Ep. 773: Congressman Zinke on Conservation Policy and Turning Down the Heat

Summary

The MeatEater Podcast — Episode 773: Congressman Zinke on Conservation Policy and Turning Down the Heat
October 6, 2025
Host: Steven Rinella
Guest: Congressman Ryan Zinke

---

Episode Overview

In this engaging episode, Steven Rinella welcomes Congressman Ryan Zinke of Montana—a fifth-generation Montanan and former U.S. Secretary of the Interior—for an in-depth discussion about public lands, conservation policy, and the urgent need to “turn down the heat” in today’s polarized political climate. They explore the complexities of public land management, the nuances of bipartisan cooperation, and address some of the thorniest contemporary issues in western conservation, including grizzly bear delisting and management of wilderness areas.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Congressman Zinke's Background

• Personal & Professional History
  • Born in Whitefish, Montana ("when I grew up, it was a railroad logging town" – Zinke, 12:09).
  • Former U.S. Navy SEAL, commander at SEAL Team 6 (12:39).
  • Progressed from Montana State Senate to Congress; served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior (13:40).
• Values Shaped by Legacy
  • Emphasizes the influence of “the great ones” in U.S. conservation—Roosevelt, Pinchot, Muir.

2. Defending Public Lands: Process and Principles

• Zinke is lauded by Rinella for his role in resisting efforts to sell off public land and articulating the value of the federal land estate (03:16–03:51).
• Views on land exchanges and “highest and best use”—sometimes supporting specific, transparent transfers for local benefit but opposing “fire sales” or broad privatization (05:51–08:39).
  • "Once you sell it, you're not going to get back." – Zinke, 06:04
• Critique of recent “assaults” on public lands that bypass public process and consultation.
• Discusses legal and practical complexities, including tribal treaties, water rights, and the Taylor Grazing Act (06:45–08:39).
• Polling shows broad bipartisan opposition to large-scale land sales (09:31).

3. Public Lands Management and Bipartisanship

• Formation and philosophy of the bipartisan Congressional Public Lands Caucus—“a red, white, and blue issue” (15:39–16:36).
• “We live in a hyperpartisan world… but let's not be disagreeable” – Zinke, 16:25.
• Rinella echoes and spotlights Zinke’s language on de-escalation (“turning down the heat”), emphasizing solutions over rhetoric (17:05–17:53).

4. Multiple Use, Management, and Compromise

• “If you have a hotel that's not managed well, do you sell the motel or do you change the management?” – Zinke, 17:49.
• Advocates for best science, best practices, “greatest good, longest term” as guiding conservation principles.
• Points to successful partnerships and the importance of updating approaches as circumstances change (27:29–29:11).
• Real-world management dilemmas discussed:
  • Wilderness boundaries and management flexibility (electric chainsaws, helicopter access for fisheries—21:47–23:51).
  • Importance of context and adaptability in wilderness management (e.g., aquatic invasives, fire danger).

5. The Roadless Rule and Public Access

• On the controversial “roadless rule,” Zinke calls for nuanced, science-based evaluations and public process—not blanket policies either way (35:36–39:47).
  • "There's no doubt some roads that probably should be opened up that provide access... There's a logical midway." – Zinke, 37:19.
• Emphasizes need to consider public access for all, including veterans and people with mobility limitations.

6. Wild and Scenic River Legislation

• Zinke describes the pragmatic, consensus-driven process for proposing wild & scenic protection for stretches of the Gallatin and Madison Rivers (41:42–44:47).
  • Local buy-in and county commissioner support crucial for successful and lasting designations.

7. National Monuments, Bears Ears, and Process Overreach

• In-depth dissection of controversial monument designations, focusing on the legal requirements and the dangers of executive overreach (46:17–51:24).
• Differentiating between clearly justifiable designations and those that overstep, with specific reference to Bears Ears and the use of the Antiquities Act.
  • “You can't designate a monument of what could be… It has to be the smallest area compatible.” – Zinke, 47:04.

8. Grizzly Bear Delisting & Endangered Species Frustrations

• Rigorous discussion on grizzly bear population recovery and the failure to remove them from ESA protection despite science-based thresholds having been met for decades (57:58–66:51).
  • “We set a plan, we achieve the plan. And then someone says, nope, I’m moving the goalpost.” – Rinella, 60:10
  • Zinke criticizes perpetual litigation and procedural manipulation preventing delisting.
• Optimism about political alignment for action but frustration with judicial hurdles and the need for Congressional reform.

9. Turning Down the Heat: Political Division and Tone

• The conversation navigates to the recent tragic shooting of Charlie Kirk and the shocking public response, using it as an example of how discourse and disagreement have devolved into anger and violence (74:45–82:11).
• Rinella and Zinke express deep concern over rising animosity and the consequences for the “American experiment” in democracy.
  • "The anger out there is a distraction from getting things done." – Zinke, 76:16

10. Optimism, Compromise, and Leadership

• Zinke advocates for solution-minded leadership “at every level”—emphasizing listening, critical thinking, and optimism in the face of adversity (74:45–76:14; 82:11–84:39).
• Shares insights on working across the aisle, both in Congress and personally, as models for restoring civil engagement and collaborative problem solving.
  • “It helps if a person has passion… and it also helps to listen.” – Zinke, 73:17
  • “I've learned about the Deep South a lot from conversations… I'll go over to the Democrat side of the aisle… we have conversation...” (84:24–84:39)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Public Lands:
  • "Once you sell it, you're not going to get back." – Zinke (06:04)
  • “Public land isn’t a Republican or Democrat or independent issue. It’s a red, white and blue issue.” – Zinke (16:05)
• On Compromise & Management:
  • “If you have a hotel and it's not being managed, do you sell the motel or do you change the management?" – Zinke (17:49)
• On Hyperpartisanship:
  • “We live in a hyperpartisan world… but let's not be disagreeable.” – Zinke (16:25)
  • “You should be able to agree or disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.” – Zinke (16:27)
• On Grizzly Delisting:
  • "We set a plan, we achieve the plan. And then someone says, nope, I’m moving the goalpost..." – Rinella (60:10)
  • “Enough’s enough. We’re $36 trillion in debt. I can see a lot better expense of taxpayer dollars than to defend a species that by all numbers and by science has recovered.” – Zinke (67:10)
• On Division & Optimism:
  • “The anger out there is a distraction from getting things done.” – Zinke (76:16)
  • “I've seen the very best of humanity and the worst… but I remain an optimist that always good will prevail.” – Zinke (78:07)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:16–08:39] — Zinke's defense of public lands, process, and the dangers of hasty sell-offs
• [15:39–17:53] — The formation and goals of the Public Lands Caucus; bipartisan spirit
• [17:49–23:51] — Analogy for management vs. selling, flexibility in wilderness management
• [35:36–41:42] — The Roadless Rule: access, nuance, and public process
• [41:42–44:47] — Wild & Scenic River legislation, consensus-building
• [46:17–51:24] — National Monument designations, legal boundaries, and Bears Ears debate
• [57:58–66:51] — Grizzly bear delisting: science, law, litigation, and political feasibility
• [74:45–82:11] — Hyper-partisanship, the Kirk shooting, and the dangers of divisive anger
• [82:11–86:10] — The importance of optimism, compromise, and leadership—in Congress and in everyday life

---

Conclusion

This episode is a masterclass in civil, substantive conversation about the future of America’s public lands and natural legacy. It weaves together national policy, local realities, and the urgent need for dialogue over division. Whether discussing the politics of conservation, the quirks of wilderness law, or the heartbreak of modern public discourse, Congressman Zinke and Steven Rinella model exactly what the episode sets out to do—turn down the heat and dig in, together, for the greatest good.

---

For listeners seeking depth, context, and hope for the future of conservation (and American democracy), this is essential listening.

Transcript

[A]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[B]

Real Hunts rarely go as planned. That's where First Lights Navigator hoodie earns its place. Our crews have run it from September climbs to cold front sits it manages temps, stays quiet and close encounters and wicks moisture on the uphill push. One layer that adapts without hesitation. No matter the pursuit, the Navigator delivers versatility in any situation. Shop now@first light.com that's F I R S T L I T E.com this is the Meat Eater podcast coming at you shirtless, severely bug bitten, and in my case, underwearless.

[A]

The Meat Eater podcast.

