Melanie Thornton joins the TRCP as Senior Director of Western Water

July 22, 2026

Thornton is a water policy leader with more than a decade of experience advancing bipartisan western water and natural resources policy.

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) is pleased to announce the hiring of Dr. Melanie Thornton as Senior Director of Western Water, bringing more than a decade of bipartisan water policy experience – including a lead role in shaping more than $15 billion in western water funding – to the organization’s conservation team. As the nation’s largest conservation coalition, TRCP will draw on her experience to strengthen its ability to advance bipartisan conservation policy on behalf of hunters and anglers nationwide.

Prior to joining TRCP, Thornton served for seven years as Senior Professional Staff for the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, serving under both Ranking Member Heinrich and Chairman Manchin. Most recently, she led Senator Heinrich’s western water, science, outdoor recreation, and territories portfolio, directing legislative strategy and oversight on issues including Colorado River and Rio Grande management, Bureau of Reclamation programs, drought resilience, and watershed restoration. She played a leading role in negotiating and drafting major western water provisions included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, helping secure more than $15 billion for drought resilience, ecosystem restoration, and water infrastructure across the West.

Before joining the Senate, Thornton worked in federal conservation and natural resources policy and began her career as an AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, bringing a scientific perspective to federal policymaking.

“Melanie brings a rare combination of scientific expertise and hands-on legislative experience to some of the most complex water challenges facing the West,” said Madeleine West, TRCP’s vice president of western conservation. “Her work on the Colorado River, the Rio Grande, and major federal investments in drought resilience will be a tremendous asset as we work with partners across the region to find durable, bipartisan solutions for hunters, anglers, and the communities who depend on these water resources.”

Thornton holds a Ph.D. in Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, with a focus on hydrology and water resources management, from Washington State University, and a B.S. in Environmental Geoscience from Texas A&M University. Throughout her career, she has worked to bridge science and policy, building coalitions among federal agencies, states, Tribes, water users, conservation organizations, and local communities to develop durable, practical solutions to complex water challenges.

With this addition, TRCP’s conservation team is well positioned to secure lasting, bipartisan policy outcomes that aim to guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish. 

Learn more about TRCP’s leadership HERE.

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

Click here to cancel reply.

by: Michael O'Casey

posted in: Highlights

July 17, 2026

Backcountry Bears

A spring bear hunt in Oregon’s backcountry reminds TRCP’s director of public lands of the value of intact habitat

Anyone who has spent time hunting and fishing on our national forests knows that success often depends on putting some distance between yourself and roads. Roadless areas, casually called the backcountry, are essential to America’s sporting traditions and wildlife management. Every year, thousands of hunters and anglers scour maps in anticipation of getting into some lonely basin or forgotten creek, seeking to find those places where roads are few and topo lines are heavy. Like most of those sportsmen and women, I didn’t know that many of these places were intentionally managed to conserve these backcountry values through policies like the Forest Service 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which generally limits new road construction and certain timber harvest activities to conserve their undeveloped backcountry character. These roadless areas span the West, from the Tongass National Forest in SE Alaska to Montana’s Beaverhead Range to the island ranges of Nevada and beyond – and Oregon has its own share worth knowing.

Hunters and anglers can find one such place as they drive east on Highway 26 in eastern Oregon. It’s hard to miss the long spine of a little-known mountain range to the south called the Aldrich Mountains, which parallels the highway for over 20 miles. In the spring and early summer, the north-facing slopes are blanketed in various hues of green that resemble Ireland mixed with pockets of Douglas fir and ponderosa pines tucked in the furrows of the mountains’ many folds.

The area is prime bear country, and I’d been wanting an excuse to reacquaint myself with this landscape. That opportunity came in late April after cashing in on a few years’ worth of points to draw an Oregon spring bear tag.

As a lifelong Oregonian beginning to show my middle age through a salt-and-pepper beard, I had always taken for granted that this range offered a unique blend of motorized and non-motorized access. It’s an area where full-sized trucks can’t reach the summit, but where you can traverse the first and most challenging section using a motorbike along an off-highway-vehicle (OHV) trail.

