Dave Willms: I start. All right. I'm going to.

Nephi: Well, I think that that's typically how this would work. Somebody has to. It's usually you. You might as well. mean, we're on the stupid computer. We could just sit here all day.

Dave Willms: Can we clip this part? All right, all all right, fine. Hey everybody, welcome back to another episode of the Your Mountain podcast. ⁓ I'm your host David Wilms, Nephi Cole, co-host extraordinaire. ⁓ Still learning this new technology. Didn't know how we were doing the countdown, the count in for, or whatever we call it.

Nephi: No, I don't know how. I don't know how. Hi Dave. Don't the numbers pop up on your screen too? See, I don't need to go like... I know, we don't need to do that anymore because the machine does it for us. holds up like it does like a countdown timer for us. Why would I do... It would do a countdown timer, then I'd do a countdown timer.

Dave Willms: Yeah, but in the past, if you go three, then you wait for three seconds and then you start. So now there's just this giant mistake at the beginning of this. That's beautiful. We're one giant mistake anyway, I think, so it makes sense. And we're starting the whole podcast about, you know, talking about mistakes we've made. Maybe that'll be the theme.

Nephi: ⁓ well. ⁓ Mistakes, yeah. Yeah, we screwed up real. Sorry. We screwed up

Dave Willms: Yeah, maybe we should just.

Nephi: It happens. There's the disclaimer. I had a, there was another guy that called me the other night. We were talking about, was like in October you said, and I was like, I don't remember what I said yesterday. How do you expect me to remember what I said in October? Like just, just like, sorry.

Dave Willms: Yeah, but we weren't, we weren't wrong about that. This, this one, we...

Nephi: I don't remember. I don't even know what I said. I didn't go back and listen to it. I just tried to get back. I was like, now, what do you think that I said? Let's let's talk through that because it's just like, I don't remember.

Dave Willms: I think maybe on this one we were just incomplete, is maybe the way I just... We had one fairly significant error in saying that a bill had died. It's not dead and it really isn't a bill.

Nephi: Mm It's not dead yet. So. Sorry, Idaho. Sorry, department. Sorry, department. We, you know, ⁓ in fact, the funny part was I had I was at Idaho lobbying another bill like I was there for a different thing. And I like I look and on the like on the agenda for this committee, I'm just walking past this committee or I'm like, ⁓ hey, look, we just talked about that. I'd better go in and listen. So.

Dave Willms: Ha ha ha ha And you go in and listen and you're like, this sounds like it's not dead. ⁓

Nephi: There I was. And like, no, sounds like it's alive to me. Then had some friends from the department in there, some friends of yours. We all talked a lot. It was great. Other than the part about having to say like, yeah, you might not want to listen to our podcast this week where we say that this doesn't exist anymore because clearly it does. And what that is is...

Dave Willms: it's out there. It still might not exist, but let's revisit it. Right.

Nephi: Well, I mean, it's not dead yet and it probably won't officially be dead for a couple of weeks. Cause what it is, is we talked about it is the, it's actually the rules. It's a new sets of rules that are coming out from Idaho game and fish department, specifically dealing with ⁓ technology. And so these rules that we, you know, we had run into the assumption that, that this package was, it was gone. wasn't, it was just waiting to be heard. so now. It's been heard in committee, ⁓ but it doesn't look like it's moving. It's impopular with some very important lawmakers in that state. And so it looks like that those rules are not going to gain the approval. That's what we think. But technically they're not dead yet. Somebody might call this a pocket veto or say they're in the desk or they just haven't been moved and it doesn't look likely that they will. but technically they're not dead. And so what those rules dealt with, go ahead.

Dave Willms: So yeah, I was going to say before you get to what the, was going to get to a little background about what, where this came from. And then you can talk about the, you know, the specifics of it, but at the highest level, was hunters and others are starting to have concerns from a fair chase and ethic hunting ethics standpoint about some of the new hunting technology that that's been hitting the market recently over the past several years. Right.

Nephi: Yes.

Dave Willms: And like, is this appropriate to be used in, hunting in Idaho and other States are grappling with this too. We're just talking about Idaho because it's ripe right now. And because of that, the Idaho fish and game department in 2024, create created this hunting and advanced technology group, otherwise called the hat group and brought together like various interests. And I think it was about two dozen people came to the table. And the idea was, you know, they went through meetings, learning sessions, information gathering, a lot of discussion and came up with some recum set of recommendations that they sent to the fish and game commission in the spring of 2025. And a couple of the recommendations were unanimous and a couple of them had. nearly unanimous support, but not complete support. And that information and those recommendations served as the basis for this rulemaking that the department undertook about the use of various technologies in hunting. And that rulemaking in Idaho had to be approved by the legislature, both chambers of the House and the Senate of the legislature. And so that's where we are right now is that the approval process of those regulations that were created through this public process. And it's created some controversy. So maybe we should talk about what some of those proposals are and maybe that's where you were gonna go, like what some of the technologies are and proposals in those regs that are being considered and yeah.

Nephi: Yeah, specifically they were talking about ⁓ drones, transmitting trail cameras and thermals are some of the more ⁓ controversial things. so, and the funny thing is, night vision, and night vision and thermal, like I would be, they're not the same thing, but like everybody treats them like they're the same thing. ⁓ Yeah, they are different and here's how they're different. Night vision is just for those who don't know, we'll geek out now. Night vision.

Dave Willms: And night vision, think, too, Yeah. That's why said a separate thing, because they're different.

