Speaker 1 0:01 Hi, I'm Bob. I'm from Carlsbad, New Mexico, and you're listening to the wild idea. Bill Hodge 0:09 Welcome to our conversations for a wild and connected world what we like to call the wild idea podcast. I am one of your hosts, Bill Hodge, and along with my co host, Andrew Russell Reynolds, we bring a deep passion for wild places and wild ideas that live at the intersection of wild nature and human nature. And together, we also bring a 30 plus year track record of fighting for land protections, fighting for land stewardship, and super excited that today we'll be joined by Martha Williams, who has worked her career on public resources as an educator, solicitor, and most recently is a director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service during the Biden administration. Martha will join us from Maryland, just up the road from my partner, fighting for wild places. Anders. Reynolds, Anders, Anders Reynolds 0:51 Oh, Hi, Bill. How are you? Bill Hodge 0:53 I'm staring to a lot of snow. I'm ready. It's going to be a, I think, a snowy winter here in Northwest Montana. Anders Reynolds 0:59 So I'm kind of jealous. I like the snow. I wish, I wish I got to see more of it. Bill Hodge 1:03 You can come plough with my snow, if you'd like. Anders Reynolds 1:05 Never mind. I hate snow. Bill you and I have been having a blast sharing all these screenshots we've been getting from listeners and friends sharing with us their Spotify wrapped results. And for those who don't know Spotify wrapped is sort of this, like, you know, marketing campaign that Spotify, the music listening platform, puts on, that allows users to sort of view, like a compilation of of data about their activity, the stuff they've been listening to over the years. And, you know, you can share it on social media. And we've been getting screenshots of that with folks who have the wild idea, you know, as their top podcast, but I, I kind of want to let, I hope you're okay with this. You shared with me your top five songs, the five songs you listen to most this year. And I'm just, I would have never expected these to be your five songs. And I just, are you okay if I share these like Bill Hodge 2:03 well, as long as the audience recognizes it, you're totally making this up. But sure, go ahead, sure, Anders Reynolds 2:08 Bill, don't, don't get embarrassed. Now, listen, let's just read them out. There's nothing to be ashamed of. This is the Spotify. It's like total distilled what you do in private, because you do in private, because you sort of forget they're monitoring it until the end of the year, and then you see, oh my, I can't remember. I didn't remember listening that song so much. But okay, we'll just, we'll just do the top five, okay? And we'll start from five. We'll go up. So your number five, your fifth most listened to song, was Lincoln Park's numb. I can hear you listen to that in the car, in the truck. Okay, you love that song. Okay, number four, your fourth most listen to song. This one threw me a little bit. The theme from cops. You're just listening to that. Unknown Speaker 2:49 Bad Boys. Bad Boys, yeah, when they come for you, bad boys, it's so fun for me because I'm hearing these for the first time myself, folks, until Anders Reynolds 3:01 there's no need to be humble. This is this is good. It's letting people learn a little bit more about you. Number three, Shanae O'Connor's nothing compares to you. You do love that song. I've heard you listen to that one. Okay? Number two, your second most listened to song is the theme from cops again, but this time, it's a kid's bop version. Anders Reynolds 3:27 Okay, okay, all right. And number one, number one, and this is probably a lot of people's number one is Reba McIntyre's fancy. I like that. That's a good top five bill. I well, Speaker 2 3:45 I wish I'd noticed that this is where you were going to go with this, because I would have loved to have written out your top five for the year too. So my now, now I'm going to have an earworm throughout this entire conversation, this important conversation in my back of my head is going to be going, Bad boys, bad boys. What you going to do in the gum for you? Goodness gracious. What fun we have. But I think it's time we probably get a little more serious about this. Martha Williams joins us today. Martha most recently served as the director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and previously served as the director of Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. She's also been an academic advisor to some of my favorite conservationists here in Montana. Martha, just what a treat it is to have you on the wild idea podcast. Martha Williams 4:35 Thank you, Bill and Anders for having me, but I have to admit, I'm still laughing Anders from the beginning of that. And I had a Department of Interior playlist that I was always working on, and my favorite icebreaker question was, what would your walkout song be? Oh, that's Anders Reynolds 4:55 great. What was your answer? Martha Williams 4:56 Well, it depended on my mood. It. Totally dependent. Sometimes it was just breathe. Willie Nelson, sometimes it was River, although I couldn't, I had to be careful, and I had to pick kind of PG rated words. So that makes it a little more difficult. No more buffalo. James McMurtry, I love that song. Speaker 2 5:22 Great song. What a great choice. Anders, what would your walkout song be? Anders Reynolds 5:27 Oh, I thought about this often, and I have, like, a direct answer I give to everybody. It is a song called straight lines by Silver Chair, which I don't know if you've ever listened to Silver Chair. They were big in the 90s, and then again, in the 2000s they've always been big in Australia, but I love that song. Gets me amped every time I listen to it. Speaker 2 5:46 What's yours? Bill, no, I