This gear review feature’s Leica’s brand new Geovid Max. These rangefinding binoculars are more powerful and user-friendly than ever before: pinning to onX, adjustable wind, a robust Applied Ballistics solver, and of course, top-tier optical quality. From simple to complex these RF binos can be customized to fit any application you can dream up, from competitive shooting to real-world hunting scenarios. Eastmans Todd Helms and Brandon Mason put them through their paces in an NRL-style shooting scenario testing the binos and their own skills to find success past 600 yards in stormy conditions.

The post Built for Hunters, Precision Shooters & More! Leica’s Geovid Max RF Binoculars Review appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

I recently wrote a blog about Amendment 83, the Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, being on the November 2026 ballot.

It would establish the constitutional right of Coloradans to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife, including by traditional methods. It would also recognize hunting and fishing as the state’s “primary and preferred means” of responsibly managing wildlife populations.

It’s fantastic that Colorado hunters are finally taking the fight directly to the people.

Of course, an opposing campaign has begun opposing our constitutional right to hunt and fish, and surprisingly it’s found itself a “hunter” to make their case (gotta do the two-fingered-air quotes around “hunter”). This fellow’s name is Eric Washburn, president of the newly formed Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation.

Washburn says he hunts big game, holds Colorado licenses and has hunted waterfowl. Fair enough. I have no reason to question whether he is a hunter.

But being a hunter and being representative of Colorado hunters are two different things.

That distinction matters as Colorado voters consider Amendment 83. The Legislative Council analysis says the amendment would preserve the state’s authority to regulate hunting, fishing and wildlife management when necessary for sound scientific conservation, public safety or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.

There are legitimate questions about how that language could affect existing regulations. Washburn argues that the amendment could lead to litigation and threaten some existing hunting restrictions. Those arguments deserve to be heard and examined on their merits.

But so does the background of the person making them.

Washburn is a professional public-affairs consultant with a long history in natural-resource policy. His published biography and writings show extensive involvement in conservation and wildlife issues, including work with Democratic Senate leaders Tom Daschle and Harry Reid and involvement in the founding of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

His public record on Colorado wildlife policy is also worth examining.

In 2023, Washburn wrote favorably about Gov. Jared Polis’ appointments to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, arguing that the Commission needed broader perspectives in dealing with issues such as climate change, habitat loss and species extinction. Two of my recent blogs focused on the last two CPW Commission meetings and how these very Commissioners Washburn supported are systematically tearing down the meetings and disrupting the Commission’s ability to make any meaningful progress on wildlife management issues.

Then there are wolves.

Washburn wasn’t just a supporter of Colorado’s wolf-reintroduction effort. He was one of its political advocates. In 2019, he publicly supported the ballot initiative to bring wolves back to Colorado, saying, “Colorado needs wolves.” He later wrote that it was time for the “hysteria” over wolves to end and urged CPW to move ahead with wolf restoration.

And that’s not the only example.

In 2026, Washburn publicly supported the CPW Commission’s decision to establish a daily limit of two furbearers per person. As I wrote in my last blog, that limit was “pulled out of thin air” and recommended by one of the new Polis appointees and went directly against CPW Staff’s science-based recommendation for a limit of 15. Washburn argued that Colorado had allowed hunters to kill as many furbearers as they wanted and said the new limits were necessary to protect the future health of Colorado’s 17 furbearer species.

But perhaps the most revealing statement came in that same March 2026 column, when Washburn wrote that “hunting in Colorado likely will come to an end in this century.” He cited declining wildlife populations, Chronic Wasting Disease, species conservation and generational changes as reasons.

Those aren’t minor comments from somebody who occasionally writes about wildlife.

Those are public positions on hunting, wildlife management and the role of hunters in Colorado.

And remember, this is the same Eric Washburn who is now asking Colorado hunters to reject a constitutional amendment that would establish hunting and fishing as a protected right and recognize them as the state’s primary and preferred means of responsibly managing wildlife.

Again, none of that means Washburn isn’t a hunter. But it sure gives Colorado hunters something to think about when he says he’s speaking for us.

