that are in the meeting here.
They're just here to help record it for me
because it's gonna look better than if I recorded it
on my own laptop, so.
No problem.
Oh, right.
How's it any better in Kansas?
I know last time we talked to storms that just hit
and snowing again right behind me here, but.
Yeah, warmed up a bit here.
So we're getting a little bit of a melt today
and then we'll go from there.
Yeah, yeah, that's good.
It's super icy here today.
So I hope it doesn't get too bad down there.
Yeah, getting ready to jump on an airplane,
head to Las Vegas for the shot show.
Oh, cool, cool.
When's that this weekend?
Yeah, well, it starts today.
Right up through the weekend.
But yeah, I got to leave there and head out to DC.
I got some business out there and then.
You know, repack the horse
and I think Nashville comes after that.
So here we go.
Yeah, busy, busy guy.
Yeah, lots to do.
Yeah, yeah, it sounds like it.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time
and sitting down and talking with me again today.
Nope, no problem.
Gonna make the story a lot better.
Before we jump in, you got any questions for me?
No, no, I think I'm good.
Cool, I asked the last time, I just, you know,
I do a fair amount of these interviews.
The only thing I ever say is, you know,
I hope you come in, you know, objective.
Yep, yep.
Backed out there, make everybody, you know,
asked the hard questions to me and every,
all the other stakeholders and then just tell the truth
like your daddy taught you when you were a kid.
Yeah, that's, you know, that's always the goal here.
So, all right, I think let's jump in if you're ready then.
Cool, I'm gonna start you off super easy.
Can you give me your name, how to spell it in your title?
Yeah, Keith, HEITH, Mark, M-A-R-K
and I'm the founder and president of Hunter Nation, H-U-N-T-E-R,
capital N-A-T-I-O-N.
Last name, just M-A-R-K like a first name.
Perfect, all right, awesome.
First question I got for you is,
why are you and your organization so passionate
about this Wolf Hunt and Wolf Management Plan in Wisconsin?
Well, first of all, I'm passionate about the American Hunter
and I'm passionate about the hunting lifestyle.
And so I'm involved and interested in any issue
that impacts the American Hunter and the hunting lifestyle
and deeper than that really all the traditional American values,
God, family, country, the Constitution and our hunting lifestyle.
So, the predator management is something
that's extremely important when you start looking at conservation.
The North American model of conservation
was put together to protect and enhance all species,
not just one or two or hand pick a few winners and losers.
And so, when you're talking about an apex predator like the wolf
and you look at what's going on in states like Wisconsin,
Northern Michigan, where you have an unmanaged wolf population,
you're seeing a definite decline in deer populations,
really all prey populations in those areas.
And so that is definitely to the detriment
of the hunting lifestyle.
When you look at Wisconsin hunters over the years,
Wisconsin deer harvest and I have a lot of friends
that live in Wisconsin, times are tough right now in America
and they rely on the venison that they put in their freezer
every single year.
And this year, in the great state of Wisconsin,
rifle hunters had the lowest harvest numbers
in recorded history.
As that happened, and again, people say,
well, how do you know that's the wolves?
Well, if you look at deer harvest over the years,
compared to wolf populations over the years,
there is a direct correlation between the two.
About when wolves hit 549 in your state,
the deer population, it was unsustainable
to the deer population.
And since then, you've seen a decline in your deer harvest
and a steadily increase in your wolf population.
And we had talked about this on the phone,
so I'll bring it up right here
because it segues perfectly.
So you would attribute that decline in the deer harvest
more to the wolf population
than the hunter population declining slightly.
Well, think about this.
The North American model of conservation
and all of the state DNR agencies,
they evaluate the number of deer in the state.
And then they decide how many deer need to be harvested.
And of course, I'm sure you were in seventh grade biology
when they talked about habitat and carrying capacity.
The state of Wisconsin only has X amount of acreage
that is amenable to a healthy deer population.
And so they calculate how many deer can live
in a healthy, thriving state on that habitat.
And then they decide how many deer will be that surplus
and we harvest them.
So if there were 10 hunters
and they each had to shoot 15 deer,
the state would regulate tags accordingly.
If there's 600,000 hunters,
then they regulate the tags accordingly.
So the number of hunters has absolutely nothing to do
with the level of deer harvest
if your DNR is doing their job,
which I believe at least historically they've tried to.
Why is your organization suing
over the management plan in 2023?
