Advocacy Legislative News

Corner crossing has become an increasingly popular tactic as public land hunters look for ways to reach remote areas far from roads and other hunters. As land and lease prices continue to climb, and pressure on public ground grows, this once uncommon strategy has escalated into a continuing conflict between hunters and private landowners. At the center of this issue is a simple question: can a hunter step from one corner of public land to another without setting foot on the private land in between? A courtroom verdict, however, only applies within that court’s jurisdiction, leaving the broader question unresolved. 

The issue now has another opportunity to make it back into the news and courts. The Trump administration’s Department of the Interior recently announced a proposed expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities across 92 million acres of federal land. As hunters look for access points to newly opened ground, corner crossing is likely to become a growing flashpoint, and the absence of a legislative solution along with the Supreme Court declining to take up the most recent corner crossing case could lead to a surge of legal battles across the country. 

How this gets resolved is an open question. Some see the courtroom as the right venue, as the Montana lawsuit illustrates. Others argue the issue is better addressed through state and federal legislation where elected representatives can weigh in on a problem that affects the hunters and landowners who live with it every day. As the judicial wheels turn in Montana, it’s up to hunters to decide where to find a final solution in either the courts or the capitals. 

The strongest innovations we are seeing are in the areas of optics, cameras and drones, all of which can make us more successful. While these things can boost our success in the field, it is important that as we use these technologies, we don’t overstep the line of fair chase. 

Because these technologies provide such an advantage in pursuing various wild game species, some states have begun taking steps to restrict certain technologies for hunting use on public and private land. The Idaho Legislature recently passed House Bill 939, which was signed into law April 2. The bill outlaws the use of thermal imaging, night vision and drones to hunt or scout for big game and game birds. It also forbids the use of cellular trail cameras on publicly accessible lands from Aug. 30 through Dec. 31 each year. The legislation was driven by concerns from residents and fish and game officials that increased technology use would impact fair chase and that several years of increased harvest success could result in a reduction of allocated tags across the state for both residents and nonresidents. I congratulate the hunters of Idaho who took the initiative to bring this to their elected officials. This is a great reminder that as hunters we drive conservation advocacy by helping maintain and grow our wild game populations. 

This decision raises a broader question: When does technology cross the line between fair chase and unethical hunting? We can all acknowledge that it is illegal and unethical to shoot deer at night with a thermal optic. However, Farmer Brown down the road would probably let you use your thermal for some hog management. 

But back to the question at hand. It is important that we sit down as hunters and think this through, because it won’t always be as clear-cut as asking whether night hunting is wrong. For example, say I wound an elk in a western state and use a thermal drone at night to locate it. That’s not outright unethical at first glance, but what if, while searching for my elk, I spot a herd bedded down and the next morning send my buddy in their direction? Not exactly black and white anymore. It may not seem like a big impact on its own, but add enough hunters doing the same thing, plus bad actors, and success rates start climbing year after year while herd numbers trend downward, putting real pressure on wildlife management efforts. 

As states across the country begin evaluating technology use against fair chase standards, it is important that we keep in mind how these advances will impact the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. In many cases, I believe certain technologies are reasonable and warranted within fair chase. However, if a product or technology leads to increased harvest rates through its use, we must be willing to self-regulate and push for new rules before we risk real damage to our wild game populations or, worse, lose a species altogether.  

Like many of us, I would love nothing more than to suffer from success season after season with a freezer that won’t close. But if we fight technology regulation when the stats from fish and game agencies show a negative impact, we are no different than the anti-hunters who use ballot box science to advance their agenda. That said, this cuts both ways. As a hunting community, we are increasingly fighting off efforts from anti-hunters, and in some cases they will attempt to restrict new technologies as a foothold to close off hunting opportunities altogether. It is our job to know the difference. 

The hunting community has always been its own best advocate. That must hold true as technology evolves. We can be curious, we can innovate and we can embrace new tools, but we have to be the ones drawing the line before someone draws it for us. 

For conservation organizations, the 2027 budget is shaping up to be a major victory. The administration has requested $1.9 billion annually over the next five years to address deferred maintenance projects on federal lands — and for public land hunters, that’s a big deal. 

These projects will focus on access to federal lands which, for many hunters, remains a top priority. The corner-crossing debate is on fire across the country right now, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2025 only recognized it legally within the court’s jurisdiction — Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma — leaving public land hunters in the rest of the country to rely heavily on continued progress for new and restored land access. 

As the fiscal year 2027 budget works its way through Congress and out of committee, it will be important that we as bowhunters keep a close eye on its progress. I don’t think I need to remind anyone about Congress’s attempt to put millions of acres of public land up for sale in the budget bill passed in 2025 — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It was defeated — largely because hunters picked up the phone and contacted their representatives — but it nearly happened. 

As budget talks continue to evolve, remember that our federal representatives will be negotiating across party lines and within them. We need to stay active and vigilant. This funding is negotiable, and it could be reduced — or it could come at the cost of something else, like putting public lands up for sale as a funding source. 

To stay up to date on everything impacting bowhunting across the country, subscribe to  Bowhunters United for free. Your free membership includes access to our advocacy alert system, designed to keep you informed on the legislative issues that matter most — so your voice is heard when it counts. 

According to BallotPedia’s historical data, an average of about 78% of submitted signatures are validated toward the count, with the remaining percentage rejected as invalid for one reason or another. This is a small piece of positive news, as those pushing the PEACE Act will need to continue their campaign to ensure it makes it to the November ballot.  

While many will be sitting on pins and needles waiting for the July 2 deadline, it may be time to start being proactive and raising awareness of this bold new threat. In this current political climate, hunters can’t afford to dismiss this by saying “that will never pass.” As of today, it’s a real possibility. They have the signatures — pending validation — and the initiative still has nearly a month to gather more, meaning they could clear the threshold even factoring insignature rejections. 

