Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 03-10-25_MONDAY_7AM

Episode Date: March 10, 2025

Jay Beeber, Executive Director of the National Motorists Association is on talking about the growing automatied law enforcement trend, our red light cams, importance of LONG yellow lights. Jeff From Selma reports on the SB762 repeal meeting, too.

The Bill Meyer Show podcast is sponsored by Clauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at clauserdrilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. We're going to talk about automated traffic enforcement. Of course, we see a lot of that here in Southern Oregon these days, and we're told it's just a wonderful thing. Isn't this great?

I imagine there's also a bit of money involved in this too, that is pushing a bit of the agenda. But Jay Bieber joins me. He is the executive director of policy at the National Motorist Association. Jay, welcome back to the program. Good to have you on. Pleasure to be back with you, Bill. Now, Jay, I just wanted to let people know I do have a dog in your fight. And I just want to be clear about this. I joined you, your organization, after the last time I had you on, I think the first time I had you on, after talking with Eric Peters about you a number of times.

And so I joined it, and so I eagerly enjoy the Driving Freedoms magazine, which is something that you get from the National Motorist Association, and you have all sorts of policy papers and discussions and things like that that are in there. And the one you had this month really struck home because we deal with this a lot here. Yellow light, red alert. How proper signal timing can reduce red light running violations. Now I don't want to get into our local lawsuit that we have an area, a chiropractor who's involved at Dr. Glenn Gamer. He's been pushing this for a long time and has been trying to... well, he's doing a class-action lawsuit against the city of Medford and this has to do with one particular red light camera that was

even according to state laws not following the timing. And you talk in this article about how important the timing of these red lights is when it comes to actually the accuracy and also whether or not you are really giving people red light tickets for what the traffic is really doing out there. It's kind of like the real world. I was wondering if you could break down a bit of this latest article, please. Yeah, well, I think the first thing to know is that there is no perfect yellow light time. The yellow light, contrary to what most people believe, does not give you, is not the time to stop your car. Everybody says, oh people need enough

yellow light time to stop. That's not how it works. Basically the yellow light time is intended to be long enough for drivers who are too close to the intersection to stop when the yellow light time is intended to be long enough for drivers who are too close to the intersection to stop when the yellow light illuminates and to get them to the intersection and into the intersection before the before the light turns red. In Oregon it's a little more technical than that because actually in Oregon the laws you have to get all the way through the intersection but... Yeah there is no affirmative yellow light defense right there is law is you have to get all the way through the intersection but... Yeah there is no affirmative yellow light defense right?

There is, you know, you have to be through it before it goes red right? That's the way the Oregon law is? Exactly. Okay. So, right. So the timing though of the yellow light ends up being a pretty darn big deal right? And so what do the transportation engineers have to say about this and how are the various states implementing this? And I don't know if you know Oregon's specifics or not, but I just know that it is astounding how many people you see clipped by them. And now some would just say, well, that means they're not stopping for the red light.

They're not stopping and they're just kind of blowing the lights. But there's another side of this is that generally speaking most states and municipalities set it too short, don't they? It just doesn't fit the real world. Exactly and that's really the point of this which is that because there's no perfect yellow light time you have to set a yellow light time that is long enough for the for the vast majority of the reasonable people on the roadway That's that's the purpose of sending yellow light time and you and it's not just so you don't get tickets It's so you protect the other people Who are on the roadway like the cross-traffic when it starts up and and all of that kind of thing So it's not this is not simply just about like hey

We don't want to give people tickets unfairly which is which we don't obviously but we also want to protect people as much as we possibly can. That's the whole purpose of the traffic signal right to control the right way. So I think the thing for people to understand is that there are for at least for through movement there are three sides that go into how long the yellow light time should be. Okay, and one of those. Okay, so there's three of them. Number one and the most important one is, and the most variable one, is the speed of the traffic on the roadway, right? So for example, let's say you have a 35 mile an hour road, but you know the traffic always varies. You know what? Not

everybody's going 35. In fact, if you don't set your speed limit properly, most people are going to be going a fair amount faster than that, maybe five, ten miles an hour faster than that. Because that's how people drive. So we get into the whole like, are the speed limits set properly? So if you set your yellow lifetimes based on the posted speed limit, oftentimes you're not giving people enough yellow lifetime because really you should be setting it based on what we call the prevailing speed or the 85th percentile speed. In other words, you base it on reality rather than what the law says, technically, right? That kind of thing. Exactly, because again, we

recognize that not everybody is running at 35 miles an hour on that road. Okay, so that's the first thing. The second thing is your perception, decision, reaction. That's the time when the light turns yellow. I perceive it to be yellow. I say to myself, what am I supposed to do? Should I stop or go? And then if the correct answer is stop, I can apply the brake.