And over the phone, we had talked about moving goalposts
and stuff like that.
So I guess my question gets-
Well, let me just start you with this.
We haven't filed any lawsuit as of yet.
We're looking at the possibilities
of all legal recourse based on the current wolf management plan.
I would highly encourage you to go to hunternation.org
and then the drop down link under advocacy.
And then you'll see a link to all our wolf page.
And when you go there,
you're gonna see what I believe to be the real wolf facts,
the true story of the gray wolf in America.
And what you're gonna see is back in the 70s
when the wolf was placed on the endangered species list,
there were some set population goals that were established.
And once those population goals were established
then it would be deemed that the wolf
was then back at a healthy population level
and wolves would then be managed.
They would be taken off of the endangered species list.
And then the management of the gray wolf
would go back to the states for management
like they do deer and elk and moose and bear
and cougar and pheasants and quail
and all of the wildlife within their border.
But what happened is in a very short period of time
and we have the timeline, I can give you this pamphlet
that I'm looking at right here
is readily available on our webpage.
And again, I encourage you to do it.
By 1992, the wolf population and the great lakes
exceeded the recovery criteria, 1992.
So of course, then the feds delisted the wolf
and management went back to the states
and the great, well, wait a minute, they didn't do that.
They revised the management plan
to increase the number of wolves that were required
before management would go back to the states.
Hence my reference to moving the goalposts.
By 2000, the Northern Rocky Mountain recovery goals were met.
So in 2003, US Fish and Wildlife,
they moved the gray wolf from endangered to threatened.
And then in 2004, they proposed delisting the wolf.
What happened?
Well, they got sued by the anti-hunting groups
and said, no, wait a minute, we need more study,
we need more wolves, we can't say that they've recovered
even though everyone agreed on the numbers.
So did they delist the wolf?
No.
So since 2000, when wolves first met the recovery goals
that I just mentioned to you to now,
every time US Fish and Wildlife attempts to delist the wolf,
they get sued by anti-hunting groups, ties it up in court,
and the wolf who should be a majestic,
beloved animal here in America
has been used like a political football
or a political pawn in the court system
to the detriment of conservation, wildlife management
and certainly deer elk and moose populations
in the affected states.
So in 2011, Congress delisted the wolf
for the first time, congressional action stepped in,
superseded the courts and said in the states of Idaho,
Montana and Wyoming, the gray wolf was considered not endangered
and they could be managed at the state level
without judicial review.
It's critical, John, that you understand what that meant
without judicial review.
So the states, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming
then got the management of the wolf back.
But I should tell you, put a little caveat there.
Before management was allowed to go back to each of those states,
they had to prepare and pass legislatively
and then have approved by US Fish and Wildlife
the state management plans on how they intended
to manage the gray wolf within their states.
And you know what those plans all have in common?
They have set population goals
to match what US Fish and Wildlife requires
as a healthy wolf population within those states.
Let me repeat that for the hearing impaired.
Those states set population goals
that were congruent with what US Fish and Wildlife said
would be required to have a sustainable,
thriving and healthy wolf population.
And in fact, if you go and you can see these plans,
all of them are on our website,
each state called for a buffer of wolves, more wolves
in a population number within those states
than US Fish and Wildlife required.
So the states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming
have done a great job of managing their wolf population
since the listing in those three states.
I would also tell you on a very positive note
that the anti-hunters didn't like that.
So they filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously
that the congressional action was valid,
which you can't get a court
to decide anything unanimously anymore, but they did it.
And the Antis asked the US Supreme Court to review that
and they denied certatory,
which means that they agreed that the lower court was correct.
There was no issue that they would change on review.
So those three states are still managing
and killing wolves as you and I speak today.
So time continues to go on.
US Fish and Wildlife and the timeline is on our website.
You can see it and there's a citation.
You can click on the link
and see exactly the truth behind everything we assert there.
US Fish and Wildlife says wolves are at a sustainable level.
We need to remove them from the endangered species list,
anti-hunters filed lawsuit.
US Fish and Wildlife backs off or a federal judge says no,
we need more studies.
The number's not correct and so on and so forth.
That brings us up to now.
What's happened now, US Fish and Wildlife once again, 2021,
said D-list the wolf, I think it was 2020 into 2021.
And activist groups filed a lawsuit,
find a liberal activist judge in California
who once again stays that,
puts the wolf back on the Endangered Species Act.