[B]

You can't predict anything. Brought to you by first light. When I'm hunting, I need gear that won't quit. First Light builds no compromise, gear that keeps me in the field longer. No shortcuts, just gear that works. Check it out at first light.com that's F I R-S-T L I T E.com all right, everybody, we got a very special guest today who I'll announce in one minute. But first off. Oh, did you just move that around, Corinne? No, Corinne didn't move it around. The Christmas tour. We still have our Christmas tour going. Fayetteville, Arkansas is sold out, but here's the run through December 17th will be in Birmingham, Alabama at the Lyric. So this is the Meat Eater. Meat Eater Live the Christmas tour. December December 18, Nashville Marathon Music Works. December 19, Memphis, Minglewood Hall. The 20th is Fayetteville, but those are gone. They've been gone for a few days. 21 Dallas, Texas theater. So Texas theater in Dallas. 22nd, Austin, Texas at the Paramount. What's more, if you're listening on on Monday for the Monday drop, on Tuesday, we're having a special drop with with longtime associate Ronnie Bame, who's going to tell a dog story that'll warm your little heart. Okay. Joined today by Congressman Ryan Zinke. Ryan zinke is a fifth generation Montanan, serves as representative for Montana's first congressional district. So it covers 16 counties. If you live in Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Kalispell here in Montana, that's your man. Zinky was first elected to Congress back in 2014. He served as U.S. secretary of the Interior under the first Trump administration, is now serving his fourth term in Congress. First off, Congressman Zinke, I want to thank you again. I haven't thanked you in person. I want to thank you again for your leadership during the recent public land sales efforts, for articulating the side of it that I stand on very well.

[A]

You mean Articulating the value of our public lands. The reason why we live out west, the reason why Teddy Roosevelt is revered. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

Well, thank you. Because, I mean I recognize it like, you know that that stuff has to come at some kind of cost and. But you come from a state where that stuff's cherished and, and you were very vocal up front.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And laid out what your laid out what your expectations were, laid out what your line was and, and held firm to. We had a, you know, that landed where I wanted to see it land and my, all my colleagues and friends wanted to see it land and I appreciate that.

[A]

Well, the fight for freedom is not over. I don't think the land battle's over either. No, look, you know, I grew up in Montana. The reason why a lot of us live out west and I think it should be recognized too that we live out in west from a legacy of the great ones. You had Roosevelt, you had Pinchot, you had Mir. A lot of our great thinkers in the conservation movement. We're blessed to live in an environment. We have public lands and the extent of our public lands. I'm a big management and Teddy Roosevelt guy with a Pinchot look on public lands. It's best used, best science, best practices, longest term greatest good. That's the model you use. And during this last dust up, there's a movement by a few that want to divest of America's greatest asset, which is our public lands and the divesting of it. Once you sell it, you're not going to get back. But there's also a process. When I was secretary, I added, I subtracted, I exchanged public lands. There's a process to it. I added Serra Buenoso Wilderness in New Mexico. I added a number of parcels that were LWCF that provided either public access or corridors. I also subtracted around Las Vegas. There's an acronym called snipoma, terrible acronym, but it allows areas around Las Vegas when the county and there's a whole procedure looking at it to divest in sections. And look, there's sections. The highest and best use of land probably should be looked at. I'll give you an example. In Montana there's 30 acres of U.S. forest Service property near Lima or Lima and Lima's little, small little town, but it's right next to the school. At one time I think the Forest Service was going to put a headquarters in there. They decided not to. It's not used for recreation, it's not used for habitat. It's 30 acres, I think the highest and Best use of that piece of property should be looked at of transferring to the school. I did the same thing on an airport that needed a little more Runway. I did it on a school that needed some extra yardage. But you know, there's a process to it. And let me take you on a little journey because, you know, most of the land in west was previously occupied by a native tribe. And because a lot of that land is public land, is that they are given the right for cultural activities, for movement, for access to a lot of our public lands. When you take that out of the public domain and put it in private, those tribes, if it's a treaty, which many of the tribes are a treaty tribe, they would lose that right. And by law you have to consult. And then let's talk about water rights, because in the west, whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting. And when you divest of property, do you also divest of the underwater right? Do you divest also of the mineral rights? And if you're going to divest of mineral rights, you have to look at what minerals are there, what's the scope of the value, so highest and best use. But also the government, you know, doesn't give something away for free. And also there's things like the Taylor Grazing Act. A lot of the BLM land on grazing is there at a discount because the Taylor Grazing act makes sure that the number of cattle on public land is controlled so it doesn't overgraze. And also so we had a secure food production in this country. So when you're talking about divesting a public land, there's a whole process to it to include public comment. You know, just because public land is in New Mexico or Utah or Montana, it belongs to all citizens and therefore all citizens of the US should have a comment, you know, on it and be involved in it. So the whole process, what I didn't like about a number of things was this last assault, I think on public lands and there was no process to it. It didn't have consultation and a fire sale on public land, if it's for debt, you're, you're not even on the target. You could sell everything, it's not going to reach $36 trillion.

[B]

I saw that, I saw that expressed in various ways and I expressed it in various ways where the, the actual money into the treasury, it almost winds up being inconsequential.

[A]

There's a million acre ranch in Nevada. I think they want $23 million for it. And it has water and it has Buildings, it's a ranch. And then if you're talking about housing, okay, housing is tens of acres. It's called an apartment complex. It's not hundreds of thousands of acres. And it's not. When they say family housing, it's not ranchettes. It's not luxury ranchettes. So, you know, I think we are fortunate to live in a great country and we're fortunate to have the outdoor experience we do, largely driven by public lands and access. Do we need to manage it better? Absolutely. Should we deem it acceptable for a forest to burn down, you know, every season? And look, if you're a climate change believer or denier, it doesn't leave you the responsibility of managing our public lands. Again, get rid of the dead and dying timber, put in firebreaks where they're necessary, make sure you have diversity of species, prescribed burns on the shoulder, seasons rather right in the middle when it gets hot. So I think you look at where it is on the polling. I'd love to share it with you and the viewers. Is that on the Democrat side of the equation? I think it's 98% of the Democrats oppose selling polling public land. On independence, you're in the high 80s, 89. On the Republican side, only 10% want to sell public land. The other, don't know about it. When you say public land sales, is it 30 acres in Lima or is it 3 million acres around Glacier Park? So it is for the Republican Party. I can tell you it would be an extinction event because I could write the advertisement, you're giving tax breaks to the rich while you're selling public land. And it'd be true. So stop it. Let's focus on managing public land. And if you look at a parcel of land that highest and best use, there's a process to it. So go through the process. Go through public comment. Make sure we're not diminishing our federal estate from a point of view of public access for housing, hunting, fishing, all those kind of things. Oftentimes exchanges work magnificently where some land may be in a position where you don't have public access to it all. All four corners are surrounded. It may be a better deal for the public to exchange it for someplace that's next to a river or access, somewhere where you can enjoy the bounty of this great nation.

[B]

Do you mind, just by way of introduction to people that might not follow politics closely, do you. Do you mind walking through a little bit of your background? I know your family's been in Montana for, for a very long time.

[A]

You Know, and then you had a.

[B]

Pretty storied, you know, you had a storied military career and were involved in a lot of stuff. Yeah, involved in a lot of things, a lot of people heard a lot of things about over the last 20 years.

[A]

Well, I grew up in Whitefish, went to Whitefish, Montana, now a destination. But when I grew up, it was a railroad logging town, you know, smaller town, about 5,000 folks, over a period of time, expanded into a destination. I played football, went to University of Oregon. I was a Duck, played ball for the Ducks. But in all honesty, I played before Phil Knight wrote the check for 500 million. So I played with Daffy Duck on the side of my helmet when I walked into the stadium. It wasn't this big fear. Oh, it was the Daffy Duck call. And then I joined the Navy SEALs, spent 23 years. I was commander at SEAL Team 6.

[B]

Tell me real quick, the inflection point. Like, why did you join the military?

[A]

Well, to be honest with you, my folks are not military. Our family in World War I, some of them fought on the German side, some of them fought on our side. But it was when I was at Oregon, there was a great alumni, Admiral Dick. He commanded the Enterprise during Vietnam War. And he talked to me about service and he talked to me about the United States Navy SEALs, which he was a pilot. And he didn't lie to me like, recruiters don't lie. They may not express the entire truth. I remember his words distinctly. He said, you know, if you don't like it, you can leave at any time.

[B]

You know, I remember that on a six year cycle.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

As I was in Bud's training, getting.

