Menu
Log in

Hunt 2 Conserve is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization

Advocacy News

Our stances and the latest developments we are monitoring.

  • 10/08/2025 2:30 PM | Anonymous

    Below is an op-ed article printed in the Steamboat Pilot & Today.

    Eric Molvar’s op-ed (Opinion: Benefits of wolf reintroduction overshadow imaginary costs) is ironic and inaccurate. Costs of a forced wolf introduction are very real.

    A Colorado legislative report reveals costs at nearly $6 million after year-eight of an introduction. Also, proponents gathered more than $1 million from out-of-staters to get the measure on the ballot but offer zero funding to assist with any wolf-related costs. They leave Colorado taxpayers to foot the bill.

    One truth Molvar did point out is I’m no biologist. However, thanks to a 24-year journalism career, I know how to research and fact-check. Let’s examine Mr. Molvar’s “facts.”

    He claims the initiative is science-based yet it circumvents the world’s foremost scientists on Colorado wildlife management at Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and puts the decision into the hands of citizens unfamiliar with the issue’s intricacies. This “ballot box biology” flies in the face of nationwide professional scientific wildlife management practices.

    Molvar claims wolves “provide a measure of defense against chronic wasting disease.” Absolutely untrue! Renowned wolf researcher David Mech warned against sanctifying the wolf and stated any claims wolves stop or slow the spread of CWD are merely speculation. There are also approximately 30 wolf packs within 50 miles of the northwest Montana town of Libby where CWD was first detected in early 2019. By July, there were five confirmed samples. By January 2020, there were 64 CWD-positive samples, so despite the concentrated presence of wolves, CWD is spreading.

    Molvar claims wolves changed Yellowstone’s ecological landscape. Mech said, “…any such cascading effects of wolves found in National Parks would have little relevance to most of the wolf range.” 2010 research conducted at the same location as original trophic cascade studies refutes the theory. Arthur Middleton, UC Berkeley assistant professor of wildlife management and policy, said, “It’s not true.” In addition, 2019 research questions whether introducing predators has any effect whatsoever on ecosystems.

    Molvar claims there are no facts to support livestock/pet depredation. 2019 marks the third consecutive year the Montana Livestock Loss Board paid out a record amount ($247,000) for livestock killed by predators – wolves, grizzlies and mountain lions. Pet losses are unknown, but I know four people who had dogs attacked by wolves – three of them taken right off back porches. I know four others who had wolves in their nearby horse and cattle pens.

    Molvar assumes wolves will remain in western Colorado and there will be little human conflict. Bullfeathers! Wolves will follow elk (their favorite meal) and spread to Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park and statewide. The mid-1990s central Idaho release of 35 wolves since spread statewide (1,500 last summer), Montana, (900 wolves) Washington (126 wolves), Oregon (137) and are as far as 600 miles away in northern California.

    Mexican wolf recovery scientists in Arizona/New Mexico fear a Colorado gray wolf introduction will lead to the genetic extinction of that species.

    Molvar heads up Idaho-based and anti-grazing/anti-ranching Western Watersheds Project (WWP). WWP and partners WildEarth Guardians (WG) and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) use the wolf as a fundraising “cash cow.” Department of Justice data shows the federal government defended 570 Endangered Species Act-related lawsuits from 2009-2012 costing U.S. taxpayers $15 million in attorney fees. WWP, WG and CBD pocketed more than $3 million from 193 cases. Northern Rockies’ wolves met recovery goals in 2000 yet litigation by these groups (and others) strung things out until 2011 when a congressional fix finally allowed states to manage wolves. The same will happen in Colorado.

    Mr. Molvar, the costs are very real.

    Mark Holyoak is director of communication for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

    (Photo source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

  • 10/08/2025 2:00 PM | Anonymous

    Below is a Sacramento Bee op-ed by RMEF Chief Conservation Officer Blake Henning and Property and Environment Research Center CEO Brian Yablonski.

    Implementing forest restoration in California and throughout the Western U.S. has now become more challenging thanks to an obscure and controversial court decision you likely have never heard of. 

