00:00:10 Speaker 1: From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This is Col's Week in Review with Ryan col Klaan. Here's Cal, Hey, welcome to another edition of Cal of the Wild. We have a special guest this week, Ed Arnett of the Wildlife Society. What we're going to try to attempt to do here with Ed's precious time, is to give everyone an idea of what type of work's being done on the landscape, on our behalf and behalf of public wildlife in this amazing country that we have. And we're going to try to kind of look through the very murky crystal ball here of what some of these changes at the federal level and possibly some changes that you're seeing at the state level, on what those things are going to do conceivably do that will affect your hunting, fishing, and access here. So, Ed, who are you and what do you do? Hey? 00:01:22 Speaker 2: Cal, Great to see you. I met Arnett. I'm the chief executive officer of the Wildlife Society. I've been a professional biologist going on thirty five years now. Did some management biology work on refuge system and for service and some work with the private Timber company on research. We met when I joined in the policy space at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and I took this job about oh going on four years now, back in November of twenty twenty one, leading the Wildlife Society. 00:01:57 Speaker 1: Yeah, what's the toll of the Wildlife Society? 00:02:00 Speaker 2: You bet so? I suspect most of your listeners have heard of Aldo Leopold. Aldo Leopold is famous for many things, but he is the father of modern day wildlife management. For all practical purposes. He wrote the Game Management Policy back in nineteen thirty He was the first professor of wildlife management, this emerging discipline in nineteen thirty three at the University of Wisconsin, and he was one of our founders of the Wildlife Society. And the like minded and folks doing similar things that Leopold was doing got together and we're talking about where are we going to publish this new emerging information that's coming out in this emerging discipline. Do we need our own professional society. At the time, they were interacting, as I believe, a working group with the Ecological Society of America. Long story short, in nineteen thirty six at the very first North American Wildlife Conference, which was held in Washington, d C. Emerged to this profession called the Special Wildlife Society of Wildlife Specialists, and then the very next year the second North American in Saint Louis, we changed our name to the Wildlife Society and it stuck ever since. And Leopold, being one of the founders, was also our third president, So a little bit of history there. But the idea was to create a society centered around largely game management at that time, but obviously when they put wildlife in the in the title, they meant all wildlife. So a professional society of biologists, students, scientist, academicians. We publish three journals, three scientific journals, and a popular magazine for our members. Obviously have other communication channels. Now in this new age, we basically have had a conference for the last thirty two years now separate from the North American, but for the first years from nineteen thirty six all the way to nineteen ninety three, we were in conjunction with the North American and the idea there was to get these emerging biologists scientist types together with the political types that showed up at that typically are there at the North American Conference, now called the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. We were in conjunction for a while, but we just got too big, just so much research coming out and so many students wanting to present that we've created our own conference and we've been doing that since nineteen ninety four. We have a policy shop, but we also have a number of other things with leadership institute, a certification program, lots of things that we do for our wildlife professionals. Consider us the trade association of wildlife biologists and professionals and students. 00:04:59 Speaker 1: So yeah, it's interesting right that there's the student component and the folks who also are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum that have essentially hung up there in the field careers long ago and exist basically to mentor and pass down some historical knowledge. 00:05:30 Speaker 2: Yep. Correct. The nice thing about the wildlife profession is scientists get competitive overfunding and that kind of thing at times, But by and large, this is a family, a network for students where the older generation, the mid career generations can help bring on the next generation. And there's not a ton of competition really, not like you know, lawyers and sales you know people and that kind of thing. We're really open and welcoming to our student popular because we see them certainly as the next generation and carrying on the legacy all the while, you know, bringing in new technology, new thoughts, new ideas to the profession, to change with societal and you know, global change of habitats and such. So's it's a very welcoming environment for our students. And it's fun being a professional at you know, in the stage of my career because I like mentoring students. I like giving something back. Not that I'm necessarily the best role model for impressionable youth, but I try to share my experiences and some things that I've seen and some things for them to think about as they develop in their career. 