have no. Well, it's, you know, it's bad boys, of course. It's, you know, what you gonna do in the comfy it would probably be, it would be, it would it would be a song from railroad Earth. I'd have to think about it. Jupiter in the 119, maybe. So also probably a song that very few people know, but is a great song from our house band, if you will, railroad Earth. So, all right, well, let's get let's get into a really important conversation. Martha, you know, back a couple months ago, I got to hear you deliver the keynote address at the Fall gathering of the glacier two Medicine Alliance, I of course, made a beeline to you after the speech to ask you to come on the podcast. And once again, thanks for being willing to say yes to that. You know, one, one thing stood out to me in that presentation, and that was just some of your remarks on the Endangered Species Act and your commitment to species recovery on the land versus what shall I call it? Our obsession with the listing or delisting battle. Do you think the Endangered Species Act has become more of a political football than effective tool? How's that for a hard one? Right out of the right out Speaker 3 6:55 of the gates. You make me so glad that I spoke at that. And I always wonder, you know, do I speak very effectively or not because I so I really care about wild places and wild things, it's sometimes hard to, one, contain My enthusiasm, and two, be really frank and effective. So I think this question goes right to right to that. I mean, listen, I have been on the record for saying I'm a true believer in the Endangered Species Act unequivocally. So on one hand, I think it's been incredibly effective. It's just had its 50th anniversary. It has been instrumental in preventing so many species from going extinct. That said, I do think I have maybe it's from working as a state director, working for state Montana and for the feds, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, I have really little patience for the tussle the fight over listing versus delisting, Rather than talking about what a species really needs to recover and what people really need to live with that species, grizzly bears might as well jump into it. Wolves are perfect examples of that. Anders Reynolds 8:34 Martha, we've been really lucky to have so many threatened species experts on this podcast. You know, we had Tim manly come and talk about talk about Grizzlies, that was episode seven, for anyone who'd like to go catch up. And we had Katie Schneider talk to us about Wolverines, which was episode 10, and Malcolm Brooks touched on mountain lions on episode 35 but you're really the first guest we've had who could really address the systems and the policies our nation has decided to use to protect these species. And I know Bill just jumped right into Endangered Species Act, and I'm glad he did, but I wonder if we could just back up and you could just do a little level setting for our guests. You know, how do we even make these decisions, and why is it important, and what are the opportunities and challenges that that work is facing today, both from the management perspective and maybe from the advocacy perspective as well. Speaker 3 9:33 Great question Anders, and yes, if I used to teach, I think I would spend a semester question as opposed to do it really, doing it really quickly. First off, I think we're so people are so used to talking about a specific species. So Wolverine, ridiculously cool grizzly bears. I know Ben Goldfarb talked about. Uh, crossings, and all the amphibians that need to get across the road too. So the point of that is that we in this country are really lucky to have this intricate system for caring for stewarding species and the land and habitat that they depend on. So to think about it, the states typically manage wildlife in this country, it's only when they those species are in trouble and end up needing to be listed as threatened or endangered, and we can talk about that more, or whether they're migratory birds, because we have conventions and agreements with other countries on them, or the Convention on The International Trade of Endangered Species when they're in trouble or really elevated, that's when the federal government gets involved. But otherwise, it's really up to every one of us as Americans, as individuals, to landowners, to industry, to the states, to steward these species into the future, and then when there's concern, as there was, if you think back to the 70s, when the Cuyahoga River was on fire, when we were Losing the bald eagle when we were losing these species that we always thought would be around, when there was smog that you couldn't see through in Philadelphia, or there was an oil spill in Santa, Barbara Congress stepped in and said, Wait A minute, if left unfettered, we can really get into trouble with pollution and also decimating species. And we need some policy in this country that says, Look, we think this is part of our national heritage. We are stronger as a nation when we step in and make sure species do not blink out on our watch. So that's what happened in the 70s when Congress passed almost unanimously the Endangered Species Act that says, Look, we all have a responsibility to make sure that species stick around and that we recognize the land and waters they live in. We have to pay attention to those two to make sure that these species don't blink out. I mean, that's the catalyst that I don't think we can forget as we move forward. And what does that mean today, 50 years later, Speaker 2 13:07 you know, as someone that has served in a senior leadership role at the state level with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and at the federal level as the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, do you see real opportunity to get the protection of threatened