Welcome to our ongoing conversation about our wild and changing world. If you are new here, my name is Bill Hodge, and I am on this journey with my co-host, Anders Reynolds. Anders, it is a special episode today. Tracy Stone-Manning is going to be our first returning guest.
Oh, hi, Bill. I'm so excited. Our first return guest, an, an apex guest, a podcast perennial. I could keep going. I thought of a bunch of these, but I'm gonna spare you. I'll do one more. A, a twice-landed guest, like a fish you catch and release and catch again, or like a, a keystone species, you know, a, a podstone species, a pod- a pathanpethies. That's hard to say. It, it doesn't matter. Tracy's here. She's here for a second time, and I'm so excited. I'm so happy to talk to her again. Um, it can be fun. It can be fun to repeat an activity. Bill, what's, what's an activity or interest that you were so into in the past that you can remember repeating it, doing it twice in a row?
Well, you know another term for repeating is addiction, right? Like, um, there are things that can be addictive. There's a certain game on my phone called Qless. It's, like, basically a word Scrabble game that's, uh, I can put on repeat and fall asleep playing that game. Um, I will tell you something that I am, uh, often accused of, like, just abusing this, uh, repeat pattern is watching the same movie over and over and over again. Now, I've read some faux psychology journal article about that people who can watch movies over and over again ha- are, are emotionally mature, more emotionally mature than the average population. I don't think that that's true. People that know me probably know that that's not true for me. Uh, but that is something I put on repeat, is there's, there's certain movies that I can just watch over and over and, and do watch over and over again. What about you? What's, what's a repeating pattern for you?
You know, you introduced me to that Qless game when we were in Alaska, and I have pushed it on many, many people, so not only is that an addiction, but it's, it's viral. You know, I don't-- I have an answer in mind. I don't know why this comes to mind. I'm sure there's plenty of things that, uh,
I would have done twice in a row growing up. I mean, one thing that comes to mind immediately is I can remember rushing to get back in the line for the roller coaster, uh, growing up at, at any theme park I went to. But the answer that really comes to mind is, Bill, you know me. I'm pretty, I'm pretty slim. I'm pretty slim and trim. Like, I don't particularly gorge on food. And in, in college, whenever I would go to the, uh, refectory at Rhodes College, which is affectionately called The Rat, you know, I never overate or anything like that, except on Fridays for lunch, they had chicken parmesan, and I think I could put away, like, seven or eight of those bad boys at a time, and I often would, just on principle. I f- I found them so delicious, and I wish I could have one today. If anyone from the Rhodes College Rat is listening right now, put some of that chicken parm in the mail, please, 'cause I'm, I miss it every day.
Of, of all the things I think you could bring up that you would have on repeat, [laughs] the last thing would be chicken parmesan. So you learn things about somebody every day. I, I also learned something else that we have in common. Just last week we spoke about that we both have in common that we don't drink coffee. I just learned that we both love to, if we enjoy a good roller coaster, to get off the roller coaster and run as fast as possible back to the head of the line to get back on the same roller coaster.
What a joy to exit a roller coaster with you and rush around to the front of the line just so we could ride again, all giddy and laughing and whatnot.
It sort of, it sort of feels like this podcast in a nutshell right there. Let's join our first returning apex guest, if you will, in our conversation with Tracy Stone-Manning. Well, Tracy, again, it's so exciting to have you back as our first ever repeating guest. When, you know, we were talking, we're gonna have to figure out what to call that. What does that mean, that you're our first returning guest on The Wild Idea?
I mean, I'm so honored. Repeat offender? Like what, how are [laughs] how do you wanna go with this?
That's it. You nailed it on the first try.
Okay.
Repeat offender, that's exactly what it's gonna be. Tracy Stone-Manning is our first repeat offender. Uh-
Mm-hmm
... you and I both spoke at an event shortly after what had been called the Valentine's Day massacre, after the current administration had taken a sledgehammer to the workforce with massive layoffs. The courts, of course, stymied the efforts in the following weeks, and it appears to me the administration has started to find other means to gut the agencies, steps like offering deferred resignation programs on one day, then releasing proposed budgets the next that show a 30% reduction in budget requests for FY '27. Then, of course, we've had the announced reorganization of the Forest Service. All this adds up to a challenge to resign or retire with something or possibly leave with nothing. When so much else is impacting the everyday lives of Americans, how do we address messaging on the very real threats to the future of our public lands and, most importantly or equally importantly, the individual lives of those who have worked to make those places so special?