00:06:38 Speaker 1: I think it brings up a good question, and possibly if folks are actually doing some thinking, might be one of the reasons that some of the scientific community has been targeted here in the last two months with federal funding freezes and layoffs, is why can't you people in the scientific community just wrap up a study like why does it take sometimes generations of people in the field to work on essentially the same question, right, what's the benefit to the hunter and angler? The American people there. 00:07:26 Speaker 2: Yeah, the process of science is an interesting one and and it's you know, of course complex. It can't be complicated when you're trying to explain it to the public or to the average sportsman or woman. You know, on why you have to have so many years of data or continuation of studies. You would think you could put a put a wrap on on things pretty quickly. But ecology is challenging. It's very complex, and you know, I'll use one example of migration. We've we've known human cultures have no about migration for eons, right since we started hunting animals. They've kind of figured that out that if migration happens, I can follow these creatures, find pinch points, be successful in harvest. The science emerged, I think you are you know, the observations of migration observed or came through observations of folks. We didn't have radio telemetry back in the thirties and forties, right, not until the Craig has pioneered radio telemetry. So the knowledge has just continually increased with the technology. And so some of these studies are they're offering up hypotheses that are you know, put forward by one study and tested by another, and you're just advancing knowledge. You're you're critically assessing these hypotheses, You're you're testing things that one science does, you're refuting things at times. And with the advance and technology. Now look where we're at on migration. I mean, it wasn't really until you know, Matt Kaufman's shop at the University of Wyoming really started telling a great story with data and maps from these GPS callers that you know, identify stopover habitats, and then you started questioning, why are they are they are they stopping there? There's all kinds of complexity in that, but the idea is to advance the science and ultimately the outcome is sustaining you know, populations for sustainable harvest. So it's it's long term and complicated, but there are some studies I think you can gather enough information and say okay, I have enough to make a decision. So it's that's probably a long winded researcher's view of an explanation there, But I think you're building on knowledge to advance the outcomes for for society and for and for for you know, nature. 00:09:59 Speaker 1: So what what is your off the cuff response when you hear. You know, critics say, oh, we're just paying for people to go to school, or we're just paying for people to stay in school, Like where are benefits out of this this system? 00:10:19 Speaker 2: The off the cuff would be how how would we make decisions without information? And science doesn't dictate decisions by any stretch of the imagination. It informs them because you have social, political, and just other things that factor into decision making. If you're a manager of a state wildlife agent and a state wildlife agency, you want to look at the data on what you know is going on with your deer herd, but you also have hunter input, you have other public input, you have political processes that sometimes are good, sometimes not so good, that are factoring into these decisions. And you absolutely have to have data. Plus you know, you know, people that are going to school are are going to be the next generation of the professionals that enter into the state wildlife agencies or the federal agencies or the private sector to continue this knowledge base and advancing science as well as improving on our management actions that again lead to sustainable populations of wildlife and fisheries and and other resources that we all enjoy. Through the public trust doctrine. 00:11:30 Speaker 1: And yeah, I do think that the migration corridor is a heck of an example. You know, there's like if you look at like the Red River, right the historical depictions of you know, massive herds of elk, antelope, deer coming through at a particular time of year. It took a long time, you know, obviously, like accepting communication limitations, to understand that not only is there a migration based off of snow, but there's also all these other factors of migration, you know, feed, forage, shelter, different types of thermal cover depending on the species, and then there's a reverse migration. And it doesn't do us nearly as much good to protect summer range if we're not protecting winter range and then providing some sort of easement ability for those animals to connect summer range to winter range. 00:12:49 Speaker 2: Yep. Yeah, In a former life, I studied big game animals, so good bid did my master's on bighorn sheep, and you know, so I have a little bit of knowledge of these migrations, and it's just interesting that, like I say, we've kind of always known this forever, but these new the new technology, the new GPS callers gis mapping and telling a good story is what really made this all happen and manifested into a secretarial order. And now we see potential legislation coming forward on protecting migrations, and the key there is protecting all of the habitats. What you just laid out there is a holistic view of migration. You can't have even if you have the greatest winter range on the planet, if they can't get to it, it doesn't really matter. Or if those stopover habitats, which we now have learned about this has been pretty common knowledge for migratory birds, waterfowl and songbirds as well, that they got to stop over and fuel up. Well, that's now manifested in the migration story as well. But you pull any one of those pieces out and it's going to disrupt the whole the holistic view of how these animals use the landscape and how we can manage those features to maintain those populations for all to enjoy, whether they're viewing or they're hunting. 