Latest / The Wild Idea / Lynn Scarlett & Matt Lee-Ashley: Can We Rewrite the Rules of Public Lands Policy?

Transcript

Lynn Scarlett & Matt Lee-Ashley: Can We Rewrite the Rules of Public Lands Policy? · The Wild Idea

• 0:00
  [upbeat music] Welcome to our continuing conversation for A Wild and Changing World, a podcast focused on the intersection of human nature and wild nature. I am one of your hosts. My name is Bill Hodge, a nerd for the history of wilderness in America, a lover of public lands, and a committed steward, and I am joined, as always, by my friend and president of the Wilderness Land Trust, Anders Reynolds.
• 0:23
  Oh, hi, nerd.
• 0:24
  [laughs]
• 0:25
  Have you ever used the word nerd in your opening bio before? Have I just been missing it?
• 0:29
  No, I think, I think that might be a first. It might be a first.
• 0:32
  Oh. That has opened the door to some bullying.
• 0:36
  Well, I... All of it will be deserved. I, uh, I'll note for our listeners if Anders sounds a little different today, he is outside his luxurious home studio and in the confines of a hotel room. Where, where, where do we find you today, Anders?
• 0:52
  Oh, I, yeah, I am in a hotel room. I'm so glad we haven't migrated to YouTube yet because I'm always a fan of the shot where you can see the person and the bed they're sleeping in, in the, in the same frame. I find that really disturbing. But I'm, I'm on the road for work. I'm in Denver right now, um, talking to you from an undisclosed hotel location downtown. Um, Bill, do you have any, uh, weird like hotel quirks? Is there anything strange you do when you first check in or before you check out or... Yeah, I think we're all a little bit different when we're on the road, and I'm curious what you've got going on.
• 1:31
  You mean do I, do I like bring a blacklight to, uh, ru- run it over the bed to see if there's any stains left on the bed or things like that?
• 1:38
  Um, I thought at first you were making fun of me. Um, I don't bring a blacklight. I'm not checking for stains. But as you and many of our friends know, I... my biggest phobia on planet Earth is, is bedbugs. Like, I am terrified of bedbugs, and I have a very elaborate, time-consuming ritual that I have to go to when I come into a, a hotel room to check for the presence of bedbugs. Um, and I'll just say, it's worked. I have found some before and successfully,
• 2:08
  you know, gotten out of that room bedbug-free. But I, I don't know what I'd do if bedbugs got in my home. I would, I would burn it down. Like, whatever presidential candidate in two years is running on an anti-bedbug platform, I'm voting for them. It is my non-negotiable when it comes to this sort of thing, and I, I actually don't think that's that weird a ritual. I think all smart people out there are checking for bedbugs. But I will, if you wanna know, tell you one weird thing I do, which is because of the threat of bedbugs, I often keep my clothes in the mini fridge in the hotel room.
• 2:37
  [laughs] Now that is a quirk. That's the first I've heard. That is a quirk.
• 2:41
  [laughs] Hey, laugh all you want. I'm living bedbug-free.
• 2:47
  But you're freezing when you put your clothes on. I mean, other than that, [laughs] you're all good. But-
• 2:52
  I run hot anyway.
• 2:53
  I think it illustrates probably the s- one of the starkest differences [laughs] between us and what makes our friendship, uh, so unique is I don't think twice about any of this. Uh, the only one thing I do is I immediately unpack my suitcase and put the clothes away. I hate living out of the suitcase.
• 3:11
  Oh, God.
• 3:13
  I like ... or whatever. And, uh, I, uh, you know, maybe occasionally I get squeamish about like, oh, am I gonna set my toothbrush on the counter in the bathroom? Um, but, uh, yeah, I mean, but at the same time, I get why you are that way. I mean, yeah, first time you've ever discovered bedbugs probably be the last time you wanna discover bedbugs. So, um, I, I get it. I, I... But, [laughs] but putting your clothes in the refrigerator, I didn't see that one coming. I, I could see you not unpacking your suitcase until you've done your thorough dive on whether there's critters living in the bed. But like to put your clothes in the refrigerator is at... I mean, that's hardcore, buddy.
• 3:49
  I would never unpack a suitcase in a hotel room. I would stack the little frame they give you for your suitcase like on the desk and then open my bag on top of that. Like, it would be several, you know, platforms removed from the floor. I... This is a serious thing. I can't believe most of you aren't taking bedbugs more seriously. It is, it is the existential threat, um, in our lifetime. But you never told me what your quirk was. You can't beat this, I guess. But-
• 4:14
  I, I, I mean, I, I guess... I don't know if it's a quirk. I completely unpack my suitcase. I wanna put everything away like I'm in a space that I'm gonna be living in. Even if it's for... I mean, I think if it's for one night I'll, I'll, I'll live out of my suitcase, but if it's more than one night, I'm unpacking my suitcase. I'm hanging everything up. Uh, I, I guess a quirk is like if I'm gonna be somewhere where I have to wear dress clothes, I'm gonna iron everything right away so I don't have to worry about it during the rest of the trip. Um, but yeah, you know, you and I have a, a, a shared friend who has a set of let's just call them issues that I, I, I, I know of one hotel room where he took everything out of his ho- hotel room every day for three consecutive days and locked them in his car 'cause he didn't trust having them locked in the hotel room. But he's got issues upon issues, and he knows who we're talking about, and I won't name him. But, but, uh, but yeah, my, my, my quirk's pretty boring. I just completely unpack when I, when I get into a place. Um, pretty straightforward. So.
