All About Public Lands and a Major Win, with Joel Pedersen of TRCP
Podcast Transcript:
Tom: Hi, and welcome to the "Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast." This is your host, Tom Rosenbauer. And my guest this week is Joel Pedersen. Joel is president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. And Joel has some really good news for us that happened quite recently regarding, public [00:00:30] lands. And, also, maybe even more interest, Joel goes into detail about how the different classes of, public lands are managed.
You know, you have national forest. You have BLM land. You have national park land, and you also have wilderness areas as well as private conservancies, nature conservancy lands. And Joel really gets into detail and talks [00:01:00] about the differences between these various classes of public land because they are different. And, honestly, I never knew exactly what the differences between them were. So I think it's really educational. And, again, there's some good news that, I wanna share with all of you.
And before we do the Fly Box, I'm going to [00:01:30] give you some ideas on people to fish with and places to fish in the coming year or perhaps next year. I'm gonna talk about some Orvis-endorsed operations that you may or may not have heard of. The first one is independent guide, Steve Scooby Stubbe, and Steve fishes in the, secluded marsh flats in the Palo Gaucho and Mid Lakes area in Texas. And if you wanna catch [00:02:00] big, large mouths on deer hair poppers or big bluegills, gar, freshwater stripers, Steve's the one to go with. And, you know, there's a lot of fly fishers in Texas, and they often go to places like Colorado and Montana and Alaska to fish, but there's some great fly fishing in Texas itself. And Steve can show you some of the very best.
While you're there, you'll see lots of wildlife including bald eagles, gators, wild pigs, [00:02:30] migrating birds. He's a specialist in fishing at first and last light, and these are the best times for catching big bass on the surface. So I'd recommend that you check him out and also, watch the video on the Orvis website of Steve's operation. And you can find this one and all the other Orvis-endorsed operations at orvis.com/adventures. There's even an interactive map there that can show you [00:03:00] different parts of the country and what Orvis-endorsed operations there are there.
The second is an outfitter. It's actually a fly fishing school. This is the Jackson Hole Fly Fishing School. And, you know, a lot of people spend their summer vacation or a week or two or a few days in the Jackson Hole area. It's a very popular tourist town. And while you're there, you might wanna take a fly fishing lesson. [00:03:30] They have a walking wade school. They have a drift boat school. They have a Snake River float school, and all gear is provided. You can bring your own if you want, but all the gear is provided. So even if you're there on vacation and don't have your fishing gear with you, you should look into this.
They schools fish in Bridger-Teton National Forest. They fish in Yellowstone Park. They fish the Snake River and its tributaries, the [00:04:00] Green and the New Fork River, the Firehole, Lewis and Yellowstone Lakes, and the Salt River. They also have a private schoolhouse right on the Snake River. So if you're in the Jackson Hole area and you're looking for something different to do, and you love to fly fish or you'd love to learn more about fly fishing, I'd highly recommend the Jackson Hole Fly Fishing School.
And third on the list this week [00:04:30] is the Salmon Lodge on the Grand Cascapedia. And this is really Atlantic salmon fishing in the grand old style. It's on the Gaspe Peninsula, and they fish the Grand and Petite Cascapedia Rivers. This area consistently produces some of the largest Atlantic salmon in North America. The lodge has great food. Wine is served at lunch and dinner. And there's [00:05:00] 117 five-star reviews. Atlantic salmon fishing is all about being on the best water. It's always a crapshoot, and if you're gonna go somewhere for a week and try to catch some Atlantic salmon, you wanna be on the best water because those are the places where the most salmon are caught. And so you really need to go to a place that has a history of catching lots of salmon because they have the best pools, and [00:05:30] salmons just seem to take better in this better water.
I'd like to read you one customer's experience at the lodge. There's lots of them there you can read on the website, and then here it is. "I brought my 18-year-old son up to Salmon Lodge the end of June. He had never fly fished before. We did a bit of practice on the lawn before we left for Salmon Lodge. The lodge could not have been more supportive and really went out of their way to help him. All four guides we had, Larry, Charles, Clement, and Yvonne, [00:06:00] were excellent and each helped my son improve each day. They were quite enthusiastic and were nearly as excited as dad when my son caught salmon on a dry fly. The food was excellent. Julia did a great job, as did all the staff. The lodge itself is beautiful and right above a bend in the Cascapedia. I could not have been happier to have taken my son on his first Atlantic salmon trip to Salmon Lodge. We will be coming back for years to come." [00:06:30] That's a pretty great testimonial.
All right. That's it for places you may wanna fish this season. Now, let's do the Fly Box. The Fly Box is where you ask me questions or you pass along a tip. And I pass along your tip if I think it's worthwhile, and I also, try to answer your questions. No question is too basic, and I don't get overwhelmed with them, so don't be shy. If you [00:07:00] have a question that you can't get answered by doing an internet search, send it to the Fly Box. The Fly Box address is
Alex: Hi, Tom. It's Alex from North Idaho. I'm calling in today with a helpful tip and a question. This last week, I was on a multi-day cut-throat trip where I left [00:07:30] one of my glass rods strung up for four days, and the ferrules ended up getting really stuck, like, really, really stuck. I tried everything. I tried the behind the leg method, the freezer method. I even tried to put ice packs on the male end and then use a blow dryer to heat up the female end, and nothing worked. I ended up finding, like, several days later, a Kelly Galloup video explaining that when you can't get a rod apart, it's usually a grip issue above anything else, and he recommended to wrap duct tape sticky side up on [00:08:00] each end of the ferrules to get extra grip. And I tried it, and it worked like a champ. They came right apart instantly. So, hopefully, that's helpful to somebody with stuck ferrules.
