Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Military life is not predictable, but earning your Master's degree can be. With American Military University's 40 + flexible online master's programs, you can stay mission ready while you get market ready. Learn anywhere, anytime with an education built to keep pace steady, reliable and always accessible. Plus, military service members, veterans and their families can save up to 45% on master's tuition with AMU's special rates and grants. Learn more at AMU APUS. Edu AMU steady through every mission. If you need a gift idea for that hard to shop for person how about some Yeti Rambler drinkware Or for the easy to shop for person too. Health for everybody. Everybody loves Yeti and everybody loves Rambler Drinkware. Good for hot drinks, good for cold drinks. Big ones, small ones, leak proof design stackable designs, all sorts of colors. Every single piece of Yeti Rambler drinkware is made with rust and puncture resistant kitchen grade stainless steel. Yeti builds things right. So what are you waiting for? Shop now. Yeti.com Hey, I got to tell you about a new game changing product. It's called Zbiotics pre alcohol Probiotic drink. It's the world's first genetically engineered probiotic invented by PhD scientists. Here's what happens when you drink a toxic byproduct builds up in your gut that's to blame for those rough mornings. Zebiotics is designed to break this byproduct down. Just drink it before your first drink of the night. Head to zbiotics.commeater and use code me eater to get 15% off and a 100% money back guarantee. That's zbiotics.commeater okay ladies and gentlemen, we have a special emergency FWOP. This is dedicated to all the the listeners out there who stay we should just stay out of politics. Joined today by my friend Jeremy Romero, who's a hunter, conservationist and serves with the National Wildlife Federation. And Jeremy is here to talk about kind of what I what I view to be like one of the most trying to choose my words carefully here. Cynical, creative and kind of like a little bit like of an exploitive and I'll explain why I'm using these words a cynical exploitive public lands bill that has emerged without a lot of fanfare and without a lot of reporting. P if you if you follow the news you've been you've seen that we we've suffered another a number of conservation setbacks coming out of the the Trump administration where undoing the roadless rule. Okay that's going on. We had put, we'd put the Ambler Road building a big industrial corridor into Alaska's Brooks Range that had again temporarily put to bed. Ambler Road is back on the table in order to allow a foreign mining company to drill and export a bunch of mineral wealth out of Alaska and create a 250 mile industrial corridor. Going into one of our last vestiges of wilderness. We have another phenomenal piece of wilderness called the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We learned a couple days ago that they're, they're, they're looking to open up and reissue drilling leases in anwar. There was a lot of resource management plans, Bureau of Land Management, resource management plans that just got undone. So Montana, Alaska, North Dakota. So these were management plans that many stakeholders came together. They served a lot of interests of hunters and anglers that got thrown out the window. Okay, the aim for everything we're talking about, what we're going to talk about in a minute, the aim here is to be able to a push by the administration to increase resource extraction and industrialization. If you remember back before a lot of this stuff started brewing, a lot of this stuff was whispers last June. But last June we saw perhaps one of the most direct assaults on public lands and that was Utah Senator Mike Lee's push to sell off a few million acres of public lands. That got enormous pushback. I would say like enormous bipartisan pushback. We had seen that happen. Again, what year was it? The Chaffetz one? Jeremy? I'm sorry, do you remember what year Jason Chaffetz proposal which was remarkably similar? 2017 sounds right. Yeah, 2017. I think it was right around 2017 there was another proposal to sell millions of acres of public land that was met with enormous bipartisan pushback. The media seemed to be, the national media seemed to be express surprised by the fact that that hunters coalesced around pushback on that issue. That was by a Utah lawmaker named Jason Chaffetz. Senator Mike Lee just in, in June 2025 brought out a new plan to sell off millions of acres that had different sort of code words. You know I, I find that these plans or a lot of this legislation. And we'll get into this in greater detail with Jeremy. A lot of the anti public lands legislation, anti wilderness area legislation will carry like a, a, it'll carry fashionable