly bears. They ran into a grizzly near elk carcass and they scared it away. They scared it away, essentially. It's crazy. It's crazy, man. Like what? I don't know.

[B]

One theory is that they are searching for more food going outside of some of the normal range they would closer to humans ahead of their hibernation. But I mean, some of these don't even necessarily hibernate. So, you know, another, another possibility is that there's just so many more humans on the planet. Now when we, you and I have talked about this new study out that highlights the dramatic decline in global biomass of wild animals, not domestic wild, that there's just going to be more and more and more human wildlife conflict. And if they're not being sustainably managed, then it's going to. Going to happen. I mean, especially some of these apex predators.

[A]

I would love to figure out that. That story by Don Pennock. So Don Pennock in the South African circles is often referred to as Don Pinocchio.

[B]

Is he the one who, he, he wrote the article on the dramatic biomass?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So he wrote a opinion article about the study, right?

[A]

Yeah, he wrote an opinion me some of the new research that highlights the, the change in wildlife.

[B]

But it's, it's such an interesting. I mean it's kind of like a duh. It's like. I mean, I feel like everybody kind of knows about it, but do we also really stop to think about it?

[A]

Yeah, I, you know. Yeah, you're absolutely right. I don't think people think about the, the global biomass of. Of mammals and how it's changing between domestic and, and wild and this article that this guy's referring to in the is called the Global biomass of mammals since 1850. It was a Nature Communications piece by a scientist called Greenspoon.

[B]

Israel's Wiseman Institute of Science. The study came out of that, that institution. 1850, the total biomass of wild animals. And this is everything. Sea and land whales, elephants, mice, estimated to be roughly equal to that of humans and domesticated animals combined.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

And. But since then, since 1850, humans weight on the planet and our domesticated animals has more than halved. So we've doubled, I would say that that way. And we now outweigh all wild mammals 10 to 1, which is kind of crazy. So here's another way to put it in perspective. In 1850, the human population was approximately 1.2 billion on the whole planet. Today, the human population is more than 8 billion, which is crazy.

[A]

It surprises me that in the mid-1800s, our population was already a billion. Does that not surprise you? Does not seem high.

[B]

I have no perspective on that. I do not know. I do not know. No perspective, no comment. But this, I never thought about this. That at the same time that our human population has grown and, and I mean this is probably I'm personally contributing to this statistic. Our population of domesticated animals has also grown. Pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, cats, dogs, goldfish, bunnies. So those now account for around 1.1 billion tons of biomass. So domesticated animals have three times the total biomass that they did in 1850. So humans are about eight times, domesticated animals are about three times. Because we, we love our domesticated livestock and animals and we grow them.

[A]

I'd be super curious to know how, if you took specific hunting areas, what, how that holds up.

[B]

It. I think, I think there's a big difference. I mean, they've just, I think started to look at that. But like, so they, they can break out these things in terms of different, like. So, for instance, marine mammals have had the most dramatic decline. The biomass of wild marine mammals has fallen by 70% since 1850. And then on land, the data is patchier. It kind of depends on where you are on the globe and also by species. So like white tailed deer dramatically fell, but then because of conservation efforts, they have rebounded. And so there's a much, much more minor loss compared to other species because of. So like the graph, you can look at the chart graphs and it went, you know, and then it started going like this. But like marine has just gone. Yeah, I mean, realize all the people out there not watching YouTube cannot see what My hand motions just did. But there are graphs that illustrate the different species, you know, based. So I think that probably, you know, you could break it out according to the wildlife management models on different continents and then even within different mammals species. That would be really interesting to look at. I mean something origins could put out would be probably a pretty helpful tool.

[A]

Yeah, it'd be very.

[B]

For instance, looking at alligators would be super. You know, that would also probably look like whitetail deer straight down and straight back up.