Because most Colorado hunters I know have a straightforward view of wildlife management. We want healthy elk herds. We want mule deer and pronghorn populations to be managed properly. We want abundant game birds and healthy fisheries. We believe hunting is an important wildlife-management tool, and we expect wildlife decisions to be based on sound science as analyzed by CPW’s professional wildlife-management officers and biologists, NOT by ballot-box biology—which is how we ended up with the wolf-reintroduction disaster.

We also understand that hunting is about more than pulling a trigger.

It’s habitat. It’s access. It’s conservation funding. It’s predator management. It’s game populations. It’s the next generation of hunters sitting beside you in a blind or following you up a mountain.

Eric Washburn may be a hunter.  But if you want to know where he stands on hunting and wildlife management, don’t listen to the label.

Look at his record.

After all, just buying a tag doesn’t really make you a hunter, and it certainly doesn’t automatically make you the voice of Colorado hunters.

The post Colorado: The Fox is in the Henhouse – and He’s Wearing Blaze Orange! appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

Article by: Cole Herb

Taking a chance on an unlikely bird dog pays off. 

I remember the day like it was yesterday, the day I got a phone call from a friend. He stated that he had a six-month-old, male English Setter that he was trying to find a home for. He knew I pheasant hunted and I might be interested. “Aw, man,” I said, “I just got a six-month-old, male German Shorthair five months ago.” 

My next question was, “What’s the reason for finding a new home?” 

The hamster wheel was starting to turn. No way someone is getting rid of a perfectly good bird dog. This dog has to be dumb, gun-shy, or medically incompetent, I thought. 

My friend said, “The original owner said his tail doesn’t point straight and he can’t compete with it.” 

The hamster wheel stopped turning for a second. “What?” I said. “I have never heard such a thing.” 

My friend said that the previous owner was going to get rid of him one way or the other, so my friend was trying to find a home. “Let me talk to my wife,” I said. 

I relayed the message to her and she gave the same exasperated feelings I had. “We don’t need another puppy, but we did talk about getting a Setter instead of a Shorthair,” she said. “We are taking a major chance on something that doesn’t sound right. 

“Think I should go over and look?” I asked. 

“I suppose you better. Keep me posted.” 

“I’ll plan on going there after work to see the dog,” I said as I walked out the door.

Walking up the driveway, I greeted my friend and asked him where the dog was. He gestured with his hand over to a little bed by the front step. There laid a little, white fluff ball, curled up, watching me with intent eyes. “That’s him, huh? Come here, boy,” I said, “Let me take a look at you.” 

The little, stiff-legged puppy stood up and pranced over to me. I patted his head and neck, looked him up and down. Stared into his big brown eyes – I felt something stir in my heart, kinda like when the Grinch felt his heart grow from Christmas cheer. “He seems to be a pretty good dog, doesn’t jump up or bark – calm as heck,” I said. My friend said he’d been a real good boy the last three days, just laying around. I started to get a bit anxious about this decision. Getting a worthless bird dog is a 12-year sentence to becoming a house dog – nothing wrong with a house dog, but I wanted him to pheasant hunt also, and I already had a dog. I grabbed his metal bowl and “accidentally” dropped it. No flinch, nothing – he just sat at my side waiting for more scratches and a chance at a new home. My heart started pounding a bit more. If this dog is stupid, it’s on me – I could hear the wife now.

“What’s his name?” I asked. 

“Oh, it’s Chance.” 

I deadpanned and looked at my buddy, “Are you serious?” 

“I’m serious,” he chuckled, “that’s what he answers to.” 

“It couldn’t be any other name,” I said. 

I slowly shuffled to my truck door, opened it, I clearly remember the words coming off my lips, “Let’s go, Chance—get in.” His tail was wagging and nails clacking on the asphalt as he scampered across the driveway.

I got him in May of 2019. I already had a year under my belt with my GSP, “Ranger.” We had started creating a bond. I didn’t know if Chance would even hunt, and also what connection I’d have with him or he with Ranger. Of course, Ranger did not want to welcome an intruder to the house. Up until this point, Ranger was the only child, the firstborn, if you will. The summer went along with not many hiccups; Ranger and Chance became buddies and life carried on. Hunting season was finally approaching. Ranger was turning two in December and Chance would turn one.

The 2019 hunting season seems pretty far in my distant past now, as hunting seasons keep moving along, but a few memories will stick with me forever – all because I took a chance.

