Roundup 165 || Colorado Wolves, Wisconsin Sandhill Cranes, Botswana Elephants, and more!

Summary

The Origins Foundation Podcast – Roundup 165

Episode Title: Colorado Wolves, Wisconsin Sandhill Cranes, Botswana Elephants, and more!
Release Date: January 14, 2026
Hosts: Robbie (A) & Ashley (B)

Overview

This lively roundup episode surveys hot-button conservation and hunting issues from around the world, focusing on wolf management in Colorado, proposed Sandhill crane hunting in Wisconsin, controversy over elephant management and hunting concessions in Botswana, and major legislative and policy updates in North America. The conversation emphasizes the need to shift the conservation narrative from “saving” species to managing and sustaining them, scrutinizing how laws and passions impact real-world wildlife and communities.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Changing the Conservation Narrative

• Robbie recounts a discussion about how the focus of conservation has shifted:
  • “We talk about that the animal welfare, animal conservation movement used to be a ‘save the X’ movement and today it needs to be a sustain or manage the X movement.” (02:18)
• Old-school “save the [species]” campaigns vs. today’s nuanced need for sustainable management, including controlled hunting and population balancing.

Seal Overpopulation & Fisheries Collapse (Namibia)

• Issue: Mass deaths of seals on Namibia’s coast, likely due to starvation linked to overpopulation and depleted fisheries.
• Discussion: Restrictions on seal hunting inhibit population control, leading to ecological collapse:
  • “Overpopulation of the seals destroys the fisheries. No fish left anymore. Seals can't eat the fish, seals starve to death. It's like the perfect example. Why are we not valuing a resource versus this old school mentality of like, no, that's untouchable?” (04:39, Robbie)
• Action item: Pledge to dig deeper into this issue for a future episode.

---

2. Colorado Wolves – Jurisdictional Gridlock and Controversy

• Recent federally mandated timing and accounting for wolf reintroduction efforts in Colorado create a legal and practical tangle for Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW).
  • “CPW did not initiate this situation. They didn’t put it on the ballot. The voters did....CPW is stuck in the middle.” (11:48, Ashley)
• Ballot initiatives vs. federal law:
  • Overlapping state/federal jurisdictions, with state referendums advancing proposals strongly influenced by federal protections (e.g., the Endangered Species Act).
• Controversial importation of wolves from Canada, possibly including an individual from a livestock depredating pack—Ashley expresses skepticism about the accuracy of this report.
• “Wolves are always hot topics and always points of engagement... people go crazy on social media talking about wolves.” (17:03, Robbie & 17:09 Ashley)

---

3. Idaho’s Tech-Related Hunting Restrictions

• Idaho’s “negotiated rulemaking process” lauded for transparency and inclusiveness:
  • “They formed a hunting and advanced technology working group … months of meetings, statewide hunter surveys, public comments… a year and a half.” (19:04–20:20, Ashley)
• New Rules:
  • No drones for big game hunting (Aug 30–Dec 31)
  • No night vision (for hunting, scouting, or retrieval)
  • No thermal imaging (same limitations)
  • No transmitting trail cameras on public lands (controversial; debated utility and fairness)
• Exemption for wolves: The tech ban doesn’t apply to wolf hunting because of wolf population and livestock depredation issues.
  • “These would still be permitted statewide on private property year round for wolf hunting only.” (28:23, Ashley)
• Broad agreement on restricting technology:
  • “It should at every state level. Everybody should say no to drones with hunting.” (21:05, Robbie)
  • On trail cameras: “Even the trail camera stuff in Arizona, nobody’s come afterwards and go that’s really hurt us.” (27:23, Robbie)

---

4. Legislative Trends in Statehouses

• Most states have reconvened legislative sessions, and numerous hunting-/wildlife-related bills are coming.
• Noted recurring bills such as New York’s annual trophy hunting legislation and the emergence of “copycat” bills across multiple states.

---

5. Wisconsin Sandhill Cranes – Toward a Hunting Season

• Explosive crane population growth: now ~112,000 vs 30,000 threshold for hunting set by FWS.
• Standing-room-only legislative hearing, strong support from farmers and the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association.
  • “They had about $1.5 million in [crop] losses this past year. And right now the producers are just absorbing those losses.” (32:35, Ashley)
• International Crane Foundation is not anti-hunting generally, but opposes hunting in Wisconsin.
  • “Sort of like they’re ok with hunting in other states … but they just don't want them to hunt in Wisconsin.” (33:24, Ashley)
• State wildlife biologists affirm population stability and precedent from other states.
• Next steps: Senate committee vote pending.

---

6. Botswana’s NG13 Elephant Hunting Conundrum

• Analogy: “Elephants are the wolves of southern Africa…and if you had to pick the Colorado of elephants, it's Botswana.” (38:13, Robbie)
• NG13: Million-acre concession area mired in corruption, mismanagement, and local disputes.
  • “NG13 has been embroiled in controversy… first big hundred-pound elephant got killed... all the anti hunting people picked it up.” (41:03, Robbie)
• Recent illegal transfer of concession management, court-ordered hunting moratorium, and implications for community revenue and anti-poaching efforts.
• Robbie: “Would you prefer to have a hunting operator up there constantly present…dissuading poaching, or kick the hunting operator out…let poaching do what it needs to do and take out double, triple, quadruple the amount of elephants?” (46:24)
• Future podcast planned to unpack this in full: “Unpacking the NG13 Elephant Issues.”