• 5:10
  The ironing part is fine, but the putting your clothes away is blowing my mind. Ugh, it's, I, I have shivers thinking about that. You're, you are begging for the BB. You love the BB.
• 5:23
  Oh. Uh, so far. So far I must be living right 'cause [laughs] I've, I've lived bedbug-free. Well, you know what? Let's, uh, bedbugs are a serious issue. Let's talk about some really serious issues today. We're, we're really excited to be joined by Lynn Scarlett, uh, part of the Groundshift Initiative, and by the Executive Director of Groundshift, Matt Lee Ashley, for an incredible conversation about stepping back and reimagining
• 5:51
  all of the things that make our system of public lands and natural spaces possible. A, a think tank. There's a number of ways in which you could frame this. I think you can make your own definitions once you hear what Matt and Lynn have to say. But we do hope you enjoy the conversation So Lynn, Matt, first of all, welcome to the Wild Idea Podcast. Excited for both of you to bring the wild idea of Groundshift to light. And I thought maybe the perfect place to start, Matt, maybe this is for you. Could you give us the quick elevator pitch of what Groundshift is actually envisioned to be?
• 6:25
  I really need to tighten this gr-- this elevator pitch up, Bill. It's, it's hard to say it quickly, but in the shortest possible version, our, our job is we're on a mission to try to encourage new thinking and new conversation about the future of our public lands and waters. So a crowdsourced effort to, to imagine what's next, not just for next year, but ten, twenty, fifty years down the road. And we have a lot of folks teaming up on this with, uh, in their free time to the extent they have it. We have a, a bipartisan advisory council, a bunch of academic partners, and a lot of folks who have connections to public lands and waters, whether great users of it or have deep experience, contributing ideas and, and essays along the way. So it's a, a conversation we're trying to encourage, not unlike what you all are doing, which is terrific.
• 7:10
  Yeah. The, the, I mean, the pieces that are already up, uh, the conversations that have already been sort of facilitated by Groundshift have been outstanding. We've obviously talked to, to Tracy Stone-Manning, uh, on the podcast a couple times on, on Groundshift and excited about that. Lynn, I'm curious, what was the genesis of your involvement? What was the attraction to getting involved in this for you?
• 7:31
  You know, I've watched the last year unfold with dismay like so many people and wondering how I can get engaged to have a voice on conservation from the future. And so, uh, linked up with the Groundshift folks, and I think there are two things about Groundshift that I really love. One is the focus on recreating civil and thoughtful conversation around conservation issues and conservation futures. Uh, we have a hundred years of nonpartisan or sort of cross-cultural embrace of conservation, and yet, um, it has devolved into, you know, some points of conflict. And so the focus on conversation and, and, and thought, but also then the ideation. Okay, we are where we are. The world around us is changing with climate change, um, increased incidents of extreme wildland fire. The list goes on. And we do need to think about what the future of conservation looks like, not only in the wake of the dismantling of, um, agencies or staff or budgets, but also because the world looks different. And so how do we think about that different world? How do we have a more systems view, more collaborative kind of cross-agency, um, approach to these challenges? So the ideation part really intrigued me too, and the idea that
• 9:03
  Groundshift would start out inviting people to submit ideas, not requiring consensus up front, but just throw the ideas out there, and then let's have an opportunity to talk about them and see if certain things make sense for the future.
• 9:17
  Matt and Lynn, I'm really grateful, uh, to both of you for being here today, for being involved with Groundshift, and just for your conservation careers in general. I've, I've benefited from both of your work in the past, and so I'm really, really happy to be talking to you today.
• 9:33
  Matt, I... uh, in your answer earlier, you mentioned the essays that, that Groundshift is publishing. And several of those pieces, as I think, um, listeners might be putting together, really challenge conservation orthodoxy. I'm thinking of Brian Yablonski's piece on private lands and market tools or the really great class critique from Amanda John Kimsey that I hope we'll talk about later. Um, and, and so it seems pretty clear to me that Groundshift views the current moment as, you know, a unique, almost once in a lifetime chance to use the focus that all this administration's tumult is throwing onto public lands and to reexamine how we all think about the work we're dedicated, uh, to doing. You know, it's sort of a, kind of like an only Nixon can go to China moment in that this much disruption offers us, you know, a opportunity to examine our priors, to examine our approaches. But that framing does raise a question for me, and that's is Groundshift building toward a specific policy product like new legislation to create a public lands law review commission, or is the goal to shift the zeitgeist, to shift the intellectual climate and let the politics catch up later? Or maybe all of the above.
