Utah's general session adjourned on March 6, wrapping up a short 45-day legislative session. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation volunteers and members prioritized one bill this session, HB-431 on wildlife crossings. In addition, several bills of interest to elk, wildlife and sportsmen issues also passed with broad support. 

• HB 431 — Wildlife crossing amendments. We supported this bill, which establishes an ongoing funding mechanism for wildlife crossing infrastructure and will help Utah to access matching federal funds. This is a direct win for elk, mule deer and other wildlife that depend on connected habitat across Utah's landscapes. The bill passed 61-5 in the House and 25-1 in the Senate. 

• HB 30 — Wildlife Management Area access. WMAs in Utah are funded primarily by hunting and fishing license fees and federal Pittman-Robertson excise taxes — sportsmen's dollars. This bill requires non-license holders to complete a short educational video before accessing a WMA. It is a reasonable step toward recognizing the financial contributions sportsmen and women make to these areas while keeping them accessible for multiple use. 

• HB 93 — Goshen Bay Waterfowl Management Area. This bill establishes a new WMA at Utah Lake, expanding hunting access and habitat protection in a heavily used recreational area. Policies that grow the WMA system and protect habitat are aligned with our conservation mission. 

• Budget – Predator control program funding. Utah's predator control program faced an approximate $200,000 funding shortfall due to increased participation. The program pays bounties for coyotes from the state’s general fund and has done so since legislation passed in 2012, but bounties doubled in 2025 to $100 if taken in designated mule-deer habitat. Legislators allocated additional funding to fill this gap.  

• HB 111 — Wildlife and hunting amendments. This bill reduces the required distance from a building to discharge a firearm from 600 feet to 300 feet to accommodate development that is encroaching on state WMA. It also sets policy to remove any grizzly bears that arrive in the state until they are removed from the ESA. The bill also creates a poaching mitigation fund and captures fines and restitution to pay for enforcement. It also changes some of the recent restrictions on guides and outfitters operating in the state. 

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: Andrew Smith)

Below is a portion of a President’s Message by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation President & CEO Kyle Weaver in the 2025 September/October issue of Bugle magazine that announced the establishment of Hunt 2 Conserve.

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, RMEF is legally constrained in our political activities. For example, our status limits the money we can spend on lobbying. Some issues are too big to address as a 501(c)(3). With that in mind, in 2025 RMEF launched a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, called Hunt 2 Conserve, which will stand as a separate entity and use separate funding. RMEF will help steer the organization as a voting member. Through our partnership with Hunt 2 Conserve, we will expand our advocacy to have an even stronger voice on policy related to elk, other big game and their habitat. This is especially helpful with our work surrounding ballot initiatives. The creation of Hunt 2 Conserve accomplishes two specific things for our future. First, it provides an organization that can engage fully in the political spectrum to protect our hunting heritage and public lands. Second, it protects the future of our 501(c)(3) status by removing risks associated with lobbying by RMEF.

RMEF’s approach to advocacy focuses on building long-term relationships that help us work together to create solutions, so that we can promote public- and private-land conservation, maintain access, conserve habitat and keep our hunting traditions flourishing for generations to come. We thank each one of you for supporting this vital work.

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 a news release from the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

The Department of the Interior announced a proposed rule to restore longstanding hunting and trapping regulations on Alaska’s national preserves, realigning federal regulations with Alaska state wildlife management laws and reinstating the framework that governed preserves for more than three decades. 

The proposal would rescind regulatory changes made in 2015, 2017 and 2024 and restore the regulatory structure that implemented the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The action is consistent with President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order 14153, "Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential," Executive Order 14192 on regulatory reform, and Secretary’s Order 3422. 

“For decades, Alaska’s national preserves were managed under a framework that respected the State’s authority, protected subsistence uses and ensured conservation of wildlife resources,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “This proposed rule restores that balance. It reduces unnecessary federal overreach, aligns federal regulations with state law, and honors the commitments Congress made in ANILCA.” 

Restoring the ANILCA Framework 

National preserves in Alaska are distinct within the National Park System. Congress expressly authorized hunting and trapping in preserves under applicable State and Federal law while directing the National Park Service to conserve resources and ensure subsistence priority under Title VIII of ANILCA. 

Beginning in 2015, a series of rulemakings altered that framework by preempting certain State-authorized harvest practices, modifying public closure procedures and expanding discretionary federal restrictions. Litigation and repeated rule changes since that time created regulatory uncertainty for Alaskans, Tribes, State wildlife managers and park users. 

The proposed rule would: 

• Restore State-authorized harvest practices in national preserves, consistent with ANILCA. 

• Reinstate longstanding public notice and consultation procedures for closures and restrictions in Alaska park areas. 

• Remove provisions that unnecessarily preempt State wildlife management authority. 

• Eliminate duplicative or unnecessary regulatory language added in recent rulemakings. 

The proposal does not alter Federal subsistence harvest regulations under Title VIII of ANILCA. 

Wildlife Conservation and Public Safety 

The Department has reviewed the record developed in prior rulemakings and litigation and preliminarily determined that the 2015 and subsequent restrictions were not necessary to protect wildlife populations or public safety. Environmental analyses associated with prior rules concluded that harvest levels under State management would not result in population-level impacts. 

