Dave Willms: Hey everybody. Welcome back to another episode of the Your Mountain Podcast. I'm your host David Wilms. Nephi Cole sitting on the other side of my screen. How are you doing Nephi?

Nephi: What's up Dave? How you doing buddy? Yeah. ⁓ That's the idea. That's why we spend all the like. I don't know why we spend all this money to tell you the truth. Yeah, making changes video at the normal. Yeah, I mean, it's just I mean, it's you know what it is too much disposable income. You have too much money.

Dave Willms: I'm doing great. You sound good. You sound good. We're making changes at the Your Mountain podcast. Making changes. We're trying to keep up with the Joneses, right? Everybody's doing it. We feel like we ought to. If you're listening on audio, keep doing it as usual. But if you've ever wondered, wonder what those guys look like that run this podcast. Well, now you can find out. You can go over to YouTube, to our YouTube channel and watch us there. You can watch the podcast. Now we've decided to do actual

Nephi: Yeah.

Dave Willms: video. So here we are in all of our glory.

Nephi: Yeah, and the funny thing is we have no idea what this is going to look like either because the program that we use, just so everybody knows, it's a phenomenal program. We'll give them an endorsement right after they give us an endorsement. But the program that we're using, there's like an AI agent. we're on the AI bandwagon. AI is working for us, switching back and forth between different camera angles and things like that because we ain't got time for that. We don't have time to figure it out. I mean, I'm sure somebody could pay somebody to do it, instead we paid a bot.

Dave Willms: Here's what I'm hoping. Here's what I'm hoping. I'm hoping that this makes it a little bit easier for us, which means we might get more consistent and record more often because we're not stressing out about, you know, on your end, the editing and so forth, and on my end, all the production side, the getting it, you know, pushed out there. So maybe, just maybe, we'll make some more content a little faster with this new technology we're using.

Nephi: It's ⁓ interesting theory. So yeah, we'll be trying some different mics and some stuff like that. Let's try and make sure the sound sounds good for everybody. yeah, it's a new world. So there we go. We're off.

Dave Willms: Yeah, I've always said that you and I have a face for radio and a voice for silent film. And yet here we are trying to do both of them at once, both audio and video. We could see our numbers tank, but we'll give it a try. Yeah.

Nephi: It'll be fine. Nobody cares. Yeah, I'm sure. Because people have been listening because that's why they've been listening before. If there's anybody still here, you you said we could tank, but if there's anybody still listening to the podcast after like two months of not releasing one, we should just start over. We should change the name. Should be new podcast.

Dave Willms: Hey, so we got a whole bunch of stuff, huh? No, no, we can't change everything all at once because the next thing that's going to change is our email because we're not going to use that email account much, much longer. In fact, maybe by the time this is published, we may have made that change too. So we'll get that information out. Look in when we do set up a new email address, if you want to get ahold of us, look, I'll put it in our show notes. So check it out there or episode description. guess we don't ever really do show notes, but maybe we will because I think this new AI helps us with that. ⁓ but go check it out there when we get it. If you want to get ahold of us, I'll put it in our new episodes going forward, what our new email address is. And until then you can still find us on social media, ⁓ at the handles at it's your mountain on Instagram and on Facebook. ⁓ and we are now probably going to have to look at. YouTube a little more frequently than we do, but I don't think there's direct messaging on that platform. So just DM us on, on Instagram or Facebook, and, uh, and then we'll get you our new email contact here soon. Now that that, now that that business is out of the way, let's talk about what's going on in the world right now. There's, uh, we got sort of, uh, I'd call them a plethora of stories from different parts of mostly the West.

Nephi: All right.

Dave Willms: ⁓ But different states in the West that we want to start off. And I think it's fun to start with a good news story. I think this is a pretty cool story out of Oregon. ⁓ Do you want me to tee it up or do you want to tee it up?

Nephi: Mm. You can. I Oregon, to be frank, there hasn't been a lot of great news coming out of Oregon with the ballot measure proposal to ban hunting, but this is actually going the opposite direction. thanks, Oregon.

Dave Willms: Yeah, yeah, this is like, I think it was the last episode or two ago where we were talking, we're kind of bad mouthing. Was that Oregon or Washington? Now I can't even remember. We weren't bad mouthing Oregon yet. It was Washington we were bad mouthing, not Oregon. But anyway, Oregon in the past few days, and we're recording this here on March 7th, just as a timestamp, but a few days ago, the Oregon legislature passed

Nephi: It was Washington.

Dave Willms: House Bill 4134, otherwise known as the 1.25 % for Wildlife Act. And as a little background for this, states across the country, wildlife agencies across the country are in a constant battle for figuring out how do we fund wildlife conservation, wildlife management in the state. And we'll talk more about all of that here in just a second after we talk about this bill a little bit. But Oregon's no different than a lot of other states. It's where are we going to get the resources to fund wildlife management? That historically is coming from hunters and anglers, but now there so many strains and demands on the wildlife resource and so many expectations of the public on the things that should be done for managing the resource that it's simply the agencies are strained. And there have been efforts at the federal level for a number of years to pass legislation that would help provide a stream additional stream of revenue to states to help with implementing what are called these state wildlife action plans, which are really meant to fund wildlife management for your what you would mostly mostly think of as your non game species that and species of special concern or species species of special need and. That legislation that's been called Recovering America's Wildlife Act for number of years, it just keeps hitting roadblock after roadblock after roadblock. And in the meantime, states' budget gaps continue to grow, ⁓ inflation continues to grow, the strains on the resource continue, and they're looking for funding. So enter this proposal in Oregon. it took place over the course of, I want to say about a decade. where all these coalitions form to push for new funding streams and it led to this bill. And this 1.25 % is a 1.25 % tax on lodging tax, increase in the lodging tax in Oregon. And that 1.25 % lodging tax is going to generate roughly $38 million a year for wildlife management. fish management, habitat conservation. It's still, as of the time we're recording this, I don't know if it's been signed into law by the governor yet, but that's where it is. As we're recording it, it's on the governor's desk. So it's like, it's a big deal. That's a lot of money, a big shot in the arm, and a pretty steady stream of revenue. And it's going to be good for... wildlife in the state and I'd argue it's going to be good for hunters and anglers too.

