The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled game wardens cannot enter private property marked as no trespassing to conduct searches unless they have a warrant.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that private land is not public property. It’s yours, and that means you get to decide who enters it," Joshua Windham, an attorney representing two private hunting clubs, told the Erie Times-News. “If government officials want to invade your posted land without your consent and spy on you, they need to get a warrant.”

The ruling is a blow for the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), which cited what is called the open fields doctrine that allowed officials to monitor and search rural properties like privately owned forests and fields away from homes.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome of this case, the Pennsylvania Game Commission respects the court’s decision,” the state wildlife agency said in a statement. “The Commission is fully confident our law enforcement officers will execute their mission of protecting Pennsylvania wildlife and enforcing hunting laws within these new constitutional standards.  Laws protecting wildlife remain in place, and the residents of Pennsylvania can expect the PGC to remain committed to safeguarding the wildlife resource and serving the people of the Commonwealth.”

The two hunting clubs filed suit claiming PGC repeatedly entered private property over an eight-year period without probable cause warrants in search of violations.

According to Outdoor Life, Pennsylvania joins Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington as states that rejected the open field doctrine.

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: Chris Madsen)

Colorado will soon have a new funding mechanism to help make it safer for drivers and wildlife alike. A new law passed in the 2026 legislative session goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027, that gives residents an opportunity to accept an optional $5 prevention fee during vehicle registration that will provide funding for future wildlife crossings.

“Colorado ranks at the top of the list in the country in terms of wildlife vehicle collisions,” Sen. Dylan Roberts, one of the law’s prime sponsors, told KKCO-TV. “These collisions can be very devastating, obviously for the animals that get hit, but also for human drivers. We’ve seen multiple deaths every year in Colorado, thousands of injuries and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage, people wrecking their vehicles, having to get their vehicles replaced.”

According to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), there were more than 58,00 wildlife-vehicle crashes reported from 2010 to 2025 that killed more than 50 people and thousands of wildlife species.

“We try to identify where the wildlife are moving by studying their migration paths and then we build what’s called exclusion fencing which basically funnels the wildlife to use those crossing structures,” Dave Cesark, CDOT Region 3 planning and environmental manager, told KKCO-TV. “There are literally thousands of wildlife vehicle collisions that happen every year in Colorado. And upwards of $80 million worth of resulting damage. And so the more that we can do to not only help public safety, but also save wildlife is important,”

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 Department of Transportation)

A social media influencer in Texas says he will ignore state law and pay $10,000 to anyone who reveals the name of any hunter that shoots a member of Yellowstone’s most famous wolf pack. Mollie’s Pack is reportedly the last remaining pack from the 1995 introduction of wolves into Yellowstone. The pack left the park earlier this year in favor of Shoshone National Forest.

“Anybody harvests one of these wolves during Wyoming’s wolf season and somebody snitches? That snitch gets ten grand cash. And the person who pulls the trigger? We’re going to make them famous,” wrote Jonas Black on his Facebook page.

Jones said hunting the wolves, which is legal outside of park boundaries, would amount to “an execution dressed up as sport” because the pack is “conditioned to people.”

Idaho, Montana and Wyoming all have laws in place that protect the confidentiality of hunters, as well as from harassment.

“Putting an animal before the welfare of a person is outrageous,” Angi Bruce, former Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) director, told Cowboy State Daily. “This is the exact reason our legislators put this statute in place – to prevent harassment of our hunters.” 

A WGFD biologist said the animals left Yellowstone in search of food. While National Parks are closed to hunting, they also are not actively managed for habitat, so prey may be more available in the adjacent national forest.

Wyoming’s wolf hunting season begins Sept. 15. Montana’s archery season begins Sept. 6 and its general season starts on Sept. 15.

