• Righting Wrongs: EAJA ensures that an individual or small nonprofit with limited funds can still hold agencies accountable if they act improperly.
• Preventing Government Overreach: By reimbursing successful plaintiffs, EAJA discourages agencies from ignoring citizens’ rights or breaking procedural rules.

• Resources Drained: Instead of going to habitat restoration or research, tax dollars and agency time vanish into legal battles.
• Delayed Decisions: State agencies spend years fighting lawsuits rather than implementing next steps (like controlled hunting seasons or specific conservation measures).
• Discouraging Innovation: Facing endless legal threats, agencies might opt for minimal action, fearing more lawsuits if they propose proactive wildlife solutions.

• Sustainable Use: Many hunters look forward to responsibly managed seasons once a species has recovered. Hunting remains one of the key funding sources for ongoing conservation.
• Real Conservation Wins: It’s no secret that regulated hunting has helped restore populations like whitetail deer, wild turkey, and waterfowl over the decades—backed by science-based harvest limits.

• Anti-Hunting Rhetoric: Some organizations that use EAJA lawsuits regularly campaign against hunting in general. They frame all forms of hunting—no matter how regulated—as trophy-driven or cruel, undermining public trust in wildlife agencies.
• Little to No Local Engagement: Instead of consulting the communities that share the land with these species, or working with state agencies, they take the battle to federal court. As a result, local voices—including rural residents and wildlife professionals—get drowned out.

1. Unintended Ecological Consequences
   • Overabundant predators can deplete prey populations, cause livestock damage, or invade suburban areas.
   • Overpopulation of once-endangered species might spark disease outbreaks or strain habitats.
2. Reduced Local and Conservation Funding
   • If species remain artificially “protected,” agencies can’t implement carefully designed hunting seasons that generate crucial conservation dollars.
   • Taxpayer money flows into legal fees instead of into programs for wetlands, pollinators, or at-risk species restoration.
3. Erosion of Trust in Conservation Institutions
   • When people see decisions made by lawsuit settlements rather than transparent, science-based processes, they lose faith in wildlife agencies and democracy itself.
   • Local stakeholders—farmers, ranchers, tribal communities—may feel sidelined as outside groups override carefully negotiated plans.

Reintroducing Predators: Untangling the Complexities of a Changing Landscape

The idea of bringing back predators to places they once roamed captures the imagination. It conjures images of wolves on the prowl in ancient forests, grizzly bears reclaiming old territories, and nature righting itself after centuries of human disruption. Yet, as appealing as this notion may seem, the reintroduction—or even the natural return—of apex predators isn’t a simple return to some primordial equilibrium. Instead, it involves navigating modern landscapes reshaped by roads, cities, ranches, and millions of people. It’s far more complicated than just letting wolves drift back into a state or imagining grizzlies revisiting the habitats of old.

A Different World, A Different Reality
It’s worth remembering that the “where they once were” argument overlooks a fundamental truth: the world they once inhabited has changed beyond recognition. Consider grizzly bears. Historically, these formidable predators roamed as far south as the coastal hills of what is now the San Francisco Bay Area—a region that today is one of the most densely populated, infrastructure-rich places on Earth. Reintroducing grizzlies there isn’t just unrealistic; it’s unfair to the bears and the people who now live there.

Wolves Relocated to Colorado: “Happier” or Just Relocated?
Now think about wolves being relocated to Colorado from Canada. Are they “happier” in their new home? Of course, “happier” is a human projection—wolves aren’t writing postcards back to the Yukon. Humor aside, what matters is whether this move genuinely benefits the wolves. In Canada, they had more expansive wilderness and fewer human pressures. In Colorado, they face a patchwork landscape of highways, ranches, and suburban fringes. The challenges may be greater, not fewer, and without a management plan that can adapt as their numbers grow, are we truly doing them a favor, or simply pleasing human advocates who long for a past that no longer exists?

Good for Predators, or a Recipe for Conflict?
On one hand, some argue that predators have an intrinsic right to reclaim their historic domains. On the other, we must ask if these animals can truly thrive in human-altered environments. The challenges predators face today—traffic, fences, livestock, suburban sprawl—simply didn’t exist centuries ago. Wolves drifting into California may please some advocates, and wolves relocated to Colorado might satisfy certain ideals, but what about the wolves themselves? Without balanced management, they face frequent run-ins with people, livestock they never encountered before, and prey populations that may not be ecologically prepared to deal with them.

