Radical extremists want what they want. When they don’t get it, they try to force their way by using other means.

Such is the case in New Jersey where the Center for a Humane Economy and Animal Wellness Action filed a petition with the New Jersey Fish and Game Council to ban the use of lead ammunition. Both activist groups are led by Wayne Pacelle, former president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, an anti-hunting organization that changed its name after Pacelle resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment.

Petitioners claimed traditional lead ammunition poses significant risks to wildlife, ecosystems and human health, including hunting families, and that the availability of non-lead alternatives makes a reliance on lead ammo unnecessary. The New Jersey Fish and Game Council disagreed in its ruling, saying such a ban lacked scientific support and the ability to implement regulatory changes. It also spelled out that the availability of lead-free ammunition is limited and significantly more expensive. The council also pointed out that “the lack of availability and the cost of lead-free ammunition will impose additional costs on an already declining hunter population and may affect participation rates, which, in turn, would have significant consequences on wildlife management, ecosystem health, conservation and funding.”

With their petition denied, activists turned to an all-too-familiar wheelhouse – the courts. They appealed the ruling to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. 

New Jersey is not the lone anti-lead ammunition target. Activists recently filed a petition to ban the use of lead ammunition in Colorado. Leading the way among the 18 groups behind that effort is Pacelle’s Animal Wellness Action. California is currently the only state to enact such a ban.

It is already illegal to hunt waterfowl with lead shot as that rule took effect 35 years ago.

Hunt 2 Conserve supports the New Jersey Fish and Game Council decision.

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.

If proponents get their way, Colorado citizens will have the opportunity this November to vote upon and approve a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the perpetual right to fish and hunt. The International Order of T. Roosevelt is the group behind the measure, although it is supported by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Hunt 2 Conserve and many others.  

Titled the “Right to Fish and Hunt,” the initiative simply states residents can hunt and fish via traditional methods, fishing and hunting are the major tools linked to fish and wildlife management, trespassing on private land is not allowed as per current law and it does not limit authority for the state to regulate fishing and hunting. However, changing the state constitution offers deeper protections. 

“The amendments don’t just declare rights. They give everyday citizens and sportsmen’s groups the legal footing to stand in court and say, ‘The people already voted on this, and you cannot take away my right to fish or hunt.’ That’s the difference between playing defense and being on offense,” Luke Hilgemann, CEO of the International Order of T. Roosevelt, wrote in Outdoor Life. 

Proponents submitted 180,000 signatures on July 8, almost a month before the submittal deadline. The Colorado Secretary of State's office will review signatures to determine if the measure qualifies for the November 3 ballot.  

Early polling indicates Coloradans support the initiative. 

Animal rights and anti-hunting groups have Colorado firmly in their crosshairs. They continue to push for bills, initiatives and citizen petitions to reduce and limit the influence and effectiveness of hunting and similar traditional activities. 

“Anti-hunting organizations aren’t stupid. They often target places where there is no legal backstop, no voter-approved right they have to overcome in court,” Hilgemann wrote in Outdoor Life. “In states with Right to Hunt and Fish amendments, the fight is becoming uphill and expensive. That’s not symbolism. That’s strategy meeting reality.” 

As of June 15, 2026, 24 states have the right to fish and hunt in their constitutions. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. 

Delaware is considering a bill that would make it the 25^th such state to add constitutional protections to hunting and fishing. If that happens and the Colorado measure follows suit, the Centennial State will become the 26^th. 

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.

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 July 2, 2026, proponents officially gathered 142,784 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

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.

Fresh off a muddled, confusing debate resulting in the approval of a petition to ban the sale of wild fur, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission now has two more citizen petitions filed for its consideration. One of them seeks to ban the use of lead ammunition in Colorado while the other focuses on CPW’s use of science to create rules and regulations.

Colorado statute allows any resident the opportunity to alter or create a new regulation, or remove an existing rule, by submitting a petition to initiate such a process. CPW staff review and make recommendations, but the commission ultimately decides if it is worthy of consideration. 

The two petitions are yet to receive approval to advance.

Lead Ammunition Ban Petition

This citizen petition is straightforward in its goal to “ban the use of lead-based ammunition for hunting in Colorado.” Sitting atop the 18 groups endorsing the measure is Animal Wellness Action, an animal rights organization led by Wayne Pacelle, former CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, a well-known activist and anti-hunting group. The petition insists its implementation would “protect, preserve and manage the wildlife resources of the State.” 