and endangered species, right? If we can just solve that push pull relationship between the states and the federal government, I kind of get at some level, people don't want to let go of control, right? I guess at some level, the state is letting go of control, whether they whether they have the ability to let go, or whether that control is taken away from them. But is there? Is that where the solution lies is quitting, to stop looking at it as a push pull, like who's responsible for this species, for example, and instead look at it as, where do we work together to maybe forestall listing even as an example, right? I mean, is that where the solution lies? Isn't that push pull? Speaker 3 14:00 Yeah, yeah. I think that's a great question, and it leads me right to the concept of rawa, or recovering America's Wildlife Act, and that the you have to think about what, what motivates the states to manage these species so that they don't become threatened or endangered, and most states, their primary mechanism of funding, which was brilliant and also limited, is their focus on game species, because that's how they get their Money from the Pitman Robertson, act, Dingle Johnson Act, the money comes in from excise taxes on fishing tackle, gear, hunting equipment, ammunition, really, primarily so. And then you think of the way wildlife is managed in this country. Primarily by the states. Nobody I should back up in the US. Nobody owns wildlife. It is held in trust for all Americans. It's something that's collective for everyone, which is really remarkable. And so the states manage the take of wildlife, big game primarily, and that's how they get their money. They also have the responsibility to manage what we call non game wildlife, the species you don't hunt or fish for, but they don't get the money to do that. Well, hence so much of it falling to the Fish and Wildlife Service. And listen, I would argue. I think most states, state directors, if in a room by themselves, would say, by and large, the relationship with the Fish and Wildlife Service or with NOAA is generally really good, and we've worked very hard both the states and the feds, at making sure we're working through issues together, and that we do have a good working relationship. But where the tensions come up exactly bill is in the species that are listed, and the states want to manage them and or where the species are in need of some help, and the states really don't want them management to go to the States. It's the turpiness that is a problem. And then I guess I would add to that what I have seen over the years. I really felt this, especially when I was in Montana, in dealing with wolves and bears, is I would say, gosh, if we're in this headlong rush to delist any species, are we prepared to manage them and or I don't want to make any false promises to the people in the state that once delisted, everything is going to be fine. I mean, the reality you're going to have the same issues. It's a matter of having the money and the people and the experts on the ground to help those who live with those species help them cope with it. And that shouldn't matter whether it's fed or the state. The focus should be on conflict management. And how do you help people live with them? So the species is around for a long time. Speaker 2 17:40 That's great. Thanks. You know, I want to bring up something you and I have discussed before to follow up to all that you just shared there, and that's the idea of how violently the pendulum can swing between administrations, and particularly, for example, the battle over listings and delistings, and that pendulum swinging has become so dramatic. You know, it swings back and forth in such violent ways. Do you have thoughts on how we ever reduce the radicalness of that swing of back and forth? Because it seems like it would make the job of the actual people on the ground trying to protect these species or manage game species so that there, you know, there are still species that you know are out there for the sportsman community. But you have any thoughts on how we reduce just how violent that swing is of the pendulum? Speaker 3 18:31 I've thought so much about that. Oh, and I think there are a number of factors at play. One, I guess you have to believe in government, the value of government and the people on the ground who are helping the species, helping the landowners navigate management. I think of at the Fish and Wildlife Service. We our mission started with working with others. We could do nothing on our own, nothing. We did everything with so many partners, not just the landowner of the industry, but all the NGOs and the states and the tribes and local governments. It's such a collective effort as it should be, that I think there first has to be in a realization that this work is is best for everyone the community, when you have people on the ground. So when you you know, I think part of the tussle is when you cut those positions, when you take people away from it, who's handling the really nitty gritty, hard work that makes coexistence with wildlife work. Work for people. So one, I think it's you. You fundamentally have to believe in the value of these roles and these people who are, you know, honestly, they're public servants. They're serving our country, and they believe in what they're doing, and they believe in serving others. Then I think too, you know, I think we all have a role to play in the swing of the pendulum. I mean, I did too. I think even in the Biden administration and working on the ESA regulations, what I think happens is, when you have this political swing of the pendulum. People get so focused on positions, the position of the regulation, the position of I don't like the Endangered Species Act, and people stop talking about the interests at heart. So I think if we can