---

7. New BLM Director Nomination – Steve Pearce

• Highly controversial due to oil/gas, anti-federal-land-protection record.
  • “Some of his [Congressional] votes are very concerning to me…the most concerning one was that he cosponsored the HERD Act … would have authorized the Department of Interior and USDA to sell or dispose of federal public lands…” (54:25, Ashley)
• Bipartisan opposition, lots of attention from conservation and ‘green’ organizations.
• Advice: Now’s the time for stakeholders to contact senators and raise concerns, especially about Pearce’s views on public land sales.
  • “Ask the incoming potential BLM boss a very straightforward question, ‘Are you going to sell any of our public lands that belong to the BLM?’” (51:01, Robbie)

---

8. US Withdrawal from IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)

• The US has withdrawn both funding and membership, following an executive order to review international treaties.
• Concern about loss of influence:
  • “We don’t have a seat at the table for helping craft international policy … I don’t see a benefit to us leaving IUCN specifically.” (59:17, Robbie)
• Further concern about non-sustainable use NGOs now gaining unchecked influence in international conservation.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the need for management over sentimentality:
  “We don’t need to save [certain species] anymore … we need to manage them.” – Robbie (03:05)
• On restricting hunting technology:
  “Laws are made because of a few bad actors.” – Ashley (21:48)
• On Colorado’s wolf introduction gridlock:
  “CPW is stuck in the middle…trying to carry out what Colorado voters voted into existence, but their hands are tied.” – Ashley (11:48)
• On hunting’s conservation impact in Africa:
  “[Would you rather] have a hunting operator up there constantly present…or kick the hunting operator out and let poaching do what it needs to do?” – Robbie (46:24)
• On losing an international voice:
  “Conservation is now a global issue. We all have to work together… if you're not at the table, then things are going to be passed that affect us anyway.” – Ashley (57:27)
• On transparency in rulemaking:
  “It wasn’t just pushed through the commission. It went public, commission, legislature signed. I like it.” – Robbie (30:18)

---

Timestamps of Major Segments

• 00:48–06:28: Changing conservation narratives (save vs. sustain), Seal die-offs in Namibia
• 09:50–17:15: Colorado wolves – legal tangle, ballot vs. federal management, social media feedback
• 18:07–30:33: Idaho hunting technology restrictions, process for rulemaking, debate and exemptions for wolves
• 30:38–37:16: Wisconsin Sandhill crane hunting bill, population/recovery, support/opposition
• 37:26–47:38: Botswana’s NG13 elephant concession controversy, hunting vs. poaching, corruption
• 47:42–55:03: BLM director nomination, Steve Pearce’s voting record, land sale concerns
• 55:28–59:17: US withdrawal from IUCN; loss of influence in international conservation policy

---

Final Tone & Style Notes

The hosts deliver information with a blend of candor, expertise, and occasional comedic banter, taking care to credit all sides of each debate, while clearly aligning with pragmatic, management-forward conservation. The episode is approachable, conversational, and rich with both data and personality.

---

For more, listen directly or follow up on upcoming dedicated episodes on NG13 elephants and other developing stories.

Transcript

[A]

Want to plan your next fishing trip without the hassle? FishingBooker.com is the best way to find and book a fishing charter anywhere in the world. Whether you're chasing trophy fish or just looking for a family day on the water, fishingbooker makes it simple, fast and secure. With thousands of experienced guides, verified reviews and 247 customer support, FishingBooker takes the guesswork out of planning. Visit fishingbooker.com and book your trip today. Fishing Booker Fishing trips made Easy 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 with a gun, you know, too heavy and it's a.

[B]

Burden to walk with.

[A]

Too light and you whipping it. Why is the projects are 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. The expensive going up.

[B]

It goes a long way with families. We are families that do need it.

[A]

Let me close this door because I have a little wiener dog. What? You are. You're laughing because I said wiener.

[B]

I'm really glad you finished the sentence out. I'm sorry.

[A]

The first happen.

[B]

What are we doing here today?

[A]

You're telling the whole world.

[B]

Hello.

[A]

Yo. Listen, I. You know, I think we talked about 30 minutes ago on a. On a separate matter. You know how it's just like. And I was doing this. It's a roller coaster. Right. Can you tell that I'm a little different than I was like 30 minutes ago already? Like mood wise.

[B]

Robbie, I actually never really know what mood you're going to be in. And unfortunately I cannot tell just from looking at you through the video screen.

[A]

Well, I'm excited. I just had a really good conversation with an advisory board member of ours and he. He gave a idea to me. You know, we keep talking about, like you've heard me say in, in our rhetoric, we talk about that the animal welfare animal conservation movement used to be a save the X movement and today it needs to be a sustain or manage the X movement.

[B]

Okay. Yeah, I've kind of both. I mean depending on what side of the.

[A]

Well, no, I'll just save the elephant, save the rhino, save the wolf, save the grizzly bear, save the polar bear, save the seal or all of that stuff now.

[B]

Well, and I think a lot of the anti hunters still use that terminology.

[A]

Oh yes, yes, yes, absolutely, absolutely. Ours, if you look at example after example after ex. After example is we don't need to save horses anymore, we don't need to save grizzlies, we don't need to save wolves, we don't need to save elephants, we don't need to. We need to manage them, we need to sustain them.

[B]

Most species. I think you are correct.

[A]

Have you ever heard, you've heard of the seal issue, right? Obviously up in Canada, right? Newfoundland.

[B]

Sure. I've heard of different seal issues like.

[A]

The fact that they can't use seals, you're not allowed to hunt seals anymore. The indigenous people were like, you know.

[B]

They still can, right? The tribal nation can.

[A]

I thought the whole industry was shut down. I think they can for themselves, to sustain themselves, but you can't use them, they can't generate an income, they can't sell.

[B]

Right, right, right, right, right.

[A]

Well, I just learned about another seal issue in Namibia.

[B]

Namibia, I did not know Namibia had seals.

[A]

Huge colony of seals.

[B]

Really?

[A]

Yeah. And they think this guy said he was traveling down the coast over Christmas and he said, robbie, I think I saw at a minimum 5,000 dead seals.

[B]

Oh, I think maybe I have seen this story.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

I've seen the pictures of the story.

[A]

And he says every November to January dead seals just show up, wash up. And I don't know if it's to do with like the lack of fish or the fisheries and how they move in the oceans and summer.

[B]

Don't they think they're starving to death? Yeah, yeah.

[A]

Which again makes the whole like, think about the cycle, the sustaining cycle, right? You're not allowed to manage seals, you're not allowed to use seals, you're not allowed to hunt seals. Overpopulation of the seals destroys the fisheries. No fish left anymore. Seals can't eat the fish, steel starve to death. And so it's like again, it's like the perfect example. It's like, what is going on here? Why are we not valuing a resource versus this old school mentality of like, no, that's untouchable?

[B]

Well, is there some difference between the populations of the seals in Namibia which are starving to death and the populations of the seals in Canada?