So that's taking a period of time. We assume it's one second, because that's kind of an an average but we shouldn't be doing it for the average we should be doing it for again the prevailing amount of perception react time that most people have which is usually about a second and a half even up to second certain cases and then third factor is how hard you you break with your vehicle so there's a certain amount of there's a certain what we call the cell which is based on your comfort level of you do you have to slam on your brakes or can you leisurely slow down and come to a stop so and then we make we make it but these are all assumptions right there's no like exacting for any particular driver when

that light yellow if you knew all those numbers you can calculate the the yellow light time that would not force you to run red light but that still doesn't give you enough yellow light time because nobody knows nobody can do that calculation the head in their head they don't know exactly where they are probably I should probably just step back and explain so if you're going 35 miles an hour we had you make the. So if you're going 35 miles an hour, and you make the certain assumptions that you're actually going 35, and you actually have a one-second reaction time, and you actually

accelerate at 10 feet every second, then you have 183 feet, as the calculation goes, to a roadway in which to stop the car. If you're close to the 183 feet, you have to keep the yellow light time long enough to get that person across that 183 feet. And then there's something that the traffic engineers call the dilemma zone. And what is the dilemma zone? Because this is an important part of why many people who otherwise may not get clipped under normal circumstances get clipped at many red light cameras. The Dilemma Zone. What's that? Right. So that was the next step, which is if you don't keep your yellow light time long enough to get you across that distance, you create a limousine which means there's a place in the road where you neither have enough distance to stop your car comfortably and safely and you don't have a yellow light

time to get you across the distance that you have to travel before the light turns red. So you can force people into running a red light. That's the first thing. The second thing is that we're supposed to build into all of our engineering systems because nothing's perfect, what we call tolerance, which means that, like for example, when you build a bridge for the weight of traffic, you don't build the bridge for exactly the weight of traffic you think is down that bridge, you build in extra safety, right? But they almost never do

this with yellow light times. So the camera companies and the entities that run these programs know this, and they know that you have to be perfect every single time, which people can't be. And so even if they don't create a dilemma zone, then you can still make a mistake. We call it the indecision zone. And so you can still make a mistake, and therefore you have to build tolerance into the system.

Again, a little bit longer, you're like build tolerance into the system again a little bit longer. We're not talking about a lot of time. We're talking about a half a second, a second. If you think about how quickly a second goes by, the blink of an eye is four minutes of a second. So we're not talking about a lot of time here, but if you built in that extra time, if all of these camera locations, all the violations would disappear overnight. Now, of course, if all the violations were to disappear overnight, that doesn't

necessarily help cities and counties or anybody who puts up red light cameras because isn't the purpose of having them usually is that the cameras are paid for and maintained because of violations. Isn't that right? Because a percentage of the violations goes and pays for this? First of all, there's a certain amount of violations to pay for the system itself and all the costs involved in it. And then, most of the time, they've sold these systems saying, hey, you're going to make money off of this, right? So not only are you trying to have enough violations to pay for the system, you have to have enough to make the extra money that you budget for. Or, for example, if you've been running the system for a while and you don't have a reasonable

yellow light and you don't build into this tolerance, you don't take into account the indecision zone, you basically ticket people unfairly. If you've been doing that for a while, you come to rely on the revenue from that now when you go to go to those elected officials and say hey you know what you can eliminate these violations by just increasing your yellow light time a little bit they don't want to do it because they're they're afraid they're going to get a they're gonna they're gonna have to actually pay something for the system and it's and this has happened everywhere in the country. Well, see, in other words, it's kind of a line conceit

to say we're doing this for safety, right, ultimately? Right, exactly, because what they'll say is whenever they start these programs, they say, we hope we never have to give a ticket. We hope everybody changes. And people just stop at red lights. We hope that's what happens, and therefore, we hope it goes down

to zero. Of course, they know it never goes down to zero because it can't. It's impossible. But as soon as it drops, like in California, we got them to do yellow light times a little bit better and they had it based on the prevailing speed of traffic as opposed to the post speed limit. And the violations went down sometimes in the order of like 70, 80%. Wow. The violations went away. That's incredible. Yeah.