And let’s look at the prey. Deer and wild sheep populations in California (and other reintroduction areas) are struggling due to gross mismanagement of black bears and mountain lions (both due to either legislative or ballot box measures). Adding more apex predators without meaningful management doesn’t magically restore these ecosystems—it can intensify the pressure on already stressed ungulate populations. Depredation on livestock rises, human-wildlife conflicts increase, and even attacks on people, while rare, may trend upward as animals lose their natural wariness in a fragmented landscape with minimal checks and balances.

The Inescapable Need for Management
Biologists and wildlife managers know that allowing predators to exist without any form of population or conflict management is a gamble. It’s one thing to celebrate their return; it’s another to support them long-term. For predators, “management” often means having the legal and scientific tools to adjust populations through regulated hunting, targeted removals, or other interventions. Yet in states like California, politics and lawsuits often gridlock these options. Laws meant to protect wildlife can become so rigid that they prevent agencies from responding when populations overshoot their targets or become a significant social or ecological problem.

This paralysis leaves everyone—wildlife officials, landowners, conservationists—stuck in place. Overpopulations of predators or localized conflicts can’t be addressed swiftly. Instead, solutions get tangled in courtrooms and political debates, and the animals themselves end up caught in a cultural crossfire. With no outlet for adaptable, science-based management, predators risk wearing out their welcome in places that initially celebrated their return.

Idaho and Montana Recovery Goals
Look no further than Idaho and Montana for a clear example of how politics and lawsuits can undermine effective wildlife management. Both states have seen remarkable comebacks of large carnivores: wolves and grizzly bears. Recovery goals, once considered ambitious, have now been surpassed:

• In Montana, grizzly populations have grown well beyond their original recovery targets. Biologists have recommended delisting or increasing management to ensure a balanced approach for people, bears, and their shared landscapes. Yet, constant legal challenges and political battles hamper these efforts, keeping grizzlies under protective status and stalling responsible, science-based management strategies.

• In Idaho, wolf numbers have soared past recovery objectives set decades ago. For a time, these objectives ensured wolves could rebound from near extinction. But now, without proper management levers, conflicts with livestock and big-game hunting interests have escalated—often leading to headlines and lawsuits rather than nuanced solutions. It’s a fiery clash of values and politics, rather than an illustration of thoughtful, flexible wildlife management.

When populations blow past original recovery goals, common sense would suggest implementing carefully regulated harvests or other measures to maintain balance. But in many cases, lawsuits and lobbying groups interfere, painting any form of lethal management as an existential threat to these predators. It’s an unfortunate standoff that freezes adaptive policy in favor of polarized rhetoric.

Human Food Systems and Competing Values
This issue isn’t confined to predators and wildlife managers. Consider agriculture. Predators view unprotected livestock as easy prey, sparking more conflicts. Many of the same people cheering predator returns vehemently blame ranchers and their free-range livestock for the problems facing reintroduced wolves. But don't we also demand free-range meat and sustainable farming practices? Do we enclose all livestock indoors—pushing towards industrial-scale farming practices that many people despise—to protect them from newly arrived wolves or grizzly bears? That’s not a desirable outcome for those who value animal welfare and environmental stewardship.

Re-Wilding vs. Reality
Some champion “re-wilding” as if we could roll back the ecological clock. But what if returning predators to once-occupied habitats isn’t improving those ecosystems for the species involved? California’s struggles with managing mountain lions and black bears—often hindered by political deadlocks—show how rigid policies can create imbalances. Adding wolves without flexible management tools—just because they “used to be there”—may compound these problems. Neither the animals nor the people benefit when we assume that old distributions of predators automatically translate to modern ecological harmony.

Yellowstone is often hailed as a reintroduction success, but Yellowstone isn’t the San Francisco Bay Area, it isn’t Colorado’s ranchlands, and it’s not the patchwork of private lands, public lands, and highways that make up most of the U.S. It’s a carefully managed national park with well-defined boundaries, fewer roads, and strong legal protections. Outside of parks and controlled landscapes, the real world demands compromise, adaptation, and sometimes the hard decision to limit predator numbers or remove certain individuals.