[A]

I would assume they would have the same effect. There's going to be the same sort of trophic cascade effect, predator, prey kind of relationships. So it'd be intriguing. But that is the last question you're allowed to ask me because I don't know the answers. I just learned about this.

[B]

I was going to say you opened up this issue and I have the feeling that you just kind of barely delved into it. You know what, you know what? We're going to going to research more about this seal thing because it is intriguing and I have seen the pictures of the starved seals and I think that it leads to a bigger fisheries issue.

[A]

I was like you need to come in Christmas. We'll do, we'll can you come and do the documentary on it in Christmas? I like.

[B]

Yeah, I will.

[A]

You want to go, don't you? You don't want to go to Africa? Keep putting your hand up to go to Africa.

[B]

I would love to go cover the seal size.

[A]

Fisheries will melt in Namibia in, in December.

[B]

I have been to Africa before and I did not melt. I almost died from what I now think might have been military grade dysentery. But that's a different story.

[A]

Anyway, a great conversation and that's why I'm so, you know, I love hearing good stories. I love hearing intriguing things and sort of gets your mind. Especially when there's two different parts of the world experience the same issues. We know that trophy importation can be quite a headache. That's why Safari Specialty Importers 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 importance. It is 2026 and my friends, big changes have happened in the world of firearm suppressors. The $200 tax stamp fee is now gone. Huge win for hunters, huge win for shooters and a huge win for your wallets. If you're thinking about elevating your shooting experience and adding a suppressor. Silence essential is the best way to shop and you don't even have to get off your couch to do it. Go to silenceessential.com, browse hundreds of suppressor options. They literally have all of the popular makes and models. Then their experts will walk you through setting up your account, creating a free NFA trust, and then submitting your application to the atf. Once approved, Silencer Central ships your new suppressor directly to your door. That's when you're going to have to essentially get off the couch. It's a game changer, guys. You haven't done it yet. Do it. The old days of waiting eight to 10 months on a suppressor are gone more like two weeks. Some have even gotten their suppressors in shorter timeframes. It's never been easier to start shooting suppressed. Get started today by visiting silencer central.com it's really the simplest way to get your suppressors. 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, 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 sends 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]

Yeah, well, since we don't know much about the seals, let's table that. We will come back future roundup. We are going to talk about the seals and we're going to tell you what's up with the seals. I do. I like the little critters. They're cute as they can be.

[A]

Did we talk about on the last roundup the whole federal involvement in Colorado? Because you just put a video out about it did.

[B]

And so I feel like we maybe don't need to spend a ton of time because people can just go to our Instagram or Facebook page and watch my video. But yeah, there it is.

[A]

It's a great video.

[B]

No, no, you know what? We did talk. We talked about it last week. We talked about it. We talked about the letter. Talk about shit hitting the fan.

[A]

Oh, we talked about. Yeah, 60 days. When does the 60 days actually kick in, that kind of stuff.

[B]

Right, right, right. So, yeah, yeah, so go. Go watch. Watch the video tells you what's going on. But, yeah, we're still monitoring it. Their 60 days is not up, and as of yet, I don't think they have provided their management accounting. But we will see. Um, it's. You know, I kind of feel sorry for CPW because they're. They're a little bit stuck between the rock and rock.

[A]

They are stuck. They are absolutely stuck.

[B]

And. And what do you do when. I mean, one. I think it probably. So here's the problem. It's just this weird gray issue. When you have state referendums, you have state ballot initiative issues that aren't. They're not against federal law. They don't. They're not definitively illegal, but they do involve federal law and federal protections. And so there's this overlap of jurisdictional oversight, management. And so, you know, I guess that Colorado voters could have passed 114 and CPW could have turned in their plan to the feds, and the feds could have probably just said, no, not doing it. It's not okay. But instead they entered into that MOU and. And passed the rule that was under the Biden administration allowing Colorado over the management plan.

[A]

No. Could the feds have even said no under that administration?

[B]

Oh, well, I don't know about that administration. But I mean, I think that the. I think they had the power to say no. And. And that does, you know, because, I mean, look, I live in Mississippi. Not saying anything bad about Mississippi, but we frequently see bills. This is in all states, because legislators don't always do their due diligence about the constitutionality of bills that they have drafted. They'll come up with an idea, and it sounds like a great idea, and they'll put it down on paper and then legislative counsel or somebody else, and maybe it slips through the cracks. Even there has to later say, that's not necessarily constitutional or that's in viol. We see it all the time with something that's in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. I mean, I feel like that one comes up every single year. You know, here we go. Here's a. Here's a bill to, you know, allow just. You can kill cormorants at will as a. Classify them as a nuisance species. Well, Cornwall, they are a nuisance, but they are also protected under the Migratory Bird Act. And so while the service does have. And. And they have past exceptions and they give permits to commercial aquaculture farmers, there's A process to that and states can't just go disregard federal protections. So it's, it gets really tricky when states pass these kinds of laws and especially when it's a ballot initiative, when it's come from the people and, and then these federal laws are implicated and you have to navigate that. And that's what we're seeing here in Colorado. I mean, CPW did not initiate this situation. They didn't put it on the ballot. The voters did. This was something that the governor and his husband or the current governor and his husband are very supportive of. And CPW stuck in the middle. And I think they're probably trying to do the best they can and it has frankly been pretty much a disaster. And. But I mean they feel like their hands are tied. They're trying to carry out what Colorado voters voted into existence, the law and the mandate that they now have. But what I don't understand is. So there are. I think there are still six of the original 10 wolves that were imported from Oregon still alive in Colorado. So why did they go ahead this year and approached all these other states about getting more wolves and then why did they import 15 from Canada and story and that was in violation. Violation of the esa?

[A]

Well, because they've got these number, as I understand it, they're phases in this wolf management plan. They're that has numbers tied to it. This is how many wolves we're going to move. This is how many moves we're going to move in 12 months. This is how many wolves are going to move in 24 months. They've got these numbers in the plan.