[A]

Tortured in the surf zone, going, you know what? Yeah, he's right. You could quit at any time. He wasn't lying. But the SEAL training is, you know, obviously very hard for, for a reason. And then I enjoyed being, being a seal. I enjoyed being a commander. It's just that the more senior you become, the less and less time you're actually in the field and the more time you're flying what's called a D4. It was a desk with four drawers. And it came to the point where I was a deputy commander of Special Forces in Iraq. My destiny was not to go back into command, but to do the staff. And God bless those people that want to do it. So I decided to retire. Was a state senator in Montana. And then I got this wacky idea to run for Congress and was elected and then served a term, learned a lot. And then President Trump in 45, asked me to be secretary. I enjoyed that. Did that for a command tour for two years and then took a wonderful absence away from Washington D.C. and then decided, because we got another seat in Montana to come back, go back to the front line on the fight for freedom. And that's where I am. I enjoy representing Montana. Montana has a lot of opportunity. Really, really good people. Some issues, like every state. But I'm an optimist. I haven't seen anything that's not fixable. But there are some threats out there. And we talked a little about public land. I don't think that threat is doused. I don't think that campfire is doused. I think it has a chance of coming back. So we have to make sure that we do our part to make sure that it doesn't come back. And if it does, it remains unsuccessful and in Davy Jones box where it belongs.

[B]

Yeah. You want to tell people about the Public Lands Caucus?

[A]

Yeah. So it's bipartisan. We have 20 members, 10 on each side.

[B]

Is that normal for a caucus to be like. I shouldn't say normal because I know there's some that are both. But is a caucus, is it preferential to be bipartisan?

[A]

There are both. They're both partisan and nonpartisan. This is a nonpartisan caucus because, you know, again, public land isn't a Republican or Democrat or independent issue. It's a red, white and blue issue. We all enjoy it, but I think it's important to have both sides of the aisle. And it's not just about selling public land. It's about management issues. We have wildlife corridors that we have to look at and evaluate to make sure we protect. We have systems, we have watersheds. You know, what happens upstream, affects downstream. And a system approach to make sure we have healthy systems, our environment and, you know, we live in a hyper partisan world. You know, as a seal, I fought with Americans for Americans. I don't want to fight against Americans. I think it's repulsive that there's so much anger out there that you can't have a normal conversation. Look, we should be able to agree or disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

[B]

Can I quote yourself back to you?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I saw you speak a couple times in D.C. this year where you were honored by Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, where I'm a board member. And you had two things you'd said. I told Karen about him. One you gave. When you came to speak to us as a group, you talked about this was before it got hot, but you said we need to turn the heat down. Yeah. And things got hotter since then.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

And then the other thing you said is, you were talking about, you said, if you were talking about public lands, the public estate, and you had said, hey, if you have a hotel and it's not being managed, well, do you sell the motel or do you change the management?

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

Great point.

[A]

My great friends from Utah. I understand the frustration about getting a ticket on a county road. I understand the frustration of being locked out of public land of access. I understand the frustration of watching the forest burn down every year. And we burned more two by fours last year than we ever harvested. So I understand the frustration about mismanagement. But the solution, again using the hotel analogy, is not sell the hotel. Let's get better management. And better management is going back to what? Best science, best practices, greatest good, longest term. That's the conservation American conservation ethic that Pinchot and Roosevelt and a lot of superb scientists over the course of time have adhered to. And I think we owe it to those that gave us the legacy to continue that process. And you know, kind of going back to the hyper partisan, you know, how do you break through? Well, you find something we both agree on, right. And then you talk about it and then you have a working relationship because Congress is a working relationship. It's 435 different members from different parts. But you got to work together in order to get things done. So you work together and then if you find something that's easy to work with together, maybe the next step is finding something a little more difficult. So then it's relationships. But public land should be a rallying call for Americans because Americans revere our public lands. And where the debate is is sometimes how best to manage it. And I sit in the corner of the conservationist. That's multiple use kind of. My background is a Boy Scout. When you have a campground, leave the campground in as good or better condition. You find it so you can mine. But we're not going to mine like Butte. We're not going to mine like Virginia beach or Virginia City. You know, you bring a paddle board up the river and destroy the river. If we're going to mine, let's do it correctly. There's new mine techniques and we need to mine. There's critical minerals, rare earths in Montana that are wonderful that we need. But let's do it right. Let's go through the process. Let's not skip steps, but let's go through the process and then make sure we have a reclamation plan. That works. And I think all of us would get along a lot better if we looked at multiple use and management side of it. And I do agree that, you know, wilderness is set aside because wilderness, those areas with the lightest touch, but it doesn't mean no touch. I'll give you an example. In Hawaii, when I was secretary, when the Hawaiian volcano on the Big island was blowing up, a lot of that cauldron is actually in proposed wilderness. And if you, by the letter of the law, the superintendent down there would not allow me as a secretary to put scientific instrumentation on the type of, on the side of that cauldron because it was in a proposed wilderness. Now I had to take a visit out there and relook at that. But let's say in our wilderness in Montana and the. Bob Marshall. So what if you have an appearance of zebra mussels and the Upper South Fork? Well, you know, I think when zebra mussels, I think you should use scientific instrumentation out there and I think it's okay to put a wheel in in order to eradicate and eliminate the threat early enough. We have pine beetle the devastation across, so you can use management techniques. You know, if you, if you don't like the sound of a chainsaw clearing trail, then maybe a couple times a year you ought to be able to use electric chainsaws and clear the trail so people have access.

[B]

We had a fisheries biologist on the show one time. Well, let me, let me real quick just catch people up on a, on a point here. What we're talking about is about 2% of the country is fed federally designated wilderness. And it sort of enjoys what I feel is the, for my personal opinion, enjoys kind of like the, the, the, the, the perfect layer of protection where it's non motorized but you can still hunt it. Right.

[A]

And that picture like a park where you can hunt.

[B]

Well, it's great.

[A]

And the Wilderness act was a great compromise between conservationists, between cattlemen. And that's why you can hunt on the wilderness. That's why you can graze in fish, you can camp. Yep. And you're limited on what you can do mechanically. You can't bring a wheel in.

[B]

Yeah, that was the fisheries biologist. Thing is they were working, I think it was in the Gila Wilderness Area and they have these strains of cutthroat trout that fairly imperiled fish and fires.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Will destroy whole rivers. And he was talking about when they were trying to get fish stock samples, couldn't use helicopters. And he wound up, they wound up. I think they fought about it a little bit. But in the end, he wound up taking pack stock and trying to figure out how to move fish with pack stock because he couldn't get a helicopter in there.

[A]

But, you know, and then you got. In New Mexico, you got a lot of areas where a guzzler is. Is required. Which means that there's not a lot of water out there. So there's guzzlers out there that allow sheep to have access to water.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So in order to make sure those guzzlers have water in them, you know, I don't have a problem taking a truck and occasionally feeding the guzzlers. So you have wildlife out there, but oh, no. Well, oh, no. You gotta put it in a backpack, you know, one gallon at a time and stop. Guys, the point is, the argument is.

[B]

It'S a slippery slope.

[A]

Yeah, it's a slippery. Well, you know what? But a lot of things are a slippery slope. But, you know, it's about management. It's about effective management and have some degree of common sense to things, you know, in wilderness. And I get the lightest touch. Cause you wanna look at the majesty of nature. But nature can be pretty tough too. So if you have ravaging forest fires and it burns down every tree in the watershed and it puts so much sediment and silt in the watershed that the fish will die. Especially if you have a species in trouble, which we do in Montana, what's the purpose? Did you prevent damage? No, what you did is you allowed it to happen. So you can do management practices. It's a scale of how much. No one's advocating timber sales in the wilderness. But certainly if you have a disease, if you have, in the case of beetle kill or disease with aquatic invasive species, then I think you do need to be judgment to get on it quickly and make sure it doesn't spread.