All right. My question is about watercraft for carp and pike fishing. I've been getting into carp and pike a lot more the past few years, but I'm a broke college student, and I like to fish several different states, which makes owning and transporting and registering a boat kind of a pain in the butt. I've tried belly boats and catarafts, but I can never get [00:08:30] up high enough on them to see the fish. And it hit me the other day that a stand-up paddle board might be the best bet. They're quite a bit cheaper than a boat. You don't have to register them, and you can stand on top of them and actually spot fish. So I was just wondering if you've had experience with them and what your opinions are on them. And, yeah, if you think it's a good idea or not, what tip on what one to buy, and how pleasant they are to fish off of. Thanks again, Tom. I love your podcast.
Tom: So, Alex, that is a [00:09:00] great suggestion, and I agree it's mainly grip that prevents you from getting a stuck rod apart. Another tip that's similar, that I use, is a pair of rubber gloves, rubber kitchen gloves. Those can also help you grab the rod without it slipping. But the duct tape idea is a really good one, and thanks for passing that on. Regarding your question, yeah, I think a [00:09:30] stand-up paddle board is a good idea. The other option is a kayak or a canoe with stabilizers that you can stand up in, but probably a stand-up paddle board is gonna be the least expensive option. I would not fish for carp and sight fish for pike in any craft that I could not stand up in. I just can't stand sitting low on the water and not being able to see because I [00:10:00] love sight fishing as obviously, you do. So stand-up paddle board's a good idea.
You know, they're easy to launch. Piece of cake to launch. They're easy to travel with, particularly the inflatable ones, and they're not horribly expensive, and they're a lot of fun. They're actually more stable than you'd think, and they're pretty easy to fish from. Some of the disadvantages of a paddle board is that sometimes if you've got [00:10:30] wind or current or tide, it's really difficult to stay in position with a stand up paddle board. So you have to really plan your approach and, you know, pay attention to the wind and the current and the tides and so on. But it does allow you to stand up. It allows you to get into some really skinny places. And if you get too skinny, you can always hop off and drag it over shallow water. So they are great. A lot of people fish from them.
And if you wanna know [00:11:00] more about that, what I would suggest is that you listen to my podcast with Peter Laurelli. It was done on December 30th, 2024. And he talks about saltwater, but everything he talks about would apply to what you're doing for carp and pike. And regarding what brand, I don't know because, you know, I have one SUP, and I haven't tried a lot of different brands, but, you know, I would go and look [00:11:30] into the NRS brand. NRS is a very, very reliable producer of watercraft, inflatable watercraft, and they're one of the best in the business. And they have a number of models that you could use for fishing. So, yeah, I would check out the NRS brand, but there are lots of good SUPs out there for fishing, and I hope you have fun on it.
All right. Here's [00:12:00] an email from Dan from Salt Lake City. "Hi, Tom. I'm sharing a question with you for the Fly Box. Don't worry. I'm not a podcaster, and I'm not advocating for anyone. But I am curious who you think are compelling voices in the fly fishing community that could theoretically someday be a successor to your voice on the 'Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast.'"
Well, thank you, Dan. I don't have any plans on retiring soon. I'm [00:12:30] past retirement age, but I'm in good health. And I still love fly fishing, and I love sharing fly fishing with people. So I'm not leaving anytime soon, but I will eventually. It will give me a little more time for fishing. And, you know, honestly, I can think of four people four on the Orvis staff, full time Orvis employees that could easily, take my place as [00:13:00] podcast host. So we've got lots of depth in that area, people who are experienced fly fishers, who are great teachers, and, you know, it's not gonna be a problem replacing me, believe me. It'll be just as good, if not better, when I finally turn it over to someone else.
Here's an email from Pat from Lubbock, Texas. "I listened to your June 30th podcast and answer to the question of whether to [00:13:30] buy a 3 or 4 weight. I agree with you, but wanted to add one dimension. The 3 weight really suffers in the types of wind we often get here in the West. As an example, I was fishing in New Mexico last week with my wonderful Orvis Superfine bamboo 3-weight, thank you for the prompt to purchase it, when the wind really kicked up and started blowing the line back at me. Hopeless even for the short cast, I needed to make in tight quarters with three lined bags. I then switched to an old 4 weight and was able to do a pretty good job in the wind. I guess the good news [00:14:00] is that I'm able to order the new Superfine Graphite 4 weight now, and that I have seen the dramatic difference between a 3 and a 4 weight in some tough conditions. Thanks for a fantastic podcast and years of education."
Yeah. Pat, thank you for that. And, you know, I use a 3 weight a lot on small streams, but they're protected. And most of the streams I fish don't have a problem with wind. And when you're in the wind, yeah, 3 weight can be a problem. I use [00:14:30] a 3 weight sometimes on the small streams in Chile, where it's almost always windy and you will struggle. And there is quite difference between a 3 and a 4 weight, so if you're gonna be fishing windy conditions, yeah.
And, coincidentally, I've been fishing that 7'11" 4-weight Superfine Graphite on small streams and in some, you know, smaller rivers as well here in Vermont for the past, I don't know, month or so, and I've been really happy with it. [00:15:00] It does have a little more punch if you're fishing a bigger dry dropper, better in the wind, and it still bends really well even with a small fish. And, again, as you listen to this podcast, you know I love the action of those new Superfines. It's just so delightful. So, anyway, thank you for the tip, and good luck with your new 4 weight.