Nephi: That's interesting. I think it's worth pointing out the devil's advocacy side of that, which is the reason that some of these things have issues and why there are sportsman's groups who are scared of them, right? And I can't say that I'm scared of it, but I say that I recognize the concern, which is when in the past, so we look at where the money comes from, from game and fish agencies, right? And I say nationally it's roughly a 50-50 split. It's not quite, but... when you look at where money for game and fish agencies comes from, it's primarily from sportsmen, so sportsmen's dollars, from the purchasing of tags, so tags, licenses, it's payments at the state level made by sportsmen. And then of course, you have a tax from the firearms and ammunition industry from ⁓ certain fishing tackle and bows, and that's Pittman Robertson, Deagle Johnson. And so that makes up not quite half, but it's close. And so... you have these two big pots of funding that are the primary drivers of wildlife funding in the US. So what's the concern? You think, well, let's just say we got recovering America's Wildlife Act. So if you were to be the guy, the conspiracy theorist, the scared guy, what you'd say is, well, here's the problem, is that before, when you looked at this couple billion dollars a year that are getting spent on wildlife habitat, wildlife issues, who's paying for it? Well, sportsmen are. And so what does that give sportsmen? it gives them the primary seat at the table. So when things are going on, when people are making decisions about, know, you know, what's important when they're when you're, for example, in a in a state that like Colorado, where you're trying to decide who goes on a commission. Well, you know, it's pretty easy to say like, well, it should be a sportsman on the commission. Why? Well, that's who's paying for it, right? They're bringing the dollars to the table. Well, what happens when you bring other sources of funding? Well, you're bringing other people to the table, other stakeholders that are also helping pay for wildlife. so the argument that, you know, I see the argument, I think it's valid is like, okay, well, who else gets a say? You know, if somebody's paying as much money, you can no longer say as a hunter, you're like, well, I'm the one paying for all the wildlife conservation because they are too. And then so that's the concern I think that people have with bringing on other sources of funding. which is kind of funny, right? It's kind of like spite, know, cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's like, well, I don't want your money for Habitat because I want to be the guy that's paying for all the Habitat. Well, you know, it's kind of a, it's kind of weird position to be in, but that's the, that's absolutely of course.

Dave Willms: Can I play the devil's advocate to the devil's advocate? I don't know what that actually is, but let me ask you a question. Where does California's money come from for their wildlife agency? I mean, you know the answer. I mean, I think you know the answer. ⁓ Where does Washington state's money come from for their wildlife agency? ⁓ Here's my...

Nephi: Well, I have no idea, So let's talk about where different state agencies are getting their money, right?

Dave Willms: it Yeah, but before we do that, let me make, before we do that, I wanna make my point here really quick before we get into that. My point is as the kind of the counter to your devil's advocate is that it actually has less to do with who's paying for the, ⁓ who's footing the bill for wildlife management as far as who has a voice. It really has to do with the politics of the state because hunters and anglers in,

Nephi: Yeah, go ahead.

Dave Willms: most of these states and a couple of the ones that I'm talking about where there are significant controversies right now around wildlife management because of the makeup of the commission and what they're doing to hunters, for example. It's hunters that are still funding that, but it's the politics of the state that are driving the commission makeup to be different and to put different users on the commission. So there's some...

Nephi: So what you're saying is they don't care where the money comes from. they're, you know, the politics of the state, they don't care for the sportsman's money. They don't ask you as a sportsman whether or not, you know, what you think. They're going to do it anyway.

Dave Willms: That's kind of my point. And here's the second piece, like the second point I'd make, which is when this model was established 90 plus years ago, roughly 100 years, we'll call it a little over 100 years ago, this model of this user pays model of funding wildlife conservation, the general idea was at the time. Right, we're talking about the early 20th century when this started and then the Pittman Robertson Act was layered on in 37 and Dingell Johnson in 1950, right? There are these layers added. But the original user pays model of go out and buy a license and that money goes back into the agency or back into wildlife management or so forth. Was sort of born out of this, out of a time when the wildlife that people cared about were, I know Murphy, it's interesting.

Nephi: It's my dog. great. UPS man on a Saturday is probably going to kill us all.

Dave Willms: But the wildlife, the wildlife that people cared about were wildlife that had been hunted to near extinction. And it was trying to figure out how do we bring those back? Things like mule deer and elk and pronghorn and bighorn sheep and black bear and wild turkey and yeah, even whitetail. ⁓ All of these numbers were deeply suppressed. And so we had this model that was really focused on hunters were the ones consuming the resource. And so the money was gonna go back into helping recover that resource. And I would argue that it's changed a little bit since then, right? And we've talked about this before. And I just wanna layer this on this idea of consumptive versus non-consumptive users, you know, and. It's been a pet peeve. I don't know if it is for you still. It's been a pet peeve of mine for a while and I talk about it every chance I get. In fact, I was at a meeting a couple of weeks ago where I was talking with some state agency folks and we were talking about that. And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, let's work on changing this narrative. Let's not be calling hunters, consumptive users and everybody else non-consumptive users. The recreation community as a whole, those that are getting out and enjoying the outdoors that are wanting to see wildlife. they might be camping, biking, hunting, hiking, wildlife photography, you name it, they're having an impact in some way. They're a consumptive user in some way, shape or form. Everybody's a consumptive user. And so maybe the better way to frame it is, are they a contributing user? Like what are they contributing to wildlife management for the future? So a contributing user versus a non-contributing user. And if you start thinking about it in those lines, and you also start thinking,

Nephi: for sure.