[B]

Okay, so then that is a CPW issue to me because the voters didn't write that management plan, they didn't implement it and I mean CPW could have just left this established pack and look, if it didn't work, it didn't work and then they complied with it. But I don't think that the proposition is just a mandate that oh, okay, we've got to bring these wolves in for eternity. And if the pack doesn't necessarily establish or if it's floundering or whatever, we have to keep bringing more in over and over and over and over. I don't think that that is what that did and I think that most judges would rule the same. So that's just my take on it. So, you know, I don't think they should have brought these wolves in from Canada. Supposedly. And I keep reading this everywhere, but I cannot find details on this one wolf. Supposedly they were the 15 and the one that they also.

[A]

They slipped in one late, didn't they?

[B]

One late wolf from a known livestock depredating pack. To me that sounds a little bit like it might be misinformation, but it's been reported and reported and repeated and repeated over and over again. I just can't find any details. And I think that if it really were true, then we would have a source. We would know which pack. I mean, these are so monitored. You know, they know where these packs are, they know where they come from. It's like us and the cheetahs. You know where your cheetahs are going. I mean these states know where their wolves are other than, you know, like Alaska doesn't have a name for every pack and know exactly where because there's so many, you know, there's so many in Minnesota. I don't know that they track every single wolf, but. And wolf. And so I just kind of. I have my own personal doubts about this one. One lone wolf they brought in from a livestock deprecating pack. But I'm just, you know, I'm going with all the news and we're just reporting what we hear and read and we haven't seen that it isn't true. I just have doubts that it might be. So. Yeah, it's interesting.

[A]

All right, well, wolves are always hot topics and always points of engagement and so we'll stay on top of that.

[B]

Apparently, apparently people go crazy on social media talking about wolves.

[A]

Yeah, you're definitely getting with the wolf debate a different flavor and genre of individuals between Facebook and Instagram.

[B]

Okay, so we have not.

[A]

We. But.

[B]

But the country in general has jumped back in to legislative sessions. More than half of the states have convened within the last two weeks, including many, many, many yesterday. I'm not even going to name them off because there's so many that have gone into session. And so we will start to see, as we always do, a number of bills affecting hunting, fishing, gun rights, outdoors, public access dropping. We will of course we cannot cover all of them, but just some. And a lot of. We'll see patterns a lot of times. A lot of states will have bills that look very similar to each other.

[A]

Because these thousand dollars, the New York legislature brings back the trophy hunting bill that they've tried every year for the last five years.

[B]

Well, I'm not going to bet you that thousand dollars because I bet you're right. But. You're right. I bet you're right. But this one I thought was interesting because I think we will see. We have seen versions of this in other states. And I think we will see this going forward in multiple states. The process that this is Idaho and the process that they use, they just take a long time to get there and they put a lot of thought in it and I'll kind of walk through that. But Idaho game and fish unanimously, their commission adopted four technology related rules at their end of November meeting. Those now have to head to the legislature for a vote during the session. And Idaho convened yesterday.

[A]

So why does it have to go through the legislature? Why couldn't the commission put them.

[B]

Yeah, so that is their process. They have this whole process. So they. In response to concerns about technology, they formed a hunting and advanced technology working group. They call it the hat group up there. It's 700, 150 volunteers.

[A]

That's a lot.

[B]

Yeah. From all these different groups, 23 member groups. It's sportsmen and women archers, long range shooters, houndsman trappers, deer and elk hunters, bear baiters, wolf hunters, who all share their perspectives on what is and is not fair. Chase. Okay, so they had months of meetings, gatherings, statewide hunter surveys, public comments, and they provided their recommendations to game and fish in the spring. Then game and fish came up with these four restrictions. So what they have in Idaho is called a negotiated rulemaking process. It takes about a year and a half and they include two rounds of public comment. And then they have a revised and a final proposal that then has to go through the Idaho legislature.

[A]

So it has to also be approved out of the commission as well.

[B]

Right, but that's already been done.

[A]

Okay. Okay.

[B]

So that was done at the November 20th meeting.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

After all this massive public hat.

[A]

Public comments task force.

[B]

Yeah. And then these public comments. And so the final ones have come out and they have been sent to the legislature for passage. And this is what they're for. Big game hunting technology restrictions are drones. No person can take big game animals from August 30th through December 31st.

[A]

Who's hunting with a drone?

[B]

Well, people who. Sneaky people who don't like fair. Chase.

[A]

I'm just saying. Let's, let's be honest here. Let's be honest.

[B]

Do you. Wait, let me ask you this because I've been out with the drone guys. Do you honestly think people aren't trying to hunt with drones?

[A]

I. I honestly think that there are people hunting with drones. I'm. What I'm saying is this is a no brainer of a legislation, no brainer of a rulemaking policy that has to go forward. Has to be. It should have been Done at like the. It should at every state level. Everybody should say no to drones with hunting.

[B]

End the story 100%. I agree with you. I agree with you. I thought you were about to say.

[A]

Mark that down 100% agreement from Ashley.

[B]

The problem is, you know, laws are made because of a few bad actors. Laws aren't made and instituted because of all the good law abiding citizens out there. So we have to put this law into place because of the few screwballs that are going to go out there.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

And you know, you know, I don't want to spend the time, you know, that's crazy. I want to go walk out my back door, find where they are, walk outside and shoot it. So anyway, drones. No drones. Okay. Number two. And you can go read the thing for yourself. Night vision.

[A]

So my question with Idaho. Go ahead, keep going, Keep going.

[B]

This is quick. No person may take big game animals from August 30th through December 31st with night vision technology, including for scouting, hunting, or retrieval.

[A]

Okay, I agree, but I have two buts.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

First but is the retrieval component is. Would it not behoove us again? It's. I get it. Don't get me wrong. I get it. Like when you start putting exceptions and whatnot, you start blurring that line. And that individual, that is the illegal individual, the bad apple that wants to use this technology in the wrong way is going to be caught in the act and he's like, no, no, no, no. I'm just using it to retrieve my animal. Okay, I get it. But there's certainly benefits to using night vision for retrieval if you cannot find your animal or struggling to find the animal. And you want to retrieve. You want to use the resource, not let it go to waste. I can see it, but I see more of the other side on that.

[B]

I honestly didn't really get the retrieval part until you just made the first argument.

[A]

Oh, number two, I think you just.

[B]

Argued against yourself and convinced me that that's probably needed. Okay, number four. Three, three. Thermal imaging optics. Same, same, exact language. No person may take big game animals, blah, blah, time frame with thermal imaging technology, including for scouting, hunting or retrieval. It's exact same comment comp.