Here's an email from [00:15:30] Brian from Maryland. "Question for the podcast. Why does it seem like 95% of hook guys on the market orient horizontally? It's easy to find every type of hook whether the eye is turned up, down, straight, etc. But finding a large variety of side eye, vertical eyes can be difficult. Kelly Galloup has a popular one for streamers, but finding smaller vertical eyes for dry and wet flies is hard to find. Is there a functional piece to it? Do horizontal hook eyes fight fish better, orient themselves [00:16:00] in the water better, etc.?"
Well, Brian, I don't think there'd be any advantage to a horizontal eye on a dry fly or a nymph. You know, you're trying to get a dead drift there. You're trying to make the fly as natural as possible. I don't think it matters which way your hook eye is oriented. Certainly doesn't matter as far as fighting fish. It's more about the hook bend and the point and whether the point is sharp. But I do [00:16:30] agree that with streamers, it can make a difference. Orvis used to sell a vertical-eyed streamer hook, and I'm sure you can still find them out there. And I use them a lot. And there is an advantage, I think, because if you want a fly that wiggles side to side, I think using a loop knot and a vertical eye can allow that fly to wiggle from side to side [00:17:00] a little bit better than a straight eye or a turn down eye. Because there's less resistance to that fly swinging from side to side. So I think that's the reason Kelly used it. It's not for hooking or anything else, but just the way the fly swims in the water.
Here's an email from another Brian. "My wife and I are new to fly fishing and have fallen [00:17:30] hard for it in the past six months. We fish with Orvis Encounter 5-weight rod and reel combos in Oklahoma and Arkansas. We're planning a DIY trip in July to the White and Norfolk Rivers in North Arkansas, where we plan to bank fish and wade. I secured a second reel of battenkill three, which is amazing. I have loaded it with 6-weight line to give us some versatility. We have leaders from 4X to 6X and tip it to match, plus, a couple of sink leaders and split shot to get our rigs deep. Finally, we have the [00:18:00] Orvis Essential Trout Fly Selection. Obviously, we are targeting trout, but are excited with catching anything from browns, rainbows, cutties, or brookies. Any advice you have on how to best use this great essentials collection to our advantage? Any add-ons you would recommend to us?"
Well, Brian, that selection is a great all-around selection for nearly anywhere in the world. I think that in the [00:18:30] summer months on those rivers, I suspect that you're gonna want some smaller nymphs and smaller dry flies. It does include a couple of, I think, size 16 zebra midges. But I would have some smaller nymphs, smaller zebra midges, or similar, little, tiny pheasant tails, perhaps. And the elk hair caddis in that selection is a size 14. I would make sure that you get some smaller caddis flies. [00:19:00] But, by and large, the best thing for you to do to add to that fly selection that you have is to stop into a local fly shop when you get there and find out what's working. You know, you're gonna be on your own. You're not gonna have a guide, so you're gonna need some help. And fly shops are great at giving you advice. And so, you know, it's always, always, always a great idea when you go on a trip, no matter [00:19:30] what flies you have in your box, to stop in a local fly shop, get some advice, places to fish too, and then buy some of the flies that are working at that current moment.
Here's an email from Tom. Nice name. "Hi, Tom. I have a 9-foot 5-weight rod and use it for all fishing conditions. It works great. But as I continue to learn, I found myself really enjoying the smaller creeks and streams while hiking into places to stay away from people. [00:20:00] I'm starting to think about buying another rod specifically for small streams and creeks. So I have one question and a suggestion for a future podcast. Question. I don't think I wanna go smaller than a 4-weight, so I was thinking a 71/2-foot 4-weight so that I still have some confidence I can land a larger fish in the event I come across one. You think it's worth getting the extra rod for smaller streams and creeks, but going down just another size, or would it be more worthwhile to go to the 3-weight?"
[00:20:31] Well, Tom, similar to that previous question, if you're gonna be making really short casts and the fish are really small and you're not gonna have any problems with wind and you're not gonna throw any really big dry droppers, a 3 weight is a lot of fun. But, again, if you wanna be a little more versatile and you may encounter some wind and you want to throw a little bit bigger dry dropper rig [00:21:00] or nymph rig with an indicator or whatever, I think a 4 weight would be better. And, again, that 7-foot 11-inch, 4-weight Superfine is an amazing rod, and I have found it to be extremely versatile and still a lot of fun with smaller fish.
Here's an email from Corey. "I am newer to fly fishing and started out fishing calmer, flatter water holes with deeper pools and cuts that are stocked [00:21:30] with trout. I was listening to a podcast, and they were talking about fishing in riffles and moving water. So I started moving into the faster water. And while using an indicator nymphing, I noticed the indicator going up and down with the broken water. My question is when you get into faster water does the vertical movement of the water moving my indicator affect my presentation of the flies? Is there a measurement of vertical movement in which it doesn't matter when it does? Are there any tips you can provide that will help?"
[00:22:00] Well, Corey, actually, that bobbing of the indicator is a good thing. When nymphs are drifting in the water, they do move up and down. They're struggling to get to the surface, and then they'll sink a little bit, and then they'll struggle to get to the surface. And they move vertically. They don't move horizontally because they can't really swim against the current, but they can bob up and down in the current. So I don't think there's any downside [00:22:30] even with really heavy water where your indicator is really bobbing that's gonna hurt the presentation of your flies. In fact, a lot of people, even when they're Euro nymphing without an indicator, will occasionally raise the rod tip and then let it drop and raise the rod tip and let it drop to make it look like a natural nymph in the water. So I wouldn't worry about it at all. I think you're gonna be just fine, and keep those nymphs bobbing and weaving.