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: Mark Gocke/WGFD)

The modern Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law in 1973 with only a couple of amendments since then in the 1980s. The primary purpose has been to protect and recover imperiled species. Among its functions are the designation of those species as threatened or endangered, designating critical habitats and providing for recovery plans

More than a half century later, the ESA is still mostly in its original form.

“Congress has been a completely failed entity with the respect to the ESA, either updating it, improving it, strengthening it or going the other way around,” Pat Parenteau, University of Vermont law school emeritus professor, told Bloomberg Law, a web-based platform focusing on legal news and information.

Litigant environmental organizations both take advantage and financially thrive by habitually using the legal process to fight things they do not like.

“There is no environmental law on the books that is exactly what environmentalists wanted,” Kierán Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) executive director, told Bloomberg Law.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently announced several ESA adjustments including a proposed ruling to provide greater flexibility for states in managing grizzly bears because of their status as threatened and not endangered. USFWS also is moving forward with rescinding the blanket 4(d) rule, an administrative rule that treated threatened species the same as endangered ones largely for administrative ease, thus dulling incentives for recovery. The new rule will require species-specific regulations.

CBD labeled the blanket rule announcement as a “one-way ticket to extinction” for animals and plants, while also declaring intentions to file suit in federal court, which it did four days later.

“It is ironic that an organization with the name ‘diversity’ in it and purports a commitment to ecological diversity actually opposes diverse, nuanced recovery rules based on the varied needs of threatened species,” said Ryan Bronson, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) director of government affairs. “One-sized-fit-all regulations are easier for the federal bureaucracy but not for the states and habitat owners trying to recover species.”

Bloomberg Law reports CBD is one of the most active litigant environmental organizations since President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, having filed at least 123 lawsuits. Suckling says it has a deliberate goal of filing more than 300 before Trump leaves office. CBD filed 266 lawsuits during the first Trump administration.

According to Ken Braun, Capital Research Center managing editor, CBD uses the courts as a fundraising mechanism. While on Capitol Hill, he testified CBD received $23.4 million in taxpayer funding over the past five years, a period covering both the Biden and Trump administrations. Braun said that total equaled 13.6 percent of the organization’s total annual revenue over that same time.

Such abuse of the federal legal system is why organizations like Hunt 2 Conserve and RMEF support reform of the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows individuals and small businesses to fight an unresponsive government in court. However, a loophole exists that allows well-funded, litigious groups like CBD and others to file lawsuits that stop or delay habitat and wildlife management, while getting their lawyers’ fees paid with taxpayer money.

Until adjustments are made to the ESA and other laws, environmental groups will continue to ride the litigation gravy train to thwart needed reform while lining their coffers.

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.

A California State Assembly committee effectively killed a bill that would have required the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to create a state policy framework for introducing grizzly bears. The species disappeared from the Golden State a century ago.

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 across California’s landscape, which is home to more than 39.3 million residents – the most populous state in America.

A coalition of nearly two dozen hunting and outdoor conservation organizations, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, had earlier 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 was how romantic ideology would 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.”

Hunt 2 Conserve opposed 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.

(Photo credit: Chris Auch)

Below is a news release from the American Forest Resource Council.

“This is the epitome of a broken system. The public should find this deeply troubling.”

-AFRC President Travis Joseph

The Grasshopper Fire is burning through forests on Oregon’s Mt. Hood National Forest that were identified and prioritized years ago for hazardous fuels reduction through a collaborative effort involving local communities and the U.S. Forest Service. Yet much of that work remains unimplemented after years of litigation and administrative delays slowed or prevented the projects from moving forward.

These forests are located in one of the High Priority Landscapes identified in the Biden Administration’s 2022 Wildfire Crisis Strategy that targeted “high risk firesheds” to improve resilience to wildfire.

Years before the current wildfire, the Wasco County Forest Collaborative worked with the U.S. Forest Service to develop the Grasshopper Restoration Project, the 27 Road Fuel Break, and the Hootnanny Project to reduce hazardous fuels, meet the intent of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, and improve forest conditions across more than 11,000 acres.