[A]

Yeah. It's interesting when you look at this, when you look at this green component of the graph and you'd have to look up this paper to see what I'm looking at, but it's not a substantial portion like you look at the green and the blue to make up the 50% of the 200 megatons. Green is, I'm gonna say is 20% of that. 50.

[B]

Does green signify land?

[A]

Wild. Wild land. Yeah, wild wildlife. Right. And it hasn't really. If you look at that by itself, I haven't dug into this paper. You look at that to itself, it probably went from 20% to, you know, it's gone down, it's gone to like to 2% probably or 3% of. I'm wondering how much of that line is consist. It's almost consistent from like 2020 back to like 1970. How much of that line is attributed to people like us Hunters?

[B]

Yeah, keeping it well, conservative minded hunters. But how much also is it, you know, the, the over hunting in the late 1800s and early 1900s before people.

[A]

Realized oh for sure, like. And that's where the pinch point is. If you go from 1900 back to 1850, that's probably where you lost at least half of wildlife. And I think it then lost another half of wildlife from 1900 to 2020. That's when you look at the graph. That's how I look at it.

[B]

Well, and they say that the, the gains in the species like white tailed deer and like the American alligator cannot even remotely make up for the loss of the larger species like bison, like elephants, like big cats. Because. Well, and it doesn't say why. My personal opinion is because we have such a varied difference in wildlife management between the different continents and how they're managing them and how the populations treat the species.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, the North American model has been wildly successful. So I don't think it's any coincidence that species have rebounded so much better here.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

With our model of sustainable hunting and harvesting, once you conserve the species back to A certain population density threshold.

[A]

Yeah, agreed, Agreed.

[B]

So interesting. It's a pretty cool article. We will post it. We'll post it along with the other things we talk about today. Bison. Bison have reclaimed their ancestral ground. I think that we have. We already posted something about this on our Instagram.

[A]

Yeah. We had a great podcast last week with John Fiorchini. I think his name is. Sorry, I keep messing up his last name. Fiorchini. He is with Durham Ranch up in Wyoming. And just. He had a great bison podcast. And we did a little State of the Union bison last November. The first was National Bison Day. So.

[B]

Yeah. So kind of just continuing this thread. The bison. There were once 60 million bison wandering insane ancestral. And then they were on the verge of extinction by the 1800s, by the late 1800s, which is crazy. And now 10 states have been involved in this major, major conservation effort and to return bison to their native ancestral ground. And it's just been really remarkable to kind of watch this and read about it. Since 2020, more than 2,300 bison have been returned. In 2024 alone, 543 bison were transferred from the Nature Conservancy's preserves in tribal nations. And they just keep going. And so this. That's like, efforts like that, I think, are what's going to make a difference in the long haul.

[A]

Yeah. So the National Bison association has a million bison sort of objective goal to put on the landscape. I think there's over 500,000 bison right now in sort of. I think the vast majority, 80% of those 500,000 are in private hands. So private bison. And what John was mentioning on the podcast was it's obviously all driven by the need. Not the need, the desire that bison meat is healthy meat and so.

[B]

And delicious.

[A]

Yeah. And so if you are. If that is promoting itself through society, there's a greater demand for bison, and so there's more bison. He said that the issue right now is that they can't. I don't think there's enough female bison in the system. And so the idea of, like, repopulating these tribal lands and these national parks and refuges and BLM lands with bison is an amazing idea, but they're. They're not worth enough right now to do that. There's more money to be made on a private sector perspective on the meat component of them.

[B]

Oh, so everybody wants to. Because you can buy it in stores. I mean, you can.

[A]

Correct. So there's. It's. It's a really a conundrum right here because it's like if, if you say, okay, I want to buy excess bison. There's. There's no excess bison to buy. Those that have excess bison are being bought by other private areas to bolster their herds to grow more bison for the supply.

[B]

Well, do they not reproduce as quickly as cattle?

[A]

No, I don't think so. I think they're very. Yeah, let's just do some Google because.

