The MeatEater Podcast - Ep. 773: Congressman Zinke on Conservation Policy and Turning Down the Heat

Episode Date: October 6, 2025

Steven Rinella talks with Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke. Topics discussed: Being red, white, and blue; from the military to politics; the fight for public lands; migration corridors; the Roadless Rule; delisting grizzlies; and more. Connect with Steve and The MeatEater Podcast Network Steve on Instagram and Twitter MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. This is the Meat-Eater podcast coming at you, shirtless, severely bug-bitten, and in my case, underwearless. We hunt, the Meat-Eater podcast. You can't predict anything. Brought to you by First Light. When I'm hunting, I need gear that won't quit. Light builds, no compromise gear that keeps me in the field

longer. No shortcuts, just gear that works. Check it out at firstlight.com. That's F-I-R-S-T-L-I-T-E dot com. All right, everybody, we got a very special guest today who I'll announce to one minute, but first off.

Oh, did you just move that around? Cren? No, Cren didn't move it around. The Christmas tour We still have our Christmas tour going Fayetteville, Arkansas is sold out But here's the run through December 17th will be in Birmingham, Alabama Out to Lyric.

So this is the Meat Eater Live The Christmas Tour December 18 Nashville Marathon Music Works December 19 Memphis Minglewood Hall The 20th is Fayetteville But those are gone

They've been gone for a few days 21 Dallas, Texas Theater. So Texas Theater in Dallas. 22nd, Austin, Texas at the Paramount. What's more, if you're listening on Monday for the Monday drop, on Tuesday, we're having a special drop

with a longtime associate, Ronnie Bame, who's going to tell a dog story that'll warm your little heart. Okay, joined today by Congressman Ryan Zinky. Ryan Zinky is a fifth generation, Montana, serves as representative for Montana's first congressional district. So it covers 16 counties.

If you live in Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Calispell here in Montana, that's your man. Zinke was first elected to Congress back in 2014. He served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior under the First Trump administration. He's now serving as fourth term in Congress. First off, Congressman Zinkie, I want to thank you. um again i haven't thanked you in person i want to thank you again for your leadership um during the recent public land sales efforts for articulating the side of it that i stand on very well and um you may articulate the value of our public lands the reason why we live out west the reason

why teddy rhodesville is revered yeah yeah well thank you because i know i mean i recognize it like you know that um that stuff has to come at some kind of cost and um but you come from a state where that stuff's cherished and uh and you were very vocal up front yeah and laid out what your laid out what your expectations were laid out what your line was and and held firm to it and i think we had a you know that landed where i wanted to see it land and my all my colleagues and friends wanted to see it land and and i appreciate that well the fight for freedom is not over i don't think the land battle's over either. No. Look, you know, I grew up in Montana,

you know, the reason why a lot of us live out west. And, you know, I think it should be recognized too, that we live out in west from a legacy of the great ones. You know, we had Roosevelt, you had Pinchot, you had Mir, a lot of our great thinkers in the conservation

movement, we're blessed to live in an environment. We have public lands. And, you know, the The extent of our public lands, I'm a big management and a Teddy Roosevelt guy with a Pinshow. Look, on public lands, it's best use, best science, best practices, longest term, greatest good. That's the model you use. And, you know, during this last dust up, there is a movement by a few that want to divest of America's greatest asset, which is our public lands. And the divesting of it, once you sell it, you're not going to get back.

But there's also a process. When I was secretary, I added, I subtracted, I exchanged public lands. There's a process to it. I added Cerbenoso, Wilderness in New Mexico. I added a number of parcels. There were LWCF that provided either public access or corridors. I also subtracted around Las Vegas. There's an acronym called SNIPMA, terrible acronym,

but it allows areas around Las Vegas when the county, and there's a whole procedure looking at it to divest in sections. And look, there's sections the highest and best use of land. You know, probably should be looked at. I'll give you an example in Montana. There's 30 acres of U.S. Forest Service property near Lima or Lime, or lima and you know lima's a little small little town but it's right next to the school at one time i think the forest service was going to put a headquarters in there they decided not to uh it's not

used for recreation it's not used for habitat it's just 30 acres i think the highest and best use of that piece of property should be looked at of transferring to the the school i did the same thing on an airport that needed a little more runway i did it on a school that needed some extra but you know there's a process to it and let me take you on a little journey because you know most of the land in west was previously occupied by you know a native tribe and because a lot of that land is public land is that they are given the right for cultural activities for for movement for access to a lot of our public lands when you take that out of the public domain and put it in private, those tribes, if it's a treaty, which many of the tribes are a treaty tribe, they would lose that right. And by law, you have to consult. And then let's talk about water rights, because in the West, whiskey's for drinking,

waters for fighting. And when you divest of property, do you also divest of the underwater right? Do you divest also of the mineral rights? and there. And if you're going to divest of mineral rights, you have to look at what minerals are there, what's the scope of the value. So, so highest and best use, but also the government, you know, doesn't give something away for free. And, and also there's things like the Taylor Grazing Act. A lot of the BLM land on grazing is there at a discount because the Taylor Grazing Act makes sure that the number of cattle on public land, is controlled so it doesn't overgraze. And also, so we had a secure food production in this country. So when you're talking about divesting a public land, there's a whole process to it to include public comment.

You know, just because public land is in New Mexico or Utah or Montana, it belongs to all citizens. And therefore, all citizens of the U.S. should have a comment, you know, on it and be involved. involved in it. So the whole process, what I, what I didn't like about a number of things was this last assault, I think, on public lands. And there was no process to it. It didn't have consultation. And a fire sale on public land, if it's for debt, you're, you're not even on the target. You could sell everything. It's not going to reach $36 trillion. I saw that, I saw that expressed in various ways. And I expressed it in various ways where, um, The actual money into the treasury, it almost winds up being inconsequential. There's a million acre ranch in Nevada. I think they want $23 million for it. And it has water.

And it has buildings. You know, it's a ranch. And then if you're talking about housing, okay, housing is tens of acres. It's called an apartment complex. It's not hundreds of thousands of acres. And it's not, you know, when they say family housing, it's not ranch. Ranchettes. It's not luxury ranchettes. So, you know, I think we are fortunate to live in a great country and we're fortunate to have the outdoor experience we do largely driven by public lands and access. Do we need to manage it better? Absolutely. Should we deem it acceptable for a forest to burn down, you know, every season? And look, if you're a climate change believer or denier, it doesn't leave we. We need it. We, we know, we need it. leave you the responsibility of managing our public lands that's getting get rid of the dead and

dying timber uh put in fire breaks where they're where they're necessary make sure you have diversity of species prescribed burns on the shoulder seasons rather right in the middle when it when it gets hot so but i think you know you look at where it is on the polling uh you know i'd love to share it with you and the viewers is that on the democrat side of the equation i think it's 98% of the democrats oppose selling a poll public land. Okay. On independence, you're in the high 80s, 89.

On the Republican side, only 10% want to sell public land. The other don't know about it. When you say public land sales, is it 30 acres in Lima or is it, you know, three million acres in around Glacier Park? So, you know, it is for the Republican Party, I can tell you, it would be an extinction event. I mean, because I could write the advertisement. You're giving tax breaks the rich while you're selling public land, you know, and it'd be true.