Devin: [00:23:00] Hi, Tom. Do you have any suggestions for fishing shortly after a flood recedes? I recently tried a tributary of the Battenkill for the first time. The river had been near flood stage in mid-May, and I waited for a sunny day when the declining hydrograph began to level off. I had about an hour to fish, and I made the most of it. I used nymphs and wet flies, but I didn't catch anything. I didn't even see a fish. This [00:23:30] experience reminded me of an earlier trip when I was recently skunked. Although the river was different, the hydrograph was also just beginning to level off after declining from a flood. Is this a coincidence, or is the aftermath of high water a particularly challenging time? Do you have any suggestions? I've worked hard to improve my technique in the last year, and a measure of my success has been reliably catching fish in a range of conditions. [00:24:00] But the low, as the water clears after a flood, still seems to be a challenge. Thanks for your insight.
Tom: Well, Devin, I think you probably just had bad luck and maybe the fish were not in the mood to feed. And you said you fish in this area, I know that a lot of the people, a lot of my friends, that I fish with around here love [00:24:30] the dropping water. When the water is crested and it's starting to recede, they think that is the best time for nymph fishing. So, personally, I like fishing when the water is starting to rise, particularly with streamers because the fish start to go crazy as the water level rises and gets all dirty. But for nymph fishing, I have had really good luck on falling water or dropping water. So [00:25:00] I wouldn't worry about a couple times not doing well. I'd keep trying it and might advise you to use maybe a little bit bigger nymph and a little bit flashier nymph than you might have used. Because, you know, the water's a little dirty and the fish need to find your fly. So I wouldn't worry so much about matching the hatch. I'd use something that probably catches the fish's attention, something like a rainbow warrior, [00:25:30] a Duracell nymph that has a little flash to it, or a flashback pheasant tail, and maybe go a little bigger than you normally would. But keep at it. I think you keep fishing falling water and you're gonna have some great fishing.
All right. That's the Fly Box for this week. Let's go talk to Joel and learn a lot more about our public lands. Well, my guest today is Joel Pedersen. Joel is president [00:26:00] and CEO of TRCP or Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. And this is a great organization. Orvis has been with TRCP, supported TRC, I think, since the very beginning of the organization. Is that correct, Joel?
Joel: Yeah. I do believe that's correct. It's been a long standing partnership with Orvis, and we really appreciate having Simon on the board at the present time. [00:26:30] And his father was on the board before that, so it's really been a great partnership for a long time.
Tom: Yeah. That's Simon Perkins, president of Orvis, is on the board of TRCP. So we're heavily involved with the organization. And you have some good news to tell us. We were gonna do a podcast urging people to start screaming and pounding their feet, and we have some good news. [00:27:00] You wanna just briefly tell people, in case, they haven't followed the news, the good news?
Joel: Yeah. Well, I can certainly understand why people might not be following the news these days. It's a rough go sometimes.
Tom: Yeah.
Joel: But I'm sure that many of your listeners have been aware of the challenges that we've had over, probably, the last six weeks over some pretty substantial land [00:27:30] sales of federal lands being included in various versions of the reconciliation bill or the budget reconciliation bill package that's made it through the House and the Senate. And we can get into details more, but the bottom line is that, last Saturday night, the provision that would have mandated the sale of at least a couple million acres of our federal public lands was removed from the budget reconciliation bill. [00:28:00] Thanks to the outpouring of our concerned and the phone calls that went up from sportsmen and women all across this country.
Tom: Yeah. And it's really encouraging to see such a bipartisan support of an issue. That's something that we rarely see these days. And, you know, it gives you hope that government can work.
Joel: Yeah. It definitely does. You know, this is just one of those items that [00:28:30] it seems like every 10 or 15 years this pops up, and our elected officials forget that this is just a pioneer brand issue, and it's a line in the sand, you know? Theodore Roosevelt, the namesake of my organization, was really one of the fathers of federal lands across this country, establishing national parks, national wildlife refuges, and national forests. And even back in the late 1800s, [00:29:00] early 1900s, public lands was seen as kind of a birthright for everybody in America, not just the wealthy and the monarchs like it was in Europe. And so it's good to see that 125 years later that sort of attitude still exists in this country to protect our federal lands, or all of our public lands, I should say.
Tom: And, Joel, I don't think we need to...you mean, you're preaching to the choir here [00:29:30] on this podcast because you have fly anglers, who recreate often in public lands and support public lands. But I just wanna go back and talk a little bit about why a piece of land that's located within a state like Wyoming or Colorado or Montana, why is this not owned by the state? How did that happen?
Joel: [00:30:02] Well, gosh, this could be a really long answer, but I'll make it as short as I can. So when we think about federal public lands, I'll say there's four buckets that it can fall into. Everybody is familiar with national parks.
Tom: Right.
Joel: A lot of people are familiar with national wildlife refuges, but the two biggest landowners in the country, in particularly across the West, are [00:30:30] the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service. And those have different stories as to how they came about. National forests were started by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot back in the late 1800s. They identified the need to protect some lands that were very important for the public, but also needed to be managed for multiple use, which is different than national parks. [00:31:00] National parks are set aside really for the recreational enjoyment of the American public and to protect some very, very unique resources.