[B]

I mean, we ha. We have no shortage of cows and people love to eat beef, so you would think that they would.

[A]

So they're only to one calf in the spring, and the females only sexually mature after two to three years.

[B]

So it takes two to three. Well, so, okay, so the cows have to be two to three years old and then they want a spring. I mean, and that's not that different, though, from cows, but they sometimes have twins, but usually it's one.

[A]

Yeah. And you've got to remember, I think the way that John said it, talked to me about it. I asked him about, like, age of bison, how long could they live. And there's obviously a shorter time span on bison in the. In captivity. Let's not say captivity in a ranched situation versus a wild situation. Because in a wild situation, a bison is not giving birth every year. Yeah, it's every other year. Every third year. In a ranching situation, they're giving birth to a. A calf every year. So their lifespan is cut down by like, cut down by a half, essentially.

[B]

So it is an interesting. Because when we talk about returning them to their native land, we are talking about wild. Although on tribal lands, I would assume that they kill them and we want them to be able to kill them and eat them for meat. They want to. I mean, they're trying to take back that run over the cliff like we talked about. I don't think they're near the numbers to get that yet, but yep, yep, it's interesting. So, yeah, so I think more people need to farm more bison. And then, I mean, it sounds like it could be set up like the model for the alligator where they farm a certain number and then, you know, get paid to farm and then release a certain number to the wild.

[A]

Yeah, that's a great model.

[B]

The problem is they're just so slowly growing.

[A]

Correct. It's not an. It's not an R selected species. It's a K selected species. Long lived, you know, few offspring kind of scenario.

[B]

I would like to have him buy some farm.

[A]

Oh, my God. You'd have a. Every kind of animal farm if you could. If Brad would Let you. You would have every kind of animal farm that he won't.

[B]

I would. I would. Almost every kind.

[A]

All right, let's do one more. What? Pick up. Pick one more piece of news because there's a ton of things in the news.

[B]

I do think we should talk about the menhaden situation. We had a little bit of a disappointing vote coming out of the LDWF Louisiana Wildlife Commission. So I think a lot of our listeners have probably been hearing about, and we have reposted stories that people have been putting out. We have not done a story on it. We are slowly starting to put out more and more fish stories. More and more fish issues. This one is complicated. We are talking about the menhaden commercial. Some people call them pogies, some people call them menhaden, but they're bait fish, these tiny little fish, and they are fished at great volume off the Gulf Coast. And there has been a long, long, long, long, long battle between the commercial menhaden harvesters and recreational sport fish anglers and conservationists. And it has. I mean, I. I liken it to the deer dog hunters versus people who hate dog hunting. I mean, it's just been going on for ages. But it has come to a head recently, especially in Louisiana, after video footage surfaced showing menhaden commercial harvesters very close to the shore. So they use these large nets, and then they use vacuum devices, and when they put them down in there, I mean, they just. They suck in everything. They suck in all sorts of sport fish and, you know, redfish and specks and dolphins. Tarpon. Tarpon.

[A]

That was the one video that I saw, a big old tarpon in a. In a bycatch net.

[B]