The Grasshopper Restoration Project became the subject of litigation brought by Oregon Wild under the National Environmental Policy Act challenging the paperwork supporting the project. The Forest Service ultimately settled the case by removing less than two percent of the proposed treatment areas, reducing management in others, imposing additional project restrictions, and paying Oregon Wild $55,000 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

As a result of the litigation, commercial mechanical treatments did not occur across any of the project area before the Grasshopper Fire started after recent lightning storms. The fire has now burned through much of the planned Grasshopper project area, impacting critical habitat for listed species, destroying more than 25 million board feet of timber identified for removal while threatening the Highland Ditch irrigation system, which supplies water to approximately 3,600 acres of agricultural land.

“Everyone involved understood these forests were at risk and needed treatment,” said AFRC President Travis Joseph. “The Forest Service knew it. Local communities knew it. Members of the Wasco County Forest Collaborative spent years developing these projects because they recognized the wildfire risk. Instead of getting that work done on the ground, the projects got tied up in litigation and other procedural tactics meant to obstruct the Forest Service.” 

On July 7, just weeks before the Grasshopper Fire began, Oregon Wild and WildEarth Guardians served a Notice of Intent to sue again over four additional Mt. Hood National Forest projects, including the nearby 27 Road Fuel Break and Hootnanny Project, which are now within the fire area. Ironically, the 27 Road Fuel Break project was designed to limit the spread of wildfire by establishing a linear fuel break adjacent to the Badger Creek Wilderness, which is now burning in the Grasshopper Fire.

“This is the epitome of a broken system. The public should find this deeply troubling,” Joseph said. “Taxpayers paid an organization for delaying a collaboratively developed project intended to reduce wildfire risk, and before most of the delayed thinning could be completed, the project area burned. When litigation overrides the judgment of professional foresters, scientists, land managers and local collaboratives charged with stewarding our public lands, the consequences are felt on the ground. We all lose, including our forests. Congress should ask whether taxpayer-funded attorney fees are advancing the public interest or simply financing delay, obstruction and inaction.”

(Photo credit: InciWeb)

Fresh off a scare that saw a radical initiative petition effort to make it a crime to hunt, fish and raise animals for food in Oregon come up shy of qualifying for the 2026 ballot, a newly announced proposal would permanently protect those activities.

Oregon state Sen. Christine Drazen, a candidate for governor, unveiled a draft bill to amend the Oregon Constitution. It would “declare a constitutional right to hunt, fish, harvest wildlife, gather wild foods and plants and raise livestock, poultry, crops, trees and other resources.” It would also “promote conservation or management of wildlife or other natural resources for present and future generations.”

Anti-hunting and animal rights activists behind Initiative Petition 28 failed for the third consecutive election cycle to qualify it on the 2026 ballot. They submitted 142,784 signatures, but the Oregon Secretary of State’s office rejected 27 percent of them as invalid, leaving proponents short of qualifying

“Oregon should not be the testing ground for extreme measures that threaten affordability, local food production, consumer choice and thousands of jobs that connect us with putting food on the table with our farms and ranches,” Drazan told the Oregon Capital Chronicle. “Activities like farming, ranching, hunting and fishing are all a part of our heritage, our economy and our everyday lives.”

David Michelson, IP 28 chief petitioner, told the Oregon Capital Chronicle that even if Drazen’s measure qualifies for the ballot, he would also be able to use the ballot initiative process for his measure in the future. However, a constitutional change, as Drazan proposes, would likely preclude a statutory measure as IP28 contained.

Gauging the political temperature of protecting hunting, fishing

For Drazen’s proposal to legislatively qualify for the 2028 ballot, it first must be introduced in the 2027 legislative session and then approved by state lawmakers.

Right now, Oregon Democrats have a super majority in both the Oregon State Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives, plus the governor is also a Democrat. Drazen is a Republican and was surrounded by fellow Republicans when she made the announcement. She reportedly invited nearby Democratic lawmakers to attend, but none did so.