[B]

Mega important announcement. In fact, the most important announcement you ever heard. The third volume in our Meat Eaters American History audiobook series is available for pre order right now. Meat Eaters American history the Hidehunters, 1865-1883 tells the story of the commercial buffalo hunters who drove North America's most iconic large mammal to the brink of extinction in the years after the Civil War. You'll learn all about these guys. Guys like Dirty Face Jones, Skunk Johnson and Charles Squirrel Eye Emery. How they organized their hunting expeditions, what they took with them, how they hunted, what rifles they shot, how they processed their kills, how they suffered and died in the field. And the true stories of what drove them to do it in the first place. You'll also learn about the economic factors that made this a viable profession and what happened to those millions of buffalo skins once they were shipped east. And like we do in all of our Meat Eaters American History projects, you'll hear a ton of wild stories and bizarre details from this era. And don't worry, we didn't leave out any of the gory details. Pre order Meat Eaters American History, The Hide Hunters, 1865-1883. Wherever you get your audiobooks, and you'll be ready to dig in when it's available to listen on October 14th. Here's, here's large UI I'm not large why? A big part of why I want to talk to you, and I'm curious how you think about things is my personal tendency is to be something of an absolutist and wilderness protections. I have, I have friends that are very involved in policy, very involved in the conservation world. And sometimes they'll make this argument and, and you made it too, that we can't always just there has to be some compromise in order to turn the heat down a little bit. And that was some of what you were talking about, where there are people like, like people that advocate for public land, massive public land sell offs, have sets of frustrations.

[A]

Right? Absolutely.

[B]

And so, like, I'm open to, at least I'd like to hear articulations of ways in which some of those frustrations can be addressed, where we maintain the integrity of what we're trying to protect. And then therefore, as you said, turn down the heat a little bit by having an open ear and being like.

[A]

Okay, and this is exactly what the Public Lands Caucus is intended to do, to turn the heat down and discuss, you know, areas where we can agree.

[B]

And it seems like fire is a big one.

[A]

Well, fire, wildlife corridors, management, I think fishing people, you know, Democrats and Republicans and Independents, we all hunt. We want to make sure our herds are healthy. All right, if you have, you know, whether, you know, pick a disease, blue tongue or chronic waste disease, there's a lot of things in there. And that's not natural. Is it natural? Or are we going to just let it go to the end or are we going to intervene? And this is where discussion should be made. And also the Wilderness act. Well, it was 1964. That was a product of compromise. Well, so was our constitution. And in 1964, America was a little different. Back in 1964, we're sitting in Bozeman, Montana. I can show you pictures from 1964. I was born here in 61. Bozeman's changed since then. And sometimes you gotta upgrade the plan in order to protect your assets, because things have changed. What's changed in Montana during my lifetime is that when I grew up, there was never a problem with public access because there wasn't any fences. There was less people out in the woods. Most people lived in town. But there was never a problem with public access or hunting. And now there are. There's a lot more fences set up. Public access is harder to find corners. You know, that's. That's a big discussion. There wasn't any corners when I grew up because no one was there now to discussion. So, you know, looking at it, upgrading the plan so you know what's important? Public access is important. System health is important. Not just a segment of the river, but the river itself. Not just a segment of the forest, but the health of the forest and systems and wildlife corridors and flyaways to make sure the systems operate. And that takes, again, going back to best science, best practices, what's the greatest good, what's the longest term, how do you manage your assets for the next hundred years? And we talked a little about the legacy we were given, and I think the biggest challenge is how do we manage it for the next hundred years. Given the change that's happened since Roosevelt was president over 100 years ago, he faced different challenges than what we face today. We do face rural interface, forest fires, diseases, invasive species. There's a lot more on the plate about challenges, and not all of them are impossible. But I think we do got to look at innovative ways, maybe find how to protect what I think are our greatest treasures. How are we going to protect the herds? Because if you don't protect wildlife corridors, because large game, they transit between summer range and winter range, and if that is blocked by sets of fences or highways or developments, then they lose that access to their feeding grounds, too. So how do we look at the corridors? How do we identify the corridors?

[B]

Yeah, you prioritize that. When you were Secretary of the Interior and there was. And that kick started, I mean, a ton of work.

[A]

Good.

[B]

Do you feel like, what do you think's going to happen with, in, like, in Trump too, with the current administration, do you feel that there's going to be sort of a vocalization or a rededication around some of the work that, like, that you initiated on big game corridors? I mean, that conversation really came to life during those years.

[A]

Yeah. And I like Doug Burgum. He's from North Dakota. So he has kind of a western tilt to his walk. North Dakota's a little different in Montana. But I've talked to him about wildlife corridors and reorganization, which I think is important. And a lot of times it's not more money into the system, it's better utilization of the funding. And I'll give you an example, and you gotta follow me on this. But let's say you have a trout and a salmon in the same stream. Happens everywhere in the West. Let's say upstream you have a Forest Service holding a national Forest and downstream you have a dam. I've just described every watershed in the West. So this is how we manage it. So the trout are managed by Department of Interior through U.S. fish and Wildlife Service. The salmon are managed by Department of Commerce through noaa. The National Forest surface is managed by Department of Agriculture through US Forest Service. Subsurface is Department of Interior through Bureau of Land Management. Our dam system downstream, that directs the flow, the temperature. It's either Department of Army through the Army Corps of Engineers like Libby, or it's Department of Interior through Bureau of Reclamation, like the dam in Hungry Horse. Even though they're almost. You almost can see each other. So let's say you want to put a redo a bridge or put a pipeline in or a dock system. You literally have to go through multiple departments with different agencies with oftentimes conflicting regulation in 163 different regions. Even the regions don't line up. The regions from Bureau of Reclamation is not the same region as Department or Bureau of Indian Affairs. They're not even geographically the same. So it's not exactly putting more resources in. It's reorganizing it so you can make better decisions. So you don't have seven different biologists from seven different agencies on the same acre of ground or the same section of river giving different views and a conclusion that either doesn't move forward or it. It's not a consensus. And thus we're stuck in the mud and we don't get things done. Decisions. We have the technology on decisions to make a decision, yes or no, within a reasonable amount of time. But because just the organization of it and how we're set up, a lot of these decisions wait and wait and wait and wait and wait. If you're trying to extract a resource, there's a lot of frustration on that side. If you're trying to protect the resources, a lot of frustration on that side too.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So we can do it better.

[B]

Let's jump to one that's heating up right now. A lot of conversations about the role this rule. I. I hate to see the, like, not hate to. I really don't want to see the role this rule thrown out. Just I want to hear. But people know what I think. From your perspective, right? From your perspective, like, like, aren't there some fixes and some adjustments that could be made to alleviate some of the concerns?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So, like, without. Like, again, I don't want to lecture people on what I think about the roadless rule. I. I think, like, the roadless rule does a great job of protecting those last bastions of undeveloped landscapes. But again, you know, in your role here, you are, you have a lot of constituents. You're answering to a lot of, you know, a lot of people with a lot of concerns. I would love to see that there was a way to more surgically address concerns as they come up, rather than just saying, like, to hell with it, which I feel like rescinding the role. This rule is a little bit like, to hell with y'. All.

[A]

Yeah. And. All right, when.

[B]

I'll hand it over to you.

[A]

When the roadless rule was put in, there wasn't any public comment on that one either. That was. That was President Clinton. Oh, we're gonna do the roadless rule. Yeah. I don't remember any public comment.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So I think there's probably comment on the way out. I think, you know, a blanket. We're just gonna undo every roadless and. And make them roadless again. Make them roads. I think that is not best science. It's not best practices. It's not based on, longest term, greatest good. I think there's no doubt some roads that probably should be opened up that provide access. Remember, not everyone is in great shape. There's a lot of older folks that don't walk so well that maybe would like to drive. There's a snowmobile out there. There's a lot of things.

[B]

I promised you I was going to stop talking about it, but here's the thing. I don't picture running out of roads. Like, I'm not. I'm not a. There's like, there's no such thing as a road preservationist because there's always going to be a bunch of those.

[A]

Well, all right, in I'm handing. And let's say northwest Montana, there's a lot of existing roads that when they shut the roads down, they probably should have been opened up. They went. They went too far. And then over a period of time, if roads overgrow and then you do have a fire you're putting a lot of firefighters in danger because you got to have access for machinery and stuff like that. Yeah, but again, the right step, I think, is we're going to do all this or all this. I think there's a logical midway. Let's evaluate the road system. Let's evaluate. We should have open up, you know, public access, because public access is important, and public access isn't always, you know, two feet. I can tell you there's a lot of veterans that wish they had two legs that can't walk very far. There's a lot of older folks that don't have the ability to walk that far, but, you know, they used to. And so I think you can manage it well. But this, you know, one side or the other, I think leads to, you know, tension. So I do think it's important to look at public access and evaluate fairly. Look at our roads. When they were made roadless, there was no comment. If the rule is overturned based on coming, what roads are you going to overturn? I think that's a legitimate discussion. I think we should have these discussions about where and why and what purpose. Not every place, you know, some places have other alternative access points. In a lot of places, the road probably shouldn't have been in there in the beginning. So I do think you got to carefully look at things, and that's some of these discussions. It isn't clear where I have to have it one way or the other. Do I have to have zero people in it or zero machinery in the wilderness? Well, it depends on what the machinery does. If it's scientific instrumentation on the side of a cauldron in Hawaii so you can evaluate the subsurface channels of lava penetrating and threatening human life, I think that's a fair put that thing. If you don't like the looking at it, then make it look like a rock.