buzzwords. Okay, so one of Mike Lee's early versions of the sell off was like was couched in this language around affordable housing. But then when you look at the details of the bill, it didn't really do much to address affordable housing. Before it was in 2017, it was like extra or excess public lands that we have. Excess public lands. We're going to get rid of some of them. The, the bill we're going to talk about now uses another currently fashionable buzzword in order to, to accomplish something that really doesn't do much to serve the buzzword that it's being marketed under. But going back to June, this big selloff push was pulled. It was, was defeated. When that happened, a lot of people I know in the conservation space were like, we're cautious about declaring it a victory. They're like, that was a, we won a battle, we didn't win the war. This will come back up very quickly. One might think that Senator Lee, like, it was kind of a bruising on that one. One might have thought he might retreat from the, the idea altogether of kind of weakening protections. But, but, but he hasn't, he, he's, he's, he has, he's committed to the idea of opening up, of weakening public lands protections, opening up undeveloped lands to development. That just, that's where he is. That's his commitment. So we're looking at a new bill here that was introduced on October 2. And this is the one I was saying that just hasn't, like, for whatever reason, hasn't received a bunch of news. And I think it's because it's entering an area that's quite clouded with all these other things that I laid out. The role, this rule, Ambler Road, Anwar resource management plans. So this one's kind of flown a little bit under the radar. And I've asked Jeremy Romero to come on. He was the one that told me about it. I asked him to come on and explain to me and explain to our listeners what the Borderlands Conservation act is all about. And it ain't about conservation. So, Jeremy, can you, can you talk people through what the Borderlands Conservation act is like, what is it at face value and what is it actually about? And then we'll get into some details.
- [08:49]
B
Yeah, you bet. Steve, thanks for, for having me on and talk about this issue. You know, I think you, you said it brilliantly. It's a, it's an attack on public lands. You know, Senator Lee, I, I think really took a stab at undermining public lands when he went through the reconciliation process and, you know, the, the large effort to sell off public lands. And essentially this is, this is no different. So, so in October, early October, Senator Lee introduced the Borderlands Conservation act with, you know, in A nutshell, that bill is focused on border security. Again, you said and used the phrase of kind of these sexy terms, right. These terms that are popular in society today. And border security is one of those. And this bill is aimed at just that, increasing border security along the northern and southern of borders in the United States, kind of creating these 100 mile buffer zones in the northern and southern borders and basically creates and gives Department of Homeland Security the authority to manage these roads in an effort to strengthen border security. And it does it by a number of different measures that we'll talk about in this conversation. Really those measures in my opinion, undermined the importance of public lands and the protections for, afforded to public lands. Like things like the 1960, 1964 Wilderness Act.
- [10:13]
A
Yeah. Which of these points should we jump into first here?
- [10:16]
B
Yeah, let's just talk about this 100 mile buffer, kind of the rationale behind, you know, inventorying these illegal roads and trails.
- [10:26]
A
So yeah, I want to hit that because when we talk about the 100 mile buffer, this, this will impact, you have to appreciate like what we're talking about. So I'm going to tell people something obvious here. If we're talking about if you look at a map of the United States and then magic coming in from a hundred miles on all of our borders, north and south and Alaska, okay, you're, you're taking in wilderness areas in Washington, you're taking in wilderness areas in Idaho, you're taking wilderness areas in Montana, jumping eastward from there, where this, this grabs hold of all of the Boundary Waters area. It would come into areas in Maine national parks, wilderness areas in California, wilderness areas in Arizona, wilderness areas in New Mexico, Big Bend national park in Texas, Tongass Wilderness Area in Alaska, wrangle St. Elias park and Preserve in Alaska. So this is a, I mean this, you can one hand go like, oh, it's 100 mile buffer. But you need to appreciate what we're talking about when we talk about a 100 mile buffer coming in from our borders. Like it's, it's grabbing onto huge swaths of land.