Dave Willms: that maybe the $100 should be going to paying for the management of the hunted species. Like if I pay 50 bucks for a deer tag, I'd love to know that that 50 bucks is going back into mule deer management, right? Yeah, I care about black-footed ferrets and I care about Western meadowlarks and I care about all these other species, but I'd love to see my my hunter dollars go back into hunter conservation. The beauty about this Oregon bill is it's supplementing those other species. Like it's helping to pay for the management of those species that aren't hunted, that aren't fished, but that still need management, which kind of frees up the hunter dollars to go into paying for the management of those species that we're hunting. And in that regard, from that standpoint, there's still an awful lot of power. for the hunting community if the model is built that way to have a lot of influence. So that's the counterpoint to the counterpoint that I wanted to make.

Nephi: Yeah, and if you look at the... So a couple of points on that. And the first one is it's important because even if you look at game animals, you want to know what pays their own way, ⁓ you know this, Dave. But we think about some of the animals that we're really, know, everybody's interested in hunting a bighorn sheep, right? Everyone wants their sheep tag, right? Bighorn sheep just doesn't pay for itself. It costs $2.2 million annually to manage bighorn sheep in the state of Wyoming. They don't get enough money from tags, from license sales. They just don't get

Dave Willms: Yeah, but there aren't a lot of sheep tags. Yeah.

Nephi: the money to be able to run that program. And so that's actually the way it is for the majority of programs, especially the cool ones, the tags that everybody wants. You don't make enough off moose. You don't make enough off bighorn sheep. You don't make enough off mountain goats to be able to pay for the management of those species. So where's the money coming from? Well, the management of those species, the money is coming from deer. It's coming from elk. It's coming from small game licenses. It's coming from these other things. And then when you're doing that, right, you've only the pot of money is only so big. And if you really like elk habitat, just realize that you're giving up elk habitat money for this other stuff. Well, what if you had a different pot of money? What if you had more money to be able to pay for the management of these other species? Would it help your elk habitat? Yeah, you know, it would. And it doesn't matter whether you're getting it from another, you know, from a license or if you're getting it from a third party and you, you mentioned the non, you know, the non-contributing user. So who are the non-contributing user groups? Well, they're the mountain bikers. Right. They are the hikers. They are the bird watchers. They're folks who just assume that if you don't do anything, that wildlife is just going to be there, that habitat is just going to be there. And it's just not the case without some investment in that habitat. Then you're left, you know, you're you're left to like whatever mother nature decides you're going to get, which isn't always.

Dave Willms: Yeah. Remember, remember there's studies out there. Like we're not pulling this out of the ether. There are studies out there that talk about the impact, like how elk and mule deer, for example, respond to human, human activity, as in mountain bikers on trails or hikers on trails or ORV uses use versus, ⁓ Toyota, know, Tundra or Ford F-150 use on a track. Like there are studies that talk about the the impact of those activities, backcountry skiing, they have real displacement impact on wildlife.

Nephi: I mean... One that's close to a lot of hunters hearts. How about shed hunting? You know, these are things that like they they push animals around at vulnerable times of year when they're weak when they you know When you're having an effect and anytime you're putting an animal at a caloric Deficit anytime you're making an animal work harder than it would have had to otherwise work You're affecting the viability of the animal and you're affecting the animals reproductive capability You're affecting its ability to get away from a predator when a predator shows up. And so these are all impacts

Dave Willms: ⁓ yeah, great one.

Nephi: And you know anytime you build a housing development in prime habitat, you know, these are all impacts These are things that are affecting wildlife. And so it makes sense to have other sources of funding But it is important that hunters recognize that there you know Where our reluctance comes from that other people recognize that one of the other fears that I had I mean, this is a real fear this isn't like I think this isn't an imaginary one is with the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. There's been a push nationally from some individuals to remove Pittman-Robertson and to eliminate the Pittman and Robertson contribution. So the Pittman and Robertson tax, that 11 % tax and 10 % tax, depending on what you're talking about in terms of firearms, ammunition, fishing components, things like that, to get rid of that. And the idea is that because it's, you know, ⁓ Contrary to the Second Amendment is what folks would say. I don't think that that's true. know, frankly, I think that that's not a valid argument, but you know, there are people that are making it on the national level. So the concern is one of the things that's kept that from happening is who are Second Amendment advocates who are also hunting advocates saying, no, we need that. We need to be funding our game and fish agencies. We need to be funding Habitat and then the proponents of eliminating the PR tax are saying, well, what if we find you money someplace else? We'll just replace it. And so the concern is, again, it's just something we need to be aware of, is that there is that argument out there of somebody saying, like, let's take money from someplace else, and then we'll eliminate 50%, you know, a billion dollars, $1.3 billion this year. That's what Pittman-Roberson and Dingell-Johnson accounted for this year, is $1.3 billion into conservation. So it's important. What are the other ways that states are making this up? So of course, Oregon, we've got the lodging tax that is awaiting to see if it's going to move forward, the 1.25%. Other states do things like there are states that give game and fish agencies money out of a general appropriation. So they'll cut some money aside and provide that. ⁓ There are states that have secondary taxes, just like the lodging tax. There are states that have taxes on other stuff, recreation taxes. ⁓

Dave Willms: Mm-hmm. like the Montana Weed for Wildlife. They've got a marijuana tax that goes to helping fund their wildlife agency.

Nephi: Weed for wildlife, let's go. ⁓ During the Reagan administration, one of our first episodes, we talked about this, the backpack tax. So there was a proposed national tax by the Reagan administration on other outdoor gear, things like tents, backpacks, and hiking boots. And the idea was that all the users could become contributing users by paying a portion of it. And of course, famously, ⁓ OIA came into existence to fight the backpack tax. So... when you see the primary entity that speaks on behalf of the outdoor industry right now, they were developed and they continue to oppose a specific tax that goes to habitat, that goes to wildlife. that's curious. ⁓ Yeah, decide whatever you want, but you guys should start paying your way, OIA. And then, you know,

Dave Willms: Draw your own conclusions. Hahaha.