So stop it. That's focus on managing public land. And if you look at a parcel of land that highest and best use, there's a process to it. So go through the process, go through public comment, you know, make sure we're not diminishing our federal estate from, a point of view of public access for hunting, fishing, all those kind of things. Oftentimes, exchanges, you know, work magnificently, or some land may be in a position where you don't have public access to it all, all four corners are surrounded. And it may be a better deal for the public to exchange it for some place that's next to a river

or access, somewhere where you can enjoy the bounty of this great nation. do you mind just by way of introduction to people that might not follow politics closely do you do you mind walking through a little bit of your background um your family's been in montana for for a very long time you know then you had a pretty storied uh you know you had a story military career and were involved in a lot of stuff yeah involving a lot of things a lot of people heard a lot of things about over the last 20 years well i grew up in whitefish uh when whitefish Montana, now a destination. But when I grew up, it was a railroad logging town, you know, a smaller town, about 5,000 folks over a period of time, expanded into a destination.

I played football, went to University of Oregon. I was a duck, played ball for the ducks. But in all honesty, I played before Phil Knight wrote the check for 500 million. So I played with Daffy Duck on the side of my helmet. When I walked into a stadium, it wasn't this big fear, Oh, it was the Daffy Duck call. And then I joined the Navy SEALs, spent 23 years. I was commander at SEAL Team 6. Tell me real quick, the inflection point. Like, why did you join the military?

Well, to be honest with you, my folks are not military. Our family in World War I, some of them fought on the German side, some of them fought on our side. But it was when I was in Oregon, there was a great alumni, Admiral Dick, he commanded the enterprise during Vietnam War, and he talked me about service, and he talked me about the United States Navy Seals, which he was a pilot. And he didn't lie to me, like recruiters don't lie. They may not express the entire truth. I remember his words distinctly. He said, you know, if you don't like it, you can leave at any time. You know, I remember that. He's like, on a six-year cycle. Yeah, I was in Bud's training getting tortured in the surf zone and going, you know what?

Yeah, he's right. You could quit any time. He wasn't lying. But the seal training is, you know, obviously very hard for a reason. And then I enjoyed being a seal. I enjoyed being a commander. It's just that, you know, the more senior become, the less and less time you're actually in the field. And the more time you're flying, what's called a D4,

it was a desk with four drawers. And it came to the point where, you know, I was a deputy commander of special forces in Iraq. My destiny was not to go back into command, but, you know, to do the staff. And there's a, God bless those people to want to do it. So I retired and decided to retire. It was a state senator in Montana.

And then I got this wacky idea to run for Congress. and was elected, and then served a term, you know, learned a lot, and then President Trump and 45 asked me to be secretary. I enjoyed that, did that for a command tour for two years, and then took a wonderful absence away from Washington, D.C., and then decided because we got another seat in Montana to come back, go back to the front line on the fight for freedom, and that's where I am.

I enjoy, you know, representing Montana. Montana has, you know, a lot of opportunity, really, really good people. I have some issues, like every state. But I'm an optimist. I haven't seen anything that's not fixable. But there are some threats out there, and we talked a little about public land.

I don't think that threat is doused. I don't think that campfire is doused. I think it has a chance of coming back, so we have to make sure that we do our part to make sure that, that it doesn't come back. And if it does, it remains unsuccessful and in Davy Jones box where it belongs. Yeah, you're, you're, uh, you want to tell people about the public lands caucus?

Yeah. So it's bipartisan. Uh, we, we have, uh, 20 members, 10 on, on, on, on each side. Is that normal for a caucus to be like, I shouldn't say normal because I know there's some that are both, but is it, is it, is a caucus, is it preferential to be bipartisan? There are both. They're both partisan and nonpartisan. This is a nonpartisan caucus because, you know, again, public lands isn't a Republican or Democrat or independent issue.

It's a red, white, and blue issue. We all enjoy it. But I think it's important to have both sides of the aisle. And it's not just about selling public land. It's about management issues. We have wildlife corridors that we have to look at and evaluate to make sure we protect. We have systems. We have watersheds.

You know, what happens? upstream affects downstream and in a system approach to make sure we have healthy systems our environment and you know we live in a hyper partisan world you know as a seal I fought with Americans for Americans I don't want to fight against Americans I think it's repulsive that there's so much anger out there that you can't have a normal conversation look we should be able to agree or disagree but it's not be disagreeable And, and I, can I quote yourself back to you? Yeah.

Um, I saw you speak a couple times in D.C. this year where you were honored by Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership where I'm a, uh, board member. And you had two things you had said. I told Corinne about them. One you gave, when you came to speak to us as a group, you talked about, this was before it got hot, but you said, we need to turn the heat down. Yeah. Um, and, um, and, um, And things got hotter since then. I agree. And then the other thing you said is you were talking about,

you said if you were talking about public lands, the public estate, and you said, hey, if you have a hotel and it's not being managed well, do you sell the motel or do you change the management? Exactly. You know, it was a great point. My great friends from Utah, I understand the frustration about getting a ticket on a county road. I understand the frustration of being locked out of public land of access. I understand the frustration of watching the forest burn down every year.

And we burned more two by fours last year that we ever harvested. So I understand the frustration about mismanagement. But the solution, again, using the hotel analogy, is not to sell the hotel. Let's get better management. And better management is going back to what? Best science, best practices, greatest good, longest term. That's the conservation, American conservation ethic that Pinchot and Roosevelt and a lot of superb scientists over the course of time have adhered to. And I think we owe it to those that gave us the legacy to continue that process.

And, you know, kind of going back to the hyperpartisan, you know, how do you break through? Well, you find something we both agree on, right? And then you talk about it, and then you have a working relationship, because Congress is a working relationship. It's 435 different members from different parts, but you've got to work together in order to get things done. So you work together. And then if you find something that's easy to work with together, maybe the next step is finding something a little more difficult than it's relationships. But public land should be a rallying call for Americans because Americans, revere our public lens.

And where the debate is is sometimes how best to manage it. And I sit in the corner of the conservationist that's multiple use, that if kind of my background is a Boy Scout, when you have a campground, leave the campground, and it is good or a better condition you find it. So you can mine, but we're not going to mine like Butte. We're not going to mine like Virginia Beach or Virginia City. You know, you bring a paddleboard up up the river

and destroy the river. If we're going to mine, let's do it correctly. There's new mine techniques, and we need to mine. There's critical minerals, rarer in Montana that are wonderful that we need. But let's do it right. Let's go through the process. It's not skip steps, but let's go through the process and then make sure we have a reclamation plan that works.