Just for like a fraction of a second. Okay. And a whole bunch of programs, they ended the programs because they weren't making money. So all this, this claim about how it's all about safety and we only really only care about thinking usually it's, oh, we can have the safety of kids and all kinds of stuff. It's all week safety kit into all kind of stuff it baloney because as soon as you fixed the problem through engineering and they don't make the money anymore that they don't want the system there for for safety and and that we should probably play if we have the time to explain one more

thing which we didn't explain which is this indecision zone which is when you most a lot of people say well if you just stop for the red light you know you should always just stop when the light turns yellow. Well, that's not true. Everybody recognizes that if you're too close to the intersection to stop your car, you would have to slam on your brake. When that light turns yellow, you should keep going.

If you're far away and that light turns yellow, the decision is also easy that you could, you should just slow down and stop. Right. It's that middle ground where they gotcha. because nobody knows exactly what to do you gotta get if you're in that middle ground when that you know like time when that yellow light turns on then every time it's a guess it's a gut think of a minute should keep going or should I stop do I have enough distance in the roadway to stop safely and comfortably yeah or am I too close? Should I keep going?

Well, it's kind of like that clash song, should I stay or should I go? Right, exactly. That's where we get into it. You know, the thing about this, is there anything that, is there any kind of standard about how far or how long it takes for every vehicle to stop? Because I'll tell you one thing, my wife's Passat, big meaty tires, anti-lock brake system, no problem. Stab the pedal, boom. You can stop as quickly as you can with the anti-lock brake systems working. On the other hand, 82 Vanagon

Volkswagen that I have, non-anti-lock? You can lock the wheels up, but even then under the best circumstances, stopping distance is a lot farther for older vehicles. That's right. I'm wondering if they actually kind of hope they take advantage of that because, oh, that's an older vehicle. That one's going to clip. There's no way this person can stop. What do you think? Right. Absolutely, they do take advantage of that. And it's also large vehicles that is like, let's say a truck, a van, or a bus, or any of that kind of stuff.

They have a much longer stopping distance because they have much more inertia. So they need a longer yellow light time. And just think about it again, the goal of this is to protect the other people. Okay? So if you're not taking into account the buses and the trucks, some of those going to run red lights, you'll see that with the tractor trailers all the time. When you see these those of people of, you know, running the tractor trailer that runs through and you're like, Oh my God, that you know, someone's going to get killed. It's like, because the tractor trailer has a much longer mapping distance and it's not taken into account. And, and this is,

this is the problem, which is that, and you were making different kinds of calls, the thing is, yes, you could slam on your brakes and actually stop, but people don't drive that way. People make a re-able decision, and that's why we say that you want people to be able to stop safely and comfortably. And so a lot of times that means what they call that 10 feet per second per second, which is a reasonable, comfortable deceleration. We don't want to force people to slam on the brakes because you have that tractor trailer behind you and you keep going. Oh yeah, you know the tractor trailer is not going to stop as quickly as you can, right?

Exactly. Yeah, that know the tractor trailer is not going to stop as quickly as you can, right? Exactly. Yeah, that makes sense. Let's just say you have packages in your car, okay? Let's say a bag of those very expensive eggs in your front seat, right? So let's say you're driving with that or your kids or whatever. You're not going to slam on your brakes. We're flying forward. So we want to be able to set our yellow lamps so people are able to decelerate at a comfortable

deceleration and come to a stop. Everything should be reasonable, but the systems are set to exploit the flood in the engineering system, as I just explained. All right. Jay Bieber once again, and he's the executive director of policy at the National Motorist Association and a great article I've been reading here on driving freedoms, their monthly one, it's a yellow light red light. One of the suggestions that you come up with, in fact you have numerous policy suggestions for this, and it has to do with an all red interval and I guess what this means is that there should be,

not only should you lengthen the yellow lights, but there should also be a time in which all the lights stay red and they stay red for a specific time. I guess this would be done to clear the intersection, right? Right, that's exactly right. And that's especially important, you know, again, for safe. It's not going to send anybody from not getting a ticket unless, as they just