Sometime in November of 2019 was the first time Dad and I could get out – mainly since bowhunting whitetails comes first. “This is where we tell if Chance even has it,” I said to Dad.

Now mind you, I didn’t work with him one bit. I noticed he’d point robins in the yard and he didn’t seem gun-shy, unless the little sally heard thunder, but I’d not put in a lick of work with Chance.

Here goes nothing. Right away, Ranger went into beast mode – full of spit and vinegar. “Hunt ’em up, Chance,” I said. He was nonchalant, almost elegant-like. Nose to the wind, never venturing too far. He’d run with Ranger when Ranger would come by on his sweeping passes. “I don’t know Dad, he just doesn’t seem trustworthy,” I said.

Ranger got a couple birds up and we got one. Both dogs got the smell of pheasants in their noses. “That’s what we are after, Chance… smell it.” 

We came to a pair of draws; our friend Dave took Ranger with him on the smaller one. Dad and I took Chance on the wider one. A quarter-way through, the wind hitting Chance in the face, he stopped. He lifted his front right leg, tail trying to stretch straight in the air. I gave Dad a slight whistle and pointed at Chance. Chance was on point! I walked in to try to flush the suspect of interest. Nada. “False point,” I said. We went a bit further up the draw. The right front leg and tail resumed their previous position. I give a slight shrug to indicate that I was suspicious about the point. The result repeated itself. I walked in and stomped on the tuft of grass Chance was pointing. “Sorry, boy, no bird.” Chance did not move or flinch. He stayed solid, pointing that grass patch. 

I was getting a bit frustrated now – looking back, it’s a bit silly to be frustrated on a good point, but I already had my doubts about Chance. Chance had this face he gave me when I told him “no bird.” He looked at me like I was a big buffoon. He looked at the tuft of grass and with God as my witness (and my father), he put his face in the grass and pulled out a rooster! A live, wild, rooster pheasant. “Chance, I could kiss you,” I said. I had never seen anything like it.

From that time on, we have shared countless points – double points, Chance and Ranger backing each other. They have become an amazing team. My life wouldn’t be the same if I hadn’t taken a “chance.” 

By the way, his tail points pretty stinking straight if you ask me.

Since getting Chance I have tried to live with this metaphor in mind. I’m a firm believer that one chance can change your life. It’s about more than just taking a chance on a dog named Chance. Just like him, a lot of us need an opportunity. Hunters live in the chance ethos; yes, the saying goes, “I’m trying not to leave it up to chance,” but sometimes that’s all you get in hunting and in life.

My point in all of this is, don’t be afraid to take the leap, whatever it may be – things might just work out like one of the greatest things that happened to me: a straight-tailed Setter who now has over 100 wild rooster points under his paws.

The post All You Need Is A “Chance” appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

Hunt pronghorn antelope on public land with Eastmans staffers Dan Pickar and Lindsay Wion. Dan pulls out all the tricks to get in bow range of a trophy buck. After days afield, he finally connects with a buck he’s been dreaming of all season. Then Lindsay lets her Browning boomstick bark on a DIY spot and stalk hunt in late October. Enjoy this two in one episode of Eastmans Hunting TV.

The post TWO Tags PUNCHED! Spot & Stalk Public Land Speed Goats | Eastmans Hunting TV appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

Hunters are FINALLY on the offensive! 

By now you’ve probably heard that President Trump issued an Executive Order on September 4th called, “Supporting America’s Ranchers”. This EO tasks Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to determine within 90 days if gray and Mexican wolves meet recovery criteria and may be delisted or downlisted nationwide. If the criteria are met the Department of the Interior MUST begin the formal process of delisting/downlisting. This EO also includes recommendations for States to expand lethal wolf removal measures, specifically for agricultural producers, i.e. ranchers.

But does that mean residents of states plagued by wolves can now, or will soon be able to legally kill wolves? Maybe, maybe not. 

In states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming there is already a well regulated wolf management program in place. Other states, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are not so patiently waiting for the final ruling. 