And I think all of us would get along a lot better. if we looked at, you know, multiple use and management side of it. And I do agree that, you know, wilderness is set aside because wilderness those areas with the lightest touch, but it doesn't mean no touch. I'll give you an example. In Hawaii, when it was secretary, when the Hawaiian volcano on the big island was blowing up, a lot of that caldra is actually in proposed wilderness. And if you, by the letter of the law, the superintendent down there,

would not allow a me as a secretary to put scientific instrumentation on the type of the, on the side of that cauldron, because it was in a proposed wilderness. Now, I had to take a visit out there and, and relook that. But let's say, in our wilderness in Montana and the Bob Marshall, so what if you have an appearance of zebra mussels? Sure. And the, and the upper south fork. Well, you know, I think when zebra muscles, I think you should use scientific instrumentation

out there. And I think it's okay to put a wheel in in order to eradicate and eliminate the threat early enough. We have pine beetle the devastation across. So you can use management techniques. You know, if you don't like the sound of a chainsaw clearing trail, then maybe a couple times a year you ought to be able to use electric chainsaws and clear the trail so people have access. We had a fisheries biologist on the show one time. Well, let me, let me real quick, just catch people up on a point here. What we're talking about is about 2% of the country is federally designated wilderness

and it sort of enjoys what I feel is the for my personal opinion and enjoys kind of like the the perfect layer of protection where it's non-motorized but you can still hunt. Right. And that and picture like a park where you can hunt. Well it's great. And the

Wilderness Act was a great compromise between conservationists between cattlemen and that's why you can hunt on wilderness. That's why you can graze in the wilderness. Fish and camp. Yep. And you're limited on what you can do mechanically.

You know, you can't bring a wheel in. Yeah. That was the fisheries biologist thing is they were, they were working, I think it was in the heel of wilderness area. And they have these strains of cutthroat trout that's a fairly imperiled fish. And fires. will destroy whole rivers and he was talking about

when they were trying to get fish stock samples couldn't use helicopters and he wound up they wound up I think they fought about it a little bit but in the end he wound up taking pack stock

and trying to figure out how to move fish with pack stock because he couldn't get a helicopter in there but you know and then you got in New Mexico you got a lot of areas where a guzzler is is required, which means that there's not a lot of water out there.

So there's guzzlers out there that allow sheep to have access to water. Yeah. So in order to make sure those guzzlers have water in them, you know, I don't have a problem taking a truck and occasionally feeding the guzzlers so you have wildlife out there. But oh, no. Well, you got to put it in a backpack, you know, one gallon at a time. And stop, guys. The point is...

The argument is it's a slippery. slope. Yeah, it's a slip. Well, you know what? But a lot of things are a slippy slope, but, you know, it's about management. It's about effective management and, and have some degree of common sense to things. You know, in wilderness, I get the lightest, lightest touch because you want to look at the majesty of nature. But nature can be pretty tough, too.

So if you have ravishing forest fires and it burns down every tree in the watershed, And it puts so much sediment and silt in the watershed that the fish will die, you know, especially if you have, you know, species in trouble, which we do in Montana, you know, what's the purpose? So do you, did you prevent, you know, damage? No. What you did is you allowed it to happen. So you can, you can do management practices. It's a scale of how much, you know, no one, no one's advocating, you know, timber sales in wilderness. but certainly if you have a disease, if you have in the case of beetle kill or or disease with aquatic invasive species, then I think you do need to be judgment to get on it quickly and to make sure it doesn't spread. Here's large U.I. I'm not large U.I. A big part of why I want to talk to you and I'm curious how you think about things is My personal tendency is to be something of an absoluteist on wilderness protections.

I have friends that are very involved in policy, very involved in the conservation world, and sometimes they'll make this argument, and you made it too, that we can't always just, there has to be some compromise in order to turn the heat down a little bit. And that was some of what you were talking about, where there are people, like people that advocate for public land massive public land selloffs have sets of frustrations right absolutely and so like i'm i'm open to at least i'd like to hear articulations of ways in which some of those frustrations can be addressed where we maintain the integrity of what we're trying to protect and then therefore as you said turn down the heat a little bit by having an open ear and being like

Okay. And this is exactly what the public lands caucus is intended to do to turn the heat down and discuss, you know, areas where we can agree. And it seems like fire is a big one. Well, fire, wildlife corridors, management, I think fishing people, you know, Democrats and Republicans and independents, we all hunt. We want to make sure our herds are healthy, all right, if you have, you know, whether, you know, pick a disease, blue tongue or or chronic waste. disease. There's a lot of things in there. And that's not natural. Well, is it natural? Or are we going to just let it go to the end? Or are we going to intervene? And this is where discussion should be made. And also, the Wilderness Act was 1964. That was a product of

compromise. Well, so was our Constitution. And in 1964, America was a little different back in 1964. We're sitting in Bozeman, Montana. I can show you pictures from 1964. I was born here in 61. Bozeman's changed since then. And sometimes you've got to upgrade the plan in order to protect your assets because things have changed. What's changed in Montana during my lifetime is that when I grew up, there was never a problem with public access because there was, wasn't any fences. There was, you know, there was less people out, you know, in the woods, you know, you know people just most people lived in town or but there was never a problem uh with public access or or hunting and now there are there's a lot more fences set up uh public access is harder to find

you know corners you know that's that's a big discussion and it wasn't in corners when i grew up because no one was there uh and now it's the discussion so you know looking at it upgrading the plan so you know what's important public access is important system health is important. Not just a segment of the river, but the river itself. Not just a segment of the forest, but the health of the forest and systems and wildlife corridors and flyways to make sure the systems operate. And that takes, again, going back to best science, best practices, what's the greatest good, what's the longest term, you know, how we manage your assets for the next hundred years. And, you know, we talked about a little about our, you know, the legacy

we were given. And I think the biggest challenge is how do we manage it for the next hundred years. Given the change that's happened since Roosevelt was president and over a hundred years ago, he faced different challenges of what we face today. We do face rural interface, forest fires, you know, diseases, invasive species. There's a lot more on the plate about challenges. And Not all of them are impossible, but I think we do got to look at innovative ways and maybe find, you know, how to protect what I think are our greatest treasures. You know, how are we going to protect the, the herds? Because if you don't protect, you know, wildlife corridors, because, you know, large game, they transit between summer range and winter range. And if that is blocked by sets of fences or highways or developments, then they lose.

that access to their feeding grounds too. So how do we look at the corridors? How do I identify the corridors? Yeah, you prioritize that when you were Secretary of the Interior and that kick started I mean a ton of work. Good. Do you feel

like what do you think is going to happen with in like in Trump too with the current administration? Do you feel that there's going to be sort of a vocalization or a rededication around some of the work that like that you initiated on big game corridors.

I mean, that kind of that conversation really came to life during those years. Yeah, and I like Doug Bergam. He's, you know, from North Dakota. So he has kind of a western tilt to his walk. North Dakota is a little different in Montana. But I've talked to him about wildlife corridors and reorganization, which I think is important. And a lot of times, it's not more money into the system. it's better utilization

of the funding. And I'll give you an example. And you've got to follow me on this, but let's say you have a trout and a salmon in the same stream. Happens everywhere in the West. Let's say upstream, you have a Forest Service holding, a national forest,

and downstream you have a dam. I've just described every watershed in the West. So this is how we manage it. So the trout are managed by the Department of Interior through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The salmon are managed by Department of Commerce through NOAA. The National Forest, surface is managed by Department of Agriculture through U.S. Forest Service, subsurface is Department of Interior through Bureau of Land Management. Our dam system downstream that directs the flow, the temperature. It's either Department

of Army, through the Army Corps of Engineers, like Libby, or. or its Department of Interior through Bureau of Reclamation, like the dam in Hungry Horse, even though you almost can see each other. So let's say you want to put a redo a bridge or put a pipeline in or a dock system. You literally have to go through multiple departments with different agencies, with oftentimes conflicting regulation. in 163 different regions. Even the regions don't line up.