did, I think it's in Carolina, they just passed a law that says if you're going to use a light camera at an intersection, you can't start ticketing people until that all red is over. So if you put in a second or two seconds already where you're clear, clear time to clear the intersection and you don't start ticketing people until that's over, then you can't get money on these systems. It's impossible. Yeah. Do you see a national policy coming out of something like this or is this still something which is really being affected state by state? It's mostly state by state. Unfortunately, our federal government,

under the last administration, under the Pardonson infrastructure bill, is paying localities to put in these abusive systems and to make money off of it. Just think about it. Your federal tax dollars that we're in a pretty big world of hurt in terms of our deficit and our debt. They're throwing money at cities to put in automated enforcement that they're going to make a profit on. Just think about how crazy that is. That's just because they hate cars and they just want people to get as many

tickets as possible so you take another form of transportation. That's what that's about. What about the company that the red light camera system is located? Because in essence, are we not outsourcing law enforcement to a foreign state or foreign country? I don't know where Red Flix is located, but I'll bet you it's not Oregon. Oftentimes. It's here in Arizona. They're here in Saskatchewan.

Well, they've now been doubled up by a bigger company because we forced them to lose so much money by changing the yellow light timing around the country that they've been gobbled up. So it's technically not an independent company anymore. But yes, so yes, you're outsourcing the money. Here's the thing. If you want to raise revenue, this is probably the absolute worst way to do it, because a fairly large portion of what's being taken out of people's pockets is not going to the local government or even to the state.

It's going to some vendor, some foreign company, usually in a different state. So if you just want to, let's say you get the $500 from someone, okay, and you're getting that as a fine, which is what it is in California. I don't know what it is in Oregon. But let's say you get that $500. The people of the state don't benefit from that in the same way that you tax somebody $500, and I'm not advocating for higher taxes. But I'm just saying, if you have to pay for stuff, this is the best way to do it because you lose a large portion of what you're what you're generating in revenue to this this company or you could just fix

most of the problem and then you know figure out a different way to raise the the money that you need for you know for your your running your you know your city or your state or whatever it is it's a terrible way to raise money because you don't get to keep much of it. So you're only getting a portion of it. Jay, what portion of the lights out there right now, do we know what kind of a... because I figure, I think you mentioned in this article or maybe another article in there, is that the rising use of just the surveillance cameras as traffic enforcers in general. It's like, oh did you touch the cell phone as you were

going through here and they catch a picture of you. What is the National Motorist Association take on this particular trend? Well, I think it's the same as anything else. We have to think what kind of world do you want to live in? Do you want within a world in which there are cameras everywhere and every little thing you make, every time you step out of line, that camera captures what you're doing out on you know out in LA and you are penalized for that in some way whether it's a fine whether like it is in China to you know change your social school or whatever they're doing over there it's like a lot of people say well you know I want it for safety well you know the

government makes a lot of government makes a lot of arguments about, you know, hey, we have to do this for city where it's for surveillance or it's for revenue or whatever it is. But just think, if you follow somebody around with a camera all day long, you're going to catch them doing something wrong. You're going to make a little mistake. Maybe you'll get your garbage cans out. Hey, Jay, even as simple as backing out of your driveway, because technically, according to the law, you're supposed to stop before you cross the sidewalk and then enter the intersection or enter the road.

Nobody does that. Nobody. Of course not, because that's not how people drive. And it's not reasonably necessary in all cases. So what people do is they drive, they do everything in their lives to what reasonable people do and that's how you should enforce things. But if you put up a camera, it becomes this binary of like, did you do it, did you not do it? Okay, and then you have a problem. So are you free people or not? Or are we sheep, all right? One of the reasons, these are the sort of

issues that the National Motorist Association works on. They work on states, they work to stop bad policy and enact better policies. How can people find out more about you? Because I highly recommend people join them because there is a war against the motoring public. We've known this for a long time. Even downtown Medford, where several thousand people

at last report were techeted, once they decided to make the downtown area a business zone. They take it down to 20 miles an hour and a lot of people got popped on that kind of stuff. Where can they find out more about you Jay? We're at motorist.org, motoristplural.org or just search us on the internet for National Motorist Association and we look the you remember we had it, remember it's only $40 a year, you get a wonderful magazine that you,