The Necessity of a Science-Guided Management Plan

When a predator or any other species is reintroduced into a landscape, it must be guided by sound science and accompanied by a robust management plan. Leaving reintroduction decisions to a ballot box referendum or emotionally charged public opinion spells trouble for several key reasons:

1. Complex Ecosystems Require Expert Oversight:
   Ecological relationships are interwoven and can’t be captured by a simple yes/no vote. Biologists, ecologists, and wildlife managers spend years studying population dynamics, habitat capacity, disease risks, and prey-predator balances. Their expertise is critical in determining how many animals can be reintroduced, where they should be released, and how best to mitigate conflicts with humans or livestock.

2. Adaptive Management Is Essential:
   Even the best reintroduction plans can encounter unexpected shifts—drought, disease outbreaks, or changing human land-use patterns. When a species is introduced without a proper management framework (e.g., guidelines for population controls, conflict resolution, or ongoing monitoring), small problems can escalate rapidly. Science-based agencies can adapt as new data emerges; rigid or politicized laws or ballot measures cannot.

3. Public Votes Are Inflexible and Can Impede Science:
   Ballot box decisions often become locked in as laws or constitutional amendments, making them extremely difficult to revise—even if new evidence shows the measure is harming the very animals or ecosystems it aimed to protect. In contrast, a management plan grounded in scientific principles can be adjusted or amended quickly when on-the-ground conditions change.

4. Risk of Polarized Campaigns:
   High-profile ballot initiatives invite emotional and heavily funded campaigns from both proponents and opponents. This can overshadow nuanced ecological factors, reducing a complex decision to oversimplified slogans. Wildlife management needs nuanced understanding, not partisan or marketing-driven battles.

5. Ensuring Long-Term Success:
   A species reintroduction only works if the environment—and the human communities it intersects with—are prepared to accommodate the new (or returning) residents. The best chance for long-term viability comes from experts setting clear goals, monitoring outcomes, and having the legal authority to implement changes as necessary. Without that, the animals may suffer from unchecked conflicts, lack of prey, or habitat constraints, defeating the very purpose of reintroduction.

In sum, reintroductions should be carefully choreographed events, overseen by professionals who understand the intricate puzzle of predator-prey dynamics, habitat availability, and public concerns. When driven by sound biology rather than ballot box activism, reintroduced species have a far greater chance of thriving without sparking endless conflict—and that’s a win for wildlife, ecosystems, and people alike.

A Reasoned Path Forward
This doesn’t mean predators have no place on the landscape. They can and often do play key ecological roles. But bringing them back—or allowing them to recolonize—without robust, flexible management plans and a clear understanding of modern constraints sets the stage for conflict. Ungulates don’t magically rebound, human conflicts escalate, and predators either get demonized or forced into tough situations.

A better approach acknowledges complexity. Yes, let’s celebrate the ecological roles of wolves, bears, and other predators. But let’s also give wildlife agencies the tools—and political freedom—to manage these populations responsibly. That may mean lethal controls at times, adjusting quotas, or changing course when data shows a problem. Without this flexibility, well-intentioned reintroductions become ecological and social flashpoints, harming the very wildlife they aimed to help.

In the End, It’s Complicated
Predator reintroduction and recolonization aren’t fairy tales. They’re complex, 21st-century endeavors shaped by competing values, strict laws, human-altered habitats, and ongoing political friction. There’s no simple fix. By incorporating thoughtful management strategies and resisting the urge to treat these predators as symbols of a bygone world, we can strive for more sustainable coexistence.

In a world where grizzlies once roamed coastal California, where wolves now creep back into the Golden State’s changed landscape, and where Idaho and Montana have populations exceeding original recovery goals—yet remain mired in legal disputes—we must manage our expectations and our wildlife with care. If we fail to do so, the dreams of restoring predators to their ancestral homes may turn into ongoing nightmares for everyone—predators, people, and prey alike.