The regions from Bureau of Reclamation is not the same region as Department or Bureau of Indian Affairs. They're not even geographically the same. So it's not exactly putting more resources in. It's reorganizing it so you can make better decisions. So you don't have seven different biologists from seven different agencies

on the same acre or ground or the same section of river giving different views and a conclusion that either it doesn't move forward or it's not a consensus and thus we're stuck in the mud and we don't get things done.

Decisions, we have the technology on decisions to make a decision yes or no within a reasonable amount of time but because just the organization of it and how we're set up, a lot of these decisions wait and wait and wait and wait. If you're trying to, you know, extract a resource, there's a lot of frustration

on that side. You're trying to protect the resource. There's a lot of frustration that side too. Yeah. So we can do it better. Let's jump to one that's heating up right now. A lot of conversations about the role of this rule. I hate to see the, like, not hate to. I really don't want to see the role this rule thrown out. Just, I want to hear, but people know what I think.

From your perspective, right, from your perspective, like, aren't there some fixes and some adjustments that could be made to alleviate? some of the concerns. Again, I don't want to lecture people on what I think about the worldless rule. I think, like, the roleless rule does a great job of protecting those last bastions of undeveloped landscapes. But again, you know, in your role, here you are, you have a lot of constituents, you're answering to a lot of, you know, a lot of people with a lot of concerns. I would love to see that there was a way to more surgically address concerns as they come up rather than just saying like to hell with it, which I feel like rescinding the roll-less rule is a little bit like to hell with y'all. Yeah.

And all right, when the one is, I'll hand it over to you. When the roadless rule was put in, there wasn't any public comment on that one either. That was that was President Clinton, oh, we're going to do the roadless rule. Yeah, no, I don't remember any public comment. Yeah. So I think there's public comment on the way out. I think, you know, a blanket, we're just going to undo every roadless and make them roadless again, make them roads. I think that is not best science.

It's not best practices. It's not based on longest term, greatest good. I think there's no doubt some roads that probably should be opened up that provide access. Remember, not everyone is in great shape. There's a lot of older folks that don't walk so well. that maybe would like to drive. There's a snowmobile out there. There's a lot of things, right?

I promise you all I was going to stop talking about it, but here's the thing. I don't picture running out of roads. Like, I'm not, I'm not a, there's like, there's no such things as a road preservationist because there's always going to be a bunch of those. Well, all right. I'm handing back over here. And let's say northwest Montana, there is a lot of existing roads. that when they shut the roads down, they probably should have been opened up.

They went too far. And then, and over a period of time, if roads overgrow, and then you do have a fire, you're putting a lot of firefighters in danger because you've got to have access for machinery and stuff like that. Yeah. But again, the right step, I think, is, and these, we're going to do all this or all this. I think there's a logical, you know, midway that's evaluate the road system. That's a value where we should have open up, you know, public access,

because public access is important. And public access isn't always, you know, two feet. And I can tell you, there's a lot of veterans that wish they had two legs that can't walk very far. There's a lot of older folks that don't have the ability to walk that far, but, you know, they used to. And so I think you can manage it, you know, well, but this, you know, one side or the other, I think leads to, you know, tension. So I do think it's important to look at public access and evaluate fairly, look at our roads

when they were made roadless. There was no comment. When, when, when, when, when, if the rule is overturned, based on coming, you know, what roads are you going to overturn? I think that's a legitimate discussion. I think we should have these discussions about where and why and what purpose. Not every place, you know, some places have other alternative

access points and a lot of places of, you know, the road probably shouldn't have been in there in the beginning. So I do think you've got to carefully look at things. And that's, you know, some of these discussions, you know, it isn't, it isn't clear where you have to have it one way other. Do I have to have, you know, zero people in, or zero machinery in a wilderness? Well, it depends and what the machinery does. If it's scientific instrumentation on the side of a cauldron in Hawaii so you can evaluate the subsurface channels

of lava penetrating and threatening human life, I think that's a fair put that thing. If you don't like to looking at it, then make it look like a rock. Listen, I, man, I understand. Those areas, like those examples of things that happen where it winds up being,

it almost becomes like a, those areas where like some level of absurdity is demonstrated it drives a lot of frustration you know I mean it drives frustration like in places that were like the one I brought up where you know there's almost an irony to it like someone trying to preserve a strain of cutthroat trout being hindered in their activities because of the world's rule so like and then you're trying to preserve the integrity like you're trying to work on behalf of the integrity of the very thing that's preventing you from working out the integrity or whatever I'm trying to say. I get all the, I get those examples. Then you have a fire, right? They have a massive fire

and you have so much settlement that the trout you're trying to protect are gone. Yeah. And, and those are, those are real cases. So I think judgment matters and have a little latitude for the commander to make a decision based on ground truth, situation and train dictate. So on the roadless rule, I think it should be looked at, evaluated, a public comment. There's no doubt that there are some places that the roads network should be replaced, probably repaired. So if you do need to get in there with fire trucks and equipment you can so you can evaluate it and enjoy your public land because it's yours. Snowmobiles, you know, across Montana. I've never seen a problem or damage from a snowmobile during the summer. I hike a lot. Unless a snowmobile,

hits a tree, doesn't do a lot of damage out there. And the four strokes are pretty quiet and quite frank of the game. If they're up that high where the snowpack's that high, the game is not there. So, as you know, you hunt. And I have a couple snowmills. You do. Wild and scenic river work. So you recently, I'm a little lost of where, like, how the process plays out,

but proposing wild and scenic status for stretches on the gallatin. in Madison. What does that do? Like, what, give me your thinking on that? Like, what does that do? Is it, is it a symbolic gesture? Like, no, all right. It's looking at the gallatin and, you know, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, remains, et cetera. In the case of the River Act, it started at the county level. They first came to my office in D.C., a group behind it and said, oh, you've got this great plan.

We're going to do all these rivers, thousands of miles of rivers, going to put them on our protection, and said, well, what do the counties think about it? Oh, we haven't talked to county commissioners. Ah, well. Going right to the big dog. You know what? I'm a congressman, former, former, you know, secretary. I go to the county commissioners because the county commissioners are the front line.

You know, the sheriff has voted in. The county commissioners are voted in. They're the front line. And if you want my support, you got to go to the county commissioners and get their support too. And they did. You know, good on them. They went in, they worked it. They got county commissioners.

They adjusted to scope where you had all sides. You had the government side, you know, with me, and you had the county commissioners. And you had the local, the local enthusiastic groups, you know, there are a lot of them that all got together and said, this is the right plan. And then because I'm a representative and I represent people and I'm glad to do it, if everyone agrees, you know what, we'll go forward because I also think it's important enough to make sure that your kids had the same experience on the Madison and the Gallatin as you did. the reason why we live in Montana is because the Gallatin isn't the Sacramento River, that we understand how important it is on flows and temperature and species and repairing banks and all that, you know, should be and looked at as part of Montana, our legacy that we're going to also leave behind for the next generation.