• 10:50
  It's a little bit too soon to say, although I, I do think as this conversation unfolds, and to be honest with you, we have disagreements among the essays on the site, and I think that's one of the most beautiful things, that people are, are disagreeing constructively. But e-even in some of these essays that, that bring different perspectives, we're already starting to see some common elements of a vision for the future, uh, and some things surfacing. I'd love to come back a year from now with, with more inputs and to-- and I-- 'cause I think at that point we'll be able to say, "Hey, here's what's rising to the top," not just from the essays we're publishing, but from the symposia, the convenings we're having. We're gonna be having and w-working with partners to have on-the-ground conversations to try to encourage more dialogue. And I think what we will see is there's a ton of common ground in, in, frankly, a pretty ambitious vision for the future for what our public lands should be managed for. Uh, yes, there will need to be policy changes associated with that, but first you have to identify what's that, what's that vision we want, the blue sky vision that we're working toward, and then, and now let's get to work on the machinery. Some changes will, you know, are things that probably could be done in the nearer term. Some things may take some time to build power to change long, you know, statutes that have been placed and in place for more than a hundred years. The other essay I'd recommend in the, in the, in the list that you mentioned is Martin Nye's, um, essay, uh, from University of Montana, who talks about the- a gilded age moment we're in, and, and, and he just presents the, a, a picture of the power dynamics now that's pretty compelling. So, uh, we have some terrific authors, and I... and we have more in the pipeline, so encourage folks to check it out.
• 12:28
  Martin's a terrific guy. He's been on the podcast several times. He's gonna kill me for forgetting to mention his piece, so apologies to Martin. Um, Matt, you mentioned change, and, you know, change is a word that can mean very different things depending on who's using it. Um, you know, as, as you say, disagreement can be really constructive. But in the history of public lands policy, calls for change, calls for reform have sometimes advanced conservation and sometimes been the preferred rhetorical frame of capital, right, or of industries that are trying to weaken different protective laws. So, you know, when you publish these, these different essays, um, that are calling for new approaches to multiple use or rethinking FLPMA, for example, how do you ensure you're not handing usable language to interests whose actual goals may be to exploit our public lands or waters, or is that just a risk worth taking?
• 13:25
  I, I think it's a risk we have to take. There's so much disruption and change happening in this moment. We don't even know what, what these agencies and policies will look like two or three years from now. There's been... The, the, the, the pace at which this administration is moving to, to, to change how our public lands and waters are managed and to shift, frankly, the basis of, um, kind of some of the bedrock principles are, are shifting under our feet. So I, I think it's a conversation that we, we have to have, and, um, and we have to be willing to, to welcome in perspectives that may be a little uncomfortable, that may push us all out of our comfort zone a little bit. Um, you know, Lynn, I, I'd be remiss if I didn't point folks to Lynn's essay, which has this radical idea about collaborative conservation, which is something that, that is extraordinarily difficult to actually implement, but has heads nodding everywhere. And so s- some of this is, like, in this moment, recognizing ideas that work and things that have withstood the test of time and are delivering results on the ground. Those things are coming into crystal clear focus right now. I think Lynn's essay, uh, does a really nice job of illustrating that.
• 14:36
  I forgot Martin and I forgot Lynn. They're gonna team up to kill me. I'm, I'm in deep trouble, Bill.
• 14:42
  [laughs] I like it. Don't worry, I didn't forget Lynn 'cause my... Matt just perfectly teed up my question for Lynn. I, I wanna talk about that piece and your call for empowering collaboration on a local or, or a landscape scale. H- however, whatever scale you look at that, um, I think place-based collaboration is a devalued proposition when the policies and laws are too vague to enable the outcomes. And I'm curious, how do we think about policy changes in Washington that support that idea without allowing the idea to be hijacked? And here's, uh, to give you a frame, here's what I mean by that. I've been a part of some really productive collaboratives here in Montana, southwest Montana specifically, down to the what was called the Beaverhead County Collaborative. Back in North Carolina, it was the, you know, uh, Pisgah Forest, uh, Partnership, and the, uh, stakeholders forum there. But sometimes those collaboratives can either be ignored by an agency or can be blown up by somebody who's outside the collaborative but has political clout, and I'm just kinda curious, how do we balance putting that power into place and the people in place, but making sure we have the policies that create... I guess the guardrails is the word I'm looking for, but how do we, how do we balance that? 'Cause I really love that piece from you, Lynn.
• 15:57
  Well, it's not easy, as you said. Um, the good news is, if you look over the last, say, two decades, we've seen sort of an efflorescence of these place-based collaborative endeavors. Um, so we're getting a lot more experience on who's at the table, what are the rules of the game for conducting those collaborative endeavors, and so forth. But at the same time, um, when I was at the Interior Department,
• 16:23
  I led an effort on cooperative conservation, just another word really for collaborative conservation. Um, we had a working group of field people, regional people, uh, different, uh, professional backgrounds within the department to ask ourselves, well, if you want to enhance collaboration and cooperation across agencies, federal, state, local, tribal, uh, what are some of the, what are some of the tools you need, and so forth. So some of the effort to enhance these already organically emergent efforts, uh, really is to enhance the ability of agencies themselves to participate, um, and agencies themselves to better be able to coordinate. I mean, I'll give you an example. When we were trying to work on some landscape scale stuff that involved maybe three, four, five different agencies, the rules of the game now require that each have their own budget for their contribution to that particular landscape. We said, "Gee, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a landscape multi-agency budget for that particular restoration or conservation endeavor?" That's really hard under the current rules of the game. So there are these, these fairly operational and unglamorous tools that can help these efforts. Uh, but then I guess the other thing I would say
• 17:53
  m- more fundamentally about the move forward is it is important, at least in my mind, that one keep in play the fundamental conservation values that one is striving to sustain and indeed enhance. So not just any old, uh, s- set of objectives for these collaborative efforts will do. I mean, you really are trying to keep in play, uh, water quality, forest health, whatever it is on that landscape and through that collaboration that one is trying to advance. I mean, this goes back also to the question [laughs] posed to Matt, um- Yes, there is a danger when you say, "Gee, change," um, and you might begin to explore the National Environment Policy Act or endangered species. In the past, there's been a lot of resistance to opening those things up, even though many people know, uh, they could operate better to, to enhance, let's say, species protection. But fear that opening the door will actually result in, um, sort of rollback and undermining of the goals. And so I guess for me, um, as one looks at these essays, as one, as one looks at the path forward, I just think it's really important to keep the fundamental central, um, conservation value in mind and ask ourselves, um, in opening up a conversation around some policy or some approach, um, are we, uh, keeping that conservation trajectory in mind?