The petitioners require ammunition users, whether individuals or manufacturers, to submit information to CPW proving their ammo follows petition guidelines according to caliber, grain weight, composition, content of lead by weight and other characteristics.

It is already illegal to hunt waterfowl with lead shot as that rule took effect 35 years ago.

Environmental organizations and lawmakers are also seeking lead bans in other states, but California is the only state to enact such a ban.

Use of Science Petition

A citizen petition submitted in late April calls on CPW and its commission to use the “best available scientific evidence,” including independent, peer-reviewed science outside of CPW as needed, when creating rules, regulations, management plans and policies.” CPW has more than 30 research scientists, including an internal research program, and hundreds of biologists on its staff who have a proven track record recovering and managing Colorado’s game and nongame species. This petition would empower politically appointed commissioners to disregard their recommendations.

“On multiple occasions...CPW rules, regulations, and policies have departed from the best available science, resulting in measurable harm to the state’s wildlife and ecosystems,” activist Eric Washburn claims in his 13-page petition.

The activists highlight several politicized wildlife issues ranging from beaver management to the ability of gray wolves to curtail the spread of chronic wasting disease. However, a recent interview with a well-known wildlife researcher who literally wrote the book on deer in the Southwest, expressed caution to those who make assumptions by applying selective results to a population level.

Washburn was an outspoken proponent of Proposition 114 that led to the implementation of Colorado’s messy and unpopular wolf program. Another petition supporter, Gary Skiba, resigned from the CPW commission before being ousted by the state Senate and serves on the board of a pro-wolf organization that supported Prop 114.

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.

It is one of the most recognizable images across California – a grizzly bear walking on a tuft of green grass. That insignia is featured on the state flag.

Some state lawmakers want that scene to come to life on California’s modern-day landscape, which is home to more than 39.3 million residents – the most populous state in America. Called the California Grizzly Recovery Assessment Act, SB 1305 would establish a state policy framework for introducing grizzlies and directs the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to begin planning for it. The California State Senate already passed the bill and now it’s scheduled to go before California State Assembly members.

CDFW previously warned that it does not have the financial or staffing ability to tackle such an introduction and the subsequent escalation of human-wildlife management conflicts that would follow.

It is noteworthy that the sponsors of the legislation all live in urbanized southern California. State Sen. Megan Dahle (R-Bieber), who represents District 1 residents in the northern and northeast corner of the state where bears may be reintroduced, conducted her own informal Facebook survey in April. More than 2,000 people responded with an overwhelming 76 percent voting “no.” They are not alone.

A coalition of nearly two dozen hunting and outdoor conservation organizations, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, sent a letter to Diane Pappan, chair of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, outlining a litany of concerns. The top of the list is how romantic ideology will collide with on-the-ground reality: “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,” according to the letter.

It continued: “The proposed ‘roadmap’ is not a neutral exercise but instead establishes institutional momentum toward reintroduction before critical feasibility, cost and conflict issues have been resolved.”

It also warned about impacts on rural communities, heavily used recreational areas and suggested “scarce conservation resources would be better directed toward habitat restoration, recovery of declining ungulate populations and meeting the state’s existing wildlife management obligations.”

A recent Sacramento Bee opinion piece by two Californians echoed those concerns: “To entertain the hypothetical reintroduction of a predator as formidable as the grizzly bear, while struggling to manage those already present, is irresponsible and a misuse of limited resources. It is also insulting to the rural communities whose safety, livelihoods and quality of life would be most affected, and who would inevitably bear the burden of defending against another predator,” wrote Californians Lee Adams and Bob Nelson. “California should focus on managing the predators it already has before even thinking about introducing new ones. Anything else risks undermining the fragile, hard-won collaboration between CDFW and rural communities and deepening challenges the state has yet to solve.”

The Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee plans to debate the bill on Tuesday, June 30.

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 should represent.  

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.

Hunt 2 Conserve salutes Rep. Mike Rulli (R-OH) for authoring legislation to reign in nonprofit organizations continually abusing a 45-year-old law that costs taxpayers millions annually. Both H2C and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation support the measure. 

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was enacted with good intentions to give small businesses and individuals the ability to fight an unresponsive government in court. 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.  

Rep. Rulli calls for fairness, transparency and limits on the size of attorney fees nonprofit groups can claim and receive. 