- [11:46]
B
Yeah, that's exactly right. And I'll note that the one, you know, the one type or the types of land jurisdictions that this bill is not specific to our tribal land, state lands and private lands. Other than that, it's taken, you know, the stroke of a paintbrush within that 100 mile buffer. And any land that's administered by the federal government under DOI and USDA is subject to these measures in this bill. So as you mentioned, everything, everything administered by DUI by usda, all those national parks, all those, you know, Forest Service units, all those BLM field offices, wilderness study areas, wilderness like they are all subject to the measures in this bill, all within that 100 mile buffer. And those are, there's a couple other key points when we get to the wilderness portion of this that I'll also, I'll make, I'll make sure to distinguish. But you know, basically within this 100 mile buffer on the northern and southern boundaries, Department of Homeland Security is going to work in coordination with DOI and USDA to inventory what they would consider illegal roads and trails that are been, that have been created by illegal border crossings. And that's important because one, how do we determine if in fact a road or a trail is created by illegal border crossing? And if these agencies, if these land management agencies determine that in fact these roads were created by illegal border crossing, then it's providing dhs, Department of Homeland Security the authority to then create and manage these roads as navigable roads for the sake of border security. So installing infrastructure technology that can monitor border security and illegal border crossings and, and, and prevent those from happening in the future. And so it really opens up this, this can of worms of, you know, deciding whether or not these roads actually are illegal and whether or not these trails are illegal and if so able to be managed. And it doesn't really consider the impacts to developing these roads. You know, currently a lot of these agencies go through travel management plans where they inventory the road use system and determine whether or not these roads are navigable or in navigable and create this kind of access plan, this map that you, that I, that others can then access public lands. And they do a pretty meticulous job of being able to lay out this footprint of what's considered navigable. Right? You want to, you want to protect wildlife, you want to, you know, protect wildlife habitat. There's cultural resource protection when it comes to managing these roads. And so allowing for this kind of unregulated development of roads really I think puts a lot of important things in the crosshairs along this buffer. And like you hinted to, I mean, 100 mile buffer to me is outrageous, right? I mean we're talking from the southern border to almost Tucson, Arizona. Right. It encapsulates a lot of country that they are claiming to be important for border security. And in my perspective, I think it's a little outrageous to think that 100 mile buffer and all the different types of land jurisdictions and land management, land jurisdictions within that 100 mile buffer are really going to lend to increasing Border security.
- [15:19]
A
So I struggle a little bit just to understand even the logic there that it be that if you were to determine, if someone were to determine that a road that on an illegal road, say on BLM land, that an illegal road on BLM land or like an unregistered road on BLM land or an illegal trail on BLM land that they determined to have been utilized by illegal immigrants or for my, for, for illegal immigration of some part that that would then give you justification to go in and make it into a road.
- [15:58]
B
On a wilderness area. Yeah, in wilderness and non wilderness. It's, it's mind boggling to me to, to think about how these, how the mandates in this bill and, and those land management agencies, how they will come to the conclusion saying that these trails and these roads were created by illegal border crossing. You know, how, how do you determine that? Right. Like that's. I, I think that's kind of the, the big question I have in my mind is, you know, when it comes to a trail, for instance, I mean, you and I hunt a lot where we're in places where, you know, livestock, whether that's, you know, a grazing allotment or what have you, are in a lot of areas we, we tend to occupy. You know, if cattle are utilizing a trail that they've created and you know, let's just say there's a boot track on there, does that mean that that road was used and created by illegals and now it gets to be managed by Department of Homeland Security in a fashion that allows them to access, you know, these, these areas? If a road was created by illegal OHV use or it was once determined to be navigable and has since been deemed in navigable, so is no longer accessible to the public, how do you determine that that road was created by, by illegal border crossing and then be able to reopen that road? Right. How? The question I have next, next to what I just pointed out is then how do you enforce these roads to be used for the intent in which the bill describes and not for all this extracurricular activity like illegal OHV use? I think there's, I think there's a bigger question to be had, which is who's going to, who's going to front the cost for developing these roads? I think right now, when you look at the deferred maintenance to agencies like Forest Service and blm, there's hundreds of thousands of miles of roads that are deteriorating because these agencies don't have the resources to manage the roads that they have considered and deemed to be navigable through these travel management plans. And we're asking, we're asking these agencies to create more roads and take away from roads that they've already deemed to be accessible. And the management and the resources, you know, that they need to manage those roads, there's a lot to unpack there. And so I think there's a lot of questions and I think the bill doesn't do a great job of defining how these actions are going to be conducted. And those are part of the many problems I have with the bill.