Yeah, they do. They do. And one of the videos showed, you know, some anglers saying, you know, back off, back off, you're catching all this stuff. And they wouldn't. And they just kept going. And I mean, it just. Just like, you know, what hit the band. So there is a buffer zone. And the commission had originally proposed or was thinking about increasing the buffer zone to a mile from the shore. And then the governor Landry got involved, and so he is largely considered to be on the side of the commercial harvesters. Conservationists are on the other end of the spectrum, really want a lot more protection, a larger buffer zone for all of the sport fish and native fish and turtles and tarpon and everything else. So this was up for a vote this past week. They were proposing that they reduce the buffer zone from a half a mile to a fourth of a mile and increase buffers inside the Chandelier Islands and around another aisle down there that people go frequently to fish. And the vote was 4 to 3. Not in favor of decreasing the buffer zone. So. Or no, they. No, sorry, sorry. They are going to decrease the buffer zone. So conservationists wanted to increase. Commercial harvesters wanted it decreased. So now this is proposed rule has been approved and a fourth of a mile is really, really small. Yeah, it's a loss for conservationists. The all of the fishing, what I would call conservation community. There's a large coalition that has been fighting this, fighting this, fighting this. We signed on and it's, you know, American Sport Fish association and the TRCP and Congressional Sportsman's foundation and National Wildlife Federation and CCA Coastal Conservation association and multiple state wildlife federations and just really American Fisheries Society. Kind of everybody you can think of has, was against this proposal. Those change and it's gotten a lot of press and it was really a disappointing outcome. It's, it's not over now. It goes to a, it goes to a 35 day public comment period that's going to run from December 19 to January 23 and then the commission will consider if it's going to adjust, scrap or move forward with the proposal. And then the Natural Resources Committee of the Louisiana legislature could decide to review the proposal and either halt or advance it. But without any action from lawmakers, the new buffer zones would go into effect on March 20th. So you can still put in public comment. We hope people do, we want people to put in public comment. We think this is a very, very bad decision. We think that they were under political pressure and tremendous pressure from this commercial harvest industry. So.

[A]

Well, there's some big, big, big powerful people out there and you know that better than anyone.

[B]

A lot of money involved, A lot of money involved in this.

[A]

Well, let's see what we can do in terms of a call to action. I know that, you know, we have our friends at how that could potentially help move this needle and drop a bunch of comments and suggestions in and yeah, we need to, we need to raise a voice.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And help. And like Pickle's already done this. We want more information. Lake Pickle did a big podcast on this.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Under Backwards University.

[B]

It's a great podcast. It's really, really good. I mean he dives in depth into the issue and explains it. I know some of the commissioners listen to this. He interviews some people and he also then has one of the menhaden commercial harvesters on and has a 30 minute interview with him. So he, he does actually present both sides. But I think that if you really want to dig in and understand this issue, that is just the perfect thing to listen to. We appreciate like and all his efforts on this. Do we have time to talk about the ostriches?

[A]

Oh, so we can, we can talk about the ostriches. I, I talked to Mark hall about that. Mark hall is the director of Wild Origins Canada. Set it up. What, what happened?

[B]

I mean I, Look, I, I'm, I'm glad to hear you say you talk to Mark about this because to me this is just a horrible story and I don't, I don't like it at all. So 2024 they found, and we all know about avian bird flu going around H1N1, right? H1N1 kills 70 bars. Well, they found two ostriches on this large. Two ostriches tested positive following an outbreak that killed 69 birds. They went in and they, they tested them all. They tested all of the ostriches and out of all the ostriches left, only two tested positive. And the government, though, Canadian government, said we don't care, we are going to go in and kill your whole entire flock because we think that it can still live. They may be able to still shed some of the virus. You know, we're not going to take any chances. And this farm was like hell to the no, you're not doing that. Like these are our babies. None of them have tested. You can keep testing them, whatever. And they entered into this legal battle that went on for a long time, I mean until like now it went all the way up to the Canadian Supreme Court who declined to hear the case. And so it, or declined to, you know, issue an injunction. And so they just went in and just shot these almost 400 ostriches like yesterday or this would be like over the weekend.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

And I mean the video footage is just like heart wrenching. I mean.

[A]

Well, I haven't watched the video footage. See a video footage.

[B]

Oh, of the owner like calling out their names.

[A]

Oh, yes, yes, yes. Calling their name by, by. Yeah, yeah, that was. Yeah, I saw that.

[B]

And all these people out there crying and I mean like these are like. I mean, because there was kind of like these people's pets, you know, I mean, I don't know. I mean it is what everything I've read, it seems like a bit of government over regulation, like a little bit of overreach. Like I understand wanting to be careful, but I don't know why they couldn't have just continued to because it's not like these ostriches were gonna fly the coop.