• 19:28
  Yeah. I kinda wanna dig a little bit deeper on this, 'cause I, I really, really agree with you that if we can have positive collaboration
• 19:37
  in the landscape with the players that are either the managers of the public land resource or the private interests that might be at play, the public good interests that might be at play, I've just... I really struggle. This probably isn't something we ever solve with law and policy, but how big is the tent? And this might be a question you guys are asking yourselves about Groundshift, right? Like, uh, at some level, do you carve out the extremes to make sure you find consensus in the middle? But, like, if you build consensus in the middle and have ignored the extremes, I think we see what, [laughs] I think we can see what we're living through today as an example of, of, of assuming that you can l- live without the, the voice of the extremes. But, like, I don't know. I really, I just, I really struggle with it, because I watched really good true consensus building give and take on, let, let's say an example of, like, wilderness designation over here, but letting go of wilderness study area designation over here for extraction or motorized recreation. All, everybody put their, their, their
• 20:40
  things on the table, their, their, their cards on the table. And, and, and then all it took was a player from the outside coming in and saying, "Nope, these people are wanting to steal your public lands," and it blew the whole thing up. And I don't know if we... I, I, maybe it's impossible to solve that with law and policy. I don't know if you guys have a thought on that, but.
• 20:58
  Well, y- so there's a lot of thought on that [laughs] and by many people, as we have enjoyed more and more endeavors of collaborative conservation over the last couple decades. Let's go back to the Quincy Library Group, which for me was sort of a founding endeavor of place-based collaborative efforts, in this case for forest management, and exactly the circumstance that you describe occurred. So you had all these l- local sort of place-based folks coming together, tired of a decade of conflict, saying, "Well, wait a minute. Can we, can we jointly figure out a better way to, um, uh, think about the management of the forest in that particular location?" And they actually did come to a sort of consensus collaborative agreement. But some national groups that weren't involved, uh, sort of dove in and said, "Well, wait a minute. We weren't at that table." And ultimately, the, the, the effort
• 21:55
  did not fulfill its, its hoped-for intentions.
• 22:00
  The good news is that as time has unfolded and more endeavors have unfolded, um, first of all, let me say there's no cookie cutter. I mean, it depends on the place. It depends on the, the set of goals and objectives that you're striving to advance. Um, but there's been a lot of experimentation with, if you will, of sort of the, the size and extent of participants, the sequencing to which people might be added to the mix of the discussion. So perhaps not starting with everybody, uh, but getting some basic, um, goals in place and then adding people. Um, there's, there's, um, been even some academic look at governance and who's at the table and when are they at the table. And so I guess my response is yep, it's really hard. It's a worry. There's no... But there is no cookie cutter. Um, there may be some guidelines, and increasingly, for example, the Network for, uh, Landscape Scale Conservation is trying to develop those kind of guidelines to help groups be successful in their collaborative endeavors. Um, but I guess one more dimension,
• 23:14
  I'm not sure there is a law or a set of, um, rules of the game, say federally, that could lay out what's in, what's out. It may be rather that we allow some experimentation, and if these endeavors then need, say, funding or federal support of some sort, uh, we take them as they come.
• 23:41
  Someone's gotta pay the light bill. We'll be right back after this break.
• 23:44
  I'm Rose from Sandpoint, Idaho, and you're listening to The Wild Idea.
• 23:49
  Yeah, so I, I feel like we're starting to really parse out the recipe here, 'cause there's some overlapping themes to things Anders has already asked here, my, my next question. Uh, he's already mentioned this idea of a public land, uh, law commission, and, and I first kind of heard that being discussed in the last few months from Andy Mergen, um, at the Stegner Symposium in Salt Lake City, and I was intrigued in his interest in that commission, something that has been tried before with mixed results. It seems that within Groundshift, there's this ethos that is there's an openness to take nothing off the table, to be open to revisiting previously the off limit. But for many of us, opening up some of these, I'll call them sacred texts, if you will, might be a sort of tough pill to swallow in the wrong environment Is it the place of Groundshift to just pose ideas and put them forward, or to actually engage in moving ideas like Andy's into practice? And I think, I think, you know, Matt, you've already addressed this, but could you maybe go a little bit further on that?
