The MeatEater Podcast - Ep. 785: Another Attack On Our Public Lands

Episode Date: October 30, 2025

Steven Rinella talks with Jeremy Romero of the National Wildlife Federation about yet another attack on our public lands by Sen. Mike Lee's latest Border Lands Conservation Act.  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. For our friends north of the border, Anex Hunt just got better in Canada. Now you can get nationwide coverage for less than a box of shells. Plus, Anex has dropped big updates to Crownland layers and added parcel boundaries where available. You still get fully functional offline maps, real-time GPS tracking, precise weather conditions,

and customizable map tools you can share with your buddies. If you're hunting in Canada, this is a no-brainer. Download the on-ex hunt app. Try it free for seven days. Real hunts rarely go as planned. That's where First Lights Navigator hoodie earns its place. Our crews have run it from September climbs to cold front sits. It manages temps, stays quiet and close encounters,

and wicks moisture on the uphill push. One layer that adapts without hesitation no matter the pursuit, The Navigator delivers versatility in any situation. Shop now at firstlight.com. That's F-I-R-S-T-L-I-T-E.com. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we have a special emergency foap. This is dedicated to all the listeners out there who stay. We should just stay out of politics.

Join today by my friend Jeremy Romero, who's a hunter conservationist and serves with the National Wildlife Federation. And Jeremy is here to talk about kind of what I view to be like one of the most, I'm trying to choose my words carefully here. Cynical, creative, and kind of like a little bit like of an exploitive. And I'll explain why I'm using these words. A cynical, exploitive public lands bill. that has emerged without a lot of fanfare and without a lot of reporting if you if you follow the

news you've been you've seen that we've suffered another a number of conservation setbacks um coming out of the the trump administration where uh undoing the roadless rule okay um that's going on uh we had put and we'd put the ambler road building a big industrial corridor into Alaska's Brooks range. They had, again, temporarily put to bed. Ambler Road is back on the table in order to allow a foreign mining company to drill and export a bunch of mineral wealth out of Alaska and create a 250-mile industrial corridor going into one of our last vestiges of wilderness. We have another phenomenal piece of wilderness called the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We learned a couple days ago that they're looking to, open up and reissue drilling leases in ANWR. There was a lot of resource management plans, Bureau of Land Management, Resource Management plans that just got undone. So Montana, Alaska, North Dakota. So these were management plans that many stakeholders came together. They served a lot of interests of hunters and anglers. That got thrown out the window.

The aim for everything we're talking about, what we're going to talk about in a minute, the aim here is to be able to a push by the administration to increase resource extraction and industrialization. If you remember back, before a lot of this stuff started brewing,

a lot of this stuff was whispers last June. But last June we saw perhaps one of the most direct assaults on public lands. And that was Utah Senator Mike Lee's pushed to sell off a few million acres of public lands um that got enormous pushback uh i would say like enormous bipartisan pushback um we had seen that happen again what year was it the chafeits one

jeremy i'm sorry do you remember what year jason chafe's proposal which was remarkably similar 2017 sounds right yeah 2017 i think it was right around 2017 um there was another proposal to sell millions of acres of public land. That was met with enormous bipartisan pushback. The media seemed to be the national media, seemed to be surprised by the fact that hunters coalesced around pushback on that issue. That was by a Utah lawmaker named Jason Chafetz. Senator Mike Lee just in June 2025

brought out a new plan to sell off millions of acres that had different sort of code words you know I find that these plans are a lot of this legislation and we'll get into this in greater detail with Jeremy

a lot of the anti-public lands legislation anti-wilderness area legislation will carry like a it'll carry fashionable buzzwords okay so one of Mike Lee's early versions of the sell-off was like was couched in this language around affordable housing but then when you look at the details of the bill it didn't really do much to address affordable housing

before it was in 2017 it was like um extra or excess public lands that we have excess public lands we're going to get rid of some of them. The bill we're going to talk about now uses another currently fashionable buzzword in order to accomplish something that really doesn't do much to serve the buzzword that it's being marketed under. But going back to June,

this big sell-off push was pulled. It was defeated. When that happened, a lot of people I know in the conservation space were like, we're cautious about declaring it a victory. they're like that was a we want a battle we didn't win the war this will come back up very quickly one might think that um senator lee like it was kind of a bruising on that uh one one might have thought he might retreat from the the idea altogether of kind of weakening protections um

but but but he hasn't he he's he's he has a um he's committed to the idea of of opening up of weakening public lands protections opening up undeveloped lands to development that just that's where he is that's his commitment so we're looking at a new bill here that was introduced on October 2nd and this is the one I was saying that just hasn't

like for whatever reason hasn't received a bunch of news and I think it's because it's entering an area that's quite clouded with all these other things that I laid out the role this rule. Ambler Road ANWR, resource management plans. So this one's kind of flown a little bit under the radar. And I've asked Jeremy Romero to come on.