Nephi: is simply the augmentation of existing real light. So what you're doing is you're just amplifying light many, many, many, many times so you can just walk around and, you know, with you've got your goggles on, it looks like daytime. Thermal gives you the ability to read a different signature of light that you could not normally see. It would be, you read heat. And so basically what you can feel, you we all feel, you get close to a stove, you feel the heat, right? Well, that's because radiation is coming off of that. And if you get the right sensor, you can feel the radiation coming off of every object, hot or cold. So that gives you the ability, even if there's zero light, as long as something is radiating energy or not radiating energy, it allows you to build an image off that. So that's thermal and that's how thermal works. They're pretty different in their application because what thermal allows you to do typically thermal lets you, ⁓ it lets you. detect something that you maybe could not detect before. And that's the main advantage of thermal. It's detection, right? ⁓ Night vision doesn't typically allow you to detect something. It gives you better eyesight, right? It allows you to see in the darkness. But if something was camouflaged in the real world, it's camouflaged under night vision. It's just, you're seeing the world in gray. But you're seeing it like an animal with a better vision capability would be able to see it at night. Thermal, you're seeing something that nothing on Earth can see. It's allowing you, sometimes I'll say it's like deer radar. That's what you're getting when you... No, predators can't see thermal. ⁓ the predator, yeah. But if you remember, he only sees it when his mask is on. Remember? Yeah.

Dave Willms: The can see it, I think. No, no, the predator. Like, remember the movie? The predator. Like, if the predator's out there, like... That's true. Yeah, that's true.

Nephi: Because it's just like real thermal like when the predator takes off his mask to fight Arnold Schwarzenegger mono and mono. That's not thermal anymore. Now he's just now he's see which is this is exactly how hunting should be Dave. Let's create the corollary. There's consensus here. There's there's consensus. It's not you know there's some folks that are concerned about this. The consensus on thermal is this. It's just like when the predator wanted to fight Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Dave Willms: You

Nephi: and he wanted it to be fair, what did he do? Takes off the mask, right? He makes himself visible. Well, that's kind of, think, how we've come to a consensus on hunting big game. If you're using technology that gives you an unfair advantage over the big game, AKA the predator with the invisible suit and the thermal, I think we all agree that that's not a fair way to fight Arnold Schwarzenegger. Whether Arnold Schwarzenegger is Arnold Schwarzenegger or an elk. And there's actually wild consensus on this across the hunting spectrum. If you're hunting big game, if it's that mono mono fair chase hunt, then these tools, the consensus is they don't belong on the table and it doesn't matter whether it's thermal or, you know, ⁓ know, thermal or night vision or ⁓ drones, right? These things like that's not their place. Do they have a place? Well, sure they have a place. They have a place in things like ⁓ And I think we talked about this on our last episode and things like, know, feral animal control and all. Yeah. But, you know, here's the problem and here's what they ran into in Idaho. Here's the why is the argument is because there are folks that believe that the rules are because of the way that they were crafted and because of some statutory limitations in Idaho, they're applied too broadly. Right. So people are saying like, well, we agree that you shouldn't have these tools when you're going to chase

Dave Willms: We did. Errol Hoggs. Yeah.

Nephi: giant bull elk. That said, ⁓ there are folks that believe that if you're trying to control wolves, that thermal should be on the table. And so that's where it's caught up. You have this issue where the rule, because it's applied so broadly, you've lost the key constituency that you need in order to get the rule over the hump.

Dave Willms: Well, and let's talk about that just really briefly. in Idaho, so the way the regulation is written, the way the rules written that's before the legislature, no person shall take big game animals. And it gives you with, and I'll just use drones for as an example. ⁓ no, let's use night vision as an example. It's pretty, pretty straightforward. No person may take big game animals from August 30th through December 31st with night vision technology, including for scouting, hunting, or retrieval. Okay. Seems pretty straightforward, but the, before we get to the details of it, but the, the term big game animals, big game is big game animals is actually a defined term in Idaho statute and an Idaho statute. Big game animals includes mule deer, white tail deer, elk, moose, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, sort of Rocky mountain, bighorn sheep, California, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, black bear, mountain lion.

Nephi: And you know what?

Dave Willms: And gray wolf, and it's that particularly that very last one gray wolf that, seems to be the thing that folks are circling and, saying, you know, we're, we're on board with a lot of this other, this other stuff, but, know, for, for, for population control purposes, like, and, Idaho has a bunch of statutes about, you know, managing wolf populations, right. And, trying to keep them at a certain level and, and needing. You know, I think the argument in Idaho is you need a whole bundle of sticks of methods in order to try and control wolf populations. And so this is one of the things people want to use, right?

Nephi: Yeah, you know, Dave, some people might say that they screwed up in how they started. Because, I mean, the issue is if you're taking some things that are dissimilar and you're trying to apply similar rules to dissimilar things, well, that might not work the best. And so something very similar and yet very dissimilar happened in Wyoming, right? Wyoming doesn't have the same argument. Why? Because Wyoming has a dual designation for wolves in the state of Wyoming. Wolves inside a certain area, they are managed as what? A trophy end.

Dave Willms: Well, but they're even different, even another subset. So Wyoming's got big game, but then there's a subset that's trophy game. And then we have another category that's predator. So whereas Idaho has all of these species listed as big game, Wyoming has a, Wyoming has a separate category of trophy game that would be bighorn sheep, you know, ⁓ what bighorn sheep, mountain goat, ⁓ grizzly bear, wolf, mountain lion, right? Trophy game.

Nephi: Yes. Yes, but even then, everything's jumbled together. Yeah. And so the, but again, the issue here is what I'm trying to draw attention to is the predator designation, right? Where in Wyoming, it's the predator designation. And when you've got something like a predator where you're saying, look, the only way to effectively hunt these things is at night. And the only tools to effectively do that. And if you ask, you know, the professionals at the animal plant health inspection service, USDA, APHIS, wildlife services, what they're going to use to go after things that are walk around at night and hide like

Dave Willms: Sure, no, I get you.