[A]

What? So the difference is here is just thermal imaging optics you can use during the daytime to locate hot animals, essentially.

[B]

And night. Yeah, you can use them anytime. But yes.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And then this one is the one that I think may be the most controversial. This one's kind of tough.

[A]

I don't think it's controversial at all.

[B]

Transmitting trail cameras no. No person may take big game animals with a transmitting trail camera, including for hunting and scouting on federal, state or local public lands.

[A]

Arizona went through this four years ago. This is, it was a huge debacle. Right. But Arizona had already banned transmitting trail cameras. Arizona banned trail cameras? The use of trail cameras. Transmitting trail cameras are cell phone cameras. Right.

[B]

So what do you mean they banned trail cameras?

[A]

Oh, we don't have a long enough podcast to go.

[B]

Like you can't even put them on your property.

[A]

You cannot. If you are using trail cameras at a water source, there's a whole. Again, this is four years ago, but it was like you are not allowed to use trail cameras between this date and this date on a water source to hunt, period.

[B]

Oh, okay, okay.

[A]

You can use it in like your back watershed and show your kids animals coming in. But if a big mule deer comes into that trail camera and you hunted that mule deer somewhere else, that's illegal.

[B]

What do you mean if you hunt it somewhere else?

[A]

It was if that, if that mule deer, that exact mule deer happens to be in a different watershed and you walk in that watershed and you, and you kill that mule deer, that mule deer was on your trail camera on the opposite, in the another watershed.

[B]

Oh, you can't even kill it even if you.

[A]

Same difference.

[B]

So I mean I, I, I kind of get this and I kind of don't like, my thing is. So we have them, we haven't had them for very long, only a couple years. And it is, they may appear on your trail cameras, but they are not there. Like, you know, you wake up and you see them like, okay, there they were overnight. Like, you know, and sometimes they're there in the morning, they're one, they're never out in the middle of the day. Like they, well, at our place they aren't. And so you kind of know the areas they frequent. But even if you are sitting in, like if we, if I'm sitting in our house at our farm and like a big buck walks by at 3:30. By the time I get out there and the noise I've made to get to that spot, there is no possible way that deer is going to be anywhere near that spot.

[A]

Yeah, but you knew he was there.

[B]

And even if I'm walking.

[A]

Yeah, but this is to the next level. I think this is more, more around outfitting business. Like if, if I was in the business of elk hunting in Idaho and I put transmitting trail cameras and I knew I had an elk come across a trail camera at a time and it translated to me I'd be, I'd, you know, I'd send one of my guides up in the watershed and find that elk, see where he lives.

[B]

Yeah, you know, maybe they restricted to commercial. I don't know this one, I don't know you, you've.

[A]

Arizona, Utah has banned it. And there's been no, like nobody has come afterwards. Even the trail camera stuff in Arizona, nobody's come afterwards and go that's really hurt us. That's really hurt us.

[B]

From a hunting perspective, I just think they don't help that much. Like they're fun.

[A]

Yeah. But to the other three things we always just said it's this, this very gray area of just a little kind.

[B]

Of let you know what you've got on your property. But yeah.

[A]

So my question here is because Idaho, we use Idaho as the poster child example of how state run wolf management will not extirpate wolves. Okay. These four rulings, are they now applicable to wolves? So you can't use these things for wolves?

[B]

Well, it says that most of the areas where. So it says it's going to have minimal application to wolf hunting there because these expanded methods of take under their, under their plan there, they have, they're managed the wolves because of the livestock depredation issue. They, they're managed under what they call expanded methods of take seasons specific to wolves. And so those are inclusive of thermal optics, night vision transmitting trail cameras and drones that don't include the restrictions in part of the code. So those would still be permitted statewide on private property year round for wolf hunting only. And they would not apply to individuals only hunting wolves and designated expanded methods of take units from November 15 through through December 31 on public land. So short answer is no, this doesn't apply to wolf hunting up there.

[A]

Wow, interesting.

[B]

So they, I do like that. Must have an insane problem with wolves.

[A]

Idaho has 1200, 1200, 1400 wolves as a population every year consistently. And they take out 400 wolves a year.

[B]

I mean I like, my kids get nervous when they see a coyote. I honestly cannot imagine walking into my backyard and see the wolves or a pack of wolves. Geez, I've only ever seen them in the wild once and that was in Yellowstone and it was a big pack and I got to watch them hunt and they were huge. So huge. I was shocked at how big they were and scary.

[A]

I like that process. I like Idaho's process. Who can fault that, right. That it wasn't just pushed through the commission. It went public, commission, legislature signed. I like it.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I Like it.

[B]

Okay, so you want to talk about cranes?

[A]

Oh, real quick. No wolves. Yes. Let's talk about something other than.

[B]

Yeah, I don't want to talk about wolves anymore. Okay. So as you know, and I don't know how many people know, but sandhill cranes in the country have really recovered past the point of being able to sustain a harvest season in most states. And states both in the Eastern and the Central Flyway have adopted harvest seasons. A few states in each, not every state. So lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced a bill this past year. They have a two year session. And so they just started the second year of their two year session. They sponsored a bill to allow sandhill crane hunting because they are more than halfway past the point of what the state has said. Like, look, we want to get to this point and once we get to this point, we think that, you know, then we'll have a huntable population.

[A]

So.

[B]

So like according to Fish and Wildlife Service, they said we could maybe hunt once we have a population because these, these guys are regulated. It's kind of the same situation as with wolves where sandhill cranes are regulated under federal law. But then if a state passes their own bill to establish a hunting season, then they enter into an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service to have that management authority.

[A]

So Texas and Oklahoma have done that.

[B]

They have, they have, yeah. So Fish and Wildlife Service says, look, once you achieve a population of about 30,000, we think you can have a hunting season. Well, currently there are over 112,000 at last count. So they're almost quadruple what the. Actually they are. They are really quadruple. Almost quadruple what the Fish and Wildlife Service said they needed to have a hunting season. So they had a hearing on the bill this past week and they said it was standing room only. The room was completely packed.

[A]

Wow, wow, wow.