He was the one that told me about it. I asked him to come on and explain to me and explain to our listeners what the Borderlands Conservation Act is all about. And it ain't about conservation.

So Jeremy, can you can you talk people through what the Borderlands Conservation Act is like what is it at face value and what is it actually about and then we'll get into some details yeah you bet

Steve thanks for having me on and talk about this issue you know I think you said it brilliantly it's an attack on public lands you know Senator Lee I think really took a stab at undermining public lands when he went through the reconciliation

process and you know the the large effort to sell up public lands and essentially this is this is no different so um in october early october senator lee introduced the borderlands conservation act with you know in a nutshell that bill is is focused on border security again you you said and use the phrase of kind of these these sexy terms right these terms that are popular in society today and and border security is one of those and this bill is aimed at at just that, increasing border security along the northern and southern borders in the United States, kind of creating these 100 mile buffer zones in the northern and southern borders and basically creates and gives Department of Homeland Security the authority to manage these roads

in an effort to strengthen border security. And it does it by a number of different measures that we'll talk about in this conversation. Really, those measures, in my opinion, undermined the importance. of public lands and the protections afforded to public lands like things like the 1964 Wilderness Act. Yeah, which of these points should we jump into first here?

Yeah, let's just talk about this 100 mile buffer and kind of the rationale behind you know, inventorying these illegal roads and trails. So, yeah, I want to hit that because when we talk about the 100 mile buffer,

this will impact you have to appreciate, you have to appreciate, like, what we're talking about. So I'm going to tell people something obvious here. If we're talking about, if you look at a map of the United States and then imagine coming in from 100 miles on all of our borders, north and south and Alaska, okay, you're, you're taking in wilderness areas in Washington. You're taking in wilderness areas in Idaho. You're taking wilderness areas in Montana. Jumping eastward from there. where this grabs hold

of all of the boundary waters area it would come into areas in Maine national parks wilderness areas in California wilderness areas in Arizona wilderness areas in New Mexico

Big Bend National Park in Texas Tongass Wilderness Area in Alaska Rangel St. Elias Park and Preserve in Alaska so this is a I mean this you can one hand go like oh, it's a 100-mile buffer, but you need to appreciate what we're talking about when we talk about a 100-mile buffer coming in from our borders.

Like, it's grabbing onto huge swaths of land. Yeah, that's exactly right. And I'll note that the one, you know, the one type or the types of land jurisdictions that this bill is not specific to are tribal lands, state lands, and private lands. Other than that, it's taking, you know, the stroke of a paintbrush within that 100-mile buffer and any land that's administered by the federal government under DOI and USDA is subject to these measures in this bill so as you mentioned everything everything administered by DUI by USDA all those national parks all those uh you know forest service units all those BLM field offices

wilderness study areas wilderness like they are all subject to the measures in this bill all within that hunter mile buffer and those are there's a couple other point when we get to the wilderness portion of this that I'll also I'll make I'll make sure to distinguish but you know basically within this 100 mile buffer on the northern and southern boundaries department of homeland security is going to work in coordination with DOI and USDA to inventory what they would consider illegal roads and trails that have been that have been created by illegal border crossings and that's important because one how do we determine if in fact a road or a trail is created by illegal border crossing. And if these agencies, if these land

management agencies determine that, in fact, these roads were created by illegal border crossing, then it's providing DHS Department of Homeland Security the authority to then create and manage these roads as navigable roads for the sake of border security. So installing infrastructure, technology that can monitor border security and illegal border crossings and prevent those from happening in the future. And so it really opens up this can of worms of deciding whether or not these roads actually are illegal and whether or not these trails are illegal and if so, be able to be managed. And it doesn't really consider the impacts to developing these roads. You know, currently a lot of these agencies go through travel

management plans where they inventory the road use system and determine whether or not these roads are navigable or in navigable and create this kind of access plan this map that you that I that others can then access public lands and they do a pretty meticulous job of being able to lay out this footprint of what's considered navigable right you want to you want to protect wildlife you want to you know protect wildlife habitat there's cultural resource pretty protection when it comes to managing these roads. And so allowing for this kind of unregulated development of roads really, I think, puts a lot of important things in the crosshairs along this buffer. And like you hinted to, I mean, a 100 mile buffer to me is outrageous, right?