Many national forests are managed to conserve this kind of remote, backcountry character, including in places that also allow motorized access That balance of how we access our public lands came into sharper focus when the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, published its Notice of Intent in August of 2025 to analyze the future management of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I was poring over maps of these places in Oregon and it dawned on me that many of them, like the Aldrich Mountains within the Malheur National Forest, were intentionally managed to maintain their remote character while also allowing for unique recreational opportunities that often include both motorized OHV and non-motorized trails like those I used to reach my jumping off point for this hunt.

As the hunt drew closer, my brother, brother-in-law, and I began planning what would be our first spring bear hunt together. Between work, raising kids, side jobs such as building homes or saunas, and the constant pull of phones and notifications, I was grateful that we intentionally worked together to make this trip happen so that time and the season didn’t slip away.

After using motorized e-bikes to reach the end of the OHV trail at the summit, we gladly stashed them and set off on foot along the non-motorized trail to traverse the long ridge that had seemingly endless basins where bears may be found feasting on wild onion and biscuitroots.

In the coming days we came across several bears, but they were all sows with young cubs of the year. One of the sows had an especially tough job as she wrangled four cubs, something I’d never seen before. While we didn’t succeed in finding an old bruin, we did succeed in unplugging from our electronic devices and spending nights lying under the stars talking about what makes family, family. We laughed, jested as brothers should and chatted about the good, the bad, and the many things that we looked forward to in the years to come.

Somewhere between riding the OHV trail to the ridge and breaking a sweat traversing the lingering snowfields while hiking the final miles on foot, I realized that this balance of access and wildness was not accidental. The ability to use motorized trails to reach remote country, while still conserving the larger backcountry character of the landscape, reflects the kind of uniquely middle-ground management approach the Roadless Rule can provide.

Values of the Roadless Rule

As the 2001 Roadless Rule is now under review, hunters and anglers have a stake in ensuring the future of these roadless areas reflects a middle ground approach that aims to respect backcountry values while providing additional flexibility where it’s needed. That means:

Conserving core backcountry habitat for fish and wildlife while allowing fuel reduction, prescribed burning, and restoration projects to protect communities and improve habitat.

Limiting costly new road construction so that scarce agency funding can go toward maintaining the 370,000 miles of existing national forest roads that currently provide access for hunters, anglers, and local economies.

Accommodating multiple uses, including livestock grazing and motorized and non-motorized recreation.

We have seen this approach work before with the Idaho and Colorado Roadless Rules, and we can apply that success to the rest of the National Forest System.

What’s Next

Soon, the USFS will publish its Draft Environmental Impact Statement that will open a 30-day comment period on the future of the Roadless Rule. This will be our best chance to ensure that the future management of America’s backcountry reflects hunting and fishing values. When the comment period opens, we’ll be asking hunters and anglers to speak up and encourage the USFS to work with sportsmen and women and other stakeholders to keep the rule durable, practical, and true to the values we share. Stay tuned to TRCP channels for updates on when and how to weigh in.

The TRCP is your resource for all things conservation. In our weekly Roosevelt Report, you’ll receive the latest news on emerging habitat threats, legislation and proposals on the move, public land access solutions we’re spearheading, and opportunities for hunters and anglers to take action. Sign up now.

by: Michael O'Casey

posted in: Highlights

July 9, 2026

Public Land Sales, Exchanges, and Transfers, Explained

America’s public lands belong to all Americans and support our nation’s hunting, fishing, and conservation heritage. Here’s how land sales, exchanges, and transfers work – and how TRCP evaluates them, guided by transparency, sound science, and accountability to the public.

At TRCP, we believe America’s public lands are one of our nation’s greatest conservation success stories – providing unmatched hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation opportunities – but from time to time, these lands become the subject of sales, exchanges, or transfers out of federal ownership, often to meet community, infrastructure, or land management needs. Understanding what these transactions mean, and how to evaluate them, is the first step for hunters and anglers who want a voice in the outcome. Below, we break down how land transactions occur, why they happen and walk through the four questions TRCP asks before taking a position on any proposal.

Let’s Start With a Few Definitions

Not all public land proposals are the same. Understanding the type of transaction – and the process behind it – is the first step to understanding how TRCP evaluates these proposals.

Most transactions fall into one of two categories:

Disposal: A disposal moves land out of federal ownership or federal management. Disposals generally take one of two forms:
- Sale – Federal land is sold, typically into private ownership. Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management have limited authority to sell certain parcels when doing so meets specific statutory requirements and serves the public interest.
- Transfer – Ownership or management responsibility moves from the federal government to another public entity, such as a state, local government, or Tribe. Depending on the proposal, transfers may or may not maintain long-term public ownership and public access.