00:14:14 Speaker 1: But yeah, you know, you need that compelling story as well as some strong data to make any case right. So it's not that there's necessarily every landowner or business or entity on the landscape automatically. AH is going to trust this idea of animal migration connectivity at face value, right, They're going to want to know, well, if I'm the issue, how do you know I'm the issue? 00:14:59 Speaker 2: Yeah? Right? 00:15:00 Speaker 1: And more importantly, what are my options? 00:15:03 Speaker 2: Right? That can actually work in reverse too, because I've actually sat in meetings where industry was demanding kind of the gold standard of data collection to prove that a migration cord or existed. And my argument is if you're a game warden that's worked an area or an area manager or biologist worked the same area for twenty five thirty years and watched pronghorn, for example, do exactly the same thing every time winter hits, and they know what happens when severe winter hits because they're observing these things. This is the power of observation. But they don't necessarily have GPS callers on them to pinpoint everything. My argument would be my trained wilie professionals that are telling you what's going on. That's the power of observation, and best professional judgment should have some way, some weight and say in certain decisions when you don't have perfect information, because we're not going to have that perfect information all the time. That's why we have WILI professionals, right, So I think it can work in reverse a little bit when you're looking for that data and the fancy maps and that kind of thing to tell the story. Our professionals know what's going on. And you think back to you know, ecological knowledge from indigenous tribes too. They know this stuff too. 00:16:29 Speaker 1: So oh absolutely, as did you know a couple of these ranchers, yep, wrote it down to my diary because it's ye. 00:16:39 Speaker 2: Came through on on November eighteenth this year, November twentieth this next year. Yep. They they are. They are observers as well, and that power of observation to me is really important as well as getting you know, the high tech information and the best data possible. And you know, kind of back to the white studies. Keep going, Let's use that discussion of stopover habitats for example. These are areas where when let's just say, a mulear population is moving from you know, summer range through that transition range to get to the winter range, they stop. Okay, well, why well, I think we've kind of figured out some of the wire. At least we have some hypotheses around that. But now now the next question might be, well, why do they stop there and not some other place? So now you've generated a new question as to why. And it may be the nutritional quality that's available in that particular spot. It may be the hiding cover aspect during a hunting season so they can avoid lead poisoning, you know that kind of thing. There's all so these these questions just keep building. And that's why, you know, somebody might say, well, why do we need to keep putting callers on and figuring out migration because more questions are being generated. 00:17:58 Speaker 1: Yeah, and and it brings up I guess that that is the prime example of why some of these studies don't go away is there's always more to learn. 00:18:11 Speaker 2: At some point there should be an off ramp probably, And it comes down to priorities too, And especially in this climate where we're seeing budgets cut, reductions, just reduced staffing and resource capacity, prioritization is going to have to really come into play on what what are the top priority studies and data that we need to make decisions, And that's going to be an interesting exercise coming forward. Conservation has been underfunded for a long time, but now it's going to get real interesting. 00:18:47 Speaker 1: And so, yeah, that's that's a prime question, right is a I don't think I'm certainly try to be plugged in, but I am not aware of the vast majority of what is going on in the world of research as it matters to me. There's all sorts of projects out there that truly are directly related to the stuff that I selfishly care about, right, public lands, public wildlife, access to them, the pursuit of a good time. I'm not aware of this stuff. I don't think that the bulk of the American public is aware of any of this stuff and why it matters to them. We just had an ecologist on and trying to have an ecologist, you know, it's like their jobs to know that range, know that grass, know that soil. They're still trying really hard to figure out how to tell people with no connection to grass. 00:19:59 Speaker 2: Soil, right, why it matters? 00:20:02 Speaker 1: Why it matters? Right? 00:20:04 Speaker 2: Ye? 00:20:05 Speaker 1: And I do think that's that's why we're always in this fight of being like, oh no, no, no, this is working on your behalf. So what's your community, the wildlife society, what's their response right now to justifying the science? 