I mean, we're talking from the southern border to almost Tucson, Arizona, right? It encapsulates a lot of country that they are claiming to be important for border security. And in my perspective, I think it's a little outrageous to think that a hundred mile buffer and all the different types of land jurisdictions and land management, land jurisdictions within that 100 mile buffer are really going to lend to increasing border security. So I struggle a little bit just to understand even the logic there, that it be that if you were to determine, if someone were to determine that a road,

that an illegal road, say on BLM land, that an illegal road on BLM land, or like an unregistered road on BLM land, or an illegal trail on BLM land, that they determined to have been utilized by illegal

immigrants, or for my, for illegal immigration of some part, that that would then give you justification to go in and make it into a road on a wilderness. Exactly. Yeah.

And wilderness and non-wilderness, it's mind-boggling to me to think about how these, how the mandates in this bill and those land management agencies, how they will come to the conclusion saying that these trails and these roads were created by legal border crossing. You know, how do you determine that, right? Like that's, I think that's kind of the big question I have in my mind. mind is, you know, when it comes to a trail, for instance, I mean, you and I hunt a lot. We're in places where, you know, livestock, whether that's a, you know, a grazing allotment or what have you or in a lot of areas we tend to occupy, you know, if cattle are utilizing a trail that they've created and, you know, let's just say there's a boot track on there. Does that mean that that road was used and created by illegals and now it gets to be managed by Department of Homeland Security,

in a fashion that allows them to access, you know, these areas, if a road was created by illegal OHV use, or it was once determined to be navigable and has since been deemed in navigable, so it was no longer accessible to the public, how do you determine that that road was created by illegal border crossing and then be able to reopen that road, right? How, the question I have next to what I just pointed out is, then how do you, enforce these roads to be used for the intent in which the bill describes and not for all this extracurricular activity like illegal OHV use. I think there's a bigger question to be had, which is who's going to front the cost for developing these roads? I think right now when you look

at the deferred maintenance to agencies like Forest Service and BLM, there's hundreds of thousands of miles of roads that are deteriorating because these agencies don't have the resources to manage the roads that they have considered and deemed to be navigable through these travel management plans. And we're asking these agencies to create more roads and take away from roads that they've already deemed to be accessible and the management and the resources that they need to manage those roads. There's a lot to unpack there. And so I think there's a lot of questions, and I think the bill doesn't do a great job of defining how these actions are going to be conducted. And those are part of the many problems I have with the bill.

Yeah, in a minute, let's get into a little bit of how these bills come up where they leave so many details up to one's imagination. And that in some ways was attributable to the sinking of the sell-off plan, where the sell-off plan went through a handful. of versions. It had these like permutations. And in the end, someone realized and it was pointed out, and this was acknowledged by the office that put it forward, it was pointed out, even though this

was put together as this idea of addressing affordable housing, and the way the bill was written, you couldn't have prevented foreign governments from buying the land. Right? So you wind up in this thing, like, you're saying it's one thing, but then you're not

clarifying with enough level of detail, about how it would be determined. I would be able to take it a little more seriously. If someone was talking about a three-mile buffer, a five-mile buffer, a 10-mile buffer, I'd be able to look at it and be like, yeah, I'm willing to at least take this at face value. But when you've gotten 100 miles north of the border with Mexico or 100 miles south of the border in Idaho, like at that point I don't think we're talking about immigration anymore

and so it opens up this question of like what is it really about if it was a five mile thing I'd be like okay this is about immigration 100 miles is about something entirely different and we'll get to that in the minute but let's get into a couple of these components one of the ways that they're trying to sell

this again couching it in language to anyone would agree with this is like a tactic right you say like oh border security well who wouldn't want border security right must be a good idea here they're like hey this will help with search and rescue um explain that component yeah and and it's important to note that the search and rescue piece is basically also tied to this amending the wilderness act okay so let's let i'm out of order then let's get into amending the wilderness act you bet so a big component of this bill is to amend the