Nephi: There's a discussion, you know, there's discussion in every state. And of course, Dave, you know that I am a big fan of the lottery. And so there are states there. Yeah, the Colorado model. And of course, if you if you were in a state, I don't know, that didn't have, for example, scratch ticket lottery. Well, you could do scratch. You could do scratch ticket lottery for wildlife, Dave. No, I just think it's I just think it's a no. It's an idea that has Barrett talk about.

Dave Willms: Yes, I do. The Colorado model. We're not going down this road right now, Nephi. We're not going down that path right now. It's an idea. It's an idea. ⁓ Gambling for, what do you call it? Gambling for grouse? I don't know. It's gotta have some alliteration to it.

Nephi: Yeah. Best one I've heard today. No. I like it. I'm in.

Dave Willms: ⁓ Lottery for loons? ⁓ we don't hunt loons. ⁓ Anyway, there's also ⁓ Missouri. Louisiana, think is another one. Missouri for sure is sort of the famous one. I don't know about that. That could be taken a different way. I don't know if you want to do that. ⁓ Missouri's got this model where they have a nine tenths of one percent sales tax.

Nephi: No. What about bullets for biologists? Ugh.

Dave Willms: that was constitutionally instituted to help pay for wildlife management in that state. And that's been highly successful for them.

Nephi: Yeah, the governor there. Yeah, the governor there famously received the Coleman Award, right Dave? The Golden Lantern, the Coleman Golden Lantern for his work on outdoor recreation. Received it as well as Matt Meade, the governor of Wyoming received the same award, I believe the same year. By far some leaders in conservation and outdoor rec.

Dave Willms: ⁓ yeah. That's right. ⁓ Yeah, so there are and there are license plate checkoffs and there are I can't even I'm trying to think of all the different things. There are a lot of different models out there to help generate additional revenue. But I will say the ones that have been most successful in generating really substantial amounts of revenue have been like the Colorado model with the lottery tax or I don't know if it's lottery tax, lottery revenues, certain percentage of those go into the agency. This sales tax, constitutional sales tax in Missouri. And I suspect this one in Oregon is going to, you're to look back and say, that's pretty significant. And the beauty about a lodging tax, I mean, this is a thing that, know, you we, know, I don't know if you and I have talked about it, but in our circles, we've talked about it a lot. Kind of the beauty about a lodging tax is for the most part, you are It's a tourist tax. It's mostly going to be paid by folks that are visiting the state from someplace else. And if you have an outdoor recreation economy state where outdoor recreation or tourism is one of your biggest industries, like in our state, for example, it's the second biggest industry. I don't know where it is in Oregon, but a lot of Western states, tourism, outdoor rec have been, are growing, big time growing parts of the economy. that can be a pretty significant shot in the arm that is then paid for by those that are coming to the state to see that wildlife. Like that's what they want to see. And so if you're worried about back to your initial point, this is just another counterpoint that I guess I'm sort of thinking of on the spot. But if there's this fear about who's going to have the seat at the table, chances are If it's like this Oregon model where it's largely going to be paid by non-residents, you're not going have a lot of non-residents that are now sitting on the commission with a seat at the table making these wildlife management decisions. It might be a pretty good model.

Nephi: ⁓ No, but it's important, know, to, you know, there are more and more states that are looking at their commissions and how to make sure that those commissions have the best interests of ⁓ wildlife and hunters and sportsmen, ⁓ that they're considering that stuff, which kind of nicely segues into, you know, look at a state like Colorado. You know, Colorado, have, you've had some significant changes in the commission where you had some people that, you know, resigned.

Dave Willms: I going to say the same thing.

Nephi: ⁓ recently and, new seats filled and, and, ⁓ Colorado just took an action where the commission just moved to ban, ⁓ trapping, to, ban, to ban the sale of, ⁓ the commercial use of furs, the commercial use of animal products. So, I want to say...

Dave Willms: Well, yeah, not they didn't ban trapping. Like the commercial, like basically it's a, yeah, I mean, it's, the commission received a petition from the public, right, ⁓ that asked the, so it was a citizen petition to ban the commercial sale of fur. So it was going to prohibit, the proposal would prohibit the sale, barter, or trade of wildlife furs and fur bearer parts statewide. So it doesn't ban trapping, but you could make the argument that it's a backdoor way to banning trapping, effectively, in some ways, effectively eliminating trapping. Because a lot of trapping is done for commercial purposes, right?

Nephi: It eliminates it, right? Because the idea is that... Yeah, and in that way, it's different than hunting. So when we look at hunting, everybody knows that you can't sell game meat, right? There's not a question about that. Trapping is different. Trapping has always been, well, I don't know. I don't know what I would say. It's generally, much more common. It's common for to be commercial in nature, right? If people are trapping, they're harvesting an animal via trapping, and then, What are they doing with that? In many cases, they're utilizing the pelts from that or ⁓ the products from that for some commercial purpose. ⁓ You can't do that with hunting and meat. You certainly can with trapping. In fact, that's part of the paradigm.

Dave Willms: Yeah, it's I mean, I've heard people make this argument that that being able to sell you know, fur, for example, is counter to the North American model of wildlife management. you know, that you shouldn't, wildlife shouldn't be used for commercial purposes, right? That's sort of one of the, I don't have the tenants right in front of me, but I believe that's one of them, or close to it, something like that. And so it creates a tricky, like a kind of a sticky spot, but remember the North American model is,

Nephi: Yeah.