Looking back at the IP 28 effort, not a single Democrat or Republican came out in support. In fact, all 37 Oregon House Democrats released this statement: “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.” 

Gov. Tina Kotek also chimed in, saying, “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.”

However, after her gubernatorial opponent’s announcement, the Kotek administration released this statement: “While IP-28 was the wrong thing to do for Oregon, this proposed amendment feels like political theater from Senator Drazan. Amending the constitution requires a thoughtful approach and conversations with Oregonians across the state,” Federico Araujo, Tina for Oregon spokesman, told KGW-TV. 

So, the question remains. Will there be enough bipartisan support to pass Drazen’s draft bill or will it require a citizens’ initiative petition and the required signature gathering process to place it on the ballot? The 2027 Oregon legislative session will begin on Jan. 11.

Currently, 24 states have the right to fish and hunt in their constitutions: 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.

Colorado may be the 25^th. Proponents recently submitted 180,000 signatures. The Colorado Secretary of State’s office is reviewing them to determine if that measure qualifies for the November 3 ballot.

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.

A new study shows prescribed burns both greatly diminish the possibility of high-intensity wildfires on that same landscape and reduce the amount of toxic smoke down the road. Groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Hunt 2 Conserve support the use of prescribed burning and other treatments to enhance wildlife habitat while improving forest health and public safety.

“The benefit you get is pretty dramatic,” Marshall Burke, co-author and professor at Stanford University’s Global Environmental Policy program, told the Washington Post. “We estimate that if you did a prescribed burn today, the likelihood that you would get extreme wildfire in that area where you burned tomorrow is down by about 90 percent. That is a really dramatic reduction in the probability of extreme fire.”

According to the study, prescribed fire reduced the risk of wildfires by about 53 percent. Researchers say if California applied prescribed fire across half a million acres in one year, long-term exposure to smoke would drop by 10 percent over one decade. There are also spillover benefits.

“So, if I burn in my yard, it not only benefits me. It also benefits you, my neighbor, because if a fire blows through my yard and it burns at lower severity, that means you’re less likely to burn,” Burke told the Washington Post.

Arid weather conditions and heavy fuel loads are feeding wildfires in 2026. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, through the first seven months of 2026, 43,145 fires burned more than 4.5 million acres across the United States. That annual total is highest since 5.5 million acres burned in 2022, which was the largest number of single-year acres that burned over the last decade. And those high-intensity fires claim human life, destroy homes, threaten public safety, decimate wildlife habitat and release massive amounts of lung-choking smoke into the atmosphere.

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. Forest Service treated nearly two million acres with prescribe fire in 2026. Click here to view a series of a dozen independent research that highlights the benefits of prescribed burns and similar treatments.

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: InciWeb)

A new study shows that because mule deer numbers are declining, cattle are the No. 1 item on the menu for wolves in northern California. According to researchers at the University of California-Davis, samples collected from wolf packs during the summers of 2022 and 2023 found 72 percent of wolf scat contained cattle DNA.

“Whether it’s through scavenging or whether it's through depredation, it’s a huge component of the wolves’ diet,” said lead author Tina Saitone, a professor of Cooperative Extension in the UC Davis Agricultural and Resource Economics Department. “Their conservation success is because of livestock producers in the state.”

Researchers found cattle DNA in 86 percent of samples in 2022 and 55 percent in 2023. Scientists say California’s dwindling mule deer population gives wolves few wild ungulate prey options. They also say keeping wolves away from livestock is a daunting task.

“Conservatively, we’re talking about a million acres in our study area and 10,000 cow-calf pairs,” said Saitone. “It’s not as simple as putting up an electric fence on a two-acre pasture or putting cattle in the barn at night.”