Sportsmen in the Great Lakes region have been subjected to ballooning wolf numbers for the bulk of the 2000s, through the 2010s and into the 2020s. All while watching deer herds be decimated, bird dogs and bear hounds brutally killed, and wolves get endless adoration and protection at the State level. I hope the end to that lunacy is in sight. 

However, if the 2020 reaction to the Trump delisting is the status quo we can point to, we can expect this current effort to delist wolves to be met with the same rabidly emotional fervor and lawfare by the crazies who love to force their radical agenda down sportsmen’s throats. 

Until then we must wait and see, but there is hope on the horizon this time as a U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources investigation into extremist preservationist (read anti-hunting) groups seeks to uncover funding models and business practices of 19 extremist preservation groups. 

“The House Committee on Natural Resources is conducting oversight related to the outsized influence preservationist environmental nonprofit organizations wield over the federal government, law, and natural resources policy.  The Committee is particularly concerned with [the organizations’] coordinated capitalization on misleading and emotive messaging to build powerful and profitable litigation machines funded by taxpayer dollars through the exploitation of statutory fee-shifting provisions. In order to ensure compliance with Congress’ legislative intent for statutes with fee-shifting provisions and inform legislative reforms to prevent abuse by radical environmental groups, Congressional oversight of [the organizations’] lawfare campaigns and subsequent fee awards is imperative.”

Sportsmen around the country have long suspected foul play with the groups listed (click the linked text to see the list) but have never had a leg to stand on. Until now! 

Will the evil agenda to end hunting, disarm the American populace and gut livestock production through the forced reintroduction and proliferation of apex predators finally end? 

I hope so, or I fear there will be nothing left for my children and grandchildren. The American hunting heritage is worth fighting for and it seems we’re finally on the offensive! 

I’m all ears on this folks and will be looking forward to your comments. 

The post 19 Anti-Hunting Groups Under Federal Investigation appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

Enjoy this heart-pounding bow hunt for public land elk. On this DIY hunt, Dan Pickar positions himself in just the right spot and lets a monster bull walk right up to him! Skip straight to the action and live the moment just as Dan and his cameraman experienced on this Eastmans Uncut video.

Watch this full hunt: CLICK HERE

The post He Let the Bull Walk to Him | Public Land Bow Hunt | Eastmans Uncut appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

Colorado Game Commission is a runaway, anti-hunting train. 

I recently wrote a blog detailing how Gov. Jared Polis’s appointments may be changing the character and direction of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. My examples came primarily from the July 2026 Commission meeting.

I just finished watching the September 2026 meeting …

Things have gotten worse—and the problems are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Newly appointed commissioners are disrupting the normal process of conducting Commission business. Issues are being pushed forward before CPW staff members have adequate time to research them and make recommendations, before other commissioners have time to study that information, and before public stakeholders have an opportunity to understand and comment on what is being proposed.

In some cases, commissioners have thrown out very premature motions that the Chairman then had to deal with. Once a motion has been made, with the support of other like-minded commissioners, it can then be forced to a vote—regardless of how premature, uninformed or ill-advised it may be.

Everyone Is Taking Notice

General public comments, which normally include passionate pleas concerning things such as; wolves, mountain lions and hunting, took a very different direction at this meeting. Much of the discussion centered on the chaotic nature of the Commission’s proceedings, the apparent disregard for CPW staff recommendations and concerns about whether proper procedures are being followed.

Here are my paraphrases of comments made during the meeting. I listened to these comments multiple times and transcribed them as accurately as possible.

Elected Officials

Colorado Sen. Rod Pelton said his disappointment with the previous two days was an understatement. He described some of the behavior as unacceptable and praised the CPW director, staff and biologists as “top shelf.” He said their recommendations are sometimes being ignored and that he finds that unacceptable. Pelton also reminded commissioners that they are supposed to represent different segments of Colorado—not simply one person who happens to sit on the first floor of the State Capitol, (referring to Gov. Polis). He said it was evident to him that Gov. Polis had played a major role in the meeting and that this was out of place.

Colorado Rep. Ty Winter agreed with Pelton. He described having to go on a “nine-month apology tour” when he returns to his district and talks with people about attacks on their way of life and heritage. He said that too often at the Capitol, politics take precedence over people when it comes to wildlife. His message to the Commission was clear: Colorado is not just Denver and Boulder.