Dave Willms: I'm ⁓ going to take some heat for saying it this way. North American model ⁓ is a theory of management put on paper by academics in the early 2000s. It's not a law anywhere. It's an analysis of how wildlife has been managed in modern times since the turn of the 20th century and identifies

Nephi: That's right. That's right. No. It's a convenient way for us

Dave Willms: Yeah, and identifies what the main principles of that management structure are, right?

Nephi: Yeah, tenants that work, tenants that allow it to work. But it'd be a mistake for anybody to think that in the 1930s or 1800s or something, we came up with this idea, like, you know what we're going to develop? The North American model. And it's going to have A, B, C, D, and E. That's what makes it work. That's just not the case. The reality of how the North American model, you know, we call it the North American model, but it's something that we've built over a hundred years. It's something that's changed slightly. There's been nuance. There's been. some differences to it. There have been things that we've worked ⁓ on. I think ⁓ it's interesting, and I don't know, Dave, the idea, again, ⁓ I think we all know that you can't have a commercial market for wild game meat. So let's just say that right up front. There's no doubt about it. You're going to get prosecuted if you're shooting elk and then you're selling elk at your restaurant that you shot, or that your neighbor shot. You bought from him. You're going to get prosecuted. That's the reality. ⁓ If you bought a set of antlers from somebody,

Dave Willms: Yeah, also, what about a shoulder mount? You can, you can sell those. Right.

Nephi: It's not the same thing. And that's the issue. You know, we've got people now with this, they're saying that it is the same. It's not. know, these, we've come to these specific moratoriums on things for a reason. And so when you look at the North American Mald, you have to realize that there wasn't like a hard and fast rule. It's not like the 10 commandments, thou shalt not steal. And then suddenly, you're like everything bases around that. No. You came to the specific regulation based on a need for a management objective and a management goal. You need to look at what was the actual goal of the North, whatever we want to call it. What was the management objective that Game and Fish set out to do? Well, they wanted to keep people from killing animals, just shooting a ton of deer and then selling the meat at market. And so what did they do? They banned that. Why?

Dave Willms: Right. And you also had, at the same time, had things like passenger pigeons that were killed by the millions and ultimately to extinction in the early 1900s and largely killed for market, to take into market for sale, for commercial sale.

Nephi: The specific management restriction is prescriptive to stop a harm. It's prescriptive for a given use, for a given problem. And we can't lose sight of that within game and fish agencies or within the user community. When we pass laws outlawing the law of something, I don't care what it is. We're doing that for a reason. You don't just have a blanket where you say, we're banning this concept of everything forever. No. What's the reason? What are we trying to protect? What are we trying to do? What is our statutory charge? How do we get there? Our statutory charge for conservation of the species required that we do this thing. And so we passed that law. We make those changes. We pass national laws. We pass state laws to fix these things. We are not beholden to where they were. And this is important because we're going to have new things come up. We're going to see new technologies. We're going to see stuff that is going to show up and we're going to say like, how does that fit into the management paradigm? We have to look at those things and we have to regulate them appropriately accordingly when they show up. Why does this have anything to do with trapping? Because frankly, we need to man. We need trapping as a management tool. Trapping is a tool that we need on the ground for management. And people selling furs so that you can have a beaver hat from Stetson, right? That does not represent an area of concern for conservation of any species. We have the management in place. The paradigm works, allowing trappers to commercially utilize fur for, or, you know, or people to sell parts of, you know, pheasant feathers for fly fishing. None of these things represent a conservation concern. don't, like, we're on top of it. The commissions are on top of it.

Dave Willms: Yeah, let me take it one step farther, which is the wildlife management should be science based. I mean, you want to talk about that's not just a tenant or the North American model, but that's actually built into most statutes in most states, science based management. And so there are existing authorities under every state's law. already where if a certain activity is causing and if it's trapping and that trapping is causing muskrat populations or beaver populations or I mean pick the trapped species populations to decline significantly ⁓ then there's a mechanism built in under the science-based management model within the statute for the the agency and the commission to correct that on their own and to say the data, the science doesn't support continuing this practice. So they already have that tool to do it. what they're, instead of a science-based management decision, what we're looking at here is an emotionally-based management decision through a citizen petition that just says, we don't like this practice, so we don't think you should do it anymore. And that can be, harmful to wildlife management. ⁓ You know, that's I guess the precise way I'd describe it.

Nephi: It's not just a can. It is harmful because you're stepping away from, again, the perception versus the reality. You're looking at a little tiny piece of the picture. And I get it. When you look at one specific, when you look at Dave the Otter and Frank the Beaver, right? That's what people are thinking about. And that's what the advocates of the band are thinking about is they're thinking about, what about this specific? And they're not looking at the whole picture. They're not looking at what is. population of wildlife is a renewable resource. And it's a resource that has to be managed as such. Well, what happens if you, let's just say in the state of Colorado, let's just say you make it so there's no commercial viable use for trapping, right? Well, then if you're an agency that has depended on trapping to control anything, whatever it might be, you now have two choices. You're now going to have to hope that people do it for free, right? That they're, what's...

Dave Willms: Yeah.

Nephi: What's the motivation now, the trapper to help you do your management job? Because that's the reality. When you look at hunters and trappers, they are helping agencies manage wildlife populations. What do they get from it? Well, if you're a hunter, what do you get from it? Well, you get a freezer full of awesome food, great protein. You get the experiences, right? Let's just pretend we take that away. Or trappers, let's pretend we take away it. their motivation, is, you know, they, you know, sell a beef repel to somebody. Well, now the agencies, now you're going to pay for it. Now taxpayers will pay for it because

Dave Willms: Going back to that first point about who's paying for wildlife management and the strains on the system. Yeah.

Nephi: Yep. You'll pay for it when you go to the grocery store or you'll pay for it your property taxes. You'll pay for it because the agency still has to manage the population at the level that they were. How are they managing it before they manage the numbers of hunters and trappers in the field?