00:20:27 Speaker 2: Now it's a great question, and I think we all have to answer ask ourselves, how did we get here? I mean, we've got all these shows on on to whether it's Animal Planet or pick your favorite cable channel to watch about nature. We try to communicate. I think the States all have communications experts and geos certainly do, and we try to communicate this. But how did we get to a place where we still have to explain why wildlife are important or why healthy rangelands are important? And you know, to me, every biologist and scientists should have their one floor elevator speech pretty handy if someone asks why should I care about greater prairie chickens? And I think the minute you start stumbling and mumbling and then you can't answer the question abruptly, people lose confidence in you. And this is a broader era I'd say we're in right now where science isn't trusted, it's questioned, alternative facts are brought forward, all those kinds of things. And I don't know that we all know what the cause of the problem is. But if it doesn't matter to the average person, they're probably not going to be supportive and they may think some of the things that are happening now with you know, federal federal workforce reductions and budget reductions at such is a good thing, and in some cases it probably is. But you know, if you can't relate why having healthy deer and elk populations or healthy songbird populations is important, the public is not going to I'm not going to resonate. So, you know, our scientists, what we try to do. I mean, we obviously publish the science in our journals, and our professionals published not just in our journals other places. But what we try to do is share some of that through our social media channels. We're actually thinking about developing a podcast as well, very short and sweet, featuring our members but explaining what they do in their scientific endeavors. But everybody has to explain why it matters what happens when this work doesn't occur, and why should someone in the suburbs of Chicago, Orlando, or pick your favorite city care And I think we've got to do a better job about that. And I think some of this is just related to the complete disconnect that people have now more so than ever before, from nature. They may watch it on you know, their favorite cable channel, some shows and there's some real good ones out there. They may listen to your podcast or any others that are out there, but if they don't go out and experience things themselves, there there remains that disconnect and understanding that you know, to have healthy songbird populations means that your your ecosystems are probably healthy or healthy enough to sustain these this biodiversity in these in these landscapes. That translates into clean air, clean water, you know, just healthy ecosystems for for for that all all experience. But they don't really get that connection immediately. And you know, this is one of Leopold's biggest fears that he wrote about, and the the quote, I'll well go ahead. 00:23:48 Speaker 1: It is hard though, right like it? 00:23:51 Speaker 2: Yeah it is. 00:23:52 Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't need people to do exactly what I do, but I do need them to appreciate the fact that they have that opportunity as well. 00:24:03 Speaker 2: They have the opportunity and there are benefits that they don't necessarily see or understand on any given day. Yep, exactly, yep. 00:24:11 Speaker 1: The fact that you're holding that glass of water in your hand exactly. 00:24:16 Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, that was one of Leopold's greatest fears when he wrote about the danger of not owning a farm is that people will think that breakfast comes from the grocer and heat comes from the furnace. And that has manifested today more so than ever before. We're what eighty five percent urban now and fifteen percent rule that was completely flip flopped obviously back in the seventeen eighteen hundreds. And I just gave a talk recently where I show that urban rule flipping through time. And you know that manifestation coupled with you know the complexity of science and the complexity of wildlife and fisheries and just range ecology, all these things, you've got to be able to explain it. So you need the right communicators too. And that's uh, that's that's just telling a story that people can understand and appreciate. And not all biologists and scientist types are good at that. But if they're not good at it, the hope is is that their information gets to communicators like yourself and others that can get that word out that this really is important to you. Even though you don't experience it on any given day, you're you're you're experiencing the manifestation of having public lands, wilderness areas that you know, provide clean water, clean air, all those things that people want need. If ask the question does this matter to you, I've got to believe everybody's going to say, yeah, that matters to make clean air and water pretty important. 00:25:49 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean they are strategic reserves, right exactly, Like we we can't can't get our elves in a spot where we're buying clean water from from Canada. Uh right, we kind of do in some places, well we might. 00:26:10 Speaker 2: Be able to with a terrify it, right right. 00:26:13 Speaker 1: So yeah, so what to kind of get into the forecasting side of things because we don't know what's going on. But on on the land side of things, we you know, we just saw this statement come out of d o I that there will be federally managed lands assessed and either sold or transferred for the purpose of low income housing. Sorry not low income housing, affordable housing. 