And so we have states that are still left
to deal with an unmanaged wolf population
and the wolf population continues to grow
and the game population continues to shrink.
And I just asked those that love the wolf, why?
Why do you not love the moose?
Do you not love the deer?
Do you not love the elk?
Do you not love the livestock that are being attacked
by an unchecked unmanaged wolf population?
Pets?
I mean, we get letters and emails from people
that have lost pets, dogs.
And I'm not trying to be an alarmist,
but I don't think you have to look very far
into the distant future that eventually as bears
and mountain lions have posed problems
on human populations, it's only a matter of time.
They're in your own state of Wisconsin.
Somebody shot a wolf here on Christmas Eve
on their front porch.
Literally the wolf is at the doorstep.
So I say all of the stakeholders,
all the hunting and conservation groups,
those groups that love the wolf and only the wolf,
those groups that love the elk and only the elk
and those groups that love the mule deer
and only the mule deer and those groups
that focus a lot on Africa,
but do believe in conservation,
all should come together and figure out a formula
to make this work.
And it isn't 1500 wolves in Wisconsin.
It isn't 2000 wolves in Wisconsin.
It's not 600 wolves in Wisconsin.
It has to be a number
that is sustainable for the wolf population
and is not too great
that the herd populations of deer
and other gray wildlife that they can sustain
and be healthy themselves.
So do you think that there is common ground
to find between all of those stakeholders?
Like you were just talking.
Well, I would answer that with a question.
How can there not be?
I, although sometimes in my,
try to pick my words carefully,
sometimes I wonder if these anti-hunting groups
really care about wildlife like they say
because they sure don't put their money
where their mouth is.
You can look at the Pittman-Robertson Act
and see how much money that the American hunter
pours into conservation on an annual basis.
Billions of hundred dollars go
to fund your Wisconsin DNR, Michigan DNR,
Pennsylvania DNR, Kansas DNR, all of them,
their funding comes from hunter dollars.
Does the defenders of wildlife put any money
towards game management, paying the salaries
of DNR in any of these states?
Any of them?
I'm curious.
I'd ask that question.
I don't believe they do.
So if they truly do care about wildlife conservation
in spite of not putting their money where their mouth is,
surely they wanna see a sustainable population of deer.
Surely they wanna see a sustainable population of elk
and moose and all the other animals.
Or maybe, and I'm not saying I believe this,
but I sure hear this a lot from some people,
or maybe their objective is they hate the thought
of hunting so much.
They hate the fact that there are these rugged
individualists, self-reliance, self-sustaining
individuals that live this hunting lifestyle,
that know how to go out into the woods
like our ancestors did and procure meat,
butcher the meat, cook the meat, fill their freezers,
fill the freezers of their families,
fill the freezers of their friends,
hunters for the hungry and Catholic charities
and many, many more of these hunting,
feed the hungry organizations out there,
or feeding people that need the protein desperately.
But if the anti-hunting groups hate hunting so much
that they would rather decimate the deer elk
and moose populations just so humans can hunt them,
then you'll never find common ground.
But if they're honest, if they're intellectually honest,
if they're spiritually honest,
and they do want healthy populations
of wolf, elk, moose, bear, obviously, John.
Obviously, there is common ground to solve this equation.
Last question I got for you.
What should the next steps be?
There is the management plan that came out,
but nobody really likes it right now.
What should the next steps be in Wisconsin?
Well, the legislators in the DNR in Wisconsin
need to take two steps back.
Is my recommendation.
They need to go back and look at the original management plan
and then take a step back from there.
What led them to draft the original state
wolf management plan in Wisconsin?
It was the original US Fish and Wildlife guidelines.
So go back to the beginning,
go back to the original deal that was struck.
How many wolves,
when they knew they were migrating across from Minnesota
into Wisconsin into other regions,
what did US Fish and Wildlife,
and it's on my deal, I can tell you,
but you can do a little homework here
in your listeners can as well.
How many wolves did the US Fish and Wildlife
set as a quota and a goal that would indicate
a recovery if you want to use that word,
but a completely successful number of wolves in Wisconsin
before the state would then take on management.
Because what happened when your original plan was done, John,
your legislators looked at that number and said,
you know, we understand that's a bare minimum number.
And we don't want to just be average here in Wisconsin
because we're better than that.
We're true conservationists.
We want to overachieve pursuant
to the North American model of conservation.
So we're going to set the number of wolves
significantly greater than that.
So we never even get close to that bare bones minimum.