Nephi: feral hogs like coyotes, what are they going to use? They're going to use thermals. And so the problem is if you take this class of animals that are predators, you're saying we have to control the numbers and you put them into the wrong area and you take the tools off the table that are effective for management, that's where they're running into this kind of debate about like, well, what do we do in this case? And I would say that... once again, think that they tried to throw the blanket too broad. And that's happened before. There are other states that have done this. I actually think one state that's a good example of ⁓ doing it right versus doing it wrong. And again, the issue is that when you're trying to create a rule and you're applying it too broadly, you're just not going to have the right tool for the job. You're hitting something with a hammer when you need a scalpel to address it. And ⁓ Utah did something similar to this recently. And at first, I was critical of it. And now I kind of wonder if it's not the right approach, which is ⁓ tailoring. Utah had an area where they had too many applicants and a lot of pressure in a given hunt area for mule deer. And they Lots of people wanted to go to hunt mule deer there and Utah was trying to figure out, okay, well, how do we get more people in there? Well, and what they did is they elected to limit the types of weapons that they would allow to be used for the hunt in that area, which ⁓ they pushed people towards more traditional weapons. And at first I was, you know, I had some thoughts about like, it was all about the optics on the type of rifle that people were using. And at first I kind of questioned that, but now, I actually think it was kind of brilliant. The idea that they said, you know what we're not going to do? We're not going to pat, we're not going to sit down as a commission and create one rule to rule them all, all across the state. We're going to, we're going to use specific tools in these given areas and allow these things to be used and a more, you know, in a more tailored basis. And I think that that's what they're going to have to do. I think with thermals in Idaho with regards to wolves, they're going to have to make sure that they leave some things on the table and it doesn't have to be all the time. And that's the things like you don't have to craft a rule across the board and says, Hey, nobody can ever use a thermal for holes. can say like, you know, during this time of year in these areas, you can't use them. And in these other areas for these purposes, you can. And I think that that's, know, they they've kind of done that. And so don't want to, it's, it's more complex than I'm making it. But I think as they, as, as agencies take that approach, and that more specific approach to dealing with the issues, I think you're going to get better results and you do build the coalitions that you need to pass this type of rule.

Dave Willms: Well, go back, don't listen to our podcast last week about it. Listen to it, but no, it was incomplete and maybe slightly inaccurate because we did say we thought it had died. It might still, right? These regs might still die. ⁓ But as of right now, they're alive. They're being debated. All right. I don't have...

Nephi: No, do listen to it though. We're imperfect. ⁓

Dave Willms: I don't have any more on that. You have any more on that?

Nephi: Probably, but I should stop.

Dave Willms: We got a few other things to talk about I think so maybe we stop for a second I'm gonna go quick on one and This is partially because it's fresh and I haven't even had a chance to review the complaint on this in its entirety So we're just kind of teeing this up and and we may end up talking about this more but in let's move north from Idaho to Alaska so In Alaska, we've talked about this before. There's been for a number of years, actually for probably for decades, there's been a debate about whether there should be a 211 mile long haul road into a mining district allowed to be constructed near the Brooks Range of Alaska, which Brooks Range kind of forms the southern end of the ⁓ Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. just for a piece of geography of where this is, far northern Alaska, 211 mile hall road. There has been for years controversy around this. A number of hunting organizations and hunters in Alaska, as well as subsistence hunters, tribes, there's been objection to this proposal about cutting this road through You know, really large intact habitat because of the potential impacts we could have on things like caribou, for example, and and other wildlife in the region and that it could the fear being it's going to create this new create fragmentation, this new road and and. cause harm. ⁓ On the flip side of this, the proponents of this project have said this could open up, create new jobs, create new revenue for the state, for local economies, being able to develop some of these mineral resources and this road is essential to being able to get there and open up this mining district where a bunch of these materials ⁓ are known to be. And so it's, it's created this controversy and I don't want to go there's so much. This is why I'm a little bit nervous about diving into it there's so much that goes into this with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, for example, and the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act. There's, there's all these laws that that interplay and set up this but But at the highest level, here's what's happened. There were these two public land orders that were issued in the, I want to say it was in the 1970s. I'm trying to, I actually had it written down and I'm trying to find where I put it, which is driving me nuts. ⁓ That I can't find it. But there are these two public land orders that created withdrawal of lands that that prevented this road from being developed. ⁓ Let's see, public land order 5150 and 5180 and they were issued for avoiding emissions associated with road traffic and development of the Ambler mining district as well as the Alaska liquefied natural gas pipeline. ⁓ there are, hang on, this is driving me nuts. I got to find the exact dates because I know I had it here. There we go. Public land order 51 50 51 80 issued in 1971 and 1972 respectively. They withdrew lands along what is now the Dalton highway and transatlantic pipeline system corridor for mineral entry. ⁓ and so, and the lands have been under BLM jurisdiction for, for decades. ⁓ What the administration is currently looking at doing is they've lifted those public lands orders and are working towards transferring lands to the state to enable the construction of that road. And so a number of groups just filed a lawsuit challenging the repeal of those public lands orders. And have a whole list of reasons why they think that was unlawful. ⁓ Again, without diving into tons of the details and the interplay of all the various laws, all I can say is this is a thing that is happening right now. This this lawsuit has been filed and it'll play itself out over the course of the next couple of years, probably to see if if repealing those public lands orders was unlawful or not. But it's a. It's one step or one tool. Some of these groups have. to try and either slow or stop the development of that mining road. There you go. That's all I know. And I didn't do a very good job of explaining it.