[B]

Listen, man, I understand those areas, those examples of things that happen, where it winds up being. It almost becomes like those areas where, like, some level of absurdity is demonstrated. It drives a lot of frustration. You know what I mean? It drives frustration, like in places that were like the one I brought up, where, you know, there's almost an irony to it, like someone trying to preserve a strain of cutthroat trout being hindered in their activities because of the world is rule. So, like. And then you're trying to preserve the integrity. Like, you're trying to work on behalf of the integrity of the very thing that's preventing you from working on the integrity or whatever. I'm trying to say I get all. I get those examples.

[A]

Then you have a fire, right? You have a massive fire, and you have so much settlement that the trout you're trying to protect are gone. Yeah, and, and, and those are, those are real cases. So I think judgment matters and have a little latitude for the commander to make a decision based on ground truth, situation and train dictate. So on the roadless rule, I think it should be looked at, evaluated, public comment. There is no doubt that there are some places that the roads network should be replaced, probably repaired. So if you do need to get in there with fire trucks and equipment, you can. So you can evaluate it and enjoy your public land because it's yours. Snowmobiles across Montana. I've never seen a problem or damage from a snowmobile during the summer. I hike a lot. Unless a snowmobile hits a tree, doesn't do a lot of damage out there. And the four strokes are pretty quiet. And quite frankly, the game, if they're up that high, where the snowpack's that high, the game is not there. So, as you know, you hunt and.

[B]

I have a couple snowmobiles. You do wild and scenic river work. So you. Recently, I'm a little lost on where, like, how the process plays out, but proposing wild and scenic status for stretches on the Gallatin and Madison. What does that do? Like, what. Give me your thinking on that. Like, what does that do? Is it. Is it a symbolic gesture?

[A]

Like, no. All right. On. It's looking at the Gallatin, you know, and those basins in the Madison one. Is that when you. When you put protection on rivers so you're set back, making sure the flow doesn't get. Doesn't remains, et cetera. In the case of the river act, it started at the county level. They first came to my office in D.C. a group behind it, and said, oh, you got this great plan. We're gonna do all these rivers, thousands of miles of rivers, gonna put them on our protection. I said, well, what do the counties think about it? Oh, we haven't talked to county commissioners.

[B]

Ah, well, going right to the big dog.

[A]

You know what? You know, I'm a congressman, former former U.S. secretary. I go to the county commissioners because the county commissioners are the front line. You know, the, the sheriff is voted in, the county commissioners are voted in. They're the front line. And if you want my support, you got to go to the county commissioners and get their support, too. And they did, you know, good on them. They went in, they worked it, they got county commission, they adjusted The Scope, where you had all sides, you had the government side, you know, with me, and you had the county commissioners and you had the local enthusiastic groups, you know, there are a lot of them that all got together and said this is the right plan. And then because I'm a representative and I represent people and I'm glad to do it, if everyone agrees, you know what, we'll go for it. Because I also think it's important enough to make sure that your kids had the same experience on the Madison and the Gallatin as you did. The reason why we live in Montana is because the Gallatin isn't the Sacramento river, that we understand how important it is on flows and temperature and species in riparian banks and all that should be and looked at as part of Montana, our legacy that we're gonna also leave behind for the next generation. So I'm glad to do it. The process is, it starts in the House. We'll get a committee hearing on it. It's not a contentious issue because I think we did it right. We went at the front line and it's, you know, frontline driven. And then I'm sure that Senator, you know, Sheehy and Daines will, will pick it up on that side. So I'm actually fairly optimistic that the Scope is right. It got a consensus on it and it protects two beautiful rivers that I think you and I spend a lot of time on, rightfully so, because they are gorgeous rivers. And I just want to make sure that again, your kids and your grandchildren can have the same experience.

[B]

What's the timeline on something like that look like for that?

[A]

Well, we're in government shutdown right now. I'm sure not much is moving at the moment, but I'm pretty optimistic that it'll move forward. Things take time, good things take more time. But you know, I think we're on a good road because we did it right.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, on right, right.

[B]

Meaning that procedure, how to do it, that local buy in and county Commissioner angle. Yeah.

[A]

You know, people in Utah got really upset when monuments were put in place, that they had no say. Matter of fact, not only did not have a say, they had just the opposite. They were staunchly against it. Both the State House, the State Senate, the representation, all were against that and yet happened. And you gotta be sensitive to states rights, even though it's federal property and monuments for everyone's listening. You know, the President's authority to designate a monument. Teddy Roosevelt really pushed it. And it's called the Antiquities act and it's Delightfully short. It's only about a page. And it has four conditions. One, you have to have an object to protect. That object by law, by definition is historic, prehistoric or geologic. Example, historic would be battleground, geologic. The Devil's Tower, which by the way.

[B]

That'S the one I was going to throw out.

[A]

That's the first monument Teddy Roosevelt.

[B]

I visited that place.

[A]

Amazing.

[B]

And secondly, it's very understandable when you look at it. Yeah, it's like, yeah, I know where you're going. You're like where it's like that thing.

[A]

Yeah, well. And you know, the monument at the time was 1200 acres. So, oh, there's a pushback as a land grab. But again, you have to have something, something to preserve. Secondly, it has to be on federal land. You can't designate a monument on state or private land. It has to be federal. So some of the recent designations of monuments also were on state and private land, which is illegal. And I think also importantly.

[B]

Well, because those places were encompassed within the encompassed.

[A]

But what happens is you start restricting access, you start changing prescriptions on grazing on time. And so you put a lot of pressure on either the state for income because a lot of state properties like Montana best and highest use the schools, generate income from the property, or as your private land rights, you do have some right to the enjoyment of your property. And when that's diminished because of a government, either it's action, then that's a taking. But lastly, is smallest area compatible to protection of the object. And that's important. For instance, if you're going to designate a battlefield, a monument, then it would be logical. And the extent of that battlefield would be where the battle took place or very close by. It's not in the case of Bears Ears, which was a famous one, it's not 1500 square miles. And then you go, well, 1500 square miles. And for listeners that remember Bears Ears.

[B]

It was, oh, this is quite a tough.

[A]

So President Clinton went in and he designated Bears Ears didn't see the property, but Bears ears was about 1500 square miles of which 800,000 acres was wilderness. Now tell me, in a wilderness, what protections? In a wilderness, you don't have none. And then there was an entirety of a national forest in there that had no monuments. I mean, it had no areas of known existence of anything historical. No Indian artifacts, no dwellings. What it was, was there could be. There could be. What is that? So you can't designate a monument of what could be and it's smallest area compatible. So when I did A review with the state of Utah and with the governor and locals. I looked at it and I made the recommendation to then President Trump is that on the 800,000 of wilderness, return it back to wilderness. It has all the protection it needs. On the national forest, return it to national forest. The rest of it, a reasonable boundary. And the boundary that I recommended was larger than Bryce Canyon and Zion park combined. And still there was pushback from it. But at the end of the day, it was the right decision. You gotta follow the law on monuments. Same thing with.

[B]

But you got absolutists like, you got absolutes like, like, I'm kind of. Well, you got absolutists like me who would look and who would look and be like, maybe I'm going to, I'm going to admit like a certain level of manipulation here where you'd look and you'd be like, I, I like the, the goal, I like the goal of preserving untouched landscape. And if this is how we got to get there, then this is how we got to get there. And I understand that that winds up, you know, being something that's, that's legally exposed.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And it's an approach that's legally vulnerable, as we see with a lot of these ping pong issues that aren't acts of Congress.