National forests and BLM lands have lots of great places on them as well, but both of them are specifically set aside for multiple use. So on Forest Service and BLM, you can have grazing, you can have mineral extraction, you can have timber harvest, [00:31:30] as well as all the recreational opportunities that are out there. So national forests were delineated based upon these features and the recognition back in the late 1800s. That there were a lot of pressures on these public lands to be privatized, and the recognition to make America unique and to enjoy what the frontiersmen had and people that were starting to move west to enjoy these great open spaces they needed [00:32:00] to be protected.
BLM is a little bit different. A lot of people remember the Homestead Act, and that the federal lands back in the day were put up for people to go out, stake a claim on them, try to make a living off of them, and then they would be given those lands if they were able to do that. BLM lands really are those lands that either nobody claimed or in some cases, they tried to claim [00:32:30] it and they reverted back. And so those lands just kinda ended up in the federal land holdings, if you will, and have been managed in public trust for the benefit of the public ever since.
And so there's a little bit different origin, but in this day and age, they're largely viewed to be similar. They're there for the recreating public to be out there. But it's also important to recognize that they're also there for multiple use, like grazing, mineral [00:33:00] extraction, energy development, timber harvest, and those sorts of things.
Tom: That's good. That's a great explanation, and I don't think I totally understood the difference between national forest and BLM, so I appreciate that clarification. Now, what was on the chopping block? What kind of land was it? Forest Service? Was it BLM? Obviously, it wasn't national [00:33:30] parks.
Joel: Correct. The national parks were not included. There were several iterations that we saw over the course of this. The original part that came up in the House was very specific lands in Utah and Nevada, and that was BLM lands that were under consideration there. When it [00:34:00] came over to the Senate, it was reintroduced there through the energy and natural resources portion of the reconciliation bill. It included both Forest Service and BLM lands, at least the initial version that we saw it in. And it mandated the sale of 0.5% to 0.75% of each of those land bases, which when you did the math on it was [00:34:30] 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 acres, after you took into account a number of exceptions that were out there such as wilderness areas and then areas that had... I forget the language they used, but, basically, legitimate claims to usages on there. At one point, if there was a grazing lease on it, for example, it was excluded from consideration.
But in that early version in the Senate, [00:35:00] it was mandated just over $2,000,000...or 2,000,000 acres up to 3,000,000 acres on Forest Service and BLM lands. That one didn't pass muster with the parliamentarian or with the referee of the Senate that make sure they're following the rules on legislation. And so a different version was proposed that [00:35:30] took the Forest Service lands out of consideration, but put in other lands that had been carved out before, like lands that had grazing leases on them. Then those lands were eligible. And that one, we heard didn't really pass muster there with the parliamentarian, but never really got a ruling because Senator Lee, [00:36:00] who was the driving force behind this, went back here, his staff went back and they put a different version out.
We never really saw all of the details officially of that third version. That's the one that ultimately ended up getting pulled last Saturday at the urging of, like I said, the conservation community as a whole, and all these fortunate men and women that called [00:36:30] in to their senators, not only in the West but across the country, voicing opposition to this.
Tom: Yeah. Excuse me. It was great seeing, really, the entire outdoor industry, some very serious competitors coming together and supporting this, as well as conservation organizations, as well as nonprofits.
Joel: Yeah. I'd say, in my 30-plus years in this business, [00:37:00] this is the greatest consolidated show of support from kind of the corporate community or the hunting and fishing brands coming together and speaking out on something that I've ever seen. And so I just think that's a great testament to how important this issue was but also a recognition on the part of all those brands that they could really have an influence in this, not only speaking out as the companies but also [00:37:30] uplifting the message for all of their consumers that follow them on social media, etc., and helping to just elevate the awareness on this.
Tom: Yeah. I mean, all of us in the conservation or in the outdoor industry hate politics and hate getting involved in politics. It's the last thing we wanna do. But there's a point where you have to stick your neck out and risk alienating some customers and saying this is not the right thing to do.
Joel: [00:38:00] That's right. Sometimes you have to do that, and look, TRCP is a very non-partisan organization, and so we've got supporters on both sides of the aisle. Pretty easy decision for us on this since there are a lot of issues because we do work that middle ground all of the time. But I know some of the other conservation organizations, even in it, I think, public lands is one that kinda cross cut the political divide. It's [00:38:30] obvious that it did. But there's other issues that organizations at times are challenged to weigh in on because of the culture of their organizations. And so it does make it a challenge for sure.
That's what's great about this public lands issue is it doesn't really matter whether you're red or blue or where you're from, everybody cares about our public lands and having that access to get out and fish, hunt, camp, [00:39:00] rock climb, hike, you name it. The public lands and the hundreds of millions of acres that they represent are so important to all of the outdoor pursuits that we love in this country.
Tom: Well, in my opinion, anyway, a lot of people opinion, it's probably the one reason that makes this country so great is the fact that... You know, in a lot of countries, they don't have these kind of public lands. [00:39:30] You know, that it's nearly all private with the exception of a few public areas, but this country has such vast public lands and we own it, right? The government doesn't own it. Their government holds it in trust for us, but we own it.
Joel: That is exactly right. You're right. This is a unique model from most other countries in the world, and I think that's really important to remember. We often talk about [00:40:00] the land, but not only the land, but the resources that are on that land are owned by the public. They're held in trust by the federal government. You know, there's also state lands out there that are held in trust by the states for the benefit of everybody not just for a few people. And that was one of the real problems with land sales being proposed the way they were within the reconciliation bill is [00:40:30] it bypassed all of the existing rules, legislation, guidelines that are out there to do a smart disposal of land.