Yeah, it's such a good question. Let's take the second one first, right? It's up to all of us to, when we see folks out working on the land, uh, at the Forest Service or the Park Service or the BLM, we really should stop them and say thank you. Right? They're just under an intense amount of undue stress that's not fair. A simple, "We've got you, and we support you, and thank you for your work," is, just goes a really long way. And you can... I've done it, and you can see a person's face just light up, right? And so we need to do that to start. Um, but to your larger point of w- w- what is this administration doing, look, everything that they are doing, the gutting of our land management agencies, all of the rollbacks of protections, um, that have been in place for a very long time-Uh, all of that is about
m- selling off our public lands or selling out our public lands to their billionaire buddies and, um, oil and gas corporations. It's just abundantly clear to me that this administration thinks there is one use and one use only for our public lands, and that's to extract dollars out of it for somebody's balance sheet this next quarter, certainly not for future generations.
Yeah, Tracy, when we last talked to you on the podcast back in June of 2025, you warned us then that the administration was crippling these agencies in all the ways that Bill just enumerated so that they could, you know, later claim that the federal government can't manage federal lands, look how bad they're doing, and that the, the public would maybe clamor for private control. It, it seems to me that, that that playbook is, is playing out the way you feared. Is it? And, and if so, how do you counter that narrative?
It is their playbook. Um, I do think that ultimately the minority that happens to be in charge at the moment, the minority of people who think public lands should not be in public hands, um, they're doing everything in their power to set up our land management agencies to fail. And in that failure, people will throw up their hands and say, "Gosh, guess we need to turn them over to the states or give them away to highest bidder." But here's what gives me hope, and Bill, it gets back to what you were saying when we first met. Bill and I met at a rally in Missoula that was organized by just regular people. It wasn't organized by anybody who was paid to be doing a job. People were just mad and organized a rally, and then 1,000 people came on a cold Sunday morning. That has only grown and grown and grown in the subsequent year as people really see what's happening to our public lands and the people trying to govern our public lands. So it's the American people that give me hope. We are not going to let our public lands be sold off, and the public's been super loud about that and, uh, pretty successful about that.
Yeah, I remember last June you were also optimistic that collaboratives around the West would keep meeting even through all this political chaos, and I, I think you cited the Gold Creek project near Missoula as just one example. Uh, has that hope held? Um, you know, are those collaborative relationships still intact, or have some fractured? How are you looking at the landscape?
Uh, this is what I love about, um, times like these. Uh, folks on the ground look towards DC and say, "Whatever," and then get back to work. Uh, and those, um, those collaboratives that are happening on the ground are, are moving forward. Uh, and I, um, n- know deep in my bones that the work that people like that are doing today are going to become law that protect lands one day, and, and likely not one day in the too far distant future, right? The work is going to pay off.
You mentioned that local public land managers really deserve our thanks, and I, I couldn't agree more. And, and one group that I think really deserves our thanks are wildland firefighters. And just real quickly, I wanted to ask you, in an interview with Montana Public Radio last year, you did some back of the envelope math that suggested that BLM staffing reductions could reach a quarter, 25% of the workforce. And in particular, you sounded the alarm that in the coming fire season out West, and we're about to hit a new one now, there would simply be fewer people to suit up and fight fires, and that was something the public would notice immediately. Tell me what you're thinking now. Should the public still be alarmed about staffing cuts? And, and if so, are, are cuts like that-- Is that finally the moment where the political calculus might shift when people see real impacts on the ground?
I'm really worried about the coming fire season. I think a lot of people got lucky last summer, uh, that lightning didn't strike in the places, uh, where it might have struck. But if you listen to the fire forecasting experts, folks are worried about this summer. Um, I mean, good heavens, the Colorado River is gonna run out of water. Like, it, it-- people are worried about how dry it is, and rightly so. You know, it, it, it is-- We're at, um, historic levels of low snowpack. The Forest Service is being gutted. The Department of the Interior is trying to create one fire agency, uh, and go through a giant reorganization right as we're going into what will likely be a historic fire season, uh, with not enough people on the ground. And that is a recipe for the government to fail its people, and it's really deeply concerning.