1964, excuse me, Wilderness Preservation Act to allow for the use of developing roads using motorized, mechanized travel, kind of under the auspice of search and rescue and border security. So basically allowing the things that the Wilderness Act prevents for the sake of border security. What's important to note is that when it comes to search and rescue in wilderness areas, a lot of the land use management agencies and local law enforcement, local search and rescue, already have plans in place to, one, prevent more than is intended to when it comes to occupying and being in wilderness areas to conduct those search and rescue operations. So they can already go in and use motorized, mechanized travel.

if it's deemed that they absolutely have to for the sake of human life. They have these plans in place, and they can go in there and they can fly a helicopter. They can take a, you know, like a gurney that's got a wheel on it. They can travel in on potentially on four-wheelers or use their motorized types of transportation in certain circumstances. These plans are already coordinated and developed with those land use management. agencies, local law enforcement search and rescue. And so what this is trying to do is, you know, amend the Wilderness Preservation Act to create those roads to codify the use of motorized,

mechanized operation in Wilderness Act, which to me is a really slippery slope. And earlier you mentioned like how these bills are written and how kind of things, let's just say, fly under the radar may not be explicitly defined. This is an important piece because what this with this section of the bill does not clarify is when it talks about amending the wilderness to create roads, motorized use with, you know, for the sake of border security, it does not explicitly mention that it's with that it's wilderness areas within the 100 mile buffer. Right. Oh. It's just It's just amending the Wilderness Preservation Act. So technically, it applies to all wilderness areas, you know, aside from those within that 100-mile buffer.

So in my mind, that means if you can justify that building roads in wilderness areas is for the sake of border security, it can be any wilderness in our country. Or building roads is helpful for search and rescue, apparently. Exactly. Yeah. Hunting big country isn't for the faint of heart. You got steep ground, long distances, and miles of crown land that aren't always easy to navigate. That's why Anex Hunt just got a serious upgrade for hunters in Canada. Now you can get nationwide coverage for less than the cost of a box of shells

with major updates to crown land layers and new parcel boundaries where available. Scout access boundaries and terrain with confidence before you even lace up your boots. Whether you're chasing elk in the mountains, spotting mule deer in the coolies, or looking for big woods white tails, Anex gives you the tools to plan smarter and hunt harder. You'll still get fully functional offline maps, precise weather conditions, real-time GPS tracking, and customizable markups to share with your crew.

Big country demands better intel. Download Anex hunt and start your seven-day trial to get dialed before your next trip. Big news, folks. the third volume in our Meat Eaters American History audiobook series is available right now wherever you get your audiobooks. That's right, it's available now. It's called Meat Eaters American History, the hide hunters, 1865 to 1883. It tells the story of the commercial buffalo hunters who drove North America's most iconic large land mammal to the brink of extinction in the years after the Civil War. You'll learn all about how these

guys with nicknames like dirty face Jones skunk Johnson and squirrel eye emery did what they did how they organized their hunting expeditions what they took with them what guns they shot how they hunted how they processed their kills why they did it in the first place and how they died you'll also learn about the economic factors that made this a viable profession and what happened to those millions of buffalo skins once they were shipped east. And like we do in all of our meat eaters American history projects, we included wild stories and bizarre details from this era, and we didn't leave out any of the gory bits. Check out Meat Eaters American History, the hide hunters, 1865 to 1883, wherever you get your

audiobooks. Okay, we got into some of the details here. What is your take? Earlier I used like a term cynical and I'm a little I'm not totally happy with word choice on that but what you see is again and again you see these things that they're they're trying to couch it as one thing but what they're talking about is something else okay so here it's taking this idea of border security this idea of search or rescue and and and lo and behold what does it really come down to it comes down to like weakening protections on wilderness areas and making it easier to develop and do road building. Do you, like, in your view and your analysis of this, do you feel that that's fair? Like, do you feel that there really is? I hate to use it, but like, is there like a sort of conspiracy of sorts of trying to use whatever tools are applicable,

whatever national crises we have, affordable housing, border security, whatever it is to try to just do anything to weaken protections on wilderness areas and weaken protections on public lands. And if that's true, like, what is the end game? Like, how does that ultimately get them what they want? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know,

from like the conspiracy perspective, it's hard not to think that there's these ulterior motives when it comes to these types of bills and legislation. I mean, we've seen time and time, you know, time and time again where individuals like Senator Lee or others just don't have the same perspective of public lands that you and I or others do. And therefore, I think their perspective of public lands

is a much more, you know, let's just call it an asset-driven mindset where they look at public lands and they see different, types of investments that they can return on these assets, right? Different types of ways that these lands can be more profitable than they already are than just creating open spaces where we can recreate, where we can hunt, where we can fish. And in their minds, I don't believe that this is something that they enjoy seeing and how public lands are utilized. And, you know, for that reason, I think we've seen these assaults on public lands through