[A]

Correct. Fly away.

[B]

They weren't escaping. They were completely contained. I feel like they could have continued to test them, especially so much money was raised for the defense of these ostriches. Like the people could have said, look, we're gonna test them. We'll test them every three months, we'll test them every six months, whatever. If there's any more, like, you can kill those. But I mean, like to go in and slaughter like 400 ostriches, I mean, it was all, all of the family's livelihood, like their livelihood is gone now. Now they do get compensated, but I.

[A]

Don'T think they are three grand ostrich. Right, so this is what Mark said. So he started by saying this is when a policy is blindly followed without the need for evidence based decision making. Okay. So the Canadian Food Inspection Service and its policy says if one animal dies of H1N1, the entire flock must be killed. Okay. So the couple died from H1N1 ostriches. And so the remaining 300, though, have been healthy for a year. They haven't died.

[B]

Okay, Right.

[A]

The stamp out policy is, what it's called, is meant for chickens. It's all tied to the chicken poultry industry. It's not tied to ostriches, but it was blanketed over these guys because of the chickens. And so they refused through the court case. Right. The court case was like the stamp out policies couple. You've already tested positive and because you've tested positive, everybody dies. The court case was like, no, no, no, no, no, don't kill them all. This is not. Let us test them, let us do all these things. Right. The government said they refused to test the birds again, so there was no more testing because of the stamp out policy. And they threatened fines and imprisonments to the ranchers if they tested the birds. Okay, so they blindly following a policy for the sake of following the policy is overriding theme. It was this policy. It's tied. The reason this policy is in place is because they signed onto the who, the World Health Pandemic Protocol. It's not Canadian policy, it's WHO policies that Canada. Canada has signed on to. Here's the last thing. 300 ostriches, more than a thousand rounds of ammunition was used.

[B]

Golly, the picture.

[A]

The article, the article that I read said went on for hours. The shooting.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I'm just amazed. And there were a lot of protesters. I am just amazed this turned into a national. I mean, like The United States broke.

[A]

The country and it broke the. The province in half.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, there were, there were US Officials that were trying to get involved. Not that, you know, it became a global political flashpoint.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

It is crazy Columbia. Brit B. British Columbia MP blasted it as a poorly executed operation. I mean, it was like, who? I don't understand why somebody up higher couldn't stop this. Is this just this. To me, this is kind of an example of like the Canadian government. It seems to be kind of dysfunctional sometimes. I mean, they have a lot of issues up there, but like some of our US officials tried to intervene and it was just like this bad, bad, bad Canada. You get an F minus. F minus on this.

[A]

Maybe we should do start report carding after every article from Ashley. We should start instituting that.

[B]

We could do that.

[A]

I like it.

[B]

I'll give, I'll give honest, unbiased grades or just we could also have some TBDs because, I mean, I don't know what to give a report card on the PFA thing. That's to be determined whether we all die from PFA infestation, something else or who knows. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

Well, this may be the next roundup is going to happen either with you and somebody else or me and somebody else in South Africa. So I think it's going to be me in South Africa because I'll be with some people to do around them.

[B]

So are you going?

[A]

Next round up will be me in South Africa.

[B]

So you won't be getting any report cards from me.

[A]

I'll ask you your opinion. You can send them via text. You can text us at.

[B]

Do you remember needing me to say it?

[A]

I thought you had it. 601.

[B]

I have it. I have it. You always act like you know it, though you don't know it. 601-790-0607.

[A]

You got it. Let us know. Reach out to us. Send us articles, send us ideas, send us thoughts, Send us things you want us to talk about. Let's do it.

[B]

All right, thanks, guys.

[A]

Ciao. Ciao.

[B]

Bye.

[A]

Well, that's it for today. I appreciate you listening as always. Leave a review, share it with your friends, and most importantly, do what's right to convey the truth around hunting.