00:26:51 Speaker 2: Affordable affordable housing. Yah. 00:26:52 Speaker 1: Yeah, And you know, I think what people need to understand like that to me is like a hyperbolic statement, like it gets me fired up. I was literally so pissed I couldn't see straight ed. Based off of a lot of my own experiences and biases. The reality, once you can kind of shake that stuff out, go for a walk outside on big public lands to clear your head, is that we have and have had a process in place to sell sometimes trade lands that we have determined to dispose of because we've determined that they are in the best possible interest of the citizens of the United States to do so. So I don't want to like fly off the handle and say this can't be done, because history has shown that, yes, it can be done. There's circumstances where I'm sure we can point to that say yep, it was very beneficial to do this, But there is a process, and what we're seeing right now is there's also kind of a rollback of some of these other processes that go hand in hand with the process of identifying Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife US Forest Service properties to dispose of, to get rid of. That really scares me. 00:28:43 Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, when you dive deep into the executive orders and start looking at some of the dialogue about streamlining some of the bedrock conservation laws that we have, and I want to be really clear, there is certainly streamlining to be done on any piece of legislation but it needs a process, uh, and it can't be driven just solely by you know, the and and industries need to go move fast. It's got to it's got to be more of a thoughtful process, I think are so the ducks are lining up for for regulations to become easier and less burdensome. That's very clear in some of the executive orders we're seeing right now. But you know, a burden to one is critical habitat for another. Right. So our our take on from the land management and science perspective is if if there's not you know, an endangered species issue, or a critical habitat for migration, or a bird important bird area, or pick your favorite type of critical habitat that lies in conjunction with an urban area, in proximity to an urban area, it may be worthwhile in the greater good of the citizen ry, as you mentioned, to swap that out or or or just outright sell it. But there needs to be a process for determining the value of that habitat in a broader sense. Right. So that's where you know, having the data from observations of trained professionals or more specific data from GPS colors or whatever it is comes in real handy in helping make those decisions. Whether that was all factored into decisions that have been made in the past, I suspect it was at some level, but whether it will be in the futures is seemingly questionable. 00:30:48 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that that is a great example as to why folks in are hunting an angling community really do have a lot of skin in the game here. 00:30:58 Speaker 2: They absolutely do. 00:31:00 Speaker 1: We can walk around any urban area and point to places where we'd be just fine with any sort of building. But there's also, in my opinion, scarce few acres out there for the American public to go recreate, or the American rancher to go graze, or that timber cut and family to go out there and still log and make a living. When we talk about like keeping these sometimes onerous regulations and processes in place, it really should be like this, in my mind, is where we need to preserve it because or preserve a more streamlined version that still checks the boxes. Because like we're literally playing with fire here, like once this public land is gone, there is no getting it. 00:32:04 Speaker 2: Back, and that's absolutely right. 00:32:08 Speaker 1: We have a growing population, we see growing needs put on our natural resources, every single day. I want to make darn sure that any land that we give up is a minimum well thought out right. 00:32:29 Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think they're And look, I mean those of us that hunt, and especially now with the advent of our friends at on X maps and such, there are some isolated parcels that can be some of the best quality hunting or fishing in the world. But it's isolated but there so there's that to consider. But there are certain scenarios we're blocking. Habitat makes a lot of sense, but it just depends on the objectives and the outcomes you're trying and to get out of a particular land trade or divesting of some piece of land. But I think you hit it on the head. There's got to be a process for that, and wildlife and fisheries and other natural resource considerations have to be part of it. I saw something recently about the notion of who's the customer on public lands. I'll just leave it at that. The public is the customer. Period. These were set up to be our resources, not oil and gas, not timber, not mining, not grazing, not hunting and fishing solely, it's all resources are held in trust by the federal government and state governments. They're held in trust for us, so we are the customer. And I have no problem with a healthy oil and gas industry. I still like driving my truck and getting around quickly and flying on an airplane to come and see you guys at a meeting somewhere like we didently at PHS and fest. But there's got to be that balance in the process. And a multiple use mandate is in effect for those public lands, so everything has to be considered. But to me, ultimately, the public are the customer here and their best interests need to be put forward in any of these assessments. 00:34:21 Speaker 1: Yeah, and I mean i'd obviously I very much agree with you there, and I hope one of the things that this podcast can accomplish is getting those customers to speak up, write their representatives through congressional representatives, and let them know that this stuff is important. Let them know that you are going to be watching this because you are invested as a citizen and owner of public land and resources in the United States. 