• 24:48
  Yeah. In this first phase, we really are in a collection period here, trying to listen, gather inputs. Um, we will have more and more of public, um... we're trying to-- We'll be experimenting with different formats online and in person to collect inputs and perspectives. But yes, over time, we will build toward trying to read back what we're hearing in the sh- in the form of a vision and some values at a minimum, and ideally, some areas of focus for policy change.
• 25:17
  Um, and, you know, even, even at this early stage, y- as I mentioned, there are some things that are, are coming up over and over that where there's a lot of common, uh, interest and support, collaborative conservation we've talked about, but also expanding the role and voice of, uh, indigenous communities and tribal nations in the management of public lands. A big and growing focus on trying to restore the ecological health and integrity of these lands, recognizing that a lot of them are in, in pretty degraded condition, including our forests. So what, what do we do about that? And, and also, we haven't talked about this yet, but a lot of folks out there in this country are really worried about the impact of screens on their kids and their families. They're worried about the impact of AI. How can our public lands and waters be more of a solution to, to that set of concerns that people are facing right now? So I think, you know, if we step back and, and get ourselves out of some of the policy wonkery that, that many of us who follow these issues get into, there are some common animating themes that I think can drive a really ambitious and exciting, uh, future for our public lands and waters.
• 26:27
  Matt, you're mentioning exploring policy change, and it's, you know, really obvious to me that some review of public land, uh, law and, and other conservation laws, um, really call for us to, like, adjust to new ways of, of thinking. It's really imperative that we do that. But I'm listening to, to some of the discussion about these bedrock laws or the sacred cows, as Bill would call them. And, you know, I, I know we understand, like, they're, they're, they're too big to be touched, and maybe that's like a taboo that we already-- we should think about changing. But I feel like when we approach that taboo, we always think about changing them, adjusting them down, watering them down. But couldn't another way of thinking about it be like, these aren't strong enough, right? We should put some thinking into, into seeing how these bedrock laws could be fortified. Is that something that Groundshift is interested in exploring?
• 27:21
  I think we're, we're particularly interested in ideas that start with the question of what would it take to, and fill in the blank. What would it take to actually recover our wildlife to healthy levels in this country? Some of that may involve updating how we implement the Endangered Species Act, possibly. It could... It undoubtedly involves more investment from somewhere. But it's not just, you know, we, uh, ESA and, and, uh, the National Environmental Policy Act often come up, but there are a lot of other statutes and policies that deserve scrutiny and a rethink, right? 1872 mining law, for example. There's been discussion on, on the Groundshift platform in, in a, uh, a, an event we hosted of multiple use, right? And is that really the-- should that be the animating or the guiding of, uh, principle to, to guide BLM and Forest Service land management? So those are worthwhile conversations, uh, to have, uh, i-in this moment. But, but one other thing, Anders, I'm gonna jump back to, is this, the idea of a public land law review commission, which Andy Mervin has, has talked about, I think, discussed with you all.
• 28:30
  I- It would be wonderful, right, if we could get a bipartisan effort on the Hill to really have an open-minded look at our, our public lands and waters, and to go through the seven years of hearing and informa- hearings and information gathering that occurred when the last public land law review commission met, which was in the '60s and early '70s. I think that's extremely unlikely. So in the absence of that, I think we have to do it ourselves as the public. And I-- that is, in part, what is inspiring and animating this effort, is to go have this big conversation, bring ideas forward, and over time, come back with some, some, a, a vision that does its best to reflect a lot of different, uh, perspectives and inputs.
• 29:12
  Anders, can I weigh in on that question a little bit about does this mean dumbing down or whatever? A, a couple of points. One, I come at that question
• 29:22
  really similar to what Matt said, which is, how do we enhance
• 29:28
  the conservation outcomes
• 29:30
  and the health of our lands, water, wildlife, and spaces around us? So the question is, how do we enhance them? And some of the limitations of the existing, um, I would say, implementation of some of these statutes rather than the statute themselves is that, for example, let's take endangered species.
• 29:55
  If you read the act,
• 29:57
  there's actually provisions for an ecosystem focus. But in the implementation, we've tended to look at one species and another species and another species and downplayed the potential in the act for really bringing a system-scale ecosystem look at, um, at how the act could be actually implemented, and by the way, in a collaborative way with states and, and so on and so forth. If you look at the National Environmental Policy Act, similarly, if you read the Words in the act itself, which was quite simple, it actually is a great underpinning for enhancing collaboration. It's just that in its implementation, we have tended to really focus, you know, much more sort of procedurally and timeline and this and that, rather than on the essence of how do we bring people together to get better results. So I, you know, absolutely look at this as how do we enhance, not how do we dumb down, because I don't think that will lead us in, um, in a better place.
• 31:03
  I really appreciate those answers, and I... Matt, I love the frame, what would it take to, um... It's like a really good whetstone against which to hone some of our, our thinking and our laws. I appreciate that. Lynn, you mentioned implementation. Matt, you mentioned what's realistic in modern politics. Um, one of my favorite quotes about politics is Max Weber's, um, who called politics the strong and slow boring of hard boards. [laughs] And, you know, to my mind, there's a, a really well doc- documented pattern in public lands policy. A bold idea enters the system, and it gets negotiated through the political process, and what emerges is something that's compromised, right? Compromised in a good way. Compromised 'cause it's good enough to pass, but also sometimes compromised enough to fail, and when that happens, the failure is often used as evidence that the original idea didn't work at all, right? I'm, I'm curious how Groundshift thinks about that trap. Is there a point at which a proposal is so compromised that, you know, publishing it or, or promoting it does more harm than good, or is it always worth to go th- through this process in order to sort of hone ourselves against the, the whetstone?