that you talk about and a whole bunch of other benefits. And, you know, help us, you know, and help you be in the fight against all these ridiculous laws. Because that way, we have folks like me out there, I have to explain this in cases, just getting the rules changed So when you're out on the way, you're treated fairly, you know, we're not in the business of trying to protect dangerous drivers

that's not what we're doing we're trying to protect the average person that gets caught up in these schemes and Which you know who which if we have resources we can have all around and then you know Go to our site contact us. One of the great things about our site right now is we just put up a thing and you get to the website you can download a another article that I wrote it actually was two articles put together in another Driving Freedoms magazine where we explain how do we're getting a ticket what you should do if you do get pulled by the police and that's so just go and get that. Yeah just go that and find out more. All right Jay I appreciate the take as always thank you we'll have you back and you be well okay thanks so

much Jay. 735 at KMED 993 KBXG this is the Bill Meyer show Monday morning how you doing huh? Hi it's John at Wellburn's weapons. That's 541-295-8100. All right, we'll check news here in just a moment, then I'll be back with Jeff from Selma with a report on Senate Bill 762. Ron, you wanted to weigh in on the talk with Jay Bieber, National Motorist Association, and what were you thinking about for the intersection problem? I'm thinking that if the whole objective is safety and not money, and that's basically what this is, we need to have some kind of a sensor that says, oh, gee, the intersection is plugged up for one reason or another, so we're going to hold everybody who's red in

the red and the green that would clear that issue, and then the yellow would come back on after that issue is solved and then it goes back into normal mode. Well I know that technically the law if I recall correctly you are not supposed to enter the intersection unless you can clear the other side though. Well here's an issue if for example I run into this many times somebody in front of me stops for whatever reason maybe some person walks across the intersection in front of this person Somebody in front of me stops for whatever reason. Maybe some person walks across the intersection in front of this person, is in front of me, and I'm in the middle of the intersection. I'm stuck in yellow

and then I'm stuck in red till that person clears the crosswalk. I'm not at fault actually, but I get maybe ticketed because I'm in the intersection when it's red. Okay, what... all right, I'm a little bit confused because normally you're not supposed to go into the intersection unless you can clear to the other side, unless you can, so you shouldn't even be entering the intersection unless you can clear. But this particular instance was you have a person who crosses against the light. Oh, okay, so there's a interruption

then. Yeah, automatically you're at fault because this other person didn't follow the rule but not crossing against the light that says don't cross, you know, for pedestrian. Now, interesting point. I will consider that. Thanks for the call, Ron. Now, Nikita ended up writing me here saying,

hey, Bill, I noticed that the crosswalks that have the seconds on them for pedestrians, you'll have 12 seconds left. You're safe. Still driving, if you only have three, you better realize it's going to turn yellow and then be ready to stop. So they're so helpful if they could put those on all the intersections. So in other words, have a timer. So in other words, we kind of know when the light is coming. That's an interesting consideration. Thanks for making that Nikita. And then Dennis saying, hey Bill, why can't we petition Demand City Council of

Medford to set all the lights at six seconds between green and yellow? The obvious and deliberate malfeasance by the City of Medford in setting the Stuart East Barnett intersection traffic lights seem to prove that City of Medford can't be trusted to truly serve the good and safety of the citizens but to support the growth of bureaucracy. Wouldn't this serve the safety and needs of the citizens while letting them keep more of their money? Well, that is. The thing is though is that the city needs money too. Who do you work for? You think you work for yourself? I think a little sarcastic, but the point will take it, all right? Yeah, I do find it interesting that the same city that is saying, gosh, we want you to come down

and visit the downtown city, but hopefully we don't get you nailed on that $165 ticket. You better avoid that though. All right. Yikes. 19 before April check news, Jeff from Selma joins me here in just a moment at the White City meeting, Senate Bill 762. Of course, he's part of Undo 762. Tell you more about that next. This is an emergency alert from Jackson County Emergency Management. Bill Meyers Show on 1063 KMED. Now Bill wants to hear from you. 541-770-5633. That's 770 KMED.

745, appreciate you waking up here this morning. Senate Bill 762, big public meeting on Saturday, White City, where that was going on. And I couldn't help but think about that 7 Bill 762 as I received my home insurance renewal contract in the mail Saturday, Saturday afternoon, and said that the insurance was going to go from $1,500 to $2,000. Now I'm just in a subdivision sort of deal, but of course what they were bringing up was wildfire, wildfire, wildfire. Hey, I'll be talking with Steve Yancy about that.