READ MORE BELOW: Just Click A Topic Or Return To Education

Predator Hunting | Bear Hunting | Lion Hunting | Hound Hunting | Trapping | Hunting Is Human | Who Manages Wildlife In the U.S. | Humans And Nature | Anti-Hunting | Predator Reintroduction | A Deeper Look At Hunting

When discussions turn to wildlife management, it’s easy to imagine a single national authority making all the calls, or to assume that decisions are influenced more by politics than by sound science. In reality, the United States is unique in having a decentralized approach that empowers each state to manage its own wildlife resources. Behind every hunting season, non-game species guideline, habitat restoration project, or endangered species recovery plan, there’s a team of dedicated professionals—biologists, ecologists, conservation officers, and policy experts—focused on what’s best for animals, their habitats, and the people who enjoy them.

Who Are These Experts—and Why Do We Need Them?
Each state’s wildlife agency is staffed by professionals with extensive training in fields like wildlife biology, ecology, forestry, range management, and fisheries science. They are the ones on the ground, conducting field studies, monitoring populations, examining migration data, and analyzing health indicators across diverse habitats. Their work shapes the recommendations brought forward to the decision-makers—typically a state wildlife commission.

Much like you’d trust a board-certified surgeon for a complex operation or a civil engineer to design a safe bridge, these wildlife professionals are the ones qualified to guide decisions that affect entire ecosystems. They don’t rely on guesswork or quick opinion polls; they base their recommendations on data, research, and years of training.

The Role of Wildlife Commissions
Wildlife commissions vary by state, but generally consist of appointed or nominated members who review agency findings and decide on regulations and policies. These commissions rely heavily on the expertise and data presented by the state’s wildlife agency. While commissioners may come from a variety of backgrounds—ranching, conservation, outdoor recreation—their charge is to consider the professional guidance of agency biologists and managers to ensure that hunting seasons, conservation measures, habitat projects, and non-game wildlife protections reflect the best available science.

This structure gives states flexibility. If new research shows that a predator’s population is out of balance, or that a non-game species is in decline, the commission can consider adjustments to regulations or resource allocation relatively quickly. As science evolves and conditions on the ground change, commissions can respond accordingly, maintaining healthy ecosystems and stable wildlife populations.

Keeping Decisions Close to the Experts
One of the greatest strengths of this state-level model is the proximity of decision-making to those who understand the land and wildlife best. By keeping decisions in the hands of commissioners advised by professional biologists, wildlife management can remain science-based and adaptable. Changes can be made relatively quickly if new data arises—such as adjusting quotas, protecting critical habitat, or altering seasons to reflect shifts in populations or environmental conditions.

Just as we wouldn’t leave cancer treatment protocols up to social media votes, we shouldn’t rely on uninformed public opinion to dictate wildlife policy. The nuances of predator-prey balance, habitat science, and population dynamics require a depth of expertise that most of us—understandably—do not have.

Licenses, Tags, and Education: The Structure Behind Every Hunt
A common misconception about hunting is that anyone can simply pick up a firearm or bow and head into the woods, taking whatever animal they find. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, hunting in the United States is a highly regulated activity designed to ensure sustainable use and the long-term health of wildlife populations.

• Licenses and Tags:
  Every prospective hunter must purchase a license from the state wildlife agency. This license, which requires identification and in most cases proof of hunter education, grants the holder the legal right to hunt—within strict guidelines. Beyond a general hunting license, tags are required for many species. A tag is an additional permit that specifies how many animals of a particular species a hunter may harvest within a season. These tags are limited and distributed under carefully set quotas based on population surveys and sustainability goals. By controlling the number of tags issued and to whom, wildlife managers can prevent overharvest and ensure that animal populations remain healthy.

• Season Dates and Limits:
  Hunting seasons are not arbitrary. They’re strategically timed and limited. Additionally, bag limits (how many animals a hunter can take) and species-specific quotas ensure that total harvest remains within sustainable bounds. This is not guesswork; it’s based on population modeling, years of data collection, and predictive science that informs how much harvest a population can sustain.

• Hunter Education Requirements:
  In most states, anyone looking to hunt for the first time must complete a state-approved hunter education course. These courses cover firearms safety, wildlife identification, conservation principles, and ethical hunting practices. They instill respect for the animal, the habitat, and other outdoor users. By the time a new hunter steps into the field, they’ve gained not only the legal right to hunt but also the knowledge and ethical grounding to do it responsibly.