[B]

There were a lot of farmers and ranchers there because that's one of the biggest issues that they're facing now. There's so many cranes up there that there are tons of sandhill crane conflicts with lives with crop producers each year. They said they had about $1.5 million in losses this past year. And right now the producers are just absorbing those losses. And then in some few instances, there's some crop insurance available, but not, not very much. Wisconsin Waterfowl association was up there. They support hunting season. So I thought this didn't have a.

[A]

Chance to pass yet. It seems to be like gaining a lot of momentum.

[B]

I, I have also heard the same and I don't I just think people aren't talking about it. I think there's enough people not talking about it because the state agency says that if they open it up it would increase their annual program costs by 1.5 to 6. That now this says costs, but I think that that would increase also the revenue going into the program as well. So, so in this article talking about it, the International Crane foundation weighs in and it's kind of an odd. So they say that they don't think hunting will solve the crop damage problem because it's not going to raise enough money to compensate farmers. They say fiscally it is extraordinarily damaging. So they are acknowledging the problem. They say that they know the population of cranes is growing, but they don't think necessarily in the state of Wisconsin and that people looking to hunt can go to other states to hunt the sandhill crane. So it's sort of like they're okay with hunting in other states and they haven't. They're historically not an anti hunting organization, but they just don't want them to hunt in Wisconsin. So the agency submitted a letter which I, I'm not going to read the whole thing here, but I thought it was a really, really good letter by Wisconsin dnr. The, this lady named Taylor Finger, who is the game bird specialist for the state, wrote it and she talks about how, you know, there are six separate sub populations of sandhill cranes totaling over 800,000 individuals. And of all those populations all are either increasing or are stable. And talk about the breeding grounds. And they think that the eastern population of sandhills is currently estimated around 110,000 birds. Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama allow hunting.

[A]

Oh, this was his tribal nation in Minnesota. This was her testimony in front of the committee.

[B]

Yeah, it, yeah. And then they also submitted it as written.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

So Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama in the eastern. And all the tribal nations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and the ceded territories. And Ontario and Quebec are proposing to implement hunting seasons in the fall. So they go on to talk about 200 agricultural producers had this 1.5 million in losses. And then just walk through.

[A]

So Mississippi does not hunt sandhill cranes. Huh?

[B]

Mississippi does not. No. And then Texas and Oklahoma hunt the Central Flyway cranes. Nebraska does not. There are some other states that do. You can, can Google a list. It's very sort of spotty as to which states allow it and which states don't.

[A]

Interesting. So is this, this is the committee on the, the House side and it looks like the Senate is meeting as a committee.

[B]

This was their hearing. Yeah. And it's supposed to go to, over to the Senate. The Senate is supposed to have a vote on it. I think the Senate's gonna vote on it before the House. Where did I read that? Senate side. The bill scheduled for a committee vote today actually.

[A]

Whoa. So today being Monday. So this will drop on Wednesday.

[B]

No, I was saying, I was saying today isn't Wednesday.

[A]

Okay, Wednesday when this drops. Okay, got it, got it. Well, we'll stay in, in the loop.

[B]

And that's maybe my, this may be my next talking head.

[A]

I like it, I like it. Maybe do it on Wednesday.

[B]

Maybe, maybe.

[A]

Let's see a little bit of international news. There was a article that came out. I've just, I've actually just come across outlet. There's been a couple of really good articles written in this outlet. It's called Currency, Currency News Co Za. It sounds like it's a South African news outlet. And obviously, you know, I'll frame it like this. The wolf debate in America gets all of this traction, right? Gets all of the eyeballs on it. Well, elephants are the wolves of southern Africa. And most specifically, if you had to, again, let's use analogies here. If you had to pick the Colorado of elephants, it's Botswana.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And even more specifically is one concession in Botswana called NG13.

[B]

And what do you mean by concession? What's the equivalent of that in America? It would be like a wildlife management area or a national refuge or.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It would be like a WMA state public land 16th section. But not just a 16th section, but all of the section that is owned by the government. And the government says, Ashley, would you like to run this block of a million acres for us? You're going to pay us money to.

[B]

Give a permit to somebody to be the outfitter in it.

[A]

Correct. And that permit comes with all sorts of stipulations. You work with the community, you have a community agreement. The community gets benefits, the community gets revenue. That's how it works. Typically you want, you know, we want people moving towards 10, 15 year commitments because then you can build infrastructure, build legacy, when in the past there's been a lot of concessions that have five year agreements, which isn't good because if I was in a five year agreement and you were my competitor, in five years time, you're going to undercut me potentially and I'm going to lose my concession. Well, why would I then invest any time and money in the next five years if the chance of me losing it in five years is actually there? And so that's when wildlife conservation ethics and issues start getting sort of questioned. Anyway, so it's NG13.3,000 square kilometers of habitat. It's like a million acres desolate. I've been there. It took me two days to get there. Driving. Okay. We got stuck in deep sand in a three hour drive in this place to get to the camp, we saw three animals.

[B]

Oh gosh.

[A]

So there's a reason why this place has never been tended for from a photographics tourism perspective. The density of animals.

[B]

I thought there were a bunch of elephants there though.

[A]

There's 30,000 elephants between NG 13, NG 11 and NG 14 I believe.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Which is about 2 and a half million acres. So let's do the math quickly. 2 and a half million acres. 2.55555 divided by 30,000. That's one elephant per 83 hectares. Seems like a lot. But it's a very transient system. There's no permanent water in any of these places. So when the rains come, the elephants come. When there's no water, they all leave. Same with all the wildlife anyway.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

NG13 has been embroiled in controversy from the get go. In 2022 we did a whole podcast series about 20 NG 13 because the first big hundred pound elephant got killed. 100 pound elephant means one of its tusks was at least £100.

[B]

That's crazy.

[A]

Okay. It got blasted over the airwaves. All the anti hunting people picked it up. We did a podcast series with the Ph Leon Kalhoffer. We did a podcast with the most vociferous ecotourism voice guy. And then we did a podcast with a guy in the middle of the. It was put on a lot of newspapers all around the world. Let me say that. And so from there there's always been issues and then you've also got to think it's Africa. There's always this corruption element to it. Who's paying who, who's getting in, who's out, who's not happy. So there's been a lot of community trust issues in NG13. There's been a new person that has slipped in the back door in 2024 5. A guy called Davy Cronovolt who then has his own storied history of rhino poaching in South Africa. He's been indicted over a hundred different counts. Who's now the operator of NG13 the form his partner is the former Minister of the Environment I think, or Minister of Wildlife in Botswana who's sitting on the judge. It is like I can't make this stuff up, right?