Going forward, hunters need to come together and determine a clear strategy for combating this new tactic of eliminating hunting via the ballot box. If the hunting community continues to shrug off these threats as only noise in the conversation about the right to hunt, it could lead to an eventual downfall. In the current political climate, with hunters being a minority group in the vast voter pool, taking this fight to the ballot box could potentially be fatal.  

Hunters within states that do not explicitly cite hunting as a right in their state constitution should consider engaging their state representatives to insulate themselves from this growing threat. Another great way to stay informed and involved is to join Bowhunters United for free, where we come together as bowhunters to form one voice advocating for and defending our right to bowhunt.

Today, R3 continues to play a critical role by bringing in new hunters and encouraging past hunters to return to the field. It is also frequently referenced by hunting and conservation organizations when discussing the need for increased funding, as hunters are the largest contributors through the purchase of licenses, tags and equipment. 

While recruitment, retention and reactivation remain a primary focus, there is now an added challenge: countering growing anti-hunting sentiment and organizations working to end the tradition of hunting. This evolving pressure has shifted the importance of R3 from simply growing participation for funding to helping ensure the future of hunting itself. Without continued growth, hunters risk becoming further outnumbered, which could lead to policy changes through legislation or ballot initiatives that affect the right to hunt. 

This is not a distant concern. In Oregon, Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), also known as the PEACE Act (People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions), would place hunting, fishing, trapping and farming under the state’s animal abuse statutes—effectively banning these practices. The petition has already gathered nearly 100,000 of the 117,173 signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot, where Oregon voters will decide its fate. 

Despite these challenges, there are also positive developments recognizing hunting. In Idaho, House Bill 652 was recently passed and signed into law, designating hunting as the official state sport. Idaho has a long-standing hunting tradition and one of the highest participation rates in the country, making it a strong example for R3 efforts in other states. The bill originated from grassroots engagement after 9-year-old Betty Grandy of Twin Falls asked readers of her self-published newspaper about their favorite outdoor activities. When hunting emerged as the clear favorite, she was posed a simple question in an interview: Is hunting a sport? She answered emphatically, “Yes,” which helped grow the idea into a legislative effort that ultimately became law. 

This outcome highlights why R3 efforts are so important and should continue in response to anti-hunting sentiment. The actions of lawmakers and residents in Idaho demonstrate that when hunters of all generations come together, meaningful outcomes are possible. It also serves as a reminder that engaging new participants—especially younger ones—is key to protecting and advancing the future of hunting in the United States. 

In Oregon, a particularly serious threat to our way of life has emerged in the form of Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), also known as the PEACE Act (People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions). This measure aims to place hunting, fishing, trapping and farming under Oregon’s animal abuse statutes, effectively banning these practices. 

To qualify for the ballot, the petition must receive 117,173 valid signatures by July 2. As of February, it had already collected around 100,000 signatures, putting it dangerously close to meeting the necessary threshold. If this initiative makes it to the ballot, it could set a concerning precedent nationwide and potentially lead to similar efforts in other states. With 2026 being a midterm election year, the political environment adds another layer of risk, as higher voter turnout could bring more anti-hunting voters to Oregon’s ballot boxes. 

While challenges are mounting in Oregon, there has been some ground gained—or at least maintained—in Colorado. Beaver trappers and hunters were under threat from House Bill 1323, which would have made it illegal to kill or trap beavers for recreation on state public lands and federal lands where state rules apply. 

The bill was introduced under the premise that eliminating legal trapping would provide a “cost-free” solution to the state’s wildfire and drought concerns. Fortunately, the bill was defeated after being indefinitely postponed during this session in a committee vote of 10-3. 

As the year continues and elections move forward, it is critical that bowhunters stand together to protect the right to hunt across the country, continue promoting the North American model of wildlife conservation and support the impact of the Pittman-Robertson Act, which remains one of the strongest funding mechanisms for conservation in the United States. 

To stay up to date on federal and state legislative issues impacting bowhunting, subscribe to Bowhunters United for free and sign up for our advocacy alert system. Don’t forget to follow us on social media for additional news and updates. 

Most state legislatures meet annually, often for much shorter sessions than Congress, unless a special session is called. Some states only meet every two years. During these compressed sessions, lawmakers move quickly and important proposals can advance with limited attention. For hunters, staying engaged during these periods is essential.  

Decisions made at the state level directly affect how, when and where you hunt. 

One area where laws and regulations can shift rapidly is emerging hunting technology, including drones, thermal optics and range-finding equipment. Without input from the hunting community, new mandates could unintentionally create challenges for hunters or result in citations for activities that were previously permitted.  

Corner crossing is another evolving issue. In 2025, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of corner crossing in Iron Bar Holdings LLC v. Cape. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the ruling in place within the 10th Circuit, which includes Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma. Because the Supreme Court did not take up the case, the decision does not apply nationwide. States outside the 10th Circuit may address the issue independently through legislation or future court challenges. 

Staying informed is one of the most effective ways to stay engaged. Follow updates from your state legislature and fish and game agency, and subscribe to newsletters when available. Bowhunters United members can use the Action Alert system for free, which provides updates on issues affecting the bowhunting community and offers an easy way to contact state and federal representatives. As anti-hunting sentiment grows in some regions, staying informed, engaged and united is more important than ever. 

“This win in Colorado is a tremendous victory against anti-hunting efforts that are becoming more common in states throughout the country,” said Dan Forster, VP and Chief Conservationist for the Archery Trade Association. “The ATA was proud to sign onto a letter of support prior to this vote that supported Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife Department to manage the big cat population based on science.”

The state of Minnesota voted to support the continuation of state lottery funds to aid conservation efforts in the state for another 25 years.