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.

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 food security. 

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 

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.)

Healthy and thriving big game herds are key to the ecosystems where they live. One contributor to their health and well-being is the ability for species to move across a given landscape, or migrate, to escape harsh winter conditions, find nutritious forage and avoid predators. So, to go full circle, knowing where migratory corridors are located, and keeping them intact is vital to herd health.  

Wildlife migration corridors continue to be of national interest. A recent hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee examined the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s budget. Below is an exchange between one of the committee members and the USFWS director. 

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA): “In your previous role as director of Wyoming's Game and Fish Department, you were working with stakeholders to identify and conserve wildlife migration corridors. We talked about this during the hearing process. Now, under the first Trump administration, then-Secretary Zinke issued Secretarial Order 3362 which directs the Department of Interior to work in partnership with western states to improve the quality of big game winter range and migration corridor habitats on federal lands. Through that order, the Department of Interior has provided millions of dollars in funding for priority projects, for data analysis and for mapping assistance for western state wildlife agencies. And over the last two Congresses, I've been able to work with now Congressman Zinke and Congressman Beyer on the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act, which would codify the great work done through the order and expand its scope to cover all 50 states. So, director, can you highlight why the work done through this order is so important to conserving habitat and protecting migration corridors, and would you support codifying this program?” 

USFWS Director Brian Nesvik: “Senator, something that, as you mentioned, I worked on extensively in the past, and you know the really important parts of the migration corridor work that's been done to under this secretarial order, and also under the leadership of many of the state agencies in the West, is that these efforts have all been focused on voluntary work that doesn't require, you know, federal designations like a federally designated migration corridor. Those were things that were hard lines in the sand that nobody ever wanted to cross had to remain voluntary, had to keep that regulatory directive kind of approach out of it, and because of that, and because it was state-led, and states were able to look at their data for their particular state and say this is where we have issues with wildlife movement, they developed a plan, and that was the basis for how the executive order was implemented. That's why it was so successful, and that's why it's survived three administrations now, and so certainly there's opportunities to continue that work. 

Click here to view the hearing. 

Hunt 2 Conserve sees eye-to-eye with groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation that strongly support protecting and conserving wildlife migration corridors, which ensures the future of big game and the future of hunting. 

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: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks)

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.

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) 

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.

(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 southeast corner. The USDA believes that case is an isolated one because the dog’s travel and exposure history is not known. As of June 12, there were a dozen cases reported central and southern Texas, plus the previously mentioned New Mexico case. Click here to see a dashboard with the updated case count.

“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)

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)