Hunt 2 Conserve Blog

Poll: Coloradans Want Wolf Introductions to End

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 21:37:06 GMT

Two and a half years after introducing wolves into Colorado, residents now think it was a bad idea.

In 2020, Colorado voters passed a ballot initiative by less than two percent to forcefully introduce wolves into the state, despite four earlier rulings by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) against it.

Findings just released by the Colorado Polling Institute show a majority of Coloradans now want the state’s wolf program to come to an end. The poll shows 50 percent of those surveyed either favor or strongly favor suspending introductions while 39 percent oppose or strongly oppose. Breaking down the numbers geographically, 48 percent of those polled on the Front Range support suspending the program compared to 41 percent against. The rest of the state is even more lobsided with 54 percent in favor of suspension and just 29 percent opposed.

The Front Range numbers are especially telling since eight of the 13 counties that voted in favor of 2020 initiative were along that heavily populated urban area.

Graphic credit: Colorado Polling Institute

The results contrast those from a Magellan Strategies poll conducted in the summer of 2025 that showed statewide support for the wolf program at 53 to 37 percent.

To say Colorado’s wolf program is on a bumpy road is a massive understatement. After being turned down by Idaho, Montana and Wyoming while looking for a source to capture and translocate wolves, CPW got 10 wolves from Oregon in December 2023. Released in remote northern Colorado, the animals almost immediately began killing livestock. CPW eventually lethally removed several members of the Copper Creek Pack and captured and later released others. CPW relocated 15 more wolves from British Columbia in 2025. Fifteen of the 25 wolves brought into the state have since died and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told Colorado it could only receive wolves from six western states and not Canada.

The program’s annual budget skyrocketed to $2.1 million or almost three times more than original 2020 estimates the voters were told it would cost, while compensation is slated for $350,000 per year. In just the first three months of 2026, CPW had already paid $724,000 in wolf-livestock compensation.

During the state’s 2026 legislative session, CPW asked for $450,000 to bring more wolves into the state, despite not having a source location. Also, during the session and facing a $1.5 billion budget deficit, some lawmakers proposed no longer using state funds to fund the program.

While appearing before the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, the retiring wolf conservation program manager told commissioners that the state’s wolf program is at an “inflection point,” and could not predict if or when the state would meet its suggested wolf population goal of 150 to 200 animals.

In early June, a ranch owner in northwest Colorado reported one of her ranch hands shot and killed the breeding female from one of the state’s four pup-producing packs. The incident is under investigation and will test the law protecting endangered species, and the special 10j rules governing Colorado, specifically. If determined to be legal in that the wolf was killed in the act of attacking livestock of working ranch dogs, there will be no penalty. If not, the ranch hand and/or ranch owner could face fines up to $100,000, jail time and other penalties.

The escalating wolf issue may also be causing political fallout. Polling numbers show Coloradans now have an unfavorable opinion of Governor Jared Polis. He and First Gentleman Marlon Reis, a well-known animal rights advocate, both strongly supported wolf introduction.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Hunt 2 Conserve is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization affiliated with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Its mission is to advance a legacy of hunting and conservation by educating, activating and developing stewards and defenders of these fundamentally American ideals. For more information, go to hunt2conserve.org.

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife/Jerry Neal)

Great American Outdoors Act 250 Aims to Spruce Up Federal Lands

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 15:33:28 GMT

With America’s 250^th anniversary on the horizon, new bipartisan legislation just introduced in Washington, D.C., aims to upgrade public lands and national parks, while promoting public access for hunting and fishing.

The Great American Outdoors Act 250 (GAOA 250), introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA),seeks to reauthorize the Legacy Restoration Fund that pays for deferred maintenance on federal lands and invests $1.9 billion annually over five years to pay for restoring hunting and fishing sites, campgrounds, trails, boat ramps and other recreational infrastructure. Its funding is derived from new foreign visitor fees, private donations and onshore energy revenue.

Proponents say it will boost the $1.3 trillion outdoor recreation economy, support 72,500 jobs and generate vital income for rural economies near national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and public lands.

The legislation reauthorizes a 2020 public lands bill, which originally included permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). That vital measure received permanent and full funding in 2020 after President Trump, during his first term, signed it into law after learning about the crucial role LWCF played in the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s Falls Creek project. LWCF receives $900 million annually from federal offshore drilling fees to protect import land, water and recreational areas for Americans to access and enjoy.

GAOA 250 also creates a pilot program that supports outdoor recreation and sportsmen’s access projects, including enhancing habitat for hunting and fishing.

Hunt 2 Conserve and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are among more than 80 conservation, hunting and outdoor-related organizations that support the legislation.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Ballot Initiative Would Turn Oregon Farmers into Criminals

Wed, 10 Jun 2026 09:42:23 GMT

Below is one of a series of articles examining Initiative Petition 28, a potential citizen ballot measure proposed by radical anti-hunting and animal rights extremists that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise livestock and poultry for food and/or dairy products, and even carry out pest control. It would also severely affect and change private property rights, recreational activity on public lands, restaurants and small business owners, coastal communities, working animal industries, agricultural-related youth organizations and programs, and the state’s economy on multiple fronts. Also, it would lessen the ability of Oregonians to acquire food. This piece focuses on IP 28’s devastating impact on farming and ranching.

Farming and ranching are the lifeblood of tens of thousands of Oregonians.

According to the Oregon Farm Bureau, the state is home to more than 35,000 farms and ranches, with 96 percent of them owned and operated by families. Oregon produces farm products with an annual market value of $6 billion, and the state ranks 15^th nationally in its reliance on farm jobs. Forty-four percent of all Oregon farmers and ranchers are women, the fourth highest ranking in the nation. On average, one Oregon farmer feeds 168 people.

It is already a challenging way of life as 69 percent of farmers operate at a net cash loss due to high input, labor costs and overregulation.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) would make things worse, much worse. If passed into law, it would put an end to these traditional, food-producing operations that raise animals for meat, milk, cheese, leather, wool and other byproducts. Petitioners claim standard, accepted breeding practices, which improve health and strength, better manage disease and enhance economic efficiency and genetic improvement are nothing more than “animal sexual assault,” with perpetrators committing a crime.

“You couldn’t have permits for slaughtering,” said David Michelson, IP 28 chief petitioner. “Those opposed to our campaign are correct that it would ban killing animals, although they occasionally aren't as precise in their language as would be helpful. For example, this doesn't ban all farming, since it is possible to farm vegetables, fruits, legumes, etc.”

Michelson says farmers can convert chicken farms to mushroom farming and change ranches into landscapes where animals simply roam free in the form of animal sanctuaries and “maybe even transition some of the farmers into sanctuary workers so they can take care of the same animals.”

“I hear about farmers who say they want to care about the animals. Give them the opportunity. Say, ‘Okay, we will then use the millions of dollars we normally subsidize killing them to actually raise them and let them be healthy and happy,’ keeping them employed while also keeping the animals there where they are…but obviously much bigger spaces and not in confinement,” said Michelson.

What he does not suggest, or perhaps understand, is the wide-ranging and disastrous economic impact of removing statewide farms and ranches as current food production centers. Such an action will lead to skyrocketing costs for importing meats, cheeses, milk and other products from other states to Oregon for grocery and convenience stores, gas stations, restaurants and other eateries, while forcing some of them out of business. Those costs would also be passed on to everyday consumers.

For Michelson, in addition to vastly altering the lives and lifestyles of farmers and ranchers comes other pie-in-the-sky thinking.

“They could, theoretically, move their animals out of state to California or Idaho or Washington. It certainly protects the animals while they’re in Oregon and could end up creating a system where we’re trying to get animals into Oregon from other states to protect them and rescue them. It would set up a really interesting infrastructure of moving animals into the state,” he said.

Ironically, such activities could be illegal, according to Michelson’s own measure since IP 28 spells out that those who transport animals in a way that they become injured may be prosecuted for animal cruelty.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Senators Plug Bipartisan Forest Management Legislation, Call for Full Senate Vote

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 21:20:21 GMT

As of mid-June 2026, wildfires already scorched more than 2.5 million acres of forests, grassland and wildlife habitat across the United States, which is nearly double the 10-year average for this early in the year.

One way to better safeguard public safety, mitigate the risk of high intensity fires and improve both overall forest health and wildlife habitat is to ease or remove barriers that prevent active forest management from happening. The Fix Our Forests Act is a set of reforms that simplify and expedite environmental reviews, promote collaboration in forest management, deter frivolous litigation that delays essential projects, including reversing the 9^th Circuit Court’s Cottonwood decision, and encourage the adoption of state-of-the-art science and technologies for federal land managers.

Both the full U.S. House and Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry already passed the measure but it is yet to be scheduled for a full Senate floor debate and vote. During a June 2 Senate Ag Committee hearing about oversight of the U.S. Forest Service, members from both parties called for that to happen.

“FOFA will provide the Forest Service much needed streamlined authorities to reduce catastrophic wildfires and improve forest health,” said Sen. John Boozeman (R-AR), committee chair. “I want to thank Senators Curtis, Hickenlooper, Sheehy and Padilla for introducing that important legislation in the Senate and thank Chairman Westerman for championing it in the House. I also want to thank my Republican and Democrat colleagues who voted for FOFA, including Ranking Member Klobuchar and Senators Fetterman, Lujan, Slotkin, Warnock and Welch. I am committed to working with leadership to get FOFA across the floor and to the President’s desk.”

"My colleague, Senator Boozman, just mentioned the Fix Our Forests Act, which this committee passed through, and we're looking forward to its consideration on the floor, and we understand that its passage could be eased by some additional changes that we hope will be able to develop together, but I do appreciate the bipartisan leadership, and that is why I supported that bill," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), ranking member on the committee.

Hunt 2 Conserve agrees with the senators and asks the full Senate to take up and pass the measure.

Click here to view the full hearing.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Russel Simmons, Coos Forest Protective Association - Gold Beach AUF.)

Flesh-Eating New World Screwworm Confirmed in the US

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 21:06:16 GMT

(Note: this article contains graphic photos)

It is a real-life horror movie. A small parasitic fly about the same size or slightly larger than a common housefly, but with orange eyes and a metallic blue or greenish body, lays eggs on an open wound of a warm-blooded, living creature. While feeding on flesh, the larvae (maggots) live up to their name of New World Screwworm by screwing or burrowing deeper into the wound with sharp mouth hooks. As more eggs hatch, the larvae feed on more living tissue. If not discovered and treated, the victim will suffer severe wounds and/or die.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that horror movie migrated north into southern Texas about 60 miles east of the Mexican border and 90 miles west of San Antonio. On June 3, it reported a three-week-old calf is infected in Zavala County, the first such case in the U.S. in decades, followed by another reported cow infection two days later in the same county. Then on June 7, it confirmed a positive screwworm calf infection in nearby La Salle County and on June 8, cows in Edwards and La Salle Counties, a goat in Gillespie County west of Austin and another in a dog in Lea County, New Mexico, in the state’s southwest corner. The USDA believes that case is an isolated one because the dog’s travel and exposure history is not known.

“Protecting our livestock industry is a national security issue of the utmost importance, and USDA is wasting no time in taking action,” said USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Dudley Hoskins. “USDA invested heavily in the tools needed to eliminate NWS (screwworm) ever since cases started increasing in Central America and Mexico. The United States has defeated this pest before and we will do it again.”

The USDA deployed a command team to work with the Texas Animal Health Commission where it set up 12.5-mile infested zones around the detections and implemented quarantines, movement controls and surveillance. Officials say they are releasing sterile screwworm flies from the ground as a defense measure, in addition to the four million sterile flies it has already been releasing aerially along the U.S.-Mexican border every week since February. When produced and released in mass, sterile male flies mate with wild female flies which then lay unfertilized eggs.

For more than a year, USDA led a unified response to screwworms by deploying advanced surveillance systems and supported cross-border response efforts in Mexico and Central America to combat the pest and push screwworms away from the United States. These efforts bought time for USDA to increase domestic preparedness efforts.

Health officials say the threat to humans is very low but those that are most susceptible work closely with livestock.

National Food Supply

The USDA says the nation’s food supply is safe as screwworms do not infest meat, fruits, vegetables or other food sources. Its Food Safety and Inspection Service works to ensure the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry and egg products is safe, and assures that any evidence of screwworms would be identified during inspections.

“This pest does not cause any sort of a food safety issue. It is not a disease but simply an insect that feeds on living tissues,” said Brooke Rollins, USDA secretary. “Animals treated early enough will recover and are safe to enter the food supply system.”

Where Screwworms Live

New World screwworms are found throughout South America (except Chile) and in six Caribbean countries: Aruba, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Since 2023, screwworms re-emerged in previously pest-free regions, including all the countries in Central America and Mexico, where there have been more than 171,700 cumulative screwworm cases reported in animals and more than 2,070 cases in people.

Screwworms in the United States – a Past History

Known to be an issue in the southwestern United States since at least 1842, health officials first documented the screwworm as a significant problem in 1933 following shipments of infested livestock from the Southwest to the Southeast. Following the development and release of sterile male flies, the U.S. declared the threat eradicated in 1966. Since then, there have been several outbreaks in the Southwest (1972) and Florida Keys (2016-17), all of which were successfully combated. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed a person who traveled to Maryland from Guatemala was the first human case in America. The patient received treatment and fully recovered.

Why This Matters to Hunters

According to the USDA, deer and other species are vulnerable to screwworm infestation, which can reduce the number of fawns that survive and grow into adults. Untreated infested animals will die, leading to smaller herds, fewer tags and more restrictive seasons. Affected animals may lead to compromised meat quality, deformities on hides and antlers, and stunted growth and reduced antler development. If a larger outbreak were to occur, below are things that could happen, as per the USDA:

Wildlife management organizations could require more physical check stations for game inspection

Additional surveillance or control activities in hunting areas could lead to closed hunting areas and less game

State and federal agencies may restrict live animal, meat or carcass transport across county, state and international lines to prevent spread and protect livestock and wildlife

Click here for more information about the New World screwworm.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: USDA/COPEG)

Researcher Weighs in on Claims that Predators Control Spread of CWD

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 21:02:03 GMT

It is a popular and becoming much more repeated talking point for animal rights and anti-hunting advocates to bolster their causes: “Wolves slow or stop the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD).”

“The loudest sources of this idea are predictable segments of the public who are always looking for reasons to make large carnivores out to be saviors of the environment,” Jim Heffelfinger told MeatEater. “Those on the other, equally predictable end of the spectrum who see large carnivores more as Satans of the environment would like you to think about carnivores spreading CWD and making it worse.”

Heffelfinger isa certified wildlife biologist, research scientist, wildlife science coordinator at the Arizona Game and Fish Department, author and adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. He also has almost 40 years of experience in the field of conservation. His words ring similar to those of renowned wolf researcher David Mech, who once said, “Wolves are neither Saints nor sinners, except to those who make them so.”

To sort through the situation, Heffelfinger examined “some legitimate studies.” One of them showed adult mule deer killed in Colorado by mountain lions were more likely to be infected by CWD than those killed by hunters.

“This could be from infected deer being less alert or being less able to get away when attacked. Carnivores killing CWD-infected deer and elk at a higher rate than healthy animals is the kind of information that underlies statements about them cleansing our herds of CWD. Some selectivity of CWD-positive prey animals doesn’t automatically translate to the control or management of CWD at the population level,” told MeatEater.

Heffelfinger wrote about the importance of establishing defined population models with particular elements and goals. However, complex ecological forces often impact the best of plans and alter assertions. In one such scenario in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, data showed that carnivores could control CWD if the conditions were right. He then pointed out that such conditions did not exist in the study area.

“Carnivores are neither destructive monsters nor saviors of the environment; they are simply meat eaters trying to make a living. We should refrain from crafting exaggerated stories about both ends of that spectrum. Our focus should always be on what science, not advocates, tell us,” told MeatEater.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Judge Calls Out Animal Rights Activists in Owl Case

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 20:56:01 GMT

Instead of offering arguments, attorneys for two litigant environmental organizations found themselves on the receiving end of questioning from a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson asked the Friends of Animals and Animal Wellness Action to justify their standing in suing federal agencies that issued a permit to kill barred owls in the Pacific Northwest to save the struggling northern spotted owl population.

“Fish and Wildlife Service determined it is critical to manage barred owls before spotted owls are extricated from their native range,” Erika Furlong, attorney representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, told the Courthouse News Service.

To that end, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) finalized a management strategy to remove up to 450,000 barred owls (see above photo) from the Pacific Northwest and West Coast over three decades. USFWS conducted an experiment that showed removal of barred owls in four study areas – one in Washington, two in Oregon and one in northern California – stabilized spotted owl populations compared to areas of non-removal, where spotted owl populations declined 12 percent in one year.

There are approximately 3.5 million barred owls across North America compared to 15,000 northern spotted owls, which is a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. According to researchers, spotted owl numbers decreased 65 to 85 percent in many study areas between 1995 and 2017, despite significant restrictions on timber harvest and old growth under the Northwest Forest Management plan specifically intended to help northern spotted owls.

Only in recent years have barred owls spread into Washington, Oregon and northern California as a non-native species for that region. They are known to be larger and more aggressive than northern spotted owls. They also compete with spotted owls for food, displacing them and disrupting their nesting, including killing some of them.

A 2025 University of Wisconsin-Madison study shows barred owls in the Pacific Northwest are an “invasive species” that affect “a whole ecosystem and all sorts of species.” Researchers studied 788 barred owls that ate 162 different species including 29 with federal or state conservation status like the northern harrier, long-eared owl and western screech owl, as well as the racoon-like ringtail.

“Those animals (northern spotted owls) are getting double the pressure,” said Emily Fountain, research scientist and study co-author. “They’re eaten by the barred owl and the barred owl is eating their prey.”

The animal rights groups argued the USFWS management plan did not meet standards under the National Environmental Policy Act.

“Plaintiffs challenge the strategy for the simple reason they disagree with it,” Furlong told the Courthouse News Service.

Pacelle’s Propaganda

Wayne Pacelle is the president of Animal Wellness Action. He founded the organization in 2018, just months after resigning under a cloud of sexual harassment allegations as president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, a well-known anti-hunting organization.

Addressing the barred owl management plan, Pacelle said he disagreed with it and claimed such actions would make no difference. He also said the plan equates to “open season on all owls,” including hunting in national parks.

When Pacelle speaks, he does so out both sides of his mouth. In one breath, he said removing barred owls will not reduce densities and pressure on spotted owls, which are simply losing the competition for nesting sites. “That’s just animals having a natural effect on an ecosystem. Isn’t that nature? ”he said. In the next breath, he blamed the timber industry as the cause of the owl-versus-owl dilemma. Pacelle claims the management strategy is a “scheme” to “engage in the mass killing of owls in the Northwest” so the timber industry can cut down more old-growth trees.

Fact-Checking Pacelle

There is no open season. According to the USFWS FAQ, professional removal specialists with training, experience and competency requirements to “accurately identify spotted owls and barred owls using both visual and auditory means” will carry out the management. “No public hunting of barred owls is allowed.”

This isn’t just nature. The USFWS agrees with scienced-based research, as per studies previously cited, that the main threats to northern spotted owls are invasive, non-native barred owls combined with habitat loss. Those threats were identified in 1990 when the spotted owl was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Efforts to maintain and enhance habitat continue through the protection and management of late-successional reserves on federally managed lands and similar efforts on state and private forests through conservation plans, but the barred owl management plan is the first planned action to address that species. Also, according to USFWS, the amount of habitat lost to catastrophic wildfire surpassed that lost to timber harvest in recent years.

There are no plans to hunt owls in national parks. With management areas pinpointed in California, Oregon and Washington, the USFWS does not have plans to remove barred owls within national parks.

A Head Scratcher

Why would animal rights groups object to the selective removal of birds from a significantly larger, expanding and thriving barred owl population, when that species has a direct, negative impact on a much smaller and less aggressive northern spotted owl species that is simply trying to survive? Especially when activists used northern owls for decades as a means to file endless lawsuits to stop much-needed active forest management to benefit deer, elk and a wide array of other wildlife species, plus overall forest health.

Perhaps, these activist groups do not want spotted owl recovery at all, so the species can remain a tool to both stop selective forest management and serve as a fundraising mechanism for their organizations.

Activist Sidenote

Claire Davis is the attorney representing Animal Wellness Action in the barred owl case. She is also the founder and board president of the litigant environmental organization Washington Wildlife First. Davis recently teamed with Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith to file a federal lawsuit against Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope. Washington Governor Bob Ferguson earlier ordered an investigation into conduct by Smith and her fellow commissioners for reported closed-door interactions with Davis, among other issues.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Ray Bosch/USFWS)

Rancher Shoots Colorado Wolf, Tests Law Protecting Endangered Species

Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:25:17 GMT

Colorado’s messy wolf introduction program took another turn after a ranch owner self-reported that one of her ranch hands shot and killed the breeding female from the King Mountain pack, one of the state’s four pup-producing wolf packs.

"It was in my field and in the act, running toward some mothers and baby calves when my (ranch) hand, saw her there. He shot two warning shots and shot a third one but he wasn't sure if he hit it. It was still running the last he saw it," Susan Nottingham, owner of the Nottingham Ranch in northwest Colorado, told the Coloradoan.

According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the King Mountain pack lives approximately 125 miles west of Denver between Steamboat Springs and Glenwood Springs.

Colorado placed wolves within its borders after residents narrowly passed a 2020 ballot initiative and did so as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The Colorado specific rule only allows for wolves to be killed in defense of a human life or if a wolf is caught in the act of attacking livestock or working ranch dogs.

“The evidence says it was in the act. He was doing what I pay him to do; take care of these cattle," Nottingham told the Coloradoan.

CPW is working alongside the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to investigate the case. Illegally shooting a wolf is a federal crime. Various reports indicate penalties may include fines up to $100,000, a jail sentence and loss of hunting or other privileges.

According to the Coloradoan, Nottingham runs about 1,100 cattle across her 20,000-acre ranch, which has a history of run-ins with wolves. She received compensation after wolves killed three calves in 2025 but no more after CPW investigations could not confirm wolves killed other animals.

Addressing a recent CPW Commission meeting, the soon-to-be-retiring CPW wolf conservation manager said the state’s wolf program is at an “inflection point” because of its continual struggles. Eric Odell has seen 14 of 25 wolves introduced into Colorado die, leaving adult wolf survival over the past year at just 61 percent. When asked to predict when Colorado will reach a population of 150 to 200 wolves, as suggested by the state management plan, he said he could not provide a definitive timeline because of survival rates, reproduction and other uncertainties.

In December 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened to take over CPW’s management of the wolf program, citing a violation of the 10(j) rule which allows CPW to import wolves from Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington or northcentral Utah. CPW captured and transported some wolves from Oregon but then acquired and released 15 more from British Columbia, Canada, without public notice and with a contract in place to get more. CPW later announced it would not translocate any more wolves during the 2025-2026 winter, while continuing to explore options for the 2026-2027 winter.

For Nottingham, her focus remains on the ground overseeing the day-to-day operations of her cattle business while also looking over her shoulder.

"What a situation for the state to put citizens in," she told the Coloradoan. "At this point I'm just so sick of all the wolf drama.”

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

New Georgia Law Allows Hunter Education Classes in Schools

Wed, 03 Jun 2026 22:23:04 GMT

When Georgia children in grades six through 12 return to school this fall, they will have the option of taking hunter education as part of their curriculum.

State Representative Chas Cannon (R-Moultrie) introduced a bill in the Georgia House of Representatives (later incorporated into a Senate bill) that requires the State Board of Education to develop content standards for instruction in hunter safety education, which would give school boards the option to establish a hunting safety curriculum for the upcoming school year. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed it into law on May 5, 2026.

“I think it’s important that we have the opportunity to learn about hunting, what it means for managing our wildlife and wildlife habitat and what it means for us as a food source,” said Rep. Cannon. “I can’t think of a better way of doing that than to introduce it to our young people in an educational setting. Some of the most memorable times of my life have been on hunting trips with friends and family, and I hope the next generation gets that same opportunity.”

The hunter education course will be based on those currently offered by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and taught by an individual certified by the DNR as a hunter education instructor. Students across the state will have the opportunity to satisfy their hunter safety education requirement, while simultaneously earning classroom credit. The course will provide students with information needed to understand the purpose of hunting, general hunting practices and conservation ethics shared by all sportsmen and women, with the goal of gaining a more complete understanding and appreciation for Georgia’s wildlife.

Rep. Cannon, Sen. Bo Hatchett (R-Cornelia), who sponsored the Senate version of the bill, and Gov. Kemp are all members of the Sportsmen’s Caucus, a group of elected officials that support sporting traditions like hunting and fishing, and organized by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

When Trapping Mice is Against the Law

Wed, 03 Jun 2026 21:49:27 GMT

Imagine seeing mouse droppings in your basement, crawl space, garage or shed, setting a trap, catching and killing one (or more) and then being charged with a crime for doing so. Sound crazy? That is exactly what may happen if a radical animal rights ballot initiative passes in Oregon.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) removes animal cruelty exemptions from state statute for about every reason or activity, except self-defense. That includes pest control. You read that correctly. If you trap and/or kill a mouse, IP 28 would label you a lawbreaker and you would be subject to criminal punishment and penalties.

“It is also possible to trap mice and rats in non-lethal traps for them to be released, and it is also possible to use contraceptives rather than poison to manage their populations,” said IP 28 chief petitioner David Michelson.

So, “birth control” for mice and rats so they can freely live in homes, stores, restaurants and other food suppliers as well as on produce-producing farms? According to the Centers for Disease Control, rodents can carry or spread more than two and a half dozen bacterial, parasitic or viral diseases. Plus, they may also be carriers for fleas, mites and ticks that also spread disease. Not eliminating the rodents may mean risks to human health and the food supply.

What about larger vermin that destroys food and crops, infest property or spread disease? Examples include raccoons, skunks, chipmunks, squirrels, foxes or others? The same holds true. IP 28 would not allow citizens to trap and kill them.

A February incident in Salem, a city about 55 miles southwest of Portland, highlights the public safety danger IP 28 may introduce and perpetuate. A coyote bit a woman as she walked her dog, leaving her with minor injuries. That prompted the local sheriff’s department to notify residents and schools to keep a close eye on young children and pets.

A Google search shows Oregon has 270 to 360 pest control businesses with scores of employees, all of whom would be out of a job.

Animal rights activists equate animals to humans.

“We want the immediate liberation of animals,” said Michelson. “Let’s stop the state from allowing all this violence to happen.”

They do not want any animals to be removed. They want more of them, despite the inherent dangers many of them carry or propagate. Therein lies the danger of the ballot initiative.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Oregon’s IP 28: Misleading, Reckless and Dangerous

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 06:23:00 GMT

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregon’s residents to reject it.

What is IP 28?

Oregon Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) is an effort by radical animal rights activists to place a misleading initiative on the November 2026 ballot that would make it a crime to hunt, fish, trap or raise livestock. Under the guise of “ending animal cruelty” and titled the People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions Act, the initiative criminalizes injuring or intentionally killing animals, utilizing breeding practices and raising and/or killing livestock for food. By translation, that would make it illegal to hunt, fish, trap or engage in farming or ranching activities. It even prohibits pest control.

Why is it so dangerous?

If passed, IP 28 would:

End proven wildlife management as spelled out in the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and its front-line management tools of hunting, fishing and trapping
Severely harm conservation and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) mission to protect and enhance the state’s fish and wildlife and their habitats
Cut roughly 50 percent of ODFW’s budget, which is generated from hunting and fishing licenses and fees used to manage all wildlife, not just hunted species
Negate millions of dollars used for conservation, recreation and public access projects generated by excise taxes on guns, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing gear via the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts
Drastically impact Oregon’s fish populations since the millions spent on fisheries and fish hatcheries would be cut off
Threaten the food security of Oregon’s citizens by making it against the law for farmers and ranchers to raise cattle, hogs, sheep and goats, poultry and fish for food
End livestock ranching by transitioning farms and ranches into “animal sanctuaries”
Threaten the food security of Oregon’s citizens by making it illegal for hunters and anglers to acquire their own meat
Frustrate restaurants and food service businesses, homeowners and pet owners, private property rights, recreational and working animal industries, and coastal communities and Tribal nations that rely on hunting and fishing operations
Outlaw animal research and education
End common pest control, including trapping mice and vermin
Redefine common breeding practices for dogs, cats, horses and cattle
Significantly harm or reduce youth programs such as 4-H and Future Farmers of America

How many signatures does the initiative need?

117,173 verified signatures are required to qualify the issue for the ballot. As of May 29, 2026, proponents officially gathered 126,115 although those signatures are yet to be verified. According to the Oregonian, records show the state rejected at least 15 percent of signatures from each of the four initiative petitions that qualified for the ballot since 2022.

When will we know if this qualifies for the 2026 ballot?

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office will make a final decision between July 2 and August 2, 2026.

Who is behind IP 28?

Out-of-state activist organizations power the campaign, according to AGPROfessionals. PETA, Direction Action Everywhere and the Karuna Foundation, among others, are offering financial support and the campaign has received donations from individuals and organizations as far away as Europe and Russia. The measure has also been embraced by local and regional activists. David Michelson, a well-known animal rights extremist from Portland with a belief in animal liberation, is the campaign spokesman. Proponents tried and failed in 2022 and 2024 to place similar initiatives on the ballot and publicly stated they will keep trying year after year until successful.

Pro-IP 28 extremists are currently housing professional signature gatherers that “do not need to be registered to vote” and are paying them $25 per hour.

Is it really possible that this initiative becomes law?

If it qualifies for the ballot, yes! Once on the ballot, anything can happen as the proponent campaign will feature emotion-laced rhetoric and propaganda with a target on everyday Oregonians not educated on the issue.

Also, “radical” is nothing new to Oregon ballot-box policy making. In 2020, citizens passed Ballot Measure 110 which reduced criminal penalties for possession of hard drugs including heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, oxycodone and PCP. Drug overdoses and related quality of life and public health problems skyrocketed, leading to lawmakers amending and repealing the measure in 2024. Now, as of September 2024, the penalty for possessing hard drugs changed to a misdemeanor with a six-month jail term that can be waived if those convicted enter mandatory drug treatment.

If I do not live in Oregon, why should I care about this?

According to proponents, “Once successful in Oregon, we hope to bring similar initiatives to every state until the killing of animals is against the law nationwide.”

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Making Hunting and Fishing a Crime in Oregon

Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:25:42 GMT

Oregon is home to black-tailed and mule deer, elk, black bears, mountain lions, bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, mountain goats, small mammals, nongame, birds, fish and other wildlife. One key factor that plays a critical supportive role in the sustainable and successful management and conservation of all wildlife species is hunting.

Hunting is a highly regulated tool used by professional game managers and biologists to maintain sustainable populations for the benefit of healthy and balanced animal populations and ecosystems. It is the main mechanism utilized within the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and its two main principles that fish and wildlife belong to all Americans and they need to be managed in a way that their populations will be sustained forever.

The mission of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)is to protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. To do so, it relies on hunters and anglers who combine to generate roughly 50 percent of ODFW’s $488.9 million annual budget to carry out wildlife management, land conservation and access projects, habitat stewardship work, wildlife research and disease mitigation, law enforcement, human-wildlife reduction and other responsibilities. Breaking down ODFW’s numbers, $198.9 million is generated from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses while $44.3 million is allocated to the state via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from excise taxes on the purchase of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing gear.

A 2019 study shows the statewide economic impact of hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing in Oregon was $19.1 billion. Hunting generated $227,820,317 in spending or the equivalent of about 2,219 jobs, which translates to nearly $294 million in 2024 dollars.

Initiative Petition 28 calls for a ban on hunting, fishing and trapping. If those traditional activities are criminalized and eliminated, ramifications would include:

The gutting of ODFW’s budget

Hunters and anglers would not be allowed to acquire meat for their families

Removal of recreational activities to connect people with nature, wildlife and sustenance that began before our nation’s founding

Would end successful wildlife management practices with no proven means for biologists and professional game managers to sustainably manage big game and non-game species alike

The elimination of Oregon’s commercial fishing industry, which generated $642 million in income for the statewide economy in 2021 or the equivalent of about 9,200 jobs with a total output (total quantity of goods and services produced) of $1.2 billion

Significant impacts to global seafood markets – the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division reports Oregon exported nearly $50 million in 2024

An uptick in vehicle-wildlife collisions on roadways and highways – national data shows1 in 219 Oregon drivers hit an animal in 2025, with deer the most likely species

Would cancel or greatly diminish the five-day Pacific Northwest Sportsmen’s Show, which reportedly generates a $105 million economic impact annually

Major impacts on small businesses including restaurants, motels, gas stations, etc., used by hunters and anglers, and greatly increased everyday costs for consumers and business owners alike

Utilizing the ballot measure process and/or other means to expand this ideology to every nation across the country

“It would be devastating for our business. I would still be serving seafood, but we would have to import everything from another state,” Michelle Wachsmuth, owner of Dan & Louis Oyster Bar in Portland, told KATU-TV. “It would just devastate not just restaurants, not just grocery stores, but it hits the farmers. It hits everybody. It would devastate this entire state to shut down hunting, fishing and animal farming."

