A lot can change in a week, month, or a year. But 50 years? Monumental changes can take place. Conservation and hunting have undergone huge shifts in terms of laws and regulations, and even mindset changes amongst hunters.
It’s amazing how far hunting and conservation has come in the last fifty years. This isn’t to say changes aren’t needed and poor decisions haven’t been made though. Let’s dig in and look at some of the best and worst conservation and hunting changes in the last half century.
Pittman Robertson Act
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, more commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was signed into law in 1937. The act turned taxes on ammunition, guns, and hunting equipment back to the states so they could fund conservation and habitat improvement.
Without the Pittman-Robertson Act, many wildlife success stories don’t occur. The re-emergence of the wild turkey and proper management of whitetails may not have occurred without the act.
Unlike today’s political environment where it seems every bill is politically charged, the Pittman-Robertson Act received widespread approval. Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson was the Chief Bureau of Biological Survey, said at the time “The response throughout the country to the Pittman-Robertson Act exceeds our highest expectations.”
Revitalization of the Wild Turkey
The nationwide re-emergence of the wild turkey is no small feat. Native to North America, wild turkey populations saw major declines in the early 1900’s. Habitat loss due to agricultural was the main reason.
Today, habitat loss is a critical aspect to improving wild turkey numbers. Dr. Mike Chamberlin is a National Wild Turkey Federation Distinguished Professor at the University of Georgia, and he told me, “The restoration of the wild turkey is indeed one of the greatest conservation success stories in the world.
Restoring a species once extirpated from broad areas of its geographic range is a huge challenge but restoring a species not only to its former geographic range, but also into areas it never inhabited, is something quite unique and noteworthy.”
If you have thriving wild turkey populations in your area, you can probably thank grassroots organizations and the National Wild Turkey Federation. The NWTF has relocated around 200,000 wild turkeys to establish new populations.
With an abundance of information available to them in the form of videos and podcasts, hunters now have the correct knowledge and tools on how to best manage wild turkeys.
So, when you’re leaned up against the trunk of a big white oak this spring, it’s important to remember it wasn’t always possible to feel the ground shake and hear the thunder of a bird gobbling its way into range. There are many organizations and people to thank.
Buck Tag Limits
According to the 2025 Deer Report from the National Deer Association, the average percentage of antlered buck harvest that was 3.5 years and older was 43% during the 2023-24 deer season, the highest percentage ever reported.
The result of cellular trail cameras is a patient deer hunter. Now more than ever, hunters are educated on what caliber deer are out there because of cellular trail cameras. It’s true that states like Iowa and Kansas have fewer hunters than the flagship whitetail states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
However, buck tag limits in Iowa and Kansas have boosted buck age classes high above others on a more consistent basis. In short, hunters are willing to wait out their one buck because trail cameras are telling them exactly what caliber deer are on the landscape.
Incentivizing Landowners
Federal agencies must continue to incentivize private landowners to care for their land and water. Without it, America’s lands will decline.
Public lands are an excellent resource for all Americans, but if we’re truthful, private landownership is where most victories must come. In states like Illinois and Iowa, approximately 98% of the land is privately owned.
Just a few years ago, the USDA set a goal of enrolling 27 million acres into the Conservation Reserve Program. In Pennsylvania, the USDA will pay up to 75% of Wetland Reserve Program restoration. Programs like this must continue to strengthen if hunters and conservationists want thriving landscapes.
Declassifying Wolves in Northern Rockies
This is a controversial one. Just because the “Green Fire” story of Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac is one of my favorites, it doesn’t mean I can’t support wolf hunting and management.
Beginning in February of 2022, the gray wolf was listed under the Endangered Species Act for all lower 48 states with the exception of the northern Rocky Mountain Populations located in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
The agencies of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have full authority to manage wolves throughout the states. These three states have a large responsibility to simultaneously recognize the gray wolf as part of the region’s history but manage them through means of hunting in accordance with what science would consider a balanced ecosystem.
The wolf population in Idaho alone is near 1,300 wolves and is considered higher than what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would consider to be the carrying capacity for the entire Northern Rocky Mountain population spanning these states.
If the remote state of Idaho’s single state population of 1,300 wolves is considered too high for the entire region of the northern Rockies, how then can Wisconsin’s population of around 1,000 wolves be considered appropriate when only around half the state is inhabited by wolves?
Furthermore, during Wisconsin’s last wolf hunting season in 2021, hunters killed 216 wolves in less than 3 days, far exceeding the harvest quota set at 119.
Habitat plays a huge role in the survival of deer amongst wolves, but more on that later. The point is wolves need to be managed like any other game animal. Responsibly, and what strict enforcement.
Questionable "Conservation"
Stepping away from the good things we’ve seen in conservation over the years, there are plenty of changes that are considered questionable at best.
What are these?
Let’s start with the wolves.