Nephi: Alright, well, what are the negatives? Let's see. All right. Well, there you go. You want to talk about it more? Move on.

Dave Willms: No, that was all I wanted to do. Unless you want to talk about it more. was more of a just a an informational piece of like heads up. This is happening.

Nephi: All right, it exists. No, I'm going to introduce this as a new, I'm going to add this now to a new segment that we're doing here at Your Mountain that everything we're going to talk about for the rest of the show will fall into our new segment. Are you ready for the segment, Dave? So you're going to present this issue to me and I'll present an issue to you, whichever. And then you're going to give me your response to about whether this is important, not important, or just

Dave Willms: Sure.

Nephi: And so we're going to call this, ⁓ it's, major, minor or meh. And so here's the question for you, Dave. He says, you just gave me that, like your synopsis of that. So that issue, is it, is this a major issue, a minor issue or a meh? Not a big deal.

Dave Willms: It's a major issue. It is a major issue, particularly in Alaska, particularly in Alaska. A lot of there's a there's just it. This is. This has been something that's been controversial for a long time, whether this gets built or not. you have different types of coalitions that have formed in the state of Alaska. You've got tribal coalitions, environmental group coalitions, hunting, angling coalitions. ⁓ You have a whole host of coalitions that have formed in opposition to this. You also have some that have formed in support of this. And it's one of those classic conflicts between economic development and habitat protection. And the debate of, you there's a lot of times we have the discussion of can you do both? And a lot of times there's the, want to try and do both if you can. And this falls into the camp of a lot of folks are saying up there. ⁓ I don't think we can do both. So I think it's a big deal because you've had this percolating for such a long time in an area that's known as one of the largest intact ⁓ ecosystems left in the United States.

Nephi: Yeah, it's fair to say this is like, everybody's sort of like a sacrifice area, right? Where you have areas within, you know, a given national forest or something else where you have a whole lot of pressure. you're like, ⁓ we're just going have a, we're going to have an ATV area. What is it? Yeah, it's going to be degraded, but it's going to be our sacrifice area. And then there are areas that you reserve that you're like, well, this one's going to be a higher quality habitat. We're not going to apply the same things carte blanche across the board that we apply in some of the other areas because it's just going to be. we're going to preserve this. So I think it's fair to say this is an area because it's so untouched. The concept here is like we can't get it back once we start to touch it. This is a place that we should probably leave alone. You know, if you will, it's like the opposite side of a coin from the sacrifice area. And we do that in the hunting space, too. We do that in other management spaces, right, where we decide they're given areas where we're going to give out a bajillion tags. There's general areas. There's areas where we're going to anticipate having a lot of hunter pressure. We're going to be okay with that. But we're not going to do that the same across the board. We're going to have some areas where we have limited access. We have limited the ability of people to get in. We're going to manage those areas different for trophy species and for trophy animals, for trophy opportunities, and for the once in a lifetime type. And it's okay to have both of those areas. And I think that that's, what we're talking about here is like, okay, well, is this one of those areas that we just need to keep our hands off? Is that fair?

Dave Willms: Yeah, I think that's probably a good way of describing it. it's, like I said, it becomes this classic case of, like I would call this the, in some ways, similar to the Boundary Waters fight in the lower 48. And no. I mean, it's not even that close. Boundary waters, there's some other development in the area, right? There are other mines in the boundary waters area, and the fears this particular mine and the type of mine would cause irreversible pollution. You know, here we're talking about a just a, yeah, a huge new spot. There's nothing, there's no infrastructure, no roads, that sort of thing.

Nephi: It's a new spot. Yeah. And once it stops being a new spot, you can't get it back. It's never going to be that again. That's the challenge. Once you cut the first road, well, then you've got road access. Yeah. Yeah. And it is interesting how, depending on where we are and what stage in our lives or who we are, how you take a different viewpoint in some of this stuff. In some areas where we might, we're going to say, well, I

Dave Willms: Yeah. It's a lot easier to cut the second word. It's also a lot easier to cut the second, third and fourth roads too, when you have that first one.

Nephi: You know, you've heard me joke about, you know, Matt Ronell's worst nightmare before is like some of these areas where like he wants to see less hunter pressure, but he also thinks hunters should be able to get to all the spots that they should be able to get to. And like, you know, this is the, there's certainly a push and pull there from, you know, a hunter perspective about like, well, ⁓ do I, I want to be able to hunt there, right? Well, can I get in there? And, and there's some places that we just have to be okay with like, and if I can't hike there, if I'm too old. Well, my day's past. It's somebody else's turn. I had my opportunity to go to that special spot that was really hard to get to. Now it's somebody else's turn to have that spot exist. I don't need to try and break my way into that spot. And so it's cool issue. So good response, Dave. Let's talk about your next one, which is a couple of members of the ⁓ Senate from Montana have an

Dave Willms: Yeah. Yeah. End house.

Nephi: sent in the house who's the house man ⁓ it's ⁓ i'm sorry yes won't send it one house have announced that they are retiring and ⁓ let's start with ⁓ let's start with ryan zincy who is retiring from the house and yeah let's talk about zincy first yeah and they're both montana which is very interesting

Dave Willms: Yeah, one Senate, one House. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and they both, it was a surprise. Both of these announcements were surprises. So.

Nephi: And so do we want to talk about them at the same time or separately?

Dave Willms: I'm fine talking about them at the same time. We can bounce back and forth ping pong. So Senator, Senator Daines is the other one.

Nephi: So what do you think this issue is? Would you say like, yes, so Zinke and Danes are both retiring. Is this a major issue, a minor issue or meh?