Where localized concerns arise, the National Park Service retains authority under ANILCA and existing regulations to implement targeted closures or restrictions consistent with statutory criteria and after appropriate consultation. 

Public and Tribal Engagement 

The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register and open for a 30-day public comment period. The National Park Service has initiated pre-consultation outreach with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations and will conduct formal Tribal consultation during the rulemaking process. 

The Department will carefully consider all public and tribal input before issuing a final rule. Additional information, including instructions for submitting comments, will be available at regulations.gov upon publication. 

(Photo credit: U.S. Department of the Interior/Andrew King) 

The short budget session in Wyoming wrapped up recently with legislators passing several bills that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supported, including:  

• SJ9 - Keeping public lands protected and decisions local. This nonbinding resolution declared that “the Wyoming Legislature opposes any state or federal legislation or policy that promotes the broad or indiscriminate sale or exchange of public lands,” and that existing frameworks and land exchange mechanisms remain in place and respect state and local input. This resolution was in line with RMEF’s efforts to oppose wholesale transfers of public land as was recently proposed by some members of the U.S. Senate in the 2025 reconciliation budget process.  

• SF52 - Large project funding. While RMEF did not have any projects in this year’s large project bill, several projects aligned with the RMEF mission of cheatgrass management to the benefit of big game and other wildlife.  

• HB78 forest health grant program and SF17 good neighbor authority amendments. These bills provide authority for Wyoming’ s state forester for cost share programs and to expand work on federal lands through the Good Neighbor Authority. Managing habitat across federal-state ownership boundaries provides for more efficient projects. Increased management of federal forests will benefit elk, mule deer and other wildlife.  

Other legislation that RMEF was tracking or engaged in did not cross the finish line.  

• HB19 corner crossing clarification. As introduced, this bill would have made crossing at the corner of any public land to other public land legal, expanding on the federal-to-federal crossing legalized by recent 10th circuit court decisions. However, the bill was amended in the House that narrowed its application to only federal-to-federal crossings where a person does not touch adjacent private property, aligning with the court's decision. While the court's decision makes corner crossing possible from a general access standpoint, it is not always practical. The complexity of the issue will need to be worked on in the interim, because the Senate chose to let the bill die without the time to work out the complexities.  

• SF51 Transferrable landowner tags. Legislation that would have allowed landowners to sell the big game tags they can receive as landowners failed early in session on a 6-to-25 vote in the Senate. The author of the bill has expressed a desire to help offset the costs of wildlife to agriculture producers through this mechanism, but with no history of transferrable tags in the state, the opposition from sportsmen and women is very strong.  

• SF25 Landowner license limits in quota areas. As the concept of transferable landowner tags has raised the concern that landowners would have financial incentives to obtain these licenses, the potential exists that in some units, landowners could receive the entire allocation of available big game tags. Competing concepts were discussed in the 2025 interim, and this bill that would have allowed the commission to set caps made the most progress, passing the Senate 23-7, but it failed in the House 29-31. 

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 a Facebook post from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Hunt 2 Conserve maintains state agencies should sustainably manage wolves just as they manage elk, mountain lions, deer and other species.

Idaho Fish and Game completed targeted wolf management actions on Feb. 21 and 22 that removed three wolves from Unit 4 in the Panhandle elk zone. This marks the first time such actions have been implemented in Idaho’s Panhandle Region.

The effort, when combined with recent success of local trappers, substantially reduced the size of a single wolf pack in a key part of the unit.

Recent data indicate that elk numbers in Unit 4 have declined, with predation on elk calves a contributing factor. To promote elk population growth, Fish and Game continues to address overall predation impacts by offering expanded opportunities to harvest black bears, mountain lions and wolves in Unit 4 through extended seasons and additional-tag availability. In addition, Fish and Game has worked with the U.S. Forest Service for years to improve habitat for elk in Unit 4 and will continue to do so.

Fish and Game prioritizes regulated hunting and trapping as the primary tools for managing wolf populations; however, targeted control actions are used to address specific conflicts and in situations where hunting and trapping have not been sufficient to meet management goals.

Due to a 2024 federal court injunction affecting wolf trapping seasons, harvest of wolves by trappers has declined statewide, including in Unit 4, affecting progress toward the state’s wolf population goal and the ability to reduce wolf predation on elk.

The primary goal of the recent action was to reduce predation and improve elk survival in a population that is underperforming. Similar management efforts have been conducted annually in the Lolo elk zone in the Clearwater Region over the past decade. The objective is not to eliminate wolves, but to maintain a smaller, self-sustaining wolf population in Unit 4 that reduces predation risk on elk populations.

The effort was conducted under the guidance of Fish and Game’s 2024–2030 Idaho Elk Management Plan and in alignment with the Idaho Fish and Game Commission-approved 2023–2028 Idaho Gray Wolf Management Plan, which strives to balance wolf conservation in Idaho with responsive and effective conflict resolution.

For more information or questions about the recent wolf management actions, please contact the Panhandle Regional office at (208) 769-1414.

(Photo credit: Idaho Department of Fish and Game)

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.