Hunt 2 Conserve agrees with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF), an affiliated partner, that EAJA needs to be reformed. The current law authorizes attorney fees to individuals and businesses that win cases against the U.S. Government, but eligibility requirements apply to individuals (maximum net worth of $2 million) and businesses (maximum net worth of $7 million). There are no eligibility limits applied to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. As a result of this costly loophole, large and well-funded litigant environmental organizations are getting paid with 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.  

House Hearing Spotlights Abuse  

The House Committee on Natural Resources held a May 20, 2026, hearing to examine how nonprofit organizations use and abuse EAJA to pad their bottom lines. 

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a well-known animal rights and anti-hunting organization that prides itself in suing the federal government, received $23.4 million in taxpayer funding over the past five years for doing so, according to Ken Braun, Capital Research Center managing editor, who offered testimony on Capitol Hill. That total equals 13.6 percent of CBD’s total annual revenue over that time. 

“EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to a qualified prevailing party ‘unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust,’” said Lawson E. Fite, former U.S. Department of Justice environmental attorney.  

Fite testified that various organizations cited the Endangered Species Act to use the EAJA to pocket more than $20.2 million over the last five years. 

Click here to watch a recording of the hearing. 

A Longtime Call for Reform 

RMEF is a longtime proponent of EAJA reform. Below are a few examples: 

• May 2026: Met with congressional staffers to discuss legislation to reign in EAJA payments 
• October 2025: Joined forced with the Safari Club International to offer an informational seminar for congressional staffers to learn about EAJA 
• May 2025: Supplied Congress with provisions to save money by restricting lawsuits and settlements 
• September 2021: Published an in-depth article about EAJA abuse, which has since been submitted to congressional committees as an informational source 
• April 2019: Spread the word about data showing environmental groups pocketed more than $9 million in EAJA fees and settlement awards between 2011 and 2018 
• February 2015: Called out CBD for collecting more than $15 million in attorney fees (aka taxpayer money) via EAJA over a four-year period 

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.

Crazy, insane, outlandish, ridiculous, the worst idea ever. Those are just a few of the terms used to describe a potential ballot measure that would make it a crime in Oregon to hunt, fish, raise animals for food and ban a wide range of other activities.

Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) seeks to remove animal cruelty exemptions from state statute. Itis the creation of animal rights and anti-hunting activists to place the measure on the November ballot. To do so, they need 117,173 verified signatures. Oregon’s secretary of state will announce whether it qualifies on or before August 2.

Below is a sampling of reactions from across Oregon:

Rep. Val Hoyle (OR-4) – May 28, 2026: “It’s ridiculous! It’s extreme. It would make it illegal to kill any animal except in self-defense. Any animal, which kills our commercial fishing industry. It, no lie, makes it a felony sex crime to artificially inseminate a cow. That’s insane! There’s no other word for it.”

Capital Press Editorial Board – June 19, 2026: “Passage would destroy animal agriculture in the state, and with it the livelihoods of farm and ranch families and the vendors and service providers who depend on their trade. The potential economic impact is staggering. The impacts are too sweeping and would reach into nearly every household in the state. Dare we say, it’s just too crazy.”

All 37 Democrats serving in the Oregon House – June 19: “Our caucus represents a broad range of backgrounds and perspectives, but we are united in opposing Initiative Petition 28. Criminalizing farming, ranching, hunting, and fishing is wrong. It threatens the livelihoods of families and communities across our state. It ignores the treaty rights of all nine federally recognized Tribes in Oregon. Oregon deserves solutions that reflect our values, respect our diverse communities, and bring people together rather than divide them. For these reasons, we oppose this measure.”

Baker City Herald editor – February 19, 2026: “Oregon’s Initiative Petition 28 is the worst idea in state history. The purpose of IP 28 is so outlandish, and its effects so catastrophic to the state’s economy and culture, that I’m inclined to believe it could never garner the support of a majority of voters. But the risk, however minuscule, is still too great to bear.”

Governor Tina Kotek – May 30, 2026: “I oppose it. Criminalizing activities like hunting and fishing would be wrong for Oregon. I know tribal leaders, farmers and ranchers and Oregonians across the state who care deeply about protecting our land. This petition does nothing to help them, and it risks criminalizing common agricultural practices that are critical to Oregon’s economy.”

Oregon Farm Bureau: “This is nothing more than an attack on those who adhere to strict animal care standards designed to keep animals healthy and safe.”

Christine Drazen (R-Canby), candidate for governor – May 22, 2026: “IP 28 is an all-out assault on Oregonians’ way of life. IP 29 would force rising food costs and job losses at a time when they can least afford more challenges. It’s time for Oregonians to come together to defeat the extremists who want to destroy our state.”