[B]

No. And you sent an article and I didn't even get through the entire article, but it sounded like the script from Wildlife. Days of Our Lives.

[A]

Yeah, Days of Our Lives. Political. You know, the article's title is When Political Power Enters the Hunting Field.

[B]

But what I didn't understand. So people are all up in arms that this new guy's in there running in 13. In G13. G13.

[A]

He was there in, in. In 25. Yes, he came in, made an agreement with the. The supposedly unconstitutional committee because they. Their terms that had expired in June of last year. So they weren't even still identified as the committee. They made an agreement with him, which is unconstitutional. And his agreement was on top of an existing agreement. Even though the.

[B]

And they thought he bribed the guy to help him and that guy.

[A]

Even though Leon. Exactly. Even Even though Leon's agreement was challenged and the trust said, we don't want you there anymore. The agreement stated that if there was any disagreements in, say the trophy fee payments to the community, the way to settle that was arbitration. Fair market value. Here's the value community. You've got to accept this because it's arbitration. Leon, are you paying this or not paying this? So.

[B]

So. But you sent me a clip with some of the local citizens who were complaining, but. And it implied that hunting had been stopped. And that's where I got confused. Where do things stand now with the concession?

[A]

So I just, I literally just did a podcast with Leon earlier today. That podcast will drop in the next couple of. It turns out that the court, the appeals court has put an interdict on all hunting. Leon's agreement is that like a stay.

[B]

A stay in the USA stay.

[A]

And so Leon's agreement is still in place, so they're going to go to arbitration on his agreement. The new agreement is null and void because you can't have an agreement on an agreement.

[B]

So all that does is hurt the local community.

[A]

All it does is just add fuel to this fire of this hot spot around elephants. And one of the things we talked about and the other element that you got, the other layer that you throw on there that's not a part of this article is the whole idea that there's a big journalistic outlet in South Africa called Africa Geographic. We have gone up against Africa Geographic over and over and over again. The CEO's name is Simon Epsley. They. They don't want hunting in NG13 because they see it as a corridor. They see it a dispersal area. And there are. And they, on those two fronts they're absolutely correct. NG13 last year had a quota of 10 elephants. Before that was a quota of 5 elephants. 5 out of 30,000. Okay. There's also concern from the Elephants Without Borders, a guy called Mike Chase, that poaching is now increasing significantly impacting Botswana's elephant populations. NG13 is a very marginal, desolate, removed concession. Nobody is up there. Would you prefer to have a hunting operator up there constantly present, building roads, moving vehicles around, moving people around, dissuading poaching, or kick the hunting operator out there, ban hunting, quote, unquote? We know nothing's coming in to replace it. I've already given you the evidence. No photographic tourism area operator wants to go in there. They've never tended on it for the 10 years that it was open and let poaching do what it needs to do and take out double, triple, quadruple the amount of elephants.

[B]

Yeah, sounds like it's super messed up.

[A]

It's just a messy situation. And Leon, what's the name of the podcast it's going to be? Oh, I'll tell you right now, I think it's going to be something.

[B]

NG13 was Leon's last name.

[A]

Look for it. Leon Kakohofer. It's gonna be. It's gonna be titled Unpacking the NG13 Elephant Issues. It'll come out in a couple of weeks. So definitely something to. To. To stay around for. We stay on top of the elephant issues. We're gonna be, you know, just like we're doing with wolves. We're gonna stay on top of that issue and all other issues with elephants and really sort of debunk rhetoric because that's what we like to do. People say this, all right, what's the truth?

[B]

So, sounds good.

[A]

All right, you got time for one more? Give me one more.

[B]

Oh, the only thing really probably worth mentioning is the nomination of a new director of the Bureau of Land Management. And it is, yes, proving to be very controversial. It's a guy by the name of.

[A]

Pierce. Right. Bryce Pierce.

[B]

I want to say Steve Pierce. I just want to make sure that's right. That is right. Steve Pierce. He's a former Republican congressman from New Mexico. Trump just nominated him, renominated him in November. But things are kind of. I feel like they're heating up, heating up as people look into his voting record. And Just a reminder, BLM manages 245 million acres public lands, mostly across the American West. But Pierce has a long history of opposing federal land protections, and he is tightly tied in with the oil and energy industry. He has supported drilling, mining, reduced environmental safeguards. He's backed selling or transferring federal lands. He's opposed national monument protections. So there has been some bipartisan pushback in the Senate. Some of his two most vocal opponents are Michael Bennett out of Colorado and Hickenlooper out of Colorado. Now, it only takes a simple majority in the Senate to approve him. So I think it's probably a safe bet that he will be approved unless. So there's been a huge, huge, huge number of some of the more green organizations come out against him. Letters have been submitted. Literally hundreds of the more green what we're just calling green, we're going to call them greenies organizations have submitted and and so far backcountry hunters and anglers have really been the most vocal conservation group, I think and look, it's valid groups that are going to have to end up working with him probably do not want to come out in opposition against his nomination because you know, you go on the record against someone and then they're confirmed and then you never end up being able to work with them on issues. So it's a very fine line. And also you are coming out against somebody that you don't necessarily know what they're going to do in a position. And so it's hard for us I think as well all we can look at it all we have to go on because he has been an elected official. You know, some of these people never have and so it's really hard to say but we, we can look at some of his prior votes and I'll be completely honest, some of them are very concerning to me the most concerning one was the fact that he co sponsored and let me find this so I don't butcher was an act that was specifically called something I know that.

[A]

Whilst you're looking for it bha. I did see a video by Ryan Callahan who's the new CEO of BHA and he put it out to like okay look, this guy has a record of going against or going with public land sales. What questions would you ask him in his confirmation hearing is what they put out there. So I think that there's a couple of senators on obviously their side that they were going to feed some questions to to ask him. It's a legitimate question. Right. Ask the incoming potential BLM boss a very straightforward question saying you're going to sell any of our public lands that belong to the blm. Simple question.