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

A Movement to Destroy Oregon’s Proven Wildlife Management Practices

Fri, 29 May 2026 09:32:23 GMT

If anti-hunting fanatics get their way, they will force a vote and their ideology on more than 4.27 million residents in Oregon. If ultimately successful in their quest, they will greatly frustrate a long-standing, proven approach to safeguarding wild animals and their future.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) is a potential ballot measure that would outlaw hunting, fishing and trapping, which are the main tools used by professional game managers and biologists to successfully manage wildlife populations in line with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.

Extremists pushing the measure have zero understanding on the issue.

“People ask how are we going to manage populations? I tell them there have been programs that introduce sterile males into a population. That tends to work pretty well, and that doesn’t involve killing anyone,” said David Michelsen, IP 28 chief petitioner.

In reality, there is no successful record of any such pie-in-the-sky practice, although some people around the country looked into that possibility with hopes of better dealing with ballooning deer populations within city limits. According to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, sterilization, hormone implants and contraceptive vaccines are all extremely labor-intensive techniques without proven effectiveness.

In 2016, former New York City mayor Bill de Basio proposed spending $2 million for fertility control practices to reduce Staten Island’s growing deer population. The idea was to capture and sterilize about 400 male deer at an estimated cost of $5,000 per buck. The proposal did not move forward.

More recently, Cornell University conducted a sterilization study that kept eggs from reaching the uterus by blocking fallopian tubes. Researchers found it would cost more than $1,200 per deer and extremely time-consuming. Ironically, fertility control flies in the face of stipulations specifically spelled out in IP 28, amounting to “animal sexual assault.”

Hunting as a means of wildlife management is not only proven to be effective but hunters willingly pay for the opportunity in the form of licenses and fees, which generates $198.9 million annually for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

“The General Fund, or Oregon’s taxpayer dollars, makes up only 10 percent of ODFW’s budget, nowhere close to the amount needed to operate the agency and benefit Oregon’s wildlife,” said Senator Brock Smith (R-Port Orford).

Outlawing hunting and fishing would also cost ODFW billions of dollars for fish and wildlife management going forward. The Pittman-Robertson Act places an excise tax on the purchase of all ammunition, guns and archery equipment. From 2023-2025 alone, that tax, thanks to Oregon hunters and recreational shooters, generated $75.9 million dollars that was distributed from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the state of Oregon for public access projects, research, wildlife management and restoring, conserving and managing habitat for wildlife and birds. The Dingle-Johnson Act places an excise tax on fishing equipment and boat fuel, which generated $26.8 million doled out to Oregon from 2023-2025. But here is the catch: those federal funds are allocated based on the number of hunting and fishing licenses sold in the state, which would be zero under the IP28.

Removing hunting as a wildlife management tool would have measurable impacts on many species across the landscape. To cite one example, the Blue Mountains, which are mostly in northeast Oregon but stretch into southeast Washington, are home to a shrinking elk population due to declining calf-to-cow ratios. Wildlife managers use funding to:

Implement forest management projects that enhance wildlife habitat including year-round big game range and calving/fawning areas

Identify big game migration corridors to promote habitat conservation and connectivity

Identify where habitat loss is taking place so plans can be made to rectify it

Set science-based hunting quotas for predator species like mountain lions, black bears that impact elk, deer and other wildlife

In other areas, expanding ungulate herds are causing crop damage. Without proper management, a potential overpopulation of wildlife species could trigger a lack of quality forage, which could lead to starvation.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Chad Carman & Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Chronic Wasting Disease Management Gets $12 Million Funding Boost

Thu, 28 May 2026 21:02:11 GMT

Below is a news release from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will provide approximately $12 million to support efforts by States and Tribal governments, research institutions, and universities to control and prevent chronic wasting disease (CWD) in wild and farmed cervids (e.g., deer, elk).

“Chronic wasting disease poses a serious threat to U.S. wildlife and agriculture. This funding reflects our commitment to working collaboratively with States, Tribes, and research partners to develop innovative solutions and protect the health of our nation’s cervid populations,” said Dr. Alan Huddleston, Acting U.S. Chief Veterinary Officer.

APHIS will competitively fund the most promising projects that develop innovative tools or methods, support State and Tribal CWD control programs at the local level and provide indemnity payments to cervid owners with pending claims. This includes:

Approximately $6 million to support critical projects to control and prevent CWD in farmed cervids,

Approximately $5.5 million to support research and management of CWD in wild cervids, and

Approximately $500,000 to support CWD prevention and management on Tribal lands.

CWD is an infectious, degenerative disease of cervids that causes brain cells to die, ultimately leading to the death of the affected animal. The incubation period can be lengthy, and infected animals may look healthy until the end stages of the disease, making it difficult to distinguish affected animals from healthy animals. Animals infected with CWD can transmit the disease to other animals during the “silent” incubation period. The disease has spread widely and the limited number of tools, as well as their efficacy, impacts the ability to effectively control the disease.

Cooperative agreement funding in previous years has resulted in the development and implementation of predictive genetics to assist farmed cervid owners in breeding for less susceptible deer, the removal of CWD-positive farmed cervid herds, increased diagnostic capabilities, increased CWD surveillance in wild cervid populations, hunter and public education, and carcass disposal options to reduce spread of CWD.

This year’s investment will allow State departments of agriculture, State animal health agencies, State departments of wildlife or natural resources, federally recognized Native American Tribal governments and organizations, and research institutions and universities to further develop and implement CWD research, management, and response activities.

(Photo credit: Courtney Celley/USFWS)

Contagious Disease Found in Washington Coyotes

Thu, 28 May 2026 21:00:30 GMT

If you live in Washington and spend time outdoors with your dog while hunting or doing other recreational activities, there is a new health warning, of sorts. A longtime threat, but one considered extremely rare in North America until 15 years ago, showed up for the first time on the West Coast of the United States. Researchers at the University of Washington confirmed the presence of a tapeworm, called Echinococcus multilocularis, in coyotes.

Researchers made the discovery after examining 100 coyotes in the Puget Sound region. They found the tapeworm in 37 of them.

“This parasite is concerning because it has been spreading across North America. There have been numerous cases of dogs getting sick, and a handful of people have also picked up the tapeworm,” said lead author and researcher Yasmine Hentati. “The fact that we found it here in one-third of our coyotes was surprising, because it wasn’t found anywhere in the Pacific Northwest until earlier this year.”

The tapeworm lives as a parasite in coyotes, foxes and other canid species.

Exposed humans and dogs may or may not become sick. Those infected can have cancer-like cysts that form in the liver or other organs. But if left untreated, it can be fatal.

Researchers urge the need for increased wildlife surveillance to better manage the disease and reduce the risk to people and pets.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Samantha Kreling)

Depredation Costs Balloon as California’s Wolf Population Grows

Thu, 28 May 2026 20:41:42 GMT

California’s first-ever annual wolf management report shows the state’s wolf population increased by 10 percent over the last year. It also showed a sizable jump in the number of wolf-livestock attacks and the compensation costs associated with them.

The 2025 California Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Annual Report, prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), shows a minimum of 55 wolves in the Golden State. Eight of its nine wolf packs are in northeast California,while the other is about 400 miles to the south, just north of Bakersfield. Four new packs formed in 2025 and six of the packs reproduced with a minimum of 32 pups.

However, as wolf numbers grew, so did the number of problemslinked to them. CDFW reports depredation investigations increased from 74 in 2024 to 267 in 2025, or a 261-percent increase. Of those wolf-livestock incidents, officials verified 198 of them as confirmed or probable. Ninety of them came from one pack in the Sierra Valley, a wolf pack no longer in existence because CDFW lethally removed the animals in October 2025 because of repeated chronic depredation.

“Despite extensive non-lethal efforts, including hazing and adaptive tools used by our Summer Strike Team, these wolves continued to prey on livestock,” said then-CDFW Director Charlton H. Bonham.“The BeyemSeyo pack became so reliant on cattle at an unprecedented level, and we could not break the cycle, which ultimately is not good for the long-term recovery of wolves or for people.”

As incidents increased, so did cost. CDFW doled out $354,795 in 2025 compensation payments compared to $48,070 in 2024, a 638-percent increase.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Secretary Burgum Announces Proposed Expansion of Hunting and Fishing Access

Thu, 28 May 2026 18:48:34 GMT

Below is a news release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Department of the Interior announced the largest proposed expansion of hunting and sport fishing opportunities in the history of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, opening or expanding more than 1,450 opportunities across 111 stations in 32 states.

The proposal would make more than 92 million acres, or over 95% of National Wildlife Refuge System lands, available for hunting, marking a significant milestone in expanding public access to America’s lands and waters and reinforcing the Administration’s commitment to outdoor recreation, conservation and rural economic growth.

This effort advances President Donald J. Trump’s priorities to expand access to public lands and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, including Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.” It also implements Secretary’s Order 3447, which directs the Department to remove barriers to hunting and fishing access and better align federal regulations with state wildlife management frameworks.

“For too long, access to hunting and fishing on federal lands has been limited by unnecessary restrictions and disconnected federal rules,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, we are opening more land, aligning with state expertise, and putting decision-making back where it belongs. This is about commonsense access, supporting rural economies, and ensuring the next generation can experience the outdoors the same way so many of us did growing up.”

The proposed rule would increase access at 111 field stations, including 107 national wildlife refuges and four national fish hatcheries. It also includes first-ever hunting or sport fishing opportunities at 14 refuges and three hatcheries, reflecting continued progress toward maximizing access where compatible with conservation goals.

In total, the proposal would deliver more than 1,450 new hunting and sport fishing opportunities. An “opportunity” is defined as the ability to hunt or fish a specific species at a specific location, providing a clear measure of expanded access across the system.

The rule also reflects a broader effort to simplify and modernize federal regulations. The Service is proposing more than 500 revisions and deletions to existing regulatory provisions, reducing complexity and making it easier for hunters and anglers to understand and comply with applicable rules.

By better aligning federal regulations with state fish and wildlife laws, the proposal reduces confusion for the public, improves consistency across field stations and reinforces the role of states as primary managers of fish and wildlife resources.

“Hunting and fishing are traditional recreational activities that bring families and communities together. Many national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries and other Service lands and waters offer hunting and fishing access that helps boost local economies and affords high-quality publicly available recreational opportunities to all Americans,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik. “We are pleased to continue to increase access for hunters and anglers while fulfilling our conservation mission, and we are committed to responsibly managing these areas for the benefit of future generations.”

Examples of proposed changes include:

Opening hunting or fishing opportunities for the first time at multiple refuges and hatcheries.

Expanding upland game, migratory bird and big game hunting across additional acres.

Increasing access to sport fishing, including new opportunities at previously closed locations.

Updating station-specific regulations to reflect current conditions and management practices.

The proposal also includes targeted regulatory updates to improve clarity and consistency across the Code of Federal Regulations, helping reduce confusion caused by overlapping or outdated federal requirements.

Hunters and anglers play a central role in conservation in the United States. According to the Service’s most recent National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, more than 39.9 million Americans fish and 14.4 million hunt, contributing more than $144 billion annually to the U.S. economy.

These activities support jobs, fund conservation efforts and sustain outdoor traditions that connect communities to the land and to each other. Hunting and fishing also provide important sources of protein for many people, which supports the Trump Administration’s updated Dietary Guidelines that puts real food back at the center of preventing chronic disease and promoting lifelong wellness.

The National Wildlife Refuge System, established to conserve fish, wildlife and plant resources, is the world’s largest network of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife conservation. The system includes 573 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts, with more than 71 million visitors each year.

National wildlife refuges provide vital habitat for thousands of species while also offering high-quality recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography and environmental education.

The National Fish Hatchery System complements these efforts by raising and releasing millions of fish each year to support recreational fisheries, restore native species and fulfill tribal trust responsibilities. The system includes 71 hatcheries that collectively welcome more than one million visitors annually.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages hunting and fishing programs to ensure sustainable wildlife populations while balancing recreational access with conservation responsibilities. Hunting and fishing are permitted on refuges when determined to be compatible with each station’s purpose and mission under federal law.

The Service seeks public comments on the proposed rule for 30 days, beginning with publication in the Federal Register on May 27, 2026. The notice will be available athttp://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number: FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223, and will include complete details on the proposed hunting and sport fishing rule and how to submit comments.

(Photo credit: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Why David Michelson is the Most Dangerous Man in Oregon

Wed, 27 May 2026 14:20:00 GMT

Below is one of a series of articles examining Initiative Petition 28, a potential citizen ballot measure proposed by radical anti-hunting and animal rights extremists that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise livestock and poultry for food and/or dairy products, and even carry out pest control. It would also severely affect and change private property rights, recreational activity on public lands, restaurants and small business owners, coastal communities, working animal industries, agricultural-related youth organizations and programs, and the state’s economy on multiple fronts. Also, it would lessen the ability of Oregonians to acquire food. This piece focuses on the chief petitioner behind IP 28.

I was just about to walk into a bookstore in downtown Portland, Oregon, with family members when a man approached. I did not know him or what he wanted, but that changed the moment he opened his mouth. “Do you want to stop the abuse of animals?”

Even though I live in Montana, I knew this was a signature gatherer for extremists trying to get a radical measure on the Oregon ballot. At the time, I headed up public relations for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and had previously written a couple of outreach pieces to keep our members in the know. I did not need to have anything more said to me to read between the lines. I knew what was wanted and what this petition would do.

I was not alone. A signature gatherer approached a woman at the Oregon State Fair last summer (go to 21:05) and told her about a petition to end primate research. There was no mention of any other petitions, yet she noticed orange IP 28 signature pages and recognized them for what they were, sandwiched among the others.

“They are collecting these signatures, I would say, under false pretenses or not saying the whole truth to get folks to sign this,” she said.

We are two exceptions who knew better. Unfortunately, most Oregonians know little to nothing about it.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) is the third iteration (the previously two failed) of an effort by anti-hunting and animal rights activists. The way they are going about it is as deceiving as the initiative’s title: People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions (PEACE) Act. In short, the petition removes exemptions from state law resulting in making it a crime to hunt, fish, trap, raise animals for food or carry out pest control, animal husbandry, research, rodeos, transport animals and many other things. Doing so would result in felony or misdemeanor charges.

Signature gatherers are doing the absolute minimum to get what they want – a signature. Detailing what their petition is about is not at the top of their list.

“We’re trying to get signatures as quickly as possible, not necessarily telling them all up front like this is going to criminalize killing animals,” said David Michelson, spokesman and one of three chief petitioners for IP 28.

The man behind IP 28

Michelson is a substitute teacher for the Portland Public Schools, a prekindergarten-12 urban school district in Portland. He became a vegetarian at the age of 14 and fully embraced veganism four years later after taking drugs known for producing hallucinations and altered consciousness.

“The most mystical experience that I would probably describe is when I started engaging with psychedelics, which had a pretty big impact on my life at one point,” said Michelson. “For the better, I think it made me much more naturalistic and gave me the final push to go vegan as well. My mental health, just my sense of self. It changed a lot of things in a positive direction.”

Michelson became disenchanted with religion and adopted more naturalistic tendencies. As an undergraduate, he studied some neuroscience, among other things, and moved to California and Colorado where he became more involved in activist causes. In Berkeley, he collected signatures for the successful 2024 voter-driven ban of factory farming facilities within the city limits (even though there were none at the time of the vote).

“It’s amazing how many things are connected. We kept making connections to all these different...psychedelics and meditation and nonviolent communication and needs. It really does all fit together really nicely,” said Michelson.

What does not seem to fit is his involvement with animal rights activism. Ironically, Michelson does not like them.

“I lived with some dogs and cats growing up. I was never really very close to animals. Still to this day, I’m not very much of an animal lover. And I don’t really like being around animals,” he says. “I want them to be happy, healthy and protected but I don’t really want to hang out with them.”

The campaign

Quoting a book about animal rights, Michelson said, “Accepting that animals are selves or persons will have many implications.” Those implications, or should we say consequences, are spelled out in IP 28, with its tremendous negative impacts on Oregon’s statewide economy, wildlife management, hunting, fishing, farming, ranching and both residents’ day-to-day lives and their livelihoods.

Yet, it is with that mindset that Michelson references the ballot initiative as “a beautiful thing” that is “authentic to me” and is “an embodiment of what I really want.” He is using the ballot initiative process, referred to by some as ballot box biology, as an end-around tool to the legislative process.

“Since the United States is unique in that many localities allow citizens to circulate a petition to initiate a binding public vote on changes to city, county, and state law—bypassing their local and state legislatures—animal advocates in the U.S. have an opportunity to force a vote,” said Michelson.

If IP 28 qualifies, the vote would be statewide. However, the signature-gathering process is anything but that. Paid signature gatherers earn up to $25 an hour and focus almost exclusively on Portland and Eugene with limited activity elsewhere.

An out-of-state effort

In a self-published video lobbying for help, Michelson’s words highlight how the campaign is largely supported by out-of-state individuals and organizations: “You don’t need to be a resident of Oregon. You don’t need to be a U.S. citizen. You don’t have to be 18 to volunteer to petition,” he said. “Anyone around the world can donate for this campaign. Foreigners, any non-U.S. citizen…can donate to a ballot initiative.”

IP 28 campaign donation data from the Oregon Secretary of State’s website highlights exactly that. Among the top campaign contributors are the Craigslist Charitable Fund (California), Postnov Leonid (a Russian national), Owen Gunden (New York/Puerto Rico), PETA (Virginia), World Animal Protection (London), Friends of DxE (California) and Strategic Action for Animals (California). Other supporters include the Vegan Hactivists (Maryland).

Oregon today, nationwide tomorrow

The petition’s non-Oregon supportive web may be by design as Michelson wants to spread his ideology beyond the Beaver State in the form of targeted action.

“If Oregon is the first state, which could be the next? Colorado and California might be top contenders—although Arizona and Florida may prove as formidable contenders given they each allow for two years of signature collection (similar to Oregon) and their warmer winters and longer days are ideal for petitioning,” Michelson wrote on his website. “If we’re able to form an organization that gets it on the ballot in multiple election cycles – 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034 – that can hopefully stimulate a lot more grassroots mass protests who are calling for a state amendment in their state and potentially a federal constitutional amendment.”

Some states, like Missouri and North Dakota according to Michelson, may seem more protected since they have constitutional amendments protecting “the rights of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.” Michelson’s end-around solution is to use ballot initiatives to upend standing law with newer statutes.

Deceptive and misleading

Michelson’s goal is straightforward and blunt: “We want the immediate liberation of animals.” Much like his signature gathering process, the words and terms he uses to talk about the initiative are scattered, deceptive and misleading. Below are a few examples:

“We understand that right now people are contributing to killing animals, either directly or indirectly, because they are attempting to meet their needs…We’re not trying to ban people from meeting their needs. We actively want to meet everyone’s needs.”

“Animals have needs too and we want people to meet those needs as well as our needs. And we don’t believe they’re in conflict. The needs are not in conflict.”

“We’re not asking individuals to adopt really a change to their individual lifestyle. They might choose to do that and I would certainly support them doing that. We are trying to shift people away from thinking animal rights as solely an individual issue.”

“We do acknowledge there is real tension in Oregon between the urban-rural divide. I think that’s gotten much more prevalent in this country. We don’t want to intentionally increase that. We do want to feel that everyone’s needs matter including people in rural Oregon.”

“We have had hunters sign the initiative that would end up banning hunting. They knew it would ban hunting…but they will sign because they think it’s worthwhile to have a conversation.”

There are some real head scratchers there amidst the conflicting statements, much like the name of the petition itself – the Peace Act. If passed, its ramifications would be anything but peaceful by triggering a massive statewide upheaval in the costs of acquiring food, vastly altered property rights and recreational impacts, and devastating impacts on business, industry and Oregon’s economy.

Michelson’s buzz words and phrases like “essential needs,” “non-human animals,” “shared needs,” “authenticity,” “cognitive dissonance” and others paint a hazy picture. But do not be fooled. He and his team understand the impactful implications of their petition, if it were to become law.

Humane Transition Fund

The Humane Transition Fund was not part of Michelson’s previous failed ballot initiative efforts. The approximately two-page proposal creates a landing spot for funding in Oregon’s State Treasury to deal with the ramifications of IP 28’s passage. Although no totals are specified, it calls for “moneys transferred to the fund by the Legislative Assembly” to address food assistance, income for job loss, employment retraining, animal health care, rewilding and “any other purpose that is unanimously agreed upon by all members of the Transitional Oversight Council.”

Who sits on this Transitional Oversight Council that would distribute Humane Transition Fund dollars? Eighteen different people from various state agencies and other organizations including “a person who works for a nonprofit farmed animal sanctuary,” at least two animal advocates and “one of the chief petitioners of this act or a person appointed on their behalf.”

“We want everyone sitting at a table talking about what are some alternative strategies. We don’t claim to know all of them,” said Michelson. “All we know is we want the animals’ needs to be protected and we want everyone else’s needs to be met at the same time.”

Wait, what?

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and hopes Oregonians reject it.

Mark Holyoak is the director of advocacy communications for Hunt 2 Conserve.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Hunting’s Undeniable Funding Connection to Conservation

Tue, 26 May 2026 22:30:40 GMT

“Hunting Is Conservation” is a catchy phrase, but it is much more than that. Created and trademarked by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, those three simple words highlight an undeniable and beneficial relationship between hunting and its vital financial link to the conservation of wildlife species and landscapes where they live.

A new breakdown provided by the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation breaks down the numbers. And they are impressive. In 2025 alone, funding generated by the Pittman-Robertson Act – legislation that places excise taxes on guns, ammunition and archery equipment – totaled $833.1 million. The users who generated that funding are hunters and recreational shooters. There were 15,650,606 hunters that spent $1.05 billion on hunting licenses and fees that year.

Those who fish did their part, too. In 2025, 29,492,356 anglers generated $841 million by buying fishing licenses. The Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breau Fund, which places excise taxes on fishing equipment and motorboat and small engine fuels and equipment, generated $431 million. Combing those four figures highlighted above equals a total of $3.57 billion for conservation in one calendar year.

Dating back to 1939, if you add all the funding paid by sportsmen and women for hunting and fishing licenses combined with excise taxes, the total is a staggering $89.26 billion. That money goes to state fish and wildlife agencies to carry out science-based wildlife management and research, habitat treatments, land conservation and public access projects, species restoration and protection, enforcement, recreational projects, education, outreach and other aspects that fall under the umbrella of conservation.

One other number is highly notable. Though varying from state to state, most state fish and wildlife agencies receive more than 60 percent of their budgetary funding from hunters, recreational shooters, anglers and boaters. No other users, groups or organizations do more for conservation.

Below is a 2026 state-by-state breakdown of revenue generated by hunters through the purchase of hunting licenses and fees combined with Pittman-Robertson funding:

Alabama – $44 million

Alaska – $52 million

Arizona – $43.6 million

Arkansas – $34.5 million

California – $52.6 million

Colorado – $106.6 million (ranks 1st)

Connecticut – $8.1 million

Delaware – $6.5 million

Florida – $30.2 million

Georgia – $48.4 million

Hawaii – $5.95 million

Idaho – $56.5 million

Illinois – $50.3 million

Indiana – $30.5 million

Iowa – $33.6 million

Kansas – $36.9 million

Kentucky - $37.9 million

Louisiana – $28.3 million

Maine – $19.3 million

Maryland – $14.2 million

Massachusetts – $12.1 million

Michigan – $57.9 million

Minnesota - $56.7 million

Mississippi – $27.4 million

Missouri – $50.3 million

Montana – $63 million (ranks 4th)

Nebraska – $33.7 million

Nevada – $23.3 million

New Hampshire – $10 million

New Jersey – $15.7 million

New Mexico – $40 million

New York – $43.8 million

North Carolina – $35.6 million

North Dakota – $24.4 million

Ohio – $43.2 million

Oklahoma – $31.6 million

Oregon – $51.1 million

Pennsylvania – $72.6 million (ranks 3rd)

Rhode Island – $5.6 million

South Carolina – $21.3 million

South Dakota – $37.4 million

Tennessee – $26.7 million

Texas – $87.7 million (ranks 2nd)

Utah – $39.2 million

Vermont – $9.2 million

Virginia – $37.6 million

Washington – $32.8 million

West Virginia – $18.9 million

Wisconsin – $59.7 million (ranks 5th)

Wyoming – $47.2 million

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Using the Ballot Box to Make More People Hungry

Tue, 26 May 2026 21:52:10 GMT

Animal rights extremists want what they want, no matter the consequences. If they get what they want in the form of an approved radical ballot measure, they will increase food insecurity for many in Oregon.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) seeks to remove animal cruelty exemptions from state statute, including hunting, fishing or raising animals for food or other byproducts. In other words, animals may not be hunted, fished or slaughtered to eat. No livestock operations. No poultry farms. No dairies. No meat produced in the state of Oregon.

“If this were to pass, it prohibits the state from authorizing or giving out licenses for slaughterhouses. It would prohibit the state from giving out hunting licenses. It would prohibit at a state level, at a systemic level, this cruelty to happen,” said David Michelson, IP 28 chief petitioner.

Michelson and his cohorts believe eating meat is wrong. The overwhelming majority of Americans feel otherwise. Data from the Pew Research Center shows“ nearly all (96 percent) of U.S. adults say that eating meat is either morally acceptable or not a moral issue.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food insecurity in Oregon increased from 9.2 percent in 2021-23 to 12 percent in 2024. More than 400,000 did not know where they would get their next meal from. The Oregon Food Bank estimates that 1 in 8 people, including 1 in six kids, face food insecurity in 2025.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

IP 28: Decimating Oregon Industry and Other Fallout

Tue, 26 May 2026 09:22:48 GMT

Industry

The Tillamook County Creamery Association is a true American rags-to-riches story. Based in a small town near the Oregon Coast about 75 miles west of Portland, it is one of the state’s must-see (and must-taste) destinations thanks to its dairy delights.

One big reason for its success is its location. Tillamook County has more cows (30,000) than people (29,000). It relies on 60 nearby dairy farms and 1,100 employees to churn out cheese, ice cream, yogurt, butter and other products to the tune of $1.2 billion in sales over the last ten years, according to the Bend Bulletin. And as the fastest growing cheesy brand in America, nearly 1 in 4 households buy Tillamook products. Plus, its visitor center sparks the economy with about $300 million in visitor spending annually. Having expanded to a second site in Oregon and another in Illinois, it provides food, jobs, stability and a future of growth and economic prosperity.

That will all change if a radical ballot initiative passes in 2026. Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28), created and promoted by animal rights and anti-hunting advocates, would remove animal cruelty exemptions, making it illegal for Tillamook and its supporting dairy suppliers to conduct business as it currently does. It would shutter the farms and force the company, if feasible, to import milk and other products from another state, greatly increasing production costs which would be forwarded to consumers and drive down profitability. On a simpler level, it would end the ability for Oregonians to buy and enjoy made-in-Oregon Tillamook dairy products altogether.

“It’s (IP 28) very radical. It would create a sanctuary state,” said David Michelson, IP 28 chief petitioner.

Tillamook is just one of many Oregon-based businesses, both large and small, that IP 28 would close down or otherwise drastically impact. Among them are Reeser’s Fine Foods, Threemile Canyon Farms, Eberhard Dairy, Fitzpatrick’s Tuna, Darigold, Burgerville, Salt & Straw, Willamette Valley Meat Company, Oregon Beef Company, Oregon Fish Company, Pacific Seafood, Hallmark Fisheries and on and on.

“Buying locally raised foods at the local farmers market would be outlawed, while restaurant and grocery prices would increase substantially due to the need to ship meat and dairy products in from out of state,” Sen. Anthony Broadman (D-Bend), told KTVZ-TV.

Animal Handling and Training

IP 28 bans “teaching that involves the use of animals” and “reasonable handling and training techniques.” Such verbiage would seemingly remove or restrict experts from implementing animal training techniques for companionship, protection and other means. It would deny youngsters in agriculture organizations (see youth ag programs below) from learning responsibility, nutrition and care while rearing horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, rabbits and other animals for show and/or food.

And what about dog training, whether for personal use or for use by law enforcement? Would that also be banned? It seems that way. Proponents offer no clarification.

“None of these exemptions are specific to our companion animals except perhaps handling and training techniques. This would actually help companions a little bit more because there are potentially some techniques that would be no longer allowed,” said Michelson.

Transporting Animals by Owner or Carrier

IP 28 offers ambiguous language for transporting animals. Removing the exemption of “the treatment of livestock being transported by owner or common carrier” seems to mean that animals that become injured during movement would result in their owners being subject to animal cruelty or animal abuse charges. Such penalties would be applicable for farmers and horse owners who use their animals for chores, recreational riding, search and rescue, therapeutic riding and other specialized roles, community events or parades.

Also unclear is IP 28’s impact on Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists tasked with moving wildlife for restoration purposes or to relocate problem animals.

Research

According to the University of Stanford, “The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals.”

The Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONPRC), affiliated with Oregon Health and Science University, is one of seven such centers designed to help people live longer, healthier lives through scientific breakthroughs. IP 28 would ban such research.

“We often get asked what would we do if we don’t use animals in labs. We get to share them,” said Michelson. “Things like doing testing on human tissue cells, growing human organs in a lab, using more computer models.”

Shuttering ONPRC could lead to setbacks in research linked to behavior and psychology, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, aging, genetics, infectious disease, metabolic disorders, reproduction, transplant biology and regenerative medicine, and neuroscience and brain disorders.

Banning the trapping of animals and placing GPS collars on them would also greatly frustrate the growth and accumulation of science-based wildlife research. It would prevent Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists and researchers from learning more about population dynamics, chronic wasting disease, hoof disease, migration patterns and tendencies, predator-prey relations, habitat usage, herd survival and overall health, that leads to more effective wildlife management (link here) practices.

Animal Husbandry

Livestock managers, including farmers and ranchers, agriculture workers and others carry out accepted husbandry practices to best care for their animals to provide the best day-to-day care, production, nutrition, breeding and management to avoid injury and disease. IP 28 would ban such activities labeling them as “sexual assault” and abuse. According to the American Kennel Club, it would also outlaw dog breeding but, ironically, still allow for veterinary practices like spaying, neutering and vet-administered euthanasia for domestic animals.

Additionally, IP 28 would also eliminate or greatly impact higher education and practices related to veterinary degrees such as the Oregon State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital and similar programs.

Personal Property Rights

IP 28 would weaken personal property rights by forcing residents to do activities and practices (or not do them) on their land that have been legal since the state’s founding in 1859.

Youth Ag Programs

The mission of 4-H is to give young people access to opportunity. Almost six million girls and boys nationwide participate in a wide range of programs. Among the most popular are agriculture, plant and animal science, including raising animals and sustainable farming.

Like 4-H, Future Famers of America has more than one million student members across the country. Founded by a group of younger farmers in 1928, its goal is to make a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premiere leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education.

IP 28 would greatly deter or eliminate participation in these programs, denying opportunities for youth to learn, grow and develop skills and careers in these fields.

Rodeos

On September 29, 1910, the largest crowd in the history of Pendleton witnessed what became known as the Pendleton Round-Up. Today, the annual four-day rodeo attracts 50,000 visitors and is still a celebration of western heritage, rodeo excellence, volunteerism and community spirit. It is also a major economic driver for eastern Oregon. Past statistics showed tourism, hospitality and spending generated an estimated $50 million economic impact in the region.

Other rodeos highlight similar positive impacts. The Sisters Rodeo generated $10 million in economic benefit in 2025, including $61,150 for a scholarship fund. The Farm-City Pro Rodeo in Hermiston generated more than $3.2 million in spending in 2024.

IP 28 would ban the participation of animals in rodeos or similar exhibitions.

Radical is Nothing New to Oregon

Many people claim IP 28 is too radical to have any chance of passage. Oregon’s history shows otherwise. In 2020, citizens passed Ballot Measure 110 which reduced criminal penalties for possession of hard drugs including heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, oxycodone and PCP. As a result, drug overdoses and related quality of life and public health problems skyrocketed, leading to lawmakers to amend and repeal the measure in 2024. As of September 2024, the penalty for possessing hard drugs changed to a misdemeanor with a six-month jail term that can be waived if those convicted enter mandatory drug treatment.

“In Oregon we have quite a record of passing some pretty bold initiatives, and so we are trying to take that tradition and use it for the animal rights movement,” said Michelson.

Past Newspaper Editorials

IP 28 proponents, under different numbered initiatives in previous years, tried on two previous occasions to place their ideology on the ballot. Both times, they failed. And both times, Oregon publications raised the warning flag over their intentions.

La Grande Observer (June 26, 2021): “The economic destruction that Initiative Petition 13 could cause in this state is so severe, and so widespread, that the effort, however quixotic it might be, simply can’t be ignored.”

Wallowa County Chieftain (March 23, 2022): “It’s a takeover — or an attempt at destruction — of the way of life for many in Oregon, yet one that is pitched as an animal rights bill.”

La Grande Observer (May 13, 2021): “It is an assault on food production, and on Oregon’s farmers, ranchers and fishermen.”

The Bigger Picture

Those who live outside of Oregon may not think IP 28 is a threat to their way of life. Proponents have other ideas. Their game plan is to gather momentum and push animal rights beyond the Oregon state line by using ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments.