Exchange: A land exchange swaps federal land for non-federal land. These transactions are often used to consolidate fragmented parcels, improve public access, protect important fish and wildlife habitat, or make land management more efficient.

Either a disposal or an exchange can happen through one of two processes:

Administrative: A federal land agency, such as the BLM or the Forest Service, carries out the transaction under its existing statutory authority.

Congressionally Directed: Congress authorizes or directs the transaction through legislation. These bills may involve individual parcels, community infrastructure needs, Tribal land transfers, boundary adjustments, conservation exchanges, or broader land disposal proposals.

All these tools have existed for decades and continue to play an important role in public land management. Regardless of its path, the question isn’t whether these transactions should ever occur, but whether each one truly serves the public interest and, protects the values that make America’s public lands so important.

From Disposal to Stewardship

America’s approach to public lands has changed over time. During the nation’s early history, the federal government held more than 1.8 billion acres of public domain. Much of that land was conveyed to states, railroads, homesteaders, and private owners to support westward expansion, settlement, and economic development.

By the 1970s, however, the country’s priorities had changed. As communities grew and Americans increasingly valued outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, and clean water, Congress adopted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976. FLPMA fundamentally shifted federal policy from one that generally favored disposing of public lands to one that generally favors retaining them in federal ownership unless disposal serves important public objectives and follows a transparent public process.

FLPMA did not eliminate public land sales or exchanges. Congress intentionally preserved these authorities in limited circumstances for the purpose of community benefit and to create improvements to public land management.

Not Every Acre Is the Same

Hunters and anglers understand that not every federal parcel provides the same conservation, recreational, or community value. Some parcels may be appropriate for disposal when they are isolated, difficult to manage, or needed to support growing communities and where disposal serves the public interest.

Technology has changed how we value public lands, however, and acreage alone rarely tells the full story.

When FLPMA was enacted in 1976, many small federal parcels were difficult to locate, access, and fully appreciate. Today, GPS technology and digital mapping platforms allow hunters and anglers to easily locate and navigate small parcels that provide outstanding habitat and recreation values or provide access to larger public landscapes. A forty-acre parcel that once appeared insignificant may now unlock thousands of acres of public access, hold big bucks during the rut, or protect a critical stretch of stream.

How TRCP Evaluates Disposal and Exchange Proposals

At TRCP, we do not start from the assumption that a proposal is automatically acceptable or unacceptable. We evaluate each one on its own merits, guided by four simple questions.

1. Does it provide a clear public benefit?

Any proposal should demonstrate a lasting public benefit and should not be sold to primarily generate revenue or reduce the federal estate. Done right, land sales or exchanges could help communities address infrastructure needs, resolve long-standing boundary issues, or improve management efficiency and access. It’s important to ensure those benefits are clearly demonstrated in any proposal.

2. Does it safeguard or improve hunting, fishing, access, and fish and wildlife habitat?

Public lands support some of the finest hunting and fishing opportunities in the world. At TRCP, we know that some public lands contain irreplaceable access points and/or fish and wildlife habitat. Those lands provide benefits that extend far beyond their acreage and should remain in public ownership whenever possible. Conversely, proposals that reduce public access, eliminate hunting and fishing opportunities, or diminish the outdoor experience warrant significant concern.

3. Was the proposal developed through a transparent public process?

Because these lands belong to all Americans, decisions about their future should not occur behind closed doors. Meaningful public involvement produces better decisions and builds public trust.

4. Will conservation continue to benefit?

When land is sold, Americans shouldn’t lose that asset forever. Reinvesting proceeds into new public lands, access projects, or habitat conservation ensures the public receives a lasting benefit *. Hunters and anglers have long supported carefully targeted public land transactions when they create lasting conservation benefits.

When a proposal raises concerns on any of these fronts, TRCP works with lawmakers, agencies, and partners to improve it, identify better conservation outcomes, and ensure hunters and anglers have a meaningful voice throughout the public process.