Tracy, we've talked both standing there at that rally that we both have referenced, and then we've talked on the pod when you were on last year about the real risk of community fatigue. The fight over Mike Lee's proposed sell-off was in full motion last we talked about this, a, a fight that we won. But since then, we have lost the CRA fight in the Boundary Waters. Even with the same coalition appearing to fight with the same vigor, we have, my words here, "a collective sense of resignation that there's little we can do to stop the Forest Service dismantling and the rescission of the Roadless Rule." I guess I'm wondering if we might be losing hope and consumed with dread. I don't wanna be right. So not so much a question, but a request. Can you tell me where I'm wrong in this line of thinking?
I think that, uh, we ought not lose hope. What's that great button that people have worn thr-throughout the decades? "Don't mourn, organize."
I have great and deep faith in the public, and I think the public is digging in, uh, and getting more and more alarmed at the steps that, that we are seeing this administration take to unravel our conservation heritage. Like, people are alarmed about it.And there's several ways to really make meaningful change. One of them is to any time that there's a public comment period, even if it's only seven days long, as these folks like to do, um, getting your voice into the record matters because those voices will then be used, um, as part of the legal work that happens. So commenting really matters. Letting your elected officials know that you are ticked off about what this administration is doing is going to matter because at some point, Congress is going to begin to listen to their constituents and not the administration. And then voting with your values is going to matter. Come this fall, people will have the chance to vote their values, and that's gonna matter. And like I said, I, I actually have optimism and hope that the, that backlash will bring great things. And these folks in power are creating a big, old backlash.
It sure feels like it. And that, that last point about voting your values, can we talk about what steps we could see, shall we say, a more engaged congressional body take to shield some of the dramatic impacts we are feeling around our public lands? If we had a counterbalance to the fiat we seem to be governing with today with a, an engaged Congress, what those steps might look like if we have a Congress willing to lean in on standing up for what is being at least attempted to be torn, torn down.
Oh, sure. The first thing a Congress can do is put people to work on our public lands to make them better for the future, right? Pass budgets that are gonna be meaningful and put people to work in this country doing really good jobs. The second thing they could do is, um, step in and say, "Oh, hold on. Let's, let's take the roadless rule," for example. They could step in and say, "You know what? We're just gonna make that law." Enough of this volleying back and forth between administrations, although hardly. This rule is 25 years old. It's been doing pretty well for 25 years, and now the administration is saying, "Kidding. Congress can just override it. Congress can pass a law that says we're gonna protect our roadless forests." You know, a lot of people in the last 25 years have suggested to Congress they should do that. [laughs] And Congress has said, "No, no, it's already protected under a rule." Well, now it needs to be protected by law. Same thing with the Arctic, right? You look at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress can step in and say, "That place needs to be protected for all time."
Uh, and if the right people get elected to Congress, and by right people, I don't mean one party. I mean a big, broad bipartisan Congress. With the right people in a bipartisan Congress, these things can happen. Um, and, and what I mean by right people are people who are listening to their voters, not corporate special interests, right? Not dark money that is gonna try to kick them out of power. If people were listening to their constituents in this Congress instead of money, we'd all be living in a way, way, way better country.
The roadless rule enshrined in law, my heart be still. I would love that so much.
We could just fix it once and for all. Make it law.
Speaking of fixing things once and for all, um, Tracy, I want to ask you about Ground Shift. Um, Bill and I have spoken about Ground Shift before on the podcast, but just in case we have a new listener, and I hope we do, maybe l- new listeners even, if I could be so bold. Ground Shift's a, a major new initiative that, uh, the Wilderness Society has, has seeded, and, and it's an initiative that just wasn't on our radar during your first appearance on the show last June. I've seen Ground Shift described as a cross-partisan ideas hub that's aimed at rethinking some of the fundamental frameworks for public lands protection and management, as well as public lands law and other approaches that, that date back 50 years or more. And it sports, um, a really enviable advisory council that includes both Biden and George W. Bush era officials. Um, but I'm sure there's some in the conservation world asking, "Why now? What's the argument for reimagining the system while it's being dismantled?" And, you know, if I can speak maybe a little bluntly, how do you prevent Ground Shift from becoming just another exercise in incrementalism with these sort of never-ending searches for consensus that extends so far into the next administration that we miss our opportunity for change?