And it took away the public input portion of this which is very important, I think, to everybody, but in particular to our community, to be able to look at a specific parcel and say, "You know what? On the surface, it's right next to, you know, Las Vegas [00:41:00] or wherever it might be. And it looks like it wouldn't be important," but our data shows this is really critical winter range for elk or for bighorn sheep or whatever it may be. Elk's probably not a great example around Las Vegas, so we'll move to Salt Lake City where there's tremendous winter range, right? On the border of Salt Lake City. All right. Or it might be a migration corridor for big game, or it may not be that important for the [00:41:30] wildlife that's out there. But when you start looking at it, you realize that the only access to that blue ribbon fishing stream goes right through that parcel. And if it gets sold without at least protecting that access route, you've just cut off access to a stream that would otherwise be open, you know, for many miles. And so the public input process is really important.
The other key piece in the rules that exist [00:42:00] is that when the land is sold, the majority, if not all, of that money goes back into securing other access or improving the lands in the surrounding area to make them better. And those things were gonna be lost in the reconciliation process as well. And so that's an important distinction because TRCP and a lot of other groups out there [00:42:30] recognize that there are parcels of land near some of these gateway communities that may have a higher and better use for the public than as wild lands or wildlife habitat.
You know, there's a story that the former director of BLM for Utah has told me about an 8-acre tract that's, you know, right there in St. George, Utah that has become a homeless [00:43:00] encampment. It's where everybody dumps their appliances. It's fire problems every 4th of July because people go out there and shake the fireworks off. And the federal government's responsible for all of that. The federal government and as the public, we don't need to be paying for the management of that. I can certainly agree that in an example like that, there is a better use for that land.
But the transparency of doing this, understanding the parcels we're [00:43:30] talking about, and having that discussion, and then reinvesting back into conservation or access are, you know, what was agreed to through the Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation Act when it was made permanent a decade or so ago. Congress Conservation Utah came together and negotiated the legislation and said, "Yeah, we can all agree to this. Let's move forward." So this is somewhat of a nuanced issue, [00:44:00] but just the way it was done through reconciliation made it very black and white in this case.
Tom: Yeah. So to kinda give an example, you said that, for instance, mineral extraction can be done on public land, on BLM land. So how does that happen, and what is the oversight on that in the current situation?
Joel: Oh, [00:44:30] man. How long do we...?
Tom: Well, you did really good at explaining the other issue with the Cliff Notes version. So I think you're doing okay.
Joel: Yeah. We can do the Cliff Notes version again. So every parcel of land that's out there, be it BLM or Forest Service, has some sort of a management plan written on it. On BLM lands, they're called resource management plans. And [00:45:00] oftentimes, those are done at kind of a unit level. So it would be smaller than a state, but it's still a pretty large landscape that you're looking at. And the BLM, through a series of public comment meetings, taking input from the state government, local government, and communities, all the different interests that are represented out there in the public from the energy extraction community to the sportsman community, to the preservationist [00:45:30] community. Everybody gets to have input on this. They look at it, and they build a resource management plan.
Now, a little footnote here. These resource management plans are supposed to be updated, basically, every 10 years. So you've got current information to work off of. Unfortunately, due to lack of staffing that we've seen long term in our federal agencies and lack of funding to get this done, there are many parts of the country that the BLM lands have resource [00:46:00] management plans that are over 30 years old. But those resource management plans still dictate how that land can be used and what's appropriate on different areas.
So in some cases, we're dealing with very old information, which is an important point in this kind of the whole discussion here. And so when they look at that resource management plan, they will look at some areas and say, "You know what? This is a very unique landscape. We need to carve this off, [00:46:30] and it's wilderness." Or, actually, in the case of wilderness, that would already be defined by an act of Congress. So that would be removed from consideration for other things. But they'll look at some of it, and they'll say, "You know what? This area is accessible for things like timber harvest. And so we're gonna allow that on here."
There's other things where they implement backcountry conservation areas, where it's still multiple use, but kind of the highest use for that area is for [00:47:00] wildlife based recreation. And then there's other areas that they say, "Okay, we know that there's a lot of mineral resources underneath the ground here, and we'll open this up." And so kinda based on the resource management plan, they identify where it can be. When they get ready to open up a lease like that, it has to, again, go through a public process. They announce it. They take bids on it. Organizations or companies have the opportunity to bid on that.
And then within that, [00:47:30] you know, it outlines whether it's gonna be for oil, for gas use, so put some restrictions on there, and how dense the drill pads can be, if we're talking about oil or natural gas. Solar and wind is a whole another story in this. And so there's a public process that goes through that. And then the BLM tries to work to balance the [00:48:00] different uses here. And rarely with oil and gas, the vast areas get shut down to public access. But there's still some impacts there to wildlife, but then trying to minimize and mitigate either onsite or in other areas.
So it's all done through a deliberative process over time. But, like I said, some of those resource management plans are pretty dated, and that's part of the issue to bring this back to the public land sale [00:48:30] issue is, also in those resource management plans, the BLM identifies lands through a public process that could be eligible for "disposal." Just because it says that in those plans doesn't mean they should be. They just say this is an area that we could and maybe should consider. When they get to that, then there's another public process where they look at the specifics, and they make the ultimate decision [00:49:00] on whether they're gonna do that or not. And those are the sorts of things that were being bypassed in the legislation that was going through the reconciliation bill. But it's also, you know, based upon old information in some cases.
