00:00:10 Speaker 1: From Meat Eaters World News headquarters in Bozeman, Montana. This is Col's Week in Review with Ryan col Calahan. Here's Cal. I'm happy to say the story I'm about to cover is a first in the history of Cal's Week in Review. It's also very much not appropriate for children or people who have a very high opinion of humanity, So if you have little ones in the car, you may just want to skip it. On February twenty first, a motorist in Kentucky called nine to one one to report that they had witnessed a man who appeared to be having sex with a dead deer on the side of the road in Central City. I can't be sure, but I imagine the dispatcher assumed the motorist was somehow mistaken, But sure enough, when police went to dustigate the disturbing report, they found a man near the scene with bloody hands and his pants around his knees. Officers also observed unspecified fluid on his facial hair, deer frear is stuck to the bottom of his hoodie, and bloodstains on his boxers. The man, identified as thirty two year old Alan Lynn Osborne, was arrested within thirty minutes of that original call. Once back at the Muhlenberg County Jail, police also discovered that Osborne had blood in deer fore stuck to his genitals. Quote. This is a first for me, and I've been here for twenty one years, said Central City Police Chief Jason Lindsay. Osborne faces a felony charged for sexual crimes against animals. His bail is currently set at five thousand dollars, and according to the Independent, he pled not guilty on Monday morning. If convicted, he could face a sentence of one to five years in prison. You can't make this stuff up, folks. I've been doing this a long time, and I can honestly say that I've never covered a story that's made reconsider how I talk about mounting taxi ermy. If you didn't find that funny, then you won't like this one either. Mister Osborne seems to have taken doze before bros to a whole new level joking aside, the buck stops here, gang, Okay, don't do drugs this week. We've got legislation coyotes in the Colorado Firband. But first, I'm going to tell you about my week and my week has been busy currently recording from Bentonville, Arkansas, where we just wrapped up the Arkansas chapters first Field the Table event. Gotta say it looked like a success from my side of thanks. Field the Table, if you've never heard of it, is like a highly elevated pot luck concept, the most unique meal in America. We bring together wild game, foraged ingredients, and talent. The talent creates a four or five course meal. This one included bears, ducks, deer, trout, odd ad lots of wild game on the menu. Great location, great people, lots of public land advocates in Arkansas. It was a fun thing to be a part of. Big event, of course, is the Black Bear Bonanza. It's going to be my first one and I'm looking forward to it and seeing old Brent Reeves and bar Newcomb too. Put this one on your calendar for next year. Arkansas's there's lots happening over at the legislative desks these days, so we're going to jump on that. The Oklahoma state Legislature is considering a bill that would make it easier for deer breeders to release captive deer into the wild. If this sounds familiar, like an annoying cousin or a rash that just won't go away. That's because the legislature passed a bill two years ago that was supposed to do exactly this. As we covered at the time, that bill instituted a program that was supposedly designed to eradicate CWD in the state. The idea is to breed deer that are resistant to the disease and then allow breeders to sell those deer to low fence landowners that would theoretically spread CWE resistance to other deer and eventually breed a wild herd that isn't susceptible to the illness. The problem is, as we cover in episode two seventy three, there is very little to no scientific basis to think that releasing CWD resistant deer into the wild is going to do a lick of good. You can breed your way out of diseases and captive animals, but wild creators are a whole different ballgame. Even worse, we don't have a good way to know whether these supposedly CWD resistant deer are infected with the disease. Rather than making the problem better, this program actually has the capacity to make it worse. On top of that, how they are determining resistance is extremely sketchy. These animals are still dying from CWD, They're just not dying as fast as the other CWD infected deer, But proponents of the program says not being implemented fast enough. The bill, which sailed through the Oklahoma state legislature in twenty twenty four, directed the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation to take genetic samples from a representative group of one thousand whitetail. Then, if the results of the survey indicated a lack of CWD resistance, the agency would be permitted, but not required, to issue permits for captive beer to be sold and released into the wild. But the same legislature who authored the original bill, a fellow named Nick Archer, is now accusing the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation of slow walking the process. He's introduced another bill, HB three two seven zero, that would move this deer release program from the Wildlife Department to the Food Department. He doesn't admit this explicitly, but it's obvious that he thinks that egg folks will be more responsive and more willing to issue deer release permits. It's worth pointing out a few things here. First, the Food Department receives their money directly from the state legislature, so they're generally more responsive to the politicians in that body. That's not always a bad thing, but when it comes to a wildlife policy like this, it is not good. Second, the ODWC has been doing their duty under the law. As I mentioned, the first step in this process was to do a genetic survey of one thousand deer. They've collected more than five hundred samples so far, and I've personally seen the spreadsheet showing those results. The agency is in the process of collecting the remaining samples, and when they're done, they'll move on to them permitting process. I don't know whether Rep. Archer is aware of this, but that hasn't stopped him from resorting to Shenanigan's to get his new bill passed. Every bill in the state House has to pass two committees, but in what one legislator called a shuck and jive, the author of this bill inserted his language into another bill that had already passed the Wildlife Committee. His bill is now before the Energy and Natural Resource Oversight Committee, of which Representative Archer is a member. But the most eyebrow raising Shenanigan took place during a recent committee hearing. He accused the ODWC of not doing their duty under the law, but then refuse to allow representatives of that agency to speak in the hearing. I personally would like to hear the Wildlife Department's perspectives if they're brought up a lot in this bill, because we would have heard it in the Wildlife Committee. 