I know Dan I want to get off the air this morning. He got a copy of it. He talked with Jeff and Selma. Jeff, you were there, set the table with how it was working with people, huh? Go ahead. Well, if you have never seen Bob Hart's presentation it's extremely well done and then he also had data scientist

Jeremy Cowley who he goes in depth on how bad the map is in in the fact that it's so inaccurate and doesn't follow the strategies that are actually laid out by what the software program is supposed to do. So there was about 200 people there you know at my headcount but the amazing thing was when we saw Jeff Golden show up. So Senator Golden was there and he addressed the crowd at one point didn't he? Yeah in his opening statement was, best I can tell from my conversations, there is a very strong consensus on both parties to withdraw the map. And then, of course, the place just broke out into thunderous applause. Okay, let me ask you though, let me ask you about this,

a serious question. So they break out in applause at getting rid of the map. The thing that he did say though also is that he wants to keep the rest of the of the bill, he wants to keep the rest of the bill intact. What do you think? Right, you know I view this as if you're in a battle, right, and the enemy has a town and you go in there and you take the town back and but the enemy doesn't retreat they just go to the next town to double down. So what you're inferring here then... After the applause, it's like everybody, okay, it's all done. Let's go home, you know, and give up. And you can't do that at this point. Today is the last day to get your appeals in, right? So you got to

keep the pressure. It's the pressure that caused them to come to this point, and the pressure's got to stay on. This is the first time, I think, that Senator Golden has seen Bob's presentation. And the quote I got from KDRV's Samantha Kadera is, people are being asked to trust a map that doesn't consider what's on their property. It's insulting to their intelligence. Both parties agree this map needs to be withdrawn. I guess the point being though is that my main concern about Senate Bill 762, and you know I'm not an expert but I've been able to read enough of this and talk with people who have over the years, is that there's very little in this that actually has much to do with fixing

the cause of wildland fire. Has anyone really addressed that? Did Bob address that? Did Senator Golden even address this? Because even he talks about, well, I want to get rid of the map, but we want to keep the rest of the bill because there's good stuff in it. Okay. Well, what good stuff could be in there possibly to help federal land managers not burn their way through our

lands. What do you think? Yeah, well, like, you know, his closing statement, I am in full favor of repealing the map, and then he included repealing portions of the law pertaining to the map, but he's not on board with repealing 762 altogether, which is what really needs to be done. But see, this is sort of that fallback, you know, him saying that he'll repeal the map is kind of like a semi-retreat but still getting more control over people, I guess. When you look at the upcoming bills of 73, 77, 8, and 9, some of those bills fight 762, right, as kind of a prerequisite for passing

those bills through, which, you know, it's not going to end with 762. People who are hearing this now, you've got to look into 73, the bills in committee, 73, 7, 7, 8, and 9, because they're far worse than 762. But so 762 was just the precursor. What could be worse than 762? What were those other ones doing? Well you have where the the counties are not allowed to rezone. If your property is zoned forest or farm or forest farm, then you can't build on your property unless it's going to be, if it's a forest zone, you can't build on your property unless you intend to do forestry. And you can't build on your property if it's a farm unless you intend to do farming. And then there are certain

regulations but that's not the only prerequisite for that. Yeah isn't there another bill as one of those bills you mentioned? Didn't one of those bills that you mentioned here Jeff, sorry to interject there, also say that if you have a home based business based on a lot of this, you're only allowed to hire up to five people. Actually a limitation on how many people, unless you're a dope farm, I guess if you're an illegal dope grow it doesn't matter out there in the rural lands. Hire as many illegals as you wish. Did I say that open?

I think you did. I think you said that before too. So and if your land has a wildlife corridor on it or is a wildlife habitat, then you're severely restricted in anything that you can do with that land. Now we have 40 acres and there's a deer trail, several deer trails that run through our place. I think the state just might consider that a wildlife corridor. Well, then what I would consider then is just shoot every deer that crosses down that trail and then the problem goes away. No longer a deer trail. Well then I gotta buy a license.