focus on what's the interest? Is it to make sure long eared bats are around, because they're critical pollinators, and we need them. Is the interest also in making sure certain development can continue, and how do we make that work that seems to be much more productive, and where we've been able to have those conversations where we're talking about the interests, I think we get more done, but it's the positions that make people so hardened. And I think a excellent example are the most recent Endangered Species Act regulations that go right back to the ones proposed in 2019, 2020, so we're like right back where we started, and then bringing in something like saying that harming habitat isn't something that the Endangered Species Act was meant to address so then you've got this position that only, I think, brings in, brings in the battle more. Instead of saying, hey, you know what? We want to make sure that certain energy projects go through and that we have a streamlined way of doing it. Let's talk about that. Instead, the solution gets thrown out, and we all fight over that. Speaker 2 22:26 That was very, a very great, I think, well thought out way to answer that question, Martha and I'm gonna try to not add to the reflexivity, if you will, and contradict my desire to stabilize the pendulum swing. But the current administration is, like you said, it's seeking to go back to defining the change in habitat as not causing harm to species and to negate, for example, cumulative impacts. Speaker 3 22:53 They're not going back. That's new. We've never been there, yeah. Bill Hodge 22:58 I mean, maybe it would be helpful for our audience, for you to maybe, for the lay person, to define the term harm, maybe in the sense of of the Endangered Species Act, and why it does apply or doesn't, but, but why, I think it maybe applies to habitat, like you can do harm to a species when you degrade The habitat, right? But maybe, maybe walk our audience a little bit through what harm means, because what is going on is, yeah, this redefinition of harm as it relates to the degradation of habitat for species that are threatened or endangered. Speaker 3 23:35 And so this allows me build a backup a little bit on what you asked earlier. Anders, you know, like, how does, how does the Endangered Species Act, even work? And because Congress said, Look, these species are so important to us as a nation, we want to make sure it's the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service and all of the federal government to make sure these species stick around. So you once the species is listed as threatened or endangered, which means there could go extinct, disappear, blink out, either really soon or in the foreseeable future, you can't take the Endangered Species Act the hook or the teeth says you can't take a threatened or endangered species. And what then the statute says is take, means you can't harass, you can't harm, you can't pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or even attempt any of those acts. You can't do that. And so the question becomes, well, if this Endangered Species Act says we want to protect these species and we want to. By the means to conserve the places that these species depend on. Does harm mean hurting the habitat, destroying the habitat, which then destroys the species? And I think any body who understands animals realizes, if you destroy where they live and or you destroy their food source or their security, you're destroying that species as well. So that's the way the Endangered Species Act. We've implemented the ACT since it started 50 years ago. There's always been discussion about, what does harm mean or not? But it has always been it has always applied to destruction of habitat, these new regs say, try to say, Well, no, no, we're just talking about, if you directly kill the animal, habitat doesn't have anything to do with it. So that's the big change. And I think in in any of us who've been in the natural world like it doesn't I don't mean to be mean, but like, It's nonsensical. It doesn't make sense to me. How could you say, Well, you know, manatees don't need clean, warm water to exist. Anders Reynolds 26:39 So to ask you a question about habitat, if climate change is reshaping where animals can live, and if we are saying that protecting habitat is akin to protecting species, do we need to update our laws, our policies so they match what's what's happening on the ground because of climate change today? And relatedly, do you see an opportunity, you know, for the Fish and Wildlife Service maybe, to shift towards more big picture, habitat focus conservation, right, rather than fighting species by species? Speaker 3 27:19 I think that's a tricky question. Anders, I think it makes a ton of sense. And now we know another piece of the Endangered Species Act is that if you undertake, people can take some threatened or endangered species if they have a permit to do that, and one way to get a permit to do that is to take these conservation actions where you're helping the habitat or the ecosystem, and in the process, some species may get killed. And that happens across the country. There's been more of a focus on multi species ecosystem programs of helping the whole ecosystem, which is this complex web of the natural environment. And so if you help the ecosystem, you presumably help all of these species. That's great. And yet, there are still some species that need even more of an extra nudge or help to survive. Some for example, I thought this was fascinating. We worked on Hawaiian forest birds when I was the director at the Fish and Wildlife Service. So with climate change, mosquitoes are moving into higher elevations, and with going to higher elevations, with climate change, they carry diseases that kill these forest birds in Hawaii, many Hawaiians see