“The goal is not to just stop in Oregon. The goal is to end it everywhere. This is just the starting point,” said Michelson.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregonians to reject it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

RMEF, Others Express Concern about Ballooning Wild Horse, Burro Issue

Wed, 20 May 2026 16:05:00 GMT

Hunt 2 Conserve agrees with efforts to lessen the impacts of wild horses and burros on the landscape and wildlife habitat.

With wild horse and burro populations now more than three times above levels set by federal law, their negative impacts on wildlife habitat continue to increase too. That is why the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation recently joined more than two dozen conservation and sportsmen organizations in expressing concern to federal lawmakers.

In a letter to the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, the groups urged lawmakers to allow the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service to execute statute as it currently stands before making any possible or requested adjustments.

According to BLM estimates, there are more than 82,000 wild horses and burros on public lands as of 2023, although that number could be closer to 100,000.

“The ecological consequences are devastating: rangelands are degraded, riparian areas are trampled, and forage and water resources for wildlife and livestock are depleted. Many grazing allotments have gone unused for decades due to overuse by feral equids, and the resulting habitat damage continues to threaten the health and diversity of our public lands,” according to the submitted letter.

The groups also stated Congress repeatedly restricted the ability of federal agencies to fully implement the management framework originally envisioned because annual appropriations riders prevent the sale or humane euthanisia of unadopted horses and burros.

Additionally, the cost for taxpayers is staggering. The federal government spends more than $100 million annually, or more than 70 percent of the program’s total budget, to maintain more than 67,000 animals in holding facilities. According to the groups, “This system is financially unsustainable and ecologically irresponsible.”

RMEF maintains unmanaged horses and burros on federal land negatively impact the health of both rangeland ecosystems and native wildlife habitat. As such, it supports population reductions to bring numbers in line with federal laws.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Bureau of Land Management/National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management Coalition)

Disease Causes Wyoming Wolf Population Decline

Sun, 17 May 2026 18:54:01 GMT

Wyoming’s wolf population is above federal minimum recovery levels for the 24^th year in a row, however it is lower than it has been in two decades.

According to the 2025 Wyoming Gray Wolf Monitoring and Management Annual Report, there are at least 253 wolves, including 14 breeding pairs across the state. That number is down from 330 wolves and 24 breeding pairs in 2024. What is the reason for the 23 percent decline? Distemper – a contagious viral disease that occasionally causes adult mortality but is particularly dangerous and deadly for wolf juveniles and pups.

“It was the lowest number of wolves in 20 years,” Ken Mills, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) wolf biologist, told WyoFile. ““Seventeen pups survived in Yellowstone, which was the lowest they ever recorded.”

Breaking down the numbers, there were 132 wolves in northwest in Wyoming’s trophy game area, 84 in Yellowstone National Park, nine on the Wind River Indian Reservation and 28 across the rest of the state.

Graphic credit: Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Federal recovery criteria require at least 10 packs in Wyoming’s trophy game area, which WGFD reached.

“We set up the population objective of 160 wolves to be able to accommodate an event similar to what we experienced, and still meet our minimum recovery criteria,” Mills told WyoFile. “We met the minimum. It actually worked exactly as we intended.”

WGFD set a wolf hunting quota for 44 animals. Hunters took 31 with one more on the Wind River Reservation. Agencies or the public legally and lethally removed 49 wolves because of conflicts with livestock.

In 2025, WGFD spent $734,563 on monitoring, conflict management, education and compensation. The latest amount, $352,454, was to compensate livestock producers dealing with wolf-livestock conflicts. Authorities said wolves killed 28 head of cattle, one horse and one dog – the lowest number of confirmed depredations since 2010, due to management efforts.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly supports the state management of wolves in Wyoming and all other states.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Interior Department Opens More Public Land to Hunting, Fishing

Wed, 13 May 2026 20:24:15 GMT

Hunt 2 Conserve is a staunch supporter of creating and improving public access.

The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) announced a new directive that opens most of its public lands to hunting and fishing. The seven-page Secretarial Order 3447 seeks to ensure consistency and remove barriers to public access for hunting and fishing among its 11 bureaus, which include the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatcheries).

“We’re cutting barriers and streamlining regulations so Americans have the access they deserve on our public lands,” tweeted DOI Secretary Doug Burgum.

“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has a clear track record defending and expanding hunter access to public lands, as well as defending hunters' ability to use the ammunition of their choice,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “Secretarial Order 3447 is aligned with our approach to these issues and we commend Secretary Burgum for making it clear that public lands should default to being open.”

The announcement does not apply to national parks where hunting is not currently allowed.

“We’ll be implementing the secretary’s order by identifying new hunting and fishing opportunities on service lands and waters, cutting red tape for hunters and anglers, and strengthening our collaboration with states, tribes and territories,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik. “Looking ahead to future annual updates, my goal is that all refuges and hatcheries are open to hunting and fishing within two years, except in rare cases where conflicts with legal mandates, public safety or sensitive species or habitats exist.”

The individual bureaus will need to take additional steps to meet requirements of the order.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Colorado Wolf Program at ‘Inflection Point’

Wed, 13 May 2026 07:02:40 GMT

Two and a half years after releasing wolves onto the ground, Colorado’s wolf program is at an “inflection point.” Those carefully selected words come from Eric Odell, the soon-to-be-retiring wolf conservation program manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW).

He has seen 14 of 25 introduced wolves die in Colorado, adult wolf survival over the past year at a mere 61 percent, compensation costs more than double and expected to triple before year’s end, and no planned influx of new wolves in 2026.

When asked to predict when Colorado will reach a suggested population of 150 to 200 wolves, as per the state’s wolf management plan, here was his response: “I cannot provide a definitive timeline, and that’s an honest reflection of where we are in the implementation of wolf restoration. We’re very much at an inflection point,” said Odell, as reported by the Colorado Sun. “The key drivers to determining the timeline to recovery will be the survival rates of wolves of different ages, reproduction and wolf-pup survival rates and the reintroduction opportunities. Until those variables become clear, the timeline to recovery will remain uncertain.”

What is not happening this year is another planned introduction of wolves. CPW had a signed agreement with the British Columbia Ministry of Waters, Lands and Resource Stewardship to capture and transport up to 15 wolves to Colorado in January 2026. However, CPW scrapped the plan after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent word that obtaining wolves outside of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming is a violation of the 10(j) rule.

“It will likely be critical for the establishment of a self-sustaining wolf population in Colorado to have substantial translocation efforts (10-15 animals) for at least one, if not more, in additional years,” according to the 2025-2026 Colorado Gray Wolf Annual Report.

The newly released report shows a statewide wolf population of 32 animals – only 18 adults along with 14 pups. Twenty-four of the wolves are in four packs with eight other adults roaming the landscape. The packs are in the northwest part of the state, although a distribution map shows wolves wandered through central and southwest Colorado, exclusively west of Interstate 25.

CPW assigned 10 wildlife damage specialists to investigate depredations. From April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025, CPW confirmed 43 wolf depredations resulting in the deaths of 23 sheep, 19 cattle and one dog, with others pending. Over that same time, CPW approved the payment of $709,629 for missing livestock and production losses. It also paid $198,137 for wolf damage claims from the previous year.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

First CWD Case Detected on National Elk Refuge

Tue, 12 May 2026 19:59:54 GMT

Below is a joint news release from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to the Jackson Hole News & Guide, the infected animal was "an extremely thin, disoriented, socially isolated elk with strange posture.” Elk, bison and white-tailed deer hunting are allowed on the refuge.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Game and Fish) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announce that chronic wasting disease has been detected in Wyoming Elk Hunt Area 77 on the National Elk Refuge, which is managed by FWS.

National Elk Refuge biological staff humanely euthanized and sampled an adult cow elk suspected of having CWD. Tests conducted at the Game and Fish Wildlife Health Laboratory confirmed a positive case. All CWD samples, including those collected on the refuge, are sent to the Game and Fish health lab for processing.

This is the first documented case of CWD in the hunt area and the first confirmed case of an elk with CWD on the refuge.

Moving forward, National Elk Refuge staff will increase monitoring and surveillance of herds for CWD, re-evaluate some existing programs and implement additional bio-security protocols to keep people and wildlife safe. Any changes will be shared with the public. The National Elk Refuge Chronic Wasting Disease Response Strategy contains the details for next steps.

CWD is a fatal neurological disease that affects deer, elk, and moose. Game and Fish partners with FWS to manage wildlife on federal lands and both will continue monitoring CWD over time to further understand the potential impacts of the disease and evaluate future management actions.

For more information on CWD testing, transmission, carcass transportation, and disposal regulations, visit the Game and Fish CWD webpage.

Visit the refuge website for more information on elk and bison management and CWD at the refuge.

(Photo credit: Kari Cieszkiewicz/USFWS)

Colorado Anti-Hunters Lean into ‘End-Around’ Playbook

Mon, 11 May 2026 14:51:05 GMT

It is an old, yet still successful, and deceptive play used on the gridiron. The entire offensive line blocks defenders in one unified direction while a lone wide receiver runs the opposite direction in the backfield, takes a handoff from the quarterback, turns the corner and heads upfield with the football. This end-around play successfully takes advantage of traditional defenses because the misdirection often results in big offensive gains.

Anti-hunting and animal rights proponents are using the same tactics in trying to eliminate hunting and roll back proven, scientific-based wildlife management. It happens in many states, especially right now in Colorado. Activists use public outreach, the legislative process, ballot initiatives and other means to try to translate their narrow-minded propaganda into binding law for everyone. If one avenue fails, they try to force another.

For example, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission formally adopted a resolution in 2016 opposing the intentional release of wolves into Colorado – a ruling in line with three CPW rulings from earlier years. So, activists instigated an end-around gameplan by gathering signatures to place a wolf introduction measure on the 2020 ballot, even though biologists confirmed multiple wolf sightings and the establishment of a new wolf pack that had walked into Colorado earlier that same year on its own. Proponents deceptively underestimated the costs and oversold the benefits to the public in an emotional campaign, but despite widespread pre-election estimates for a wide margin of victory, residents narrowly approved the measure by 1.8 percent. Six years later, the result is skyrocketing programmatic and depredation costs coupled with the deaths of more than half of the introduced wolves.

In 2022, activists pushed a bill to ban the hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats. Due to engagement from the sportsmen community, lawmakers defeated it in a committee vote. So, anti-hunters again gathered end-around initiative signatures and placed the issue on the 2024 ballot. Coloradans rejected it.

Also appearing on that same 2024 ballot was an initiative to ban the sale, trade or barter of wild fur only in Denver County. Residents rejected it. So, extremists pivoted to another end-around tool known as a citizen petition.

A citizen petition allows any interested person who wants to create, remove or change a CPW regulation, to try to instigate a potential rule-making process. Petitioners submit a request, which is reviewed by upper-level CPW managers and shared with the CPW Commission. Either the managers or the commission chair can recommend the petition be presented before the full commission for discussion. If approved by the commission, rules will be drafted to place it into state code.

Rejected at the ballot, activists took their wild fur ban to the CPW Commission via a citizen petition. Commission members ignored strong, in-person recommendations from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife leadership and its biologists by approving the petition with a 6-4 vote. (It must now go through a rule-making process to figure out if or how it will be implemented.)

While that debate took place, anti-wildlife management supporters presented an end-around bill a mere 13 miles away before the Colorado Legislature to ban beaver trapping on public land. Two weeks later, with strong resistance expressed by sportsmen and conservationists, lawmakers did not take the bait and killed the bill in committee.

That takes us to another avenue that anti-hunting groups use for exploitation – the CPW Commission itself, which is an 11-member group of citizens appointed by Colorado’s governor that sets regulations and policies that CPW staff must implement. Governor Jared Polis has used his authority to appoint and place animal rights activists, and not hunters, on the commission, even though at least 68 percent of CPW’s budget comes from funding generated by sportsmen and women. Most recently, two of his appointees resigned rather than face a scheduled Colorado Senate confirmation vote. Senators heard a clear outcry from sportsmen over the appointees’ bias, lack of knowledge and qualifications.

“I believe we are continuing to see this administration trying to move the commission in a direction that is out of the mainstream of Colorado,” said Sen. Dylan Roberts (D-Avon). “I don’t think we should continue to support the direction that this administration is trying to move the commission, particularly with something that funds the agency.”

Activists are not deterred. In fact, they are emboldened. Other recently submitted citizen petitions include:

Wolf damage compensation – restrict depredation payments to ranchers impacted by wolf attacks on their livestock and other animals (submitted by an array of animal rights groups and individuals)

Wolf chronic depredation – further heighten nonlethal wolf conflict materials and techniques already in practice (submitted by the litigant environmental organization Center for Biological Diversity)

Recreational prairie dog shooting – ban shooting prairie dogs on public land (CPW notes the biggest threat to Colorado’s prairie dog population is development)

Science-based wildlife management – requires CPW to use the “best available science” “where scientific evidence is incomplete” from CPW’s staff of researchers and biologists (submitted by supporters of the 2020 wolf introduction campaign)

Aversive conditioning program – develop and implement a program for trained hounds to find and hold problem black bears and mountain lions, creating a negative behavior situation so they can then be released unharmed instead of lethally removed, if CPW decides to do so

Commercial sale of wild fur – see above

In 2014, the CPW Commission cited a “lack of credible scientific evidence” and voted to reject a citizen petition looking to ban the use of traditional lead ammunition for big game hunting.

Some end-around citizen petition and ballot initiative efforts never see the light of day, at least the public light. In 2025, activists proposed creating a new independent commission that would basically duplicate the same duties as the CPW Commission. They also sought $2.5 million in taxpayer funding for start-up costs. The Colorado Legislative Council Staff cited concerns which proponents never sufficiently addressed, leading to their inability to move the measure forward.

Hunt 2 Conserve opposes these extremist-driven petitions and urges citizens in all states to be engaged and educated about possible petitions and initiatives that may affect hunting and wildlife management wherever they live and hunt.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Study: Active Forest Management Prevents $2.8 Billion in Damage

Fri, 08 May 2026 20:43:13 GMT

The study below bolsters support for the Fix Our Forests Act, which is legislation that would simplify and expedite environmental reviews for much-needed forest management projects. The measure passed the House and a key Senate committee but is yet to be introduced to the full Senate.

New research that examined about 300 fires in the western United States showed forest thinning and prescribed burns prevented $2.8 billion in losses and reduced wildfire spread and severity. According to the University of California, Davis, study, every dollar spent on a forest fuel project saved about $3.75 in wildfire damages.

“Wildfire policy has historically focused on suppression, but our results suggest greater investment in prevention could substantially reduce wildfire damages,” said lead author Frederik Strabo, a postdoctoral scholar with the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. “That will become even more important as the climate continues to change and forests face more large wildfires and other disturbances.”

The analyzed wildfires intersected U.S. Forest Service (USFS) fuel reduction treatments in 11 states between 2017 and 2023. The study is the first to evaluate the economic value of USFS fuel treatments across the West at a large-scale using data from wildfires that entered fuel treatments rather than relying on wildfire simulation models.

Other findings:

Wildfire damages are estimated to total $185 billion to $540 billion annually
Fires were more than 13 percent less likely to continue spreading after reaching a treatment area
Treatments were especially effective at reducing high-severity fire — those that kill more than 75 percent of the tree canopy — lowering burned area by 20 to 35 percent
Prescribed burning was significantly more effective than mechanical thinning alone at limiting wildfire spread
Landscape-scale treatments larger than 2,400 acres were the most effective at reducing wildfire spread

Fuel treatments across the study area:

reduced the total burned acreage by about 152,000 acres
prevented the loss of 4,000 buildings
avoided the release of 2.7 million tons of carbon dioxide
Reduced 25,757 tons of fine particle pollution
Prevented an estimated 59 premature deaths

View the UC Davis news release here.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Mexican Wolves Transferred to Mexico

Fri, 08 May 2026 20:41:37 GMT

Below is a news release from the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

The Mexican wolf has returned to the wild in the state of Durango, Mexico, marking a historic effort nearly 50 years in the making.

Thanks to extensive collaboration between state, federal and Mexican agencies and other partners, two family groups consisting of four wolves each were transported from the U.S. to Durango in March 2026.

Additionally, an adult female Mexican wolf from the U.S. equipped with satellite telemetry was released in the state of Chihuahua to an area where other wolves are documented. Additional wolves from the U.S. are slated to be released in late spring into the same area, where they are expected to find other wolves and form successful packs to expand the number and area occupied by Mexican wolves.

By the time of their listing in 1976 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, Mexican wolves were absent from this country, with only remnant numbers existing in Chihuahua and Durango, Mexico. From 1977 to 1980, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent captured the last remaining Mexican wolves in Mexico to serve as the nucleus of a captive breeding population to save them from extinction.

The captive population has served as a recovery reservoir of Mexican wolves for release into the wild beginning in Arizona in 1998. By 2025, the population in the wild had expanded into Arizona and New Mexico and numbered at least 319, a benchmark achievement for Mexican wolf recovery.

About 90% of the historical range for this subspecies occurred in Mexico where wolves were absent for nearly 50 years until releases occurred in the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua in 2011. While initially successful, the population in northern Mexico faltered and releases were halted due to the stagnant population. Durango was one of the last strongholds for this subspecies, and studies show it still contains abundant high-quality habitat for Mexican wolf reestablishment.

In 2025, at the meeting of the Saving Animals From Extinction (SAFE) program, it was approved and supported for Durango to receive wolves to be released in a mountain area with well-preserved temperate forests, well-managed by local communities.

“Any international wildlife recovery program is difficult, as the listed animal generally has limited numbers to safely release,” said Clay Crowder, Assistant Director, Wildlife Management Division, Arizona Game and Fish Department. “Fortunately, the SAFE program has been extremely successful with managing the captive population, and excess animals are available for release. With the success of the captive wolf program and with amazing support from universities and wildlife management agencies in Mexico, approval was obtained for releases into both Durango and Chihuahua.”

“This transfer has its origin in the 2025 SAFE meeting in Mexico City, where Dr. Fernando Gual, in charge of Dirección General de Vida Silvestre of Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, pledged his full support for reactivating the recovery program in Mexico and starting a new population of Mexican wolves back to the forest in Durango,” said Stewart Liley, Wildlife Chief, New Mexico Department of Wildlife. “It is important to recognize the unwavering support from Dr. Gual in making this dream become a reality.”

The list of those involved in this historic event is long and includes many different programs in the U.S. and Mexico. A key element of the release in Durango was the need of an aircraft to transport the wolves to the release site. Here, the Governor of Durango (Dr. Esteban A. Villegas) and his head of Natural Resources for Durango (Ms. Claudia E. Hernandez Espino), graciously afforded the Governor’s plane to move the wolves from Ciudad Juarez to the release site in Durango. Interestingly, the State of Durango seal now highlights two Mexican wolves.

“This is the first time this project has been implemented outside of protected natural areas or small private properties (ranches),” said Dr. Jorge Servin, Professor Metropolitan Autonomous University, Mexico City. “It is now being carried out in collaboration with a forest community (El Tarahumara and Bajios del Tarahumara). They believe that maintaining the biodiversity of their forests and ensuring their long-term sustainability is a guarantee of environmental, social, and economic benefits without degrading their natural resources.

“This is especially true for these owners of extensive communal lands with significant natural resources in Mexico. These actions, which include forest communities, also represent an attractive vision for public policy in the management of natural resources in collaboration with legal landowners in Mexico,” he said.

Recovering the Mexican wolf throughout its historical range is an accomplishment for the wolves themselves but also showcases the successful international cooperation among many agencies and academic conservationists to achieve this vision. While this is a new step in recovery, the multijurisdictional collaboration bodes well for more to come in Mexico.

Idaho Commission Address Elk, Deer Management and Nonresident Tags

Wed, 06 May 2026 19:05:45 GMT

Below is a summary of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission meeting that took place on March 25 in Boise.

Elk & Deer Management

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game reported a statewide elk population estimated at approximately 135,000 animals, with the 2025 harvest up from the prior year and above the long-term average. Calf and cow survival rates remain strong. Mule deer fawn survival is trending upward heading into 2026, aided by a mild winter across most of the state. Low snowpack, however, raises some concern for summer forage conditions critical to mule deer.

Five-Day Waiting Period (Capped Elk Zones)

A motion to eliminate the five-day waiting period for capped elk zone tags failed for lack of a second. The commission agreed to revisit the rule on a zone-by-zone basis during the big game season-setting process, rather than making a blanket statewide change.

CWD Update

Mandatory chronic wasting disease (CWD) sampling was removed from Game Management Units (GMU) 24 and 32A (returning to voluntary) and added to GMUs 64 and 69, where positive detections have been found in captive cervid facilities but not yet in wild populations. The agency detected a new positive in GMU 15. The commission approved a negotiated rulemaking to restrict carcass movement within CWD management zones to the specific GMU of harvest — a rule expected to come before the commission in July.

Bighorn Sheep

The Reynolds Creek California bighorn herd was depopulated in January–February to protect surrounding herds following a pneumonia outbreak. Hunt Area 40 will be closed for the 2026 season. Separately, an augmentation of 30 Oregon-origin bighorn sheep into the Jacks Creek (Owyhee) population is showing strong early survival — 28 of 30 animals remain, and lamb monitoring begins next week.

Nonresident Tag Draw

The first-ever nonresident general deer and elk tag draw concluded successfully, with 97.5 percent of available tags sold. More than 42,000 unique hunters applied. The $18 application fee waived for 2026 will apply in 2027 under current rule. The commission took no action to waive it again.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Idaho Department of Fish and Game)

Unofficial Survey: Northern Californians Overwhelmingly Oppose Grizzly Introduction

Tue, 05 May 2026 06:58:05 GMT

If it were an election, it would be a landslide defeat. Instead, it was an informal survey created by a state senator from northern California to gauge the feelings of her constituents about reintroducing grizzly bears into California.

“I was already skeptical of the idea, but I genuinely wanted feedback, and I got plenty of that,” said Sen. Megan Dahle on her Facebook page.

More than two thousand residents responded to the question, “Would you support bringing grizzlies back to California?” Seventy-six percent of them said, “no.” The other 24 percent was almost evenly split between “maybe” and “yes.”

The grizzly is California’s official state animal, although the last one to live there was about a century ago. Talk lingered over the years about possibly reintroducing them, although such talk did not translate into any traction.

However, in February of this year, State Senator Laura Richardson introduced a bill co-authored by fellow Senators Catherine Blakespear, Henry Stern and Weber Pierson to establish a state policy framework for introducing grizzlies into California and directs the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to begin planning for it.

“Reintroducing grizzly bears potentially into places where people live, recreate and raise livestock would likely necessitate further management of human-wildlife conflicts, which is already extremely challenging with the animal species that are here — notably mountain lions, wolves, black bears and coyotes,” Peter Tira, CDFW spokesman, told the Los Angeles Times.

Proponents cite a pro-introduction study to best place grizzlies in upper-central or northern California. The sponsoring senators live in southern California. Residents in the northern part of the state are already dealing with predator issues where CDFW lethally removed four problem wolves because of repeated livestock killings. Local government officials also declared a state of emergency there because of the growing wolf population and its impacts.

“This is not just about fear of change. I appreciate the many thoughtful comments sharing practical concerns,” said Sen. Dahle. “I am grateful for everyone who responded — including those who admire the grizzly and would like to see it return — but reintroducing these bears would be a dangerous proposal at best. I will be opposing SB 1305.”

Hunt 2 Conserve opposes the legislation as it is not grounded in ecological necessity, but rather in a philosophical vision about what some believe California’s landscape should represent.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Graphic credit: Senator Megan Dahle)

Wolf-Livestock Depredations in Washington Take Big Dip, or Did They?

Mon, 04 May 2026 19:05:31 GMT

Washington’s wolf population reached a modern-day record of at least 270 animals within its borders at the end of 2025. That marks a 40-wolf or 17 percent increase since 2024.

Over that same time period, according to the Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Report, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) documented 19 livestock depredations, a decrease from 56 the previous year. The math does not seem to add up. Perhaps, because it does not.

“Fish and Wildlife’s numbers are low because they don’t have all the facts,” Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke told the Capital Press. “They’ve given up hope that the department will do anything for them.”

Manke said ranchers reported about 20 depredations to his office but not to WDFW.

“I have ranchers who report depredations to us, but they don’t want Fish and Wildlife to get their information. They do not get satisfaction out of it, and then their information gets spread all over,” Jeff Flood, a wolf depredation specialist who works in several Washington counties, told the Capital Press. “They don’t want to deal with that stress anymore.”

Flood is referring to animal rights organizations that are critical of ranchers and WDFW and look to publicize or file litigation over depredation decisions.

In its neighboring state to the south, Oregon recently reported a record minimum population of 230 wolves for 2024-2025 but also 145 attacks on animals over the same period or a 53 percent increase.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Another Study Invalidates Wolves’ Theoretical Impacts on Environment

Sun, 03 May 2026 09:27:51 GMT

A new study supports others in recent years that refute popular claims by anti-hunting and animal rights groups that the reintroduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) spawned ecological change for the better.

The trophic cascade theory, popularized in 2012, maintains a change at the top of the food chain triggered beneficial impacts that trickled down to the bottom. The new research disputes the method of those 2012 findings by examining the theory that asserts the presence of wolves caused a 1,500 percent increase in the height of willows leading to reshaped rivers and improved landscapes.

“Our re-analysis shows their conclusion is invalid because it relies on circular reasoning and violations of basic modeling assumptions," Daniel MacNulty, study author and Utah State University ecologist, told Science Daily. “Because height was used both to compute and to predict volume, the relationship is circular -- mathematically guaranteed to look strong even if no biological change occurred.”

According to Science Daily, the statistical method used by the original researchers portrayed the wolf-willow growth connection as a strong one, even if that growth did not change. Other methodology concerns included sampling bias, assumptions and apple-versus-orange comparisons to studies outside of the GYE.

Earlier studies mimic the findings of this most recent research and dispelled trophic cascade. October 2024 research analyzing 21 years of data showed the primary driver of decreased elk browsing pressure and increased aspen tree regeneration was a reduction in elk population density caused by predation from multiple predators – wolves, bears, mountain lions and hunters.

A January 2024 study that spanned more than two decades examined the effects of three GYE apex predators – all carnivores at the top of the food chain not preyed on by other animals in that same landscape. Depleted populations of mountain lions and grizzly bears naturally recovered about the same time wolves were reintroduced to the park in 1995. The absence of these predators for nearly a century transformed the food web and landscape. The designed experiment adds to evidence supporting the theory that degradation of ecosystems may not be reversed when harmful stressors are mitigated.

The lead researcher of a 2021 study described how the 2012 trophic cascade research measured only the five tallest young aspen in a given stand of trees which led to an “overestimated regeneration of overstory aspen…compared to random sampling because it favored plants taller than the preferred browsing height of elk and overlooked non-regenerating aspen stands.” The scientific team further highlighted the critical importance of basic sampling principles for achieving an accurate understanding of trophic cascades.

In 2019, scientists from three universities in two countries said more testing was needed about this “assumption of reciprocity.” And in 2010, another team of researchers determined young aspen in Yellowstone were not recovering despite the presence of wolves.

Referring to a 2014 viral video promoted by anti-hunting and animal rights groups that proclaimed wolf-related trophic cascade as fact, MacNulty told AccuWeather.com this in 2018: “It’s a really romantic story. It’s a story about a world that doesn’t really exist.”

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

The Science Behind the Fix Our Forests Act

Fri, 01 May 2026 11:06:00 GMT

There is no debating that high intensity wildfires leave behind a devastating charred imprint on forests by killing trees, shrubs, grass, destroying root systems and opening the door to an explosion of noxious and invasive weeds and vegetation. Depending on the intensity, catastrophic wildfires may also trigger severe and dangerous erosion and mudslides.

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, wildfires burned more than 14 million acres nationwide in 2024 and 2025, including the destruction of tens of thousands of homes and claiming human lives along the way. Fires also decimated vital habitat for big game, small mammals, birds, fish and other wildlife.

Seeking to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire, improve overall forest health and enhance wildlife habitat with timely and efficient forest management practices, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA) introduced the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) before the U.S. House in January 2025. House members passed it one week later when 67 Democrats joined 215 Republicans in a 279-141 bipartisan vote.

"This bipartisan legislation addresses numerous Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation priorities to improve forest management throughout the U.S. by expediting and streamlining the review of forest management projects, strengthening Good Neighbor Authority and removing the duplicative procedural requirements stemming from the Cottonwood decision," RMEF President and CEO Kyle Weaver said at the time. "This legislation reduces litigation and increases management to protect people from wildfire and ensure the future of elk, mule deer and other big game and wildlife."

Three months later, Senators John Curtis (R-UT), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT) introduced a Senate version of the bill.

Though the two pieces of legislation slightly vary, they simplify environmental reviews of forest management projects by expanding categorical exclusions, meaning agencies can do more and larger projects with expedited review criteria. The bill also reverses the Cottonwood decision, a controversial 2015 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court that frustrates forest management by requiring costly and duplicative re-consultations over endangered species even when the proposed projects are to improve wildlife habitat. The Cottonwood ruling also allows frivolous litigation to delay essential forest management projects.

In October 2025, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry passed the legislation, again in a strongly bipartisan 18-5 vote.

Science firmly supports FOFA. California and Washington created dashboards to track the impacts of fires that burned into previously treated areas. In 2025, 61 California fires burned into 100 treatments with 79 percent having a positive impact on the wildfires. From 2023 to 2025, 58 Washington fires burned into 231 treatment areas with 64 percent reporting positive outcomes.

Examples of proactive management treatment that positively impact fires (includes links to research):

Reduced severity – Since 2000, more than three dozen peer-reviewed and published scientific papers studied 172 sites where wildfires burned into the footprint of forest management treatments. An analysis shows when wildfires burned into western conifer-forested areas previously treated with a combination of selective thinning and prescribed fire, the severity dropped by nearly 70 percent.
Reduced smoke – In 2020, when California fires burned into areas treated with prescribed fire, the fire's severity dropped by 16 percent, resulting in a reduction of 14 percent in smoke emissions.
Carbon storage – In 2016, when the Caldor, Dixie and North Complex Fires burned into areas of the Central Sierra previously treated with mechanical thinning, the prevalence of high-severity fire decreased by 88 percent. By 2023, nearly 75 percent of treated areas had higher carbon stores than untreated areas.

Examples of the potential of proactive management to create better outcomes (includes links to research):

More water – Increasing the scale of thinning and prescribed fire treatments to restore pre-colonial conditions in the Sierra Nevada is expected to increase streamflows by up to 14 percent.
Fewer extreme fires – According to researchers, future climate warming is expected to increase high intensity wildfires by 25 percent under current practices. However, increasing fuel reduction treatments across California has the potential to fully offset the expected increase in wildfire intensity due to climate change.
More critical habitat for endangered species – If the management approach remains as is today, a complete loss of mature and old-growth forest habitat critical for the endangered Sierra Nevada fisher, a small mammal in the weasel family, is expected by 2100. But expanding the use of beneficial fire and thinning can save at least half of the currently available fisher habitat in the Sierra Nevada.
Less smoke – Increasing the use of prescribed fire in California to treat one million acres annually could reduce smoke emissions by 655,000 tons over the next five years.

Potential environmental outcomes from extreme wildfires if a hands-off approach takes place (includes links to research):

Loss of biodiversity

More than 4,400 terrestrial and freshwater species face worldwide threats associated with ecologically inappropriate fire regimes.
High-intensity wildfires in California killed an estimated 13 to 19 percent of the world's giant sequoias since 2015, which could lead to a loss of mature sequoia groves.
A 2025 study showed that areas burned by high-severity fire were largely abandoned by spotted owls, an endangered species, for at least two decades.

Loss of forests

Increasing occurrences of high-intensity fires transform forestland into shrublands or non-native grasslands.

Degradation of air and water

Wildfire smoke pollution has stalled or reversed the trend of air quality improvements across most of the U.S. in the past several decades.
Post-fire runoff has severely degraded drinking water systems due to increased sediment, nutrients and heavy metals, affecting fish populations and requiring massive filtration costs.

Loss of forest carbon

Boreal forests, once stable carbon sinks, are now releasing more carbon than they store, in part because of longer and more extreme fire seasons.

Additional studies:

Fire suppression makes wildfires more severe
Thinned forests are healthy forests
Removal/thinning encroaching conifers helps sage grouse, elk and landscape health
Prescribed fire does a forest good
Small fires benefit elk and bees
View more studies here (scroll down to What Research Tells Us)

"There is no 'one size fits all' for every ecology, and FOFA doesn't set arbitrary targets – it simply provides the tools we need to apply the right treatment to the right acre of forest. We have to start using those tools now to save the future of our forests, homes, families and communities," said Matt Weiner, founder and CEO of Megafire Action.

As of today, the Fix Our Forests Act is yet to go before the full Senate. Hunt 2 Conserve urges senators to schedule a vote and pass it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo source: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Idaho’s 2026 Legislative Session: Some Changes for Sportsmen and Women

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:07:18 GMT

Idaho's 2026 legislative session adjourned sine die on April 2. Budget constraints colored most decisions. Gov. Brad Little’s “Enduring Idaho” budget plan held agency expenditures tight, and the legislature enacted broad cuts to state services. For sportsmen and wildlife, the session produced several notable outcomes, including an historic designation for hunting, a significant restructuring of the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) governance, clarification of hunting technology restrictions with predator carve-outs and the defeat of several sportsmen-backed bills. Some key bills we tracked are below.