00:34:56 Speaker 2: Yep. You know. One of my favorite Roosevelt quotes. Theodore Roosevelt had many, but the one I like on conservation is you know, it's as much about wise use as it is preservation. And I'm paraphrasing here. I don't have the quote right in front of me, but you know, what he was saying, basically is conservation is about preservation, but also wise use, and that wise use relates to what we're kind of talking about here. But Roosevelt did not recognize the inappropriate use, and basically stealing from future generations is what that quote embodies. And I think that's that's pretty profound wisdom at a time when our resources were not being always used well. And that's why, you know, he and others went through the process of preserving some lands and setting up reserves, forest reserves and various other things. So he was looking out for the long term best interest, I think. And now it's our turn to to stewart them exactly. 00:36:03 Speaker 1: And it's very clear that if folks don't remind people of our duty to future generations, that they can be uh, you know, left out without the proverbial pot to piss in or a window to throw it out. 00:36:23 Speaker 2: Yep. Well, you know, I the other part of why is it important to the public? One of the observations I've made over the years and now that I teach a policy class at Colorado State University, and the first couple of modules are all about the history, and I even focus a good bit on, you know, the the North American model and the public trust doctrine. We talk about those concepts. I don't think the average American understands our history and how we got to this point in the first place. And you know, everybody should probably take a civic class, of course, but even then you may not hear anything about the history of conservation. And I don't think that's been been discussed enough. Ken Burns needs to do like a documentary on the history of conservation. He's done great work on the parks, National parks and other components, but a holistic view of just this history of what got us here to this stage in life. Are at stage in conservation and there's a lot of stages along the way that's and I don't think I don't think the American people fully appreciate that history. 00:37:38 Speaker 1: Holy shit, we're going to lose this that somebody should do something about it. 00:37:44 Speaker 2: Yep. Well, and to that point, we've been in some pretty critical crisis modes throughout history, and you know, obviously at the turn of the century around then, you know, the late eighteen hundreds. It's all started early in the eighteen hundreds, this attitude of just infinite resources, nothing to worry about, and no laws, no policies, no anything, and that all just kind of manifested through these eras of time to lead us to where we are today. But now it's a hell of a lot more complicated. Right. We've got three hundred and forty million people in this country. Probably I haven't checked the world the population calendar today, but we're edging close to that, edging closer to breaking nine billion in the world. And with changes in climate, changes, in habitat, expanded resource needs, all these things, it's our job is a lot more complicated to address that holy shit moment. 00:38:45 Speaker 1: And so let's jump back. And this is kind of where I want to end up on the super positive note of endangered species, right. And I think this is where folks can get very crossways with the scientific community as well, because sometimes the information is not convenient, and sometimes the information does not make sense for us the way we think about things. So great exampler, right, Exampler is ambler Road and one of the like insanely inconvenient biological things. Is a caribou, an amazing migratory animal that has adapted and developed over millennia to live in muskeg bug infected, you know, half water environment just can't figure out how to cross a frickin road. The lesser prairie chicken doesn't nest within six acres of a vertical structure, right, you know, like the facts are sometimes very inconvenient, so much so that they just do not make sense to us. 00:40:11 Speaker 2: People, the average person, right, yeah, yeah, Well, and that takes us back to the science piece. And that's why it's so important to have that information, because how would you know there's an impact of a project if you didn't have the data to inform it. Whether that might be through years of observation by a trained professional or an indigenous tribe or a rancher or others that just watch and know, or you know, fancy scientific technology data, if you didn't have it, you wouldn't know that there's a problem. I worked on wind energy for a long time, and nobody thought there was going to be a bat problem. They thought it was it was all big, you know, big birds like eagles flying into turbanes. Start looking the more you look, the more you observe, the more you realize, holy crap, we got a real problem with certain birds and with bats in particular. So without that and that's an inconvenient truth. 00:41:07 Speaker 1: And where is TWS on, Like, where's the level of concern with potential ESA rollbacks, potential NIPA rollbacks. Are we concerned or is TWS concerned that over the next four years, like we could see some real impacts on endangered species or is there a feeling like Americans got this, We know what's right and wrong, spotted out lesser prairie chicken, blackfooted ferrets, monarch butterflies. People are aware enough, like we'll get through this. Like what's the feeling from TWS. 00:41:57 Speaker 2: Well, we are worried about some of the environmental regulation rollbacks. Obviously NEPA's UH in the crosshairs and Endangered Species Act has been in the crosshairs for a long long time. There's concern, But I think my concern largely relates to just the process. I am in the camp that believes that all of these pieces of legislation could use a thorough review and look for duplicity, look look for