the birds as their ancestors. They have this totally talk about connected. They have this totally connected, as many indigenous people do, connected view of nature. And so when mosquitoes were starting to kill these really amazing honey creepers and the Alala, all these crazy interesting birds. The question became, uh oh, do we remove some of them to a zoo to make sure they don't disappear, work on the habitat and bring them back? And many Native Hawaiians at the time are like, No, you can't do that, because you're taking our ancestors from the places where they belong, and ultimately, through a bunch of efforts of releasing sterile mosquitoes while working on eliminating the mosquitoes, some of the species also are. A captive program so that they can be re released and can be around for when we have done the work on the ecosystem and the habitat. Does that make sense? So yes, you can cover a whole bunch of species. We should be focused on the habitat, and yet sometimes you need to do even more. Anders Reynolds 30:20 That's a fascinating answer. It also reminds me to revisit something you mentioned earlier, because you know, ecosystem management like that would take a lot of staffing, right? And I think people don't realize how understaffed and underfunded the wildlife agencies are. Maybe you could share a little bit more about what that looks like on the ground and maybe what can't get done because the agency simply doesn't have the capacity right now. Speaker 3 30:50 Well, I mean, I the Fish and Wildlife Service, my understanding, just like many other federal agencies, has lost 20% of its staff since I was director, and we were lean. We were lean when I was there, if anything, we had a capacity problem. How to do our work well with so few people. Given the responsibilities Congress and the American people gave us, it's not like we were making the work up. You know, people elected members of Congress, they passed these laws, and we were bound to deliver them, and for good reason, because it helps communities. It helps with human health. Helps prevent flooding, right? It helps with clean water. It helps with recreation. There's so many benefits to doing this work, benefits to people and communities and the economy. So we also the Fish and Wildlife Service manages national wildlife refuges over 500 I think they're 572 now, every state, every territory, millions of acres of lands create, set aside for specific species, for specific purposes, unlike any other component of public lands, how do you take care of, manage that steward that land with being so threat bear, we had some refuges that didn't have employees. You know, there wasn't somebody showing up in the white truck to say, Hey, can I help you? Do you know where you are? Did you know there's a long billed Curlew that just showed up last week? Do you know we've had a bear here? Whatever. And then I think to realize, I think people forget these federal jobs, gee whiz. They're great jobs. I think about Montana a federal job. It was plum. And those people were our neighbors. We went to the grocery store with them, right? We shopped at the same place. They were part of the economy, and we forget about that. Those are really good jobs we should be wanting, and the best people serve our country, they are. They're patriotic, right? That's how they show up. So to think that there's a benefit to cutting these positions is hard to understand unless, did anybody go in and show some curiosity to say, Hey, what's your mission? Why is it important? How do we help you do that mission and do it really efficiently? I don't think, I think that those are the questions good leaders, good managers should always be asking, how do we Why do what we do? Why does it matter? How do we do it the best we can and as efficiently as we can. And until, I think we get to it's, I think back to the fundamental question, do you believe in government? Until we get back to saying, What? What do we want to do to help this country? How do we do it? Well, then I think you can talk about the people and where to put them, and who doesn't like having really good people on the ground in the communities where we live? Yeah, do you? Anders Reynolds 34:29 Do you believe in government and do you believe in the work happening on the ground? And that sort of takes me back to Bill's point about the pendulum swing, or, as you described it in an earlier answer, this sort of tussle back and forth on for example, listing and delisting as administrations change. But I do think it's important to note that while the politics does swing, the science doesn't right, like ESA, listing decisions are built on scientific assessment. Comment and peer review, those biological facts don't change every four years. And I mean, as you know, probably better than anyone. Species recovery takes you know, it happens against the backdrop of decades, right? And so I guess you know, I want to make my question, how can advocates better make that argument to decision makers that are in charge. Speaker 3 35:24 I have an idea that Anders. I have an idea on that. I think that somehow, and maybe it's our political system, we've forgotten the long view. We've forgotten the long game, right? So we're in these immediate tussles, and I understand why, but to put out this is why this work matters. This is why government employees doing it matter, because the science doesn't change, because having these healthy wild pop wildlife populations actually help prevent pandemics. They help with clean water, with clean air that we have no planet B we should we have the moral and legal responsibility to take care of where we live now that you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. You don't squander your future by these immediate needs. So that's what I think. You know, we make, we make the