County Commissioner R.J. Jolly described the handling of the prairie dog petition as very unprofessional and said it could appear nefarious to some observers. He also criticized moving forward with rulemaking on a matter where commissioners had not been allowed adequate discussion before a vote.

County Commissioner Tony Hass raised concern that people directly affected by the issue had not been given an opportunity to participate.

County Commissioner Felix Lopez emphasized the importance of allowing stakeholders an opportunity to comment. He said failing to provide that opportunity takes away the right provided by the Constitution. Lopez also stressed the need for order and reminded commissioners that they are there to serve all of Colorado.

Public Comments Summary

One member of the public returned to the furbearer bag-limit decision from the July meeting. The staff recommendation was for a daily furbearer limit of 15 animals per species per day, and Commissioner Niemiec instead made a motion for a limit of just two. His criticism was blunt: No science, no biology, no opportunity for public comment, no rational explanation for it, she just pulled a number out of thin air and made a motion. His concern was also the process. The public had been presented with two options. Instead, a third option was introduced—a daily limit of two—and ultimately passed. The public had not been given an opportunity to comment on the new option before the Commission voted on it.

Another speaker questioned why issues were being taken out of their normal regulatory sequence and cited the prairie dog petition as an example. He said it was brought forward under the guise of a crisis even though CPW testimony indicated that no crisis existed. His conclusion was troubling: the impression is that the Commission is being driven toward a political outcome rather than toward policy based on science and stakeholder input.

Another member highlighted that biologists’ recommendations are being ignored and the testimony from many sportsmen and stakeholders is being ignored.

One speaker suggested that the rush on some issues may be related to the approaching end of Gov. Polis’s term.

Finally, another speaker noted with frustration that this continues to be a toxic environment.

A Commission Losing Its Way?

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is supposed to make difficult wildlife-management decisions using science, professional expertise, public input and the long-term interests of Colorado’s wildlife.

CPW has professional biologists, wildlife managers and officers who spend their careers studying Colorado’s wildlife. The Commission has the authority to disagree with them, but when their recommendations are repeatedly disregarded, when proposals are rushed forward, and when stakeholders don’t have an opportunity to comment on the actual proposal being voted on, the public has every right to ask why.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission has a serious public-trust problem.

Gov. Polis appointed the commissioners who now sit on the Commission. Some of his recent appointees seem to be increasingly focused on advancing an ideological agenda rather than following the traditional CPW model of science, professional expertise, public involvement and sound wildlife management.

So, the question I asked in Part 1 remains:

Is Gov. Jared Polis Intentionally Derailing the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission?

After the September meeting, I have even more questions—and fewer reasons to dismiss the possibility.

The post Colorado’s Blatant Anti-Hunting Agenda … Part 2 appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

For generations, hunting has been more than recreation in Colorado. It is part of our heritage, a vital wildlife-management tool and an important source of funding for conservation.

Now Colorado voters have a chance to put that principle into the Colorado Constitution.

Amendment 83, the Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, will be on the November 2026 ballot. 

It would establish a constitutional right of Coloradans to hunt, fish and harvest fish and wildlife. It would also recognize hunting and fishing as the state’s “primary and preferred means” of responsibly managing wildlife populations.

Colorado Hunters are Finally Taking the Fight Directly to the People.

Colorado voters have clearly seen what can happen when wildlife policy becomes a political campaign rather than a matter left primarily to hunters, anglers and professional wildlife managers.

In 2020, voters approved Proposition 114, requiring the state to reintroduce gray wolves.

Then, in 2024, Proposition 127 sought to prohibit the hunting of mountain lions, lynx and bobcats. Colorado voters rejected it, but the proposal demonstrated how quickly a statewide political campaign can put hunting opportunities on the ballot and attempt to advance anti-hunting initiatives.

Amendment 83 is a response to that reality.

Rather than waiting for the next ballot initiative, legislative proposal or regulatory campaign aimed at restricting hunting, supporters are asking voters to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

And Colorado isn’t breaking new ground. 

Across the nation, twenty-four states already have constitutional protections for hunting and fishing.

What Would Amendment 83 Do?

The amendment would establish a constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife while preserving the authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission and the General Assembly to regulate those activities.