News-Register Editorial Board - June 12, 2026: Unbelievably radical in intent, this measure would also prove unbelievably damaging in practice. It would not only devastate treasured Oregon farming, ranching, hunting, fishing and tribal traditions, but also badly damage Oregon’s economy and severely disrupt its way of life. We urge Oregonians to deny it the encouragement it needs to fuel future re-runs — to not simply vote no, but to send an unmistakable message by voting resoundingly no.”

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association: “Oregon has been ranked the highest in consumption of hamburgers per person in the US. IP 28 removes an integral and affordable protein source, potentially driving specific fast-food chains out of the state.” 

AGPROrofessionals Developers of Agriculture: “This initiative is not hypothetical. It is not fringe. It is real, organized, funded and dangerous. Perhaps most revealing is the rhetoric of IP28’s own advocates. Campaign leaders have openly stated that the goal is not to improve animal care but to eliminate animal use entirely, including food, research, hunting and breeding. This initiative is based on a radical ideological belief that humans have no legitimate right to use animals under any circumstances.”

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.

Originally established in 1985, the Farm Bill is among the most impactful private land conservation legislation ever implemented in the United States. However, getting it reauthorized in the halls of Congress is a challenge.

The U.S. House passed its version of the new Farm Bill in April 2026. Now, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry just introduced its draft. Key to both bills are some acronyms of importance to farmers, ranchers, foresters, rural communities, wildlife and hunters. 

FCEP, or the Forest Conservation Easement Program, is new and 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. CRP, or the Conservation Reserve Program, dates back more than four decades. Described as a “farm safety net” by some, it 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.

Below is a statement sent to members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry on behalf of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation by Ryan Bronson, RMEF director of government affairs.

“The Farm Bill is the most important mechanism for delivering private, working land conservation in America. The robust conservation title proposed by Senator Boozman is critical to maintain voluntary, incentive-based land stewardship that helps to sustain rural communities. Farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and society benefit from private lands that provide wildlife habitat and clean water.

“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation also strongly supports the establishment of a Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP) in the Farm Bill. Building off the established model for agriculture conservation easements, FCEP can be a powerful tool for keeping America’s working private forest intact and providing habitat, economic and ecological benefits. Together with other reforms aimed at federal forests, including the Cottonwood Fix and categorical exclusions expansion, this legislation contains many of RMEF’s top priorities, and we encourage the Senate to pass this bill as soon as possible,” said Bronson.

Click here to read the text of the Senate’s version.

Hunt 2 Conserve urges the Senate and House to cooperatively meld and pass their versions for the benefit of wildlife and conservation.

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: Chip Carroon)

The effort to enshrine the right to fish and hunt in Colorado’s Constitution reached a major milestone as supporters of Initiative 302 have gathered enough signatures after just seven weeks to surpass the 75 percent threshold of valid signatures required to qualify for the ballot, putting the measure well ahead of the August 3 deadline.

"The overwhelming response from Coloradans demonstrates just how deeply our outdoor heritage is valued across the state," said Dustin Zvonek, a principal with 76 Group. "Regardless of political affiliation, Coloradans understand that hunting and fishing are part of who we are and have played a critical role in the conservation and stewardship of our wildlife and natural resources."

By enshrining the right to hunt, fish, and responsibly manage wildlife in the state constitution, Colorado will join 24 other states—including neighboring Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana—in safeguarding our outdoor heritage for generations to come. 

"Initiative 302 would enshrine the constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife in Colorado, ensuring these longstanding traditions remain protected for generations to come," said Luke Hilgemann, CEO of the International Order of T. Roosevelt, a leading national conservation organization leading the charge to preserve the rights to hunt and fish in state constitutions across the country, most recently finding success in Florida. "The enthusiasm shown by voters across every corner of the state confirms that Coloradans agree: preserving our outdoor heritage is worth protecting in our state constitution."

“We strongly support this effort. It is core to our mission as a hunter-based conservation organization,” said Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Chief Conservation Officer Blake Henning.

Since 1987, RMEF and its partners completed 904 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Colorado with a combined value of more than $212.9 million. These projects conserved or enhanced 512,504 acres of habitat and opened or improved public access to 120,252 acres.

Hunt 2 Conserve strongly supports Colorado Initiative 302. Read its official wording here.

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: Chad Carman)

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.