- [18:35]
A
Yeah, In a minute, let's get into a little bit of the, how these bills come up, where they leave so many details up to one's imagination. And that in some ways was attributable to the sinking of the sell off plan, where the sell off plan went through a handful of versions. It had these like permutations. And in the end someone realized, and it was pointed out, and this was acknowledged by the office that put it forward, it was pointed out. Even though this was put together as this idea of addressing affordable housing and the way the bill was written, you couldn't have prevented foreign governments from buying the land. Right. So you wind up in this thing like you're, you're saying it's one thing, but then you're not clarifying with enough level of detail about how it would be determined. I would be able to take it a little more seriously if someone was Talking about a 3 mile buffer, a 5 mile buffer, a 10 mile buffer, I'd be able to look at it and be like, yeah, I'm willing to at least take this at face value. But when you've gotten a hundred miles north of the border with Mexico or a hundred miles south of the border in Idaho, like I, at that point, I don't think we're talking about immigration anymore. And so it opens up this question of like, what is it really about? If it was a five mile thing, I'd be like, okay, this is about immigration. 100 miles is about something entirely different. And we'll get to that in a minute. But let's get into a couple of these components. One of the ways that they're trying to sell this, again, couching it in language that anyone would agree with, this is like a tactic, right? You say like, oh, border security. Well, who wouldn't want border security?
- [20:20]
B
Right.
- [20:21]
A
Must be a good idea here. They're like, hey, this will help with search and rescue. Explain that component.
- [20:31]
B
Yeah, and, and it's important to note that the search and rescue piece is basically also tied to this amending the Wilderness Act.
- [20:39]
A
Okay, so yeah, a, I'm out of order then let's get into amending the Wilderness Act.
- [20:44]
B
You bet. So a big component of this bill is to amend the 1960, 1964, 1964, excuse me, wilderness Preservation act to allow for the use of developing roads using motorized mechanized travel, kind of under the hospice of search and rescue and border security. So basically allowing the things that the Wilderness act prevents for the sake of border security. What's important to note is that when it comes to search and rescue in wilderness areas, a lot of the land use management agencies and local law enforcement, local search and rescue already have plans in place to one prevent more than is intended to when it comes to occup, you know, occupying and, and being in wilderness areas to conduct those, those search and rescue operations. So they can already go in and use motorized mechanized travel if it's deemed that they absolutely have to for the sake of human life. They have these plans in place and they can go in there and they can fly a helicopter. They can take a, you know, like a gurney that's, that's got a wheel on it. They can travel in on, potentially on four wheelers or use their motorized types of transportation in certain circumstances. These plans are already coordinated and developed with those land use management agencies, local law enforcement, search and rescue. And so what this is trying to do is, you know, amend the Wilderness Preservation act to create those roads to codify the use of motorized mechanized operation in Wilderness act, which to me is a really slippery slope. And earlier you mentioned like how these bills are written and how kind of things, let's just say fly under the radar may not be explicitly defined. This is an important piece because what this, with this section of the bill does not clarify is when it talks about amending the wilderness to create roads motorized use with, you know, for the sake of border security, it does not explicitly mention that it's. With that it's wilderness areas within the 100 mile buffer. Right. Oh, it's just, it's just amending the Wilderness Preservation Act. So technically it applies to all wilderness areas does, you know, aside from those within that 100 mile buffer. So in my mind that means if you can justify that building roads in wilderness areas is for the sake of border security, it can be, it can be any wilderness in our country.
- [23:37]
A
Or building roads is helpful for search and rescue, apparently.
- [23:42]
B
Exactly. Yeah.