inefficiencies. All of those kinds of things, no different than what's happening to our federal workforce. I mean, we're supportive of an audit of any agency. Help my own organization, we do audits of our finances, we do audit of our programs, because if you're not getting the desired outcomes, you should fix that, right. You got to know what's broken first and then you should fix it. My concern, and this is metaphorical across the board to you know, what I think, what I see happening with the federal workforce and budgets with you know, statutes like Endangered Species Act and NEPA. It's an ax versus scalpel approach. And again I'm in the camp that believes that the Endangered Species Act warrants some review and some change, some strengthening, some efficiency improvements, those kinds of things. But the problem is when you open up a statue like that, everybody wants to hang their ornament on the Christmas tree and eventually the tree falls over with too many ornaments on it or too much trimming in this case. So there's concern about that. But a you know, a thorough process of review would could yield some improvements to any of these statutes that would benefit benefit wildlife, had benefit industry, had benefit benefit the people ultimately. But I worry about the process us and I don't have any great answer for that other than the fact that what we've seen so far is, you know, people that run the blackfooted Farrah program. You mentioned that that program that has that is some of the top people were eliminated, their positions were terminated, so that program is in jeopardy. There's a story from Texas where someone who is in charge of the Atwater's Prairie chicken program or part of that Atwater's Prairie chicken program, is no longer working, but she keeps going to work because she believes in the cause. There's a number of stories like that out there, and I think it gets back to our discussion earlier about well, why should I care? You know, people should care about these species if their demise came because of human intervention. I won't say we have an obligation, but we certainly have the opportunity to preserve those species and bring them back. The idea would of course be like a bald eagle or a paragrin falcon example, where we really did bring them from the brink of extinction and for those two species, and there were habitat relationship issues and habitat loss and such, but it was largely DDT. We all owed DDT and we started seeing some improvements and then with a reintroduction program that certainly costs the taxpayers some money, but we brought back species from near extinction. And so it's challenging to tell that story as to why the condour program or some of these other other endangered species program means something to people. But again, it's indicative of a healthy ecosystem and a functioning ecosystem. That should be our ultimate goal because everybody benefits from that, and when these species are present and functioning in that ecosystem, it does yield benefits. 00:46:00 Speaker 1: For all absolutely. You know, I think to kind of linger on the critical side of ESA and and regulation. It's where and you know, this all gets bundled up and pinned on the Feds somehow, some way, but it's I think there needs to be like a thorough review of frivolous litigation. Ye put all of that in one column, you know, litigation that's that's purely just there to be bothersome rather than or make a point or it's there because somebody can make some money off of it, versus litigation that uses the essay for the true intended purpose of why the Endangered Species Act exists. 00:46:58 Speaker 2: Right, I'll give you a good example on that. I mean, look, NEPA, uh let large A large sector of the environmental community, or of the the community in general, including biologists, think that that's been weaponized. And to some extent it has. If you didn't put the right eye or cross tea in the in the document, there's there's a reason to to file a lawsuit and slow down or or eliminate a project that that certainly wasn't the intent of I don't believe nor the Endangered Species Act. I mean to me, the Endangered Species Act was a safety net, backstop for when you know, other efforts had failed and there there needed to be an intervention. But at some point, and this is where I agreed wholeheartedly with Governor Matt Mead when he was putting forward his initiative for the Western Governors Association in when he was governor Wyoming, that something's amiss here. Only twopers I think of the number was two percent of the listed species had achieved delisting status. So that's a problem. I mean, the goal should be to delist everything if we can, but there's a lot of factors that work into that, and you know, that can be exceptionally frustrating. And like I said, I don't have all the answers, but there certainly is a need for the Endangered Species Act, but it also needs to be efficient with the ultimate goal of getting species taken off the list. And to me, once recovery goals have been met, there's a big argument there has been for quite some time about wolves and grizzly bears, you know, and if the target has been met, it's a little bit disingenuous and people start losing their faith and confidence in the intent of the Act when you can't seem to get species delisted. And part of that's because of the litigation issue. Biologically, if we've met the goal, then we should we should start handing management back to the states and then monitor what the states do that they make mistakes and or have inappropriate management. There's a process for countering that as well. 00:49:19 Speaker 1: And that is like I said, it all gets pinned back on the Feds. You know. But just like when we had the I shouldn't say had But