That distinction is critical.

Under the amendment, regulations could still be adopted when they are reasonable and necessary for scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.

In other words, the amendment does not say, “Anything goes.” Reasonable wildlife management remains protected. What changes is the government’s ability to simply eliminate the right itself.

Look at the Record

If you want to understand why constitutional protection is necessary, don’t take my word for it, just look at the record.

Under Gov. Jared Polis, Colorado has expanded government authority to regulate firearms.

In 2021, Polis signed SB21-256, allowing local governments to enact laws governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or possession of firearms, ammunition and firearm components and accessories. The law also authorized local governments to prohibit concealed handgun carry in specified buildings or areas.

In 2025, Polis signed SB25-003, imposing a new prohibition, beginning August 1, 2026, on the manufacture, sale, transfer and purchase of specified semiautomatic firearms, subject to numerous exceptions.

These aren’t campaign promises.

They are laws.

And while Proposition 114 and Proposition 127 were citizen initiatives—not actions personally initiated by Polis—they demonstrate something equally important: Colorado hunting rights can be targeted directly through the ballot box.

Polis’s record on firearms should also send a clear warning to Colorado hunters. There is no guarantee the next governor, the next legislature or the next CPW Commission will be more protective of hunting and gun owners’ rights.

That is precisely why relying on the goodwill of future politicians is not enough.

Constitutions provide protection from changing political winds. 

That is exactly why Amendment 83 matters.

There are no Substantive Arguments Against It

Opponents argue that hunting and fishing are already legal and therefore don’t need constitutional protection. But that argument misses the point.

The fact that something is legal today does not guarantee that it will remain legal tomorrow.

Opponents also argue that constitutional language could make wildlife management more difficult. But Amendment 83 expressly preserves government authority to regulate hunting and fishing for legitimate purposes involving scientific conservation, public safety and preserving future hunting and fishing opportunities.

The amendment does not take wildlife management away from professionals. It puts a constitutional guardrail around the right to hunt and fish.

Where Is This Going?

If voters approve Amendment 83 in November, hunting and fishing will become constitutionally protected rights in Colorado.

That could fundamentally change the future of hunting in this state.

Future efforts to eliminate or severely restrict hunting could no longer be treated simply as ordinary changes to hunting regulations. They would have to be considered in light of a constitutional right.

And that is precisely the point.

The Bottom Line

Colorado hunters have learned an important lesson:

We cannot blindly trust future politicians, governors, legislators or regulators to protect our hunting heritage.

We have already seen statewide ballot measures attempt to change how Colorado manages wildlife. We have already seen the state enact increasingly restrictive firearm laws. And under Gov. Polis, we have seen government authority over firearms expanded.

The answer isn’t to hope the next governor will be better. The answer is to change the rules.

Hunters and anglers have paid for conservation. We have participated in wildlife management. We have helped build and maintain Colorado’s world-class wildlife populations.

We deserve a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

So, Colorado hunters, don’t sit this one out.

Get out and vote YES on Amendment 83.

Do it for yourself. Do it for your children. Do it for the generations of Colorado hunters who will come after us—and help set a precedent for other states to follow.

The post Colorado Hunters: Get Out and Vote YES on Amendment 83 appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

Is Gov. Polis Intentionally Derailing the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission? 

Colorado’s wildlife-management system is supposed to be guided by science, professional expertise and sound conservation principles. Recent actions by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission raise serious questions about whether that is still the case.

Gov. Jared Polis has appointed commissioners whose backgrounds and policy perspectives are changing the character of the Commission. The July 2026 meeting provided a troubling example.

A New Direction

In April, Polis recommended three new commissioner nominees. The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee recommended against confirming two of them, Christopher Sichko and John Emerick, and their nominations were subsequently withdrawn. The committee’s rejection of two of Polis’s nominees was an unusually public setback for the Governor.

In June, Polis appointed three replacements: John Le Coq, Peter Maguire and Rebecca Niemiec. Niemiec is a tenured CSU professor specializing in the human dimensions of natural resources, including human-animal relationships, public attitudes toward wildlife and conservation policy. Let’s face it: wildlife management is ultimately about managing wildlife populations through science, not managing people’s feelings about wildlife. The following demonstrates why that distinction matters.