    Issued in 2015, the so-called Cottonwood federal court decision requires the Forest Service to halt restoration work throughout a forest whenever a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated or other new information is discovered about a species in that particular forest. This decision — which is designed to protect animals — is now having the opposite effect: It is destroying their habitat by preventing forest restoration and making megafires more frequent.

    Restoring our forests and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire will, in large part, require overcoming this legal hurdle.  

    This news is especially concerning given that we are well into fall and the 2024 wildfire season is still ongoing. So far this year, California’s Park Fire (see photos above to the left and below) grew to be the fourth-largest wildfire in the state’s history. Wildfires in Oregon and Idaho shut down major highways and blanketed western states in smoke for months. And in Wyoming, wildlife has been sent fleeing the state’s ongoing Elk Fire. In total, nearly eight million acres have already burned this year.

    To make future wildfire seasons less severe, our national forests need trauma care. The consensus among ecologists, fire scientists and forest managers is clear: We must rapidly increase the pace and scale of forest restoration. Active forest restoration can reduce unnatural fuel loads through selective thinning and prescribed fire, making our forests more resilient when a wildfire does break out. It also restores habitat for keystone species like elk.

    Before the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center sued the forest service, it was accustomed to thoroughly analyzing a project’s potential impact on listed species in a review process that can take years. An analysis by the Property and Environment Research Center finds that, on average, it can take between three to five years from the time the environmental review process is initiated to when work on the ground actually begins. Cottonwood adds an additional unnecessary analysis of the broader forest plan governing the project, which needlessly holds up beneficial restoration projects. It does so specifically in nine Western states that are home to the most acres in need of restoration, including California and Montana. This is why the Obama administration warned the ruling would “cripple” the Forest Service.

    Cottonwood empowers litigants to block restoration projects even after they’ve passed the regulatory review process and have begun work on the ground. This process creates potentially harmful delays, often leaving wildlife more vulnerable to the ravages of wildfire. 

    Sadly, there are numerous examples of delays inadvertently harming wildlife habitat.

    In Montana’s Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest, for example, a forest restoration project meant to selectively harvest lodgepole pine killed by beetle infestation and reduce unnaturally dense stands with prescribed fire was halted by a court injunction. Less than two months later, the Park Creek Fire burned much of the proposed project area and decimated the very grizzly bear and elk habitat the litigants aimed to protect. This is just one example of how Cottonwood can be abused and beneficial restoration projects can be hampered, with devastating consequences.  

    A temporary legislative ‘fix’ was put in place by Congress in 2018, but it expired in 2023. Today, a bipartisan permanent fix is making its way through Congress and is currently included in multiple pieces of pending legislation. In our home state of Montana, a permanent fix has garnered support from both Democrats and Republicans led by Sen. Steve Daines, R-MT, and cosponsored by Sen. John Tester, D-MT. A fix has also been approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote. With support from both parties, there’s hope a solution can make it over the policy finish line by the end of this year.

    Without a permanent fix, the Forest Service has warned that 87 forest plans across the West could be ground to a halt. According to Forest Service Deputy Chief Chris French, it would take the service “somewhere between five and 10 years and tens of millions of dollars” to complete the duplicate analysis potential Cottonwood injunctions would impose. With an 80-million-acre forest restoration backlog, that’s time and money the Forest Service simply does not have.

    If we want to buck the trend of devastating wildfire seasons, expanding forest restoration work and streamlining processes must be a top priority. By permanently fixing this one court decision, we could free the Forest Service of harmful red tape and frivolous litigation and get to work making our forests more resilient before next year’s wildfire season.

    (Photo credit: PG&E)

Join

Now more than ever, this fight matters. Join us in safeguarding the future of our hunting legacy.

Take Action

Donate

Every contribution advances our mission and amplifies our voice at the state and federal level.

Donate Now

Updates

Don’t miss out! Get our latest news, updates and big wins straight to your inbox.


5705 Grant Creek, Suite C
Missoula, MT 59808

info@hunt2conserve.org

© 2025 Hunt 2 Conserve

Hunt 2 Conserve is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software