different efforts, the reconciliation process that you mend earlier. And so it's hard for me to think that these bills, when I see them, are just focused on what the title of the bill is written as, right? I have, I can't help but think that there's, that there's these, these details, that there's these underlying efforts within, within these bills that are aimed at attacking and undermining public lands from multiple perspectives like getting more access therefore you can potentially have non you know um you can have more resource extraction or irresponsible use of public lands um i think it's a slippery slope and i think they're they're recognizing that they have to be a little bit craftier a little bit more creative and how they attack public lands and so you know

you said it you said it spot on like using terms like affordable housing border security, I think terms that maybe hit near and dear to a lot of Americans, you know, lives and homes. Like I do think by trying to create these kind of false narratives, by trying to get people on board for these ideas that really aren't the root of what is intended by these pieces of legislation, I can't help, I can't help but think there's more to it than what we're reading. Yeah, I don't want to use too hyperbolic of language here. Like, I just want to, you know, acknowledge these things are coming from, you know, patriotic people who no doubt love their families and love their communities. It's just we're like ideologically opposed on an issue.

My view is that undeveloped landscapes are of extreme value and will become more and more valuable over time and that preserving them, conserving them, comes at no cost. cost to us. They're still there. They will still be there later on. Once as the world gets developed, as the nation gets developed, as our last wildernesses get developed, will burn through an asset and will later regret what we did. And I think that there are some activities, hunting, fishing, hiking, those are things that I'm interested in. There are some activities that can go on right now without having adverse impact on these great American assets. So I don't want to, when I use the word conspiracy, I don't want to act like someone's

objective in putting this forward that the objective is to be like evil or something. It's just like a different thing. Some people look at undeveloped landscape and they see wasted opportunity. I look at undeveloped landscape and I see an incredible asset in the nation's bank that can bring enjoyment and mental health and physical health to all Americans. Americans while we hold it and it might be oh and I know like without a doubt to me will be of far more value to future generations than it is to us now and in our in our undeveloped landscapes are at their most valuable state as they sit right it's like it's an asset so yeah I don't

want to put this in terms of of um good versus evil it's like it's like it's an ideological battle with real with real results like like real things are pivoting on this okay um what now and then you see where people put forward pieces of legislation that you know aren't to be taken seriously um like people do it there's there's a performative quality to some legislation when there was talk of uh giving an example when some guy put forth legislation that would have put Trump on Mount Rushmore. It was performative, right? For a lot of people, it was good for a laugh.

It sparked a lot of conversation. Like, is there really room on Mount Rushmore? What is Mount Rushmore made of? Where would you put it? What's the history of Mount Rushmore? But in the end, it was like a performative gesture. It was never something that was meant to be advanced and signed into law, right? Is this?

Is this like making a statement? Is it trying to like advance an idea that future generations might pick up on? Like what is this? Is this serious? I think it can very well be serious. And I do think it's somewhat performative. I think it's, you know, Senator Lee and other co-sponsors, you know, dip in their toe in the water to do a temperature check and see how a bill like this is perceived.

whether or not it's going to get the support and the attention to to gain some traction and potentially move forward. I hope it's it's kind of all smoke, no fire, for a lot of the reasons that we've been talking about. You know, it's interesting when you look at this bill to see who the co-sponsors are. And I say that because there's only one co-sponsor that's occupying a state that is relative to the language in this bill and that Senator Cruz is out of Texas. You don't see other Republican or Democratic senators along these

border states that are co-sponsoring this bill. Well, that's funny. You mentioned that because, I mean, Utah sits well outside of the 100. Senator Lee's state of Utah sits well outside the buffer. I see a representative from Wyoming sits outside of the buffer. But you're right.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has portions of his state in the buffer zone. in the very generous buffer zone. That's right. And you don't see individuals like Senator Dane's, Senator Sheehe, Senator Rish,

like, you know, those senators on the northern part of the border, those people who you would think, if this was an issue that was really important, you would think that the states that are going to be impacted by this legislation would have more of a of a perspective on the bill maybe that's a maybe that's a sign right like maybe that's a sign that this this bill really is just kind of an attention seeker and not going to get the traction that or the seriousness that people are going to to think when they read it um and for that

reason like maybe that's why those individuals don't you know aren't sponsoring the bill and you know obviously that's me just being a you know rather presumptuous but i think when i when i see the lack of those co-sponsors. I just have to ask those questions. Got it. And what do you think will happen? What's the next step for a piece of legislation like this? Remember that cartoon, your little kid? I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill?

