Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize the revised 4(d) rule for grizzly bears.

Grizzly bear conservation cannot be measured only by how many bears exist. It must also be measured by whether wildlife professionals have the tools needed to responsibly manage expanding populations, prevent conflicts, protect human safety, and maintain public support for bears.

The revised 4(d) rule would preserve strong federal protections for grizzly bears while providing qualified federal, state, and Tribal wildlife professionals with greater flexibility to deter, relocate, and manage bears involved in serious conflicts.

That includes bears repeatedly accessing human food, entering occupied areas, killing livestock, damaging property, or becoming dangerously habituated to people. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that timely deterrence, relocation, and removal of conflict bears can reduce risks to people and livestock while increasing public tolerance for grizzly conservation. (Federal Register)

Responsible Flexibility—With Accountability

The proposal does not hand wildlife agencies unrestricted authority.

It establishes a tiered management system requiring approved conservation strategies, agency management plans, formal agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service, population monitoring, mortality thresholds, and annual reporting.

The greatest management flexibility would be available only where grizzly populations have achieved established demographic objectives. The Fish and Wildlife Service would retain oversight and could reduce or revoke that flexibility if conservation standards are not maintained. (Federal Register)

This is not a proposal for an open hunting season or the removal of all federal protection. The general prohibition against taking grizzly bears would remain, with carefully defined exceptions for self-defense, deterrence, scientific work, incidental take, and authorized wildlife-management activities. (Federal Register)

Conservation Must Be Able to Adapt

Successful conservation should lead to responsible management—not permanent regulatory paralysis.

When wildlife agencies cannot respond effectively to serious conflicts, the risks increase for people, livestock, rural communities, and ultimately the bears themselves. Supporting the revised 4(d) rule means supporting a system that protects grizzly populations while recognizing the realities faced by the people who live, work, hunt, ranch, and recreate in grizzly country.

Use the form below to create a personalized comment asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize the revised 4(d) rule.

Public comments must be submitted by August 17, 2026. (Federal Register)

ACTION HAS ENDED. BOTH COMMISSIONERS RESIGNED, AND THE SENATE DID NOT CONFIRM THEM

Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife Commission plays a major role in shaping wildlife policy, hunting opportunity, conservation priorities, and public trust in science-based management. Right now, the Colorado Senate is considering the confirmations of John Emerick and Christopher Sichko to the Commission, and these appointments deserve serious scrutiny.

There are real concerns about whether these confirmations would help restore confidence in CPW or push the Commission further in the wrong direction.

In the case of John Emerick, the concern is impartiality, judgment, and trust. Colorado needs commissioners who can serve fairly, avoid even the appearance of conflict, and help rebuild confidence in the decision-making process. The coalition letter opposing his confirmation points to prior advocacy activity and votes that have raised serious questions about whether he brings the kind of balance and independence this moment requires.

In the case of Christopher Sichko, the issue is representation. The sportsperson seat should not be symbolic. It should be filled by someone with deep, credible hunting experience who can effectively represent that community and provide meaningful guidance on issues that directly affect wildlife management, hunting opportunity, and the future of CPW. The coalition opposing his confirmation argues that this level of big-game expertise is currently lacking and badly needed on the Commission.

The bigger issue is trust. Hunters, anglers, agricultural interests, rural communities, and former CPW leaders have all raised alarm about the current direction of the Commission. Concerns include decisions that appear disconnected from staff recommendations, weak representation of key constituencies, and a growing sense that politics and ideology are crowding out sound governance and practical wildlife management.

Colorado deserves a Parks and Wildlife Commission that is balanced, qualified, transparent, and trusted by the people it serves.

Take action now and tell Colorado lawmakers to oppose the confirmations of John Emerick and Christopher Sichko. Urge them to stand for qualified appointments, real representation, and science-based wildlife management at CPW.

READ THE LATEST NEWS ON THIS HERE

READ COALITION OPPOSITION LETTER

COLORADO RESIDENTS ONLY 

If you are not a Colorado resident, your email will not reach these specific targets.

Take Action Below!

ACTION HAS ENDED. BOTH COMMISSIONERS RESIGNED, AND THE SENATE DID NOT CONFIRM THEM

The U.S. House just passed the Pet and Livestock Protection Act (H.R. 845) on December 18, 2025 by a 211–204 vote. Congress.gov
Now it’s in the U.S. Senate—referred to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee—where it will face a tougher fight.

What this bill does (plain English)

H.R. 845 requires the Department of the Interior to reissue the 2020 gray wolf delisting rule for the Lower 48 (except the Mexican wolf)—and it prevents that reissued rule from being overturned through judicial review again.
That 2020 rule was vacated by a federal court in 2022, which is why wolves “snapped back” under prior federal protections.

Why this matters (for hunters, ranchers, and the non-hunting public)

This isn’t about “getting rid of wolves.” It’s about putting wolf management where it actually functions best:

• State wildlife agencies manage wildlife for real-world conditions—with seasons, quotas, monitoring, and accountability to local communities.

• Coexistence works when there are boundaries. Rural families should be able to protect pets and livestock and reduce conflicts before they escalate.

•  Endless courtroom ping-pong is not wildlife management. Wolves shouldn’t be managed by whichever judge draws the case next.

If wolves are recovered in a region, the question shouldn’t be “How long can we keep them federally listed?”
It should be “How do we manage them responsibly—like every other recovered, successful species?”

FAQ:

“Does this mean wolves will be wiped out?”
No. Delisting doesn’t remove management—it changes who manages. States still set rules, seasons (if any), monitoring, and enforcement.

“Why not keep it federally protected?”
Because “protected” isn’t the same as “managed.” Where wolves are recovered, we need conflict-reduction + accountability, not courtroom-driven instability.

TAKE ACTION: Contact Your U.S. Senator today—CALL OR EMAIL