Dave Willms: In our space, it's a pretty major issue until you know who's replacing them.

Nephi: I think it's a major issue across the board. Like I don't think it matters. It doesn't matter whether you're in the hunting space or if you just want to be a raw political animal, it's probably even more important. You know, cause in the hunting space, I'd say it's almost like, frankly, I think it's kind of a meh in Montana. Cause I don't think, I actually don't think it's going to matter a whole lot. I could be wrong, but I'm just going to pitch this as my gut reaction. I don't think if you've got somebody that you elect from Montana,

Dave Willms: So.

Nephi: If they go through the vetting process and they work their way up through primaries in Montana, I don't think you're going to get somebody who can have, who's, who's bad on hunter issues. ⁓ you know, and I just think that because I don't know that you can get elected in Montana if you're bad on hunting issues. And I could be wrong. ⁓ but there's going to be different, of course, shades of gray to that. But I think whichever party you come from, Montana is one of the states that kind of rejects the common claim that you have to choose. Let's say if you're hunters, you care about A, conservation and B, second amendment rights. think Montana is one of those states that fights that and says like, no, we don't have to choose in Montana. can care about these things regardless of what political stripes we wear. And so that's where I said like, ⁓ I'm not sure how much it matters there.

Dave Willms: I'm going to push you a little bit. I'm going to say, I'm going to push and say, here's why I think it does matter there, because I think you're right. to the extent that. That Montana is a very, very, like, you're not going to get elected if you're not pro public lands. You're not going to get elected if you're not pro hunting or pro second amendment. you're, you're just not, it's going to be really, really hard. So those things can all be true. So those things can all be true. And at the same time.

Nephi: There's gonna be some nuance to that. Do it! Okay. gonna be real hard. Yeah, you you better be running against a terrible candidate.

Dave Willms: ⁓ You could have a major setback nationally. And here's what I here's what I would say why I'd say that Senator Daines is largely credited with helping to have delivered the Senate for Republicans in the last election right he was a Right. He was a big-time fundraiser. He was a big-time champion He he's been given a lot of credit for helping nationally

Nephi: 100%.

Dave Willms: helping deliver the Senate for Republicans, which means because of that, ⁓ it creates some chips he can play. It gives him some leverage and some opportunity. And if some of these conservation issues are high priority issues, ⁓ it gives him leverage. And I can give you an example of one where without Senator Daines, it wouldn't have happened. And I'm worried that without him, there are some things that won't happen. And that would be the permanent funding and reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund and the maintenance backlog funding for national parks. That happened because Senator Daines was in an election, a competitive election and said, I need this, right? And got the White House on board supporting it and was able to help deliver that along with a center from Colorado.

Nephi: Yeah. Well, and the same thing happened in the house with Zinke on the public land sales issue, right? Zinke was the guy that got out in front of it and it worked for him and he had that leverage. Why? He had that leverage because in the state of Montana, he said, these things are so important to the constituents of the state of Montana that you're making me, you're making this an unworkable candidacy for me. If you do this to us, you cannot do this. And so in his heart, like he's pro public lands. Sure.

Dave Willms: That was going to be the next thing I mentioned. Yeah, you're right.

Nephi: But the political reality of it is it gives him political chips to be able to say like, you can't do this. And so there's certain, like on these issues, there's a certain amount of power and clout that comes from having somebody that may, that politically, right? If, if, if Montana weren't that way, those chips wouldn't have been there to be cashed in either of those situations. And so, that's just a unique. thing about Montana and the public lands issue. It can be the same way on other issues. You're like, right? If you've got states that are predictable votes on things like the Second Amendment, and then you find a state where ⁓ Heinrich in New Mexico might be one that in certain instances you could say like he's going to buck his party on some things. I mean, it's advantageous to sportsmen to have diversity. within those who represent you. And so it is gonna be interesting to see what happens and where Montana goes.

Dave Willms: Yeah, and were either of them perfect on conservation issues? Absolutely not, right? Because nobody is, and they had to make, they made trade-offs here and there. They had to make decisions. Sometimes they were decisions that, you know, the conservation community as a whole would look at and say, on the whole, I don't think that's good for conservation. But then at the same time, they'd come in and be champions for things that really, really did matter. And they were trying to figure out, because they have a lot of constituencies and they've got an

Nephi: No, and the same.

Dave Willms: economy in that state that has multiple sectors that generate the revenue for that state's economy and they have to be ⁓ champions for all of those things. And so they have to balance all these different things. But you're losing two people. The other thing about Zinke that you're losing is he was former Secretary of Interior under the first Trump administration. And even though he ended up having to resign, it doesn't change the fact that He was in that role and there's a certain amount of clout that comes with that and carries over into his time in the house as well. And so he had the ability to do some things that maybe some other ⁓ representatives wouldn't. And one of those was being that champion for public lands and forming the public lands caucus, know, being, being the person that helped form it with, representing Vasquez of New Mexico and recruit others to join it.

Nephi: Yeah, any?

Dave Willms: And so you lose a champion there too.

Nephi: You know what I'm going to find interesting is how they deal with this now that they've announced their retirements. ⁓ The question I have in terms of the timing and everything is, ⁓ as you know, there's this little parlor trick that politicians in Wyoming successfully played multiple times where when a guy knew he wasn't coming back, ⁓ they went through a process. ⁓ to pick the replacement, whether it be a voting process or because of some other loss they had to replace the guy. Anyway, they slide the new guy in before the term ends. so the guy A retires, if this makes sense to explain to everybody. Guy A retires a few days before the beginning of the session. The governor appoints the replacement. And so now your replacement comes in, gets sworn in. and now has seniority over everybody else in his class because he knew he was going to leave anyway. You knew who you wanted to replace him with anyway. And so now you've been able to get leverage for your guys on Capitol Hill and give them a edge in leadership moving forward. And so that happened in Wyoming a number of times and it's how Wyoming has managed to, you know, in some ways swing above their weight. ⁓ in national politics in the ⁓ Congress.