Yeah, I know, I know. Of course if I just put my deer fence down and let them come in and eat the garden, I can call them nuisance deer and take them out, right? Yeah, well I'm just being sarcastic when I say this, but yeah, everything seems to be about making sure that the state is forcing a partnership with you. In other words, everything that it wishes to protect means that it will take your bought and paid for property. Well, what I hope we can do with Undo 762 is to keep moving that forward and doing the same things that we're doing with 762 with the rest of these bills. All of the people out there who have been active in fighting 762, we need you to continue

to be active in the rest of these bills because they're going to just basically lock your property up. I know some people have written me and said that these are conspiracy theories, you know, that we're talking about. And yet here it is in black letter law that's out there right now, these other bills you were talking about, that are also keying in on aspects of 7-6-2, right? Oh, there's reports out there that OSU has put out with it just absolutely below your mind as is what they want to do with fire prescribed burning. You know, Mr. X, he'd come on your program there and say how they want to burn you out. And, you know, I always

thought he was kind of far out there. And then he sent me a link to the report from OSU themselves, and it literally says that in their report in their own words. And I was... Yeah, what does it say again? Could you reiterate that? About burning you out? Mr. X, you know, he talked about what they want to do is burn you out of your property. And I thought, you know, he was doing the fringe thing, and then he sent me a link to a report written by OSU. Now, it doesn't actually say we want to burn you out. Well, it does in a whole bunch of words.

The text is prescribed burning. It's a 40-minute read and you have to reread and reread sentences because it doesn't make sense until you keep rereading. Oh, okay. Because of the word salad thing, the comma always did, it's much like that. So to get an understanding of it, you have to continually reread it. And most people don't want to take the time to do that. So to get an understanding of it you have to continually reread it and most people don't want to take the time to do that. I can understand why if you're talking about 40 minutes of reading legalese. Yeah and that's how they play the game. Which is why 762 needs to just go. You're not in favor then of Senator

Jeff Goldin saying okay we'll get rid of the wildfire map part of this one but the rest of the bill should stay. You would disagree with him on that? That's what we're going to pass the fire to keep the kids from crying. Okay, all right. So, that's thin gruel, the whole thing has to go, undo 62, undo 762.org, right? Undo 762.org, that is correct. All right. Jeff, I appreciate the call and thanks for the report there. Is the overall push from the people there that you could tell to continue with the actual full

repeal of it? Is that where they're mostly? Or are they willing to just kind of take what Senator Golden is offering? Well, the whole debate is a push for the repeal of it. And Senator Robinson's repeal of it. And Senator Robinson's bill that he has drawn up for the repeal of 762. All right. Jeff and Selma, thank you for the call. Appreciate it. Okay. Okay. Bye-bye. 756. I happen to know this man's number, so I know that Mr. X is there hello how you doing yeah I am Bill and it's you know it's so funny because you know you talk about the traffic lights you talk about forest fire you talk about all of the things the state wants

to do that don't actually correct the problem that they're stating exists. And it all comes down to you, you look at implementation. This is a thing they passed a law, now how do they implement it? Well, the first attempt is implement it with mapping so they can tell you what to do. And the reality comes down to what we've got to look at is where are these people that are helping and like you said out of state. The mapping that people have to understand. OSU contracted with a group called Pyrologics out of Montana.

Pyrologics, my gosh, that would sound like pyromania, doesn't it? Well, but they're owned by a group called Vibrant Planet. And Vibrant Planet is a group that wishes to put prescribed fire everywhere, right? Oh, you have no idea, Bill, and what I urge people to do is understand that there's a word, a term called malfeasance. Okay? And this is what's re- you know, they cannot, government is not supposed to enrich selected parties with burdens upon us. This is against the fiduciary duty, especially when the goal of that party is to allow things to burn or their belief system is burning everything.

And if you go to the, just look up on a Google search, the Ted Talk from Wild Planet CEO, and you're going to find the Ted Talk, that the lady who actually owns the mapping company. And when we look at this, it has to be done to educate yourself so that you can truly get involved in fighting because this is the most important fight you state. I just saw a notice now, wildfires set for all over the country, from the east to the west or from the west to the east. Why is fire become so important? It's because there's a movement in this

country that we have to burn this land, but we cannot cut a log on it. We cannot harvest it. And that's what I was getting at. I don't know if you caught my Facebook post. I was talking over the weekend. And this is something where Mr. Outdoors, Greg Roberts and I have a difference of opinion on this one because I had mentioned here how the federal government, you know, it's like everybody complains about the Trump or the cuts being proposed and put in place. Right, Ed?