Let me ask- answer your first question, why now, since they're dismantling everything. That's exactly why now. Our public lands have been, um, in trouble for quite some time, right? The budgets have not been what they need to be. Um, there, there have not been enough people put to work, uh, making our public lands what the future deserves. Add to that, like gasoline on a fire, what the Trump administration is doing to our public lands and whoever steps in in the coming years are going to have to rebuild. And who would rebuild the way it is today, right? Both our governmental structure and all the laws and policy that guide our public lands, they're all from the century that we've come from, not the one we're walking into. And so we have this amazing opportunity [laughs] to reimagine how our public lands should be managed. And this gets back to what we were talking about earlier, that there is power and momentum in backlash.People are upset about what's happening on their public lands, and they are gonna be demanding answers for something better. Which is why now people need to be really thinking about what better means. What should our public lands and waters be for in the next 50 years? And be ready with the answers so that Congress and an administration can get to work delivering those answers.
Bill and I were having a conversation earlier today with some friends in the conservation community whose names you would recognize, and we were talking about the sort of interesting but provocative idea that as, as angry as everyone is, maybe this is an opportunity to turn things, um, on their heads. Maybe there is some opportunity in what we're seeing being broken, even though it's really scary at the same time, a sort of only, "Only Nixon can go to China" moment, if you will. And I, I wonder if that's kinda how you're, you're thinking about things. Uh, last time you were on, you were, you know, largely in defense, defense mode, protecting what exists, and the Ground Shift argument seems to be saying something different, but maybe more fundamental, that the, the laws themselves are broken. And that's, you know, maybe a harder sell to a, a conservation base that's been fighting to preserve those laws. So, y- you know, how do you bring your own people along on that idea that this is maybe a, a once in a gener- generation opportunity to rethink the entire framework?
The Taylor Grazing Act was written for the Dust Bowl. The Mining Act of 1872 was written to help settle the West. I think we can do better. We have to do better. This amount of disruption, and people wanting disruption, gives us a chance to do better. So that's, that's why we launched it. Um, it's why the timing makes sense. Nature abhors a vacuum, right? And, uh, so we better fill it.
I like that a lot. The Advisory Council brings together John Podesta on one hand, um, and Bush-era officials on the other, puts them all in the same room. What does that conversation sound like when there's genuine disagreement? How do you find common ground?
I actually don't think there's genuine disagreement with the overarching concept of we wanna manage our public lands for their health and to ensure that they can provide both the freedoms we enjoy on them today, um, and also the products we need from them in the future. And there's great common ground on that. The how is a really interesting conversation, right? But the-- But that fundamental, um, agreement affords really interesting conversation. I mean, look, there's, there's a reason that the Wilderness Society has kicked off this initiative to be independent, um, of TWS, because there are gonna be ideas that we don't agree with, but they need to be out in the ether, right? They need real, honest debate, and we wanna make sure that that happens.
I appreciate that.
More of the conversation after a word from those who support Wild Ideas.
[whooshing] Hi, my name is Donna and I'm from East Glacier Park, Montana, and you're listening to The Wild Idea.
I'm gonna change gears here. We expect the Trump administration to announce the next steps on their effort to repeal the roadless rule any day now, maybe even the week this episode airs. It's so, so hard to predict what will happen, and it's even more unfair of me [chuckles] to ask you to predict what's going to happen. But all of our repeat offenders are issued a Wild Idea branded crystal ball, and I'm gonna ask you to look into that. What alternatives are we gonna see laid out by the administration? Should any of them be seriously considered? And what should the public know about fighting back in the next 15 days to 30 days to, dare I say, 90 days?
My crystal ball is murky. We do not expect, given what this administration has done up to now, to have an alternative in that rulemaking that people can rally behind and say, "This is what the future needs."