Passed/Signed into Law

HB 652 — Hunting as Idaho's State Sport. Signed into law on March 19. Idaho is the first state in the nation to designate hunting as its official state sport – a clear, symbolic affirmation of hunting's cultural and economic importance to the state.

HB 939 — Hunting and Advanced Technology. Signed April 2. Establishes restrictions on thermal/night vision optics, transmitting trail cameras and drones for big game hunting from August 30 through December 31, consistent with IDFG’s own Hunting and Advanced Technology working group recommendations. The bill also creates exemptions for pursuing wolves, mountain lions and other predators; livestock protection; trap monitoring; and retrieving wounded game.

HB 678 — Wolf Trap Check Requirements. Signed March 31. Establishes requirements for the frequency of checking wolf traps while also allowing trappers to inspect their traps remotely with the use of transmitting cameras.

H 737 — Agency Consolidation: Species Conservation and Energy & Mineral Resources. Signed March 19 (Ch. 66, effective July 1). Merges the Office of Species Conservation and the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources. Part of the legislature's broader agency streamlining push to reduce redundancy. It remains to be seen if this affects the state's capacity to manage wolf conflict and species recovery programs.

SB 1300 — Fish & Game Director Appointment. Passed and sent to the secretary of state. Shifts appointments of the IDFG director, as well as directors of Idaho Parks & Recreation and the Transportation Department, from independent boards to governor-appointed and Senate-confirmed positions. We have seen in Colorado, Washington and other states what happens when wildlife commission appointments become politically driven.

HB 855 — Lifetime License Residency Requirement. Passed. Increases the residency requirement for lifetime hunting and fishing licenses from 6 months to 5 years.

SCR 124 — Wildlife Crossings. The Senate concurrent resolution stating legislative support for wildlife crossings passed and was delivered to the secretary of state. The House companion (HCR 26) was returned to committee. Non-binding, but meaningful, wildlife crossings are among the most cost-effective tools for reducing vehicle collisions and maintaining habitat connectivity for elk, mule deer and other species.

SJM 111 / HJM 9 — Public Lands Retention and FLPMA. Both resolutions to Congress passed. SJM 111 urges retention of public lands in federal ownership and passed on a voice vote; HJM 9 requests federal adherence to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Non-binding but demonstrates Idaho's continued engagement on federal land management that has direct implications for elk habitat and access.

Failed or Did Not Advance

HB 630 — Aerial Shooting of Coyotes, Wolves and Red Foxes. Failed. Would have authorized shooting wolves, coyotes and red foxes from aircraft. Passed the Senate committee but was returned from the full Senate and failed. Predator management is a legitimate tool, but aerial lethality programs raise fair-chase and public perception concerns that can harm hunting broadly.

SB 1348 — Shotgun Sporting Complex at Farragut State Park. Did not advance. Would have established provisions for opening a shotgun sporting complex within Farragut State Park and provide an opportunity to grow shooting sports participation in northern Idaho. We expect this issue to return.

HB 677 — Blind Location Restrictions Near Water Sources. Died in committee. Would have prohibited constructing a blind, pit, platform or tree stand within 300 feet of a water trough or stock pond on public land. While this bill attempted to alleviate livestock conflict concerns, broad restrictions on public land limits hunter access and opportunity.

HB 653 — Wildlife Relocation Notice Requirements. Died in committee. Would have required IDFG to provide advance notice and an objection opportunity before planned wildlife relocations, with an exemption for emergency responsive movement. A transparency measure that the Idaho Farm Bureau supported. We expect it to be reintroduced.

SJR 103 / HJR 8 / HJR 10 — Constitutional Amendments on State Land Management. All three did not advance. These competing proposals would have amended the Idaho Constitution to establish provisions for managing lands granted or acquired from the federal government. The broader public lands ownership debate remains active and will return.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Hunting Helps Feed America, Bolsters National Food Supply

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:09:16 GMT

Hunting is not just an outdoor recreational activity. It is an important and measurable contributor to feeding Americans and bolstering the U.S. economy.

A new study highlighting the economic value of wild meat shows regulated big game hunting in the United States generated 235,760 tons or 519,761,829 pounds of protein per year. Based on a 6-ounce serving size, that equates to 1.39 billion meals. Researchers estimated that replacing wild, hunter-acquired meat with the equivalent of domestic meat in 2024 would cost $3.21 billion.

“This wild meat harvest may positively contribute to conserving biodiversity by reducing dependence on industrial agricultural systems and through direct financial support for conservation efforts provided by the harvesting community,” according to the study.

Researchers drew on state harvest data from hunting seasons in 2014 to 2019. Their findings demonstrate compelling evidence for understanding wild harvest is not only as a management or cultural issue but also a measurable form of food provision.

Findings of interest:

There are 16.2 million licensed hunters in the United States

Global meat production in 2023 reached 371 million tons globally—a fivefold increase since only 1961

If wild meat were replaced with an equivalent mass of domestic meat products, it is estimated that 60,860 tons of chicken, 32,760 tons of cold cuts and cured meats (excluding bacon), 273,000 tons of beef (excluding ground) and 58,700 tons of other products would need to be bought each year

Wild meat from big game represents 1.44 percent of all red meat (beef, veal, pork and lamb) available for consumption in America

Hunters harvested at least 23 big game species for consumption in the U.S.

The top seven most harvested big game species were (in order) white-tailed deer, feral hogs, elk, mule deer, moose, pronghorn antelope and black bear

Texas hunters obtained the most wild meat followed by Alabama, Mississippi and Michigan

Wyoming and Montana hunters generated the most wild meat per capita

Wild meat is higher in protein and lower in calories than the domestic meat product diet of Americans

Study data does not include harvests by Indigenous Peoples whose hunting practices are managed by Tribal governments

Historically, regulated hunting led to the creation of policies, laws and regulations, including the prohibition of the sale of wild meat and other products, that ultimately restored the abundance of many species

“Our findings highlight the food security, health and environmental benefits of restoring and managing habitats to support wild meat harvests,” said researchers. “We argue that recreational hunting should be more rigorously considered in research and policy frameworks as an example of how regulated animal harvest can sustainably generate wild food while having positive economic and conservation outcomes.”

The Wild Harvest Initiative is meant to be the first complete assessment highlighting the economic, social and ecological significance of hunting and fishing. It is supported by Conservation Visions Inc.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Unanimous Commission Action: California Hunters Can Take Two Black Bears

Sun, 26 Apr 2026 15:30:27 GMT

Citing a healthy and expanding population, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) unanimously approved a motion to allow hunters to kill two black bears during the hunting season. Previously, the limit was one bear per season.

“It feels really conservative to me still to propose an increase that the scientists in the department have told us it would result, probably, in the order of 100 to 200 more. In that range, bears harvested are still well below the cap," said Erika Zavaleta, CFGC member.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) currently allows for a harvest limit of 1,700 bears per season. The new motion keeps that same quota. Hunters took 1,181 bears in 2025.

CDFW cites data that showed there were about 15,000 black bears statewide in the 1980s. Today, there could be as many as 80,000 with the animals expanding into Marin and Sonoma Counties north of San Francisco.

“For me, it’s a scientific question and the second tag is supported by the information that we have. According to multiple lines of information and data and evidence, we have a stable black bear population,” said Samantha Murray, CFGC member. “I believe in hunting. I believe it’s a natural way to eat meat.”

Fellow CFGC member Darius Anderson, who claims to be the only bear hunter on the commission, spoke of the experiences he gains from hunting black bears. Yet, he wanted to see how California’s science matched up against other state agencies, so he visited North Carolina, which he says has a very prolific bear management plan and roughly 21,000 animals.

“Their bear population has been steadily expanding and their bear population has been growing to new areas. They are currently harvesting 4,200 bears,” said Anderson. “So, when I look at our number of a cap of 1,700, I think it’s not only reasonable but I think it does protect where many people in this state feel and have an unusual feeling about bear hunting, that the department has managed both the science and the emotion that goes along with this issue.”

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Phil Burkhouse)

Colorado Wildlife Commissioners Resign Prior to Confirmation Vote

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 21:08:30 GMT

Marking a clear and decisive win for hunting and science-based wildlife management, two Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission candidates withdrew their nominations prior to their scheduled confirmation vote on April 24 in the Colorado Senate.

Chris Sichko was nominated to serve as the sportspersons representative and John Emerick as an at-large representative. The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources gave each of them a not-be-confirmed recommendation during a hearing two days earlier, while recommending Frances Silva Blayney as sportsperson and outfitters representative.

“I just don’t think we should have somebody filling the sportsman’s seat that has not garnered any support from the sportsman community and doesn’t have the experience to recognize CPW’s funding source from the sportsman community,” said Sen. Dylan Roberts (D-Avon) during the committee hearing, as he addressed Sichko. “CPW’s current financing is almost entirely from hunting licenses. We have someone, in your nomination, who has not ever big game hunted in Colorado.”

Sichko is a self-proclaimed angler and small game hunter and was appointed to take the place of Murphy Robinson, an active hunter, who resigned in late 2025.

Emerick served as treasurer of Colorado Wild, one of the state’s leading wolf advocacy organizations, and was actively involved in the 2020 ballot initiative that forcefully introduced wolves into Colorado. As a parliamentary maneuver, the Senate voted to lay over appointments for Sichko and Emerick until May 14. The session ends on May 13. The Senate approved Silva Blayney.

Every member of Colorado’s 13-person CPW Commission has been appointed by Governor Polis. Hunter and outdoor groups say the commission’s actions show it has changed in recent years to favor animal rights and anti-hunting policies. Most recently, it ignored recommendations from both CPW leadership and its biologists by voting in favor of a petition from an activist environmental organization to ban the sale, barter or trade of wild fur.

“I believe we are continuing to see this administration trying to move the commission in a direction that is out of the mainstream of Colorado. I don’t think we should continue to support the direction that this administration is trying to move the commission, particularly with something that funds the agency,” said Sen. Roberts.

Hunt 2 Conserve lauds the outdoor community for standing up for hunting and scientific wildlife management.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Senate)

Pacific Northwest Wolf Population Balloons to Modern-Day High

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 15:21:58 GMT

State wildlife agencies in Oregon and Washington announced gray wolf populations in their respective states reached all-time record high totals for the end of 2025.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reports that the minimum wolf population in Washington jumped to 270 or a 17 percent increase since 2024. WDFW and partnering tribes counted 270 wolves, 23 breeding pairs and 49 packs across Washington. The previous year’s count was 230 wolves, 18 breeding pairs and 43 packs. Pack sizes at the end of 2025 ranged from two to 12 wolves with most of them made up of three to seven individuals. Several packs either formed or reestablished in 2025.

“We confirmed six new or reestablished packs in the annual count,” said WDFW Wolf Biologist Trent Roussin. “Those that reestablished include the Salmo, Smackout and Vulcan packs in northeast Washington. New packs include the Cameron Lake pack on the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Billy Goat and Tupshin packs in the North Cascades Recovery Region.”

No packs or breeding pairs were documented in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Recovery Region at the end of 2025. Though managed by WDFW in eastern Washington, wolves in the western two-thirds of the state remain listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Click here to view the Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Report.

According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the minimum wolf population in Oregon at the end of 2025 numbered 230. That marks a 13 percent increase from an estimated total of 204 and the end of 2024. ODFW counted 30 packs and 23 breeding pairs statewide. The Statesman Journal reports the population grew by 79 percent in the western part of the state.

The Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Report shows wolf depredation on livestock jumped by 53 percent with the state awarding compensation grants totaling $729,318 across 14 counties. Wolves west of Highways 395/78/95 in Oregon remained listed under the federal ESA during 2025.

Hunt 2 Conserves maintains that state wildlife agencies like ODFW and WDFW should be able to manage all wolves within their borders.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo and graphic credit: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Committee Rejects Two CPW Commission Appointees

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 21:37:27 GMT

The Colorado Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee rejected two of three candidates appointed by Governor Jared Polis to become members of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission.

Committee members voted 7-0 in favor of Frances Silva Blayney but 5-2 against at-large representative John Emerick and 4-3 against sportsman’s representative Christopher Sichko, who has no experience hunting big game and opposes scientific predator management.

“I just don’t think we should have somebody filling the sportsman’s seat that has not garnered any support from the sportsman community and doesn’t have the experience to recognize CPW’s funding source from the sportsman community,” said Sen. Dylan Roberts (D-Avon), who also serves as committee chair, as he addressed Sichko. “CPW’s current financing is almost entirely from hunting licenses. We have someone, in your nomination, who has not ever big game hunted in Colorado. There were 12 other people who had big game hunting experience who applied for this job and met the statuary requirements.”

Hunt 2 Conserve, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other hunting and conservation organizations actively oppose both the Sichko and Emerick appointments.

Emerick served as treasurer of Colorado Wild, one of the state’s leading wolf advocacy organizations and was actively involved in the 2020 ballot initiative that forcefully introduced wolves into Colorado.

“You have a history of very specific activism...but given the responsibility that the commission has, I do not think you are qualified or prepared or suited to serve in the at-large position,” Sen. Roberts told Emerick.

As part of his comments, Sen. Roberts also took aim at the Polis Administration and its continual emphasis on placing or trying to place candidates on the commission lacking hunting experience and/or an understanding of conservation and scientific wildlife management.

The committee’s actions do not disqualify either candidate. However, their nominations go forward with an unfavorable designation to the full Colorado Senate for a scheduled vote on Friday, April 24.

Hunt 2 Conserve agrees with and appreciates the committee’s action and urges the Senate to follow suit and reject both Emerick and Sichko.

Click here to watch the hearing.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee)

Sneaky Anti-Hunting Amendment Removed from Farm Bill

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 15:26:35 GMT

Thanks to advocacy engagement from the hunting and outdoor community, lawmakers in Congress removed an amendment with intentionally vague language that had been snuck into the massive Farm Bill by animal rights and anti-hunting factions.

Labeled as the Greyhound Protection Act of 2025, H.R. 5017 could have banned everything from standard training and field trials for dogs as well as lawful hunting with them.

The American Kennel Club said the iffy language went well beyond “commercial” greyhound racing, which only exists in one state. It could have also banned live lure training, use of live lures and open field coursing events involving live animals.

Rep. Salud O. Carbajal (D-CA) introduced the measure, but the group behind it was Animal Wellness Action, a well-known anti-hunting group led by animal rights activist Wayne Pacelle, who resigned from the Humane Society of the United States, another anti-hunting organization, in 2018 amid allegations of sexual harassment.

“It (H.R. 5017) does nothing to improve the wellbeing of dogs, and as written could ban or lead to bans on responsible dog training practices that are essential to developing well trained working and performance dogs, as well as popular responsible dog events in the community,” said AKC.

“Because these terms lack clear statutory definitions, they could be interpreted in ways that affect lawful hunting activities and traditional dog training methods,” AKC warned.

Vague language was the issue because “live lures” for dogs could be interpreted as upland birds, mountain lions or even farm animals like livestock.

“They could do that with cow dogs. They could do that with bird dogs. They could do that with any dogs, really.” Doug Boykin, Wyoming houndsman, told Cowboy State Daily. "What about police dogs? Isn’t that using a live lure when they train them with people?”

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposed the amendment and urged lawmakers to remove or better clarify it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Translocated Montana Female Grizzly Delivers Cubs in Wyoming

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:31:42 GMT

Below is a news release from Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Hunt 2 Conserve both advocated for the translocation.

Within just two years, the female grizzly that was released in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) emerged from her den this spring with two cubs in tow – a welcoming sight that represents successful population genetic enhancement and state collaboration. This event marks a milestone for grizzly bear management in America, establishing certain genetic interchange between the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) in Montana and the GYE.

Biologists released the bear in Wyoming two years ago as part of a joint effort between Wyoming and Montana to establish genetic exchange between the two ecosystems. She was recently seen and photographed with cubs at her den site during a radio-telemetry monitoring flight.

“This is concrete evidence that Montana and Wyoming are committed to sustaining a recovered population of grizzly bears and is a major success in our continued efforts to ensure genetic diversity in these two recovered populations of bears,” said Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Director Christy Clark.

The female was one of two grizzlies that were translocated through a partnership between FWP, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and Yellowstone National Park. The other bear was a subadult male. The female was 4 years old at the time of the translocation and is now 6.

“Grizzly bears in these populations usually give birth for the first time at 5 or 6 years old, so it's not surprising from an age standpoint,” said FWP grizzly bear researcher Cecily Costello. “It is more surprising because last year she was still very mobile and made many large, wandering movements. We wondered if that energy expenditure might reduce her chances of reproducing, but, from the photo, she appears to be in great condition.”

For many years, Montana and Wyoming have focused on managing an ever-growing bear population in the GYE and NCDE. Recovery levels in the two ecosystems were surpassed years ago.

The current health of the GYE grizzly bear population is sound. The translocation of the bears provided new genetics into the currently isolated GYE grizzly bear population as part of an agreement signed by the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to address a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court ruling following the 2017 delisting of the GYE population. While the best available science indicated genetic exchange among distinct grizzly bear populations was not essential for recovery, increased genetic diversity is advantageous for robust populations.

“This multiagency effort was a shining example of interstate/interagency collaboration and cooperation to address long-term genetic viability concerns raised and embodies both on-the-ground conservation and a commitment to fulfill obligations toward grizzly bear management in the contiguous United States,” said Wyoming Game and Fish Director Angi Bruce.

Annual cub survival rates are just above 50 percent, and they are often slightly lower for first litters.

“So, we do have to wait and see about the survival of this litter,” Costello said. “Even if this litter does not survive, we expect she will be successful in the future.”

Reproduction by the translocated male will be harder to document since it can only be done through the opportunistic capture and genetic sampling and analyses of offspring.

“We are hopeful that he has or will produce offspring, too,” Costello said.

Male mating success is often tied to large body size, and the male is estimated to be 7 years old, which is considered a bit young for challenging other adult males for females.

(Photo credit: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)

Colorado May End Public Funding of Wolf Introduction

Sun, 19 Apr 2026 21:41:33 GMT

Facing a $1.5 billion budget deficit, Colorado lawmakers proposed no longer using state funds to introduce wolves into Colorado.

Citizens passed a 2020 ballot initiative by less than a two percent margin to forcefully introduce wolves, including voters in 51 of Colorado’s 64 counties that voted against it. Out-of-state animal rights and anti-hunting activists largely funded the campaign.

Since then, the wolf program has been extremely messy with 14 of 25 introduced wolves having died since hitting the ground in Colorado. And costs continue to skyrocket well above expectations.

According to Colorado Politics, the annual budget for the wolf program is $2.1 million or almost three times more than original 2020 estimates voters were told it would cost, while compensation is slated for $350,000 per year. However, in just the first three months of 2026, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) already doled out $724,000 in wolf-livestock compensation with costs expected to top $1 million by the end of the year. Plus, CPW recently asked the state legislature for another $450,000 to bring more wolves into the state.

Now, lawmakers are suggesting pulling the plug on using taxpayer funds to do so.

“It is a moment for us to recognize that while we should honor the will of the voters — I am respectful of that — our reintroduction of wolves has not gone successfully nor without significant cost,” House Speaker Julie McCluskie (D-Dillon), told the Aspen Times. “I would ask for your support on this amendment, knowing that there is certainly a better path forward for us on the wolf management plan, and I would encourage further evaluation of the process so far, ways that we can continue to improve it.”

“What I would like to say to my ranchers is that we are not using their taxpayer dollars to introduce more wolves into their backyard,” Rep. Meghan Lukens (D-Steamboat Springs), told the Aspen Times. “The money that is still allocated to the Department of Natural Resources can still be used for conflict minimization and overall management of the program, but if we are going to, as a state, pay for new wolves, I believe that money should be coming from gifts, grants and donations.”

Lukens’ words appear to be an invitation for pro-wolf activists to step up, instead of relying on taxpayer dollars to foot the bill.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Appeal Filed in Northern Rockies Wolf Case

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 21:49:57 GMT

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and its partners filed an appeal of a federal judge’s ruling that supports an environmental group challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) refusal to relist gray wolves in the West.

USFWS denied petitions by the anti-hunting organization Center for Biological Diversity in early 2024 to place wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah under the Endangered Species Act. Citing the history of state management and expanding wolf populations, USFWS professional biologists and game managers concluded that Western wolves are not at risk of extinction, now or in the near future.

Not counting those born this spring, the minimum gray wolf population in the West is at least 3,100 wolves. That number continues to grow with expanded range, including populations in Idaho and Montana that are respectively 700 percent and 600 percent above federal minimum recovery levels. Wyoming’s population met minimum recovery criteria in each of the last 23 years.

Other groups joining RMEF in the appeal are Safari Club International and Sportsmen’s Alliance.

Having met federal minimum recovery thresholds in 2002, Hunt 2 Conserve strongly supports state-based wolf management and maintains the population is recovered and not in need of relisting.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)

Legislation Puts Oklahoma’s Wild Deer Population at Risk

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:38:48 GMT

A bill making its way through the state legislature would make Oklahoma the only state in the nation to allow the release of captive, game-farm deer into the wild under state law.

House Bill 3270 would allow captive deer with certain genetic “resistance” to be released into wild populations and would transfer authority to sell permits to private landowners wanting to stock game farm deer from the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) to the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF).

“Releasing captive white-tailed deer to intentionally comingle with wild deer presents significant risks to wildlife management, disease control and the long-term health of Oklahoma’s deer herd,” according to a coalition of conservation and sportsmen organizations lead by the National Deer Association and including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. “At the very least, decisions about such a consequential program must remain grounded in science and led by the state’s professional wildlife managers.”

The bill’s original language creates a pilot program for deer with the SS allele at codon 96 under the premise that they are genetically “resistant” to chronic wasting disease (CWD).

Dr. Jennifer Malmberg, project leader for CWD research for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said during the April 6 Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission meeting, “Taking all studies into consideration, 96SS deer are not resistant to CWD. They still get the disease and that is a really important point to make.” Studies also show deer with the SS allele die from the disease.

“The unintended consequences could be devastating to our thriving deer herd," said ODWC chief of wildlife Bill Dinkines. “Based on what we heard from some of the nation’s leading CWD experts, the release of captive white-tailed deer into free-ranging populations for the purpose of CWD prevention or management is not justified and is not worth the risk.”

Dr. Mark Ruder, director of the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, said in the April 6 Wildlife Commission meeting, “There is no scientific justification for the release of farmed white-tailed deer into free-ranging populations for the purpose of CWD prevention or management.”

The potential risks of releasing captive deer include:

Unintentional release of CWD(+) deer into the wild.

The introduction of novel diseases into the wild, including emergence of novel CWD strains.

Increased susceptibility to existing and more common threats like blue tongue and EHD (epizootic hemorrhagic disease).

Disruption of established herd dynamics and the creation of genetic weakness. Stocking additional deer into areas that are near or at carrying capacity could lead to additional agricultural depredation, deer/vehicle collisions and potential liability for those who have sold or released the deer.

It could alter deer density and resource selection.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly agrees with the ODWC, commissioners and concerned conservation and sportsmen groups by opposing the release of captive animals into the wild.

Click here to read the full Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation news release.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation)

Why Reintroducing Grizzlies into California is a Bad Idea

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:28:58 GMT

A consortium of conservation and hunting organizations, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, issued caution about a California bill that would open the door to introducing grizzly bears into the state. SB 1305 established a state policy framework for doing so and directs the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to begin planning for it.

Proponents cite a feasibility “study” as a core reason to place grizzly bears in California. Yet, the first page of its documentation highlights its bias: “This study was supported and published by the California Grizzly Alliance, whose goal is to recover grizzly bears in California.”

CDFW maintains that the agency lacks funding and resources to make it happen. The state currently faces a 21-billion-dollar budget deficit.

The study suggests placing grizzlies in northern California, the same part of the state where CDFW lethally removed four problem wolves because of repeated livestock killings. Local government officials also declared a state of emergency there because of the growing wolf population and its impacts.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation expressed extreme concern by signing a letter with 18 other hunting and conservation organizations: “The return of the grizzly bear is often framed as an aspirational conservation goal rooted in California’s history and cultural symbolism. However, wildlife policy decisions of this magnitude must ultimately be guided not by symbolism or nostalgia, but by sound science, practical management considerations, and the realities faced by the communities that must live with the consequences of those decisions. When evaluated through that lens, SB 1305 raises serious concerns regarding ecological feasibility, public safety, wildlife management priorities and long-term fiscal responsibility.”

Hunt 2 Conserve opposes the legislation as it is not grounded in ecological necessity, but rather in a philosophical vision about what some believe California’s landscape should represent.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Jim Peaco/NPS)

Hunters Get Call to Help Remove Invasive Species from National Park Service Lands

Sun, 29 Mar 2026 21:14:05 GMT

The National Park Service (NPS) is expanding opportunities for qualified volunteers and permitted participants to help remove invasive and overabundant species at Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in Louisiana and Cumberland Island National Seashore in Georgia.

“This is hunters performing a public service that the taxpayer would otherwise be paying for,” an NPS employee, who asked to not be named, told Outdoor Life. “I think that’s a big deal. It’s not going to be for everyone, but it may be a model for resource management on public properties that can’t support traditional models of public hunting.”

The announcement is in line with Secretarial Order 3447 for effective governance and responsible stewardship, including expanding opportunities for qualified volunteers and partners to support science-based wildlife management on public lands. NPS uses a variety of management tools, including controlled hunting, trapping and targeted removal to reduce these impacts.

These efforts support the protection of wetlands, native wildlife, cultural resources and sensitive habitats that are affected by nutria and feral hogs. Nutria is a rodent that can be two feet long and weighs 15 to 20 pounds. They look like beavers but leave behind wide-ranging negative impacts on riparian habitat including the destruction of native plants, soil structure and farm crops. Feral hogs cause an estimated $1.5 billion in damage annually by destroying plants and crops. They also prey on small wildlife like ground-nesting birds and deer fawns.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Steve Hillebrand/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Transparency Aside, Colorado Wants $450,000 for More Wolves

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 19:13:28 GMT

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is asking the state legislature for $450,000 to bring more wolves into Colorado during 2026-27. The catch is CPW does not yet know where it will get them. The request comes despite a $1.5 billion state budget deficit and would double 2025 spending on the wolf program.

According to Colorado Politics, CPW made the ask before Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee (JBC). The JBC staff had earlier made two recommendations. One was to ask CPW for new information about its work related to wolves and the costs of preventative actions, while the other would create a new 2026-27 budget line for the program.

“Separating wolf reintroduction expenses into its own line item could allow for increased transparency and clarity on the funds used for wolf reintroduction,” according to JBC analysis and as reported by Colorado Politics.

Committee members chose to go with the informational request, but not creating the separate line-item. One state lawmaker objected, saying a budget line would be more transparent because it would spell out actual costs.

A source for acquiring wolves remains up in the air. Colorado captured and relocated 10 Oregon wolves in late 2023 and 15 more from British Columbia in 2025. Fourteen of those wolves have since died. Oregon said it will not provide any more wolves and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) told Colorado it could only receive wolves from six western U.S. states and not Canada. The other states have also refused to provide source wolves. Should wolves be delisted in the Lower 48 states, USFWS restrictions on source wolves would be moot, but legislation to delist wolves is currently tied up at the U.S. Senate.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Golf World Learns What Hunters Already Know

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:31:36 GMT

When Rory McIlroy sank the winning putt to clinch the 2025 Masters Tournament, he dropped to his knees, bowed his head to the earth, sobbed with joy and then pumped his fists as he triumphantly rose while the crowd roared. The victory gave McIlroy a career Grand Slam, making him just the sixth man ever to win all four of golf’s major championships.

Little did he know that such an exhilarating moment would eventually open the door to the golfing world discovering what he, and hunters, already know – elk is both nutritious and delicious. By virtue of his Masters championship, McIlroy earned the right to plan the menu for the 2026 Masters Club Dinner taking place April 7, 2026, at the Augusta National Golf Club, where McIlroy will try to defend his title later that same week.

The menu includes four appetizers, a first course, a main course and dessert. Among the listed appetizers are grilled elk sliders with caramelized onion jam and roasted garlic aioli. So, why elk?

“In the buildup to the Masters last year, I was eating a lot of elk,” McIlroy told the PGA Tour. “I didn't want elk to be the main course because I didn't know if everyone would like that … So, I'm doing grilled elk sliders, which I think is fun.”

Fun, indeed. And yes Rory, elk is delicious, nutritious and highly sought after. According to a 2016 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report, about 700,000 hunters pursued elk the previous hunting season.

Once again, why elk? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (see chart below), elk is extremely high in protein and low in fat, ranking ahead of pork, lamb, whitetail deer, pronghorn antelope, chicken, pheasant and duck. Of the listed species, only moose and wild turkey have a lower fat content but both of those trail elk in protein percentage.

Go ahead and call elk what it is – the meal of champions. Just ask Rory.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo and graphic credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Oregon Legislature Passes Wildlife Funding Measure

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:21:14 GMT

Oregon’s fish and wildlife are poised to get a financial boost thanks to the Oregon Legislature.

One week after passing in the House of Representatives, the Senate followed suit and passed HB 4134 , which raises the state’s lodging tax from 1.5 percent to 2.75 percent.

If signed into law by Governor Tina Kotek, the measure is expected to generate $37 million annually for fish, wildlife and conservation. Funding is earmarked for nine different efforts including fish and wildlife management, wildlife crossings, combating poaching, helping ranchers dealing with wolf depredations, tackling invasive species and support for outdoor recreational activities.

Aside from long-time financial support from hunters and anglers in the form of licenses, fees and excise taxes on guns, ammunition and archery and fishing equipment, the impacted programs have not had any other consistent source of funding.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Wolves Force Mountain Lions Off Kills, Altering their Diets

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 21:55:26 GMT

Call them thieves, opportunists, bullies or just hungry meat eaters. However you label them, the presence of wolves on the same landscape not only forces their mountain lion apex predator rivals to leave meals behind but to entirely change their diets.

New research draws on nine years of GPS data from collared wolves and mountain lions combined with field investigations of nearly 4,000 potential wolf or mountain lion kills in Yellowstone National Park.

“When one carnivore steals a kill from another carnivore, this is a behavior that is called kleptoparasitism. So, it’s theft and it only benefits one species,” said Wes Binder, lead author of the study and Ph.D. student at Oregon State University’s College of Agricultural Sciences. “But what’s interesting about wolf and cougar interactions is that cougars are very proficient at hunting themselves. So, they don’t need to play this game of scavenging from other large carnivore kills because they can create those kill sites themselves...but wolves are very proficient at kleptoparasitism.”

Binder said since elk numbers in Yellowstone declined over the last three decades, mountain lions shifted their focus from elk to deer.

“Because deer are smaller, cougars eat them faster because it gives wolves less time to find a cougar sitting on its kill so kleptoparasitism is tied to the diet of cougars. If there’s no escape terrain nearby, then cougars run the risk of mortality from wolves in those places,” said Binder.

The study builds on decades of research showing that wolves dominate interactions because they live in packs, while cougars are solitary.

Click here to read the Oregon State news release and see a video as well as other imagery.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Wes Binder/Justin Duffy/Oregon State University)

The ‘Why’ Behind Michigan’s Support for Hunting

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 21:12:39 GMT

From moose, black bears and elk to small mammals, waterfowl and songbirds, Michigan is home to a plethora of all shapes and sizes of animals. It is also home to more than 10 million residents, the majority of which recognize hunting and the role it plays in conservation.

A new survey conducted by Responsive Management shows 75 percent of residents agree that hunting is an important wildlife management tool, and 64 percent agree that hunters and anglers are concerned about protecting wildlife.

That approval is even higher thanks to an outreach effort called the Michigan Wildlife Council, which was created in 2013. It introduced a $1 surcharge on all Michigan hunting and fishing licenses to fund a comprehensive media-based public information program promoting the role of hunters and anglers in conservation and educating the public about the benefits of hunting and fishing.

Among residents who saw or heard messages from the Michigan Wildlife Council in the previous six months, approval of legal, regulated hunting rose to 82 percent, compared to 70 percent among those who had not seen the messages. Similarly, approval of fishing reached 91 percent among those familiar with Council messaging, compared to 79 percent among those not aware of the messages.

These results highlight the impact of proactive communications that help people better understand how hunting and fishing support Michigan’s natural resources, economy and outdoor traditions. At a time when many states are facing challenges maintaining public support for hunting and fishing, Michigan’s experience demonstrates the power of strategic outreach based on a solid foundation of data.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Michigan Department of Natural Resources)

Oregon Gives Green Light to Remove Three More Problem Wolves

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 07:09:22 GMT

It is an ongoing dilemma in northeast Oregon. Wolves developed a sweet tooth for cattle east of Baker City near the Idaho border.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife authorized federal agents with the U.S. Wildlife Services to kill three wolves from a pack that continues to prey on livestock. That comes after state or federal agents lethally removed four wolves over the first two months of 2026.

After removing the breeding male, ODFW monitored the movement of three other wolves, one of which wears a tracking collar, including the breeding female and two of her pups. The animals spent their days in the forest nearby but returned to the valley during the night.