00:07:30 Speaker 2: You recognized. 00:07:32 Speaker 1: I would like to ask somebody from the Wildlife Department to come to the table then explain their side of this so I could understand it better. 00:07:40 Speaker 2: I'd like to ask the author of the bill if he would allow that, since it's his bill. Thank you for that opportunity. Again, No, I would not like to offer the Department of Wildlife a seat at the table. I think I've made it very clear through my contacts over the last two years to try to follow up on where the program is. The Department of Wildlife to this day has not brought concerns to me. Even now, even while they push back against the law, they have not reached out to me. They have not made any effort in good faith to work forward on this, and so no I would prefer they didn't speak. 00:08:32 Speaker 1: It makes very little sense for the Food Department to oversee a program that involves wildlife. Rep Archer claims the Food Department is willing to take on the program, but there's no indication they have the expertise necessary to responsibly administer it. If that doesn't convince yet, maybe this will. The Boone Crocket Club, along with the Pope and Young Club, recently issued a letter to the legislature informing them that if captive raised deer are released in Oklahoma, they'll consider no longer accepting any entries from that state. Genetically manipulated animals have never been eligible for entry, but that's exactly what all Oklahoma whitetail would be if this policy moves forward. If you live in Oklahoma, now is the time to let your voice be heard. Tell your state legislatures that the ODWC should be in charge of making sure this program is implemented safely and responsibly. HB three two seven zero would be bad for whitetail, bad for hunters, and bad for CWD management. The only group that would be benefiting would be the deer breeders, but their pocketbooks shouldn't be prioritized over the health and longevity of Oklahoma's whitetail heard which, fortunately for everybody in neighboring states, must be genetically modified to recognize the state's border as a somehow physical barrier so they won't step into your state. How this is legal for Oklahoma to do, I do not know. Speaking of bad bills, the Idaho legislature is once again considering legislation that would overturn the state's open fields doctrine. Idaho Senate Built one three two six would prohibit federal, state, and local government agents from entering private property without a warrant signed by a judge. This might sound reasonable given our country's long standing distaste of warrantless searches, as articulated in the Fourth Amendment, but there's a problem. As we've covered numerous times on this podcast, our country also has a long history of something called the open fields doctrine. The open fields doctrine states that while a law enforcement officer needs a warrant to search a home or the immediate vicinity around a structure, they can walk onto private property without that piece of paper. For public wildlife This is an extremely important doctrine for game wardens, who are tasked with enforcing wildlife laws on public and private property. Wildlife is a public resource. Just because a deer or elk wanders onto private land doesn't mean it becomes property of the landowner. That's not how it works in America. Because of that, game wardens have the right to enter private property to ensure those public resources are being used legally. But SB one three two six would eliminate that tool from a game wardens toolkit. Every time they want to set foot on private property, they would have to convince judge to sign a warrant. To do that, they would have to prove that there is a probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found on that property. Idaho is a huge state, and game wardens are stretched thin enough as it is. Most landowners are law abiding, but this new hurdle will create pockets of lawlessness on private land where poachers don't have to worry about running into a game ward There are further concerns that this will greatly reduce the state Game Agency's ability to regulate wildlife in general. Idaho is a highly migratory state, wildlife moves from public to private all the time. They don't recognize that boundary. If SB one three two six were to go through, this would be a major step in the privatization of wildlife, and the onus of management would be placed on the public land side of the fence only. And for you staunch private property advocates, of which I think I am, if it's not the open Fields doctrine, what is your suggestion for how we regulate public wildlife and keep that wildlife public when it does not recognize that private public boundary. Moving on to the Michigan Coyote Desk. Last week, on March second, Michigan's quote unquote coyote management season began, which runs until October fourteen of this year. The next day, October fifteen, is the state's coyote hunting season, and that season runs until March one one, twenty twenty seven. The day after that, the next management season will begin. For any of you keeping score out there, that means that you are able to hunt coyotes three hundred and sixty five days a year in the Wolverine State. This two part system recreates the way things were until March twenty twenty four, when the state's Natural Resource Commission enacted a hiatus in year round coyote hunting from April fifteen to July fifteen, citing a need for coyote breeding populations to have a chance to rear their young. In twenty twenty five, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs sued the Commission to reinstate year round hunting, but a judge ruled against them, upholding the Commission's authority and making the decision to halt the hunt for the spring season. In response, Republican members of the Michigan legislature drafted a bill to mandate that the NRC resume year round coyote hunting, but even though michigan Anders now have year round hunting back, legislation was not responsible for the change. After news outlets to report it on an instant of a three year old girl being bitten by a coyote in Alcona County on Lake Huron in December twenty twenty five, the NERC reversed its decision and created the so called Management Season, effectively returning