Dave Willms: or yeah or Yeah. was saying, or the other thing is that your money that you were paying for that deer license now has to go to pay for, for, you know, trapping in certain places, controlling places where, where you have some conflict issues.

Nephi: controlling something else. Because he used to have, and that's exactly the issue, is he used to have this factor, again, people getting wrapped around the axle about, I listened to some of the discussion from the people on that commission in Colorado, and they were discussing like, well, they had looked at the North American model and like, this isn't like that. And the issue is they're looking at it through a straw. ⁓ Right? They're looking at a circle. They're looking at it through, ⁓ you know, a toilet paper tube, trying to, you know, looking at the world through that viewpoint and failing to recognize that there are different motivations and it's okay for there to be different motivations. And then the mechanism is different for the management piece and the control that you had to have there. And if you, you know, you just, you can't treat all these things exactly the same because they're not the same. I'm really disappointed in the commission's decision. think it's a big mistake and I think it's a bad precedent. here's the other thing that's funny, Dave. You know, of course, that this was on, you know, they snuck this in back door, right? They went to the commission with this petition because last year they tried to ban it. That's exactly right. Now this has happened in other states before and it frustrates me to no end where, you know, this has happened in the state of Wyoming. You had people who

Dave Willms: I'm too. Because they keep losing. They lost at the ballot. Yeah, that's exactly right. Yeah.

Nephi: Like they failed to convince the public. They failed to convince the legislature. They failed to convince a broader group. But if you get enough squeaky wheels at the commission meeting, they convinced the commissioners and you and I know this. Yeah. You, you, you, you and I, know that like, this is, I hate this because the commission should be making these decisions based on science, right? Not based on politics. And if they fail to do that, then you're opening the door.

Dave Willms: But sometimes it goes both ways.

Nephi: for what you absolutely hate. And you know that I am on this, which is like, if somebody's saying, you know what I want to do? I want to be able to control who's on that commission. I want to be able, like, if they cannot be trusted to be scientific and honest and above the fray, then you got to have, then game on. We should be able to get them changed. And so, you know, that's, you know, and that's the problem is like in a perfect world, our commissions would not be, you know, somebody comes in with a different political persuasion, changes three members of the commission, and then pushes something through the commission that the general populace wouldn't support at the, you know, either through the legislature or at the ballot. And, you know, this is politicization of the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife's commission.

Dave Willms: ⁓ for sure. And if they were not successful here, you know the next thing they do though. So they're going to the commission here after losing that mountain lion fight. they started with the commission with the mountain lion fight too, and lost there and then went to the legislature and lost there and then went and did a ballot initiative. So watch out, because that could be the next path here, except it seems like the commission's in a spot where they're going to say, now we're just going let this happen. You're not going to have to go to the legislature. You're not going to have to do a ballot initiative and take it.

Nephi: and went to the ballot and lost there.

Dave Willms: before the public, we're gonna do it right here and we're gonna ignore our statutory charge of science-based management. But I will say it's not over yet. Okay, so this vote was six to four to move forward with the recommendation and to move forward with rulemaking. There still has to be rules drafted and formal rules adopted by the commission. And I believe the next opportunity then it'll go back before the commission in May. So there'll be more opportunity for public comment. There'll be more opportunity to try and see if, try and convince the commission to change course on this. It's not a done deal yet.

Nephi: Now let's talk about how bad rulemaking is. Let's talk about why I hate rulemaking. So for those that don't know, here's what rulemaking is. And Colorado is big on this. Colorado opens up a lot of discretion for agencies to do things that lawmakers don't want to be responsible for having made the decision on. And so what is rulemaking? Rulemaking means that rather than take it before the legislature and pass a bill or requirement or restriction ⁓ within a group of elected officials, instead you pass something that's very broad, and then you hand it to an agency and you go to the state agency, you give them quote unquote rulemaking authority. And then what do they do? They're going to decide the nuts and bolts of it. And so you've taken that, you know, there's, there's really good and bad about that. The bad is, you know, you're not going to talk about it and the same way in a public forum. The good is at least then you have people who are typically professionals in that space who are developing the rules, laws, regulation in that space. But you'll look at some states where the level of rulemaking, the types of fines, all those things, ⁓ they can give state agencies a whole, whole lot of power to make decisions that you would never get across the desks of legislators, across the governor's desk with a signature on it, because it would be too politically unpopular. Yeah, it's headed for rulemaking and how do you play in the rulemaking process? You have to show up to those meetings. You have to have those discussions. And for good or bad, here's what happens in the rulemaking process. Typically, people who are more expert in the area are going to have a lot more leverage in rulemaking. So if you are a wildlife professional, if you are a trapper, if you belong to one of those organizations, If you are willing to put in the work, your voice becomes much louder in the rulemaking process than it was in say, a ballot initiative. Why? Because there just aren't gonna be as many people weighing in in the room. And there's only 100 people in the room instead of a thousand, your voice carries more weight. That's good and bad. You know, it's good because your voice can carry more weight. It's bad because the exact same thing happens for the people that think the exact opposite of you. It takes less of them to make their voice heard in that instance as well. So it's really incumbent upon you to show up.

Dave Willms: Yup. Being there in person to public meetings, submit public comments, talk to NGOs that might be going in, get your thoughts in through them too, because they'll be, you know, hunting organizations and so forth to come in and weigh in as well. Lots of, lots of ways to weigh in, but you can't, you can't go silent on it, right? It's silence is, ⁓ is death on the rulemaking process. The surest way to not get any changes made is to just. throw your hands up and say I'm not going to comment, not going to participate.

Nephi: Yeah, or to get, And not just any changes made, the surest way to like make sure that somebody else's ideas are there. And that's, and you'll find that with every game fish agency. So there you go. That's probably enough on the Colorado commission.

Dave Willms: Yeah, so we've gone Oregon, we've gone to Colorado. Do you want to bounce over to Idaho for a couple minutes?