The July CPW Commission meeting Furbearer Decision 

CPW staff presented two alternatives for daily fur-bearer limits. The preferred staff option was 15 animals per species per day, with an alternative of 8 or 4, depending on the species.

Staff emphasized to the Commission that they did not identify any biological or scientific evidence of population problems requiring such a dramatic reduction, and harvest rates for Colorado furbearers were generally well below 1% of estimated populations for many species.

However, ignoring those facts, Commissioner Niemiec then proposed a third option completely out of thin air—one that was not among the alternatives presented by CPW staff: two animals per species per day.

That proposal represented an extraordinary departure from the staff’s recommendations, and it resonated much like Toby Keith’s description in Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue: “A mighty sucker punch came flyin’ in from somewhere in the back.”

Niemiec said the lower limits were intended, in part, to “make sure people feel better about hunting and trapping furbearers and about our policy decisions.” 

According to the staff’s presentation, there was no biological evidence requiring such a dramatic reduction.

Astonishingly, with assistance from other like-minded Polis-appointed commissioner’s, the commission eventually adopted Niemiec’s proposal by a 6–5 vote. CPW’s current regulations now set the daily bag limit at just two for all 17 furbearer species.

Going from 15 animals to two represents an 87% reduction from the staff’s preferred limit. That is not a minor adjustment. It is a dramatic change in hunting and trapping opportunities. And it raises a fundamental question:

Are Colorado’s hunting and trapping regulations being changed because wildlife populations require it—or because some people feel better when fewer animals are harvested?

Those are very different standards.

Science vs. Social Policy

Commissioners have the authority to reject staff recommendations. But when they make a dramatic change to wildlife regulations, the public deserves to know what evidence supports the alternative.

CPW employs professional biologists and wildlife managers whose job is to study populations and recommend appropriate management.

If commissioners can replace those recommendations with substantially more restrictive alternatives based largely on social considerations, then who is really managing Colorado’s wildlife—the professionals at CPW or the political appointees on the Commission?

The commercial fur-sale controversy provides another example.

The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned for restrictions on commercial fur sales. CPW staff recommended denying the petition, yet the Commission voted 6–4 in March to initiate rulemaking. In July, the Commission ultimately terminated that rulemaking. CPW’s July meeting materials confirm that both the fur-sale issue and furbearer bag limits were before the Commission.

The termination of the fur-sale rulemaking was the right outcome and was consistent with the position previously recommended by staff. But the commission’s vote to disregard staff and initiate rulemaking demonstrates the growing conflict over whether Colorado’s wildlife policies are being driven primarily by biological evidence or “ballot-box biology” and broader social and political considerations.

Colorado Hunters Should Pay Attention

Colorado hunters and trappers provide enormous financial support for wildlife conservation and have every right to expect wildlife regulations to be based on sound science and professional management.

The two-animal furbearer limit is about more than furbearers. 

It establishes a precedent.

If social attitudes can replace science and biological necessity as the reason for restricting one form of hunting or trapping, what prevents the same philosophy from being applied to other species, seasons or hunting methods?

Colorado does not need a wildlife commission that governs by emotion.

It needs one that respects science, evidence, professional expertise and the people who have supported wildlife conservation for generations.

The July 2026 meeting should be a warning to every Colorado hunter and trapper.

The direction of the CPW Commission is changing. Commissioners are introducing alternatives that depart substantially from CPW staff recommendations, and those changes can now be decided by a single vote.

That should concern every Colorado sportsman.

Colorado’s Commission meetings are broken. Whether that is the result Gov. Polis intended is a question Coloradans should be asking.

The post Colorado’s Anti-Hunting Agenda appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.

In this episode of Beyond the Grid, Dan heads deep into the backcountry to bow hunt a bull elk, but what starts as a promising hunt quickly turns into a recovery he won’t soon forget. After a shot that appears to be fatal, Dan takes up the trail and finds himself following the track of what the crew begins calling the “Zombie Bull.” With the outcome anything but certain, every step brings a new challenge. Another hunt, another lesson, and another story from Beyond the Grid.

The post Bowhunting the Zombie Bull with Dan Pickar | Eastmans Beyond the Grid appeared first on Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals.