Conservationists in the South who are working to protect America’s largest remaining blackwater swamp from a proposed mining project just got some encouraging news from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On Friday, the USFWS announced its final decision to expand the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge by approximately 22,000 acres, potentially opening the door to a buyout of the proposed mine.

That’s because the feds’ planned boundary expansion would include lands held by a number of private owners, including Twin Pines Minerals LLC. The Alabama-based mining company has been trying to build a heavy-metals mine along the eastern boundary of the refuge since 2017, but the project has been stuck in the permitting phase and is currently awaiting final approval from state regulators. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division drafted conditional permits for the project in February 2023, but the division has not indicated when it will issue its final decision, according to The Center Square. 

Before the refuge expansion can happen, however, the private landowners involved would have to agree to sell their acreage or establish conservation easements, which is far from a sure thing. Twin Pines told reporters Tuesday that it is still pursuing the project, and that the USFWS’ recent announcement will not affect the company’s plans to build a mine in the area.

Read Next: A Mining Proposal in the Okefenokee Threatens America’s Largest Remaining Blackwater Swamp

It’s also possible that the planned refuge expansion will be rolled back by an incoming Trump Administration. The same can be said of the other executive actions taken by the current administration in its final days as Biden attempts to cement a conservation legacy.

Public Support for the Refuge Expansion Goes Beyond the U.S.

Friday’s announcement from the USFWS comes after a 55-day public scoping period, during which time the agency received approximately 30,000 comments from individuals in all 50 states and 36 countries. Those comments were generally supportive of the refuge expansion.

“The response received during the public comment period is a testament to just how special the Okefenokee is, not just to our local community, but to people all over the nation and around the world,” Okefenokee refuge manager Michal Lusk said in a press release. “We appreciate the commitment to conserving this landscape.”  

The planned expansion could potentially create more opportunities for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation in the Okefenokee, which is already the largest National Wildlife Refuge east of the Mississippi. Situated near the Florida-Georgia line, the refuge is home to a variety of sportfish, along with waterfowl, deer, black bears, and an abundance of alligators and other amphibians.

The Okefenokee is also a critically important hydrological area, as it forms the headwaters of two major rivers: the Suwanee, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico, and the St. Marys, which feeds the Atlantic Ocean. The refuge’s interconnected network of swamps, streams, and shallow lakes are a paradise for anglers, and a 120-mile-long wilderness canoe trail through the heart of the blackwater swamp provides one of the best remaining wilderness experiences for paddlers in the southeastern U.S. (The vast majority of the 407,00-acre refuge is already designated as a national wilderness area.) 

Twin Pines has repeatedly stated that its project would not affect the ecology of the swamp or the recreational opportunities there. However, independent scientific studies have shown that the proposed mine could significantly damage the ecology of the Okefenokee by drawing down water levels and impairing water quality. An open letter penned by a group of 87 researchers, academics, and scientists from across the South in February 2023 speaks to the “high likelihood” that the project would cause permanent ecological damage to the area.

“Go ahead and put Georgia’s Okefenokee Swamp on the same shortlist with Alaska’s Bristol Bay, Minnesota’s Boundary Waters, and Nevada’s Ruby Mountains,” reads an explainer piece by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “[These are] areas that provide unmatched fish and wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities that spur the local economy but have been at risk from development interests.” 

Read Next: Feds Say Mining Company Can’t Divert 1.4 Million Gallons Water per Day from Georgia Wildlife Refuge  

A proclamation by the U.S. Department of the Interior made just two weeks before the USFWS’ Jan. 3 announcement only bolsters the Okefenokee’s image as a globally significant area that deserves added protections. On Dec. 20, the Department nominated the NWR to join the UNESCO World Heritage List. This list includes more than 1,000 other important cultural sites and bastions of conservation, such as Arizona’s Grand Canyon and Ecuador’s Galápagos Islands.

DOI Secretary Deb Haaland said in December that the UNESCO nomination “serves as a recognition of the refuge’s unparalleled natural and cultural significance.”

The post Feds’ Expansion of Okefenokee NWR Could Help Prevent a Proposed Mine There — If It Sticks appeared first on Outdoor Life.

In a long-awaited decision issued Wednesday, the federal government denied petitions from Montana and Wyoming to delist grizzly bears, announcing that grizzlies are still threatened in the Lower 48 and will retain federal protections under the Endangered Species Act.

As part of its announcement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it is taking a new and comprehensive approach to the species’ recovery by managing grizzlies in the West as a single distinct population segment. The USFWS says the proposed changes will also provide additional management flexibility for state agencies and individuals experiencing conflicts with grizzly bears.

“This reclassification will facilitate recovery of grizzly bears and provide a stronger foundation for eventual delisting,” USFWS Director Martha Williams said in a press release.

It also represents a seismic shift from the feds’ previous management strategy, which focused on rebuilding grizzly populations in six geographically distinct population segments. (The recent decision to reintroduce grizzly bears to the Northern Cascades in Washington State would establish a seventh distinct population.) The USFWS original grizzly bear recovery plan, created in 1993, revolved around these core recovery zones and set population goals that could serve as recovery benchmarks.

Looking at the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, for example, USFWS’ original recovery plan called for a sustainable population of 500 bears. There are now at least 727 grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, although recent estimates using updating modeling put that number closer to 1,000. The bears now occupy roughly 98 percent of suitable habitat within the GYE. Advocates for delisting say that, when taken together, these numbers serve as abundant proof that grizzlies have recovered there.

The USFWS’ new “metapopulation” approach, however, makes those arguments moot. It also aligns directly with a recent request made by Chris Servheen, the former grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the USFWS. During his time in the role, Servheen helped create the original grizzly bear recovery plan, which called for removing federal protections for grizzlies one distinct population at a time. 

In December, however, Servheen said in a press conference that this original logic was flawed, and that Western grizzly bears should be managed not as island populations but as one, interconnected metapopulation that spans the Northern Rockies. This would require more connectivity between isolated populations, which Servheen said would enhance genetic diversity and put grizzlies on better footing in the long term.

“Grizzly bear populations are now geographically closer to each other than ever, and the Service has documented grizzly bear movement between some populations, indicating recovery zones are no longer discrete,” the USFWS explained in Wednesday’s announcement. “This increased movement of grizzly bears illustrates the success of conservation and management efforts to date while highlighting the importance of establishing and maintaining conservation measures and management practices that foster continued movement of bears.

The move has already riled many Western lawmakers, who have long petitioned the USFWS to delist their grizzly bear populations and return the species’ management to the states. The most recent petitions, filed by Wyoming and Montana, are based on the argument that their distinct grizzly populations have met or exceeded the federal criterion for delisting that were established in the Fed’s original recovery plan for the species.

Related: Montana’s New Grizzly Bear Plan Says It’s Ready to Take Back Management from the Feds

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte was quick to condemn the feds’ decision, chalking it up as a last-ditch political move by the outgoing Biden Administration.

“The full recovery of the grizzly bear across the Rocky Mountain region should be acknowledged and celebrated — period,” Gianforte said in an official statement. “It’s time for [the] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to catch up with the science, follow the law, and return management of grizzlies to the states, where it belongs.”

Similarly, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon said the decision was driven by politics and not biology. Last summer, Gordon sued the USFWS after the agency missed a deadline to respond to Wyoming’s original 2021 petition to delist grizzlies. A federal judge sided with Gordon in December, telling the agency it had until Jan. 20, which coincides with Inauguration Day, to issue a formal decision on delisting. The USFWS followed this directive, issuing its decision just 12 days before president-elect Donald Trump takes office.

Environmental groups are applauding the decision. These same groups have for years fought against delisting the bears, arguing that Western states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana are unable to manage grizzlies responsibly.

The USFWS is welcoming public comment on the proposal over the next 60 days. And if the recent history around grizzly bears in the West is any indication, it will likely be challenged in the courts.

Read Next: Wolves Will Be Delisted, Public-Land Transfer Attempts Will Fail, and Other 2025 Predictions

“The science is clear: grizzly populations in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems have rebounded to healthy levels more than double their recovery target and should be delisted. Today’s decision penalizes conservation by holding the expansion of these populations against their delisting,” Brian Yablonski, CEO of the Property and Environment Research Center, said in an emailed statement to Outdoor Life. “The Endangered Species Act process is broken when it ignores science and punishes rather than rewards recovery.”

The post Grizzly Bears Will Remain on Endangered Species List, Feds Say appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Idaho’s big-game hunters generally think that modern hunting technology in the form of conventional optics and firearms, digital mapping services, and even ATVs and side-by-sides is acceptable. But they overwhelmingly think thermal, night-vision devices, and drones violate fair-chase ethical standards and oppose their use in big-game seasons.

Those are some of the insights gleaned from a survey of 2,170 resident big-game hunters asked a series of questions at the intersection of technology and hunting ethics, wildlife management, and opportunity. Those topics are being considered by the state’s Hunting and Advanced Technology (HAT) Working Group convened last year and charged with considering changes to Idaho’s hunting seasons and gear restrictions given the rise in field-ready technology that enables hunters to more effectively find and kill animals.

Related: Should Idaho Restrict Hi-Tech Hunting Gear? State Officials Want to Know

The survey, posted to Idaho Fish and Game’s website this week, was conducted by the University of Idaho Department of Natural Resources and Society. Results were gleaned from surveys sent to thousands of Idaho residents aged 18 and older who have bought big-game and predator hunting licenses in the past 3 to 5 years. The survey was designed to help HAT members understand their fellow hunters’ opinions on technology and hunting success and opportunity.

Specifically, study authors say, they wanted to determine:

• To what extent do Idaho big-game hunters consider “fair chase” important and agree with its tenets?
• To what extent do Idaho big-game hunters support the use of advanced modern technology to harvest big game?
• To what extent do Idaho big-game hunters agree that the use of advanced modern technology to harvest big game aligns with fair chase tenets?
• To what extent do Idaho big-game hunters support hypothetical strategies to address emerging management issues associated with the use of advanced modern technology to harvest big game?

Respondents overwhelmingly (94 percent and higher) think that hunters should exercise a personal code of behavior and behave in a way that brings no dishonor on the hunter, game animals, or the environment. A vast majority further agrees that hunters should attain and maintain the skills necessary to make a quick and certain kill as possible, obey all applicable laws and regulations, and recognize that “these tenants are intended to enhance the hunter’s experience of the relationship between predator and prey.”

Those are important baseline values that then help surveyors assess support for or opposition to specific types of hunting technology. The survey asked respondents to gauge their support for (agree or strongly agree) or opposition to (disagree or strongly disagree) gear categories ranging from modern mapping technology, modern optics and bow technology, modern firearm optics, rangefinders that can range targets in excess of 1,000 yards, modern crossbow technology, rifle scopes with built-in rangefinders, modern rifle cartridges of killing game at long range, modern muzzleloader technology, transmitting trail cameras, thermal imaging optics, night-vision and thermal rifle scopes, drones, and artificial intelligence for animal identification.

First, hunters were asked if each type of gear is in alignment with fair-chase ethics, but in a second series of questions, they were asked “to what extent do you oppose or support the technologies used to hunt big game.”

Idaho hunters are in widespread support of modern mapping technology (94 percent say it aligns with fair-chase ethics and support its use in hunting). They support modern optics at the same level. Support softens a little for modern bow technology, with 87 percent saying it aligns with fair-chase ethics and 13 percent saying it goes too far.

About 73 percent of respondents say that rangefinders capable of lazing targets beyond 1,000 yards align with fair-chase considerations and support their use in hunting. Support for transportation that enables hunters to access hunting areas has only about 68 percent favorability. Support for both transmitting trail cameras and modern in-line muzzleloader technology was split, with about half of respondents opposing their use for hunting and also saying they are not in alignment with fair-chase ethics.

Related: Drones Could Revolutionize How Hunters Recover Lost Deer … If They’re Not Banned First

But Idaho’s big-game hunters take a dim view of three categories of gear that have roared onto the hunting scene in recent years. About 76 percent of respondents said that thermal imaging optics, night-vision scopes, and thermal scopes are not in alignment with fair-chase ethics. An even higher percentage (about 90 percent) say that the use of artificial intelligence for wildlife identification violates fair-chase principles, and fully 90 percent say that drones violate fair-chase ethics and are opposed to their use in big-game hunting.

The inclusion of each specific gear type was chosen based on widespread adoption by hunters in Idaho and neighboring states. While Idaho doesn’t specifically address the use of thermal and night-vision devices while hunting, other states have prohibited their use for either hunting or game retrieval. And other Western states, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona among them, prohibit transmitting game cameras. Most Western states prohibit the use of drones for hunting.

Effect of Technology on Hunting Opportunity

The context for Idaho’s HAT working group is that as technology makes hunters more effective at killing animals, hunting opportunity diminishes. This is based on the well-established wildlife management principle that bases allocation of hunting opportunity, as determined by the number of tags or permits issued or the length of the season or any weapons restrictions, on hunter success. The more successful hunters become, the less opportunity is provided by wildlife managers, in order to assure a sustainable wildlife population.

Idaho Fish and Game biologists may need to shorten seasons or offer fewer tags and permits if hunters, aided by technology, become increasingly lethal. Season restrictions mean hunters might not be able to draw tags readily, or might have to sit out seasons or switch weapon types.

Meanwhile, certain types of technology are becoming more available and affordable as they become normalized. HAT members are expected to make recommendations to the state legislature that could either restrict certain technologies or modify season structures.

In order to assess preferences for hypothetical scenarios, respondents were asked if they support maintaining existing season lengths, tag allocations, and equipment restrictions, whether they support shortening season length and reducing tag allocations while allowing more advanced technology, or some middle course.

Read Next: Federal 7mm Backcountry, Tested and Reviewed

Respondents were most supportive of maintaining existing season length and tag allocations while maintaining current technology restrictions. They were least supportive of shortening seasons and reducing tags in order to allow hunters to use advanced technology. Respondents were evenly split on the middle way: maintaining existing season length and tag numbers and restricting hunting technology.

The HAT Working Group met last weekend in Boise and reviewed the survey findings. The group’s next meeting will be a virtual session on Monday, Jan. 27. The group is scheduled to finish its work on March 22 at an in-person meeting in Boise.

The post Survey: Idaho Big-Game Hunters Would Ban Drones and Thermals, But Keep Most Other Tech appeared first on Outdoor Life.

This story, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” appeared in the July 1982 issue of Outdoor Life. The incident took place in January 1982. Today, the Great Lakes population of wolves is listed under the Endangered Species Act, with gray wolves in Minnesota listed as “threatened.”

On a cold winter morning only two days into the new year, 19-year-old Ron Poyirier shivered awake in a hunting cabin on Sullivan Lake. Moving quietly so as not to disturb his snoring companions, he quickly slipped on old hunting clothes and headed out into the bitter January cold. His fingers stiffened as he stuffed shells into his Glenfield automatic .22. Light, puffy snowflakes slanted across his vision as he took a parting glance at the cabin. Nearby, the frozen lake groaned and popped in the sub-zero air. A typical day of northern Minnesota winter.

Poyirier struck north into familiar cover, thinking how pleased everyone would be when he returned with a few snowshoe rabbits for supper. He would hunt near the south boundary of the Superior National Forest. Half a mile from the cabin, he paused briefly where, six weeks earlier, he had bagged his first deer, a nice forkhorn. Pleasant memories. He enjoyed being alone in the woods.

A foot of new snow muffled his footsteps. He was proud of his ability to move stealthily through the heavy cover of pines and fir. But rabbit populations were down. There were few tracks and all were several days old. He pushed on into unfamiliar country. Deer sign was everywhere. Occasionally, he noticed larger tracks of moose and what looked like timber wolf tracks, but in the deep snow it was hard to tell. He had never hunted this far from the cabin, but reasoned he could easily backtrack when it came time to head home.

Gradually, he began to notice a change in the timber. Towering white and red pines sighed softly overhead. Underneath, young balsam fir laden with fresh snow reduced visibility to only a few feet in some places. Snow-covered trees muffled his movements. The heavy cover cut a quartering wind. Deer sign increased. He passed a large balsam, noticing four fresh beds in the snow. Strangely, some tracks were those of running deer, almost a panicky run, he thought, as he noticed tracks plunging through clumps of small balsam. Snow had been knocked from their branches, turning them green again. Following a straight line was impossible now and he zigzagged to the top of a small rise, paused to get his bearings, and figured he was about a mile north of the cabin and that his wandering route covered about double that.

Moving on, he noticed a thick clump of balsam that might harbor a rabbit. He approached it soundlessly, hunting instincts ready for a burst of white flashing through the small trees. About halfway through, his stealth was rewarded. Fifty feet ahead, across a small depression, something darted through the cover. Unsure of his target, he moved forward a foot at a time. Instinctively, to break his outline, he paused momentarily behind a small balsam to watch and listen.

The terror of the next few moments would be part of him for the rest of his life. Without warning, a heavy object struck his shoulders from behind, hurtling his 130- pound frame to the ground and sending his rifle spinning from stunned fingers. It was, he said later, “as if a football player gave me a double-stiff arm on my shoulder blades.” He first thought one of his buddies had followed him from camp to play a joke. They were always doing things like that to each other. Not feeling the freezing snow that nearly engulfed him, he rolled on his back as he hit the ground. Automatically, one arm went up in defense, which may have saved his life.

Fully expecting to see one of his pals bent double with laughter, he was totally unprepared for the menacing canine teeth inches from his face and throat. Instinctively and luckily, he clutched the animal’s throat with his right hand and groped wildly for the rifle with his left. Terrified, he started screaming, “Get off me! Get off me!”

Ron Poyirier is nearly full-blooded Chippewa. Proud of his heritage, he good-naturedly accepts the respectful “Indian” nickname he earned from his hunting companions last deer season. At 19, he is a natural woodsman. His lithe body slides through the woods, hardly disturbing branches and twigs as he effortlessly sidesteps obstacles. Once out of sight, Ron also is out of earshot. Had he been noisy in the woods, things might have turned out differently.

Whether it’s his Indian heritage, growing up in the woods of northern Minnesota, or both, he is most comfortable in the thickly wooded country around the cabin near Sullivan Lake. Jet-black hair, piercing, twinkling black eyes, a shy but ready smile and a pleasant personality all make for a well-adjusted young man, comfortable in any environment.

His love for animals is obvious. Whether it’s the family dog, Scamp; his old pal Sam, an arthritic and nearly blind Chinese pug; or his parents’ pet ferret, if Ron’s around, the animal is held, petted and looked after.

His affection for and interest in canines does not end with domestics. On the dresser in his bedroom is a sketchbook. In it are his own detailed drawings of Eastern timber wolves and notes about them. He has studied the wolf in detail, including the breeding season and the variation in litter size at different latitudes. His drawings show the tail positions and facial expressions wolves use to communicate with other pack members.

Ron’s interest in wolves is understandable. Except for a few wolves in nearby Isle Royale National Park, Minnesota has the only self-sustaining timber wolf population in the Lower 48 states. Wolves were once found throughout all of North America, but the advance of civilization reduced the predator’s numbers in the contiguous United States to a remnant population in sparsely settled northeastern Minnesota.

In the mid-1960s, pressure built to protect the wolf. At the time, wolves were still considered predatory varmints to be shot from airplanes, trapped and snared for $100 bounty and whatever hides would bring. Some believed the wolf population in Minnesota, then estimated at 400 to 500, was endangered.

In 1967, the secretary of the interior classified the Eastern timber wolf in the Lower 48 as endangered, and in 1973, it was afforded full protection under the Endangered Species Act. A $20,000 fine and a year in prison was set as the maximum penalty for killing a wolf.

Later a wolf recovery study team of federal and state biologists devised strategies to increase wolf populations to a level at which they could be removed from the endangered list. The team based many of its recommendations on the classic study of wolves by Dr. David Mech. a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who traveled and studied wolves by using small radio transmitters attached to collars around the wolves’ necks.

During the 1970s, Minnesota’s wolf population increased and in 1978, the wolf was removed from the list of endangered species in that state only and placed in the less critical “threatened” category. Still, only government trappers were authorized to live-trap wolves, and only if they were problem animals. Disposing of live-trapped wolves became a problem. Frequently, they were released in areas already occupied by a wolf pack. Territorial in nature, the pack would not tolerate the intruder and promptly killed it. Often when investigating a stationary radio signal, biologists would find only blood, hair, bones, wolf tracks and a radio collar still sending a telltale signal.

Under pressure from enraged farmers, equally disturbed environmentalists and a new Superior National Forest supervisor who would no longer allow releasing livetrapped wolves into wolf-occupied territories, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began killing trapped adult wolves in 1978.

Livestock owners are compensated for losses, but they fear the compensation fund will soon dry up. State legislators dislike using already strained state funds to correct what they see as a problem caused by the federal government.

Many residents believe wolf protection during the past decade has caused the wolf to lose its fear of man. This belief is not unfounded. In broad daylight last year, wolves killed and ate a valuable sled dog chained to its kennel just outside Ely, Minnesota. Earlier in the year, State Game Warden Kenneth Schlueter killed two wolves in the town of Babbitt, Minnesota, again in broad daylight. One had earlier chased a small boy riding a bicycle. Also, wolf scat has been found containing plastic and other material that could only have come from garbage cans and city dumps. Warden Robert Jacobsen of Ely, Minnesota, says, “There’s no doubt about it, wolves are getting more brazen.”

Current efforts by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to wrest management of the wolf from the federal government may succeed. Their plans, however, to harvest 160 wolves each year by allowing limited trapping are being met with threats of lawsuits from environmentalists.

In a classic Catch-22 situation, wolves have left their million-acre sanctuary in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness because their primary prey, the whitetail deer, lost its foothold in a wilderness devoid of browse. In 1978, federal legislation halted all timber harvesting, which had previously provided browse for the deer.

This emigration of wolves from the wilderness to more rewarding hunting grounds in nearby areas puts pressure on livestock and the remaining area deer herd. Increased wolf sightings are alarming residents. Deer hunters and farmers are demanding a solution. The timber wolf population in Minnesota is now estimated to be at 1,200 to 1,500 animals

It was one of these wolves that straddled Ron Poyirier. He remembers it vividly; distinctly recalling big teeth near his face and neck, and the terrible yellow eyes. He can still hear growling and remembers yelling, “Get off me! Get off me!” while frantically keeping the wolf at bay with his right hand and groping in the snow for his rifle with the other hand. He remembers wondering how long it would take a search party to find him, thinking, “What’s happening to me? This can’t be happening to me!” The animal was too strong for him. He doesn’t recall how he found the rifle and released the safety. Perhaps it was knocked off when it fell in the small balsam. He fired one unaimed shot that he is sure did not hit the wolf, and the wolf vanished. His ordeal was over, but he didn’t know it — not yet.

The trip back to the cabin was agonizingly slow. At first, he was angry; then he was scared. He started after the wolf, but after a few steps. fear overcame anger. Every step back to safety was measured carefully. The slightest movement or sound started new panic. He doesn’t remember how many times he clicked the safety off on his homeward journey, but he recalls having no doubts about shooting if the wolf reappeared. He constantly watched his backtrack.

Ron Poyirier’s friends were up and about when; still shaken and white, he entered the cabin. His companions were concerned when he said nothing. Ron recalls not wanting to speak to anyone. Finally, Walt Fish spoke to him. “What’s wrong?” he asked.

Only then did Ron say, “I was attacked by a wolf.” There was disbelief, of course. As a former wolf trapper, Walt had been followed by wolves several times, but had never been attacked. He knew there was no documented case in Minnesota of a wolf attacking a human. Even so, Walt knew Ron well. He was not acting normally. He was frightened. There were scratches on his face, blood on his thigh below a two-inch tear in his blue jeans, and fresh tears in his brown hunting jacket. Then Ron lost his composure.

His crying and sobbing bordered on hysteria at times. He allowed Walt’s wife, Marge, to embrace him. He even put his head on her shoulder. “That,” said Marge later, “was completely out of character for him. He’s an affectionate person, but he usually shows affection by doing things for other people. And he hasn’t cried since he was 6 years old — he just doesn’t cry.” After three or four hours, they finally calmed him down. During this time, his nervous pacing was broken by fits of crying and sobbing. “It was,” Marge recalled, “two or three a.m. before we finally got him to bed.”

The next day, a friend asked Ron, “Do you realize where you slept last night?” Puzzled, Ron was led into one of the bedrooms. His friend pointed to the wall over a bed and Ron’s knees sagged. Of the six beds in the cabin, Ron had unknowingly selected one over which a popular painting had recently been hung. The picture was of a black wolf, water vapor streaming from each nostril, standing on a snow-covered hill overlooking a small farmstead. Nothing more was done until they returned to Duluth. Marge was concerned about Ron’s leg wound and the possibility of rabies. “Perhaps,” she theorized, “the attack happened because the wolf was rabid.”

A quick call to the hospital emergency room verified the fact that wolves do contract rabies, and rabies shots were prescribed. So began a series of 16 excruciating rabies injections for Ron. One look at the heavy needle and the syringe filled with red, mucuslike liquid was almost too much for him.

What really happened? Investigators from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota DNR visited the site two days after the attack. Unfortunately, it had snowed enough in the interim to erase whatever story tracks could have revealed. Here’s what they believe happened.

First and foremost, they believe an attack really happened. After detailed questioning of Ron, his parents and friends, they believe the events described here occurred just as Ron related them. Apparently, Ron had unknowingly stumbled into a deer chase by one or more wolves. Further, the investigators learned that during the deer season six weeks earlier, Ron had dumped “nearly a whole bottle” of deer-hunting sex scent on his clothing. Except for a reddish-brown outer coat, he was wearing the same clothing when attacked.

A quartering wind, a reddish-brown jacket similar in color to that of a deer, the deer scent on his clothing, plus his stealthy movements in very heavy cover probably fooled the wolf. Perhaps it was already in hot pursuit of a deer. The investigators speculate that the movement Ron saw just before the attack was a deer the wolf was chasing or perhaps it was another wolf.

They believe the attack itself supports their reasoning. When the wolf sprang, Ron was standing in a depression so that only his upper body was visible to the wolf. Another factor was the heavy stand of small balsam that softened Ron’s silhouette. Visibility in the area of the attack was only 10 to 15 feet.

Read Next: Will Wolves Attack a Man? A Frank Glaser Story, from the Archives

Although it seemed much longer to Ron, the investigators believe the attack lasted only two to five seconds. Then the wolf must have smelled strong human scent. Coupled with Ron’s yelling and the rifle firing, it was just too much for old lobo, and he broke off the attack. Both Ron and the game officials believe that had the wolf really wanted to kill him, it could have done so quite easily. Was this really an authentic attack on a human being, was the wolf rabid, or was it simply a case of mistaken identity? Only the wolf knows, and he’s not talking.

The post I Was Attacked by a Timber Wolf appeared first on Outdoor Life.

One of my favorite and most productive pheasant hunting spots is a Walk-In Area tucked away in a desolate corner of South Dakota. I’ve had good luck calling in spring gobblers on a handful of Voluntary Public Access properties in Wisconsin. Even though I’ve hunted these properties for years, accessing private ground as a public hunter still feels like a special privilege every time. 

These types of properties go by a variety of names depending on the state (walk-ins, PLOTS, Open Fields, Block Management), but the concept is the same everywhere. States give private landowners incentives to allow public hunting, fishing, and other recreation on their ground. There’s often funding within these programs to do habitat improvement projects as well. 

In short, they are the best way to create public opportunities on private land, and states have been working to expand them all over the country. But that effort is going to become a lot more challenging in many places, at least this year.

This is because the recent farm bill extension does not include funding for the federal walk-in program, which is called the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program. Under normal circumstances states apply for VPA-HIP grants and then use that federal funding to power their access programs. But the last full farm bill expired in 2023 and now we’ll have two consecutive years with diminished access funding.

“Now without any funding, we’re definitely not going to see encouragement among new states to start a program or support a program they just got off the ground,” says Aaron Field, director of private land conservation for the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. 

Farm Bill Breakdown

If you haven’t been following the details of the farm bill, here’s a quick and dirty breakdown of what’s going on.

• The last full farm bill was passed in 2018.
• The 2018 bill included $50 million for VPA-HIP.
• When the 2018 bill expired, an extension was passed in 2023.
• That extension included $10 million for VPA-HIP, but only states that were already receiving funds could apply. There was no opportunity for new programs to participate.
• Last month Congress passed another farm bill extension for 2025 and avoided a government shutdown. But that extension failed to include VPA-HIP funding. 

What It Means for Hunters and Landowners

Fortunately, a one-year funding gap doesn’t mean certain death for walk-in access. Many states fund their programs through hunting license dollars and Pittman-Robertson money and then supplement them with federal VPA-HIP funds. 

And because farmers and landowners typically enroll for multiple years at a time, it’s unlikely that a bunch of existing walk-in properties will suddenly disappear from the map in any given state. 

“For the most part, access programs are going to be okay without VPA-HIP funding for one year,” says Shane Behler, the agricultural policy program manager for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. “States may have to move some funds around or limit recruiting new properties, but they don’t expect a large-scale curtailment of opportunities. However, if we go more than this year without a farm bill, we could get into significant issues if that funding isn’t reauthorized.” 

The problem is that for the past two years, new states haven’t been able to get VPA-HIP funding to spin up new walk-in access programs. And existing states haven’t been able to expand their programs with VPA-HIP dollars.

The last time VPA-HIP dollars were allocated under a full farm bill 26 states and one tribe were awarded funds. In other words, that’s $50 million split 27 ways over the course of five years. 

“It’s pretty underfunded,” Behler says. “Ten million dollars were allocated annually [in 2020] and states asked for [a combined] $48.7 million per year, so much higher than what was available. And that’s with only 26 states and one tribe participating in the program. There are more states interested in applying, so it will be really important to get more funding to the program in the next farm bill.”

What Happens Next?

What hunters and conservationists can hope for now is that the next Congress gets to work and passes a full farm bill in 2025 that includes increased funding for VPA-HIP. 

“Even under a best case scenario, if everything goes smoothly, if Congress can pass a farm bill before September 30 of 2025, USDA will likely launch a new competitive grant process for VPA-HIP in spring-summer of 2026, and get the money out the door for utilization for the 2026 hunting season,” says Ariel Alberti Wiegard, vice president of government affairs for Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever. “That is extremely optimistic and is dependent on everything going right, but we know that things in D.C. have not been going smoothly, so there are a lot of big ‘ifs’ there.” 

Leaders in the conservation and hunting communities are asking Congress to bump up VPA-HIP funding from $50 million to $150 million in the next farm bill. And there were two bipartisan bills introduced last Congress that indeed would have tripled VPA-HIP funding, giving conservationists reasons to be optimistic. 

“Pretty much everyone likes the program,” says Field. “Lack of access is the number one issue that hunters and even anglers will identify. The program is tailored to the individual states and is set up in a way that landowners in the state want. It’s not some federal program that’s dictating, ‘This is what your access needs to look like.’ It’s a competitive grant program that provides funding to the existing state program that already fits what people need in that state.” 

States are using VPA-HIP funding for a variety of creative purposes that help and recreational access and habitat improvement. Pennsylvania uses it to create streambank easements to increase fishing access. Kentucky is using funds to create access to dove hunting fields. Arkansas is paying rice producers near select wildlife management areas and refuges to increase duck hunting access on private fields while improving wildlife habitat. The list goes on and on. 

“I would encourage sportsmen to contact their federal lawmakers now to get a farm bill done and make sure the VPA-HIP extension is included ideally with our request to [increase funding] to $150 million,” Wiegard says. “But they should also be contacting their state lawmakers letting them know that they utilize these programs.”

Plus, adding hunting access bolsters rural economies. In 2021 Southwick Associates compiled an economic impact study looking at VPA-HIP access in 12 states. The report found:

• The programs generated an estimated $47.1 million of additional trip and equipment-related spending.
• $5.79 million in VPA-HIP funds were invested, meaning $8.13 were generated for every $1 invested.
• If VPA-HIP investments hadn’t been made, local economies would have been smaller by $83.6 million in 2021.
• These local economies received $25.8 million in additional income (salaries, wages, and business earnings) associated with the 725 full- and part-time jobs supported by VPA-HIP investments.

The Bigger Budget Battle

No matter how effective and beloved walk-in access programs may be, their funding gets tied up in the politics of the farm bill — and the unpredictable politics of Congress.

This was seen clearly in a failed attempt to roll Inflation Reduction Act funding into the farm bill extension in December. When the previous Congress passed the IRA in 2022, it included an additional $19.5 billion for farm bill conservation programs to help with climate-change mitigation and carbon sequestration on private lands. This was a one-time investment that needs to be spent by 2031.

As of Spring 2024, about $14 billion of that nearly $20 billion had not yet been spent. Through some congressional budgeting magic, which I will not pretend to understand, that unspent $14 billion could have been rolled into the conservation title of the farm bill when Congress worked out the extension. It then would have carried over to future farm bills in perpetuity and effectively increased the conservation title in the farm bill by 25 percent. 

“We had bipartisan support for doing that, especially on the Ag committee,” says Field. “In fact chairman GT Thompson (R-PA) has been very vocal over the past few weeks that it’s something we should do.”

But this budgeting maneuver stalled over whether the IRA funding should be tied to conservation programs that specifically benefit climate-change mitigation, or if those dollars could be spent with more flexibility. Democrats wanted the funds tied to climate mitigation; Republicans wanted to apply them to conservation programs more broadly. 

Read Next: Private Landowners Can Save Public Hunting in America

And while we wait for the next full farm bill, the USDA will continue spending those IRA funds. 

“What that means is that $14 billion is going down,” Wiegard says. “When the Congressional Budget Office next reviews how much money is available under the IRA, that number could be down to $12 billion or $10 billion, so by waiting … the amount of money available to us for permanent conservation funding is dwindling.”

More troubling is that within the new Congress’ reconciliation package, it’s possible that Republicans could try to use the unspent IRA funding to offset other spending priorities around border, tax, and energy policies.

“One of our concerns is that by not pulling [IRA funding] into the farm bill sooner — Republicans have already expressed interest in repealing the IRA entirely — it raises some red flags that this funding could be directed away from farmers and sportsmen if Congress can’t find the political will to lock it down for the things it was intended for,” Wiegard says. “We are hoping that Republican leadership looks at it and realizes that even though [the Inflation Reduction Act] was a Democrat-only bill, that a number of the provisions in there, especially around the farm bill conservation programs, are very bipartisan and have a lot of support from farmers and ranchers in rural areas.”

The post The Federal Walk-In Hunting Access Program Won’t Be Funded in 2025. An Even Bigger Budget Battle Looms in the Next Farm Bill appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Jess Johnson heard the crash before she saw it, and she knew exactly what the sound meant: Yet another vehicle careening down the highway in front of her house had hit a whitetail deer. So Johnson and her friends, who had just lit their grill for a summer barbecue, went out to the highway. They found a truck with a smashed bumper and a dead whitetail with a crushed shoulder lying nearby.

After checking to make sure the driver and passengers were fine (they were shaken but unharmed), Johnson asked if they wanted the deer. The crew declined, so Johnson and her friends reported the roadkill on the state’s new 511 app and dragged it a few hundred yards back to her house in the fading evening light.

Then they sliced out the backstraps, placed them on the lit grill, and continued their evening barbecue — with a side of field dressing and butchering.

Related: The Best Venison Backstrap Recipes

“I [usually] have a very awkward conversation, something like, ‘So, you going to do anything with that?’” she says. “Any deer that has been a full-grown adult I’ve gotten some meat off of.”

A decade ago, saving that venison would have been against the law. But in 2019, Wyoming lawmakers made it legal to recover roadkill.

Eating animals killed by cars and trucks used to be the purview of redneck jokes and the state of Alaska (more on this in a minute). Almost no one in the Lower 48 harvested roadkill, which was considered disgusting at best and potentially poaching at worst, given that it was outlawed in most states. But many states are now greenlighting the practice, something people like Johnson say is the only silver lining in an endemic problem affecting both wildlife and travelers across the country.

But just because many states allow people to pick up roadkill doesn’t mean it’s that simple everywhere. Some states, like Louisiana and Texas, still don’t allow the practice. Most states, including Wyoming, have their own regulatory idiosyncrasies based on everything from geography to culture. So before you decide to drag a carcass off the highway and into your truck, here’s what you should know.

Is Roadkill Actually Safe to Eat?

Under ideal circumstances, roadkill is definitely safe to eat. It all depends on the condition of the specific animal you want to salvage. When people like Johnson, or chefs at the West Virginia RoadKill Cookoff, talk about eating roadkill, they’re not encouraging someone to pick up a bloated deer that’s been baking in 80-degree sunshine. Most aren’t even advocating picking up roadkill that you or someone you know didn’t see die.

For Johnson, a government affairs specialist with the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and longtime hunter, the idea behind harvesting roadkill was to give a driver or a bystander the opportunity to salvage some meat.

“I’m not really someone who would see a carcass and pull over,” Johnson says. “I would never harvest one of those.”

As any hunter knows, a dead animal can spoil fast. The process is often even faster if the animal suffered major trauma — like smashing into the front bumper of an F150 traveling at 65 mph. It’s one of the reasons why Wyoming doesn’t allow harvesting roadkill along interstate highways. Speed limits on major Wyoming interstates top 80 mph, turning most wildlife into “red mist” upon impact. Lawmakers also feared for human safety if people stopped to try and collect a dead animal on a busy, four-lane highway.

But if you hit an animal, or see one struck, and the vehicle impacted just part of the animal (especially its head), it’s worth checking out.

“You can hit a deer in a way that there’s nothing left on it that’s good [to keep], and you can hit a deer in a way where it’s almost like [a] head shot,” Johnson says. “You want to be concerned about the midsection of the deer, the guts, and how stirred up they’ve gotten. If it feels slushy in the shoulder and the hip, as far as bones, that’s probably not a good sign.”

Do Many People Really Harvest and Eat Roadkill?

Aside from Johnson, who once served a roast from a road-killed deer at a sportsman’s forum at the Wyoming state Capitol, plenty of Americans also collect roadkill for the dinner table. While statewide statistics aren’t always easy to track down, about 500 of the 750 to 900 moose killed on Alaskan roads each year are “salvaged in some way,” according to Capt. Brent Johnson, Alaska Wildlife Trooper’s Northern Detachment commander.

The state also allows people to collect caribou struck on roads around the state. In total, Alaskans collect and distribute about 20,000 pounds of game meat killed on roads each year. If an animal was killed by a larger vehicle, like a tractor trailer, and isn’t as fit for human consumption, the meat can also be given to trappers or mushers with dog teams, though both of those are less common scenarios.

But Capt. Johnson also notes that roadkill in Alaska and roadkill in, say, Georgia, are not the same thing. Most animals killed and collected on Alaska’s roads are big-bodied moose, and the bulk of them are killed in late fall and early winter when cold temperatures preserve the meat for longer.

Know Your State’s Regulations Before Salvaging Roadkill

Look up the regulations in any given state and the answer to “Can I harvest roadkill?” may well be some version of “Yes, but…” Take Alaska. The Last Frontier was one of the first to allow roadkill harvest, but it’s actually illegal to load up a dead animal and take it home for yourself. Roadkill can only be collected by someone on the state’s charity list after they’re notified by the state. So just because you hit a big-game animal doesn’t mean you’ll be the one who gets to eat it.

“Early on in statehood, they said the resources of the state of Alaska belong to all people, and that includes wildlife,” he says. Plus, few drivers who hit a 1,500-pound moose are thinking about grinding it into burger. Most are calling for a tow.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife not only allows residents to collect roadkill, but in some areas also manages a donation list like Alaska’s. When an animal is hit, a wildlife officer calls the first person on the donation list to come collect the animal.

Do You Need Permission to Collect Roadkill?

Of the states that allow individuals to collect roadkill, many require some kind of permission slip from either the state game agency or Department of Transportation. Some are as simple as Wyoming’s, whose DOT 511 app allows drivers to check road conditions — and collect the permission slip for roadkill. It even works when, as is the case across vast portions of the state, there’s no cell service.

The form also allows the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to keep track of how many animals people are harvesting from roadsides. And it provides wildlife officials with data on locations of roadkill deer, elk, and antelope to potentially target those areas later for wildlife crossing structures.

While anyone can pick up roadkill in Colorado, the state requires a roadkill collection permit be filed within 48 hours of harvesting an animal. The Missouri DOT also lets residents salvage deer struck by vehicles as long as they have written permission (which is free) from the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Minnesota changed its laws in 1987 to allow Department of Natural Resources officers to issue 6-month permits to state and local authorities that give drivers the ability to claim a dead critter, free of charge. Those carcasses can also be given away or donated to an organization.

Is it Legal to Dispatch a Suffering Animal?

In most states, no, it’s not legal to dispatch suffering wildlife without authorization. When authors of the Wyoming roadkill collection bill debated that portion, Johnson says some lawmakers worried that allowing someone to legally dispatch a suffering animal could lead to poaching.

The same goes for Alaska, but Capt. Johnson said wardens have “great discretion in this area.”

“In the rare circumstance that a passerby puts a wounded and suffering animal down we have never levied any charges,” he says. “More frequently a Trooper may verbally give a person permission to do this if the Trooper is unable to respond to the area in a reasonable time frame, taking into account the location and if it’s safe to discharge a firearm or not.”

Wardens in most states will likely offer the same grace if the person with a smashed bumper puts a deer with crushed hind quarters out of its misery.

Can You Donate Roadkill?

Alaska’s program originated from the idea that roadkill would go to charities, but the program has changed over the years, and now the list is largely individuals and not just charities. But not all states allow roadkill to be donated, and not all organizations accept it.

Minnesota’s wild-game donation program accepts meat from legally harvested game animals while specifically stating it will not accept donations of roadkill animals. Donating roadkill is specifically illegal in Wyoming and other states largely due to food safety concerns.

Related: The Key to Solving Big-Game Migration Conflicts? Roadkill

Jess Johnson hopes more states allowing people to collect roadkill helps reduce the general ick it often inspires.

“As a hunter, I’m looking at this like, ‘There’s a lot of salvageable meat on this, and that’s a food item,’” she says. “At least having a silver lining come from a tragedy of a wildlife collision is nice.”

The post The Ultimate Guide to Eating and Donating Roadkill appeared first on Outdoor Life.

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning declined a petition from Utah lawmakers to consider whether federal lands are illegal and should be handed over to state management.

In a one-sentence order issued this morning, the high court rejected Utah’s petition that could have resulted in the largest transfer of land ownership in the nation’s history. Utah had asked the court to consider turning over 18.5 million acres of BLM land in Utah to the state, but most watchers understood that an affirmative ruling by the Supreme Court could lead to the transfer of some 640 million acres of federal land across the nation to state management.

“The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied,” the court ruled, adding the Utah case to dozens that it declined to hear in its 2025 session.

The Court’s announcement came just two days after hundreds of advocates for public land rallied at Utah’s State Capitol.

“These [federal lands] are some of the most remarkable lands in the world and sometimes I think we take them for granted,” Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance told Salt Lake City’s Fox13Now, which reported the story of the Supreme Court’s order.

Bloch told the station that Utah’s lawsuit, which was funded by Utah taxpayer money and supported by legislative leaders along with Utah Governor Spencer Cox and Attorney General Sean Reyes, was the most dire threat to public-land management in over a century.

“If successful, Utah’s lawsuit would result in the sale of millions of acres of public lands in redrock country to the highest bidder, an end to America’s system of federal public lands, and the dismantling of the American West as we know it.”

The lawsuit, which proponents said was the result of “decades of legal analysis” asked the high court to consider its claim that BLM land in Utah was “unappropriated,” meaning that the U.S. government had no right to own or manage it and that the federal government should “dispose” of 18.5 million acres of land it manages in Utah, turning it over to state control.

Read Next: Wolves Will Be Delisted, Public-Land Transfer Attempts Will Fail, and Other 2025 Predictions

Today’s Supreme Court order doesn’t mean the issue is dead, only that the court “declined to exercise original jurisdiction,” says David Willms, associate vice president of public lands at the National Wildlife Federation. “Utah could refile this case in federal district court in Utah, and it could still wind up at the Supreme Court under normal order after going through district and circuit courts.”

The post Supreme Court Declines to Hear Utah’s Public-Lands Lawsuit appeared first on Outdoor Life.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted Thursday to update the way Colorado awards most of its big game tags. It’s the latest in a years-long policy review that has received plenty of public commentary and criticism. The draw changes, which take effect in 2028, are designed — in part — to combat point creep. Now, hunters who have already racked up preference points in Colorado are facing a moving goalpost.

The biggest change to the annual application process is the elimination of Colorado’s hybrid draw system. CPW is replacing it with a split-draw model for all elk, deer, bear, pronghorn, and turkey tags. The available tags for each hunt will be divided evenly between two pools of applicants: Fifty percent will be distributed under a familiar preference point system, where hunters with the most preference have the best odds of drawing a tag. (Those hunters are usually the ones who have applied and waited the longest, thereby accruing the most preference points.)

The other fifty percent of tags will be available through a bonus draw, which “functions more like a raffle or ‘names in a hat,’” according to CPW. In other words, while hunters with preference points may get their name in the Bonus Draw hat more times, it’s also possible for a hunter with fewer or no points to draw a tag over a hunter who has been saving his points for decades. (One hunter who spoke up in the meeting noted he has 28 elk points.)

Although Colorado’s current hybrid model offers additional chances to hunters who come up short on the annual draw, it still requires preference points to participate. With the forthcoming switch to a split-draw system, many hunters who have been saving up preference points are mourning the loss of predictability.

“The only way that is possible is that [CPW is] taking away the value of preference points from people who’ve been loyal to Colorado who have applied for years for those points,” Colorado guide and social media personality Cliff Gray said in a recent Instagram video. “Plain and simple. If you have accumulated a ton of points in Colorado, you just got fucked.” 

Though he considers the new rules unfair to longtime applicants, Gray and other stakeholders have acknowledged the challenges CPW faces in trying to update its draw system. These include combating point creep, generating revenue, and attracting new applicants who have been intimidated by a waitlist of hunters who are years ahead of them in line for tags.

The final decisions about big-game draws were presented to the CPW Commission on Jan. 9 as the second installment of a two-part meeting to present the findings of a Draw Process Working Group. (The first was held in November.) The working group, which met in 2023 and 2024, was made up of qualified hunters — primarily Colorado residents — as well as CPW staff and commissioners. They were asked to “reduce complexities within Colorado’s draw system and address preference point issues, while keeping in mind biological and sociological concerns.”

Another contentious issue with the rule change has been how to divvy tags among residents and nonresidents. Ultimately the Commission voted to save 75 percent of all deer, elk, bear, pronghorn and turkey licenses for residents, and sell the other 25 percent to out-of-state hunters.

“I do not agree with the 75/25 split,” said resident hunter Joshua Haga during the public comment session at Thursday’s meeting. “All other Western states give nonresidents between five and sometimes 15 percent of tags. We’re way too generous, and it’s at the demise of our youth and also our resident hunters.”

Haga also mentioned that caps on resident hunters were important given that more nonresident archery hunters would be entering the draw. Last summer, Colorado announced it would eliminate over-the-counter archery elk tags for nonresidents.

Other key changes include increased preference-point fees, a bonus draw for Rocky Mountain bighorn, waiting periods of at least three years to draw premier species tags, and a new once-in-a-lifetime harvest rule. (Hunters who tag a bull moose, bighorn ram, or either-sex mountain goat become ineligible to draw a tag for the species in the future, with a few exceptions.) You can read the full list of big-game tag revisions here.

Several members of the working group who spoke at Thursday’s Commission meeting noted the group had been told to disregard revenue considerations.

“I am curious if we had had direction to follow dollars — more than looking for solutions — if we’d have come to other solutions,” said Jennifer Burbey, president of the Colorado Outfitters Association and a Draw Process Working Group member. “That said, we did not. What we were told to do was simplify the draw, in essence, so that’s what we strove to do.”

Some application procedures remained the same, however. For instance, desert bighorn sheep applications have been random and will remain random — no preference points involved.

Read Next: Is Point Creep Killing Western Big-Game Hunting?

“The [working] group agreed that a fully random draw is the most simplistic and fair draw method, especially for species with extremely low quota. It also eliminates issues of point creep down the road,” Andrea Gess, CPW licensing deputy said in the Jan. 9 meeting. “If we could go back in time to when we were first developing draws for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, goat, and moose, armed with the knowledge and insights of today, the likely proposal would have been a fully random draw for all of theses species. However, given the amount of time and money customers have invested in the current system and into weighted points, the group did not feel it would be appropriate to transition to a fully random draw at this point for Rocky Mountain bighorn, sheep, and goats.”

CPW notes that these new policies won’t be implemented until the 2028 draws to give CPW time to update its systems and educate the public. The regs will be re-examined every 10 years.

The post Colorado Is Switching Its Big-Game Draw. Here’s Why Hunters with Preference Points Are Short-Changed appeared first on Outdoor Life.

The Palisades Fire that has been burning for a week in Los Angeles County is only 14 percent contained as of Tuesday, and high winds in the forecast could make matters worse. Officials are already expecting the blaze to rank among the costliest wildfires in U.S. history. And while human health and safety remain the top concerns, state fisheries managers are also warning that the fire could devastate the last known steelhead run in the Santa Monica mountains.

Topanga Creek, which flows into the Pacific Ocean between Malibu and Los Angeles, contains the only remaining spawning habitat for steelhead trout in the Southern California mountain range. The small coastal creek has also been completely scorched over the last week, according to the Los Angles Times. 

While the streams of the Santa Monicas were historically rich in Pacific salmon and steelhead, a host of dams built during the 20th century cut off access to most of these river systems. Topanga is now the only creek in the area where rainbow trout can freely swim to the ocean and back. As such, it’s one of the last strongholds for Southern California steelhead trout, a unique and increasingly rare subspecies of steelhead that was listed as endangered in 2024.   

“One of our biggest concerns … is losing that last population of fish,” California Department of Fish and Wildlife environmental scientist supervisor Kyle Evans told the Times, referring to the steelhead trout that inhabit Topanga Creek.

It’s not necessarily the flames but their aftermath that has fisheries experts concerned, as the charred river canyon will now be extra-prone to landslides. One heavy rain could easily push all that dirt, debris, and charred silt into Topanga Creek. The resulting debris flow would then suffocate nearly every fish in its path. 

This exact scenario has played out in recent years on other Western trout streams, including Colorado’s Cache la Poudre River, where fisheries managers recorded an 80 percent decline in trout populations in the aftermath of the 2020 Cameron Peak Fire. During a survey that was conducted downstream of a hard-hit area a little more than one year after the burn, biologists found a nearly 20-mile stretch of the Poudre that was devoid of trout.

Read Next: ‘I Turned My Antelope Hunters Away.’ Wyoming Wildfires Have Been Devastating. They’re Also an Opportunity to Fix Fencing for Wildlife

Due to these very real concerns, Evans said CDFW is already looking at a potential rescue plan, where biologists would hike into Topanga Creek to pull the trout out and then transport them with coolers and trucks to a holding facility. Theoretically, these fish would be returned to the creek after the first big rains pass through and flush most of the silt and charred debris out of the system.

CDFW did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the proposed steelhead rescue. The Los Angeles Times, however, reports that similar rescue plans are being considered for trout streams in the nearby San Gabriel Mountains, where the Eaton Fire is burning.

The post L.A. Wildfires Torched One of SoCal’s Last Remaining Steelhead Streams appeared first on Outdoor Life.

Just weeks after the proposed ban on mountain lion hunting in Colorado was rejected by voters, anti-hunting orgs petitioned the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to ban “dog pack hunting” under the guise of protecting endangered species like jaguars, wolves, and ocelots.

The 17-page petition — dated Nov. 25 and written by the Center for Biological Diversity with support from the Mountain Lion Foundation and the Sierra Club — seeks to end hunting with dogs in Arizona for species like mountain lions, bears, bobcats, foxes, and other wildlife. While this particular petition excludes upland and duck dogs, it specifically targets rabbit and squirrel hunting with dogs.

“…Packs of hunting dogs let loose on public lands cause significant harm to native ecosystems and wildlife,” a CBD spokesperson claimed in a statement. “Their prohibition in Arizona is long overdue.”

While the Arizona Department of Game and Fish couldn’t immediately provide comment on the practice of hunting with hounds, an agency spokesman did note that the petition failed to be considered for a Commission meeting agenda on a technicality. (The CBD sought to change two rules in Arizona hunting regs; protocol requires a separate petition for each.)

The petition “will likely be re-submitted in the coming months,” AGFC tells Outdoor Life. 

In anticipation of the coming fight, hunters gathered at the December ADF Commission meeting to speak on behalf of hunting with hounds, according to an AZCentral article.

“I don’t have any doubt that the Commission will do their job to protect Arizonans’ best interest in conservation and wildlife management. So my message here today is more for the groups that have brought forth the petition,” Arizona Working Dog Alliance founder Chris Watson said, according to the news outlet. “Arizona sportsmen know what is coming and who is bringing it. And I’m here to warn those that are bringing it, we are not just one sportsman anymore. We are many.”

This is the fourth attempt in recent years to target big cat hunting in Arizona, according to the Sportsmen’s Alliance, though the first time endangered species are cited as a major reason. The presence of just seven jaguars in the state have been confirmed over the last three decades with between zero and two of the big cats ranging into the state from Mexico at any given time.

“For the ignorant, leveraging endangered species is a great argument,” says Brian Lynn, vice president of marketing and communications for the Alliance. “It’s an emotional play. We saw that exact tactic in Colorado where the latest ballot initiative was going to end lynx hunting. It’s already illegal to hunt lynx in Colorado because they’re endangered. You can’t hunt jaguars in Arizona. I would be very surprised if there’s been a jaguar treed by mountain lion hunters in Arizona in the last hundred years. It’s not reality, but it’s a good argument that sways public opinion, and an excuse for any commissioner or politician to latch onto if they’re so inclined to want to pass this kind of stuff. That’s what we see here in Washington state.”

The playbook is predictable: Antis start off at the Commission level. Though historically trickier to persuade, state game commissions are becoming increasingly easier to sway. Next, antis will attempt to introduce legislation to address the change they want to see.

“Then, if they can’t get anything passed and it’s a friendly state, with all the political winds blowing correctly, then they’ll try to run a ballot initiative,” says Lynn. “Most of the time all you need is to convince voters in a major city. In Arizona, all they need is Phoenix.”

Lessons from Houndsmen in Other States

For years Lynn has tried to remind all hunters that hunting with hounds is an easy target for antis to begin their larger agenda of ending hunting altogether.

“Dogs are easy to latch on to because of the misconceptions and stereotypes people have about hunting with dogs,” Lynn says. “Even in hunting circles, people look at hounds with a negative eye or don’t understand it. So it’s easier [for antis] to divide and conquer.”

Virginia is one such state that’s experiencing rampant infighting between hunters who disagree over how to pursue deer and bear. Currently, diehard hound hunters (as they’re called there) are at odds with property-rights advocates who want to ban the practice.

At a Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting last week, CPW carnivore and furbearer program manager Mark Vieira noted one of the biological benefits of using hounds to pursue mountain lions.

“Oregon and Washington are the two states that have lost the use of hounds,” said Vieira, noting that elk and deer hunters with lion tags are often harvesting cats opportunistically. “…Those female harvest rates are in the 50 percent, sometimes getting as high as 60 percent. [But] mountain lions aren’t on the landscape in a 50-50 proportion, particularly in hunted lion populations. There are far more females on the landscape. That’s how they regulate themselves … So if you’re to be walking across the landscape without dogs, opportunistically encountering lions, [there’s a] much higher chance of coming across a female lion and in those states, harvesting it.”

Vieira cited broad numbers to make his point: About 66 percent of Colorado’s cat population is female and 33 percent is male. And Colorado cat hunters, who are allowed to use hounds, reported a female harvest rate just 29 percent this season, according to last week’s numbers.

“That, to me, really demonstrates the very selective nature of hound hunting and decision making by folks in the field,” said Vieira.

Read Next: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Utah’s Public-Lands Lawsuit

The anti-hound petition filed in Arizona deals in unsupported accusations that hunting with hounds isn’t fair chase, GPS collars are unethical, and so on. It even goes so far as to claim that “dogs are sometimes purposely starved by their owners to increase their prey drive” (an apparent perversion of the veterinary recommendation to not feed dogs prior to exercise) and that “hounds in the heat of a hunt have been known to attack people recreating on public lands.”

“We are not villains,” United Houndsmen of Colorado president Justin Angelovich said during the CPW the public comment session. “We are dog-loving adventurers in love with the mountain lion that walks our landscape. [We] hunt with the respect and admiration that can’t be achieved without a true level of struggle, difficulty, and commitment.”

The post Anti-Hunters Seek to Ban All Hunting with Hounds in Arizona appeared first on Outdoor Life.