Tom: So that's a great explanation, very clear, and good Cliff Notes summary. I got a question for you. So after the public comment on change of use of [00:49:30] some federal land, who makes the final call? Who's the one who says yes or no on these issues?
Joel: So, ultimately, in the case of the BLM, you know, it's a bureaucratic process, but the district and the regional manager that's leading that process, they come out and they make a recommendation. A lot of times, they'll publish two or three alternatives, and they put that out. [00:50:00] They'll say, "We've gone through this, and we've looked at all this, and here's the best three alternatives that we think...and we're recommending."
Alternative one gets published in the federal register. People have another chance to comment on it and say why or why not that one is the best one, or ask for specific modifications to be made. Those public comments then are, again, taken into consideration, go back, and ultimately, in the case of the BLM, it would be the state director [00:50:30] that signs off on that. And I believe it has to run all the way, ultimately, to the secretary of interior is the one that's ultimately responsible for that. But a lot of times, they will delegate that authority down to, you know, a lower level like the director of BLM.
Tom: Okay. But the secretary of the interior can always weigh in and overrule the state director?
Joel: I guess, technically, [00:51:00] they could. Historically, we don't typically see that happen.
Tom: All right. That's great. That's great. I'm certainly learning a lot. I try not to follow this bureaucratic process. But, you know, we all need to be educated on this stuff or things are gonna be taken away.
Joel: I don't know. I might get the blue ribbon here for the wonkiest podcast that you've ever done.
Tom: Oh, no. Oh, no. No, not [00:51:30] even close, Joel. And, you know, it's funny, I've been doing podcasts for, I don't know, 10, 12, 15 years, whatever. I can't remember how long. But I remember in the old days, I do a conservation podcast and the downloads would go way down because I get to look at the download. They'd go way down. And, you know, I said to myself, "Well, too bad. I'm gonna shove [00:52:00] it down their throats because they need to know this stuff." But it's not the same now. The conservation podcast, podcasts like this are every bit as popular as how to fix your leader. So it's really encouraging that people realize they need to be educated on these issues. It's the most important thing. And, yeah, so don't worry about it. It'll be a popular one.
Joel: I was trying to decide if that was a blue ribbon I really wanted or not.
Tom: [00:52:30] No. You don't want that blue ribbon.
Joel: I appreciate that your listeners are dialed in enough that they're interested in this. It's awesome.
Tom: Yeah. There's other podcasts that have been clunkers, but we won't go into that. This won't be one of those. So this issue will rear its ugly head again, right? It's going to happen. It comes up every, what, four [00:53:00] to six years? This was a pretty dramatic one, but it comes up.
Joel: Yeah. I would say the last time it really came up and rose to this level was probably about 10 years ago. But, you know, just about every session in the Congress, we see some effort to dispose of public lands in some way, shape, or form. And, [00:53:30.480] you know, as I alluded to before, I think there's certainly some good arguments out there for some parcels of land, where some of the gateway communities to our national parks or, you know, around some of the bigger cities like Las Vegas, they are constrained in their growth, their constrained in areas to build affordable housing for places to live for all of the service workers that are there [00:54:00] that are providing for great experiences for the American public.
And so we definitely need to figure out how we can address that issue to keep this issue from coming back at the scale that it is. And the TRCP and many of the other organizations in the conservation community are committed to that. The process takes a long time. There's parcels that have been identified that everybody agrees to that eight years later, [00:54:30] they still haven't made it across the finish line. We've got to fix those sorts of problems. We also recognize that part of what's driving this is the perceived, in some cases, or the real issue of the lack of quality management of these federal lands, either around communities or across the landscape.
When you think about the wildfires that have been raging across the West, [00:55:00] part of the reason that those become so large and so severe and so hard to control is because of the prolonged lack of forest management or lack of range management in those areas that really feed into those conditions. And it's not just about fire, it's about wildlife and everything else. And we've got to find solutions to that, whether they're public-private partnerships, partnerships with the states, or it's [00:55:30] just making sure that the federal agencies have the proper funding and the manpower to be able to execute on their management plans to get that done. And I think if we can find a solution for that, that will help relieve some of the pressure and some of the narrative that, well, the federal government can't manage the lands that they have, so let's give them to somebody else that can do that. So it's a very complex issue. The TRCP [00:56:00] and other organizations are willing to put our shoulder into it and see what solutions we can come up with because these fights, like we just went through, are no fun for anybody.
Tom: No. And, certainly, living in a tourist area, I really recognize the need for low cost housing. People that work in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, or Aspen or Manchester, Vermont can't afford [00:56:30] to live there. They have to go 30, 40, 50 miles away, at the least, to find affordable housing. And, you know, you're right. We have to solve this issue as well.
Joel: Yeah. And so, you know, again, I would just reiterate that the TRCP was strongly opposed to the land sale within the reconciliation bill because we thought it was the wrong [00:57:00] mechanism to use to get this done, and it took away the important process that I discussed before. But we recognize the need to resolve this problem, and we're gonna be pivoting. You know, we've already talked about it as a team. We're gonna start pivoting now to what are the conversations that we can have, who do we need to have it with, and what unique ideas can we bring to the table to help resolve this and get this done.
Tom: Joel, [00:57:30] what should my listeners do to prevent this from happening again? What action should they take, or what should they keep an eye on?