“They’ve been very, very consistent,” Brian Ratliff, ODFW biologist, told the Baker City Herald. “We’re trying to break that pattern.”

In 2023, the pack attacked livestock at least 10 times in the same region. Authorities killed six of the wolves including the breeding female, breaking up the pack. However, the breeding male found a new breeding female and livestock depredations began again.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

California Evaluating Its Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 07:05:51 GMT

Below is a news release from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In October 2025, the Sierra County Board of Supervisors declared a state of emergency due to increasing public safety concerns linked to the growing wolf population. Six months later, wildlife officials lethally removed four wolves for chronic livestock depredation.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has started a process to evaluate California’s Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program (WLCP).

On Monday, Feb. 23, 2026, CDFW held an initial meeting with a group of stakeholder representatives previously involved in the development of the wolf-livestock program.

This meeting marked the first step in a broader public process that will gather input and perspectives from key stakeholder groups involved in livestock production, wolf conservation, research and government agencies, as well as from the public in the coming year. This process will include a rancher survey to garner input, as well as a series of rancher workshops and public meetings to gather a broad base of input on any adjustments to potential future funding, if appropriated by the Legislature and Administration.

This first meeting focused on how best to provide a public process to evaluate potential adjustments to future applications and funding opportunities. This effort relates to potential future WLCP funding, if appropriated by the California legislature and Administration.

CDFW recognizes that the WLCP affects a wide range of interests and will work in the coming months to ensure a broad swath of ranchers, communities, and interested parties are able to provide their input. As always, CDFW welcomes input on current and potential future programs at any time at wolfcompensation@wildlife.ca.gov.

Participants in this initial meeting included representatives from the California Farm Bureau, California Cattlemen’s Association, Western Landowners Alliance, California Wool Growers Association, Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), University of California Cooperative Extension, University of California, Berkeley, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Wolf Foundation, the California Center for Biological Diversity, Working Circle, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

CDFW will continue working with these groups, as well as ranchers, and communities as the evaluation process moves forward.

Since its inception as a pilot program in 2021, CDFW’s Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program has paid out more than $3.5 million to livestock producers whose operations have been impacted by the return of gray wolves to California.

For more information about the evaluation process, timeline and opportunities to participate, please visit CDFW’s Wolf Livestock Compensation Grants webpage.

(Photo credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Animal Rights Group Puts Full Court Press on Colorado

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:11:49 GMT

Colorado is under siege. A well-known anti-hunting and animal rights organization has its crosshairs firmly set on the Centennial State with a goal to forcefully change the state’s proven wildlife management system and alter the lives and lifestyles of its citizens.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is an out-of-state litigant environmental organization based in Tucson, Arizona. Of the 208 employees listed on its website, at least 89 personnel or 43 percent of the entire staff are listed as attorneys, fellows, paralegals or with other legal designations. CBD prides itself as a lawsuit factory. It uses the courtroom to boost membership and bolster its budgetary bottom line through the payment of attorney fees (taxpayer dollars). Over the first 76 days of 2026 alone, CBD announced the filing of 42 lawsuits, petitions or complaints after filing more than 150 legal actions in 2025.

Micromanaging wolf management

Unfortunately, Coloradans are getting to know the CBD playbook all too well. Among its latest moves, announced on March 9, 2026, is a petition that would order Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to ensure any potential conflicts are prevented or mitigated and that the lethal removal of wolves is a “last resort.” It also requires “written, evidenced-based determinations” take place before any wolves are killed and that “predation evidence would be independent” from any claims for compensation.

Ballot box biology – Colorado’s forced wolf introduction

It’s no secret that Colorado has a wolf problem, and CBD plays a significant role in it! Ever since a 2020 ballot initiative, strongly supported by CBD which passed by less than two percent at the polls, the forced introduction of wolves has been messy at best or at worst, a failure according to many Coloradans. Some of the wolves introduced into Colorado were transplanted from a pack already known to kill livestock in Oregon. Those behaviors persisted at their new Colorado home.

Since December 2023, CPW confirmed that wolves killed 57 cattle, 24 sheep, five working dogs and one llama across 10 counties as the wolf population spreads. Those numbers do not account for unconfirmed or unreported livestock depredations.

Budget-breaking wolf-livestock payouts

In 2025, the CPW Commission approved more than $700,000 in wolf depredation claims, more than doubling the amount budgeted by the state, according to the Coloradoan, after doling out $608,000 in 2024. As of early 2026, 14 of 25 wolves introduced into Colorado from British Columbia and Oregon died, including one that CPW intentionally removed in 2025 for chronic livestock depredation. Given the current status, both everyday Coloradans and even politicians have called for the introduction process to stop.

“No” is not an option

CBD wants what it wants, no matter the process and no matter the impact on anything or anyone else. In 2022, having no success through other efforts, a group of anti-hunting organizations supported a bill from four lawmakers to ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and Canada lynx. (Note: hunting lynx across the Lower 48 was against the law then and remains that way today.) Due to a tidal wave of immediate opposition in the form of thousands of emails from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation members and other outdoorsmen and women, three bill sponsors then bowed out. At its committee hearing, members rejected it on a 4-1 vote with the lone sponsor being the only vote in favor.

In late 2023, a new political action committee headed up by a future CBD staffer, filed for a citizen initiative that again called for a ban on hunting mountain lions, bobcats and Canada lynx. Proponents gathered enough qualified signatures to place it on the November 2024 ballot. On Election Day, more than 1.6 million Coloradans decisively rejected it, including majorities in 59 of Colorado’s 64 counties.

On that same ballot, but only for voters in Denver, was another measure supported by the same extremist crowd. Ordinance 308 sought to ban the sale of new fur products within city limits. Fifty-eight percent of Denver voters rejected it.

Wild Fur Ban

In March 2026, the same activist-turned-CBD-staffer behind the failed 2024 mountain lion hunting ban ignored the will of the people and pushed a petition before the CPW Commission. The entire roster of commission members have been appointed by Governor Polis, who is known for his personal and familial animal rights activism. The petition called for a ban on the sale, barter or trade of wild fur. Despite an overflow crowd of hunters, ranchers, outdoorsmen and women, and five dozen people who spoke during the five-hour hearing to urge commission members to support CPW’s biologists, wildlife professionals and its new director who recommended the measure be rejected, the commission ignored its own wildlife agency and leadership by citing social science and personal experience, approving the petition with a 6-4 vote during an overly confusing motion process.

As bewilderment and unanswered questions lingered at the commission meeting, several legislators a mere 13 miles away at the Capitol, introduced a bill – supported by CBD and a group of other environmental organizations – to ban the trapping of beavers on public lands. And did so with a confusing approach by framing it as wildfire mitigation and forest management legislation. (Fortunately, the Colorado House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee killed the bill on a 10-3 vote).

Just another day at the office for the Center of Biological Diversity.

Hunt 2 Conserve is firmly committed to fighting extreme organizations and efforts like these that seek to limit hunting and greatly curtail conservation.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Washington’s 2026 Legislative Session: Wolf Management, Wildlife Governance and Conservation Funding

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 04:46:37 GMT

A $2 billion budget deficit dominated Washington’s legislative session, and while many headlines focused on income taxes on Washingtonians, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) took a $10 million budget hit. This comes on top of a $3 million cut in 2025 despite a 38 percent increase in hunting and fishing license fees. The new cuts include $1.9 million from the wildlife program, $1 million from biodiversity, $1 million from administration, $1.5 million from business services and $580,000 from land maintenance. And at least 11 warden positions will remain vacant.

Of note, the session was also met with the ongoing fallout from the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission's rejection of WDFW's own scientific recommendation to downlist gray wolves, as well as several threats to lawful firearms.

HB 1311 - Implementing WDFW's gray wolf recommendation. We strongly supported WDFW’s proposed downlisting of wolves from state endangered to state sensitive during the most recent wolf status review. The Washington Wildlife Commission rejected that recommendation, so this bill was introduced to implement the change legislatively. The bill failed.

SB 5960 and HB 2221 - Restoring and sustaining healthy ungulate populations. These bills would direct WDFW to initiate wolf and other predator management where ungulate populations were below objective. Wolves are recovered in Washington and across much of the U.S. and should be managed in balance with other wildlife. While we agreed with the intent of these bills, we urged thoughtful caution — managing wildlife by statute is not optimal and should be a last resort when the commission process breaks down. This legislation failed.

HB 1442 - Wolf-livestock conflict and local collaboration. This bill would provide WDFW with greater flexibility to work with local governments on gray wolf management. This bill failed.

SB 5203 - Wildlife crossings and habitat connectivity. Establishing a state fund for wildlife crossings and corridors will help Washington leverage federal dollars and elevate connectivity as a management priority — a direct benefit for elk, mule deer and other wide-ranging species. This bill failed in the House.

SB 5443 - Charitable fundraising modernization. We joined Ducks Unlimited and a broad coalition of nonprofits in supporting this bill to modernize charitable gambling laws and remove outdated restrictions that limit conservation fundraising. These laws have not kept pace with how organizations operate today, and the restrictions directly hamper RMEF's ability to raise conservation dollars in Washington. This legislation was killed.

HB 1685 - Wildlife commission restructuring. This bill would have stripped the wildlife commission of its authority and made the WDFW director a direct political appointee of the governor. This was a response to the commission’s well-documented disfunction in recent years. This bill failed. We encourage Governor Ferguson to restore the commission by appointing qualified, moderate commissioners who understand their mandate to sustainably manage Washington's fish and wildlife.

SB 5099 - Additional requirements for licensed firearms dealers. Federal Firearms License holders are among the most regulated and law-abiding businesses in the state. The prior session already imposed significant new burdens that are driving smaller dealers out of business before those rules have even taken full effect. This bill would layer on additional regulations. Gun dealers are not the problem. Criminals are the problem. Weakening the firearms retail sector has real consequences for conservation: Pittman-Robertson excise tax revenues generated by firearms and ammunition sales are foundational to wildlife funding in Washington, and their erosion threatens organizations like RMEF. This bill failed.

HB 1386 - New tax on firearms, parts and ammunition. We opposed this bill imposing a new state tax on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition. A state tax stacked on top of the existing federal Pittman-Robertson framework does not direct dollars to wildlife conservation. Instead, it simply burdens lawful purchasers and further strains the commercial ecosystem that conservation funding depends on. This bill did not pass.

SB 5098 - Weapons restrictions in public buildings and parks. We opposed this bill restricting the possession of weapons on state and local public properties, including county fairgrounds. This could have prohibited conservation banquets often held at these facilities. This bill failed.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Joe Mabel)

Sportsmen Score Wins in New Mexico's 2026 Legislative Session

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 04:41:14 GMT

New Mexico's legislature wrapped up its 30-day budget session on February 19th. Legislation relevant big game, wildlife management and conservation funding are highlighted. The session produced meaningful wins for sportsmen and women, and one significant victory in defeating threat to lawful firearms commerce.

SB 104 — Fish and Game Commissioner removal process. This bill passed and was signed into law to establish a formal process for removing Fish and Game commissioners, including public notice requirements, cause standards, and a pathway for commissioners to contest removal in the state Supreme Court. Strong and consistent commission leadership is essential to sound wildlife management — a principle we support. We have seen in Washington and Colorado what happens when commission appointments go sideways. Solidifying this process brings clarity to a commission that has seen significant turnover in recent years and highlights the importance of governors appointing serious and qualified candidates.

HB 2 — Annual budget with key conservation appropriations. The omnibus budget bill that passed included $70 million for public land access, investment and recovery; $15 million for the River Stewardship Program; and $2 million for aquatic species and fish hatcheries. These investments support the landscape-level conservation that benefits elk and other wildlife across New Mexico.

SB 17 — Restrictions on firearms dealers and ban on modern sporting rifles. This bill died but would have imposed significant new burdens on Federal Firearms License holders and banned the sale of modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines. It stalled in the House and died at session adjournment. As we have noted in other states, undermining lawful firearms commerce has direct consequences for conservation — Pittman-Robertson excise tax revenues generated by firearms and ammunition sales are foundational to wildlife funding. Some versions of this bill have been introduced in each of the last eight sessions, and it is expected to return in future sessions.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Jim Bowen)

Utah Legislature Provides Safer Passage for Wildlife

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 18:27:36 GMT

How did the Utah deer cross the road? The hope is safely.

On March 4, 2026, the Utah Legislature passed a bill that sets aside $2 million for a wildlife crossing and fencing fund. Structures and fencing help funnel elk, deer and other wildlife to overpasses and underpasses that help them find safe passage across busy roadways and highways.

A 2019 study showed there were more than 2,700 vehicle-wildlife crashes annually that cost more than $138 million. More recent research shows 1 in 251 Utah drivers will hit an animal on state roads in 2025-2026.

There are more than 60 wildlife crossings across Utah including dedicated crossings or existing culverts.

The bill goes to Utah Governor Spencer Cox for his signature.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources)

Study: Forest Thinning Reduces Wildfire Risk, Helps Snowpack

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:56:27 GMT

At a time when snowpack is below normal across much of the West prompting concerns of wildfire danger and a lack of spring runoff, a new study shows more refined forest management practices can optimize for both wildfire resilience and snowpack.

Forest managers currently use controlled burning and the selective felling of trees as ways to thin forests. Both methods remove fuel and help return tree stands to historical conditions — but less is known about their impact on snowpack.

To address the knowledge gap, a team of researchers at the University of Washington (UW) and The Nature Conservancy embarked on a multiyear study of snowpack along Cle Elum Ridge, an area of the eastern Cascade Mountains in the headwaters of the Yakima River Basin. The group experimentally thinned a 150-acre area of the forest to varying degrees. Then, it measured the amount and duration of snowpack during the winter of 2023 and compared it to a previous winter before the forest treatment.

The results were encouraging. Forest thinning efforts increased snowpack by 30 percent on north-facing slopes and by 16 percent on south-facing slopes. Thinning aided snowpack the most where it created a patchwork of gaps in the forest rather than a more even density; gaps of 4-16 meters in diameter seemed to be the “sweet spot” for snow.

“At its core, this research shows that reducing wildfire risk and protecting water resources don’t have to be competing goals,” said lead author Cassie Lumbrazo, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Alaska who completed this work as a UW doctoral student. “That’s genuinely good news for a place facing both growing wildfire threats and increasing water vulnerability. So much of the climate conversation focuses on loss, which makes findings like this especially meaningful.”

Study authors found one surprising result. They maintain the way forest managers thin forests does not reliably create gaps in the canopy. Forest managers map out their reductions using the density of trunks in an area, not canopies, as their primary measurement.

“Imagine a group of 100 people all holding umbrellas in the rain,” said co-author Susan Dickerson-Lange, director of the UW Climate Impacts Group. “They’re standing close enough together that their umbrellas overlap, so none of the rain hits the ground. If you remove 10 of the umbrellas randomly, you’d still have plenty of coverage overall. But, if you remove 10 umbrellas that are right next to one another, you create a gap in the umbrella ‘canopy,’ and you get a 10 percent increase in the amount of rain that hits the ground.”

The work could also aid collaboration between forest managers and hydrologists at a time when the region needs all the water it can get.

Hunt 2 Conserve is a strong proponent of active forest management to improve wildlife habitat and forest health, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and better protect public safety.

Click here to read the entire University of Washington news release and view imagery and a video about the research.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Mark Stone/University of Washington)

Messy Colorado Wolf Program Gets Even Messier

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:54:25 GMT

Not much has gone well for 25 wolves transplanted into Colorado since citizens narrowly passed a controversial 2020 ballot initiative forcefully wolves into the state. What happened in March 2026 only highlights that.

On March 11, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) received a mortality signal in northwest Colorado for gray wolf 2310, the maternal member of the King Mountain pack.

“Colorado Parks and Wildlife is leading the mortality investigation in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” according to a CPW news release. “A final determination of the cause of death will not be made until the investigation is completed, including the necropsy, a foundational component of the overall investigation process. No additional details are available at this time.”

That marks the 14^th death of the 25 wolves introduced into Colorado from Oregon and British Columbia. One of those died during routine collaring operations in late January.

On March 12, CPW announced the suspension of operations to find and lethally remove an uncollared wolf responsible for the chronic depredation of cattle in Rio Blanco County.

“With no snow on the ground in the area and challenging terrain, we are choosing to suspend this effort,” said CPW Director Laura Clellan. “We are grateful to the producers who have been working with us at every step since depredations began in the area in July of 2025 and who have deployed multiple forms of nonlethal conflict mitigation techniques.”

Since December 2023, CPW confirmed that wolves killed 57 cattle, 24 sheep, five working dogs and one llama across 10 counties as the wolf population spread. Those numbers do not account for unconfirmed or unreported livestock depredations.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Sportsmen's Priorities Advance in Utah's 2026 Legislative Session

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:49:17 GMT

Utah's general session adjourned on March 6, wrapping up a short 45-day legislative session. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation volunteers and members prioritized one bill this session, HB-431 on wildlife crossings. In addition, several bills of interest to elk, wildlife and sportsmen issues also passed with broad support.

HB 431 — Wildlife crossing amendments. We supported this bill, which establishes an ongoing funding mechanism for wildlife crossing infrastructure and will help Utah to access matching federal funds. This is a direct win for elk, mule deer and other wildlife that depend on connected habitat across Utah's landscapes. The bill passed 61-5 in the House and 25-1 in the Senate.

HB 30 — Wildlife Management Area access. WMAs in Utah are funded primarily by hunting and fishing license fees and federal Pittman-Robertson excise taxes — sportsmen's dollars. This bill requires non-license holders to complete a short educational video before accessing a WMA. It is a reasonable step toward recognizing the financial contributions sportsmen and women make to these areas while keeping them accessible for multiple use.

HB 93 — Goshen Bay Waterfowl Management Area. This bill establishes a new WMA at Utah Lake, expanding hunting access and habitat protection in a heavily used recreational area. Policies that grow the WMA system and protect habitat are aligned with our conservation mission.

Budget – Predator control program funding. Utah's predator control program faced an approximate $200,000 funding shortfall due to increased participation. The program pays bounties for coyotes from the state’s general fund and has done so since legislation passed in 2012, but bounties doubled in 2025 to $100 if taken in designated mule-deer habitat. Legislators allocated additional funding to fill this gap.

HB 111 — Wildlife and hunting amendments. This bill reduces the required distance from a building to discharge a firearm from 600 feet to 300 feet to accommodate development that is encroaching on state WMA. It also sets policy to remove any grizzly bears that arrive in the state until they are removed from the ESA. The bill also creates a poaching mitigation fund and captures fines and restitution to pay for enforcement. It also changes some of the recent restrictions on guides and outfitters operating in the state.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Andrew Smith)

Why There’s a Need for Hunt 2 Conserve

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 16:56:29 GMT

Below is a portion of a President’s Message by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation President & CEO Kyle Weaver in the 2025 September/October issue of Bugle magazine that announced the establishment of Hunt 2 Conserve.

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, RMEF is legally constrained in our political activities. For example, our status limits the money we can spend on lobbying. Some issues are too big to address as a 501(c)(3). With that in mind, in 2025 RMEF launched a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, called Hunt 2 Conserve, which will stand as a separate entity and use separate funding. RMEF will help steer the organization as a voting member. Through our partnership with Hunt 2 Conserve, we will expand our advocacy to have an even stronger voice on policy related to elk, other big game and their habitat. This is especially helpful with our work surrounding ballot initiatives. The creation of Hunt 2 Conserve accomplishes two specific things for our future. First, it provides an organization that can engage fully in the political spectrum to protect our hunting heritage and public lands. Second, it protects the future of our 501(c)(3) status by removing risks associated with lobbying by RMEF.

RMEF’s approach to advocacy focuses on building long-term relationships that help us work together to create solutions, so that we can promote public- and private-land conservation, maintain access, conserve habitat and keep our hunting traditions flourishing for generations to come. We thank each one of you for supporting this vital work.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

DOI Proposes to Restore State-Aligned Hunting Regs on Alaska National Preserves

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 21:46:03 GMT

Below is a news release from the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The Department of the Interior announced a proposed rule to restore longstanding hunting and trapping regulations on Alaska’s national preserves, realigning federal regulations with Alaska state wildlife management laws and reinstating the framework that governed preserves for more than three decades.

The proposal would rescind regulatory changes made in 2015, 2017 and 2024 and restore the regulatory structure that implemented the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The action is consistent with President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order 14153, "Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential," Executive Order 14192 on regulatory reform, and Secretary’s Order 3422.

“For decades, Alaska’s national preserves were managed under a framework that respected the State’s authority, protected subsistence uses and ensured conservation of wildlife resources,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “This proposed rule restores that balance. It reduces unnecessary federal overreach, aligns federal regulations with state law, and honors the commitments Congress made in ANILCA.”

Restoring the ANILCA Framework

National preserves in Alaska are distinct within the National Park System. Congress expressly authorized hunting and trapping in preserves under applicable State and Federal law while directing the National Park Service to conserve resources and ensure subsistence priority under Title VIII of ANILCA.

Beginning in 2015, a series of rulemakings altered that framework by preempting certain State-authorized harvest practices, modifying public closure procedures and expanding discretionary federal restrictions. Litigation and repeated rule changes since that time created regulatory uncertainty for Alaskans, Tribes, State wildlife managers and park users.

The proposed rule would:

Restore State-authorized harvest practices in national preserves, consistent with ANILCA.

Reinstate longstanding public notice and consultation procedures for closures and restrictions in Alaska park areas.

Remove provisions that unnecessarily preempt State wildlife management authority.

Eliminate duplicative or unnecessary regulatory language added in recent rulemakings.

The proposal does not alter Federal subsistence harvest regulations under Title VIII of ANILCA.

Wildlife Conservation and Public Safety

The Department has reviewed the record developed in prior rulemakings and litigation and preliminarily determined that the 2015 and subsequent restrictions were not necessary to protect wildlife populations or public safety. Environmental analyses associated with prior rules concluded that harvest levels under State management would not result in population-level impacts.

Where localized concerns arise, the National Park Service retains authority under ANILCA and existing regulations to implement targeted closures or restrictions consistent with statutory criteria and after appropriate consultation.

Public and Tribal Engagement

The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register and open for a 30-day public comment period. The National Park Service has initiated pre-consultation outreach with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations and will conduct formal Tribal consultation during the rulemaking process.

The Department will carefully consider all public and tribal input before issuing a final rule. Additional information, including instructions for submitting comments, will be available at regulations.gov upon publication.

(Photo credit: U.S. Department of the Interior/Andrew King)

Public Lands, Native Grasses, Forest Management are Legislative Winners in Wyoming

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 21:51:30 GMT

The short budget session in Wyoming wrapped up recently with legislators passing several bills that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supported, including:

SJ9 - Keeping public lands protected and decisions local. This nonbinding resolution declared that “the Wyoming Legislature opposes any state or federal legislation or policy that promotes the broad or indiscriminate sale or exchange of public lands,” and that existing frameworks and land exchange mechanisms remain in place and respect state and local input. This resolution was in line with RMEF’s efforts to oppose wholesale transfers of public land as was recently proposed by some members of the U.S. Senate in the 2025 reconciliation budget process.

SF52 - Large project funding. While RMEF did not have any projects in this year’s large project bill, several projects aligned with the RMEF mission of cheatgrass management to the benefit of big game and other wildlife.

HB78 forest health grant program and SF17 good neighbor authority amendments. These bills provide authority for Wyoming’ s state forester for cost share programs and to expand work on federal lands through the Good Neighbor Authority. Managing habitat across federal-state ownership boundaries provides for more efficient projects. Increased management of federal forests will benefit elk, mule deer and other wildlife.

Other legislation that RMEF was tracking or engaged in did not cross the finish line.

HB19 corner crossing clarification. As introduced, this bill would have made crossing at the corner of any public land to other public land legal, expanding on the federal-to-federal crossing legalized by recent 10th circuit court decisions. However, the bill was amended in the House that narrowed its application to only federal-to-federal crossings where a person does not touch adjacent private property, aligning with the court's decision. While the court's decision makes corner crossing possible from a general access standpoint, it is not always practical. The complexity of the issue will need to be worked on in the interim, because the Senate chose to let the bill die without the time to work out the complexities.

SF51 Transferrable landowner tags. Legislation that would have allowed landowners to sell the big game tags they can receive as landowners failed early in session on a 6-to-25 vote in the Senate. The author of the bill has expressed a desire to help offset the costs of wildlife to agriculture producers through this mechanism, but with no history of transferrable tags in the state, the opposition from sportsmen and women is very strong.

SF25 Landowner license limits in quota areas. As the concept of transferable landowner tags has raised the concern that landowners would have financial incentives to obtain these licenses, the potential exists that in some units, landowners could receive the entire allocation of available big game tags. Competing concepts were discussed in the 2025 interim, and this bill that would have allowed the commission to set caps made the most progress, passing the Senate 23-7, but it failed in the House 29-31.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Idaho Removes Wolves to Help Declining Elk Numbers

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 22:05:55 GMT

Below is a Facebook post from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Hunt 2 Conserve maintains state agencies should sustainably manage wolves just as they manage elk, mountain lions, deer and other species.

Idaho Fish and Game completed targeted wolf management actions on Feb. 21 and 22 that removed three wolves from Unit 4 in the Panhandle elk zone. This marks the first time such actions have been implemented in Idaho’s Panhandle Region.

The effort, when combined with recent success of local trappers, substantially reduced the size of a single wolf pack in a key part of the unit.

Recent data indicate that elk numbers in Unit 4 have declined, with predation on elk calves a contributing factor. To promote elk population growth, Fish and Game continues to address overall predation impacts by offering expanded opportunities to harvest black bears, mountain lions and wolves in Unit 4 through extended seasons and additional-tag availability. In addition, Fish and Game has worked with the U.S. Forest Service for years to improve habitat for elk in Unit 4 and will continue to do so.

Fish and Game prioritizes regulated hunting and trapping as the primary tools for managing wolf populations; however, targeted control actions are used to address specific conflicts and in situations where hunting and trapping have not been sufficient to meet management goals.

Due to a 2024 federal court injunction affecting wolf trapping seasons, harvest of wolves by trappers has declined statewide, including in Unit 4, affecting progress toward the state’s wolf population goal and the ability to reduce wolf predation on elk.

The primary goal of the recent action was to reduce predation and improve elk survival in a population that is underperforming. Similar management efforts have been conducted annually in the Lolo elk zone in the Clearwater Region over the past decade. The objective is not to eliminate wolves, but to maintain a smaller, self-sustaining wolf population in Unit 4 that reduces predation risk on elk populations.

The effort was conducted under the guidance of Fish and Game’s 2024–2030 Idaho Elk Management Plan and in alignment with the Idaho Fish and Game Commission-approved 2023–2028 Idaho Gray Wolf Management Plan, which strives to balance wolf conservation in Idaho with responsive and effective conflict resolution.

For more information or questions about the recent wolf management actions, please contact the Panhandle Regional office at (208) 769-1414.

(Photo credit: Idaho Department of Fish and Game)

Hunter Harassment Laws Don’t Deter Anti-Hunters

Sun, 15 Mar 2026 16:06:54 GMT

Imagine quietly hiking along a mountain ridge or sitting in a duck blind when an angry anti-hunter confronts you. What would you do?

Every state has hunter harassment written within its laws, yet confrontations still happen. And yes, there are repercussions for perpetrators.

One of the most recent incidents happened in January 2026 when a duck hunter and a partner in Washington posted what became a viral video of a woman who approached to deliver a profanity-laced tirade. While berating them and throwing rocks at their decoys, she screamed, “This is public property!” The hunter’s response, “Exactly my point!”

Hunting on public property is often legal and is highly regulated by rules, seasons and quotas, as determined by state wildlife agencies. The fact is most people in the United States approve of hunting. A 2024 survey shows 76 percent of Americans approve while 11 percent are indifferent. Those who hunt are protected from harassment. It is not known if the Washington duck hunters reported the harasser.

While the specific statutes vary from state to state, it is generally against the law for anyone to intentionally interfere with hunters, block access to public land, scare away wildlife and other similar actions. Depending on the severity of the incident, punishments may include misdemeanor or felony charges, fines, jail time, probation, suspension, loss of hunting/fishing/trapping privileges and civil lawsuits with possible punitive damages and criminal penalties.

The Washington incident is not an isolated one. In late 2025, as reported by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, a hunter harassment case took place in the state’s Upper Peninsula:

Conservation Officer (CO) John Kamps and Sgt. Mark Leadman followed up on an ongoing hunter harassment complaint. They arrived at the scene and shortly after observed a subject drive his vehicle up to another person’s deer blind and park right behind their bait. Sgt. Leadman and CO Kamps contacted the suspect and conducted an interview. The suspect confessed that he was out there to “be a pain” and interfere with the complainant’s hunt. Charges will be filed with the Marquette County Prosecutor’s Office for hunter harassment and for the malicious destruction of a blind that occurred earlier in the deer season. The suspect had received a citation earlier in the year from COs Kamps and Jackson Kelly for hunting without a license and for having a loaded gun in a motor vehicle. (Note, baiting was permitted by state law at the time.)

In December 2025, officers with the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD) called a tactical team to detain a man for threatening another resident who was lawfully hunting deer on a neighboring NHFGD wildlife management area. The perpetrator faced charges of felony-level criminal threatening with a firearm, felony-level reckless conduct with a firearm and violation-level hunter harassment.

In October 2024, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries cited a man who admitted to agents he shot his shotgun and revved his ATV over multiple days to try to keep deer away from his neighbor while he was hunting.

Wildlife officials urge those affected to note the evidence, have a description of the harassers, including vehicle information, and report the incident as soon as possible. They also urge hunters to remain calm and avoid doing anything to escalate the situation.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Brett Winegarden)

Key National Conservation Legislation Gets the Green Light

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 06:23:51 GMT

Though not the final hurdle, an important piece of legislation that benefits fish, wildlife, habitat and conservation took a big step forward on Capitol Hill. On March 4, 2026, the U.S. House Agriculture Committee passed a new Farm Bill by a bipartisan vote of 34-to-17.

Though much of the Farm, Food and Natural Security Act of 2026 focuses on nutrition assistance, support for farming and ranching, and other issues, a key section is of particular importance for forestland, animals, hunters and anglers. Title 2 of the bill is the Conservation Section. It includes the alphabet soup of private land conservation such as Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the important Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

CRP encourages and supports farmers and ranchers to convert highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, like native grasses, trees and riparian buffers. Doing so helps a wide array of fish and wildlife species.

“The CRP program was originally established more than four decades ago in the 1985 Farm Bill and is probably the most impactful private land conservation effort ever implemented,” said Blake Henning, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation chief conservation officer.

A new Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP) aims to keep working forests intact and promote the restoration and improvement of habitat for fish and wildlife species. It has the support of a broad coalition of hunting, forestry and other interests and its inclusion in the House bill is a positive sign.

The new Farm Bill is now eligible to go before the full House for a vote, but passage in the House and Senate is far from certain. H2C supports this legislation and encourages Congress to pass it into law.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Deceptive Animal Rights Groups Push for Colorado Trapping Ban

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:25:20 GMT

Call it a misdirection move or a pincer attack. Activists are coordinating a two-front strategy right out the animal rights 101 playbook. As the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission left Coloradans scratching their heads by their actions during an “embarrassing” two-day meeting in Westminster, four legislators at the Capitol 13 miles away, and backed by a consortium of eight anti-hunting environmentalist groups, introduced a bill to ban taking beavers on public lands.

Masked by a title of Wildfire Resiliency Prohibiting Taking of Beavers, the bill highlights terms like “drought resilience,” “high-intensity wildfires” and “recovery costs.” Environmentalists take it even further with a bury-the-lead, smoke-and-mirrors approach with arguments that sound like support for forest management reform rather than a hunting and trapping ban.

“Colorado is in a crisis. We have had increasing wildfires. We are in drought conditions. We have a historically low snowpack. And we need every ally we can get in this fight against increased wildfires and drought,” Samantha Miller, a wildlife advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity of the consortium, told the Colorado Sun. “As we know, Colorado is also in a budget crisis. We can have more beavers for free. They make fires harder to ignite and slower to spread.”

Extremists also made unsubstantiated claims that the state’s beaver population is “unstable” and “struggling.”

“There are no furbearer populations that are biologically threatened, that we have any evidence are in peril and in decline right now,” said Mark Vieiera, CPW carnivore and furbearer program manager, after giving a detailed presentation about furbearers at the commission meeting.

Just one month earlier, CPW released a beaver and conservation strategy, which was the product of a multi-year, stakeholder-driven process that included public comment, focus groups, technical partners and a commission presentation aimed at building a science-based framework for species management. CPW’s data places the annual statewide harvest at 1,100 to 1,600 animals or roughly 2 to 4 percent of an estimated population of 43,000 to 64,000 beavers.

Trapping in Colorado is already highly restricted with traditional snares, foothold and body-gripping traps prohibited. Cage traps are the only remaining method, and as a result the catch rate is very low, which means that hunter and trapper harvest are below impactful levels already. (March 23, 2026, update: the Colorado House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committed killed the bill on a 10-3 vote.)

