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) 

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 

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.

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 

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.

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 

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

(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 

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: USDA/COPEG)

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 

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.

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 

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: Ray Bosch/USFWS)

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

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)

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

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.

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 impact on pest control. 

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 

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.