So I'm glad to do it. The process is it starts in the house. We'll get a committee hearing on it. It's not a contentious issue because I think we did it right. We went at the front line and it's, you know, front line driven. And then I'm sure that Senator, you know, Shihi and Danes will pick it up on that side. So I'm actually fairly optimistic that the scope is right. It got a consensus on it.

And it protects, you know, two beautiful rivers that I think the you and I spend a lot of time on. Rightfully so because they are, they are, gorgeous rivers. And I just want to make sure that, again, your kids and your grandchildren can have the same experience. What's the timeline on something like that look like for that process? Well, we're in government shutdown right now. I'm sure not much is moving at the, at the moment. But I'm pretty optimist that it'll move for you. Things take time. Good things take more time. But, you know, I think we're on a good role because we did it right. Yeah. You know, on Right, right, meaning that, that procedure how to do it.

That local buy-in and county commissioner angle, yeah. You know, people in Utah got really upset when monuments were put in place that they had no say. Matter of fact, not only did they not have a say, they had just the opposite. They were stonestly against it. Both the state, House, the state Senate, the representation, all were against that and yet happened. And you've got to be sensitive to. to states' rights, even though it's federal property, and monuments for everyone's listening. You know, the president's authority to designate a monument, Teddy Roosevelt really pushed it,

and it's called the Antiquities Act, and it's delightfully short. It's only about a page, and it has four conditions. One, you have to have an object to protect. That object, by law, by definition, is historic, prehistoric, you know, or geologic. Example historic would be battleground, geologic, the devil's tower. Yeah. That's the one I was going to throw out there.

That's the first monument, like Teddy Roosevelt. I visited that place. Yeah. Amazing. And secondly, it's very understandable when you look at it. Yeah, it's like, yeah. I know where you're going, you're like, where it's like, that thing. Yeah, well, and, you know, the monument at the time was 1,200 acres.

Yeah, yeah. So, oh, there's a pushback. It was a land grab. But again, you have to have. something to preserve. Secondly, it has to be on federal land. You can't designate a monument on state or private land. It has to be federal.

So some of the recent designations of monuments also were on state and private land, which is illegal. And I think also important... Well, because those places were encompassed within the... Encompassed, but what happens is you start restricting access. you start changing prescriptions on grazing, on time, and so you put a lot of pressure on either the state for income, because a lot of state properties like Montana, best and highest use, the schools generate income from the property, or as your private land rights, you do have some right to the enjoyment of your property. And when that's diminished because of a government, either it's an action, then that's a taking. But lastly is, smallest area compatible to protection of the object. And that's important.

For instance, if you're going to designate a battlefield, a monument, then it would be logical. And the extent of that battlefield would be where the battle took place or a very close spot. it's not in the case of bears ears which was a famous one it's not 1500 square miles then you go well 1500 square miles uh and you know for listeners that remember bears ears it was oh this is quite a tossing so president clinton went in and he designated bears ears uh didn't see the property uh but bears ears was about 1500 square miles of which 800 000 acres was wilderness now tell me in wilderness, what protections in a wilderness you don't have? None. And then there was an entirety of a national forest in there that had no monuments. I mean, it had no areas of known existence of anything

historical, no Indian artifacts, no dwellings. What it was was there could be. There could be. What is that? So you can't design a monument of what could be. And it's smallest area compatible. So when I did a review with the state of Utah and with the governor and locals, I looked at it and I made the recommendation then President Trump is that on the 800,000 of wilderness, return it back to wilderness. It has all the protection it needs. On the national forest, return it to national forest. the rest of it a reasonable boundary and the boundary that I recommended was larger than Bryce Canyon and Zion Park combined and still there was there was pushback from it but at the end of the day it was a right decision you got to follow the wall on monuments same thing with because you got you got absolutists like you got absolutes like like like I'm kind of well you got absolute you got absolutely like like like I'm kind of well you got absolutely ludus like me who would look and who would look and be like um maybe uh i'm gonna

i'm gonna admit like a certain level of manipulation here where you'd look and you'd be like i i i like the the goal i like the goal of preserving untouched landscape and um and if this is how we got to get there then this is how we got to get there and i understand that that one ends up, you know, being something that's, that's legally exposed. Yeah. And it's an approach that's legally vulnerable, as we see with a lot of these ping pong issues that aren't acts of Congress. Well, it's interesting with bears ears.

You have two sections of the great Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation in Utah was against the monument, primarily because they didn't want notoriety. They do a lot of ceremonial. you know, events on that land, and they were staunchly against the monument. The Navajos and Arizona, where you just had the opposite view, they wanted the monument. And they viewed the monument as a step towards a national park. Or they viewed the monument as a step towards a reconciliation of a land return.

Yeah. And so that was kind of their view. At the end of the day, I viewed it in the terms. of what was written in the law is that, yes, there is, there's Zuni, there's a lot of historical and geological features that I think they would qualify. I wasn't President Obama. So I gave President Obama deference. I wasn't president. He was. So he decided that he would sign it. And so I gave deference of it within the law. But again, the boundaries that I proposed is still in litigation, by the way, were larger than Zion and Bryce Canyon combined. There's not one inch,

by the way, that left the federal state. Not one inch of land left the federal state is how it was designated and for what use and when. But that's an example. And I think you rightfully brought it up. There's there's people that will give no quarter on either side because either they think it's a slippery slope or the government doesn't have the right or states or. rights. There's a lot of people that are lined up that get angry when you even have a discussion about it. And, you know, this leads to a large thing is we need to get the anger out of the discussion. It's a distraction of getting things done. And look at what's the purpose. The purpose is to maintain and preserve and protect our outdoor legacy to improve public access

where we can and to manage our forests and our wildlife to make sure that the herds are healthy into the future and our forests remain the same. You know, that's the goal, right? And how do you reach the goal? Well, you work together to do it. You look at threats and there are. You identify what's the source of the threat. Why do people want to sell land? Why are people so angry? Is it because of housing costs? Well, housing costs are high, but in housing, it's say you have a million dollar home, which in Bozeman, it's hard to believe it. There's hardly any home just not a million dollars, but, you know, look at a million dollar home. Someone coming from, yeah, so I'm not, I'm not like picking on it or I'm just pulling the state out of, you know, thin air.

Like someone coming from Missouri. And if you said, hey, point out the million dollar homes, they're not going to be pointing out the million dollar homes. And even in Missouri, you know, so 40% of a cost of a home is permitting. And permitting includes curbs and sewer and water. Yeah. Right. Then you have construction costs. Materials are not coming down.

You're, uh, then you have to have some profit. Uh, and then you have land costs of that group. Land costs generally and oftentimes are, are the least, uh, the least expensive part. And again, we talked about if it's public housing we want, that's tens of acres. It's not, it's not hundreds or hundreds of thousands of acres, right? And if the purpose is to provide housing, then, yeah. But if you don't have infrastructure, then building a house in the middle of a dirt farm without water and sewer is not going to get you very far.

So you have to look at it and evaluate, you know, what's the purpose. Again, you know, if you sell land, public land, once you sold it, it's gone. You're not going to get it back. George Will said that. You're not making any more land. So I think, again, the point is I think you look at things, evaluate highest and best use and go back to the American conservation ethic that got us to this point of why we have the the federal estate we do.

I want to move to one where I believe you and I are in perfect agreement. That's scary. Grizzly bear delisting. Absolutely. And why it fits in with some of the theme of what we're talking about. For listeners, grizzly bears were listed

for Endangered Species Act protection very early on in the act. When they were listed, we, we mean, the American people, the system agreed on what recovery would look like. They put numbers to it. Grizzly bears reached that agreed upon recovery threshold 30 years ago. I'm a little bit lost in time. 25 years ago, 30 years ago, they hit the numbers that everyone agreed would be recovery. a thing about the Endangered Species Act,

I think that only 2% of the things that go on the Endangered Species Act come off because they're recovered. Things might come off because we realize they were extinct. Things might come off because we realize that they weren't actually warranted in the first place.

But rarely does an animal, just rarely do we recover an animal. We did with Peregrine Falcons, we did with bald eagles. When bald eagles hit recover, It was a big celebration. They were removed from the Endangered Species Act protection. But somehow with Grizzlies, we hit recovery and they won't delist them. And speaking to the frustrations is it winds up making a mockery of the Endangered Species Act.

And it turns the Endangered Species Act into a thing where people hear it and they reflexively go, oh, brother. Yeah. It breeds the frustration because you're like, we set a plan, we achieve the plan, and then someone says, nope, I'm moving the goalpost because I don't want to live in a world where someone might do something bad to a grizzly bear. So I no longer care about what the act intended. I just care about using it as a legal weapon to protect my own personal interests. Well, and the Endangered Species Act, by the way, Dick Nixon signed it. People forget about that. Yeah, Dick Nixon signed.

He was trying to, in Space, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act. It was all Dick Nixon. No, it was unbelievable. Now, he had Democratic Congress, but, you know, Dick Nixon, all right, he's the one that signed it. I had someone there a day explained to me that he didn't actually care about any of that stuff. And I didn't look into it. I don't know, he signed it. But, you know, on two points.

One is, as you rightfully point out, the Endanger Species Act, the Solid Ideas. about it is absolutely essential to protecting species and make sure we leave a legacy. But it can be abused. And when it is abused, that creates anger and frustration. And people just want to be done with the whole damn thing. And it spills out into other species, right? Because if they, if they see the grizzly bear, which has recovered, I mean, if you go to Wavando, every outbuilding has, you know, hot wire on it.

They had a tourist camping right next to the, the, the rest of it. got mauled and killed it by the post office you see it you know you can't go out there in a bike anymore with a BB gun we have too many grizzlies there's the right number of grizzlies let's go by science and manage the grizzly and then there's then they've somehow concocted now there's three separate species of grizzlies there's the continental great continental there's the greater yellowstone and there's the yak and each of those are different um the study was completed on the greater Yellowstone. That population has recovered when I was secretary. I led the effort, took it off the list, and it was put on back on the list when I left.

The continental, that study has recently been completed. That species has recovered, and those are the ones that are old Vando in the northwest. And the yak, there was never endangered because the way the endangered species act is you only count the ones that are in North America. You only count the ones that are in the United States. We don't, we're blind of the ones that are in, in Canada. Well, this, the northern or the yak grizzly, only a small section of their habitat is, is actually in the U.S. Most of the habitat is north. But all of a sudden, if the numbers in the south, the small, you know, the smaller section where they live, if that numbers can't promulgate the entire species, then they remain on the list.

And it's nuts. With no acknowledgement of the habitat to the north of the line. And you got, and if you've been up there, the forests are dead. They have the canopy. Everything below the canopy is dead because the tree density is too great. They're dead and dying trees. There is no grasses, grizzly veers, don't eat grass. And underlets do, but unless there's grass, you know, there's nothing to feed on.

Pretty, you know, pretty much they're having to transit hundreds of miles for food. and their food oftentimes in the northwest and liby happens to be a garbage can because garbage cans are available because there's food there's no food out there but you know it's a management issue and we should celebrate that the species is recovered i mean we we all should do a barn dance and celebrate and then go all right these are the numbers we're going to we're going to monitor that species very closely it's just off the list this is the numbers that we're going to target it to and manage just like we manage elk herds we manage cattle we manage things the only thing only two things we seem not to

manage our grizzly bears and wild horses and burrows yeah and and both of them become dude i can put that on our list but that's another one but we'll not we can avoid that one but let's stand grisies for a minute because what like one of the things like being an optimist you know try to be an optimist i look and i'm i'm an optimist we should be well i look and i'm like you got uh republic You got a Republican governor in Montana, you got a Republican governor in Idaho, you get a Republican government in Wyoming. We have a Republican delegation. We have a Republican in the White House. I'm like, perhaps in the next four years would be a great, it seems like everything's really aligned to delist the grizzly bears and hand them back to state management.

Is that enough time or is it just too legally complicated? No, I think we should and can. we have a little problem with a couple judges. Yeah. Like, it's like a person. A person in Missoula. A person in Missoula?

He's from Malta. I know, but it's like a god. It's like a godlike position. Yeah, every time it's always moving the bar. But I, look, you don't give up. It's the right thing to do because the numbers in the science behind it is that it's truthful.

So I do think, and it's not, you know, Republican Democrat's not really quite frankly the way I see the world I'm kind of a red, white, and blue guy. I know, but what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is the power should align to get things done where you don't

need resistance. Yeah, I was like without fully understood, like, I know everybody has their own priority, but I was just saying when I looked at it, I'm like, that would be a great outcome here. You know, there's other things I care about that would be compromised, but would love to see this come through. But it's like,

you got a you move to like you move to D-List like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service moves to the list and they make a plan but then it just gets it just gets litigated right yeah and I would say that's part of the issue is Congress has to do our job to make sure that there is an off ramp based on science on the Endangered Species Act but when it's abused it creates anger on on both sides. One is that you are thinking about taking an animal off the list, so I'm angry about that, and you're not taking the animal off the list because it's recovered, I'm angry about that. So I think it's always better to look at what's the goal. The goal is independent of opinion. The goal is to have a healthy number of species, but make sure the species that was

identified once it meets that objective, then it's off the list. Congress has to do our job to sure that once those numbers have been verified that in fact gets off the list and doesn't get litigated for another series of discovery well what about the relationship between the monarch butterfly and the grizzly have you looked at that yeah no i haven't looked at that that that's all that's always the play the play is not to question how many bears are out there the play is to go like but did you consider this but did you consider discovery it's never like hey there's not actually enough of them, it's always like some, it's like a technicality. And, and, you know, we also reward lawsuits because they, you, if you bring a lawsuit forward,

you have 11 tenants of that, of, of that lawsuit, and you lose on 10 of them, but win on a minor one, you're still going to get fully funded. So you're, you're, our taxpayers, you know, pay for this nonsense. Enough's enough. who are $36 trillion in debt, I can see a lot better expense of taxpayer dollars than to defend a species that by all numbers and by science has recovered. Enough's enough, but Congress has to adjust it to make sure that the abuse is stopped. So if you crystal balled it, like, when will that happen? I mean, we eventually got there on wolves, right?