Dave Willms: Yeah, Montana's not doing that, but they're doing, I mean, they, both did something, but they both did something not dissimilar. Right. And I know it got, you know, I, I know this because I've talked to some, he got some Democrats all wound up in angry about this, right. But, ⁓ trying as a, trying to fix an, an outcome or election, right. Senator Daines waited and waited and waited and didn't make the announcement that he was going to retire until I think it was the day before.

Nephi: It would be cool.

Dave Willms: the filing deadline in state for filing for federal office. So there was really no time ⁓ for either on with either party. And it was coordinated that they coordinated with the success who they wanted the successor to be. And immediately that very day he makes the announcement, ⁓ the presumed successor files.

Nephi: build a strong candidate.

Dave Willms: and has the endorsement of the entire delegation, the governor and the president. So they kind of did the same thing in a different way, in a different way.

Nephi: So they did the same thing. Yeah. No, and it'll, I think Zinkies will, I think Zinkies is going to be the, I don't know much about the candidate. And so I'm not from Montana. Other people in Montana are going to know more about this than me. I'm beginning to learn about them now, but I think that that one's going to be the more competitive race. And we don't need to bore everybody with the politics. I'm just, we'll, we'll just say this is like reject the, reject the idea that you have to choose.

Dave Willms: Yeah.

Nephi: ⁓ and let your candidate be good on one side of sportsman's issues or another. Just demand that they're good on both. That's the thing to do. Just tell them, you represent me. I care about my rights and I care about my access. Don't take either. And so that's just what I'd encourage everybody to do is you move forward and deal with these things.

Dave Willms: Yeah. I mean, look, I'm going to give a big thank you to both of them, even though in the past few weeks I've been kind of ⁓ frustrated with representative Zinke because of his push for the CRA on the boundary waters mineral withdrawal, wanting to push that project forward. That's been frustrating to me, but I was deeply, deeply grateful to him last summer for standing up for public lands the way he did and killing that proposal.

Nephi: Will you?

Dave Willms: ⁓

Nephi: Would you fight him?

Dave Willms: no, cause he, I would, I would, I would almost certainly lose. That's why I said, said I was, you know, I, I, but despite that, despite my frustration over the past couple of weeks there with that particular issue, ⁓ I'd still say like deep appreciation and thanks to both of them for their service to their state and to their, country and to the resources we care about. ⁓ I think on the whole.

Nephi: Okay, just checking.

Dave Willms: They've done some good things for conservation and I appreciate the leadership that they've shown. And I don't agree with them on everything, but I never will. Yeah. And let's find out what their legacies are. Let's find out what their legacies, what they want their legacy to be and help them get that done from a conservation legacy standpoint this year. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but let's do that because they, let's make conservation their legacy and help them get it done this year.

Nephi: Let's have everybody do more good things. We don't agree on things. Let's just say this. We interrupt each other, because we're friends. We're not like Ryan Bronson that insists that everybody speak in turn. Like we can talk at the same time. ⁓ No, was just going to say like, this is just a great, like it's a learning experience. It's okay for us to disagree as sportsmen. It's okay for us to like, you know, you and I have some really strong disagreements on different subjects. We typically don't air them on the podcast, but there's resource issues like where you and I just think,

Dave Willms: All right, go.

Nephi: opposite sides of the coin about how to deal with something and that's fine. We're still really good friends and we're going to argue about those things and when I win those arguments, it's going to be okay. You're not going to be mad. You're not going to hold a grudge.

Dave Willms: We argued this week about it for like an hour and I had to, I felt like I was just trying to talk you off the ledge. Yeah.

Nephi: Yeah, well, but it's OK. It's OK. It's OK to disagree. It's OK to disagree about stuff between different parties. It's OK to disagree about stuff in the same party. What we have to remember at the end of the day is like, we're I mean, this is a these are all workshops of ideas. and and you know what? You were right. And I was wrong on the argument that we were having. Like the more I thought about it, I was wrong. And that's OK. It's okay to say like, you know, like, no, there does need to be, you know, some tweaking of something rather than now on, the issue of funding for wildlife. were wrong. You were wrong.

Dave Willms: You can see me smiling big. You know, you can see, you can see me smile. I'm like, I'm just going to clip this section and make it a reel. So it's nice and short where it's a, you were right. I was wrong.

Nephi: Yeah. Now, on the subject of lottery tickets, you were wrong, but another subject you were right. Okay.

Dave Willms: ⁓ All right. We got one last. I think we're down to the last topic. It's your topic.

Nephi: Is this the mon... Yeah, so I looked on and I think, we'd like some listener feedback on. like, what are these things? Is it good to talk about these things? Should we be talking about them more? And if there's specific areas that you want to talk about them. So we did a little internet sleuthing and we looked at what are the top... five issues that the interwebs believe are important to sportsmen this year. And so I'm going to read you these. OK, and then you can ask me and then. And then we're going to both vote on whether we not whether or not we think that they are major issues, minor issues or me issues. So the first one is public land access, security and expanding public land access remains a top priority, along with managing impacts of development. Major, minor, meh.

Dave Willms: I'm going to add a sixth by the way. I've got a sixth one. So a bonus issue. Until I can get everywhere major.