to the year round status quo. All this twoing and throwing is ending up in a good place for Michigan's hunters, but if experience is any guide, Michigan's coyote populations won't be going anywhere anytime soon. Jumping over to the Colorado for update. On Wednesday last week, after a day of impassioned public comment and sometimes baffling deliberations, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted six to four to advance a citizens petition to prohibit the lawful sale, barter, and trade of wildlife fur. This vote is a win for animal rights groups, but it's far from an immediate ban on free sales. Above all, it's a confusing mess. So let's d again find out what's going on and figure out where we go from here. Animal rights groups know that Colorado Governor Jared Polis has appointed several Parks and Wildlife Commissioners who are sympathetic to their cause, and so in June of last year, these groups submitted a petition to the Commission amending Colorado's regulations to outlaw trade and fur with some exceptions. But polus has picked for Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Laura Clellan responded with a detailed letter highlighting the many problems with the petition. It couldn't demonstrate any relationship between sales of fur and declining animal numbers. It didn't acknowledge the existing strict regulations on take of fur bears. It cited misleading research that had nothing to do with Colorado. It conflicts with state statute and would lead to the waste of pelts from animals trapped for nuisance control or crop protection, and its exceptions are badly defined and would create unenforceable rules. For example, one of the carve outs allowing fur sales would be felted hats that are quote crafted using heritage techniques like wet felting that promote sustainability and cultural craftsmanship. Who will judge what a heritage technique is? What exactly is cultural craftsmanship? In short, the petition is a complete mess, even if it protects all those fedora wearing hipsters. Director Clellan recommended that the Commission vote no. CPW knew that the hearing on the issue is going to be very contentious. They switched venues to a large Double Tree hotel conference room and brought in extra security. During the almost four hours of public comment, both sides spoke passionately for their side, Hunters, anglers, and trappers were well represented, and opponents of the petition made up the majority of the comments. Retired CPW biologist Jerry Apker said quote, I strongly oppose the fur band petition no matter how it's dressed up. This is ideology, not science. The anti trapping commenters repeated the arguments of the petition, but one line of reasoning stuck out. In particular. Melinda Marquis, president and co founder of Science for Colorado Wildlife, said, quote, the North American model of wildlife conservation notes fish and wildlife are for the non commercial use of citizens. It's worth taking little time on this one because Marquee seems to have a point. If the North American model calls for the elimination of markets for game, then how can you justify selling furs, hides, tax dermy, and other stuff that comes from wild animals. The answer comes down to scale. In the twentieth century, markets for wild game meet fed the growing populations of cities continued to contribute to the extirpation and extinction of species, but markets of the time for fur or nowhere near as big or as threatening to overall populations, and bag limits and other regulations were extremely effective. In restoring fur bearer species with outright bands as an excellent explainer document put out by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies explains trapping regulations ensure that harvests are consistent with sustainable use principles, help manage conflicts between fur bearers and humans, and foster support for habitat conservation, and the present day trapping is so closely studied and tightly regulated that it doesn't come close to threatening animals at the population level, and fees from licenses and permits pays into the system that protects the habitat of these animals, ensuring their well being into the future. Nevertheless, the Commission still voted to advance the petition. So what now. Well, all the vote means is that CPW will now begin drafting rules to put a ban on fur sales in place, but ironically, the incoherence of the petition works in our favor. Those rules will be just as vague, contradictory, impossible to enforce, in incoherent as the petition itself. They also won't be able to overrule state law, so it's possible that they won't take effect anytime soon. BHA's Colorado Chapter leader Brian Gwynn said the bottom line is that the real decisions were kicked down the road, were just not clear on what kind of regulation would actually come out of this vote. Governor Polus is also term limited, and insiders believe that no matter who the next governor is, that person's appointees to the Parks and Wildlife Commission will be more qualified and have a better understanding of conservation science, and so rulemaking on fur sales will hopefully be turned back. Cooler heads may prevail eventually, and fur trapping in fur sales are far from dead in Colorado, although that's silver lining. The bigger problem here is that the Parks and Wildlife Commission has urgent work to do and these high profile political issues are a dangerous distraction. CPW faces a budget crisis, problems with previous ballot boxing issues like the wolf free introduction, time sensitive tasks of setting seasons and limits and all other work that gives people access to the outdoors and keeps revenue coming into the agency. Sitting around drafting incoherent rules that will never go anywhere as a bad use of time. So we lost around here, but we have to keep fighting both for the sake of the activities we love and also for the agencies that work on our behalf. Thanks to all of you turned out to the hearing and made your voices heard, win or lose. That's critical and your arguments are part of the record. Let's not forget the ultimate objective of the animal rights groups, although this was just a petition on the sale of fur, not trapping itself. Linda Marquis of Science for Colorado Wildlife ended her public comment by saying, quote, please institute a five year moratorium on all trapping. Ultimately, these groups want to end hunting and trapping outright, and we can't let that happen. That's all I got for you this week. Thank you so much for listening, and remember to write in to ask cl Ask cal themeetpeater dot com. Thanks again, we'll talk to you next week.