case. It is up to us to say this work matters, because it makes the the place where we live, Earth more worth living here makes our daily lives better. And it's our responsibility to do this work. And if you just want to come in and take the resources for the money and not realize there are all these other components to it, then shame on you. That doesn't mean you can't still do you still can develop. You can still do the work. You just might be a little bit harder. You do it more deliberately, and that's what the Endangered Species Act does. The heart of it is section seven that says when the federal government uses federal money to undertake an action, it's the responsibility of those agencies, not the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the federal agencies to make sure when they take that action, they're not going to cause a species to blink out. So when federal highways puts in a highway where those amphibians, Ben talked about, cross the road, you know what it's up to them to say, gosh, if we move it a quarter of a mile, we won't have that problem. Why wouldn't we? Speaker 2 37:56 Because it makes too much sense, right? Because it's something we just seem, we seem to, because it's work, right, right? We seem to not do the things that make the most sense, because Speaker 3 38:07 we're too busy fighting over our positions, Bill Hodge 38:10 yeah, and fighting over whether we're worried about the wealth of today versus the wealth of forever for all of us. Right? That you just kind of alluded to, I think, I think one, one final, sort of heavy question is, and this is something we explored when we had Malcolm Brooks on and talking about management of mountain lions in California, and how it became a ballot box decision instead of a decision. And it goes back to this question about, what do we invest in our government for, right? And I think one of the things that I believe we fundamentally do is to provide the experts that can make sure that the science is driving the decisions. I'm curious in a quick answer like, how you view making sure that the public can be heard on important issues, but not just turning over an important decision about how to manage a predator, species like mountain lions, like we talked to Malcolm Brooks about, but how do we gather the public input, while also recognizing that there are people who are experts in the in the issue at hand? And how do we how do we balance those two things? Speaker 3 39:12 I think when there's controversy over nature for species like mountain lions, we're actually it's a good thing, because it brings the species to the fore, brings the consequences of our actions to the fore, so at least it's a conversation and that people care. So I think that's in some respects, a win. I think we live in a world right now where it's very we've lost foundational facts. They're totally hard. You have to have trust in the process and the science and the people saying it, to lay the. Those foundational facts. So I think that's something that I wish I knew better. But I think your credibility and integrity is all you have to stand on, right and you always have to work on that takes decades to build it and a second to squander it. But so you you build that credibility. You do include people, and then you're right at the end of the day, someone does have to make the hard decisions. And you know, there's a process to litigate it, to challenge it. If the rule of law stands, there's a way to go through it, but I think it's a challenge, Bill, but I also think it's a little bit of a gift, and that you get people to care, then make it easy. Speaker 2 40:51 It doesn't but I think that is important. We want the public to care. We want the public to think about the things that matter to them, because they obviously inform the government. The government is us, right, but we also need to then trust in the government that we have created, to have the folks who can follow the law, follow the science and make the right decisions. Martha, this has been just such a great conversation. Really loved having you on again, we've been speaking with Martha Williams. She's the former director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and just such a great voice for all of our natural world. And I just want to thank you for coming on and having this important conversation with us. Anders Reynolds 41:30 Yes, Martha, thank you so much. You were you were so clear. I've enjoyed this a lot. Speaker 3 41:35 Thank you, Anderson, Bill, and I'm such a fan of the wild idea. And I think you've you, it's really exciting to be able to elevate all these different voices. So you've inspired me. Well, thank Bill Hodge 41:49 you for being a part of it and being one of those voices coming up on the wild idea podcast. We have a conversation with Sarah Francisco, who went from a childhood growing up on a Christmas tree farm to fighting for the forest of Appalachia, and we make some urine resolutions with our friend Michelle fullner from the Golden State naturalist podcast. If you like the wild idea, we hope you'll do two things besides subscribing, and please do subscribe on your podcast player of choice, but give us a review. And we hope you'll take a minute to recommend us to a friend or colleague or whoever you like. And if you want to go deeper into what we're doing here, sign up for our newsletter at the wild idea.com and we look forward to seeing all of you on down the trail. Announcer 42:32 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 podlad Digital, support by Holly wilkeshev At day pack digital. Our theme music Spring Hill Jack is from railroad Earth and was composed by John skihan. Our executive producer and ring leader is Laura 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 the wild idea.com you. Transcribed by https://otter.ai