Commissioners debated a petition from the aforementioned Miller at the meeting. CPW’s director earlier offered a five-page recommendation from her agency to reject the petition. Following more than five hours of public comment, debate and discussion, the commission went through a confusing motion process.

While discussing four different action items that included an explanation to commissioners about the difference between bag limits, possession limits and total harvest, the lines became more and more blurry. Commissioner Jay Tutchton asked multiple questions about bag limits while emphasizing “social science,” or his desire to discuss human behavior, public perception and tolerance.

CPW Commission members meeting in Westminster

“With all due respect for my fellow commissioners…I think this discussion (about furbearer bag limits) is going to direct how they feel about the (furbearer petition),” warned Commissioner Dallas May. “As a commissioner, I have a duty to work for the citizens of the state. I won’t impose my will on the state of Colorado. I bring my experience to this discussion but I have to take it lightly from what I’m hearing from our professional biologists.”

“We continually say that we’re a science-based agency and we need to make these decisions by science,” said Commissioner Tai Jacober. “It’s really important that we represent the people. I just want to caution us on relying on social science that is somewhat contrary to what we try to say every time in these meetings is that we’re a science-based agency.”

After more back-and-forth discussion, Commissioner Jessica Beaulieu presented a lengthy, rambling motion which commissioners Beaulieu, John Emerick, Jack Murphy, Rich Reading, Jay Tutchton and Eden Vardy approved. Jacober, May, Frances Silva Blayney and Gabe Otero opposed.

The following morning, when the commission meeting resumed, confusion remained about what exactly the previous day’s vote entailed. The group went into executive session, reconvened, played part of Beaulieu’s motion from the prior day and reopened the issue to public comment from both sides.

“Wow, that’s the only word I can think of to say about yesterday. It was also embarrassing today,” said former CPW commissioner Marie Haskett, as reported by the Colorado Sun. “You added to confusion around the motion, so you go behind closed doors to figure out what happened. Where’s the transparency?”

“I’ve seen better demonstrations of parliamentary procedure and objectivity in the average 4-H meeting,” said rancher Han Smith, also reported by the Colorado Sun. “Your actions and behavior yesterday did more to destroy trust than any single action in the history of the CPW or this commission.”

During the lunch break, with questions still lingering, CPW distributed a news release in which Director Laura Clellan said the vote did not mean the entire petition was approved and that CPW staff would draft a proposed rule to initiate the rulemaking process.

Post-meeting media coverage directed critical comments at the commission and procedure.

“Either Samantha Miller is lying, or Governor Jared Polis is,” said reporter Rachel Gabel of the Colorado Springs Gazette. “If Miller is lying, she is so secure in the red carpet rolled out for animal activists by this administration that she is willing to put words in the governor’s mouth. If Polis is lying, the deck is stacked against his own agencies and their expertise is worthless. No matter the truth, the governor has a problem on his hands. His CPW Commission, filled with his own appointees who make no attempt to mask their intentions, ignored CPW staff, attorneys, stakeholders, and even his brand-new director, and jumped into chaos in the name of ideology.”

Gabel is referring to an earlier online video of Miller using the governor’s name to call on activist forces to rally and appear at the commission meeting.

According to Gabel, “This is a big problem for the governor’s office because CPW is a Type 1 agency, which means that the governor is limited to budget management functions, and not rule-making, regulation, licensing, and general political interference.”

Gabel also pointed out the petition conflicts with state agricultural statute.

The Colorado Sun quoted a retired game warden saying he had “never seen a more dysfunctional running of a meeting,” adding that it was “incredibly out of control.”

The Fence Post, which reports on Colorado agricultural news and information, put two and two together in its post, “Animal activists won’t stop at fur bans.”

“If you are a hunter or fisherman you may feel like people are coming for you. Many of the people who spoke at this hearing were worried that the ban on fur sales would lead to bans on other hunting, trapping and fishing activities in the state. These people are right and once animal activists get a foot in the door, which they have already accomplished with the wolf “reintroduction,” they will continue to erode the rights of hunters and anglers. From there they will come for the food we eat. So if you like eating steak, shrimp, eggs and other animal-based food you will be out of luck.”

It should be noted that the environmentalist petition that went before the CPW Commission did not ask to end furbearer trapping. In fact, proponents used those same words several times during both public comment and to the media afterwards. Yet, that is their game plan since that is exactly what happened on the same day, at the same time, at the state legislature just across town.

The commission is a citizen board, appointed by the governor, which sets regulations and policies for Colorado’s state parks and wildlife programs. Several stand out because of their anti-hunting and animal rights backgrounds. Beaulieu was a fellow at the Center for Biological Diversity while Tutchton was general counsel for WildEarth Guardians, another anti-hunting extremist group. A 2024 law stipulates that commissioners are required to hold two public meetings per year to engage fellow residents. Before the dust settled from the commission meeting, Tutchton, who “proudly represents your voice,” held one in Denver with little public notice or exposure. Where did it take place? At the governor’s mansion.

For the record, the rulemaking linked to the petition is supposed to take place in “the coming months.” The commission’s next meeting is May 6-7 in Grand Junction some 250 miles from the governor’s mansion. Deception or confusion aside, you can expect a large contingency of hunters, ranchers, outdoorsmen and women to again be there to fight for and defend their way of life.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Corner Crossing, Firearm Restrictions, Wildlife Funding Debated in Oregon Legislature

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 08:14:17 GMT

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation engaged in several issues during the short 2026 Oregon legislative budget session that wrapped up March 6. The session was dominated by budget pressures, federal funding reductions and immigration-related legislation, with mixed results for Oregon's hunting and conservation community.

Legislation to legalize ‘corner crossing’ was heard but did not pass. The bill theoretically would have opened access to an estimated half a million acres of corner-locked public land in Oregon while also protecting private landowners from liability. A federal court in the 10^th circuit has ruled that crossing from federal land to federal land where they intersect at a corner is legal, but the practical application of access raised several questions that state trespass statutes do not currently clarify. We expect this issue to return in 2027.
House Bill 4145 originally proposed significant new restrictions on firearm permits, training requirements and magazine capacity – all of which would have burdened Oregon's hunters and threatened conservation funding generated through the Pittman-Robertson Act and hunting license sales – was substantially gutted before passage. The final version simply delays implementation of 2022 ballot measure 114 pending an Oregon Supreme Court ruling. RMEF considers this a partial win for Oregon's hunting community.
Lawmakers passed a bipartisan bill increasing the state's transient lodging tax by 1.25 percent and dedicating the revenue to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for species recovery, habitat work and wildfire risk reduction. Many sportsmen organizations supported this measure as a supplement to sportsmen-generated dollars. Non-game species of concern, highway crossings and wolf depredation payments will receive increased funding as a result.
A bill to require the Oregon Department of Forestry to maintain predictable timber harvest levels on state forests – with implications for elk habitat quality in western Oregon – failed for the third consecutive session.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Oregon Initiative Spokesman Labels His Controversial Measure as ‘Radical’

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 18:42:00 GMT

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 and urges Oregon’s residents to reject it.

It’s a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. The spokesman for a highly extreme yet still potential Oregon ballot initiative freely admits it is “radical” in nature.

Oregon Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) seeks to not only legally ban hunting, fishing, trapping, farming and ranching but make it a crime for anyone taking part in those activities. Proponents are currently gathering signatures with hopes to place the issue on the November 2026 ballot.

“Given the radical nature of the campaign, we’re aware that it is almost certainly not going to pass in 2026. Despite that, we believe getting it on the ballot now will make it more likely to pass in a future election cycle, and that it will help us build the organization we’d need to keep getting it on the ballot,” David Michelson told Current Affairs magazine.

Michelson is a well-known animal rights extremist from Portland who initially proposed IP 13 in 2022, a similar initiative that was abandoned due to a lack of support. Among other things, IP 13 sought to criminalize hunting, fishing, farming, animal husbandry and giving all animal owners and veterinarians a criminal record. Michelson labeled those activities and professions as acts of violence.

With IP 13’s failure, he then shifted his focus to the 2024 ballot with IP 3. Once again and yet despite an influx of out-of-state donations from extremist organizations, the regurgitated measure did not gain momentum or gather enough signatures.

“Numerous rights and freedoms have been won through the ballot initiative process,” Michelson told The Oregonian.

It is with that mindset that Michelson and IP 28 proponents eye the ballot initiative process as an end-around to circumvent current law by bypassing state lawmakers, as per his comment of “it is almost certainly not going to pass.”

However, that statement is deceptive. The fact is that history shows radical initiatives can and do pass and only become law after first qualifying for and appearing on the ballot. Michelson and his proponents know that. National examples include steep increases in minimum wage, gun control, abortion and anti-abortion measures, banning or reinstating the death penalty, physician-assisted suicide, tax hikes, sin taxes and reducing criminal penalties. In Oregon, voters passed a 2020 ballot initiative that reduced penalties for those convicted of possessing hard drugs. Today, perpetrators and hardened criminals can avoid and discard prison sentences if they enter drug counseling.

Colorado is another recent example. Extremists tried to pass an anti-wildlife management bill to ban the hunting and trapping of mountain lions and bobcats in 2022. A new coalition at the time called the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, of which the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a member, gathered support, provided testimony and a legislative committee rejected it. Extremists then tried to circumvent lawmakers by taking the ballot initiative route. In 2024, they gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the ballot. In addition to banning the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats, it also sought to ban hunting lynx. Again, this was deceptive in nature as it was already illegal, and remains illegal to this day, to hunt lynx in the Lower 48. Thanks to an educational campaign that included warnings about the dangers of ballot-box biology, including more than $340,000 contributed by RMEF, voters overwhelmingly defeated the measure by more than a quarter of a million votes.

Four years earlier, also in Colorado, extremists used the ballot initiative process combined with emotion and a lack of education to gather enough signatures to qualify a measure to forcibly introduce wolves into the state. Colorado Parks and Wildlife examined the issue over several decades and issued findings four different times that doing so would not be a good idea and would frustrate wildlife management. Pre-election polling and predictions said the measure would easily pass by receiving 80 percent of the vote. RMEF supplied more than $300,000 and combined its resources with other partners as part of a statewide educational campaign. Unfortunately, the measure passed by less than two percent, and the program has faced serious issues and livestock depredations since implementation.

Circling back to IP 28, the dangers of passing this initiative which would destroy wildlife management and the health of Oregon’s fish and wildlife populations are very real. Banning hunting and fishing would mean the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, with its duty to manage fish and wildlife populations, would lose 40 percent of its budget that comes from hunting and fishing licenses. It would also negate millions of dollars earmarked for conservation in Oregon by losing the excise taxes on guns, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing gear that Oregon receives. Banning hunting and fishing would trigger food insecurity by ending opportunities for hunters and anglers to acquire meat to feed their families.

Looking at the bigger picture, IP 28 would instigate a larger statewide food insecurity concern by making it against the law for farmers and ranchers to raise livestock and poultry for food, especially for those who rely on meat as part of their day-to-day nutritional needs. Proponents glaze over the issue by saying, “Oregon is a top-ranking producer of many field and seed crops, fruits, nuts and vegetables, and IP28 could end up increasing our net agricultural production, depending on how the industry adapts.”

In fact, by seeking to end ranching and farming, IP 28 proponents would force such operations to leave the state or transform into economically qustionable “alternative” farms.

“Some of the most talked about transitions have been helping turn chicken farms into mushroom farms. Growing these types of organizations would be instrumental in transitioning away from killing animals for food,” Michelson told Current Affairs magazine.

IP 28 would also outlaw animal research and education, ban pest control and remove the ability for residents to protect themselves.

"For research, we can use human tissues and cells, organs-on-chips and computer models. For wildlife protection, we could use the introduction of sterile males or birth control,” Michelson old Current Affairs magazine. “Our campaign doesn’t have a prescribed alternative that we think works best in every situation, but we do think that by recognizing animals as individuals with needs that we are committed to protecting, then we’ll be able to find or create alternatives together.”

Click here for a Q&A about IP 28.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Saying ‘No’ to Changing the Rules on Mexican Wolves

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:21:27 GMT

Seeking to force an environmental group to follow existing federal law in line with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project (GCWRP) v. Burgum.

More than 25 years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reintroduced the Mexican gray wolf in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico as a “nonessential experimental population” under Section 10(j) of the ESA, which authorized a more relaxed and flexible approach to regulating reintroduced populations to mitigate conflict and build goodwill with cooperating states and landowners. Today, the population tops 300.

As a result of that growth, GCWRP filed a lawsuit calling on USFWS and the State of Arizona to reclassify the population as “essential,” meaning tighter regulations and heavier government oversight at a time when Mexican wolves are nearing recovery levels that could lead to delisting.

“Changing the regulatory ground rules originally agreed upon by states and communities would punish progress, undermine cooperation and greatly delay management opportunities for state wildlife agencies in line with other wildlife species,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “It would also jeopardize positive results for any future 10(j) reintroduction actions.”

H2C agrees with RMEF and PERC that 10(j) rules should be followed for the benefit of wildlife management.

Click here to read the brief.

RMEF has a long conservation history in the Southwest, supporting nearly 100 research projects that concern or could benefit Mexican gray wolf recovery efforts, at a cost exceeding $1.3 million. Since 2020, RMEF contributed nearly $100,000 to support research assessing the impacts of the Mexican wolf reintroduction on elk. RMEF has also been involved in wildlife management and other efforts associated with nonessential experimental populations under 10(j) of the ESA, including gray wolf recovery in parts of the Northern Rocky Mountains, grizzly bear recovery in the Northern Continental Divide, Greater Yellowstone and Bitterroot Ecosystems, and the forced introduction of gray wolves into Colorado.

Who is GCWRP?

The Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project is an environmentalist group that claims “state-level wolf management is a bad idea.” It is an alignment with more well-known anti-hunting, environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Western Watersheds, WildEarth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife. It also supports another such group, the Center for Biological Diversity, in its quest to create a national wolf recovery plan, which biologists and professional wildlife managers ruled is not necessary. GCWRP refers to wolves as “sentient beings,” a popular talking point for animal rights groups, and consistently seeks to personify wolves by applying human traits to them. It also promotes outdated research, like the presence of wolves automatically trigger widespread trophic cascade effects that exaggerate benefits for vegetation, landscapes and other wildlife – propaganda dispelled via scientific, rigorous research many times over recent years, including in 2025.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Three States Seek to Protect ‘Right’ to Hunt, Fish and Trap

Sun, 08 Mar 2026 19:11:59 GMT

If proponents have their way, hunters, anglers and trappers in Delaware, New Hampshire and Ohio will not have to look over their shoulders to continue to participate in their traditional American recreational activities. Three distinctive legislative proposals seek to protect hunting, fishing and trapping in their respective state constitutions.

Why is there a need? Anti-hunting and animal rights groups across the country continue efforts to limit or even ban hunting, fishing and trapping. Activists placed a citizen initiative on Colorado’s 2024 ballot seeking to outlaw mountain lion and bobcat hunting. Voters rejected it. Several states have trapping restrictions, including New Mexico which has prohibitions on most of its public land.

An animal rights activist told WCMH-TV in Columbus, Ohio, the measure would “lock cruel and unpopular practices into our state constitution.” While another claimed, “There is no demonstrated threat to these privileges.”

The exact opposite is true. In Oregon, radical extremists are trying for a third time to place a measure on the 2026 ballot that would make it a crime to hunt, fish or trap. Their goal, in addition to passage in Oregon, is to create a grassroots protest that forces votes for state constitutional amendments and potentially a federal constitutional amendment to permanently ban hunting, fishing and trapping.

Lawmakers in Delaware want to protect hunting, fishing and trapping from future legal challenges, while also highlighting how hunting supports land and wildlife conservation.

“All I’m looking at is, guaranteed, the right for future generations to do something that for the last 250 years we’ve been able to do and nobody ever questioned it,” State Sen. Dave Wilson told Spotlight Delaware.

According to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, 24 states previously enacted legislation to protect the rights of citizens to hunt, fish and trap with Vermont the first in 1777 and Florida the most recent in 2024. The others are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Coyote Incident Highlights Danger of Extremist Oregon Ballot Initiative

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 10:28:35 GMT

A conflict between a coyote and a woman highlights one of the many dangers of a potential ballot initiative in the signature-gathering process in Oregon.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) reports a coyote bit a woman on a walking trail just outside the city limits of West Salem in the northwest part of the state. She suffered minor injuries and received medical treatment before being released. The Pole County Sheriff’s Office and ODFW spread the word and contacted nearby residents and schools, urging parents to keep an eye on young children and pets.

Initiative Petition 28 is an effort by radical anti-hunting and animal rights activists to place a measure on the 2026 ballot that would make it a crime for anyone to carry out trapping or pest control. It would also criminalize hunting, fishing and raising animals like livestock, poultry and others for food.

Proponents unsuccessfully tried to gather enough signatures to qualify similar measures for both the 2022 and 2024 elections. They have until early July to gather and submit enough signatures to make the 2026 ballot.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes IP 28 as its passage would endanger public safety, contribute to food insecurity, frustrate prove wildlife management, close businesses and cause others leave the state, and negatively affect the state economy and recreational activities on multiple fronts.

West Salem is about 55 miles southwest of Portland.

Click here to read more about IP 28.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Colorado Commission Ignores Its Own Wildlife Agency, Approves Wild Fur Ban

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 19:16:00 GMT

Despite strong recommendations from the director of Colorado Parks and Wildlife and its biologists and game managers to deny it, and an overwhelmingly large in-person turnout of hunters, ranchers and trappers, the CPW Commission apparently approved a petition from anti-hunters and animal rights advocates to institute a ban on the sale, barter or trade of wild fur in Colorado. Commissioners voted 6-to-4 in favor of the measure. However, there was a great deal of confusion what commissioners actually voted on during the vote.

“The vote does not mean the entirety of the citizen petition has been approved,” said CPW Director Laura Clellan. “In the coming months, CPW staff will draft a proposed rule to initiate our rulemaking process, along with an issue paper or draft regulations outlining any proposed exceptions that may be necessary or appropriate.”

“It’s both highly disappointing and sad that commissioners sided with an emotional ploy by activists with accusations and no scientific justification to further their goal of undermining hunting and trapping,” said Blake Henning, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation chief conservation officer. “This apparent decision to ignore and alienate the input of Colorado’s wildlife professionals will undermine the state’s proven wildlife management practices and have negative impacts on business, consumers and citizens.”

More than 1,000 RMEF members in Colorado joined RMEF’s statement in opposition to the petition. Justin Nolan, who lives in Colorado and serves as RMEF’s state advocacy manager, testified in person at the hearing.

“Colorado’s furbearer populations are healthy and well-managed. There is no biological justification for this proposed ban,” said Nolan. “Removing regulated lawful use, absent of a biological need, threatens the framework of the North American Model and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of wildlife management programs.”

Nolan also said a “yes” vote for the petition would diminish landowner tolerance, create more burdens for CPW and present real harm to rural communities. His comments were in line with CPW’s five-page recommendation to reject the measure.

Samantha Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity, a well-known anti-hunting and animal rights organization, sponsored the petition. She was also behind a 2024 ballot initiative that tried to ban the hunting of mountain lions and bobcats. Colorado voters decisively rejected it as well as a proposed fur ban in Denver in that same election.

Prior to the commission hearing, Miller issued an online video plea calling for supporters to attend. “We have been directed from the governor’s office. Don’t let us be shown up in Denver. The next meeting will be in Grand Junction, but you guys are in Denver. Don’t let them show you up in Denver.”

According to CPW, an overflow crowd of approximately 400 people attended the hearing, but the vast majority, estimated to be a 5-to-1 ratio, were hunters, ranchers and others who opposed the petition, five dozen of whom shared their thoughts.

“The fur ban isn’t science. It’s ideology,” said Jerry Apkar, retired CPW carnivore and furbearer biologist. “The justification is mostly smoke and mirrors, and nothing more than that.”

“I encourage you to remember...we are under statutory obligation to pursue the mission of Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the benefit of all,” said Gaspar Perricone, former CPW commissioner.

“By not taking staff and the director’s recommendations to deny the petition, you’re basically slapping them in the face,” said former CPW commissioner Marie Haskett. “Today represents a sad state of affairs that this governor’s personal agenda has put CPW in. Wildlife should not be political. Scienced-based management works.”

The CPW Commission is comprised of 11 voting members, each of them Colorado citizens hand-picked and appointed by Governor Jared Polis, which sets regulations and policies for CPW.

The commission’s actions are reminiscent of those taken by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission when it intentionally ignored the scientific data and recommendations of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists and game managers and voted to suspend the 2022 spring black bear hunt. Since then, different investigations, including one by the new governor, have been examining the commission's day-to-day dealings and actions.

“This fight is not over. CPW commissioners are expected to begin the rulemaking procedure for the fur ban May 6-7 in Grand Junction. We will be there and urge Coloradans to show up in force as well,” said Henning.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Activists Again Seek to Undermine Hunting and Trapping in Colorado

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 20:25:00 GMT

Some of the same anti-hunters behind the failed 2024 Colorado ballot initiative to ban mountain lion and bobcat hunting filed a petition for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to outlaw the sale, barter and trade of wildlife fur.

“As the latest effort to undermine hunting and trapping by activists, this is nothing more than an emotional ploy aimed at a commission with little connection to or understanding of hunting and trapping,” said Blake Henning, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation chief conservation officer. “If passed, it would both frustrate Colorado’s proven wildlife management practices and have negative impacts on business and consumers.”

RMEF sent a call-to-action alert to its members in Colorado to both keep them informed about the situation and urge them to jointly submit comments to commission members. More than 1,000 of them did so. The message included highlighting the lack of biological justification in the proponent petition, supporting the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and keeping the regulatory focus on biologically driven conservation priorities.

A regularly scheduled commission hearing will take place Wednesday, March 4, at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Denver (8773 Yates Drive in Westminster). Hunters, trappers and other outdoorsmen and women are encouraged to attend and provide public comment. A live stream will also be available.

Colorado’s furbearer population is healthy and well managed under current regulations, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) assessments do not show conservation concerns. CPW biologists are currently reviewing furbearer regulations through an established, data-driven process; however, this petition bypasses the scientific and public process.

Voters affirmed their support for science-based wildlife management less than two years ago by rejecting statewide bans on mountain lion and bobcat hunting 55 to 45 percent and rejecting a similar fur ban in urban Denver County 58 to 42 percent.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly opposes the petition and stands in support of hunting, trapping, wildlife management and conservation.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Mexican Wolf Population Moves Closer to Downlisting

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 20:16:25 GMT

Below is a joint news release from the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the New Mexico Department of Wildlife.

The Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team has completed the annual population count and documented the population increased to a minimum of 319 at the end of 2025, which is up from the minimum count of 286 in 2024. This is a consistent growth pattern for more than a decade.

The importance of this data is that this moves the recovery program one step closer to getting to the point that will support the downlisting of the Mexican wolf and development of a 4(d) rule under the ESA (Endangered Species Act). Implementation of a 4(d) rule would add greater flexibility in implementing management actions intended to reduce conflict while continuing recovery of the subspecies to the point of delisting.

The goal of every recovery program is to use the best scientific criteria to recover a species, so the species is no longer in need of protection under the ESA. The recovery criteria to support downlisting the Mexican wolf is an average of 320 wolves documented per year over a four-year period. Although that average has not been obtained, this number does trigger the timing where a downlisting would be justified. With a 4(d) rule, the states of New Mexico and Arizona would have more management authority than they currently have.

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

California Captures Wolves as Part of Study

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 19:39:15 GMT

Below is a news release from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The operation is part of ongoing predator-prey and population monitoring research in a part of the state dealing with livestock depredations. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is supplying funding for additional research evaluating the impacts of wolves on elk and deer in the region.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recently completed helicopter capture operations resulting in the satellite collaring of five gray wolves in northern California.

Operations occurred between Jan. 12 and 20 in Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama Counties. The wolves collared were associated with the Whaleback and Harvey packs.

Immediately after capture, each wolf was flown to a nearby field processing site and fitted with a satellite/VHF collar. CDFW veterinary and biological staff also collected standard biological data, including body measurements, DNA and blood samples. This data allows CDFW to monitor wolf health, screen for disease and assess genetic relatedness among individuals and packs. After collaring, each wolf was released on public land as close as practical to its capture location.

The five wolves collared during the operation included:

An adult male captured in northern Lassen County that was born into the Whaleback pack. Following release, collar data showed that the wolf returned to its natal Whaleback pack.

A previously collared, dispersing adult male from the Harvey pack that was captured in Modoc County. Its collar was replaced.

A Harvey pack female born in 2024 and captured in northwestern Lassen County.

Two Harvey pack females born in 2025 and captured in northeastern Shasta County.

Wildlife capture operations inherently carry risk to captured animals. During this operation, a sixth wolf – an adult female from the Harvey pack – died after capture. Factors contributing to its death are being investigated.

Satellite collaring is a critical management and research tool that helps CDFW monitor wolf populations, better understand landscape use and movement patterns and reduce the risk of wolf–livestock conflict. The collars do not provide real-time data; instead, they collect multiple location points per day and generally transmit those stored locations to CDFW once a day. Each collar has an expected battery life of approximately two to three years and is programmed to drop off the animal before the battery is depleted.

Over the past decade, CDFW has successfully captured 38 gray wolves statewide for the purpose of collaring. Presently, there are 13 wolves carrying active collars. Within days of capture, the approximate locations of the newly collared wolves began showing on CDFW’s Wolf Tracker mapping tool.

(Photo credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Hunting, Recreational Shooting, Fishing Generate Another $1.2 Billion for Conservation

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:21:06 GMT

Below is a news release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced over $1.2 billion in Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration apportionments to support states, commonwealths and territories in their efforts to fund conservation and outdoor opportunities. This program aligns with President Donald J. Trump’s strong support for state-led conservation and access to public lands.

This critical funding is generated by manufacturers who paid federal excise taxes last year on ammunition, firearms, archery and angling equipment, and a fuel and small engine tax. The funds are disbursed to partner with fish and wildlife agencies through grants by the Service’s Office of Conservation Investment.

This state-industry-federal partnership, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts, was established almost a century ago with the support of concerned conservation organizations, firearms manufacturers and conservation professionals who recognized the need to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. Since 1937, more than $31 billion has been distributed through annual apportionments to monitor and manage our nation’s fish and wildlife resources, support hunter, trapper and aquatic education, and improve access for outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing and boating.

“State wildlife agencies are critical partners who are on the front lines of wildlife management and conservation. They provide expertise and leadership in our shared conservation efforts,” said Service Director Brian Nesvik. “Through this partnership, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration funding helps states to improve access to wildlife and wild places through one of the most effective conservation tools in the world.”

Along with the more than $31 billion distributed through annual apportionments, partner fish and wildlife agencies have contributed over $10 billion in investments throughout the program’s history. Through these combined funds, agencies have supported monitoring and management of over 800 species of wild mammals and birds, annual stocking of over 1 billion fish, operations of fish and wildlife disease laboratories around the country, and provided hunter, trapper and aquatic education to millions of students. These funds have also supported operations and maintenance of over 800 target ranges, over 9,000 fishing access areas and the opening of over 36 million acres of state land to hunting and angling.

To view the Service’s final apportionment of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration grant funds for Fiscal Year 2026 and historic funding amounts, visit https://partnerwithapayer.org/funding-sources/

For more information about the Office of Conservation Investment, visit https://www.fws.gov/program/office-conservation-investment or www.partnerwithapayer.org.

(Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

National Fire Report Highlights Need for Forest Management

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 07:29:43 GMT

From the Southeast to the Pacific Northwest and into Alaska, 2025 was a devastating year for wildfires across the United States. The numbers bear that out. According to a new report from the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC), 77,850 fires charred 5,131,474 acres, claiming human lives and destroying thousands of structures while decimating forest stands, grasslands and important wildlife habitat.

There were roughly 10,000 more wildfires in 2025 compared to 2024 with 37,088 of them across the NICC’s 13-state Southern Geographic Area of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas and Oklahoma. Alaska had the most land burned at 1,006,158 acres while Dragon Bravo in Arizona was the single, largest wildfire at 145,504 acres.

The most destructive fires, by far, were in Southern California Geographic Area that directly resulted in 31 deaths but contributed to at least 440 more. Those fires also destroyed 12,773 residential properties, 5,116 minor structures and 496 commercial structures.

Hunt 2 Conserve is a proponent of the Fix Our Forests Act, legislation already passed by the U.S. House of Representatives but yet to receive a vote in the U.S. Senate. It is a package of reforms that improves the quality of wildlife habitat in national forests while reducing the risk of high-intensity, catastrophic fires. Those reforms include reversing the 2015 Cottonwood decision by the 9^th Circuit Court, which created a scenario for litigant environmentalist organizations to file seemingly nonstop lawsuits that frustrate or halt much-needed active forest management treatments to benefit habitat, wildlife and people. Both the Obama and Trump administrations since unsuccessfully tried to overturn it.

“Judges shouldn’t be managing our forests,” Sean Steinback, outreach forester for Sun Mountain Lumber and a former forester for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, told the Missoulian. He made that comment after a federal judge vacated a previous ruling to allow a Montana forest management project to go forward.

“The status quo with all the backlog is not acceptable. As a nation, we need to take action to benefit our public safety, forests and wildlife. The Fix Our Forests Act has bipartisan support across both chambers and helps make that possible,” said Blake Henning, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation chief conservation officer.

H2C joins RMEF in calling on the Senate to follow the lead of the House to both vote on and help pass it into law.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Fishlake National Forest)

BLM Confirmation Hearing Shines Light on Forest Management, Public Lands Priorities

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 23:36:40 GMT

Forest management, public lands, wildfire mitigation and public access are a few of the topics highlighted during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for Stevan Pearce, current nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management and former U.S. representative for New Mexico.

“BLM manages 1.3 million acres of forestland in Montana and the Dakotas. Yet simple projects get bogged down in red tape and, sadly, endless litigation,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT). “However, we are making progress in helping to remedy that.”

Daines supports the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA), which is a set of reforms that simplify and expedite environmental reviews, promote collaboration in forest management, encourage state-of-the-art science and technologies for federal land managers, and deter frivolous litigation, including the reversal of the 9^th Circuit Court’s “Cottonwood decision.”

“In New Mexico in my district, we had a forest of about a million acres. They were cleaning up and taking out the fuels from about 500 acres a year. With a million acres, you’d never get to the end,” said Pearce. “Large-scale projects of tens of thousands of acres instead of hundreds of acres is something I visualize.”

The U.S. House passed FOFA in early 2025 by a bipartisan vote of 279 to 141. Nine months later, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry passed it 18-to-5, but it is yet to go before the full Senate.

Pearce also downplayed talk of any widespread sale or transfer of public land. Both Republican and Democrat senators pressed him on the issue, led by ranking member Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Pearce referenced policy set in the Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA) as a guide.

When asked about using the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to expand public access for hunting and fishing, Pearce agreed unequivocally.

Hunt 2 Conserve and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are strong proponents of FOFA, LWCF and active forest management.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Bureau of Land Management)

Conservation Agreement Signed by Alaska, Forest Service

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 23:32:35 GMT

Below is a news release from the U.S. Forest Service.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Fire Protection, have signed a groundbreaking 20-year shared stewardship that expands cross‑boundary forest management and strengthens Alaska’s forest products industry.

The agreement represents the largest scale of state-federal collaboration in Alaska's history in terms of acreage and duration and provides a long-term framework to address the unique challenges facing the state's forests and communities.

"This significant agreement outlines our commitment to work together, actively managing the Tongass National Forest to create healthy forests, while contributing to a stable, vibrant rural economy," Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said. "Together, we will deliver real, measurable results — in part, by enabling the state to implement projects on up to 300,000 acres across the Tongass through Good Neighbor Authority. This will mean more acres treated, more communities protected, more jobs created, and healthier forests for generations to come."

Signed at Forest Service headquarters in Washington D.C., this agreement builds on decades of partnership between the State of Alaska and the Forest Service in fighting fires, managing forest health and supporting timber programs across the state's vast landscape.

The agreement commits both agencies to concrete actions, including developing a timber action plan by the end of 2026 that identifies priority projects on the Tongass National Forest, providing reliable timber offerings and evaluating longer-term contracting options to increase industry confidence.

“As someone who has worked in a logging camp in Southeast Alaska, I know how important having a working forest is to communities in Southeast,” said Gov. Mike Dunleavy. “This is great news for the people of Alaska and will be a lifeline to the blue-collar Alaskan workers in Southeast Alaska who President Biden and previous administrations sought to keep out of work by managing the Tongass as if it were a National Park.”

The partnership encompasses comprehensive forest management priorities including:

Cross-boundary coordination on fuels reduction and wildfire mitigation
Response to insect and disease threats
Infrastructure development and improved access
Workforce training opportunities
Investment in modern milling and harvesting technology
Technical assistance to private and non-federal landowners
Coordination on wildlife habitat, recreation and authorized development activities

The Alaska Division of Forestry and Fire Protection manages 20 million acres of state lands and provides fire protection across 154 million acres statewide. The Forest Service manages the 5.4-million-acre Chugach National Forest and 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest. Together, these lands provide critical resources and economic opportunities for Alaskans while protecting watersheds, wildlife habitat and cultural resources. These coordinated efforts will help sustain rural economies, improve public safety and support long-term community resilience.

