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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Hunt 2 Conserve 

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: Brett Winegarden) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Hunt 2 Conserve

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CPW Commission members meeting in Westminster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Hunt 2 Conserve

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)

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

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

About Hunt 2 Conserve

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for a Q&A about IP 28.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read the brief.

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

Who is GCWRP?

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

About Hunt 2 Conserve

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: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

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 40 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 March 30, 2026, proponents officially gathered 105,015 signatures, although those signatures are yet to be verified. 

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

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office will make a final decision by July 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Hunt 2 Conserve 

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: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

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

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

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

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

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

West Salem is about 55 miles southwest of Portland.

Click here to read more about IP 28.

About Hunt 2 Conserve

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: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Hunt 2 Conserve

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.