- [23:45]
A
There's a rhythm to fall that hunters know by heart. The chill in the air before sunrise, the. The sound of leaves under your boots. The quiet moments in a tree stand when the woods come alive. Out here, it's not just about the hunt, it's about being part of something bigger. At Tractor Supply, they know what this season means to you, and they're here to help you make the most of every sunrise and every sunset. Because life out here isn't just lived, it's remembered. Visit tractorsupply.com or your local store today. This episode is sponsored in part by BetterHelp. Who do you go to in order to solve your life's problems? You go to a group chat. You start over sharing with strangers. You talk to dudes down in the bar. Well, if you've tried those approaches and they haven't been very effective, perhaps you should try talking to a clinically trained and licensed therapist, which might be far more helpful to you and help you get yourself better sorted out. BetterHelp has been helping people find a great match in a therapist for over 10 years and they have a 4.9 rating out of 1.7 million client session reviews. BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and their 10 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of Expertise. Find the one with Better Help our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com Meater that's Better Help H lp.com Meater in the whitetail Woods Knowing your ground inside and out and understanding how deer move through it is the difference between eating tag soup and putting a buck on the wall. That's exactly how we hunt at Me Eater every fall. We lean hard on Onx Hunt and Moultrie to pattern bucks, make smarter decisions and be in the right tree when it matters. And now those two tools work together. With Onx and Moultrie partnered up, you can integrate your Multri mobile cell cams directly into your Onyx Hunt app. Your trail cam photos land right on your map, exactly where they were taken. That means real time intel with real context, showing you how deer are using your property, not just if they're showing up. No more bouncing between apps or guessing where that daylight buck was standing. It's all right there on the map where it counts. Turn intel into action. Download the Onx Hunt app and connect your Moultrie cams today. Okay, we got into some of the details here. What is your take? The earlier I used like the A term cynical, and I'm a little, I'm not totally happy with word choice on that. But what you see is again and again you see these things that they're, they're, they're trying to couch it as one thing, but what they're talking about is something else. Okay, so here it's taking this idea of border security, this idea of search and rescue, and, and, and lo and behold, what does it really come down to? It comes down to like, weakening protections on wilderness areas and making it easier to develop and do road building. Do you, like, in your view and your analysis of this, do you, do you feel that that's fair? Like, do you feel that there really is. I hate to use it, but like, is there like a sort of conspiracy of sorts of trying to use whatever tools are applicable, whatever national crises we have, affordable housing, border security, whatever it is, to try to just do anything to weaken protections on wilderness areas and weaken protections on public lands? And if that's true, like, what is the end game? Like, how does that ultimately get them what they want?
- [27:50]
B
Yeah, I mean, I, I think, you know, from like the conspiracy perspective, it's hard not to think that there's these ulterior motives when it comes to these types of, of bills and legislation. I mean, we've seen time and, and time, you know, time and time again where individuals like Senator Lee or others just don't have the same perspective of public lands that you and I or others do. And therefore, I think their perspective of public lands is a much more, you know, let's just call it an asset driven mindset. Yeah. Where they look at public lands and they see different types of investments that they can return on these assets. Right. Different types of ways that these lands can be more profitable than they already are, than just creating open spaces where we can recreate, where we can hunt, where we can fish. And in their minds, I don't believe that this is something that they, they enjoy seeing and how public lands are used, are utilized. And you know, for that reason, I think we've seen these assaults on public lands through different, different efforts. The reconciliation process that you, that you mentioned earlier. And so it's hard for me to think that these bills, when I see them are just focused on what the title of the bill is written as. Right. I can't help but think that there's these details that there's these underlying efforts within these bills that are aimed at attacking and undermining public lands from multiple perspectives, like getting more access. Therefore, you can potentially have non. You can have more resource extraction or irresponsible use of public lands. I think it's a slippery slope, and I think they're, they're recognizing that they have to be a little bit craftier, a little bit more creative and how they attack public lands. And so, you know, you said it, you said it spot on. Like using terms like affordable housing, border security, I think terms that maybe hit, hit near and dear to a lot of Americans, you know, lives and homes. Like, I do think by trying to create these kind of false narratives, by trying to get people on board for these ideas that really aren't the root of what is intended by these pieces of legislation. I can't help, I can't help but think there's, there's more to it than what, than what we're reading.
- [30:26]
A
Yeah, I don't want to use too hyperbolic of language here like, like, I just want to, you know, acknowledge these things are coming from, you know, patriotic people who no doubt love their families and love their communities. It's just we're like, ideologically opposed on an issue. My view is that undeveloped landscapes are of extreme value and will become more and more valuable over time, and that preserving them, conserving them, comes at no cost to us. They're still there. They will still be there later on once as the world gets developed, as the nation gets developed, as our last wildernesses get developed, will burn through an asset and will later regret what we did. And I think that there are some activities, hunting, fishing, hiking. Those are things that I'm interested in. There are some activities that can go on right now without having adverse impact on these great American assets. So I don't want, when I use the word conspiracy, I don't want to act like, like someone's objective in putting this forward. The objective is to be like, evil or something. It's just like a different thing. Some people look at undeveloped landscape and they see wasted opportunity. I look at undeveloped landscape and I see an incredible asset in the nation's bank that can bring enjoyment and mental health and physical health to all Americans while we hold it. And it might be. And I know, like, without a doubt to me will be of far more value to future generations than it is to us now. And in our, in our undeveloped landscapes are at their most valuable state as they sit. Right. It's like it's an asset. So Yeah, I don't want to put this in terms of, of good versus evil. It's like, it's like, it's an ideological battle with real, with real results. Like, like real things are pivoting on this. Okay, what now? And then you see where people put forward pieces of legislation that, you know, aren't to be taken seriously. Like, people do it. There's, there's a performative quality to some legislation. When there was talk of giving an example, when some guy put forth legislation that would have put Trump on Mount Rushmore, it was performative.