Wolf Reintroduction
A balanced ecosystem is a thriving one, and wolves contribute to that. But some wolf reintroduction efforts have been at the forefront of this debate and the release of wolves onto various landscapes has many hunters up in arms.
The most recent wolf re-introduction uproar began in November of 2020 when proposition 114 was passed in Colorado and directed the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to introduce and manage gray wolves in Colorado.
Although the CPW worked with a policy center to hold public meetings and listen to stakeholders representing various perspectives, the goal was already pre-determined – “identify the steps needed to recover and maintain a viable, self-sustaining wolf population in Colorado while concurrently working to minimize wolf-related conflicts with domestic animals and people.”
Gray wolves occupied all of Colorado until they were eradicated from the state in the 1940’s. A few stragglers temporarily make their way into the state at times, via Idaho and portions of Yellowstone. However, a self-sustaining population hasn’t been present since the 1940’s.
As part of the relocation and re-introduction efforts, ten wolves were captured in Oregon via the use of a helicopter and spotter plane with 15 CPW staff participating in the effort. The wolves were then transported via donated private aircraft and released in December of 2023 throughout the Colorado counties of Grand and Summit, on state owned lands west of the Continental Divide.
In January of this year, Colorado released a second round of gray wolves after being transported from central British Colombia. In the short time since their re-introduction, there have been 24 “conflict minimization” requests and 3 confirmed wolf depredations on sheep.
Conservationists argue wolves are a necessary piece to a more uniformly balanced ecosystem. Some individuals like hunters or those without a strong opinion on the animal, view these reintroduction efforts as an unnecessary use of government resources and time. Time will tell if Colorado’s experiment was a wise decision for the big game resource.
Selling Public Lands
The public land debate is back in the political arena. The latest concern is that politicians will follow through and allow the sales of some public lands to reconcile their budgets.
Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Senate voted and approved a bill that would allow the sale of public lands. Approximately 650 million acres of land are owned and controlled by the federal government, located primarily in the western half of the U.S.
In 2017, there was a very real possibility of nearly 3.3 million acres of federally owned public land being sold off in Utah, until public land advocates spoke up and pressured politicians.
Grassroots action forced Congressman Jason Chaffetz to rescind House Bill 621. Chaffetz was quoted saying he is “a proud gun owner, hunter, and loves our public lands.” So he killed the bill. Hunters need to stay diligent in 2025 as more potential risks to public lands will be hitting the desks of politicians soon.
Banning Bear Hunting
In late 2017, the Canadian province of British Colombia banned grizzly bear hunting throughout the province. The move was made to protect one of “British Colombia’s most iconic species” according to the province’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, George Hyman.
While the grizzly bear is no doubt a staple of the ecosystem in B.C., the grizzly hunting ban has directly affected the livelihood and local economies of certain groups. Hunting guide Ron Fleming estimated his guide company has lost $300,000 each year since the grizzly ban took effect.
Chad Norman Day is the president of the Tahltan Central Government and was quoted in a Vancouver Sun article saying “Hunting bears has always been — and continues to be — a way to manage predators and protect ungulate species, such as caribou and moose.”
Rash Decisions
Fast, uneducated decisions have been the crux of many conservation choices in recent memory. For example, Wisconsin politicians outlawed Earn-A-Buck back in 2011.
With the stroke of a pen from then-governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s best deer management tool was stripped away. While it was unpopular at the time, I speak with countless hunters every year who wished it was still an option to implement on a need-basis since too few hunters choose to harvest does.
As of January 2025, 64 Wisconsin counties are considered “CWD affected”, meaning a positive has occurred in the county or within 10 miles of its border.
Earn-a-buck kept deer populations in check and would’ve helped slow CWD, but Wisconsin politicians and interest groups made a conscious choice by listening to people more interested in their own agenda. Now, they’re paying for it. CWD is lowering populations in high prevalent areas throughout Wisconsin.
Much like Chronic Wasting Disease, mountain lion hunting always seems to be in the headlines and politicians surround the issue with emotions when the ability to hunt these great animals is on the chopping block.
It was no different last fall when Colorado citizens voted on Proposition 127. Colorado has a strong population of around 4,400 lions, and only about 500 lions are killed every year under strictly managed hunting laws in Colorado – a completely sustainable number of harvests.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife says, “there is no evidence to suggest statewide lion or bobcat populations are decreasing under current sustainable management.” Yet, anti-hunting groups continue to push legislators to make reactionary decisions regarding their ability to be hunted.
Wrapping up
There are countless non-deer related conservation decisions that didn’t make the cut in this article. The fact that certain birds and animals like the whooping crane, California condor, American alligator or Florida panther are still out there is a testament to great work being done to conserve habitat.
Aaron Warbritton summed up these conservation matters perfectly telling me, “The resource itself is what really matters. If there are no turkeys or deer to hunt, there are no hunters. It’s a balancing act. We need conservationists who want to protect and enhance the resource not only for themselves but for future generations.”