[A]

Well, it's interesting, with Bears Ears, you have two sections of the great Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation in Utah was against the monument primarily because they didn't want notoriety. They do a lot of ceremonial events on that land. And they were staunchly against the monument. The Navajos and Arizona, where you just had the opposite view, they wanted the monument and they viewed the monument as a step towards a national park. Or they viewed the monument as a step towards a reconciliation of a land return.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And so that was kind of their view. At the end of the day, I viewed it in the terms of what was written in the law. Is that, yes, there's Zuni. There's a lot of historical and geological features that I think would qualify. I wasn't President Obama, so I gave President Obama deference. I wasn't president, he was. So he decided that he would sign it. And so I gave deference of it within the law. But again, the boundaries that I proposed is still in litigation, by the way, were larger than Zion and Bryce Canyon combined. There's not one inch, by the way, that left the federal state. Not one inch of land left the federal state is how it was designated and for what use and when. But that's an example. And I think you Rightfully brought it up. There's people that will give no quarter on either side because either they think it's a slippery slope or the government doesn't have the right or states rights. There's a lot of people that are lined up that get angry when you even have a discussion about it. And this leads to the large thing is we need to get the anger out of the discussion. It's a distraction of getting things done. And look at what's the purpose. The purpose is to maintain and preserve and protect our outdoor legacy, to improve public access where we can and to manage our forests and our wildlife to make sure that the herds are healthy into the future and our forests remain the same. You know, that's the goal. Right. And how do you reach the goal? Well, you work together to do it. You look at threats and there are. You identify what's the source of the threat. Why do people want to sell land? Why are people so angry? Is it because of housing costs? Well, housing costs are high, but housing. Say you have a million dollar home, which in Bozeman is. Yeah, it's hard to believe it. There's hardly any home that's not a million dollars. But yeah, look at a million.

[B]

Someone coming from.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So I'm not, I'm not like picking on them or I'm just pulling the state out of, you know, thin air, like someone coming from Missouri. And if you said, hey, point out the million dollar homes. Well, they're not going to be pointing out the million dollar.

[A]

Yeah. And even in Missouri, you know, so 40% of a cost of a home is permitting and permitting includes curbs and sewer and water. Then you have construction costs, materials are not coming down, then you have to have some profit and then you have land costs of that group. Land costs generally and oftentimes are the least, the least expensive part. And again, we talked about if it's public housing we want, that's tens of acres. It's not hundreds or hundreds of thousands of acres. Right. And if the purpose is to provide housing, then yeah. But if you don't have infrastructure, then building a house in the middle of a dirt farm without water and sewer is not going to get very far. So you have to look at it and evaluate what's the purpose. Again, if you sell land, public land, once you sold it, it's gone. You're not going to get it back. George Will said that you're not making any more land. So I think again, the point is, I think you look at things, evaluate highest and best use and go back to the American conservation ethic that got us this point of why we have the the Federal state we do.

[B]

This episode is sponsored in part by BetterHelp. October 10th is World Mental Health Day and this year let's focus some attention on thanking the therapists who have made an impact on people's lives. So thank you therapists. Better Help Therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionn helps identify your needs and preferences and their 10 plus years of experience. An industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, Having served over 5 million people globally and it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. This World Mental Health Day, we're celebrating the therapists who helped millions of people take a step forward. If you're ready to find the right therapist for you, BetterHelp can help you start that journey. Our listeners get 10% off your first [e-mail] Me Eater that's BetterHelp Better H E L P.com Meater Our crew at Me Eater has centuries worth of collective experience procuring and preparing meat. Hunting, butchering, preserving, cooking it for ourselves and our families. I've chased it from one end of the world to the other. Grilling caribou steaks in the Arctic, butchering elk in the high country of the Rockies, drying fish in the headwaters of the Amazon. The main thing I've learned is that there's nothing better than knowing where your meat comes from. So when we set out to make jerky and sticks with our own recipes perfected on wild game, I wanted to start with the American buffalo, an iconic North American native that's fed this continent for thousands of years. These are recipes I use in my own kitchen, not meant to mimic what's already out there. They're meant to showcase everything I've learned about good meat from the wilds or from the ranch. This ain't your typical phony gas station jerky. It's American buffalo done right and it's just the beginning. Meat Eater Snacks from folks who know meat. I want to move to one where I believe you and I are in perfect agreement.

[A]

That's scary.

[B]

Grizzly bear delisting.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

And why it fits in with some of the theme of what we're talking about for listeners. Grizzly bears were listed for Endangered Species act protection very early on in the act. When they were listed, we. We mean, the American people, all the system agreed on what recovery would look like. They put numbers to it. Grizzly bears reached that agreed upon go recovery threshold 30 years ago.

[A]

Yep, I'm.

[B]

I'm a little bit lost in time. 25 years ago, 30 years ago, they. They hit the numbers that everyone agreed would be recovery. A thing about the Endangered Species Act, I think that only 2% of the things that go on the Endangered Species act come off because they recovered. Things might come off because we realized they were extinct. Things might come off because we realize that they weren't actually warranted in the first place. But rarely does an animal, just rarely do we recover an animal. We did with peregrine falcons. We did with bald eagles.

[A]

When we.

[B]

When bald eagles hit recovery, it was a big celebration. They were removed from the Endangered Species act protection. But somehow with grizzlies, we hit recovery, and they won't delist them. And speaking to the frustrations is it winds up making a mockery of the Endangered Species Act. And it turns the Endangered Species act into a thing where people hear it and they reflexively go, oh, brother. Yeah, like, it breeds the frustration. Because you're like, we set a plan, we achieve the plan. And then someone says, nope, I'm moving the goalpost because I don't want to live in a world where someone might do something bad to a grizzly bear. So I no longer care about what the act intended. I just care about using it as a legal weapon to protect my own personal interests.

[A]

Well, and the Endangered Species act, by the way, Dick Nixon signed it. People forget about that. Yeah, Dick Nixon signed Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act. It was all Dick Nixon.

[B]

No, it's unbelievable.

[A]

Now, he had Democratic Congress. But you know Dick Nixon, all right. He's the one that signed it.

[B]

I had someone the other day explain to me that he didn't actually care about any of that stuff. And I didn't look into it. I don't know he signed it.

[A]

But you know, on two points. One is when, as you rightfully point out, the Endangered Species act, the solid idea about it is absolutely essential to protecting species and make sure we leave a legacy. But it can be abused. And when it is abused, that creates anger and frustration, and people just want.

[B]

To be done with the whole damn.

[A]

Thing and it spills out into other species. Because if they see the grizzly bear which has recovered, I mean if you go to Wavando, every outbuilding has hot wire on it. They had a tourist camping right next to the restaurant. Got mauled, killed by the post office. You see it. You can't go out there on a bike anymore with a BB gun. We have too many grizzlies. There's the right number of grizzlies. Let's go by science and manage the grizzly. And then they have somehow concocted. Now there's three separate species of grizzlies. There's the continental. Continental. There's the Greater Yellowstone and there's the yak. And each of those are different. The study was completed on the Greater Yellowstone. That population has recovered. When I was secretary I led the effort, took it off the list and then was put on back on the list when I left the continental. That study has recently been completed. That species recovered. And those are the ones that are in Ovando in the Northwest. And the yak that was never endangered. Because the way the Endangered Species act is you only count the ones that are in North America. You only count the ones that are in the United States. We don't, we're blind to the ones that are in Canada. Well, the northern or the yak grizzly. Only a small section of their habitat is actually in the US Most of the habitat is north. But all of a sudden if the numbers in the south, the smaller section where they live, if that number can't promulgate the entire species, then they remain on the list. Yeah, and it's nuts.

[B]

With no acknowledgement of the habitat.

[A]

With no acknowledgement. And you got. If you've been up there, the forests are dead. They have the canopy. Everything below the canopy is dead because the tree density is too great. They're dead and dying trees. There is no grasses. Grizzly bears don't eat grass. And unless do. But unless there's grass, you know, there's nothing to feed on. Pretty, you know, pretty much they're having to the transit hundreds of miles for food. And their food oftentimes in the Northwest in Libby happens to be a garbage can because garbage cans are available because there's no food out there. But it's a management issue and we should celebrate that the species has recovered. I mean we all should do a barn dance and celebrate and then go, all right, these are the numbers. We're going to monitor that species very closely. It's just off the list. This is the numbers that we're going to target it to and manage. Just like we manage elk herds, we manage cattle, we manage things. The only thing, the only thing. Two things we seem not to manage are grizzly bears and wild horses and burrows.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And, and both of them become.

[B]

Dude, I didn't put that on our list, but that's another one. But we'll not. We can avoid that one, but let's stay on grizzlies for a minute because what, like one of the things, like being an optimist, you know, try to be an optimist. I look and I'm, I'm an optimist.