Nephi: I agree. It's a major issue. Access is still the most important issue that limiting for sportsmen. And it's not an easy issue. ⁓ There's complexity to it. I think that the Ambler Road and other issues we've talked about recently, if you can step back and look at the nuance of these things, go like, ⁓ access doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in the same way everywhere. You know, the same highway doesn't have to go there, but at the same time, the ability to get into a place, I think that's critical. And at every level, it is the thing that keeps us from having ⁓ more people being able to participate in hunting and shooting sports, from keeping people participating in hunting and shooting sports, and then making hunting and shooting sports more enjoyable once people get here. Because crowding is an issue, and so we have to figure out how to manage that access. And so yeah, I think it's gonna be a major issue. I agree.

Dave Willms: Yep. All right, watch your second one.

Nephi: Technological shift, the rapid add up adoption of new technologies like smart, this and that. ⁓ Like ⁓ that's it. Like electric hunting bikes, ⁓ drones, major issue, minor issue, meh issue.

Dave Willms: I wish there was one more in between major and minor because like I'd call it an interim. I'd call it. No, I think May is below minor. May is like a, don't really care. Minor is like, it's an issue, but like I'd almost call it an intermediate issue. Like it's, it's something or an emerging issue or I don't know what it is entirely, but it's like, it's certainly an issue. think e-bikes into places are

Nephi: That's what May is. May is the middle.

Dave Willms: as that technology continues to prove is going to continue to be an issue. Some of the things we talked about in Idaho, those are going to be issues in a lot of states that folks are going to have to grapple with. But you said one thing that kind of stuck with me, and that's why I call it an intermediate and not major issue, is that there seems to be a lot of consensus around some of this already. And so I think it's an issue, but I think it's one that can be, especially around some of the technological advances. I think many of them can be relatively easily and effectively addressed. There might be a few outliers that are harder. So that's why I'm like, I think it might be, I'm adding a a category of intermediate.

Nephi: I agree with you. One of the things that I think is interesting about it is though, when we talk about it, think people, there's a traditional area where we're more comfortable talking about technology and then there's areas where we, it's like, I don't know if you want to call it a blind spot, but e-bikes is a phenomenal example, right? Like we're pretty quick to talk about something like, well, the scope that you put on your gun. And I think we've been looking at that all wrong. I think that the issue we need to look at is not, you know, whether or not something has a battery in it, but is it making a decision for you? It's the, you know, with technology, it's the, it's, it's the smart and smart meaning not like it's intelligent because it tells you what temperature it is, but meaning is a computer making a decision for you as we move into this AI world. And I think it's the same way with drones. I think it's the same thing with, uh, you know, cameras that take a picture for you and send it to your phone and tell you when the deer shows up, it's like, these things doing your job for you? And I think. I think we need to shift and think about technology that way in terms of fair chase. And so I think it's, it's almost less of a technology discussion and more of all, like more of a hunting ethics discussion because we're always going to have access to new technology. the question should be, you know, we're going to, we got, we, I think we really have to work on discussing the ethic. And that's where this is interesting because I don't think people have equated, ⁓ other tools like e-bikes with that. Right. I think in the past, We've been really quick to talk about the thing you're holding your hand, but people haven't thought about, you know, frankly, you know, how we, what we rode there. You know, that's a, I think that's an interesting challenge that we like, we don't, you know, do we talk about like other than the wilderness, right? We say in wilderness, that's one thing, but you know, man, it's getting way easier to, know, it's hunting is getting easier. ⁓ And the technology is... far greater than just guns. And so how do we teach the ethic that says like, look, this is about more than that. You know, the experience is more than that. It's not just about pulling the trigger, but man, think it's, I think it's a, I actually think it's a major issue trying to figure out how to do it right.

Dave Willms: Yeah. Yeah, I'll layer one more. Let me put one more piece on that too. I still haven't decided if it's major or not. I'm still sticking with intermediate, I think. But Game and fish departments around the country set their license quotas, their hunting license quotas, their season lengths, all these things based on a host of factors. But one of the things that factors in is hunter success. Number of days to harvest, ⁓ success rate of the harvest. And if you add more and more technologies that make hunting easier,

Nephi: Yep. ⁓

Dave Willms: you're increasing the chances that your success rate is going to increase. And if your success rate increases, that's going to affect opportunity over the long term, because they're going to have to adjust the number of licenses that are available. If the success rate goes from, because you want to have a success rate in a certain place to have as much opportunity for as many people as possible. in some units, you might be actually targeting lower success rates. In some units might already have For pronghorn, it might not matter. You already have 90 % success rate. You know, the new technology might not matter. It might be purely a fair chase, but in some areas you might have a success rate that's 30%, but you have a ton of opportunity and it enables people to get out there because it's an over the counter license or something. And if all of a sudden the success rate goes from 30 % to 50 % even, you may see some areas that say, Ooh, we can't do a general unit anymore. Or we have to shorten the season or we have to do something to compensate for this increased harvest that's going to reduce opportunity in some way. And so those, think those are the things in addition to the fair chase that you have to think about when we're talking about technological advances.