One wolf pack killed more than 110 cattle over a seven-month span in 2025 across two California counties 125 to 160 miles northeast of Sacramento. Those depredations cost ranchers and the state millions of dollars, causing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to euthanize four wolves.

A second UC Davis study showed wolves are a major stressor for cattle. Researchers compared cattle in areas shared by wolves with those in non-wolf areas. They found those close to wolves have stress levels 58 percent higher.

"What this really confirms is that death or depredation is not the only impact here," said Saitone. "Living among wolves for cattle is a chronically stressful experience, and that could ultimately have production-related impacts in both the short and the long term."

Next, researchers want to understand whether elevated stress levels translate into lower conception rates – a concern long raised by ranchers that has not yet been established through direct biological evidence. When breeding cows fail to conceive, it can directly affect a rancher’s bottom line.

"That's their whole purpose,” said Saitone. “These are mother cows that are supposed to be generating calves as a marketable product.”

Read the UC Davis news release 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: Tina Saitone/Kenneth Tate/Don Preisler/UC Davis)

Like a merry-go-round ride at the county fair, anti-hunting animal rights activists in Oregon are expected to hop back on board for another round-and-round cycle of signature gathering. Their goal remains to qualify a ballot measure that would ban hunting, fishing, raising animals for food, rodeos, animal husbandry and many other commonly accepted practices.

They tried in 2022 but only collected 1,000 to 2,000 signatures. They tried again in 2024 when they collected about 40,000 signatures. For the 2026 election season, proponents submitted142,784 signatures under the guise of “prevent animal cruelty” by the July 2 deadline. Three weeks later, the Oregon Secretary of State declared only 73 percent of the signatures were valid, leaving proponents with a total of 104,262 or 12,911 short. In other words, the state rejected 27 percent of the gathered signatures.

Defeat does not stop animal rights extremists. In fact, on the same day of the secretary of state’s announcement, Initiative Petition 28 chief petitioner David Michelson (see photo below) sent a note to his supporters referring to his team’s defeat as a “milestone.” He continued, “If our campaign continues to grow as it has, I am confident we can get this initiative on the ballot in the future.”

Those comments are in line with others he made on past podcasts, self-produced videos and in written articles. And succeeding in Oregon is anything but Michelson’s ultimate goal.

Past Michelson quotes

“Our goal is to create a base that can do this in Oregon in multiple election cycles in a row, that can do this in other states. So that in decades — it took the women’s suffrage movement 40 to 50 years from the first ballot initiative to getting the Nineteenth Amendment — so it’s a long game.”

“If we’re able to get on the ballot and if we’re able to form an organization that gets it on the ballot in multiple election cycles – 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034 – that can hopefully stimulate a lot more grassroots mass protests who are calling for a state amendment in their state and potentially a federal constitutional amendment.”

“If Oregon is the first state, which could be the next? Colorado and California might be top contenders—although Arizona and Florida may prove as formidable contenders given they each allow for two years of signature collection (similar to Oregon) and their warmer winters and longer days are ideal for petitioning.”

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

Those final words are telling: “force a vote.” These extremists want what they want, including forcing consequences on others. If eventually passed, their ideology would:

• Make hunting, fishing and trapping a crime

• 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 ability of state wildlife agencies to protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats

• Cut funding for state wildlife agency budgets, which rely on dollars 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 fish populations since the millions spent on fisheries and fish hatcheries would be cut off

• Threaten the food security of Americans by making it against the law for farmers and ranchers to raise cattle, hogs, sheep and goats, poultry and fish for food

• Destroy livelihoods of family farms by ending livestock ranching and transition those farms and ranches into “animal sanctuaries”

• Permanently end commercial operations that provide meat, milk, cheese, eggs and other products

• Severely disable or permanently close the commercial fishing industry

• Threaten the food security of Americans 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

For activists, their latest short-term effort failed. Again. However, their long-term or “long-game” aspirations are more than alive. And that makes them dangerous today and tomorrow. 

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.