- [33:05]
B
Right.
- [33:06]
A
For a lot of people, it was good for a laugh. It sparked a lot of conversation. Like, is there really room on Mount Rushmore? What is Mount Rushmore made of? Where would you put it? What's the history of Mount Rushmore? But in the end, it was like a performative gesture. It was never something that was meant to be advanced and signed into law. Right. Is this, is this like making a statement? Is it trying to like, advance an idea that future generations might pick up on? Like, like what is this, is this serious?
- [33:41]
B
I think it can very well be serious. And I do think it's somewhat performative. I think it's, you know, Senator Lee and other co sponsors, you know, dip in their, their toe in the water to do a temperature check and see how a bill like this is perceived and whether or not it's going to get the support and the attention to, to gain some traction and potentially move forward. I hope it's kind of all smoke, no fire, for a lot of the reasons that we've been talking about. It's interesting when you look at this bill to see who the co sponsors are. And I say that because there's only one co sponsor that's occupying a state that is relative to the language in this bill, and that's Senator Cruz out of Texas. You don't see other Republican or Democratic senators along these, these border states that are co sponsoring this bill.
- [34:36]
A
Well, that's funny you mentioned that because, I mean, Utah sits well outside of the hundred. Senator Lee's state of Utah sits well outside the buffer. I see a representative from Wyoming sits outside of the buffer. But you're right. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is, has portions of his state in the buffer zone, in the very generous buffer zone.
- [35:01]
B
That's right. And you don't see individuals like Senator Daines, Senator Sheehy, Senator Risch, like, you know, those senators on the northern part of the, of the border, those people who you would, who you would think if this was A, an issue that was really important. You would think that the states that are going to be impacted by this legislation would have more of a, of a perspective on the bill. Maybe that's a, maybe that's a sign, right? Like maybe that's a sign that this, this bill really is just kind of an attention seeker and not going to get the traction that, or the seriousness that people are going to, to think when they read it. And for that reason, like, maybe that's why those individuals don't, you know, aren't sponsoring the bill. And you know, obviously that's me just being, you know, rather presumptuous, but I think when I, when I see the lack of those co sponsors, I just have to ask those questions.
- [35:59]
A
Got it. And what do you think will happen? Like, what's the next step for a piece of legislation like this? Like, remember that, remember that cartoon, your little kid? I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill. Like, like what? Like what's, what's next?
- [36:11]
B
Well, it was, it was referred to the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources. So amongst all the craziness that's happening in D.C. right now, this bill has to be put on the calendar by Senate enr. And then once it's there, they have to listen to the bill and they have to vote on it to pass it out of committee. And then there it goes on its own kind of trajectory to potentially being voted on the Senate floor. Has to have a House companion. It still has a long route before it's even, I would say, remotely considered serious. But the fact that it was introduced is serious enough for me to, to want to talk to you about.
- [36:53]
A
Yeah, and this will come up under an early, an early person that'll get a look at this is Senator Heinrich from New Mexico who has, you know, who, who represents landscape within this buffer. He's a big, you know, like a very informed, very dedicated defender of public lands. Like, what's his take on this going to be?
- [37:19]
B
Well, I imagine, Senator Heinrich, that, as you mentioned, is a champion for conservation, champion for, for public land, somebody who, you know, gets out and hunts and fish, fishes on our public lands. I think when he sees a bill like this, he's going to ask a lot of questions and he's going to pick it apart kind of as we've been picking it apart on this conversation. I, I don't think a bill like this is going to actually, I know a bill like this is not going to land well with, with Senator Heinrich. I think he will do a brilliant job of asking Those important underlying questions of the intention and rationale of this bill. And you know, with that being said, I hope the result is, is the bill doesn't move out of committee and is essentially dead upon arrival.