And if we can stay at the level that we set
in this original plan, your original legislators said
that we are going to have a sustaining,
thriving, healthy wolf population,
and it will allow us to continue
to have a thriving deer population in our state
because our state is made up of a lot of hunters.
And we want to make sure that we don't hurt our hunters
and their ability to procure food for their family
through their hunting lifestyle by having too many wolves.
And here's the plan.
And you know what, that's where they need to go.
They need to go back to there.
They need to live up to the original bargain.
And let's work our way to a set number
that was originally agreed upon.
And here's what I'm going to tell you.
There's two doors.
It's like a game show.
Except you know what, John, it isn't a damn game.
There's two doors.
One of the two is going to get open.
Either these people that do not really want
to manage wildlife with sound, biological information,
and sound science, and within the true meaning,
spirit, and letter of the North American model
of conservation, and they're going to allow
an unchecked unmanaged wolf population
to continue to wreak havoc in Wisconsin.
And what you're going to end up with
is you're going to end up with so few deer
that there won't be a hunting season.
When there's no hunting season,
then behind door number one,
Wisconsin will lose their hunters.
If you lose your hunters, you lose the most rugged,
the most self-reliant,
the warrior gene spirit that has made Wisconsin great
since you guys became a state and even before.
Under door, behind door two is the common ground
that I see you're looking to find.
And it's going to be a sustainable wolf population.
So the people that love only the wolf
are going to see the wolf at the level
that is sustainable and healthy.
It's going to be a sustainable deer population,
much better than what you have now,
back into the days when every hunter that went out
that wanted to put deer in his freezer
had the opportunity to do it.
And you're going to see a Wisconsin
where the wildlife is managed
not only within the letter
of the North American model of conservation,
but within the spirit of that
and all of the game and pray populations are going to thrive.
And I don't know about you.
You know, I think you told me you don't really hunt anymore,
but you grew up in a hunting family.
Door number one is not acceptable to me.
Door number one is not acceptable to my Wisconsin members.
And I can't imagine that door number one
is really acceptable to anyone short of radical anti-hunters
that don't really want to find common ground.
So I'm going to strive and work
and fight like hell for door number two, John.
That's what I'm going to do
and that's what hunter nation's going to do.
That's all I got for you.
But is there anything that we haven't talked about yet
that you would want to mention?
You know, I had mentioned to you
that I thought it would be a good idea
to get all the stakeholders in the room
and apparently everyone's too busy.
No one even ran a date by me.
I didn't say I was too busy.
You know, I find it extremely hard to believe
that somebody from the native councils
couldn't jump on a Zoom call today or tomorrow
or next week or two weeks from tomorrow.
I find it extremely difficult.
Somebody from the DNR couldn't jump on a call like this.
I find it extremely hard to believe
that all these people that are busier than all get out.
But if they really cared about this issue,
they would find time to get on a group call like this
and try to find that common ground.
And the fact that apparently I'm the only one
that wanted to do it ought to speak volumes
for what group wants to find the middle ground
of what groups don't.
All right, that's all I got for you.
And I hope you print that.
I, we will see.
I hope to.
Well, you got to have a scrotum to print that, John,
because it's going to be uncomfortable.
Those groups aren't going to like the fact
that they got called out for not finding time
to find common ground.
And, you know, we want to find common ground.
I want to find a healthy population of wolves in Wisconsin.
I want to find those healthy population of deer.
And so I'm willing to invest my time.
And I'll say it again.
I'd be happy to, I'll fly in person to set around a table
to try to find common ground with Chris Von, my state director
and the shareholders and stakeholders up there
in Wisconsin.
Otherwise, I don't think they're serious about the issue.
I think you can talk bold, you know, behind a keyboard.
You can come up and grab a mic and talk bold
in a council meeting or on a house or Senate floor.
But why not solve the problem?
Why do we have to be so, so divided?
Why do we have to have so much gridlock in this country?
Why don't we roll up our sleeves and do what we all say
we want to do is have good sustainable wildlife populations
in Wisconsin.
And those that aren't willing to set around a table
and try to solve it, I don't think they want to solve it.
All right, well, thank you.
I appreciate you sitting down and talking to me today.
Yep.
Take care.
Yeah, yeah, same.
This story is going to run at some point in February.
I believe once it does, I will get you that link.
I'll give you one other quote that I wish you would put in there.
I will say this.
I will say this about some of the politicians in Wisconsin.