Um, what I personally expect is for the administration to say, "Hey, what we wanna do is take the whole thing down. We no longer want protections on 44 million acres of our national forests, those forests that deliver clean water, and wildlife habitat, and wildfire resilience. We don't want that anymore." We expect them to say that. Uh, and what the public can do is use their voice as loudly as they did during the public land sell-off.
Literally, this would be the largest environmental rollback in our country's history, right? In our country's history. And there are people listening to this podcast who weren't even alive when this rule was made, right? And it has served the public really, really well. The sky has not fallen. [chuckles] Um, life goes on. Life goes on really well for wildlife, and trout, and people who... the millions of people who need and rely on those forests to get their drinking water. Millions of people in this country, when they turn on their tap, the water that comes out of it came from a national forest. Throwing that out because we don't like the idea of rules is what our government is going to say to us. That is crazy, and the public needs to say so.
My fear is that we're going to see the administration come out with something like three alternatives: one with no change, one fully rescinding the roadless rule, and one that tries to split the baby, saying that we ought to take a look at, at half the acreage, for example, 25 million acres or so. And what I wanna say to folks listening, and this is not a question for you, Tracy, but those no change and half-baked alternatives are a trick. They're a feint. They're designed to get you to not speak up about how important the roadless rule is for all the reasons-You just enumerated, Tracy. And I, I can promise the administration's intent is to repeal the rule no matter what the public says about any of the alternatives. So do not fall for it. No matter the alternatives, respond to the administration by saying, "No change to the roadless rule." Sorry, Bill, I got a little preachy there.
I love it. No, I think it's perfect. Tracy, I wanna ask you about a couple of other fights, one administrative and one legislative. And maybe I should say opportunity instead of fight. Let's, let's start with the legislative threat, the use of the Congressional Review Act by Senator Mike Lee and Representative Celeste Maloy to undo the management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. We had Steve Block and Adam Gilliard on recently, and they did a beautiful job of describing the details of collaboration behind the plan that Lee and Maloy seem intent on undoing.
What should alarm people is this is just another use of the CRA process to stop management plans. I think it's now, what, five or six in total for this Congress has, has used this tool that it was not intended to be [chuckles] used for. Uh, how do we frame the opportunity to push back on these ideas, and what will we be able to do in the future to mitigate the language that seems to imply that we just can't simply put back another plan similar in stature?
The use of the Congressional Review Act to take away land management plans that were built by citizens on the ground, informed by science and informed by land managers, um, is unprecedented
and, um, also
never what the Congressional Review Act envisioned, in my opinion.
And so I think ultimately the fix is gonna require Congress to say,
"Hey, yeah, kidding, this shouldn't apply to land management plans. [chuckles] Um, this is about v- a very tailored law about rules, um, not about collaborative processes on the ground." Congress has just said to communities, "I don't care what you think.
I'm gonna take away with what you thought. I don't care that you spent a long time on these plans. I know better." That's what Congress is saying with the use of the CRA. And, um, it's not okay. And the ultimate fix, which we will all fight for, is to, uh, open up that... uh, either do away with the Congressional Review Act altogether or open it up to say, "No, this is just about rulemakings," right?
Yeah, you, you brought up rulemaking, so that brings me to my other one, the, the, uh,
administrative fight, and that would be the rollback of the public lands rule, which was adopted to balance the seats at the table for the future of our public lands as managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which you used to lead. What are you hearing about process and timing on that? 'Cause that's obviously probably gonna be right on the heels of the roadless rule. What's... What, what are you hearing on that?
Just today, Bill, uh, the day we are taping, the public lands rule, um, was formally rescinded by the federal government. Uh, there will be, um, 30 days, uh, before it becomes finalized, but, um, the government today just did away with the public lands rule. And it's just so unfortunate because really what the rule is about is providing consistency to the BLM
for managing for the health of our public lands. That's it. [chuckles] Like, what's not to like about managing for the health of our public lands, um, so that future generations get to use them like we did? Um, and it's unfortunate. The fortunate thing, um, that is still out there is a whole administrative and legal record about why the public lands rule makes sense, and I expect that people will lean on that record, um, in the future to ensure that the concepts, if not the rule itself, um, see the light of day again. Because really, the American public wants us to manage our public lands for the health and productivity for current generations and future generations. And what this rule did was help enable that the government did that in a consistent way.