[A]

We should be.

[B]

Well, I look and I'm like, you got Republic. You know, there's. You got a Republican governor in Montana. You got a Republican governor in Idaho. You got a Republican governor in Wyoming. We have a Republican delegation. We have a Republican in the White House. I'm like, perhaps in the next four years would be a great. It seems like everything's really aligned to delist the grizzly bears and hand them back to state management. Is that enough time or is it just too legally complicated?

[A]

No, I, I, I think we should. And can we have a little problem with a couple judges?

[B]

Yeah. Like, it's like a person.

[A]

A person.

[B]

A person in Missoula. A person.

[A]

Missoula. He's, he's, he's from Malta.

[B]

I know, but it's like, it's like a God. It's like God, like, it's like a godlike position. Yeah.

[A]

Every time. It's always moving the bar. But, but I look, you, you don't, you don't give up. It's the right thing to do because the numbers and the science behind it is that it's, it's truthful. So I, I, I do think. And it's not, you know, Republican, Democrats. Not really. Quite frankly, the way I see the world, you know, I'm kind of a red, white and blue.

[B]

I know. But what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is the power, the, the, the.

[A]

The power should align to get things done where you don't need.

[B]

I was like, without fully under, like, I know everybody has their own priority, but I was just saying when I looked at it, I'm. Great outcome here. You know, there's other things I care about that will be compromised, but would love to see this come through. But it's like, you gotta, you move to, like, you move to D list. Like the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Moves to D list then they make a plan but then it just gets, it just gets litigated.

[A]

Right? Yeah. And I, and I would say that's part of the issue is Congress has to do our job to make sure that there is an off ramp based on science on endangered Species act. But when it's abused, it creates anger on both sides. One is that you are thinking about taking an animal off the list. So I'm angry about that. And you're not taking the animal off the list because it's recovered. I'm angry about that. So I think it's always better to look at what's the goal. The goal is independent of opinion. The goal is to have a healthy number of species but make sure the species that was identified. Once it meets that objective, then it's off the list. Congress has to do our job to make sure that once those numbers have been verified that in fact gets off the list and doesn't get litigated for another series of discovery. Well, what about the relationship between the monarch butterfly and the grizzly? Have you looked at that?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

No, I haven't looked at it.

[B]

That's all. That's always the play. The play. The play is not to question how many bears are out there. The play is to go like, but did you consider this? But did you consider that this. It's never like, hey, there's not actually enough of them. It's always like some, it's like a technicality.

[A]

And you know, we also reward lawsuits because they, you, if you bring a lawsuit forward, you have 11 tenants of that lawsuit and you lose on 10 of them. But win on a minor one, you're still going to get fully funded. So our taxpayers, you'll pay for this nonsense. Enough's enough. We're $36 trillion in debt. I can see a lot better expense of taxpayer dollars than to defend a species that by all numbers and by science has recovered. Enough's enough. But Congress has to adjust it to make sure that the abuse is stopped.

[B]

So if you crystal balled it like when will that happen? I mean we eventually got there on wolves, right? It took a long time. We got there on wolves, at least in the northern Rockies. The northern Great Lakes are still dealing.

[A]

With the problem and Colorado is just being introduced to the problem and they're not very happy about it.

[B]

Yeah, but what are the odds or not, however you want to put it, like what are the chances that we would see grizzly delisting in the next handful of years?

[A]

Well, you have influence.

[B]

I've been talking about this since I was young.

[A]

But you're not giving up on it. Yeah, look, you don't, you don't give up. That's a seal. You never quit. You know with, with, with Danes and Sheehy and Montana and the four of us, you know, it's certainly a priority. I think probably the number one priority is peace. But after peace, the environment, you know, I'm an optimist. It can get done. I think Burgum understands the importance of it. And you know, if you're in New York or Florida, you know, grizzly bears probably aren't at the top of your list. But look, we, black bears are black bears. You know, think of a bigger black.

[B]

Bear, a lot bigger.

[A]

But you know, this is where, you know, the four of us, we get along well. We talk at least once if not twice a week and I'm pretty confident we'll see the Greater Yellowstone grizzly go off the list. I think it won't be too long before the continental and the yak. We're going to have to change the law so we can. You know, it's ridiculous. If you, if you have again, if you're, if your habitat is just a small area but absent of boundaries, if the preponderance of the bears live up in Canada, then there should be some formula to have some compensation for those bears. A lot of them are coming from Canada and coming down eating and returning.

[B]

I'm trying to resist the urge to give listeners my standard 30 minute explanation of distinct population segments. But one more. One when, when Congressman Zinke's talking about the, the northern Continental Divide, the Greater Yellowstone, basically it's, it's a geographical sort of system by which we point out areas that could potentially even have grizzlies or that have suitable habitat. So instead of talking about grizzlies and Golden, Golden Gate park where there were grizzlies once upon a time, we're talking about the places where there's suitable habitat and the potential for a population that.

[A]

Yeah. And then they go, well it's just a subspecies. Is a Greater Yellowstone so much different than the Continental and the yak? The answer is no. And then if you go to another subspecies, there's a subspecies. If you go further out, Montana, there's a cornfield out by Chester that the grizzly bears have gone all the way out to Chester.

[B]

It's the cornfield grizzly.

[A]

That cornfield more or less all fall. Now that could be a subspecies too. It's the corn grizzly. Yeah, yeah. Of course, I'm being facetious, but.

[B]

No, I understand. There is. There is a tool. There's an environmental tool that gets used where if someone, you know, you might point out, like, hey, we're. This species is imperiled. And. And people will say, well, it's not, because they're all over the place. And then what you do is your plays. You say, well, this one's a little different. Well, and, you know, and it's like, there's like splitters and lumpers and taxonomy.

[A]

If you're worried about DNA, they're doing transplanting programs and they'll grab a bear from one area and send them to another bear. If you're worried about that, the gene pool is beginning, so reduced stud program. Yeah. Et cetera. But it goes back to science. But I'm an optimist on that. The endangered species, you need 60 votes in the Senate. That's one of the hurdles. So it has to be bipartisan. And I think a vehicle for that is we should have the discussion in the Public Lands Caucus. That's very, very bipartisan and very full spectrum, by the way of political tone, from the ultra conservative to the ultra liberal. But the common thread is public lands.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And both sides are deeply passionate about public lands. Their management is a little different, the perspective of how to manage it, but they're passionate. That's a great start. At least people are passionate about. About. About the team. A lot of people are passionate about, you know, the Bobcats until the Grizzly Bobcat game.

[B]

I'm gonna. I'm gonna tell you something. I don't want you to take personally. You and I don't agree on everything, but I don't agree with my wife on everything. Well, so you're in her company. Yeah.

[A]

I'll give you a hit. You know, I don't agree with myself all the time. Ask my wife.

[B]

So.

[A]

But. But, you know. But again, it helps if a person has passion, Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And it also helps to listen.

[B]

Well, that's. That's kind of what I wanted to end on here is a thing that I have appreciated being, you know, one of your constituents. I think I've appreciated about you is you have a. You cultivate intentionally or naturally. You cultivate a tonality that implies compromise. That implies giving people the benefit of the doubt. That implies, like, let's hear all the ideas. May the best idea win. You point out, you know, we're talking about red and blue. You point out being red, white and blue.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You talk about taking the heat down like dude, this is stuff that, that I love to hear. I, I haven't read the article yet. I saw a thing this morning that most. It was a poll. I didn't read any of the details of the poll. Who did the poll? I don't know, but just said in a poll, most Americans think that the divisions in this country cannot be resolved. Which is just sickening to hear that. What's your take? I mean, you go, you go, you go out of your way to, like you said, you go out of your way to take the heat down and you go out of your way to like be a gentleman and to point out, this is America. Let's figure things out amicably. Like, like, are you gonna, how do you keep that up?

[A]

Well, and, and how do you, how do you get that. The tone and the anger out of it. Right. I think it's leadership. Leadership at every level. The school teachers should be talking about, look at tone. You know, let's celebrate our diversity of thought. Let's celebrate critical thinking and let's celebrate solution minded people that celebrate our ability as a great nation to get things done. But I think it has to happen both from the top and also from the bottom up. And anyone that has a voice, I think should be saying the same voice related as a Charlie Kirk incident. Terrible. Anyone that would celebrate the death of a father to celebrate the death of a husband over political dissent is a real problem. And where are they getting that from?