Joel: There's a myriad of answers to that. I think, you know, continuing to stand strong for public lands is important. You know, I think that hunters and fishers [00:58:00], or hunters and anglers, for a long time, you kind of alluded to this before, we don't like the politics. This is not what we do. We have great access. We have great opportunity, but I've seen it over the course of my career that there are groups out there, be it, you know, the extraction community or maybe even the preservationist community, they get [00:58:30] dialed in on the process. When there's land management plans that are being up for consideration or there's a proposal to do something, they lean into it, and they do it. And hunters and anglers, I don't blame them. They'd rather be in the stream, or they'd rather be in their tree stand, and they don't wanna worry about all of this.
But I think just keeping tabs on what's going on, following groups like TRCP so you know what's happening and how you can engage is [00:59:00] important. I think that's part of it. You know, there's a saying out there as well that elections have consequences. And so I think that people should be aware of the stance of their elected officials on issues like this. And then, you know, they should vote for the people that are gonna watch out for their interests, be that their public lands interests, their outdoor recreation interests, or their [00:59:30] health care interests, or, you know, whatever's important to them. But being involved in that electoral processes and being aware of what your folks, your elected officials, stand for is very important.
And then I think the other thing, and this is something that the community in general needs to do better, is we need to educate everybody from elected officials to everybody that lives in this country of the value of public [01:00:00] lands. It's very easy for hunters and anglers to think about their favorite places, and why it's important to them. But the people that live in New York City think about the value of the national forests in Vermont and New Hampshire and Upstate New York and Adirondack Park as being the headwaters for all of the water that they use in New York City. To say the same thing about [01:00:30] Los Angeles or Salt Lake City.
And we need to make sure that people understand the connection between having these undeveloped well-managed public lands that are out there and how that ties to everybody that lives in this country, not just the people that take the time to go out and step foot on it. For whatever reason, they're out there enjoying it. And then I think another lesson learned here is we have to figure out how we continue to work together to deliver this message across [01:01:00] the conservation community, across the brands, the care. And, you know, we need to continue to have dialogues with every interest out there that has a legitimate claim to the multiple use of these lands.
Tom: Yeah. And I think the industry and the organizations get better and better every year about making sure that people are informed on this stuff. Well, Joel, that [01:01:30] was a great education, and you explained these issues very clearly. And I wanna thank you for taking the time today. You wanna give people the TRCP website address so that they can follow these issues?
Joel: Yeah. Absolutely. It's pretty easy. It's www.trcp.org, and that'll get you to our general website. [01:02:00] From there, you can find the link to the specific landing page we have for the public lands issue, and you can sign up to get reports on that. But also learn more about the whole suite of issues that TRCP works on from marine fisheries to water conservation to private lands conservation, to the public lands issue that we've been talking about.
Tom: Yeah. And we're not gonna name any names here, but I read your blog this morning, [01:02:30] and you did name politicians, representatives, who were in opposition to this reconciliation. And so the people wanna find out how their elected official stood on this issue, there's a place to go.
Joel: Yeah. I appreciate you bringing that up. You know, that's an important point that [01:03:00] without some Republican elected officials being willing to kinda go against their party on this issue, I'm not sure we would've had the success. You know, a huge shout out to all of those elected officials that understood the importance of this, oftentimes because they live it every day, and being willing to be vocal on this made a huge difference. But the sportsmen and women that were calling in [01:03:30] also influenced that decision. In fact, we heard this week from a Western Congressional Office that they received more calls about this issue than any of the other issues that have been in the news about the reconciliation bill. So this one was really important to the American public out there, and that's really refreshing to see.
Tom: And they do pay attention to [01:04:00] their constituents weighing in?
Joel: One-hundred percent they do. I've been told over the years that, you know, if they get 15 calls on a normal issue, that's a big deal, and it gets their attention. You know, I don't know how many phone calls members of Congress received. I know that, for us, just through the action alert that we had out there, we are aware that [01:04:30] it was nearly 50,000 people weighed in with their members of Congress...
Tom: Wow.
Joel: ...in this through the online platform. That was where we were encouraging people to pick up the phone or call, and we don't have any way to measure that.
Tom: Yeah. Well, that's awesome. That's an amazing response. Well, Joel, I wanna thank you and TRCP for the great work you've been doing for all of us. We all really appreciate that you're the one that has to dig into the Washington [01:05:00] morass and not us.
Joel: It's a labor of love. You know, I never dreamed when I started my career...all I wanted to do was work with the critters out in the field, but I never dreamed I would end up in DC doing this. But it's super important, and it's become a passion of mine to pass on the opportunities that I've had throughout my lifetime on public lands and just wildlife in general. And it's a real honor to [01:05:30] be one of the many voices here in D.C. for a lot of sportsmen and women. So it's a pleasure. It's a great team that leans into this, and the entire team shares my passion, which makes it happen and makes it a fun thing to do every day even though, as you said, it can often be a morass.
Tom: Well, thank you again, Joel. We've been talking to Joel Pedersen, president and CEO of Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. And, again, thanks for [01:06:00] all the work you do and keep it up.
Joel: Well, thank you for having me. It's been a real pleasure, and I'd enjoy doing this again, where maybe we can just talk fishing instead of talking politics.
Tom: Okay. Yeah. We'll figure that out. All right, Joel. Thank you.
Joel: Have a great day.
Tom: Yeah. You too. Bye-bye.
Thanks for listening to the "Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast" with Tom Rosenbauer. You can be a part of the show. Have a question or a comment? Send it to us at