[B]

I think that's a good. I think that's a good. Okay, so he disapproved the Stream Protection Act. He. He got a 4% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters. They put out scorecards on members. That's pretty good. He assaulted the endangered salmon and environmental review. Undermined environmental review for forestry projects. Okay, so this was the one. This is the one that concerned me the most. He co sponsored the Herd act in 2016. It's called Helping Empower Authority Responsibly distribute. And this bill would have authorized the Department of Interior and USDA to sell or dispose of federal public lands to state or local governments.

[A]

Who do you co sponsor that with, Mr. Lee?

[B]

I don't know. I don't know who this co sponsor was. And there are some arguments that the federal government is not doing a good job funding and managing some of their public lands. So if a state has the resources to manage and fund and is going to keep a specific piece of land public, then I don't know that that's always a bad thing. You know, it just has to be. I think if the land was going to shift from federal public to state public, and the state had had a better opportunity to manage and do a good job of that, because right now we've got a. Just a disaster with the feds being able to manage their public lands, then that is. Wouldn't always necessarily be a bad thing. I think if you're just talking about selling them off and then it being, you know, commercially developed or drilled or whatever, then you have a problem. So I don't know enough about that act. It just kind of raised sort of the hair on the back of my head. He opposed national monument designations. He just. He's pushed for a lot of land exchanges and sales in the past. So it's just. It kind of is strange that someone with that sort of voting history would be given the helm of an. In an agency designated with taking care of federal public lands. You know, I'm just like, is this the right fit? Like, not necessarily that he's bad or that his ideas are bad or that kind of thing, but like, should that be the job he's given, Given his past history, I feel like it should be like this prominent, like, you know, public land and public use champion.

[A]

Yep, Agreed. Agreed. Well, something to keep an eye on. On. When's the committee hearing? Do we know?

[B]

It has not been said. Okay, so you still have time to. You can call and just sort of raise concern with offices. Just make sure they vet him. Like, because he's been vetted through the administration already and he's already gotten the nomination from Trump. Just make sure that I agree. Like go check out BHA's questions and just make sure they ask these questions in the hearing because, you know, the members of that committee may say maybe it isn't the best fit. It's happened in the past.

[A]

Good point.

[B]

And we're not necessarily giving a yay or nay right now. We're just sort of expressing. Expressing cautious concern.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Did you receive any text messages or nice voice notes on your Google phone?

[B]

I don't think so.

[A]

I guess not.

[B]

Let me look. You know, weirdly, I have notifications turned on and it doesn't notify me.

[A]

Well, as you're looking, we have a Google number, 601-790-0607. If you have a topic you want to talk about, text it to us. Leave us a voice note.

[B]

Someone did text us and we haven't talked about this, but we probably should. USA withdraws financial support of the iucn well, they didn't just withdraw financial support, they withdrew us entirely from the iucn. So that's the International Union for Union for Conservation. It was the N. I don't remember what the N is. It's. It's.

[A]

Isn'T it? Yeah, I'll look it up quickly.

[B]

It's basically an international conservation sort of.

[A]

International Union for Conservation of Nature.

[B]

Of nature. That's right. It's kind of below cites. We did not withdraw from cites, thank heaven. We're still in cities. But yeah, that was the order. Then when federal, when Trump ordered a review of all of the treaties we were in across the world and he.

[A]

27 of them or something like that.

[B]

Yeah, he issued Executive Order 14 199. And then he came back and he said, okay, you know what? These are the ones we don't think are good for America to be in. We're out. And you can look that up online and may do a post about it. We're still trying to walk through the implications of what not being involved in IUCN means for the United States. And here's my take on it. What it means is that we don't have a seat at the table for helping craft international policy on these things like. And I think that the bigger thing for probably the administration and the President was how much funding was going toward it, because they're obviously looking to save money. But I think that it's worth sending delegates because if you're not at the table, then things are going to be passed that affect us anyway. And we're not on an island.

[A]

Maybe even the people. Right. The People of America.

[B]

Yeah, right, right. You know, conservation is now a global. It's a global issue. We all have to work together. Things that people do in other countries affect us even from the point of the pollution that they are emanating, you know, wafts over and, you know, affects California, like, things. So we have to have a seat at the table of these things when foreign governments and, and bodies and NGOs across the world are sitting there crafting and voting on them. And so it's, it doesn't make any sense at all for me, for us not to have a seat at the table and have a vote. Now, what level of financial support we provide is something that we don't think maybe necessarily we're seeing a benefit from that's probably negotiable. But don't take us away from the, the policy.

[A]

This, that's, that's. Yeah, I'm with you. I'm with you. I don't know what the ramifications are. I don't see a positive of stepping away. So I do know that I, you know, when you, when you start digging beneath the surface and understanding, like, who's running the ship, it almost behooves the opposite in that there's, there's people with lots of money out there, the big bingos, the big NGOs that are not favorable towards sustainable use, that have infiltrated iucn, that are now at the highest levels of iucn, running committees, being chairs of committees and driving policy. That is not good policy.

[B]

Right. And the future involved. I can tell you that 100%.

[A]

And now, without the backing of America to like, say, if they say yes, we, we, we champion sustainable use.

[B]

Right?

[A]

We, we don't believe that this is right, what's going on here, so let's fix it. I don't see, I don't see a benefit to us leaving Iocn specifically.

[B]

So I don't either.

[A]

All right, well, thanks for that. That came out the text message. If you want to text us an idea, want us to answer a question, please Google us. Google us. Text us on our Google number. 601-790-0607. All right, until. Until next week, no more wolves.

[B]

Two weeks.

[A]

Until next week. Two weeks. Correct. Two weeks. We won't have a roundup next week.

[B]

But we have a lot of good.

[A]

Podcasts dropping lots of good podcasts dropping from all over the world, different topics. Travel season is upon us. Show season's upon us. We'll probably do a roundup or two from the show road. I'll probably do them. Ashley will be off duty on those roundups, but. Yeah, sounds good.

[B]

Well, I'll be with you a couple places, so maybe we'll do one together.

[A]

Sounds great.

[B]

Okay. Thanks, guys.

[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.