Why This Matters
All of these regulations—licenses, tags, quotas, seasons, bag limits, and education courses—are designed with one primary goal in mind: maintaining healthy, sustainable wildlife populations. They ensure that hunting does not become a free-for-all and that the pressure on any given species is carefully controlled. The system also provides a steady stream of funding (through license and tag sales) that directly supports research, habitat management, species restoration projects, and public land improvements.

When people realize that the modern hunter must follow strict rules rooted in data and science, it can reshape perceptions. Hunting transforms from a misunderstood hobby into a regulated, conservation-focused activity guided by professionals who have devoted their careers to understanding and conserving wildlife.

The Danger of Political Intervention & Ballot Box Measures

Problems arise when wildlife management moves away from this expert-driven approach and lands in the legislature. Unlike commissions, which can adapt as new science emerges, laws enacted through legislative processes tend to be rigid. Once codified into law, these decisions become difficult or nearly impossible to reverse—even if later research reveals them to be flawed or harmful to wildlife.

Furthermore, special interest groups often try to move wildlife management decisions into the ballot box. These groups frequently lean on marketing tactics and propaganda—tugging at heartstrings or leveraging viral images—to rally public support. While well-intended voters may want to do what they believe is “right” for wildlife, they may lack the depth of scientific knowledge necessary for such complex decisions.

This process is dangerous to wildlife because it hands the reins to the loudest marketing campaign rather than the best available science. Special interests know how to spark outrage or sympathy, but they don’t necessarily account for long-term ecological outcomes. When public perception is manipulated in this way, the real losers are the animals and habitats we aim to protect.

A Model Built on Adaptability and Informed Action
No system is perfect. State wildlife commissions and agencies must still navigate complex social and political pressures. But when decisions remain as close to the experts as possible—professionals who understand population dynamics, disease risks, habitat needs, and ecological balance—wildlife stands the best chance of thriving.

This model encourages a dialogue between scientists, policymakers, and the public. It allows for mid-course corrections when conditions shift. When new information surfaces, commissions can act swiftly—adjusting regulations, revising quotas, or implementing safeguards that support both wildlife and the people who value it. And if a decision doesn’t yield the desired outcome, it can be revisited without the stranglehold of unchangeable laws.

Informed Decisions for a Wild Future

Ultimately, trusting state wildlife agencies and the commissions that rely on their expertise ensures that animal populations remain healthy, diverse, and resilient. By understanding that each state has a structure in place designed to keep wildlife management science-driven, we can appreciate why it’s so important not to hand the reins over to campaigns fueled by marketing tactics rather than data.

Just like we trust licensed pilots to fly our planes, relying on professionals to guide wildlife management is the safest route for both animals and the people who share the land with them. No system is perfect, but when we trust professional guidance, allow flexibility, and ensure that only those with proper knowledge lead on key decisions, we stand the best chance of preserving abundant wildlife and balanced ecosystems for future generations. After all, we wouldn’t ask social media to fix a broken bridge—and we shouldn’t ask it to manage our wild places, either.

Author’s Note:
This is repetitive but worth covering again. As with any system, there are headaches and challenges. Some commissions function more effectively than others, and political pressures can still arise. However, considering the alternatives, this framework—where science-based wildlife agencies inform commission decisions—is where these choices should ideally reside.

READ MORE BELOW: Just Click A Topic Or Return To Education

Predator Hunting | Bear Hunting | Lion Hunting | Hound Hunting | Trapping | Hunting Is Human | Who Manages Wildlife In the U.S. | Humans And Nature | Anti-Hunting | Predator Reintroduction | A Deeper Look At Hunting

United States of Hunt/Fish

In the United States and countries around the world, hunters and anglers are being villainized as a heartless, bloodthirsty band of heathens who kill for sport and don’t care one bit about our natural resources — be it fish, wildlife, habitat — or our planet.

Truth be told, as sportsmen and women, we don’t do ourselves any favors when we popularize stupidity and a win-at-all-costs attitude on social media, don’t call out and correct baseless claims about our way of life, and take a “not my problem” stance when it comes to issues outside of our individual back yards.

Tackling the first two on a single-issue basis may be about as productive as pissing up a rope. But not doing something about the “not my problem” perspective that pervades our community — that’s like pissing on our own boots.

This isn’t some big campfire kumbaya we’re talking about. Giving a damn has tangible economic, conservation, and rights-based values. 