in the historical times of the robber barons, right, the timber barons, the oil barons, the logger kingpins, that would come out, I said, timber barons right. Anyway, you know, that was private industry that you know, scared people enough to where there there was federal action taken to try to regulate that industry on public ground. And now we have an interesting version of this where we have private industry taking advantage of the federal regulation system in such a way that it breeds more frustration, more distrust with the federal government, especially in communities where you can, like I mean tom Minor Basin as the growth lies is like spitting distance from where I'm sitting right now. Hey, I can go out there today and see grizzly bears. And in most days, if I want to go see a grizzly bear, I can go see one. And that was not the case, you know, in the eighties and and nineties growing up here in Montana, you know. 00:51:07 Speaker 2: Yeah, nineties, I was at school at Montana State yep, eighty early eighties. I never saw a grizzly there. I had to go somewhere else, deep into Yellowstone to see one. 00:51:16 Speaker 1: Yeah, and it was like if you see a grizzly track on the trail, it was like, holy cow, this is pretty cool. 00:51:24 Speaker 2: That was a big deal. Yeah. 00:51:25 Speaker 1: Yeah, Like I wish we knew how to work our point and click camera as well enough to actually show it off for how cool it is type of thing, you know, And now it's it's very common, very very common, if not in every single time occurrence to see bear sign uh, if not seeing an actual bear in a lot of these areas. So in those communities there is like a palpable sense of frustration with this stuff never ends. What's the point. 00:52:03 Speaker 2: Right, right? And you know, back to our position very specific to grizzlies, we have an issue statement on that, but basically we have stated that we endorse the fishing wil Life Services proposals to remove grizzly bears from you know, at least the greater Yellowstone area that are protected under the ESA to you know, as long as those recovery targets continue to be met and the demographic rates and thresholds are maintained, that's the key right there. So this ties back to our discussion on science and why it's so important and monitoring and scientific data collection never really end because you want to make sure that those demographic rates are being maintained. And we also endorsed state management plans. You know, as long as the you know, the species continues to colonize and occupy the suitable habitats under the under a broader plan for that species. I think you can fill in the blank. For any species, we would get behind the wildlife side. He would get behind the delisting proposals as long as the goals are met and the demographic rates continue to continue to sustain populations. But the interesting part of that argument for bears and wolves, in particular grizzlies and wolves is that's not always a habitat limitation. When we think about deer and elk populations, we think largely about habitat limitations. Game birds habitat limitations. Grizzlies and wolves largely are not habitat limited So there's that whole social component that comes into play, right, and social acceptance. And you live in that right where you're sitting today. You live that in the gall in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. 00:54:00 Speaker 1: Greater bos Angelus Metropolitan. 00:54:02 Speaker 2: Greater bos Angelis Metropolitan. I I you know, so there's the argument that there's you know, they the bears should be other places. You know, they should be expanding much further out into and I mean there's even talk of reintroduction of grizzlies in Colorado. Quiet talk. But you know they were here, of course, hell they were. They were all the way damn near to the Missouri River, back east across the Great Plains, of course in their historic times. But there's a social component to that that has to be factored in. That's not the case always with with other species like sage grouse. Sage rouse is a pretty good example. There's a social component there, but it's just different than with a large carnivore and predator. 00:54:50 Speaker 1: Absolutely absolutely well. And where do folks go to stay in touch with the Wildlife Society? 00:54:59 Speaker 2: So you can find us at wildlife dot org. Pretty simple and websites open to the public. Most of our information is there. You have to be a member to access our journals in the magazine, but it is an open society, so anybody can join. Never forget. One of our colleagues, Randy Neuberg, called me one day and said, how do I join as a communicator. I said, you don't have to you just have to join and check a little box that says you agreed to our code of ethics. So Grandy became a member because he wanted to keep touch in touch with our news and read our science. So wildlife dot org. 00:55:40 Speaker 1: Yeah, excellent, excellent, well Ed, thank you so much for coming on board today. 00:55:46 Speaker 2: That was great. 00:55:47 Speaker 1: We covered some ground, but there's plenty more to cover, so we'll get you back on here. 00:55:52 Speaker 2: I think there's definitely follow up Podder with all the things that are going on, and they're still developing as we speak. 00:55:59 Speaker 1: Yes, sir, sir, all right, Ed, Well, thank you very much, And if folks have any questions, as per usual for Ed or the Wildlife Society at large, please write into a s k C A L. That's Askcal at the Meeater dot com. Let us know what's going on in your neck of the woods, and we'll either have Ed jump back on to answer those questions or we'll round them up and answer him here on the Old Col's Weekend Review podcast. Thanks again, we'll talk to you next week.