• 32:20
  The standard we've been applying to inputs and ideas that have been coming is, is a pretty simple one. Um, is it, is it a new perspective and new idea? Um, we're not...
• 32:31
  You know, that... We... There, there are lots of other spaces in which folks can relitigate debates that have been had for a long time, and so we're trying to create a space for some new ideas, and that will require some risk-taking by authors and, and contributors. And not every idea that, that gets thrown out there is gonna deserve to be signed into law. But, but in some ways, that's the value of putting it out and having a conversation and having some constructive disagreement on it. You know, ideas get sharpened as they move through the process. Uh, so I'm, I'm optimistic about just the value of having this conversation in this moment because it feels like we need it, that there's something affirming about the democratic exchange with, I think you'll find this in all, every, every person that's contributed a, a piece of writing so far, and, and certainly it's true of the folks who've joined our conversations. People love our public lands and waters. The people who are wanting to contribute ideas, it's, it's for the right reasons, and it's because they too want to enhance the, the future that they're leaving behind. And so when you- when people are coming in with that kind of intent, um, that's... You know, it's, it's easy to have a, a constructive conversation.
• 33:38
  You know, can I just add to that? I [laughs] I think, um,
• 33:42
  as I said at the outset, one of the things I like about, about the whole framing of Groundshift, beyond the ideation and the, the generation of these ideas, is the affirmation of the importance of civil conversation itself. I wrote a piece for the Salazar Center on the relationship between democracy and, uh, collaborative conservation, and part of my point in that piece was to say,
• 34:12
  bringing people together around the table
• 34:15
  to have collab- to have consir- conversations around complicated matters sort of builds the democracy muscle. It enhances listening. It enhances a recognition that there are a multitude of ideas that don't all arise from inwith- oneself. And so,
• 34:36
  yes, when push comes to shove, let's say a year or two down the road, it may be that Groundshift will start to center around certain ideas. But in the meanwhile, just the generation of the conversation, um, in a constructive way around this value set that the vast majority of people in this nation care about is important in itself.
• 34:59
  Groundshift is such a, a big idea. Um, and you guys just sort of touched on why it's such a big idea. I'm curious. And, and, Matt, I mean, all of us have been in the nonprofit sector, and couple of you, our two guests here, have been in the public service sector, uh, having worked for the government.
• 35:17
  The idea of really the sausage-making is the thing here, right? Like, I'm wondering about financial
• 35:27
  future projections for how you continue to cultivate this dialogue, cultivate the sausage-making that could go into what the future holds is. I, I think about it from often the philanthropic community is interested in outcomes, and yes, there probably will be clearly outcomes down the road from all of this dialogue that Groundshift is facilitating. But do you see enough interest from the philanthropic community to allow you to continue to expand that tent and add more voices and to, to literally the, again, again, the thing to me is it is the sausage-making. It's having the conversations. It's chewing on big ideas that eventually can lead to outcomes, but it's not the outcome itself. Is that, is that something you think about as the executive director of this effort, Matt, to how do you, how do you sell that you're gonna be investing in a long-term set of ideas?
• 36:19
  It's true. We're, we're doing something a little bit different or doing it a little differently, and we are working to ensure there's a diversified, uh, funding stream for it. It's, you know, it... that's hard work because you're right. It's not, like, as simple as Input, output, right? We're not saying, "This is the answer, and we know enough." We don't, right? I don't know the answers. Lynn has lots more answers than I do, but nobody on our advisory commi- council or even in the academic partners. This has to be a group effort. And we've been through, collectively, from both inside and outside government, enough transitions to know that it's not good enough just to write a white paper and hand it over to the transition and say, "Your organization's behind it, and these three smart people,
• 37:04
  you know, think it's a great idea." You have to build a movement and power, and you have to show that there's a demand for change. And so, you know, the Groundshift isn't the only, uh, effort out there like this, but there's an ecosystem of conversations and people, smart people, and organizations that are thinking about the future. And there's power in all of us putting forward ideas and saying, "We need change, constructive change that leads to these kinds of outcomes for our public lands and waters." That's how you put pressure on whoever it is next in Congress or in the next administration or beyond to t- to pick up some of the big ideas that are being driven forward.
• 37:44
  Matt, can I just follow up on that, your idea about the, the white paper and, and the requirement that you build power afterward? Um, you know, I'd also say you can write the most elegant white paper in the history of American conservation, but with the Forest Service losing a third of its workforce, and the BLM's planning capacity being gutted, you know, that reformative idea, no matter how good it is, just isn't gonna be implemented, right? It'll remain as a notice [chuckles] in the, in the federal register. So how does Groundshift think about that? Should we, should all of us be centering proposals to rebuild institutional capacity as, like, preconditions for everything else that comes afterward?