It took a long time. We got there on wolves, at least in the Northern Rockies. The northern Great Lakes are still dealing with the problem. And Colorado is just being introduced to the problem, and they're not very happy about it. Yeah. But what are the odds, or not however you want to put it? Like, what are the chances that we would see Grizzly delisting in the next handful of years?

Well, you know, you have influence. I've been talking about this since I was young. But you're not giving up on it. You don't give up. You know, you don't give up. You never quit. You know, with Danes and Shihi and Montana, the four of us, you know, I, yeah, it's certainly a priority. I think probably the number one priority is peace, but after peace, you know, the environment. You know, I'm an optimist.

It can get done. I think Bergam understands the importance of it. And, you know, if you're in New York or Florida, you know, grizzly bears probably aren't at the top of your list. but look we we black bears are you know think of a bigger black bear a lot bigger but you know this is where you know

the four of us we get along well we talk at least once if not twice a week and I'm pretty confident we'll see the greater Yellowstone Grizzly go off the list

I think it won't be too long before the continental and the yak, we're going to have to change the law. So we can, we can, you know, it's ridiculous if you have, again, if your, if your habitat is just a small area, but, but absent of boundaries, if the preponderance of the bears live up in Canada, then there should be some form of it to have some compensation for those bears. A lot of them are coming from Canada and coming down, eating, and returning.

I'm trying to resist the urge to give, listeners, my standard 30-minute explanation of distinct population segments. But when we're, when, uh, when, when, when Congressman Zingy is talking about the, the northern continental divide, the greater Yellowstone, basically it's a, it's a geographical sort of system by which we point out areas that could potentially even have grizzlies or that have suitable habitat. So instead of talking about grizzlies and golden gate park, where there were grizzlies once by. time um we're talking about the the places where there's suitable habitat and the potential for a

population that yeah and and then they go well it's this is a subspecies it is a greater yellowstone so much different than the continental and the yak the answer is no and then if you got to go to another subspecies there's a subspecies if you go further out montana there's a cornfield out by Chester that the grizzly bears have gone all the way out to Chester. It's the cornfield grizzly. And, you know, sit in that cornfield, you know, more or less all fall. Now, that could be a subspecies, too. It's the, it's the corn grizzly, you know, of course, of being facetious, but.

No, I understand. There is a tool, there's an environmental tool that gets used where if someone, you know, you might point out, like, hey, we're, this species is imperative. old and and people will say well it's not because they're all over the place and then what you do is your play is you say well this one's a little different well and it could you know and it's like there's like splitters and lumpers and taxonomy yeah if you're worried about DNA uh then they're doing transplanting you know programs and they'll they'll grab a bear from one area and send another bear if if you if you're worried about that the gene pool is beginning you know so reduced stud program yeah and yeah and yeah etc but it goes back to science but I'm I'm an optimist on on that and then danger species you need 60 votes in the Senate that's one of the hurdles so it has to be bipartisan and I think a vehicle for that is we should have the discussion in the public lands caucus that's a very very bipartisan and very full spectrum by the way of political toad from the ultra-conservative

to the ultra-liberal, but the common thread is public lands. Yeah, yeah. And both sides are deeply passionate about public lands. The management is a little different

in the perspective of how to manage it, but they're passionate. That's a great start. At least people are passionate about the team. A lot of people are passionate about, you know, the bobcats. Yeah.

And tell the grizzly bobcat game. I'm going to tell you something that I don't want you to take personally. You and I don't agree on everything, but I don't agree with my wife on everything. So you're in her company. Yeah, I'll give you hit. You know, I don't agree with myself all the time. Ask my wife. So, but, you know, but again, it helps if a person has passion, right?

Yeah. And it also helps to listen. Well, that's kind of what I wanted to end on here is a thing that I've appreciated being, you know, one of your constituents. I think I've appreciated about you is you have a, you cultivate intentionally or naturally, you cultivate a tonality that implies compromise, that implies giving people the benefit of the doubt, that implies like, let's hear all the ideas, may the best idea win, you point out, you know, we're talking about red and blue, you point out being red, white, and blue.

right um you talk about taking the heat down like dude this is stuff that that i love to hear um i haven't read the article yet i saw a thing this morning that most it was a poll i didn't read any the details of the poll who did the poll i don't know but just said in a poll most americans think that the divisions in this country cannot be resolved which is just sickening to hear that what's your take i mean you go you go you go you go out of your way to like you said you go out of your way to take the heat down and you go out of your way to like be a gentleman and to point out this is america let's figure things out amicably like like are you gonna how do you keep that up well and and how do you how do you get the tone and the anger out of it

right i guess leadership uh leadership at every level uh the source of the school teachers should be talking about the tone you know that's that's celebrate our diversity of thought that celebrate critical thinking and that's that celebrate solution minded people that that celebrate our ability as a as a great nation to get things done but it has i think it has to happen both from the top and and also from from from the bottom up and anyone that has a voice, I think should be saying the same voice, you know, related as a Charlie Kirk incident, you know, terrible. Yeah, anyone that would celebrate the death of a father or celebrate the death of a husband

over political dissent is a real problem. Yeah. And where are they getting that from? I don't know, man, my kids would come home from school and they would tell me insane things that would be instead of school. I'm like, listen, my kids in speech and debate. I'm like, that man was killed. at a debate where he's inviting the people that disagree with him most to come up and share

their opinion. He was killed at a debate. To your point, he advocated debate. He advocated you prove me wrong on an intellectual capacity. And whoever disagrees most is the front of the line. And have at it, but it was a, it was an event of communication. of deliberation, of debate, it should never resolve to violence. And I can tell you, it's not my first rodeo. The anger out there is a distraction from getting things done. When you have anger, it doesn't allow a conversation on affordable housing. It doesn't allow a conversation on economics and prosperity and how to break through

an environment that's really difficult for especially young people to get a job and get a house. You know, how do we, how do we address that? When there's so much anger, you can't even have the discussion. If you want to talk about affordable housing, just talk about, you know, things like title. When you buy a house, you don't buy a house, you buy a title, right? And it's the title. My wife handles all this stuff for me. It's the title you buy and sell, right?

And so we should look at, you know, how do we open up so people can have access to a title? Is it, you know, six pluses, eightplexes, is it condos making it easier for people to own title? Because that's what gains equity in sell. But if your life is destined to rent, the entirety of your existence, you know, that's a change from the American dream, right? The American dream is a couple cars, a house, you know, send the kids to school, they're going to have more opportunity than you did. Diminishing it, you know, it's probably not possible to, if you live in New York City to buy a, buy a building or a block. But you can buy a long-term lease on an apartment with title and sell that. So there's other ways to do it.

But you can't get there. If you're so angry, you clench your fists and you shut off your ears. and all you're going to do is become angry. And, you know, I've been a seal. I've seen a lot of things in my life. I've seen the very best of humanity. And I have seen the worst. I have absolutely seen the worst in humanity.