Nephi: Might as well, what's more fun than Idaho?

Dave Willms: ⁓ I don't know. There's fun stuff in Idaho. There's fun stuff in Wyoming. There's fun stuff. There's just lots of stuff going on because state legislatures are in really all over the place right now. So there's just a lot of stuff going on right now in a lot of different states.

Nephi: Well, Idaho has had some interesting stuff going on in Idaho. So of course, Idaho is a state that has a lot of, you know, Western big game issues. There's some predatory issues because of course it's in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, least a little corner of it. And so one of the things that Idaho has been earnestly working on is like they have a great technology working group where their game and fish agency sits down with a bunch of different stakeholders and talks about, you know, tech and hunting space. And I will say some of the stuff they come up with, I think is nuts and some of it's really good. So congratulations Idaho on being ⁓ either a crazy or B very smart or both things at the same time, but they have a great governor's office. have a great commission. have great staff there. ⁓ But yeah, they were working on a technology bill that ⁓ had a, you know, some discussions about ⁓ technology. And my guess is they're going to have to work on it again.

Dave Willms: Yeah, that's what it's seeming like that they're gonna have to work on it again. Some of the technology, I might get, it included a lot of stuff and I don't have it pulled up, but it was looking to restrict the use of certain technologies during hunting season. Things like cellular trail cams, things like thermal ⁓ and night vision ⁓ technologies. I'm probably missing a couple, but those types of technologies that, you know, if you're hunting elk or deer, pronghorn, you know, there's this, if you adhere to fair chase principles, you know, there's an argument to be made that some of those technologies give you a significant advantage and kind of cut against the fair chase ⁓ ethic that. hunters are taught to adhere to.

Nephi: The Idaho bill was transmitting trail cameras, thermal and night vision drones, certain scopes, and then traditional cameras is like the notes that I have. And so some of them may be wrong. So Keely, when you read this, you can tell me how it was wrong. But hey, but yeah, think this is a topic that's hot in a bunch of states. It's not just Idaho.

Dave Willms: It

Nephi: I got a call from a reporter with CBS ⁓ last year asking me about the controversy associated with the use of ⁓ thermal and night vision and big game hunting. And he wanted to talk about the conflict and controversy within the hunting community. And I stopped him immediately. said, look, not the case. There's not conflict. And I maintain that. There's not conflict. When it comes to big game hunting, big game animals, there's not conflict. There's consensus. limited. Elk deer. Yep. Yep. The desirable tag. Yep. Yep.

Dave Willms: And when you talk big game, we're talking like, think of big ungulates, right? Like elk, deer, pronghorn, mule deer, whitetail deer, ⁓ bighorn sheep, mountain goats, moose, like those, that's what you're talking about. Yeah.

Nephi: Yeah, there's consensus. You're not gonna find big game hunters with, there'll be notable exceptions and it's gonna be somebody that doesn't, know, they're, I mean, I can go on to why they have the exceptions, but it's just not the case. The consensus is this, there's not a place for thermal in a hunting elk. There's just not, you know? And so why is that? Well, you know, I've tried to, I tried to wrap my head around this and explain it in a way that he could understand so that people could understand. But frankly, you had to help him understand, first of all, that there's a difference between ⁓ big game hunting for something like a trophy elk and ⁓ controlling ⁓ feral animals. so, you know, non-native species, because we call them the same thing, right? If somebody goes out and they are trying to eliminate feral hogs in Texas, what do they call it? hog hunting, right? We don't call it something different. We don't differentiate it. But anybody who's a hunter knows that it's a different thing. know, going out in the middle of the night to eliminate an animal that kills baby deer and eats, you know, nesting birds, eggs and all that kind of yeah, it just destroys stuff and is not a native, you know, that's, was, it was, you know, is, that is reproducing and there's more of them on accident, not on purpose. You know, we are not

Dave Willms: Mm-hmm. and just ravages landscapes and habitat of other things, yeah.

Nephi: When we talk about Pittman-Robertson and we're spending our money to provide habitat and opportunity for, it's not feral hogs.

Dave Willms: It's for the stuff that's always been here, right? The native stuff that's always been here for thousands of years that we want to see here for thousands more.

Nephi: And one of the best tools that we can use, so I actually had this discussion with a really close personal friend who works for a federal agency that controls ⁓ feral hawks in a bunch of states. And we were having this discussion about what makes the federal guys more effective. So if you take ⁓ a federal wildlife control specialist out and you allow them, to depopulate hogs in an area, what tools do think they're using?

Dave Willms: Well, I mean, I presume Tannerite just lots and lots of Tannerite. No, but a lot of, would, I would assume a lot of thermal. Yep. Yep. Exactly.

Nephi: Yeah, but they're using a lot of thermal, a lot of thermal and light beam trapping, but the most effective tools, they're using the most effective tools. And so there was discussion, they said, well, you know, private individuals, they're not that effective at it. It's like, that's not true. If you give them the same tools, the public hunter is effective at controlling the same things. And that is the case when you give them the same tools. Those tools don't have a place in the big game woods. why and this is where I've come you know I've come to start to talk about and I'll be on a panel at the North American Dave with Boone and Crockett and some other folks talking about this about technology.

Dave Willms: I hope I can watch that panel. I've got a bunch of stuff. I'm doing a couple of special sessions and panels myself. So hopefully, hopefully it don't overlap. Cause everybody's gonna wanna come watch my panel. I want you to have an audience.

Nephi: I hope you don't. I hope you don't. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure. What's yours going to be on? So anyway, the concern is this. And this is where the fishing community we're going to have some interesting discussions with. There's no place for elk radar. We shouldn't have that thing. So when we're talking about technologies for big game hunting and fair chase. If you couldn't find the elk before with the tools that you had when you popped out of the womb, then you shouldn't be able to buy a new tool that helps you find it. Thermal, it's one of those tools. Yeah, that's interesting discussion. And we're not gonna pass by like where that ship has sailed, But you're just augmenting, but that's still your visible spectrum. That's what you can naturally see. You didn't now suddenly...