• 38:25
  Here's one thing that, that has me really excited, is there are indeed a lot of people thinking about what comes next. And there are smart people thinking about how to fix the personnel onboarding process in these agencies and how to fix just the regulatory process to make it work better, and smart people thinking about, you know, fixing the, the machinery of government to ma- make it more responsive. And we need folks thinking about the future of these agencies, how to build budgets that are more stable and secure. Those efforts are all out there. We're in touch with hopefully all of them. If not all of them, get in touch with us. We wanna be in touch with you because that network, that ecosystem of work and thinking is really important. No one entity is gonna have all the answers. Groundshift doesn't pretend to have, to have them all. We wanna be a platform to help surface those ideas. Um, but it's gonna take a lot of hands rowing in roughly the same direction to drive big change.
• 39:21
  Speaking of, of big change, I think one thing that lives outside our silo of conservation and public lands, and it goes back to Lynn's idea about empowering local place-based collaboratives and the agency professionals that would be involved in that, and the local interests that would be involved in that, and probably the regional and national interests that would be involved in those collaboratives, is we can build even in, in spite of the, the hard questions we have to answer about how broad is the tent and what do you do about the radical fringes and that sort of thing. But no matter how broad we build that, can we implement,
• 39:57
  I'm just gonna say in an era post Citizens United, where it may not be ideas that win, it might be money that wins. And I wonder how... Do we, do we have to, do you have to wrestle with that, with these ideas that might, you know, become solid policy advances of, like, how does this ad- advance in an era in which no matter how big of a consensus we built,
• 40:23
  you know. You, you, you mentioned Martin's, you know, piece on The Gilded Age. Like, [chuckles] there is so much money being consolidated in certain places. Like, how are we gonna get to implementation if the collaboration that we seek actually happens, and yet we have to deal with the ramifications of, of Citizens United?
• 40:40
  So first, um,
• 40:45
  I will say that there are large numbers of these [chuckles] collaborative endeavors that are underway, but they're underway sort of under the radar screen and really driven by, uh, federal, state, tribal, local folks in a place with shared understanding of particular problems, whether, whether it's, uh, challenges in water quality and water flows, wildland fire and forest health, whatever it might be. And they are underway, some of them now for a couple decades. And
• 41:21
  I think the challenge of the big money issue that you raise
• 41:27
  may unfold in certain places where there are particularly,
• 41:34
  uh,
• 41:36
  critical goals that that big money might have.
• 41:40
  B- but beyond those particular places, I think some of the, the, the big money influence really starts to unfold when you try to examine, um, the,
• 41:54
  the underpinning laws and any thinking about what they look like for the future, because it's there that those interests dive in and want to have the rules beneficial to, uh, to, you know, to their, to their interests, to use, use, use the resources or whatever. And I mean, that's, that's the age-old challenge we've had. There's nothing new about that. But I do think the value of the
• 42:25
  Groundshift sort of endeavor, and as Matt suggests, there are other endeavors moving the same kind of, moving through the same kind of thought process.
• 42:36
  When you have those endeavors unfolding and getting people working together, um, and hopefully able to articulate, uh, some, some elements of that future, uh,
• 42:48
  they may be sufficiently, uh, strong
• 42:54
  with enough clarity to actually transcend, uh, the big money. I mean, I don't wanna be a Pollyanna here. That's always present. But part of the idea of having these very broad, not just Republican, not just Democrat, but federal, state, local, Democrat, Republican, Indigenous people, African Americans, Latinos, all involved in Groundshift, is that you have a sufficiently broad critical mass of people that are pushing for some eventually, hopefully, common concept of an enhanced future.
• 43:25
  That is well said. I actually don't have much to add to that 'cause that's so well said. But, uh,
• 43:30
  one, one small thing is I, I think there-- this has been observed in other areas of public policy and politics at the moment, but on public lands issues, among regular people who are out with their families camping and hiking and hunting, going to a lo- local park, it might be Democrats or Republicans, but the divide on, on how they view outdoor spaces and their public lands and waters isn't so much a left versus right divide. I think what really a big tension right now is people, users, owners of public lands versus moneyed interests who have exceptional access to power, as you described, Bill, and, and the tools that they're able to use to undercut some of those public processes are really damaging, right? The Congressional Review Act, which is something that nobody really should have to know about, is being used to undermine land use plans that a lot of community folks spend years working on, and then with a simple vote in Congress, can be repealed immediately. That's, that's just an, uh, an abuse of that law that I think under- undermines kind of the public trust and process. And that's true also of how budget reconciliation bills are getting used where, where provisions get tucked in through a lot of lobbying by special interests. So I do think, like, there is power, as Lynn said, in f- lots of different types of people who care about the future of our public lands and waters joining in a conversation about what should come next, what's our common vision, and boosting the relevance, putting pressure on their decision makers to help c- uh, you know, implement that vision that they wanna see.
• 45:10
  And we know, by the way, that works. I mean, if you just [chuckles] not e- not everywhere and all the time. But if you look at, for example, um, the, the efforts by Senator Lee to, you know, put, put, uh, uh, sell off of public lands kind of on the agenda, you had a lot of voices in outcry that actually pulled that off the agenda. Um, and these were Democrats, Republicans, all kinds of people. And so now that was a very stark issue, you know, sell off public lands. But I think that same momentum for certain other kinds of, uh, value sets and issues that, that one is trying to put forward also will come into play. The, the amount of public support for sustaining those public lands, for sustaining conservation, for protecting wildlife and wild places,
• 46:08
  it is overwhelming. I mean, we're talking eighty percent of people in this state and seventy-five in that state. It's, it's... And we just-- So the challenge is to mobilize that.