- [38:02]
A
Yeah, but it is, man, it's like a very interesting and like I said, you, I didn't know about it. You know, we were together right around this time when this came out. You're the one that explained it to me and I thought that regardless of where it lands, and it's very early to say, it's a very, it's an interesting civics lesson and it's an interesting look into how people are and this is the point I keep making. Interesting look at how people could have a historic ax to grind, like a career long set of goals. In this case, if your career long set of goals is to reduce protections on public lands and open up development and industrialization of wildlands, that's like the career long goal. The way in which you can look for opportunities in the national dialog to be like, oh, that's how I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And then the conversation changes and there's like a lot of talk about affordable housing. Let's say that's how I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And then there's a lot of talk about illegal immigration. That's how I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And it brings to mind this analogy of that the bottle of the wine stays the same but you continue to apply a new label onto that wine. And so it's just, it's a fascinating glimpse into the thinking here. I hope listeners like give, like start paying more attention to that in the years that are coming as we continue to have these conversations. And thank you, Jeremy, to come on and explaining this and telling me about it again. I think it's like I said, if nothing else, it's a great civics lesson for people.
- [39:54]
B
Yeah, I, I really appreciate you letting me come on and talk about the bill. You know, any attack on public land is important to me to get out there and, and, and talk about and advocate for public lands and the right to hunt and fish and protecting these areas for future generations. So we're going to keep, you know, our eye on this bill. We going, we're going to do our due diligence to, to make sure a bill like this doesn't, doesn't have a future. And you know, in the future, you know, keeping, keeping a, you know, keeping a close eye on, on legislation that comes out and looking at how they are support somewhat, you know, disguised in different ways. And I recommend people do their, their due diligence and look at, look at bills, look at legislation, not just for what the title of the legislation is, but what the actual action items in legislation are. And I encourage you to be, be active, reach out to your, you know, your congressional members and you know, be, be an engaged member of, of society. I think as the reconciliation process and the public land sell off kind of played out, we saw a tremendous amount of, of support from everybody on both sides of the aisle. You know, whether you, whether you hunt and fished or didn't like it, we all came together and pushed back on the public land sell off. And it was an extraordinary thing to see. And I just hope that we can continue to have those shared visions when it comes to pieces of legislation like this. So Steve, again, I think I thank you for, for letting me come on and talk about this bill and we'll just keep tracking, keep tracking it.
- [41:29]
A
Okay. Again, you're hearing from Jeremy Romero from the National Wildlife Federation, a very avid hunter angler out of New Mexico. Thank you. Thanks again, Jeremy.
- [41:44]
B
Thank you.
- [42:11]
A
If you need a gift idea for that hard to shop for person. How about some Yeti Rambler drinkware Or for the easy to shop for person too? Hell, it's for everybody. Everybody loves YETI and everybody loves Rambler drinkware. Good for hot drinks, good for cold drinks. Big ones, small ones, leak proof design, stackable designs, all sorts of colors. Every single piece of Yeti Rambler drinkware is made with rust and puncture resistant kitchen grade stainless steel. Yeti builds things right? So what are you waiting for? Shop now yeti.com Hey, I got to tell you about a new game changing product. It's called Zbiotics pre alcohol probiotic drink. It's the world's first genetically engineered probiotic invented by PhD scientists. Here's what happens when you drink. A toxic byproduct builds up in your gut. That's to blame for those rough mornings. Zebiotics is designed to break this byproduct down. Just drink it before your first drink of the night. Head to zbiotics.com me eater and use code me eater to get 15% off and a 100% money back guarantee. That's zbiotics.com meeater this is an ad by BetterHelp.
- [43:26]
B
We've all had that epic rideshare experience halfway through your best friends and they know your aspirations to go find yourself in Portugal. It's human. We're all looking for someone to listen, but not everyone is equipped to help. With over a decade of experience, BetterHelp matches you with the right therapist. See why they have a 4.9 rating out of 1.7 million client session reviews? Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off your first month.
- [43:53]
A
This is an iHeart podcast.