I wanna talk about momentum. We talked about it, about this earlier. I wanna bring it back up. Sometimes even in losses, a team can find a way forward. My optimistic self says we see tangible proof that while some may be winning some battles, we are building the groundswell to win the day.
I see strength in the Colorado College Survey results, for example, just continued strength, honestly, just building on what that, what that report has been showing for two decades now. I see it in other places as, as well. Do, do you agree?
Leading question, counselor. Yes, I agree. [laughs] I, I, um, I am so hopeful for,
um, the public ultimately and finally using its voice around how it wants its public lands to be managed. Um, you know, poll after poll after poll says people want balance. They want our lands to be responsibly managed. They want the best of the best of our lands to be put away and protected for future generations. They want the rest of the lands to be managed in a way that can be managed for the decades to come. And, and if enough people use their voices, that is what will happen. Um, we will not see a future administration like the one we have now that is simply just giving away our public lands to their corporate buddies, to oil and gas corporations, to their donors. Um, thatWill stop if the American people demand it will- needs to stop. And I have faith that the American people are gonna win the day here.
As we kinda wrap things up here, I know you're probably still digging out from the staff retreat of The Wilderness Society that I know you're just getting back from. I bet you left with focus and determination, if I know that group, and I feel that I do. How was the week? How, how do you, how do you leave, uh, that gathering feeling?
I left that gathering so, um, energized. First of all, uh, all of our- my colleagues at The Wilderness Society are really smart and really committed human beings. Um, they also happen to be fun to be around, which was awesome. Uh, and the thing that I really left with was this deeper understanding of the history that The Wilderness Society stands on. TWS has done big things. TWS helped write and pass The Wilderness Act, and now over 100 million acres of our public lands are protected forever. Um, when a group of people gets together and puts their mind, uh, at something, great things can happen, and that's what I came away with, energized by last week. It was awesome.
I love hearing that. I, uh, you know, I've twice been a member of that team and, and, uh,
a- and miss it. I am probably even bigger nerd for the history of the organization, so I love you bringing up that, that piece of it. I'm a, a huge Bob Marshall nerd, and the origin, stories, and the fighting. You know, the Zahniser stories of fighting through 60-plus drafts of The Wilderness Act itself. It's just such a, a organization so rich in history. Folks, if you don't know the, the history, you can go to wilderness.org and check it out. There's lots of places you can go find resources. But, uh, and I'm just so thankful that you're at the helm today, Tracy. I know it's a probably really challenging time to be at the helm, but you seem well-suited to be the perfect at the helm- perfect person to be at the helm at this moment, and I wanna thank you for doing that. I also wanna thank you for being our first repeat offender, uh, on The Wild Idea Podcast. It's just been such a joy and, and, uh, just really, really appreciate all that you do to, uh, leave our, lead our public lands community forward.
Thank you so much. I look forward to coming back and doing a triple hit. [laughs]
Wow.
I really appreciate you guys. Thank you.
That would be amazing. Thank you so much, Tracy.
Thank you both.
Coming up on The Wild Idea Podcast in June, we will profile some amazing stewards of our public lands and visit with authors, scientists, and activists that cover what makes the intersection of wild nature and our own human nature so interesting. We love that each of you are engaging on this ride with us, and we hope that you will invite others to the party through your socials, through our socials, and through the podcast players you use. You can stay on top of all that we have going on with our newsletter, and you can subscribe to that at thewildidea.com. And you can support our work with a one-time or recurring contribution via Buy Me A Coffee, which you can also find on our website. Here's to getting out there, and when we do, here's to seeing all of you on down the trail.
The Wild Idea is a production of Wild Idea Media and hosted by Bill Hodge and Anders Reynolds. Production and editing by Bren Russell at PodLab. Digital support by Holly Wilcheski at Daypack Digital. Our theme music, Spring Hill Jack, is from Railroad Earth and was composed by John Skehan. Our executive producer and ring leader 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]