Nephi: I think agencies have to be willing to do that and that's an important piece. I don't think we can go to the stupidest way to do it, which is just to say we're going to make it so that we're going to people hunt with a rock. You've got to have some nuance in how you deal with these things. And I really appreciate those states and those folks who are looking at that. And one of the things that I think we need to... to realize, and it's funny because I was having this discussion about a shooting sports league the other day, is that everybody is on a different spot on their hunting journey. And I think as we craft these opportunities, have to keep in mind that everybody's opportunity probably doesn't need to look the same. It probably shouldn't look the same. And so if you're the hardcore hunter who values spending a month in the back country and that's your priority, That's awesome. That's what you should do. You want it to be really hard. You want to be really challenged. That's great. That's not everybody. That's you. And so when you are advocating for that, remember that you shouldn't be advocating that everybody has to play your game. You should be advocating for a space to play your game, for the opportunity to play your game when you're not getting run over by somebody with an e-bike or some, you know, like just, but, ⁓ at the same time, you have to respect that not everybody's going to be in that same space on their hunting journey. And we have to create opportunities. have to be, there has to be equality of opportunity. And so you need to respect that that's not always going to look like everybody hunting exactly the same way that you do with the same weapon that you do the same season that you do. And that's okay. And that, becomes difficult as these opportunities, you know, the other thing that, you know, that Utah legislator told me the challenges. Utah's got a bigger population. And the challenge is like everybody wants to every season, everywhere, every all the time and like however they want. That's what doesn't work. Right. Is like they're saying like, well, no, I, I, I, I don't, you know, I want everything. And unfortunately, this is something that we have to share. And so like, you just can't get everything. you have to prioritize your thing and then you have to be willing to share it a little bit. And then that's, I know people don't want to hear that, but until we get into the world where, you know, there's, be frank, there's only so many mountains and there's only so much habitat. you know, as much as we want to increase habitat and opportunity and things like that, we're not going to double the number of elk that are on that mountain. And so we have to figure out how, what's the, what is the just way to share that.

Dave Willms: All right, give me your third one.

Nephi: Disease Management, CWD. Major, minor, meh.

Dave Willms: I think a lot of people would say major. So yeah.

Nephi: I think I agree.

Dave Willms: I mean, yeah, okay. I'm a little nervous to talk about it, but it's...

Nephi: We don't need to talk about it we're not smart enough to talk about CWD, but no, it's a big one. And it's something that people need to be paying attention to and not overreacting to, but smartly reacting to. There you go. How about federal policy on ⁓ ammunition types on federal lands?

Dave Willms: I mean, this has been the, No, I mean, it's been like a debate for, mean, there'll continue to be dialogue about it, but.

Nephi: Dave, this is, it's a meh. This is not the internet for some reason says the big deal is just not. It's gonna be a debate, but there's not a fire here. There's no justification for making this rule our lives. It's just like, it's a meh.

Dave Willms: Yeah, until there's smoke. Yeah. What's next?

Nephi: Next. The others and there's not state level, state level regulation changes on things like hunters, ⁓ hunter, blaze orange or pink for taking big game.

Dave Willms: ⁓ I don't care. how's that even on the list? Yeah, I don't even know how that's... The one I would add ⁓ is funding for state wildlife agencies to manage the whole suite of wildlife in their states.

Nephi: Yeah, it's nothing to me. Yeah. This is what the interweb said. Like, hey, I didn't make the list. ⁓ All right. That's mine. What's yours? That's major. That's interesting. That's when that one's like it's tough because you can't it's not a minor issue. It's certainly not a man. In terms of a major issue. It's different because it's just it's a different way of having to deal with it. It's like it's almost like that's like a long slow boil rather than a fire.

Dave Willms: Ha ha ha ha I actually, if I were ranking the list that you gave, I would put that at the very top. I put it at the top of the list as like the big issue of the next generation is how do we pay for this? How do we pay for wildlife? Yeah, I know that's what you think. ⁓ It's.

Nephi: you put it closer to the top. lottery tickets. Scratchers.

Dave Willms: We've talked about it before. We'll talk about it again. I don't mean on the scratchers. I just mean on that funding piece. But I think that's a very real thing. There's been some new reporting that's come out about things like how much freshwater mussels have declined in the past 50 years. How much bird species in the country have declined. How much ⁓ fragmentation we've had. How much just general habitat we've lost. How much reptiles have declined. in the past 50 years, like across the board, nearly every type of wildlife in this country has declined in the past 50 years.

Nephi: Great. Would you like to propose your favorite three ways to get it done? Because I have them. I have my favorite three.

Dave Willms: I know you do, but I'm looking at the time and like that's a different episode because that three will double. You know this is one the things we argue about and this will turn into a two hour podcast. So we have to, I think we have to, my recommendation is that we come back to that discussion when we have an entire hour to dedicate to it because am I wrong? Am I wrong about that? I don't think I'm wrong about that.

Nephi: Alright. All right. Well, Dave, that was good, man. Good discussion. Nope. And we've been doing this for 57 minutes. Perfect timing.

Dave Willms: Yeah, perfect timing. All right. So thank you, everybody, for listening. As always, have not started our new email address. You can still get us at yourmountain at it'syourmountain.com. We'll let you know when we got the new stuff going ⁓ until then. Well, first of all, shoot us texts, not text, shoot us messages on Instagram, Facebook, whatever, send us an email, give us more ideas. Go find us on YouTube.

Nephi: Yeah, and go find us on YouTube.

Dave Willms: And do us a favor, ⁓ I know everybody says it, but like it, subscribe to it, subscribe to this, write a comment.

Nephi: Hey, you know what? You know what we're gonna take our comments from now on? YouTube. Yeah, on YouTube. That's how we are going to now. If you want to talk to Dave, you talk to YouTube. That's how you talk to us. You go to YouTube, make it happen.

Dave Willms: just send a message, comment on YouTube, whatever it is, help us get found more in the algorithm, do all the things, do some guerrilla marketing on our behalf. If you're in Reddit pages or whatnot, like ⁓ talk about us if you like what you hear. If you don't, like science is golden. ⁓ But if you're loving what you're hearing, talk about us in some places. Little guerrilla marketing here could be ⁓ deeply appreciated. ⁓ In the meantime, and as always, Remember that life is about experiences. So go have one.

Nephi: Stop recording. All right.