Like, what's next? Well, it was referred to the Committee of Energy and Natural Resources. So amongst all the craziness that's happening in D.C. right now, this bill has to be put on the calendar by, by E&R, by Senate E&R. And then once it's there, they have to listen to the bill and they have to vote on it to pass it out of committee. And then from there, it goes on its own kind of trajectory to potentially being voted on the Senate floor, has to have a House companion. You know, it still has a long route before it's even, I would say, remotely considered serious.

But the fact that it was introduced is serious enough for me to want to talk to you about. Yeah. And this will come up on. Under an early person that'll get a look at this is Senator Heinrich from New Mexico, who has, you know, who represents landscape within this buffer. He's a big, you know, like a very informed, very dedicated defender of public lands. Like, what's his take on this going to be? Well, I imagine Senator Heinrich that, as you mentioned, is a champion for conservation champion for public lands, somebody who gets out and hunts and fishes on our public lands. I think when he sees a bill

like this, he's going to ask a lot of questions, and he's going to pick it apart, kind of as we've been picking it apart on this conversation. I don't think a bill like this is going to, actually, I know a bill like this is not going to land well with Senator Heinrich. I think he will do a brilliant job of asking those important underlying questions of the intention and rationale of this bill. And, you know, with that being said, I hope the result is, is the bill doesn't move out of committee and is essentially dead upon arrival. Yeah. But it is, man, it's like a very interesting and, like I said, I didn't know about it. You know, we were together right around this time when it came out. You're the one that explained it to me. And I thought that, regardless of

where it lands, and it's very early to say, it's a very, it's an interesting civics lesson. And it's an interesting look into how people are, and this is the point I keep making, an interesting look at how people could have a historic ax to grind, like a career-long set of goals. In this case, if your career-long set of goals is to reduce protections on public lands and open up development and industrialization of wild lands, that's like the career-long long goal, the way in which you can look for opportunities in the national dialogue to be like, oh, that's how I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And then the conversation changes.

And there's like a lot of talk about affordable housing, let's say. That's how I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And then there's a lot of talk about illegal immigration. That's how I'm going to talk about my perennial issue. And it brings to mind this analogy of that the bottle of the wine stays the same, but you continue to apply a new label onto that wine. And so it's just a it's a fascinating glimpse into the thinking here. I hope listeners like start paying more attention to that in the years that are coming as we continue to have these conversations. and thank you, Jeremy, to come on and explaining this and telling me about it.

Again, I think it's, like I said, if nothing else, it's a great civics lesson for people. Yeah, I really appreciate you letting me come on and talk about the bill. You know, any attack on public land is important to me to get out there and talk about and advocate for public lands and the right to hunt and fish and protecting these areas for future generations. So we're going to keep our eye on this bill. we're going we're going to do our due diligence to to make sure a bill like this doesn't doesn't have a future and you know in the future you know keeping keeping a you know keeping a close

eye on legislation that comes out and looking at how they are somewhat you know disguised in different ways and I recommend people do their due diligence and look at look at bill look at legislation not just for what the title of the legislation is but what the actual action items and legislation are. And I encourage you to be active, reach out to your, you know, your congressional members and, you know, be an engaged member of society. I think as the reconciliation process and the public land sale off kind of played out, we saw a tremendous amount of support from everybody on both sides of the aisle, you know, whether you, whether you hunt and fished or didn't like it.

We all came together and pushed back on the public land sell off, and it was an extraordinary thing to see. And I just hope that we can continue to have those shared visions when it comes to pieces of legislation like this. So Steve, again, I think I thank you for letting me come on and talk about this bill, and we'll just keep tracking it. Okay. Again, you're hearing from Jeremy Romero from the National Wildlife Federation,

a very avid hunter angler out of New Mexico. Thanks again, Jeremy. Thanks. Real hunts rarely go as planned. That's where First Lights Navigator hoodie earns its place. Our crews have run it from September climbs to cold front sits.

It manages temps, stays quiet and close encounters, and wicks moisture on the uphill push. One layer that adapts without hesitation no matter the pursuit, the navigator delivers versatility in any situation. Shop now at firstlight.com. That's f-I-R-S-T-L-I-T-E dot com. This is an I-Hart podcast.