Remember that one? Everyone's complaining about this. And then I would say, what's your plan when you spend six trillion, but you're only spending four? And I brought up what I consider to be the professional arsonist of the collaboratives that end up getting lots of tax dollars to do what timber harvest used to accomplish here of reduction of fuel and fiber load. And then Greg Roberts of course, you know, we disagreed pretty vehemently about this and I consider the collaboratives kind of a racket because they are dependent on federal government. I just don't know how much longer we can have that kind of those kind of hot checks being written. And I could see prescribed burning in the watershed areas and maybe areas right around the

You know the towns but you're not going to be able to put enough prescribed fire on the federal lands to make up From actually harvesting those days. I mean am I wrong about that? There's just no way they can do it. You're exactly right because if we lived in a perfect world Bill you're exactly right. Because if we lived in a perfect world, Bill, and people did what they were supposed to do, you have to understand how much time I put into this. You go down the lineage of how this all occurred. Well, it goes back to 1995, after the Northwest Forest Plan. Then they came out with the wildfire strategy. All these people testified in front of Congress. And that's the Let it Burn policy. That was, it was codified in the 1995 report or the plan, right?

That's the reality there. And that's the reality. And those rules are still in place. Well, out of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act was supposed to be this marvelous way to do it, where they gave the collaboratives a block of land, I think it's 320 acres or something. And they're supposed to go out and create a work and an ethic of work that clears it out so that a slow moving land, a fire underneath the canopy can burn like it's supposed to, like our Native American brethren used to go through and burn. You know, this is the biggest crock that I've ever seen because they don't do enough work. And the example of that is right in Ashland because when they did the Ashland watershed

project, and this is not me talking, this is the Medford Mail Tribune at the time, there was two articles written how the canopy started on fire and that they would have had a major fire, okay, after they had done supposedly all the work necessary, they would have had a major fire. But ODF was there set up and put the fires out. Okay. And fought the fire at that point that they had started as their prescribed burn. When you play with fire, you're going to get burned. That's the, that was an old adage that I grew up with as a kid. But if these people would do the actual work, but the work is too hard.

You've got to reduce the fuel load before you set a match to our forest lands. Then, you know, if we're not, we're gonna live in a world, like Jeff Golden, you gotta remember his answer to the smoke problem back in 2018. Is to build smoke shelters. Yeah, I know. To build places where you can go breathe clean air.

Point well taken. Ed, I appreciate you. Mr. X, thanks for checking in and jumping in on top of the 762 conversation. All right. Be well. All right. Ultimately, we have to defeat that bill and look at it in a way of bringing some common sense. Like the news is all full of common sense right now. Everybody's talking about common sense. Well, let's use some common sense and let's adopt some policies that actually work. Get some people that really want to do the effort that we have to do. Now, ideally though, you know, when it comes right down to it, Ed, the fiber needs removed. The fiber needs, the fiber needs removed. That means you have to spend more money and it has to go over to, you know, to

biomass or, you know, bio-generation places or something like that, fine. But I think, but I think just trying to burn little nips and tucks everywhere, that's not going to cause the problem that 30, 40 years of non-harvesting on a lot of these lands is done. It's going to burn one way or the other if you don't do something else with it. If I can intrude to say something more, Bill, this is what people have to focus on and understand is that the paper that I sent Jeff that he was clothing off of or talking about, it was in a group called Ecology and Society. What this is about is a social change. The social change they want is to change the economy and change the socialized view point of fire. So what does that tell you if they want

that type of fundamental change? That they intend to keep this up year after year after year. Now we exist supposedly our valley supposed to exist in tourism and when the fires or in the smoke was in the valley our valley is supposed to exist on tourism. And when the fires, when the smoke was in the valley, our tourism shot down to the bottom. It was interesting that Daily Courier had an article speaking about how the visits to the Oregon Caves were up. And we're not quite at the all-time high of a few years ago, back in the early 2000s, but that the wildfire really socked it in the gut. The visits. And yet tourism is supposed to be what we survive on.

It doesn't make sense, does it? That's what we're supposed to rely on, but who wants to come and do this? You don't want to bring your family out here and be subjected to breathing, this type of thing. It's the equivalent of smoking five packs of cigarettes a day. All right. Ed, thanks for the call. Appreciate it.