If you’re not familiar with the Pittman-Robertson Act (AKA Wilderness Recovery Act) or the Dingell-Johnson Act (AKA Sportfish Recovery Act), you need to be. 

Pittman-Robertson was signed into law in 1937. It directed manufacturers and importers of firearms and ammunition to pay excise taxes on their sales, which would then be sent back to the states to pay for wildlife management and habitat protection.  In the 1970’s, pistols and archery equipment were added to the list as well.

Dingell-Johnson, modeled after P-R, was passed in 1950 and earmarked taxes on fishing equipment for “restoration and management of all species of fish which have material value in connection with sport or recreation in the marine and/or fresh waters of the United States.”

Over $15 billion has gone to wildlife restoration programs since Pittman-Robertson became law, with another $10.5 billion to sportfish restoration through Dingell-Johnson. In 2022 alone, a combined $1.5 billion was put back into fish and wildlife conservation efforts nationwide.

When you buy your hunting or fishing gear, you help build this fund. If you travel to hunt or fish, your license fees, along with any gear you buy at your destination, go toward funding conservation. 

Even if you only hunt or fish in your home state, anyone who travels to your state to hunt or fish contributes to the conservation efforts in your backyard. Resident and non-resident dollars play a huge role in the health of your fish, wildlife, habitat, and economy, no matter where you call home. 

Likewise, there are tens of thousands of people across the country whose livelihoods depend on the fish and game that residents and non-residents head to the woods and water to find. Guides and outfitters, tackle and gun shop owners, and a litany of other ancillary local businesses would suffer—or shutter—without that business.

Remember, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is based on all of North America working together to uphold its seven principles, not just each state looking out for its own.

This model should be the single brightest beacon for every sportsman and woman in the US, Canada, Mexico, and the 20 other countries within North America’s 9.5 million square miles. We are a formidable community. 

Unfortunately, that beacon doesn’t seem to draw as much consolidated attention and effort as anti-hunting and animal rights groups.

Anti-hunting efforts know no borders. They’re infiltrating our state game commissions and management decisions. They’re pushing for legislative changes. They don’t care if the issue is across the county line or across the country. If a call goes out at 6 a.m. to help save [insert literally anything], there will be a groundswell of outrage and a call for heads to roll by lunch.

It’s funny because it’s true, but it’s a playbook that hunters and anglers in every state and north and south of the border need to study. 

Outrage is not a one-way street. Demanding accountability and management decisions based on science is not a fallback position. Fighting for everyone’s backyard, not just your own, is not the exception, it has to be the rule. 

When you see that the spring bear season is under attack in Washington State, get involved. 

When you see that the right to hunt and fish is threatened in Montana, Florida, or Oregon, get involved.  Building this foundation of a right to hunt & fish in more states will only make it harder and require more resources for anti-hunters to be successful.  This is a strategy we all need to get behind.  

When you see that black bears are overrunning Connecticut and they need a management season for the good of the public and the animals, get involved. 

When you see that human rights and African wildlife management are being sacrificed to appease short-sighted anti-hunting and animal rights interests, get involved.

When you see hunting opportunities being taken away in Canada, the U.S. needs to get involved... huge numbers of hunters and anglers go to Canada to participate in their hunting and angling activities.

Because when we give a damn about what hunters and anglers in other states — and countries — are fighting to conserve and join them in the fight, that’s community. 

And a strong, united community will keep our fish, wildlife, and habitat healthy and our sporting heritage alive for generations to come.

Solutions:

For the individual hunter 

• Be a leader! 
• Take the seconds or maybe a few minutes to take action 
• Repost the issues with links on social media when you see them
• Do not let state borders hold you back
• If you want to be extra involved get acquainted with wildlife commission meetings, we help with that too!
• Become a member, invite your friends to become members.

For the species ORGS 

• If your ORG itself is not going to take on advocacy of species outside of your orgs mission or not going to take on advocacy at all then share the actions of groups that do, such as HOWL, to your member base. 
• The future of hunting is either helped by doing this or it's not helped by not doing this. 
• Maximum engagement is key. 

For the influencers and companies (such as retail)

• Be a leader for advocacy, lead from the front
• Share! You have a huge audience
• Make 10-20% of your posts, when applicable, advocacy posts.  We must awaken the masses.