This new agreement follows similar shared stewardship agreements with other states including Montana, Idaho, Utah, Georgia and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. Each reflects USDA's commitment to working across boundaries to improve forest health and strengthen rural communities. More information on shared stewardship is available online.

(Photo credit: U.S. Forest Service)

Gray Wolf Dies During Colorado Capture Operation

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:31:19 GMT

Below is a news release from Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

On January 28, 2026, gray wolf 2305 — the three-year-old breeding male in the King Mountain Pack — died during routine collaring operations in Routt County.

“All wildlife capture operations come with a risk and while we meticulously prepare and take every precaution to ensure a positive outcome, there is always the possibility, even if small, that the worst happens,” said Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Acting Director Laura Clellan. “Our staff and contractors carefully followed CPW Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) guidelines during this operation, but when the animal was delivered to CPW staff in the field from the initial capture site, it was unresponsive. Our team initiated resuscitation efforts but determined the animal had died.”

CPW performed a necropsy at its Health Lab in Fort Collins. Final results and lab tests from the necropsy are still pending and will help determine if there were any underlying conditions that contributed to the death of 2305.

An independent third-party veterinary pathologist was in attendance for the necropsy and will confirm all exam results.

As gray wolves in Colorado are a federally endangered species, the standard protocol for necropsies is that they be performed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In this case, because this was not a potential law enforcement investigation, CPW received permission from USFWS to perform this necropsy to help expedite the process.

“We are grateful for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s support in accelerating this process so it could be communicated to the public in a timely manner,” Clellan said. “While ACUC guidelines do not necessitate a pause in capture operations following one mortality event, CPW has decided to cease capture operations for the time being while we evaluate the circumstances around this mortality.”

In addition to the capture of 2305, the adult female and one pup from King Mountain Pack were successfully captured and collared during this operation. Summer counts had indicated four pups in this pack. All four pups, including the newly collared pup, were observed during this operation.

“It’s not yet possible to understand the long-term implications to the King Mountain Pack as a result of this mortality,” said CPW Wolf Conservation Program Manager Eric Odell. “We will continue to monitor this pack to evaluate their status and how they are contributing to the establishment of a self-sustaining wolf population in Colorado.”

Why was CPW conducting collaring operations?
Maintaining functioning collars assists CPW with monitoring the activity of wolves in Colorado, including tracking wolf localizations to aid with the timely deployment of conflict minimization resources. The agency strives to keep at least two members of each pack collared as outlined in the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan. CPW staff were aware that the collars of the breeding adults of King Mountain Pack had low batteries and therefore wanted to replace them to maintain connectivity with the pack.

“These sorts of capture efforts are a routine part of CPW’s wolf monitoring efforts, and the program has had very successful capture operations up to this point,” Clellan said. “Operations like this are standard across a number of different species and are an important aspect of successful wildlife management in Colorado. We continue to be confident in the abilities of our staff who lead the processing side of these efforts as well as the contractors who conduct the captures.”

In addition to the King Mountain Pack, CPW continues to monitor three other confirmed packs and other known wolves in the state. The number of pups successfully recruited into the population will be included in the minimum population count in CPW’s annual gray wolf report which will be available early summer.

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Cow Creek Tribe of Umpqua Tribe, Forest Service Sign Forest Agreement

Tue, 24 Feb 2026 22:30:11 GMT

Below is a news release from the U.S. Forest Service. Hunt 2 Conserve strongly supports active forest management for the benefit of wildlife, wildlife habitat, hunting, forest health and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire.

The U.S. Forest Service and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians have signed a new shared stewardship agreement to expand collaborative forest and rangeland restoration across two national forests in Oregon. The agreement strengthens an already productive partnership and supports shared planning and work to reduce wildfire risk, improve forest health, and protect cultural resources.

Signed on Feb. 12 at Forest Service headquarters in Washington D.C., this agreement builds on a previous collaboration between the Tribe and the agency. It strengthens the government-to-government relationship and expands capacity to accelerate work that supports healthier forests and safer communities.

“The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians bring deeply rooted Indigenous land management experience and traditions that focus on caring for the land,” Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said. “In partnership with the tribe, more than 37 miles of fuel breaks were created to protect tribal lands, private property, and National Forest System lands. I look forward to our expanded partnership and our joint efforts to reduce wildfire risk on a landscape scale and create resilient forests that benefit all.”

The agreement includes an initial planning project area of about 155,000 acres on the Umpqua and Rogue River-Siskiyou national forests. Within this landscape, the Forest Service and the tribe will work together to increase the pace and scale of forest management projects that protect people, communities, as well as natural and cultural resources.

“Wildfire is the greatest threat to the health of our forests, which is not only of cultural significance to the Cow Creek Umpqua, but also a critical part of Oregon’s environmental and economic landscape,” said Carla Keene, chairman of the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. “This government-to-government partnership allows us to work toward a future where our forests are managed for long-term resilience, our communities are protected from the health risks of smoke, and our national forests remain an asset for all Oregonians seven generations into the future.”

National forests supply raw materials that support construction and wood energy industries, provide 180 million Americans with clean water, and host millions of visitors each year who enjoy world-class recreation opportunities. Protecting these benefits requires coordinated action across boundaries and jurisdictions, making shared stewardship agreements with states, counties and federally recognized tribes a critical part of managing a shared landscape.

This new agreement follows similar agreements with Montana,Idaho, Utah, and Georgia and reflects USDA’s commitment to working with all interested tribes, counties and states to improve forest health and strengthen rural communities.

More information on shared stewardship is available on the Forest Service website. The full agreement and additional details are available on the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians website.

(Photo source: U.S. Forest Service)

Young Girl Goes to Capitol, Proposes Hunting as Idaho’s ‘Official Sport’

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:00:28 GMT

Betty Grandy has already done quite a bit in the first nine years of her life. A fourth grader from Twin Falls, Idaho, she is editor-in-chief of her own neighborhood newspaper called the Brandy Gazette.

Recently, she added another paragraph to her resume when her father drove her 130 miles to the state Capitol building in Boise to offer testimony before a legislative hearing in support of a bill she inspired. Betty wants hunting to become Idaho’s official sport.

“I try to help people, so it makes me feel happy that I’m helping Idaho,” Grandy told KTVB-TV. "Did you know that 70 percent of Idaho's land is public hunting area?”

Betty reached out to her subscription base of 45 readers to solidify her idea.

"I ran a poll within the subscribers of the newspaper, and most of them picked archery hunting. I feel like so many people chose hunting. If there were 100 categories, it would still win," she told KTVB-TV.

Betty's desire is worded in the form of HB 652, which states, “The Legislature finds that the State of Idaho values the rights to hunt, fish, and trap and has enshrined such rights in the Constitution of the State of Idaho. The Legislature finds that the sport of hunting is historically and culturally representative of these traditions. As such, it is the intent of the Legislature to designate and declare hunting as the state sport of the State of Idaho.”

The committee unanimously advanced the bill to the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

Click here to watch a KTVB-TV report.

(Photo credit: J Squish)

Colorado Has No Plans to Introduce Wolves for 2026 Winter

Sun, 22 Feb 2026 16:00:53 GMT

Below is a news release from Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) announced that it currently has no plans for translocating additional gray wolves this release season and continues to explore options for translocations in winter 2026/2027.

“During this intermediate time, CPW will continue to meet with producers and other stakeholders, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to explore how to maximize the restoration effort and achieve our plan of establishing a self-sustaining gray wolf population in Colorado,” said CPW Acting Director Laura Clellan. “Our team has invested in a significant conflict minimization program, and we look forward to exploring how we continue to improve this program with producers to protect both livestock and wolves.”

CPW will continue to work with producers to implement the tactics outlined in the Wolf-Livestock Conflict Minimization Program Guide and build on significant conflict mitigation milestones this year. 2025 milestones include:

Partnering with Colorado Department of Agriculture to establish the Colorado Range Riding program to meet the needs of producers during their open ranging seasons when additional human presence is needed to help minimize conflict,
Hiring a Wolf Damage and Conflict Minimization Manager who will oversee compensation for wolf damage as well as the Colorado Range Riding program which is slated to expand in 2026,
Bringing on additional wildlife damage specialists to supplement the efforts of district wildlife managers and other regional staff by investigating suspected wolf depredations among other types of damage such as that caused by bears, mountain lions, and various ungulates,
Expansion of the conflict minimization hard tool stockpile at CPW disposal, which includes approximately 45 miles of fladry (the electrified flag-line fencing used to deter wolves) along with more than 160 sound-and-light scare devices ready for deployment,
Completing more than 240 site assessments,
Continuing to build upon CPW’s decades-long history of investigating and preventing livestock conflicts through a dedicated interagency training held in October.

The impact of no additional releases is dependent on several factors, including wolf survival and reproduction. CPW has confirmed successful reproduction in four packs and its staff is working to determine how many pups made it through the summer and will be successfully recruited into the population. Female gray wolves give birth to an average litter of four to six pups.

“When populations are small, the contributions of each individual are especially significant. It is not possible to predict the impact of foregoing a third year of translocations without knowing what may occur in the coming year. If mortality remains high, as observed in 2025, the risk of failing to achieve a self-sustaining wolf population in Colorado increases, potentially requiring additional resources to address,” said CPW Wolf Program Manager Eric Odell.

CPW will continue to make all management decisions on a case-by-case basis after evaluating the circumstances, the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan, and relevant law.

“This is a complicated effort and I want to encourage all stakeholders to continue to work together as we move toward the goal of creating a self-sustaining population of wolves in the state, while at the same time minimizing conflict with livestock,” said Clellan.

(Photo credit: Colorado Parks and Wildlife)

Forest Service Signs Conservation Agreement with Georgia

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 22:24:04 GMT

The State of Georgia along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) signed a shared stewardship memorandum of understanding today, reaffirming a joint commitment to coordinated, cross-boundary forest management across priority landscapes in the state.

“Georgia has been an exceptional partner in advancing shared stewardship, and this renewed agreement takes that collaboration to the next level”, said Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz. "By working together to increase prescribed fire, expand growing-season burns, and deliver a sustainable volume of timber through Good Neighbor Authority projects, we’re strengthening both forest health and the state’s forest-based economy. This renewed partnership also supports existing industry and developing wood products, improves and expands opportunities for hunting and fishing, and renews our commitment to support cooperative activities across all Georgia forests."

The Forest Service is working hand-in-hand with state and local governments to manage the nation’s forests more effectively. Agreements such as this one help create more responsive local decision-making, stronger partnerships, and better results for Georgia’s communities. The agreement also formalizes the strong collaboration that already existed between Georgia and the Forest Service and supports implementation of Executive Order 14225 Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production.

In Georgia, the shared stewardship framework supports cooperative efforts related to wildfire mitigation, prescribed fire, hazardous fuels reduction, forest restoration, forest products utilization, recreation and long-term resilience of forested landscapes.

"Georgia's forestry industry, the largest in the nation, has shown great resilience in the face of extraordinary challenges," said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. "This agreement will help strengthen the existing relationships between state and federal industry leaders, ensuring we continue to steward our bountiful natural resources while supporting the hardworking Georgians who depend on them for their livelihoods."

The agreement aligns Forest Service priorities to expand state, tribal and local partnerships; accelerate active forest management; and strengthen coordinated wildfire risk reduction efforts nationwide. In the agreement the Forest Service commits to:

Develop long-term solutions for wood markets, such as supporting the development of innovative wood products and wood utilization programs.
Coordinate with other federal agencies to address market barriers to Georgia’s forest products.
Work toward achieving an annual sustainable five million board feet of timber through Good Neighbor Authority projects over five years and maintain at least one GNA timber sale annually.
Initiate an agreement with Georgia that uses EXPLORE Act authorities by the end of 2026 – and continue to fund Good Neighbor Agreements to accomplish shared active management goals and efforts to recover from disasters.
Emphasize active management of forests, including expanding the use of prescribed fire and increasing growing season burns, collaborate on America’s Longleaf Restoration Initiative, improve wildlife habitat, stock native and game fish species in streams and water bodies, treat non-native invasive species, and manage for rare, imperiled and federally protected species.
Support Georgia as it works with landowners to reduce wildfire risk, address forest health threats on private lands, and manage their forests.
Coordinate on law enforcement, natural disasters, risks to forest health, the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and research / inventory needs.

“This agreement strengthens forest management across ownership boundaries and benefits everyone involved,” said Georgia Forestry Commission Director and State Forester Johnny Sabo. “By improving the health and resilience of national forest lands, we also reduce wildfire risk, lessen forest health threats like southern pine beetle, and support more productive forests for neighboring private landowners and communities.”

The State of Georgia, Forest Service and NRCS will continue working with local governments, private landowners, tribal partners and stakeholders to implement shared stewardship projects across the state.

“Shared Stewardship is about action and accountability. By partnering with Georgia and the Forest Service, NRCS will continue to provide conservation practices where it matters most—on working farms, ranches, and forestlands. This agreement helps us meet landowners where they are, improve forest health and water resources, and keep Georgia’s rural economies strong,” said NRCS Chief Aubrey J.D. Bettencourt.

This agreement follows similar agreements with Montana, Idaho, and Utah. For more information on the agreement, visit: https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/shared-stewardship.

About forests in Georgia

Georgia's 24 million acres of forestlands provide abundant forest products as a renewable source of wood fiber, clean water for communities and agriculture, support a thriving outdoor recreation and tourism economy, and provide outstanding fish and wildlife habitat.

A variety of benefits are provided to Georgia from its healthy, sustainable forests. Of primary importance is the $59.4 billion economic impact the forest industry has on the state. The industry is the state's second largest employer, with compensation exceeding $11.3 billion and payments to landowners of about $14.5 million. It generates an estimated $880 million per year in revenues for the state budget. Due to recent mill closures, this revenue is expected to decrease in 2025, leaving an opportunity for business growth in this sector in 2026 and beyond.

Forest-based recreation contributes to the state's economic growth and tourism industry. Georgia leads the nation in nonresident hunters, and resident sportsmen spend more than $1.8 billion annually. Anglers spend $569 million each year.

Federal, state and private land managers in Georgia face a range of urgent challenges, among them catastrophic storms, droughts, flooding, insect and disease outbreaks, invasive species, habitat loss and fragmentation, changing forest markets, urban sprawl and interface, and growing public use.

The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, which features nearly 867,000 acres across 26 Georgia counties, is home to thousands of miles of clear-running streams and rivers, 850 miles of recreation trails, and dozens of campgrounds, picnic areas, and other recreation activity opportunities.

NRCS in Georgia works with local conservation districts, farmers and landowners to identify natural resource concerns, such as water quality and quantity issues, soil erosion, air quality, wetlands and wildlife habitat; they then develop unique solutions for restoring and protecting these resources. The Georgia Forestry Commission serves as technical specialist for NRCS, assisting conservationists in writing resource management plans and conducting performance checks on forest management cost share practices throughout the state.

(Photo credit: U.S. Forest Service)

Florida Bear Hunt Deemed a ‘Success’

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:52:00 GMT

Despite a full-court press by anti-hunters, Florida’s first managed black bear hunt in a decade turned out to be a successful one. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) harvest report shows hunters took 52 bears during the Dec. 6-28, 2025, season.

“The 2025 black bear hunt, rooted in sound scientific data, was a success,” Roger Young, FWC executive director, told Outdoor Life. “We’re proud to have joined the more than 30 states that manage black bears with regulated hunting.”

FWC approved the hunt to both manage the state’s black bear population and help reduce human-bear conflicts. There are 16 recorded conflicts over the last three years and 44 dating back to 2006. Among the most recent is a May 2025 attack when a black bear killed a man and his dog in Jerome, a small community about 90 miles west of Miami.

Anti-hunters publicly campaigned to buy as many bear licenses as possible to keep them out of the hands of hunters. According to Outdoor Life, extremists drew 43 of the 172 tags and offered to pay others who did receive a tag.

FWC reports Florida residents bought all but six of the available permits, and only Floridians were successful. Twenty-four of the 52 harvested bears were female. None of them were lactating, meaning they were not feeding cubs. All the bears taken met size requirements, and FWC issued no warnings or citations to participating hunters.

Florida black bear population ballooned from several hundred in the 1970s to more than 4,000 today.

According to FWC, a managed Florida bear hunt took place from the 1930s until 1994. It reopened for one year in 2015.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Wolf Wanders into Los Angeles County

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 19:28:08 GMT

For the first time in more than a century, wildlife officials confirmed the presence of a gray wolf in southern California. They are actively monitoring the situation because it wears a GPS tracking collar.

According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and as reported by the Los Angeles Times, the animal is a 3-year-old female that traveled more than 370 miles from northern California to the mountains north of Santa Clarita, approximately 50 to 60 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles.

It is from a pack in Plumas County, just across the state line from Reno and, looking at the bigger, historic picture, is offspring of wolves originally introduced into Yellowstone National Park in the mid-1990s.

"This wolf is the furthest south we have verified a wolf since that introduction 30 years ago. And it's the first time we have verified a wolf in L.A. County in modern times," Axel Hunnicutt, CDFW gray wolf coordinator, told KABC-TV. "I can't tell you the last time there was a wolf in L.A. County, but it likely was well over a hundred years ago."

Hunnicutt believes the wolf is looking for a mate.

According to CDFW, there are nine confirmed wolf packs in California, all in the northern part of the state. CDFW lethally removed four wolves from the Sierra Valley in October 2025 due to continual livestock depredations. Between March 28 and Sept. 10, 2025, wolves killed 70 head of livestock with another 17 confirmed or probable depredations the following month.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Feds: National Wolf Recovery Plan Is Unnecessary

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 07:45:33 GMT

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced in November 2025 that creating a national recovery plan for gray wolves is unnecessary. It determined doing so “would not promote their conservation” because listing is no longer appropriate” under the Endangered Species Act due to the success of recovery of gray wolf populations.

Essentially, the USFWS stands by its 2020 assessment and evaluation that wolves have already met recovery goals.

In a 10-page document, it concluded that population levels in the Great Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin are abundant and above recovery, while each state has sufficient wolf management laws and plans in place to maintain that abundance for the foreseeable future. USFWS also stated there were few wolves along the West Coast at the time of the status review five years ago but California, Washington and Oregon each have plans in place to ensure their reestablishment. At last count at the end of 2024, there were a minimum of 50 wolves in California, 204 in Oregon and 230 in Washington.

USFWS also expects wolves in the Western United States to continue to spread into unoccupied areas. Again, as of the end of 2024, there was a minimum estimate of 1,150 wolves in Idaho, 1,091 in Montana and more than 300 in Wyoming, including about 100 in Yellowstone National Park.

Hunt 2 Conserve and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation maintain that state wildlife agencies can and should sustainably manage recovered wolf populations just as they manage elk, black bears, deer and other wildlife species.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

RMEF Turns Up Heat on Forest Reforms Before Fire Season Does

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:19:52 GMT

It has been more than a year since the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) on a strong bipartisan vote, and despite broad support in the Senate, there is no vote scheduled. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is working the Senate side of Capitol Hill to try to get through the logjam but getting floor time for a vote is proving elusive.

“Every time a legislative crisis shows up in the news, whether it is a government shutdown or budget bills or confirmation fights, that takes up precious time for the debate and vote that we need to get Fix Our Forests across the finish line. It is starting to feel like only fire season will enable us to cut through the noise,” said Ryan Bronson, RMEF director of government affairs.

FOFA features a set of reforms to improve wildlife habitat quality in national forests, in addition to reducing catastrophic fire risk. It simplifies and expedites environmental reviews for forest management projects, promote federal, state, tribal and local collaboration in forest management, strengthen tools like Good Neighbor Authority and stewardship contracting to maximize return on investment, deters frivolous litigation that delays essential projects, including to reverse the 9th Circuit Court’s Cottonwood decision, and encourage the adoption of state-of-the-art science and technologies for federal land managers.

Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate on most legislation and end so-called filibusters. RMEF and its allies continue to work to ensure that there are more than 60 votes when the time comes.

Bronson already made two trips to Washington, D.C., in 2026 with a focus on Senate offices that may be on the fence, emphasizing the link between active management and habitat with wildfire resilience. The efforts have been generally successful, with most concerns focused on funding levels and not the policy provisions in the bill.

RMEF’s biggest concern is that as the politics in Congress over other issues become more bitter, and the fall elections get closer, willingness to pass even bipartisan issues like FOFA will become more difficult.

“We just met with Senate staffers from Washington, New Mexico, Oregon, Arizona and Pennsylvania offices and found broad support for improved forest policy. We need to get the bill on the floor for a vote,” added Bronson.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

RMEF Access Work Lauded on Capitol Hill

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 23:00:18 GMT

A congressional subcommittee recently heard testimony about first-hand work by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to open and improve public access. It happened in relation to a January 13, 2026, oversight hearing by the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries titled, “Hunting and Fishing Access in the Great American Outdoors.”

One of those asked to testify before the committee was Paul Johansen, wildlife biologist and chief of the Wildlife Resources Section of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. Johansen also serves as president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, an organization comprised of state fish and wildlife agencies from across North America. In addition to oral testimony before the committee, Johansen also submitted detailed written testimony highlighting the importance of access, including praise for a multi-year RMEF land conservation and access project in the Pacific Northwest.

“In Oregon, the state recently acquired more than 16,000-plus acres to complete the Minam River Wildlife Area in Union and Wallowa Counties. The wildlife area creates public access to the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, making the entire Minam River publicly accessible for hunting, fishing and other recreational opportunities.

“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, USFS (U.S. Forest Service) Forest Legacy Program, USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Wildlife Restoration Program and many of Oregon’s hunting and outdoor recreation groups all raised money to purchase land for the wildlife area. With this acquisition, an area larger than Yellowstone National Park, is all in public ownership and open for recreation (ODFW [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife], Oregon Parks and Rec Dept, BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and USFS ownership). Anglers can enjoy trout and mountain whitefish fishing, hunters can target deer and elk, and hikers can follow the Minam River Trail to the Eagle Cap Wilderness.”

Johansen also touted work in his home state to successfully restore wild elk to their native West Virginia range. RMEF also supplied significant funding and volunteer support for those efforts.

“This management effort had two primary objectives. First, through the capture and translocation of elk from Kentucky and Arizona, we successfully returned this majestic animal to the mountains of southern West Virginia. Second, we wanted to ensure that these elk were reestablished into suitable habitats that were publicly accessible for wildlife-associated recreation. Working closely with coal mining and timber companies, we were able to secure more than 54,000 acres of publicly accessible land as an essential component of our elk restoration effort,” wrote Johansen.

Since its establishment in 1984, RMEF worked alongside partner organizations to open or improve public access for hunters, anglers and others to more than 1.6 million acres of land.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

H2C Supports Feds’ New National Conservation Initiative

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 22:00:26 GMT

As a strong advocate of hunting, Hunt 2 Conserve supports this initiative.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) announced a series of priorities that target conservation, hunting and other recreation, natural resource stewardship and growth. The Make America Beautiful Commission, which includes several Trump administration cabinet members and is chaired by DOI Secretary Doug Burgum, released what it calls MABA 250, a strategic initiative to serve as a framework for future conservation policies.

“By honoring our past while building for our future, through responsible conservation, the MABA 250 initiative’s groundbreaking framework will ensure our nation's treasured lands and historic legacy are responsibly managed and preserved for centuries to come," said Secretary Burgum.

Key priorities include balancing stewardship and economic growth, increasing access for hunting, fishing and other recreation, expanding voluntary conservation, reducing red tape by extremists and bureaucracy, and recovering species and supporting habitat.

Below is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's stance about the commission’s work:

RMEF commends the Make America Beautiful Commission appointed by President Trump for its strategic initiative, MABA 250. The priorities laid out in MABA 250 align with our mission to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage. We look forward to increasing the pace of our shared work priorities, including expanding public access for hunting and fishing, enhancing wildlife habitat on public lands, supporting private conservation and stewardship, and reducing red tape that slows this work down.

We are particularly heartened by the MABA 250 Commission’s recognition of the conservation achievement of the Great American Outdoor Act (GAOA), which provided permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). RMEF has worked with federal and state agencies in cooperation with private landowners to increase and improve public access and quality wildlife habitat with LWCF investments.

The Trump administration’s decision to redirect nearly $8 million to grants supporting big-game migration corridors builds on the great success of Secretarial Order 3362. RMEF encourages Congress to codify those executive actions by passing the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act.

Also aligned with these priorities is RMEF’s top federal legislative agenda item, the Fix Our Forests Act. This comprehensive bipartisan forest management package reduces red tape and litigation that currently hinders habitat improvement in our national forests and is critical to improving public forest landscapes. To address voluntary conservation of our forests, we seek to include a Forest Conservation Easement Program in a Farm Bill.

RMEF President/CEO Kyle Weaver (left) and RMEF Chief Conservation Officer Blake Henning (right) during a visit with Secretary Doug Burgum (middle) in his Washington, D.C., office

Click here to view the DOI news release.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

One-Year Anniversary of Fix Our Forests Act Passage

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 15:12:36 GMT

January 23, 2026, marked one year since the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fix Our Forests Act. To mark the occasion, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, released the statement below.

“A year — and another devastating wildfire season — has come and gone since the House came together and passed the Fix Our Forests Act with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Catastrophic wildfires aren’t like hurricanes or tornadoes; we can and should take proactive steps to prevent devastating wildfires from becoming our new normal. We can’t afford to wait any longer, and it’s time for the Senate to pass this important legislation and send it to the President’s desk before the next preventable disaster strikes.”

Fires burned almost five million acres in 2025. That came on the heels of a 2024 wildfire season that charred more than 8.9 million acres of forestland and destroyed 4,500 structures. The taxpayer bill to fight the fires is in the billions of dollars.

The Fix Our Forests Act is a set of reforms to improve the quality of wildlife habitat in national forests that would also reduce the risk of high-intensity fires and improve overall forest health.

The House passed the measure on a strong bipartisan 279-141 vote. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry passed the legislation on an 18-5 vote in October 2025, although it is yet to be taken up by the full Senate.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly supports the Fix Our Forests Act and urges the Senate to approve it as soon as possible.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Newhouse Named Chairman of House Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 19:21:42 GMT

Below is a news release from the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture.

House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15) announced Rep. Dan Newhouse (WA-04) as the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.

“Rep. Newhouse is a valued and engaged member of our committee, and I am proud to see him stepping up to lead the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture," Chairman Thompson said. "He has proven himself to be a true advocate for our country’s working lands and specialty crop producers, and I know this subcommittee will thrive under his leadership. Mr. LaMalfa left big shoes to fill, but I have no doubt in my mind that Rep. Newhouse is the right person to carry on his legacy.”

“It’s truly a privilege to receive the gavel for the Forestry and Horticulture Subcommittee,” Rep. Newhouse said. "These are two issues that are at the center of our agriculture industry and natural resources in the State of Washington, and I look forward to working closely with Chairman Thompson on moving the Farm Bill this Congress. It is also an honor to fill the shoes of my late friend, Doug LaMalfa, who led this subcommittee as a fighter for these issues in Northern California. I am thankful for this opportunity and ready to get to work.”

The late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), who passed away in January, was the previous chairman of the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.

(Photo credit: Rep. Dan Newhouse)

Voices Raised to Delist Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Population

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 20:30:19 GMT

In a letter (see below) to U.S. House leadership, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation joined 19 other hunting, fishing and sportsmen and women organizations by urging lawmakers to pass H.R. 281, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act. The legislation would reinstate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to remove grizzlies as a threatened species in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

RMEF has long advocated for state management of recovered grizzly bear populations in line with its support of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, under which state management of wildlife, along with the financial contributions from hunters, dramatically increased wildlife populations across the United States over the last century.

RMEF maintains that state wildlife agencies should sustainably manage grizzlies just as they manage elk, deer, moose, black bears, mountain lions, pronghorn antelope and other wildlife for their overall betterment.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

-----

Honorable Mike Johnson

Office of the Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Honorable Steve Scalise

Office of Majority Leader

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

January 21, 2026

Dear Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Scalise:

The undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters, anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, write to express our strong support for H.R. 281, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act. This bill will reinstate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s science-based decision to remove grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem from the Endangered Species Act lists. The bill prioritizes science and returns these long-recovered bears to state management—where they belong. We respectfully request that H.R. 281 be considered by the entire House as soon as possible.

The Service delisted these grizzly bears in 2007 and again in 2017, using the best available science and in collaboration with the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Unfortunately, these rules were reversed through litigation. H.R. 281 would end that vicious cycle and allow the Service to focus its limited resources on truly at-risk species.

There is no question that grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have biologically recovered. This population has almost doubled its recovery metrics and no longer meets the definition of a threatened species. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should be celebrated and rewarded for their success. They have demonstrated their ability to properly manage grizzly bears. And they require flexibility to deal with the challenges that come with this extensive population recovery and expansion, particularly the significant increase in human-bear conflicts.

The Grizzly Bear State Management Act recognizes this reality. It elevates the Service’s science-based reasoning over that of activist organizations and courts and aligns with past Congressional delisting actions, such as the 2011 delisting of gray wolves in the same States.

For these reasons, we strongly support H.R. 281, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act. We respectfully request that H.R. 281 be scheduled for a vote in the House as quickly as possible, and before the end of this Congress.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to science-based wildlife management

Sincerely,

Archery Trade Association

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Boone and Crockett Club

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

Conservation Force

Dallas Safari Club

Houston Safari Club

Mule Deer Foundation

National Deer Association

National Rifle Association

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Wild Turkey Federation

Pope and Young Club

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Safari Club International

Safari Club International Foundation

Sportsmen’s Alliance

Whitetails Unlimited

Wild Sheep Foundation

Wildlife Forever

(Photo credit: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)

Support Given for Farm Bill Conservation Program

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 20:09:14 GMT

Hunt 2 Conserve aligns with the conservation views of those organizations below.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is among nearly three dozen conservation, hunting and outdoor organizations calling on Congress to support a key farmland conservation program and its undeniable role supplying critical habitat for wildlife.

In a December 2025 letter (see below) to congressional leadership, the groups want the next farm bill to include foundational support for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which encourages agricultural producers and landowners to convert highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, like native grasses, trees and riparian buffers. Doing so benefits a wide array of wildlife species.

“This program was originally established more than four decades ago in the 1985 Farm Bill and is probably the most impactful private land conservation effort ever implemented,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer.

For each of the last three years, CRP existed under one-year extensions but according to the groups, a long-term reauthorization gives producers a more reliable and effective way to manage their land.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

-----

December 22, 2025

The Honorable John Boozman

Chairman

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar

Ranking Member

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Glenn “GT” Thompson

Chairman

House Committee on Agriculture

United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Angie Craig

Ranking Member

House Committee on Agriculture

United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Craig:

The undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters, anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, urge you to ensure the next farm bill includes strong support for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As CRP celebrates its 40th anniversary on December 23, 2025, Congress has an opportunity to mark four decades of voluntary stewardship on private lands by strengthening one of the most successful conservation programs in American history.

Since 1985, CRP has been a cornerstone of the farm safety net, giving producers a voluntary, market-based tool to manage risk on their most marginal and environmentally sensitive acres. For countless farmers and ranchers, enrolling vulnerable acres in CRP helps stabilize operations, diversify on-farm income, and protect long-term productivity, especially during periods of volatile commodity prices and input costs, severe drought, or extreme weather.

At the same time, CRP has delivered unparalleled conservation outcomes over the last 40 years. The program has dramatically reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, enhanced soil health, and provided some of the nation’s most important habitats for myriad wildlife species. Land enrolled in CRP bolsters rural economies by supporting outdoor recreation and access, while targeted initiatives like the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) demonstrate how the program is tailored to meet local resource needs. Grassland CRP and emergency forage authorities have helped the program evolve into a flexible tool for producers to improve and utilize working lands on their operations.

For the past several years, however, CRP has operated under three successive one-year extensions, creating uncertainty for producers who depend on stable enrollment options and consistent program rules. While leaders at USDA have done an excellent job administering the program under less-than-ideal circumstances, a full, long-term reauthorization is critical to ensure that CRP continues to provide the reliability and predictability producers need to manage risk and steward their land.

As Congress continues developing the next farm bill, this anniversary offers a timely reminder of how well CRP works—and how we can build on the program’s impressive record by making it more accessible and effective for landowners, while strengthening outcomes for wildlife, soil, and water. Reauthorizing and improving CRP now will ensure the program continues meeting the needs of growers, rural communities, and natural resources for decades to come.

We appreciate your ongoing leadership and your long-standing commitment to rural America, agricultural producers, hunters and anglers, and voluntary conservation. We look forward to working with you to ensure CRP’s next 40 years deliver even greater benefits for farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and wildlife.

Sincerely,

American Woodcock Society

Archery Trade Association

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers

Boone and Crockett Club

California Waterfowl Association

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

Conservation Force

Delta Waterfowl

Ducks Unlimited

Izaak Walton League of America

Mule Deer Foundation

National Association of Forest Service Retirees

National Bobwhite & Grassland Initiative Foundation

National Deer Association

National Shooting Sports Foundation

National Wild Turkey Federation

National Wildlife Federation

North American Falconers Association

North American Grouse Partnership

Pheasants Forever

Pope and Young Club

Quail Forever

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Ruffed Grouse Society

Safari Club International

Safari Club International Foundation

Sportsmen’s Alliance

Texas Wildlife Association

The Wildlife Society

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Whitetails Unlimited

Wildlife Management Institute

Wildlife Mississippi

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Bill to Modernize Endangered Species Act Advances to House

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:41:52 GMT

Marking a win for wildlife and conservation, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee approved a package of reforms to the Endangered Species Act, clearing the way for a potential vote by the entire U.S. House of Representatives.