• 46:20
  We're starting to run short on time here, but earlier I mentioned I wanted to ask about the Amanda John Kimsey article, and so I'm gonna ask you about that real quick just to wrap up. That Kimsey piece is the sharpest thing on the site right now, in my opinion. Oh, excuse me. The third sharpest thing after Lynn and Martin I. But after those two, the sharpest thing on the site. Um, and, and its argument i- is essentially that conservation has a class problem and a sovereignty problem when it comes to tribe. And, and that, um, it's, it's
• 46:56
  failing, that we are failing to connect nature loss to kitchen table economics. And she so deftly connects the costs that Americans find most challenging, like groceries and housing and energy, to the outdoors by demonstrating, I think, really clearly how those budget lines are exactly where nature loss shows up, right? And I guess-- So I guess my question to you is, you know, how does Groundshift
• 47:27
  operationalize a critique like that or, or maybe any critique that's found in the pieces on the website?
• 47:33
  Talked a little bit earlier about the ecosystem of projects that are involved in this trying to imagine the future. Amanda is part of... has, has launched a, a project called Access Granted Group, um, and they are a time-bound think tank as well. And they're focused on thinking about the, the conservation movement, how to build power, and how to brill- bring voices of regular people in frontline communities into this conversation about the future. So that essay, uh, she'd actually posted on the Access Granted Group's Substack, and they were really nice about letting us repost it, um, because it deserves attention, right? It makes some really important observations. And that's part of the conversation we should be having. It's not just about, you know, changes to law and policy, but also how do we build the power collectively to drive the scale of change that is needed. How we bring more people into the conversation, make the tent bigger, and also have ideas that are responding to the everyday needs of people and meeting people where they are. And so I'm really excited about the project that, that she's leading and, and it's a, definitely an essay among many others worth reading. So encourage folks to check it out.
• 48:42
  I'm really, really grateful to you guys for coming on today, and lots of stuff you said from ideation to implementation, to Matt, that phrasing about what would it take to sort of becoming the, the keystone to how you approach the work. I, I think it's super thoughtful, and, uh, again, I'm grateful for both of you to your public service, but I'm really, really grateful that you guys are digging into Groundshift now. So thanks for spending time with us today.
• 49:07
  Well, I, I have to interject and, and add that this podcast is part of the ecosystem. This is part of the conversation that we need, right? I, I mean, just having more voices coming to the table and having spaces in which we can, uh, w- weigh things out and have constructive disagreement if necessary, but, uh, bring more attention to, to what the future should and could look like. So thank you.
• 49:28
  Bill wanted it to be all about fishing, but I convinced him it should be like this.
• 49:32
  [laughs] Oh. I would be in trouble if it were about fishing. [laughs]
• 49:35
  Lynn would have it be about birding. I know that for a fact.
• 49:37
  Oh, y- yeah, birding, I'm, I'm with you. Absolutely.
• 49:41
  I l- I love it. Lynn, Matt, thank you. I'm so grateful for, for the foundation you guys are setting with Groundshift. It's been great to also talk to, uh, your friends at the Wilderness Society about why they chose to help seed the initiative, and I'm very grateful for, Matt, you pointing out that we wanna be a part of that ecosystem as well. We want to be a megaphone for these conversations that we need to have. But mostly, I just wanna thank you both for your time today. It's been really great having you here.
• 50:07
  Thanks for having us.
• 50:08
  Thanks.
• 50:08
  It's been great.
• 50:09
  Lot of fun. Thank you.
• 50:11
  Yeah, you're welcome. Coming up on The Wild Idea podcast, we will continue to dig in on what reframing of our public lands infrastructure might look like in the years ahead with more of these contributors to Groundshift, and we will be bringing you our conversation with Marshall Johnson, the Chief Conservation Officer for the National Audubon Society, that we had at the Old Salt Festival. If you wanna stay on top of all we have coming up on the podcast, sign up for our newsletter at thewildidea.com. Don't forget to check out the new and latest offering from Wild Idea Media podcast called Raising Wild with Ashley Arnold, how cultivating an intentional connection to wild nature at an early age can produce more resilient humans. Be sure and subscribe to all of our podcasts, including the newly separate feed for the Wild line, on your podcast player of choice. If you wanna financially support what we're doing, you can use a platform called Buy Me A Coffee, which you can find on our website. And if you love what we're doing here, give us a rating and a review on your podcast player of choice, or recommend us to a friend. We love watching our community grow every week. We look forward to seeing each and every one of you on down the trail.
• 51:15
  The Wild Idea is a production of Wild Idea Media, and hosted by Bill Hodge and Anders Reynolds. Production and editing by Bryn Russell at PodLab. Digital support by Holly Wilkoszewski at Daypack Digital. Our theme music, Spring Hill Jack, is from Railroad Earth, and was composed by John Keahan. Our executive producer and ringleader is Lara Hodge. You can find The Wild Idea wherever you listen to or download your favorite podcast. If you have a minute, please take a minute to give us a rating, and if you really like us, we hope you'll subscribe. Learn more about us at thewildidea.com. [upbeat music]