You do have a congressman from up there named Tom Tiffany.
And Tom Tiffany has gone to a lot of trouble to get to the bottom line of this wolf issue.
And Tom is trying to find that middle ground.
Tom is willing to work with all sides to try to find that middle ground.
And I understand that a lot of people don't want to solve it
because they're raising a lot of money to fight this issue.
And that's people on both sides.
Unfortunately, some conservation groups, I don't believe really want to solve it, John, because they're, they're raising money among their members like oh my gosh, it's like the gun issue.
You know, the NRA makes more money and more guns are sold when a Democrats in office because of the fear mongering.
And that's how problems don't get solved the border.
They don't really want to solve the border crisis because too many people are making money off the crisis.
And hence your readers or listeners say oh that hunter nation is just a far right Republican organization I'm a lifelong Democrat.
And I don't believe that conservation should be defined by an R or a D.
I truly would hope that my people on my side of the aisle with ours or D's and the same on your side would really want to find that common ground behind door number two.
And like I said I'm a lifelong Democrat but, but I don't think wildlife should be a political pawn I don't think it should be a pawn in the court system I think it ought to be something that people that that of both parties of all colors of all creeds all religions
don't want to set down and solve this problem. And hunter nation wants to be part of the solution. I don't want to fuss with these people.
But we have to set down to do it. There has to be some interest in trying to find that that middle ground. And you know hunter nation here we are willing to set down anywhere anytime to discuss the issues and try to find that.
I'll have to I'll have to see what he's been working on I know that he was doing some stuff but I haven't kept up with him. He has a bill. He has a bill called the trust the science bill that got out of the natural resources committee in DC.
I think there's some appetite to see that bill get through. There's a companion bill in the Senate that doesn't have any teeth in it that I think Ron Johnson and even Tammy Baldwin, which would be awesome a Republican and a Democrat senator work together to fix this crisis
to help your own home state more than any other state at this moment, maybe other than Northern Michigan and get the Wolf D listed in the continental 48 states without judicial review. That's Tom's bill. It's very simple.
Congressman Tiffany's bill is for a continental 48 D listing with no judicial review. That doesn't mean that that you're going to hunt wolves in Wisconsin.
What it means is that the state of Wisconsin would then have the ability to decide what you want to do. Much like the recent abortion decision.
It goes back to the states and the states do what they believe is best and because there are elected employees up there in the state house.
If they don't do what we want them to do, we fire those employees and go hire new employees in the ballot box next election cycle. And I reckon that's what will happen in in Wisconsin and Michigan and all the other states were this issue would come back to you.
And if the if the legislators don't get it right, then we the people fire those elected employees and find others. That's how the systems work since 1776.
And that's how it can continue to work. But that's so Tom's bill is very plain.
Just get the state get them off the endangered species list because they're not in danger.
They're not threatened. I mean, there's abundantly more wolves in Wisconsin than they ever called for.
And let Wisconsin management as the as they see fit. And if they don't do it right, we the people fix our employees.
It would be incredible if Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin agree on something that's a that's a rare thing around from the state.
They have a joint bill in the Senate right now on this. Oh, okay.
It's it's just not.
At the level of Tom Tiffany's because any any bill that does not include no judicial review will continue to let the wolf be a judicial pond.
And so if they will tweak their bill.
To include all states, including the western states like Utah or all the contiguous states like Kansas and Nebraska were wolves are going to cross the border from Colorado or just much like what happened to you in Wisconsin.
You know, they crossed the border and came. It's kind of like our southern border. I mean, there's not really any definitive border wolves don't know they just come.
They're, you know, they're looking for food anywhere they find it. And they'll come to Kansas and kill our wildlife and livestock, just like they're going to do in Colorado. So if you can get a continental 48 listing, which means all the states can decide their fate with no judicial review,
which means liberal or conservative judges don't get to put their thumbprint on the scale.
Let the state DNR's manage the wolf just like they have done for years all the wildlife. It's so perfect, John. I, I can't even believe we're fussing about it.
Honestly, if anyone would oppose what Tom Tiffany proposed that we do have continental 48 D listing with no judicial review.
They're just silly because that's so, so simply perfect that if you if you're opposed to that you're silly.
All right.
I think that's all I got for you for real this time.
All right, buddy. Thanks. Have a good one.
Yeah, thank you, you too. I hope you have a great rest of your day. Yep, take care. Yep, you too. Bye bye.