The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 (H.R. 1897) makes reforms to the Endangered Species Act by streamlining the listing process, clarifying statutory definitions and focusing on recovery. It also provides incentives for the recovery of listed species, promotes accountability for agency actions, expands cooperation with local governments and creates a backstop against frivolous litigation by placing a cap on attorney’s fees.

“Five decades after the ESA’s passage, only three percent of listed species have ever recovered. Special-interest lawsuits and arbitrary rules have weaponized the law against both wildlife and the communities it’s supposed to help,” said Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR). “H.R. 1897 restores science, conservation and sustainable economic development to America’s endangered species policy and returns the ESA to its original, bipartisan purpose as a tool for species recovery.”

Hunt 2 Conserve and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation support this legislation.

“Five decades of case law informed by radical environmental activists has transformed the Endangered Species Act into a purgatory for wildlife. As sportsmen and women, RMEF takes seriously our commitment to wildlife conservation and believes we can and should do better,” said RMEF President and CEO Kyle Weaver. “This measure represents a positive step towards returning the ESA to its original mission, ensuring already limited resources go towards species recovery, not fighting endless court battles. RMEF thanks Chairman Westerman for his leadership on this bill.”

RMEF testified before the committee in 2024 on similar legislation, focusing on incremental recovery targets for threatened species and increased state authority in meeting those targets. These reforms are consistent with RMEF’s efforts to repeal the “blanket rule,” which implements one-size-fits-all restrictions for threatened species and requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish individual plans to move threatened species to recovered status.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

RMEF to USFWS: Rescind Endangered/Threatened Species Rule

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 20:22:05 GMT

Hunt 2 Conserve agrees with rescinding the blanket rule for the benefit of wildlife.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) applauded a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decision to repeal the blanket 4(d) rule in a recent joint public comment.

The two organizations filed a lawsuit in late 2024 challenging the agency’s previous adoption of the rule. RMEF’s primary criticism is that the blanket rule uses a one-size-fits-all approach by treating endangered and threatened species the same. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows for less restrictions and more flexibility for threatened species, which provides incentives to states and private landowners to make progress towards recovery. USFWS reversed course and agreed in the summer of 2025 and will rescind the rule by the end of 2026.

RMEF and PERC submitted their comments (see below) and made several main points during a 30-day comment period after USFWS published its decision in late 2025:

USFWS should finalize recission of the blanket rule to meet the ESA’s goal of recovering species
Restoring the ESA distinction between endangered and threatened species would remove barriers to voluntary conservation, including habitat restoration, ensuring science rather than arbitrary whim drives development of ESA regulations and gives states needed flexibility to manage recovering species
Rescinding the rule increases incentives for proactive conservation and the recovery of more species
The rule violates the ESA by reversing, without statutory authorization, Congress’ choice to limit regulation of take of endangered species, circumventing the requirement to assess what is necessary and advisable to conserve each threatened species, and ignoring the incentives needed to recover species.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

-----

December 22, 2025

Re: Proposed Rescission of the “Blanket Rule” that Regulates Threatened Species as if They were Endangered

Dear Director Nesvik,

The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposal to rescind the “blanket rule” that arbitrarily regulates endangered and threatened species the same and ignores the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) text, science, species’ unique needs, and recovery progress. For those reasons, PERC and RMEF filed a lawsuit challenging the previous administration’s adoption of the blanket rule.

In July, President Trump directed the Service, and other federal agencies, to “recover America’s fish and wildlife populations through proactive, voluntary, on-the-ground conservation efforts.” Rescinding the blanket rule is a vital and necessary step toward fulfilling that policy. The blanket rule arbitrarily prohibits proactive, voluntary conservation, including habitat restoration. And, in doing so, it discourages species' recovery. Tailored rules, however, remove roadblocks for proactive conservation efforts, including prescribed fire, forest thinning, and stream restoration.

The blanket rule also ignores science and the important role of state wildlife agencies. Under it, the Service never assesses how to best promote the recovery of most species, despite the ESA requiring this analysis for every threatened species. Instead, it imposes an illegal and arbitrary one-size-fits-all approach that Congress rejected when it limited Section 9 to endangered species. Instead, Congress intended states to take a greater role in recovering and managing threatened species. Yet the blanket rule, without explanation, deprives states of the flexibility needed to fill that role.

Finally, as the Service explained in 2019, and reaffirmed in 2024, developing tailored rules for each threatened species “incentivize[s] conservation for both endangered and threatened species.” The blanket rule, by treating endangered and threatened species the same, removes this incentive by denying states and landowners any reward for recovery progress.

We elaborate on these points in the detailed comments submitted with this letter. Thank you for your continued leadership and focus on species recovery.

Sincerely,

Property and Environment Research Center

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

(Photo credit: Jim Peaco/NPS)

House Passes Wolf Delisting Bill

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 04:30:00 GMT

By a vote of 211-204, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would delist gray wolves in the Lower 48. The Pet and Livestock Protection Act, supported by Hunt 2 Conserve and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, would restore management authority to state wildlife agencies.

“We salute House membership for agreeing with scientists and wildlife management professionals that wolf populations are stable and growing and should return to state management,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted wolves in the Lower 48 states twice in the last decade and a half – during the Obama administration in 2011 and the Trump administration in 2020. Both times, judges intervened to invalidate the process.”

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) sponsored the legislation. It will not change any statutes but instead implements a rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2020.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) introduced a companion bill in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

“State wildlife agencies sustainably manage thousands of species without federal interference, and several states in the Northern Rockies are successfully managing wolves because Congress took action to protect their delisting from activist judges,” said Henning. “We thank Representatives Tiffany and Boebert for sponsoring this legislation. RMEF calls on the Senate to follow suit and pass the bill.”

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Lawmakers Debate Abuse of Equal Access to Justice Act by Environmentalists

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:58:48 GMT

Congress created it to help the “little guy” face the U.S. Government in court. Instead, deep-pocketed environmental groups use a loophole to misuse and benefit from it again and again to line their pockets and stop much-needed wildlife habitat management projects.

The issue is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources held a December 10, 2025, hearing on its abuse. (Watch the hearing here.)

Passed into law in 1980, EAJA authorizes attorney fees to individuals and businesses that win cases against the government, but eligibility requirements apply to individuals (less than $2 million net worth) and businesses (less than $7 million net worth). On the other hand, there are no requirements applied to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. As a result, large and well-funded litigant environmental organizations are getting paid with the taxpayer money to sue taxpayer-funded agencies to stop habitat management projects important to elk, mule deer, moose, bears and many other wildlife, bird and fish species.

From 1995 to 2019, there was no requirement to report what agencies paid in EAJA settlements. That ended in 2019 when the sportsmen-led Dingell Act created a database to track awards. Since then, the public has learned that environmental groups received more than $19 million in taxpayer dollars from the agencies that oversee fish and wildlife habitat and management, specifically the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior and Department of Commerce.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a longtime advocate of fixing the act so it is not a profit-making financial machine for litigant environmentalist organizations that continually abuse it. Hunt 2 Conserve agrees.

“The Equal Access to Justice Act was enacted with good intentions to give small businesses and individuals the ability to fight an unresponsive government in court,” said RMEF Director of Government Affairs Ryan Bronson. “However, by letting well-funded and litigious environmental organizations get their lawyers’ fees paid, the incentive to file suits and delay important habitat management projects has only grown. Litigation is now one of the biggest barriers to wildlife habitat improvement on federal lands.”

Below are some of the comments and testimony given at the hearing:

Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR): “In some regions, significant portions of land management budgets are consumed by analysis and litigation, rather than on-the-ground work, effectively sidelining other planned projects.”

Travis Joseph (American Forest Resource Council, President and CEO): “Walton Lake is an amazing place on the Ochoco National Forest in Central Oregon. The lake is the most heavily used recreation site on the forest. And for years, the Forest Service warned that large trees were infected with root rot, and they were at risk of falling without warning, posing a major risk to the public, and potentially closing this high-use recreation site.

“In 2015, under the Obama administration, to protect visitors, the Forest Service proposed a simple, commonsense project – remove the diseased dying trees and replant with ponderosa pine, which is a more resilient species. That project area was 80 acres. The Ochoco National Forest, for context, is 850,000 acres. An anti-forestry group didn't like that project from the Forest Service, and they didn't trust the agency's expertise. They filed a lawsuit over a process technicality. And they got a judge to issue a preliminary injunction to stop all the work, even though the project was focused on an immediate public safety risk.

“The group was awarded a $200,000 EAJA fee that was paid by the taxpayer and the agency. The EAJA payout, that award of attorney fees, was higher than the cost of the service contract to do the work on the ground. That $200,000 EAJA award was based on a $425 per hour specialty rate for attorneys and work performed by law students at Lewis & Clark Law School. They aren't lawyers, but the EAJA award provided $130 per hour for the students' work.

“Undeterred by the lawsuit and the loss, the initial loss, the Forest Service went back, did more paperwork, did more process, and proposed the project again. They were sued again on the same project by the same group. This time, the Forest Service won in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit upheld the award. That did not satisfy this group. They went to the Supreme Court. Their petition was not taken up by the Supreme Court.

“So, all of this, a decade of work, years of litigation, hundreds of thousands of dollars billed to the taxpayer to protect the public from diseased and dying trees on a high-use rec site on 80 acres, 0.001 percent of the forest of one national forest. Meanwhile, this nonprofit made a small fortune to delay a project that was ultimately implemented just 10 years after the fact. Do you think that's defensible? Is that defensible? This makes no sense, and taxpayers, regardless of party affiliation, would be outraged if they knew that that's how their money was being used.”

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO): “Radical environmental groups have exploited EAJA and environmental laws to turn litigation into a business model for policy achievement. Specifically, they've exploited the nonprofit exemption in the EAJA statute to continuously launch frivolous lawsuits, regain attorney's fees, whether they win, whether they lose, or whether they settle. It's the inside lawyerly game that's played. These groups aren't held to the same rules everyone else has to follow. Environmental serial litigants can bypass the $500 employee cap and the $7 million in revenue limit because of the blanket nonprofit exemption.”

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN): “I want to ask -- unanimous consent to submit to the record, the U.S. Forest Service budget justifications for Fiscal Years '24, '25, and '26, which show the amount of program funds used for EAJA fee payment -- EAJA fee payments in Fiscal Years '22, '23, '24. It's a total of $3,720,329 for an average of $1.2 million annually paid for by the American taxpayer.”

Rep. Paul Goshar (R-AZ): “One of the most dangerous effects of these lawsuits is to lock up our forests from proper management. In my home state of Arizona, I have seen firsthand how wildfires can grow in an area where eight federal agencies were prevented from conducting activities to improve wildlife, wildfire resiliency and forest health.”

To learn more about EAJA, including several examples of its abuse, read Equal Access to Injustice, a feature that appeared in the September/October 2021 issue of Bugle magazine. The article was submitted as an informational source and added to the official record at the House hearing.

Two months ago, RMEF accepted an invitation to travel to Washington, D.C., to inform congressional staffers and aids about the issue and its negative impacts on wildlife, habitat and forest management.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: House Committee on Natural Resources)

It’s Time to Stop Treating Threatened and Endangered Species the Same

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 18:05:15 GMT

Below is a news release from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). Hunt 2 Conserve supports rescinding the blanket rule.

PERC and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) applaud the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposal to rescind the “blanket rule” that arbitrarily regulates endangered and threatened species the same and ignores the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) text, science, species’ unique needs, and recovery progress. For those reasons, PERC and RMEF filed a lawsuit challenging the previous administration’s adoption of the blanket rule.

In July, President Trump directed the Service, and other federal agencies, to “recover America’s fish and wildlife populations through proactive, voluntary, on-the-ground conservation efforts.” Rescinding the blanket rule is a vital and necessary step toward fulfilling that policy. The blanket rule arbitrarily prohibits proactive, voluntary conservation, including habitat restoration. And, in doing so, it discourages species recovery. Tailored rules, however, remove roadblocks for proactive conservation efforts, including prescribed fire, forest thinning, and stream restoration.

Click here to read the public comment.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Kirk Stovall/Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Hijacking the Term ‘Conservation’

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:59:04 GMT

Below is an updated portion of a September/October 2021 Bugle magazine article titled “Equal Access to Injustice.”

Stolen Identities

What is particularly vexing, and especially perplexing for the general public, is the hijacking of the word conservation by environmental groups. The Center for Biological Diversity, for one, refers to itself as “a national, nonprofit conservation organization.” Others do the same, although hats off to the Sierra Club for identifying itself as what it really is – a “grassroots environmental organization.” Some media outlets further the confusion by referring to environmental groups as conservation groups.

Merriam-Webster defines conservation as “planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction or neglect.” Cited examples include water conservation and wildlife conservation. In other words, conservation is the hands-on stewardship of natural resources such as habitat enhancement and permanent protection of vital migration corridors and winter ranges.

Environmentalism, on the other hand, again according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “a political and social movement focused on the preservation” of the natural environment. Preservation often refers to a hands-off approach or preventing any type of management activity.

There are swaths of designated wilderness and other backcountry areas that remain relatively untouched for very good reason. However, there are millions of acres of public forests that are overly dense with heavy fuel loads and downed deadfall due to decades of fire suppression. These overgrown forests throttle the growth of grasses and forbs vital for elk and big game and other wildlife, and are susceptible to disease, beetle kill and an elevated risk of catastrophic wildfire that can decimate an ecosystem.

What True Conservation Looks Like

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage. RMEF does so by working collaboratively with federal and state agencies as well as other partners to provide both funding and volunteer manpower to carry out prescribed burning, forest thinning, noxious weed treatments, repairing or constructing wildlife water developments, fertilizations, planting seedlings and other actions to maintain or improve habitat.

RMEF also provides grant funding for wildlife management, scientific research and predator management, and advocates for its mission. Additionally, RMEF seeks to protect and open public access to elk winter and summer range, migration corridors and calving grounds via land acquisitions, access agreements and easements, conservation easements, land donations and other means. RMEF also has a history of successfully reestablishing elk in historic ranges where habitat and cultural tolerance create a high potential for self-sustaining wild, free-ranging herds.

Just one small but impactful example of planned management or conservation: RMEF provided other funding for an ongoing series of projects to create and enhance forage openings and water sources for elk and other wildlife in Virginia’s Elk Restoration Zone. This important habitat enhancement work benefits Virginia’s growing elk herd, which was restored to its historic range by the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) and RMEF in 2012. Because of projects designed to improve elk habitat like this one, DWR then introduced a special elk hunting license that led to Virginia’s first managed elk hunt in more than a century, one that generated vital funding to benefit elk herds and habitat for a rich variety of other wildlife.

Any objective look at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s lifetime conservation accomplishments shows the immense impact the organization has had on elk, other wildlife and habitat. As of January 1, 2025, RMEF conserved or enhanced more than 7.6 million acres of wildlife habitat and protected 1.5 million acres of land. That amounts to more than 9.1 million acres of combined conservation work. On top of that, RMEF played a pivotal role in restoring wild, free-ranging elk to Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Ontario. and RMEF has invested millions of dollars to help fund wildlife research key to delivering the most effective management. All that adds up to a lot of work and a lot of conservation.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Forest Legislation Would Help Ensure Water and Power Supplies, Benefit Consumers

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:43:19 GMT

Forests need to be managed, which improves their health and better protects both the water supply and the ability to produce energy. That was the message when the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources hosted a Jan. 8, 2026, hearing on Capitol Hill.

“A century of fire suppression and decades of mismanagement have created a perfect storm of overstocked, unhealthy and fire-prone national forests, resulting in a destabilized water supply and negative impacts on our ability to provide power across the West,” said Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY). “The Fix Our Forests Act addresses many of these challenges facing utilities by equipping forest managers with the tools to restore forest health, improving reliable water supplies and protecting our power infrastructure rate payers.”

Hageman cited a study in the Sierra Nevada range that shows active forest management increases downstream flows by 9 percent and other data indicating that 46.3 percent of the nation’s water supply originates on national forest system lands. Since the House passed the Fix Our Forests Act nearly one year earlier, she urged her colleagues in the Senate to follow suit. Expert testimony agreed.

“Our forests are dynamic systems that demand active management. When we fail to manage the fuels, we pay the price in blackouts, oil, water, lost hydro power and sky rocketing insurance cost,” said Randy Howard, general manager of Northern California Power Agency.

Howard spelled out major bureaucratic challenges for utilities. Hazardous trees outside of utility corridors require months or years of federal approvals for removal, even when they impose an immediate safety risk. He also cited the need for streamlining permitting and using categorial exclusions under federal law and highlighted how post-fire sediment and debris choke reservoirs that people depend on for water quality and to generate hydropower.

“The cost of reacting to wildfire is unsustainable. However, recent studies have shown that every $1 invested in proactive fuels treatment saves an average of $7. The proactive investments needed to build resilience to wildfire are a fraction of the costs the U.S. is currently incurring from wildfire,” said Madeline McDonald, watershed scientist at Denver Water, a utility that serves 1.5 million residents.

“A single catastrophic wildfire can simultaneously threaten both our water supply and our power generation. As such, our infrastructure encompasses far more than just pipelines and power lines,” said Travis Deal, CEO of Colorado Springs Utilities. “It includes these landscapes themselves that rely on the federal partnerships that we have developed to manage these critical forested landscapes. For too long, federal forests have been neglected, and many of our forests are in critical need of attention.”

Research shows active forest management in the form of prescribed burning, thinning and other treatments improves the health of forestland, enhances wildlife habitat and helps mitigate the possibility of high intensity wildfires.

Hunt 2 Conserve and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are staunch supporters and advocate of the Fix Our Forests Act, and call on the Senate to pass it.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

Equal Access to Injustice

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 17:37:56 GMT

(Photo credit: Neal Herbert/NPS)

This article appears in the September/October 2021 of Bugle Magazine with lower portions updated at a later date.

Congress created the Equal Access to Justice Act to give everyday Americans a fair shot. But it’s been hijacked into a lawsuit factory where environmental groups fuel their agendas with taxpayer money.

When the federal government listed grizzly bears as threatened in the Lower 48 under the newly minted Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1975, an estimated 136 grizzlies remained in the nearly 6-million-acre Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Since female grizzlies don’t reproduce until they’re at least four years old and only have litters of two to three cubs every three years or so, extinction loomed as a real possibility. Over time, though, those protections worked.

By 2007, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) scientists estimated the GYE population had quadrupled to more than 500 bears and expanded its range by more than 50 percent. This exceeded all of the federal recovery criteria and the USFWS removed the Yellowstone grizzly population from threatened status. In short, the ESA functioned exactly as it was designed.

Of course, the story didn’t end there. Environmentalists immediately sued, citing uncertainty regarding food sources. A judge agreed and returned them to fully protected status.

Subsequent research showed that the bears adapted well, overcame the perceived food challenges and continued to grow in numbers and range. In 2017, citing an estimated population of 750 bears and further expansion of occupied range—again exceeding all delisting criteria—he Department of Interior removed grizzlies’ threatened species status once more, returning management of the great bears to the three state wildlife agencies in the Greater Yellowstone.

Once again, a slew of environmental groups took their arguments to court. In 2018, a federal judge cited technicalities and ordered the population be relisted again. The federal government and states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming intervened on behalf of delisting, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation filed a brief in support of delisting to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. However, the court upheld the relisting decision in July 2020. In April 2021, biologists from both the USFWS and Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee revised the estimated grizzly population in the GYE to upwards of 1,000 bears. That’s almost a tenfold increase from where the population stood when they were listed as threatened 46 years ago.

The delist-relist ping-pong is frustrating enough. But here’s one more especially galling detail: you’re paying for it.

Citing the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in that most recent round of litigation, environmental groups filed requests to be reimbursed for “reasonable” attorney fees up to $460 an hour. A few of those groups include the Alliance for Wild Rockies, Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society of the United States, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians. The total combined ask amounted to more than $1.4 million in taxpayer money.

“The really unfortunate thing is when these groups win, the Department of Justice negotiates the fees, but it’s the individual agency that must pay. So, in this case, it would impact the budgets of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but in other cases it could be the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management or another federal agency,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “All of those agencies are already underfunded, and this just hurts them more, which means they don’t have staff to adequately review issues, which leads to more and more lawsuits. It’s become what amounts to a ridiculous, non-stop merry-go-round ride.”

Looting Agency Funding

Imagine discovering someone is picking your pocket without you even knowing about it. That scenario has played out time and time again in federal courts across the United States. It’s a ploy successfully utilized by environmental groups that take advantage of the Equal Access to Justice Act. A measure created four decades ago to serve and benefit everyday Americans has been transformed into something far different.

To gain a better understanding of the EAJA, we must examine its roots. In the 1950s, Americans demanded governmental action for better stewardship of our nation’s air, land and water. One of the first key pieces of legislation to result was the Air Pollution Control Act (1955) followed by the Clean Air Act (1963). The Water Quality Act came two years later, holding states responsible to meet standards for water in their rivers, lakes and streams, including those waterways that flowed beyond their borders. The Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act (1965) amended the Clean Air Act and set standards for vehicle emissions. In 1966, the Endangered Species Preservation Act created regulations to protect fish and wildlife species in danger of extinction.

The 1970s saw the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act (1970), a requirement that federal agencies prepare an environmental impact statement for any action or legislation that could adversely affect land, water or wildlife. Later that same year, an executive order from President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an independent executive federal agency with a mission to protect human health and the environment. Building on previous legislation, the Clean Water Act (1972) sought to further reduce and eliminate pollution in our nation’s waters, while the Endangered Species Act (1973) focused on protecting crucial ecosystems for imperiled wildlife, fish and plant species.

Those actions helped set the table for Congress to enact the Equal Access to Justice Act in 1980. It authorized the payment of “reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test or project which is found by the agency to be necessary for the preparation of the party’s case, and reasonable attorney or agent fees” to a party that wins a civil lawsuit against a federal agency by successfully demonstrating a threat of injury or irreparable harm.

“EAJA was passed primarily in response to demands from the small business community, which was laboring under the increased environmental, consumer and health and safety regulations of the 1960s and 1970s,” said Lowell E. Baier, an attorney in Washington, D.C., and the author of the 2015 book Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act: Environmental Litigation and the Crippling Battle Over America’s Lands, Endangered Species and Critical Habitats. “The concern was that when an agency such as OSHA or the EPA improperly fined a small business, the small business might win in court but be bankrupted by having to pay its lawyers.”

Baier points out that EAJA also applies to veterans seeking benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as well as the Social Security Administration (SSA). In fact, the vast majority of people garnering funds from the EAJA have been veteran or senior citizen beneficiaries suing the SSA or VA. Their awards average just a few thousand dollars each. But those payouts make a real difference for people who have no other remedy to receive the benefits they deserve. As a result, EAJA remains a critically important law for the everyday American.

According to Baier, the intent behind the law has not changed much over the 41 years since its passage, but the nature of its use certainly has. The EAJA included a cap on the net worth of any person or company that may benefit from it to make sure it serves real needs. However, in the final stages of establishing the EAJA, a last-minute amendment opened the door for nonprofit organizations to use it regardless of their net worth. This distinction grew murkier after 1995, when Congress eliminated a provision requiring annual reports of expenditures under EAJA. This opened the door for environmental groups to receive EAJA awards without the public ever realizing it.

“That set up a situation where environmental groups worth hundreds of millions of dollars could have their legal fees covered in cases where they used procedural laws like the National Environmental Policy Act to delay government projects they opposed for philosophical or political reasons. And in most cases, the money would be paid to the environmental group in a lump sum as part of a settlement agreement, with little if any oversight by the court, and then just disappear,” said Baier. “In theory, the law has a cap on fees, but that can be waived for lawyers with special expertise, such as in environmental law, when they’re paid market rates. We’ve documented numerous cases where payments were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even over a million dollars in some cases.”

Beginning in 2012, a bipartisan Congressional effort required the Department of Interior to disclose EAJA payments, and the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019 permanently restored EAJA reporting throughout the entire federal government. Baier says this greatly reduced litigation from many organizations because they did not believe the negative publicity was worth the money. He also quoted Justice Louis Brandies who said, “Sunlight is the best of disinfectants.” Still, such litigation does persist—with some groups continuing to thrive on it.

Sue, Brag, Profit

Not only do litigant groups generate money from attorney fees but they then use that financial windfall to bankroll large marketing campaigns to solicit more donations based on court cases.

“Environmental groups use the ESA, and challenges to decisions under the ESA, as incredibly effective fundraising tools,” said Pat Crank, former Wyoming attorney general and vice president of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, while testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 2020. “They challenge any delisting of the GYE grizzly for reasons that ignore the amazing success story of the GYE bear recovery. Every challenge leads to millions of dollars pouring into their coffers.”

It’s a cycle that has repeated itself year after year. In 2012, a report compiled by the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee used data from the Department of Justice to show that the federal government defended more than 570 ESA-related lawsuits over a four-year period (2009-2012) which cost American taxpayers more than $15 million in attorney fees. This occurred during a window when all of the environmental groups mentioned above were especially active, including several that filed multiple lawsuits seeking to stop the state management of wolves in the northern Rockies.

“According to the Department of Justice, some attorneys were reimbursed up to $500 an hour and two lawyers each received more than $2 million in attorney fees from ESA cases,” the report stated. “This data provides further evidence that the ESA has become litigation driven, where money and resources are spent addressing endless, frivolous lawsuits instead of species recovery.”

Conservation Doesn’t Happen in Courtrooms

Late in the 20th century and continuing into the 2000s, many Americans frowned upon environmental organizations due to their litigation-heavy reputation. So, many of those same environmental groups consciously shied away from the terms environmentalism or environmentalist and replaced them with conservation and conservationist. Among the more notable offenders are the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (no attorney list on its website), Center for Biological Diversity (46 attorneys), Defenders of Wildlife (8-10 attorneys), Earthjustice (143 attorneys), Humane Society of the United States (“dozens” of attorneys), Sierra Club (legal staff of 104) and WildEarth Guardians (legal staff of 15). It comes as no surprise that these seven groups filed almost half of the more than 570 lawsuits in the 2012 report.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) based in Tucson, Arizona, topped the 2012 report’s list of “most litigious organizations” with 117 ESA-related lawsuits. CBD now proudly boasts a “Trump Tracker,” a listing of all 266 environmental lawsuits it filed against the U.S. government during the 1,461-day Trump administration. That equates to one new legal action filed every 5.5 days!

In one suit filed on June 27, 2019, CBD called on the federal government to forcibly introduce grizzlies into Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Proposed release locations include the Grand Canyon, California’s Sierra Nevada and Montana’s Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem where there are already more than 1,000 grizzlies. On December 16, 2020, CBD filed lawsuit #255 to force grizzlies into the Cascade Mountains of Washington, even after the Department of Interior previously hosted numerous public meetings and received overwhelming local feedback against such action.

The transition to the Biden administration has not slowed this machine. In fact, it has accelerated. As of April 7, 2021, CBD publicly proclaimed it filed 43 lawsuits against the federal government—an average of one new legal action every 1.8 days!

To get an overarching picture of what is happening, the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency that develops recommendations to improve administrative process and procedure, found 15 federal agencies paid more than $58 million in awards of attorney’s fees and other expenses under EAJA during Fiscal Year 2019. Again, that $58 million comes out of the pockets of America’s taxpayers.

A Clear Case of Stonewalling

(Photo credit: National Forest Service)

Dating back to 2010, the U.S. Forest Service started conducting studies to formulate a plan for a future habitat enhancement project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest in west-central Montana. Called the Stonewall Vegetation Project, the goal was to treat unnaturally dense stands, reduce fire hazard, create forest resiliency and enhance wildlife habitat while improving overall forest health. Locals formed a collaborative group several years later that included government representatives, conservationists, lumber companies and other interested participants.

Relying on science, the collaborative agreed to a series of treatments to address thousands of acres of beetle-killed lodgepole stands to help reach project goals. RMEF was and remains extensively involved in the immediate area, having completed more than two dozen habitat enhancement projects over the last 15 years ranging from forest thinning to prescribed burns and other treatments that enhance wildlife habitat.

Two anti-management environmental groups, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council, did not participate in the collaborative effort but instead waited for it to end and then cited the ESA to file a lawsuit against the Forest Service claiming forest management activity would endanger Canada lynx and grizzly bear populations. RMEF sought to join its collaborative partners by writing a brief in support of the project. However, a federal judge agreed with environmental groups and issued a preliminary injunction on May 30, 2017.

Halting the project before it began, the judge stated, “The Court acknowledges that Defendants have presented evidence that the Project area is susceptible to severe and intense wildfires due to elevated fuel levels caused by ‘heavy accumulations of dead and down timber.’ However, though there is the possibility of serious fire activity within the boundaries of the Project, there is no indication that this area is at risk of imminent fire activity.”

Mother Nature had other ideas. In July of 2017, lightning sparked what became known as the Park Creek Fire. Fueled by dead timber, the 18,000-acre wildfire scorched the project area, closing national forest lands and triggering evacuation orders. The Forest Service decided to go back to the drawing board to reassess the impacts of the wildfire on the project, effectively halting the suit.

Three years later, a Forest Service budget report showed the litigating environmental groups in the Stonewall case exploited the Equal Access to Justice Act to receive $100,500 in attorney fees. Specifically, the three lawyers involved in that case requested fees at rates of $290, $355 and $390 per hour. That same report also showed environmental groups, as a whole, received more than $9 million in attorney fees and settlement awards between 2011 and 2018, often at the expense of forests, wildlife, communities and American taxpayers.

The Forest Service revised the Stonewall project in 2019 and issued both a supplemental environmental impact statement and record of decision, but the same two environmental groups filed yet another lawsuit, this time in December 2020.

Is that conservation? Or is it equal access to injustice? And where do we go from here? The original intent of the EAJA was unquestionably sound, as were the reforms delivered under the Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019. The great majority of the people who benefit from EAJA do indeed receive justice and are fully deserving.

What needs to change is the cynical niche industry fueled by litigation that reaps windfalls from taxpayers picking up their attorney’s fees, then makes even more through fundraising campaigns bragging about that success. In the end, there are suers and doers. RMEF is proud to stand squarely in the second camp.

What True Conservation Looks Like

About Hunt 2 Conserve

Debating the Thorny Equal Access to Justice Act in D.C.

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 22:39:59 GMT

Hunt 2 Conserve is in favor of reforming the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Two dozen congressional staffers who focus on natural resources and judiciary issues gathered a mere half mile from Capitol Hill to learn and represent the offices of their elected representatives. Regina Lennox, senior litigation counsel for Safari Club International (SCI) and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Director of Government Affairs Ryan Bronson, who accepted an invitation to SCI’s advocacy headquarters, served as presenters.

The topic was the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a measure enacted by Congress 45 years earlier. Much of the information presented came from a book by attorney and Boone and Crockett member Lowell Baier titled, “Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act, Environmental Litigation and the Crippling Battle over America’s Lands, Endangered Species, and Critical Habitats,” in addition to the RMEF Bugle magazine article “Equal Access to Injustice.”

"The Equal Access to Justice Act was enacted with good intentions to give small businesses and individuals the ability to fight an unresponsive government in court,” said Bronson. “However, by letting well-funded and litigious environmental organizations get their lawyers’ fees paid, the incentive to file suits and delay important habitat management projects has only grown. Litigation is now one of the biggest barriers to wildlife habitat improvement on federal lands."

EAJA authorizes attorney fees to individuals and businesses that win cases against the U.S. Government, but eligibility requirements apply to individuals ($2 million net worth) and businesses ($7 million net worth). On the other hand, there are no requirements applied to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. As a result, large and well-funded litigant environmental organizations are getting paid with the taxpayer money to sue taxpayer-funded agencies to stop habitat management projects important to elk, mule deer, moose, bears and a plethora of other wildlife, bird and fish species.

From 1995 to 2019, there were no prerequisites to report what agencies paid in EAJA settlements. That ended in 2019 when the sportsmen-led Dingell Act created a database to track awards. Since then, environmental groups received $19,354,912.61 in taxpayer dollars from the agencies that oversee fish and wildlife habitat and management, specifically the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior and Department of Commerce.

In two past U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to delist grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, plaintiffs used technicalities to receive payouts of more than $1 million in taxpayer funds, including one attorney fee rate of $460 per hour.

Bronson, Lennox and others have proposed several congressional solutions to rectify the abuse:

Make nonprofits consistent with other businesses or individuals and exempt large, well-funded organizations from receiving EAJA payments
Restrict sue-and-settle agreements in law by codifying past secretarial orders
Cap payments any entity can receive in a year to $100,000 or three awards to stop rewarding serial litigation
Require that there actually be damages for an award to be made, stop paying fees for technicalities or delays that do not substantively change projects
Create stronger vetting requirements for courts to make EAJA awards rather than giving judges full discretion

About Hunt 2 Conserve

(Photo credit: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)