But I remain an optimist that always good will prevail. And, you know, one of the nice things about it, as we do live in Montana. We're here in Bozeman. So sometimes the problems are over the horizon. They're concerned because if they're overhauled, horizon but in this country and i think the only way to to address it is that we all should address because we all rise and fall in the same tide and you know go go to the neighbor you you're really dislike and say hello yeah yeah that yeah you're talking about divisions making it that we can't

get projects done i just worry about divisions that make it that the the american we can't get the American experience done the American experiment done you know like I just I don't know man I just been like really tore up about I think I think it should be a concern it really really hit like with like with with with with the death of Charlie Kirk it was like not just that tragedy but sort of the the the the the mindsets that came out of that and some of the opinions that came out of that stunning it like it hit dude it like hit me like a um Um, I've been having like a, like a, like a little bit of a, uh, of like an emotional crisis about just since those days. It's been hard since those days, like, like, not just the like, I feel bad, like, I feel terrible for the person's family, but the, the, the, the symbolism of it and this idea that you, this idea that people would come out and, and, and, and act like they were glad about something like that.

And then the way that would just be leveraged by everybody and the way the motivations of the shooter would be leveraged. leverage i don't know man just made me feel sick like i still feel kind of sick from it but we should feel sick uh because it it's one it should be unacceptable um and sometimes we're a loss of words uh but i i think it's i think it's a value to reflect and it's only evil if we don't change and and maybe you know there's not much of a silver lining in and in in in Charlie's death, but maybe we'll give us a moment of reflection in a watershed moment and say, we don't want to be that country. Yeah.

We don't want to have shootings on political disagreements. We don't want to have anger because what has results in, it results in the dismantling of a great nation, dismantling of our fabric as Americans. We are bonded by one nation under God. So we should, hopefully we were, you know, I'm seeing some signs of it, you know, it's my, it's my, you know, prayer that we don't snap back to where we were, that we actually move forward on it. And in his death, we'll have some positive outcome, you know, from it. It's only positive if it's recognized. And we change our tone and actions to it. And that has to come from everybody. It didn't happen overnight. This anger. was allowed to brew and in some cases it was promoted yeah uh calling someone a nazi

three thousand times on tv eventually someone goes oh it must be a nazi because he you know is it just just you know i understand freedom of speech but you know you can articulate you know and like my mom said you can you know you can use your words yeah i told dude i told my kids i'm like And when all this is going on, I was like, hey, man, I like, I have opinions that are controversial. I'm an outspoken hunter, which in some people's minds is controversial. I go to colleges, give talks and talk to people. And I'm like, I hear you kill animals. Well, imagine, like, I'm saying, like, if someone, I told my kids, someone shoots me at a college campus, there's going to be people that are like, well, he deserved it.

And I'm like, how are you going to feel in that moment? Yeah. Do you know what I mean? It's just like, I don't want to keep around that about it. I'm sure glad you came by to talk. Here's some good things. As a, as it, you know, the spirit of Americans, we're all Americans. And, again, I've seen humanity as worst and I've seen humanity the best.

We have an opportunity to make sure we learn from this and move on. And I think if leadership across the board on both sides of the aisle, and there's probably three or four different sides of the aisle, of folks out there but all this should should recognize and and push back on it and i'm seeing that with with you know a lot of tone of the media people that are in the influence you know world say the same thing talk about it uh not all um but i'm i'm seeing some some good signs and hey why it's not perfect uh you wake up the morning the best you can he influence those things you can't influence accept kind of the things you can't.

You don't quit. You don't give up. You're passionate about your ideas, and you kind of associate sometimes with people that are also passionate. And it's not so bad to once in a while to go out and meet someone that you don't, would normally not

have a conversation with. In the House, believe it or not, I'll go over the Democrat side of the aisle. I'll sit down, and I have a group of people with distinctly different backgrounds in mind, sit down, we have a conversation with it. I've learned about the deep south a lot from conversations. Listen, I watch you, you don't know this. I watch you do this.

Yeah, I'll go on and do it. I watch you go up and out of your way and engage with of all things that Democrat. I watch you go across the room and do it. I'll tell you, I have a lot of friends that are Democrats, too. Yeah, but I saw that and I appreciated it, man. I appreciated it. Well, I don't think our problems are going to be solved from one side of the aisle or the other. I think the problems, it's always the kind of the middle lanes that look at it.

And most people, you know, I just want government to function. And they just want to cover the basics and make sure you have a functional government. And the resources are put where people need them. You know, I think there's a Christian aspect of it. Look, if someone's hurting, then you shouldn't walk past. You should provide some help. A handout is always better than it than, or hand up is better than a handout. But in some cases, you know, people just aren't able to be, you know, they're going to make a lot of mistakes in life and they're going to continue to make mistakes.

So what do you do? You either can incarcerate them or you try to provide some opportunity to reform. I'm a redemption guy, you know, try to put them a program where, you know, they, they work and at something, you know, everyone can do something. And work is healing, you know, work provides purpose a lot of times, self-worth evaluation. So get them in something that they feel good about, even if it's pick it up garbage. I pick up garbage. I clean toilets at parks. I'm happy with it.

Yeah. Well, Congressman Zinky, thanks for coming on, talking about conservation issues, talking about American patriotism. I appreciate it. And just around the block, I always enjoy it. And thanks for what you do, by the way. Oh, thank you. You're insightful. I think you drive with the issues. You have a great following for a reason, is that I think you bring up some hard-hitting issues. And probably most of all, I understand you're a pretty good hunter. I got good, I got, I got, I got, uh, I got, I got friends that point me in the right direction. I heard you got a good scope, too. All right. Well, thank you very much. Ah, come on, why is this taking so long? This thing is ancient.

Still using yesterday's tech, upgrade to the ThinkPad X1 Carbon, ultra-light, ultra-powerful, and built for serious productivity, with Intel core ultra-processors, blazing speed, and AI-powered performance. It keeps up with your business, not the other way around. Whoa, this thing moves. Stop hitting snooze on new tech. Win the tech search at Lenovo.com. Unlock AI experiences with the ThinkPad X1 Carbon, powered by Intel Core Ultra processors,

so you can work, create, and boost productivity all on one device. Our crew at Meat Eater has centuries worth of collective experience procuring and preparing meat, hunting, butchering, preserving, cooking it for ourselves and our families. I've chased it from one end of the world to the other, grilling caribou steaks in the Arctic, butchering elk in the high country of the Rockies, drying fish in the headwaters of the Amazon. The main thing I've learned

is that there's nothing better than knowing where your meat comes from. So when we set out to make jerky and sticks with our own recipes perfected on Wild Game, I wanted to start with the American Buffalo, an iconic North American native that's fed this continent for thousands of years. These are recipes I use in my

own kitchen. Not meant to mimic what's already out there. They're meant to showcase everything I've learned about good meat from the wilds or from the ranch. This ain't your typical phony gas station jerky. It's American Buffalo done right. And it's just the beginning. Meat eater snacks from folks who know meat. This is an iHeart podcast.