Dave Willms: Except for binoculars. Yeah, I know, I But, yeah.

Nephi: And animals know that you can naturally see that because it's their natural eyesight, it's your natural eyesight. You didn't give yourself some magical ability to see, you did not give yourself elk radar by buying a set of binoculars.

Dave Willms: Well, no. And I think about this with the thermal piece. I've thought about this some, we've talked about this, you and I just offline before, but I thought about my own elk hunting experience this year. And remember how I told you when I, and I was successful, I got this elk, but I saw one cow. I saw one cow grazing in a ⁓ pine regeneration, know, post fire regen. one cow and I spent half an hour or so getting myself right, getting the wind right, putting on a sneak. It was my last day of the hunt. I'm like, I'm gonna shoot this cow. And I saw her, I would peek up and see her repeatedly. She was still grazing in the direction I was moving. And I was trying to get myself positioned to cut her off as she was working up this hill. And even when I got into position and I... got myself a good rest. And I'm like, I'm gonna shoot this cow. And I didn't see any other elk. And then all of a sudden, this bull comes charging out from below her and chases her off. And then I hit the cow call and he freezes and I'm like, well, I guess I'm gonna shoot him instead. And so I shot this bull. And then I shot that bull. And it turns out one elk became two and two became about 30. And if I'd had thermals, I would have probably known before I put the sneak on just how many elk were there. And I don't know that that's right. I had an awesome experience of just the woods opening up on me that I wouldn't have had otherwise also. But also it just would have felt really, really unfair.

Nephi: Yeah, that. Yeah, we shouldn't be using technology to give ourselves an ability that we don't naturally have. And that's across the board. If you look at that, look at transmitting trail cameras, right? If we're going to use AI, right? We're in a new world of technology. If we're going to have little robot Daves and little robot Nephys that are out there, and little robots doing the work for us so that we don't have to be there anymore, that's it. That's what we're talking about. That doesn't have a place on in in the big game field. ⁓ If we're going to give ourselves eyesight that we don't naturally have, wouldn't it be cool if we had a scent detector, right? ⁓ These are drones, right? We're giving ourselves the ability, now we're flying. Now we're flying and we have eyesight too. These are things that they don't have a place. And that's OK. Is there a place for those tools? You bet. There's a place for those tools. What's the place for those tools? Well, transmitting trail cam, there's an awesome way to see wildlife, to manage wildlife, to see where stuff's going, to figure out where you're to do habitat improvements, to, you know, it's a great way to track a lot of stuff, but it doesn't have a place there. Thermal and night vision, absolutely a tool that should be on the table. What should it be on the table for? It should absolutely be on the table for ⁓ predators. and which is one of the issues that they had in Idaho, right? Is because when they included in the use of areas where you couldn't use this stuff, they included wolves, which while a trophy animal in Idaho, ⁓ kind of a predator. so, you know, ⁓ but there's a place for that. There's also a place, I mean, I would argue for thermal, there's a great place for thermal after you take a big game animal. So let's say you pull the trigger and now you've got a

Dave Willms: ⁓ to find it?

Nephi: Yep, you've got a dead animal someplace and you need to find it. Absolutely phenomenal place for thermal. The problem is you need to make sure that people aren't using inappropriately first, not using elk radar to find a live elk that they should be, when they should just be using their binoculars. So this is a challenging area. It's gonna be an area that we need to stay on top of that we have to talk about, but we need to acknowledge that there are. appropriate uses for these technologies and there's places where we shouldn't have them. And we need to be able to identify the difference. One of the things that I like, you know, I'm going to talk about on this panel is active versus passive. You know, as we move into technology and we move into these areas, what are the things, you know, what are the things that we're asking machines to do for us that we couldn't naturally do? I call that active. And that's where we don't, you know, that's when we don't need it. So whether it's finding the stuff for you, whether it's pulling the trigger for you, all those things. or active uses of technology that don't know they have, they don't have a place in fair chase. That said, do they have a place in wildlife management? Yeah, they probably do in different areas, right? There's since there's situations where you're going to have depredation, ⁓ what you're going to have control, where you're going to have almost like we talked about trapping where there are areas where, where our management decisions are going to lead us to say like, Hey, for this purpose, we need to have access to the more effective tool, that's okay. But that's a different world. And we need to make sure that we have, I think, a clear bright line between those two worlds.

Dave Willms: All right. We've talked to Oregon. We've talked Colorado. We've talked to Idaho, but we're also at the one hour mark. And I had a thought on the one we were going to talk about. And I actually think I don't think we should talk about it. I think we should find a guest. I think we should bring on the sponsor to talk about.

Nephi: Okay. That's a great idea, I like that. Next time.

Dave Willms: Yeah. So I think maybe that's what we do and hold off on one until next time and see if we can't track down the sponsor of this particular bill, see if they might be able to come on and talk a little bit about it themselves, why they want to do it, all that sort of thing. I think you know who I'm talking about, ⁓ but I'm not going to say it out loud right now. Yeah, I know you do. Do you have anything else? I don't know that I got anything else.

Nephi: ⁓ I know what it is. No, I hope this works out good. know, it felt a little bit clunky, I think, because we're, I think, you with the tech, I think we're still, I think for everybody, like we're more entertaining than this. But this is our first go with the tech. And so I'm a little bit distracted. Maybe you are too. We're to make sure that this all works. We're going to kick it out there for you. Yeah. But it was good to see you, Dave. It was nice to talk about some issues and let's talk again next week.

Dave Willms: Are we? I don't know that we... No, likewise. I love it. I love it. Let's do that. ⁓ And as always, everybody remember that life is about experiences. So go have one.