[B]

I don't know, man, but my kids would come home from school and they would tell me insane things that would be. Instead of school. I'm like, listen my kids in speech and debate. I'm like, that man was killed at a debate where he's inviting the people that disagree with him most to come up and share their opinion. He was killed at a debate.

[A]

To your point. He advocated debate. He had a debate. You proved me wrong on intellectual capacity.

[B]

And whoever disagrees most is the front.

[A]

Of the line and have at it. But it was a, it was an event of communication, of deliberation, of debate. It should never resolve to violence. And I can tell you this is not my first rodeo. The anger out there is a distraction from getting things done. When you have anger, it doesn't allow a conversation on affordable housing. It doesn't allow a conversation on economics and prosperity and how to break through through an environment that's really difficult for especially young people to get a job and get a house. You know, how do we address that when there's so much anger? You can't even have the discussion. If you want to talk about affordable housing, let's talk about, you know, things like title. When you buy a house, you don't buy a house, you buy a title, right? And it's the title.

[B]

My wife handles all this stuff.

[A]

It's the title you buy and sell, right? And so we should look at, you know, how do we open up so people can have access to a title? Is it, you know, six pluses, eight plexes? Is it condos? Making it easier for people to own title? Because that's what gains equity. And so. But if your life is destined to rent the entirety of your existence, you know, that's a change from the American dream. The American dream is a couple cars, a house, send the kids to school. They're going to have more opportunity than you did. Diminishing it. It's probably not possible if you live in New York City to buy a building or a block, but you can buy a long term lease on an apartment with title and sell that. So there's other ways to do it, but you can't get there. If you're so angry you clench your fists and you shut off your ears and all you're going to do is become angry. And you know, I've been a seal. I've seen a lot of things in my life. I've seen the very best of humanity and I have seen the worst. I have absolutely seen the worst in humanity. But I remain an optimist that always good will prevail. And you know, one of the nice things about it is that we do. I live in Montana, we're here in Bozeman. So sometimes the problems are over the horizon. They're concerned because they're over horizon. But in this country, and I think the only way to address it is that we all should address it because we all rise and fall on the same tide and you know, go to the neighbor you really dislike and say.

[B]

Hello, yeah, yeah, that, yeah, you're talking about divisions making it that we can't get projects done. I just worry about divisions that make it that, that the America, we can't get the American experience done, the American experiment done, you know, like, I just, I don't know, man. I've just been like really tore up.

[A]

About, I think, I think it should.

[B]

Be, it really hit like with, like, with, with, with the death of Charlie Kirk. It was like not just that tragedy, but sort of the, the, the, the, the mindsets that came out of that and some of the opinions that came.

[A]

Out of that Stunning.

[B]

It, like, it hit, dude. It, like, hit me like a. I've been having, like a cr. Like, like a, like a little bit of a. Of like an emotional crisis about just since those days. It's been hard since those days. But, yeah, like, not just the, like, I feel bad. Like, I feel terrible for the person's family, but the, the symbolism of it and this idea that you. This idea that people would come out and, and act like they were glad about something like that. And then the way that it would just be leveraged by everybody and the way the motivations of the shooter would be leveraged. I don't know, man. Just made me feel sick. Like, I still feel kind of sick.

[A]

From it, but we should feel sick because, one, it should be unacceptable. And sometimes we're a loss of words, but I think it's a value to reflect, and it's only evil if we don't change. And maybe there's not much of a silver lining in Charlie's death, but maybe it will give us a moment of reflection, a watershed moment. Said we don't want to be that country. We don't want to have shootings on political disagreements. We don't want to have anger, because what results in it results in the dismantling of a great nation, dismantling of our fabric. As Americans, we are bonded by one nation under God. So we should. Hopefully we rally. I'm seeing some signs of it. It's my prayer that we don't snap back to where we were, that we actually move forward on it and his death will have some positive outcome from it. It's only positive if it's recognized and we change our tone and actions to it. And that has to come from everybody. It didn't happen overnight. This anger was allowed to brew, and in some cases it was promoted. Calling someone a Nazi 3,000 times on TV. Eventually someone goes, oh, it must be a Nazi, because I understand freedom of speech. But you can articulate, you know, and like, my mom said you could, you know, you can use your words.

[B]

Yeah, I told, dude, I told my kids. I'm like, when all this is going on, I was like, hey, man, I, I, like, I have opinions that are controversial. I'm an outspoken hunter, which in some people's minds is controversial. I go to colleges, give talks and talk to people.

[A]

I, I. And I'm like, I hear you kill animals.

[B]

Well, I imagine, like I'm saying, like, if someone. I told my kids, someone shoots me at a college campus, there's going to be people that Are like, well, he deserved it. And I'm like, how are you going to feel in that moment?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Do you know what I mean? It's just like, I don't want to keep railing out about it. I'm sure glad you came by to talk.

[A]

Well, here's some good things as it, you know, the spirit of Americans. We're all Americans. And I, again, I've seen. I've seen humanity its worst and I've seen humanity at the best. We have an opportunity to make sure we learn from this and move on. And I think if leadership across the board on both sides of the aisle, and there's probably three or four different sides of the aisle of folks out there, but all of us should recognize and push back on it. And I'm seeing that with a lot of talent of the media. People that are in the influence world say the same thing, talk about it. Not all, but I'm seeing some good signs. And, hey, life's not perfect. You wake up the morning the best you can. You influence those things you can't influence and accept kind of the things you can't. You don't quit. You don't give up. You're passionate about your ideas and you kind of associate sometimes with people that are also passionate. And it's not so bad once in a while to go out and meet someone that you would normally not have a conversation with in the House, believe it or not. I'll go over the Democrat side of the aisle. I'll sit down and I have a group of people with distinctly different backgrounds than mine. I sit down, we have conversation with it. I've learned about the Deep South a lot from conversations.

[B]

Listen, I watched you. You don't know this. I watched you do this.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I watched you go up and out of your way and engage with, of all things, a Democrat. I've watched you go across the room and do it.

[A]

Well, I'll tell you a secret. I have a lot of friends that are Democrats too.

[B]

Yeah, but I saw that and I appreciated it, man. I appreciated it.

[A]

Well, I don't think our problems are going to be solved from one side of the aisle or the other. I think the problems, it's always kind of the middle lanes that look at it. And most people just want government to function and they just want to cover the basics and make sure you have a functional government and the resources are put where people need them. I think there's a Christian aspect of it. Look, if someone's hurting, then you shouldn't walk past. You should provide some help. A handout is always better than, or hand up is better than a handout. But in some cases, you know, people just aren't able to be, you know, they're going to make a lot of mistakes in life and they're going to continue to make mistakes. So what do you do? You either incarcerate them or you try to provide some opportunity to reform. I'm a redemption guy, you know, try to put him in a program where, you know, they, they work and, and it's something, you know, everyone can do something and, and work is healing. Work provides purpose, a lot of times self worth evaluation. So get them in something that they feel good about, even if it's picking up garbage. I pick up garbage. I clean toilets at parks. I'm happy with it. Yeah.

[B]

Well, Congressman Zinke, thanks for coming on, talking about conservation issues, talking about American patriotism. I appreciate it.

[A]

And just it just around the block, I always enjoy. And thanks for what you do, by the way. Oh, thank you. I think you're insightful. I think you, you drive the issues. You have a great following for a reason. Is that I think you bring up some, some hard hitting issues and, and probably most of all, I understand you're a pretty good hunter.

[B]

I got good, I got, I got friends that point me in the right direction.

[A]

I heard you got a good scope, too.

[B]

All right, well, thank you very much. Our crew at Meat Eater has centuries worth of collective experience procuring and preparing meat, hunting, butchering, preserving, cooking it for ourselves and our families. I've chased it from one end of the world to the other. Grilling caribou steaks in the Arctic, butchering elk in the high country of the Rockies, drying fish in the headwaters of the Amazon. The main thing I've learned is that there's nothing better than knowing where your meat comes from. So when we set out to make jerky and sticks with our own recipes perfected on wild game, I wanted to start with the American buffalo, An iconic North American native that's fed this continent for thousands of years. These are recipes I use in my own kitchen. Not meant to mimic what's already out there. They're meant to showcase everything I've learned about good meat from the wilds or from the ranch. This ain't your typical phony gas station jerky. It's American buffalo done right and it's just the beginning. Meat eater snacks from folks who know meat.

[A]

This is an Iheart podcast.