* One of the clearest examples is the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). Permanently reauthorized by Congress in 2018 with broad support from the sporting community, FLTFA uses proceeds from the sale of appropriate Bureau of Land Management parcels to acquire higher-value conservation lands, improve public access, and protect fish and wildlife habitat – reinvesting those dollars into strengthening America’s public lands system.

Why TRCP Opposes Large-Scale Disposal Proposals

These principles also explain why TRCP has consistently opposed proposals requiring the large-scale disposal or transfer of millions of acres of public land.

Broad disposal proposals generally do not allow individual parcels to be evaluated on their conservation values, recreational importance, public access, or local community benefits. Instead, they often rely on sweeping acreage targets or broad eligibility criteria that make it difficult to determine whether any individual transaction truly serves the public interest.

TRCP recognizes that targeted land sales and exchanges have long played an important role in public land management and has supported transactions that were developed transparently with robust public engagement and evaluated on their individual merits. That kind of parcel-by-parcel scrutiny is fundamentally different from large-scale disposal mandates, which can put millions of acres on the table without any comparable evaluation. TRCP remains willing to support thoughtful, individual disposals and exchanges that benefit hunters and anglers and meet the criteria outlined above – our opposition is to broad, unevaluated mandates, not to the tools themselves.

Conserving a Shared Legacy

Public lands are one of America’s great shared inheritances. The next time a sale, exchange, or transfer proposal surfaces, these are the questions worth asking – and TRCP will keep asking them on behalf of hunters, anglers, and everyone who depends on public lands.

Top photo: Josh Metten

by: Aaron Field

posted in: Highlights

July 1, 2026

800+ Pages, Five Priorities: What TRCP Looks for in Farm Bill Text

From wildlife habitat to clean water, here’s the lens TRCP applies to every page of Farm Bill text.

Between the House-passed Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 and the recently released discussion draft of the Senate Agricultural Act of 2026 – each over 800 pages of bill text – TRCP and our partners have our work cut out for us, examining Farm Bill proposals and evaluating their likely impacts on hunters, anglers, and the fish and wildlife we rely on. But what are we actually looking for in these proposals? What drives whether we support or oppose a given provision?

If you’ve never thought much about the Farm Bill, you’re not alone – it’s easy to assume a bill about agriculture has nothing to do with hunting and fishing. But the Farm Bill funds a suite of voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs – things like the Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, among dozens of others in the conservation title – that quietly shape the habitat, water, and access hunters and anglers depend on every season, while also helping the farmers, ranchers, and foresters who steward that land keep it productive and healthy for generations to come. It really comes down to five priorities we use as our lens on every page. In no particular order, here they are:

1. Wildlife Habitat

If there is good wildlife habitat on a farm or ranch in this country, it’s probably there because a landowner made a conscious decision to maintain it. Farm Bill programs make that decision easier for landowners by providing financial and technical assistance to create, enhance, or maintain habitat. When we look at Farm Bill proposals, we’re looking for ideas that increase the pace and scale of this habitat work.

2. Clean Water

Hunters, especially upland and waterfowl hunters, have long understood that Farm Bill conservation programs lead to better opportunities. What’s often been missed is that these same programs often have even bigger impacts on water quality and quantity – and therefore fish populations. We want clean, clear lakes, rivers, and streams, not just in wilderness areas or at the tops of mountains, but across the country. Farm Bill impacts on water are a top priority as we evaluate proposals.

3. Access

Most hunters and anglers rely on private land access. Sometimes that comes from generational landownership, friends and family, or good old-fashioned door knocking. But often -and especially for new or relocated hunters and anglers – that isn’t enough. We evaluate every Farm Bill provision for its access impacts, both positive and negative.

4. Habitat Connectivity

Even in places with plenty of public land, wildlife relies on private lands for food, water, and safe passage. Farm Bill programs can help make sure pronghorn and mule deer can reach winter forage and mallards have quality nesting and stopover sites. We evaluate proposals to make sure they live up to that potential.

5. Production for the Long Haul

Agriculture produces much of the food, fiber, and fuel the U.S. – and the world – relies on, and that production matters to all of us. Ag and forestry production also provides an economic incentive to maintain open spaces. But we can’t let today’s production come at the expense of tomorrow’s. Healthy soil and clean water aren’t just good for farmers and ranchers – they’re good for the habitat and fisheries downstream. When we review Farm Bill provisions, we’re looking for policies that leave the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and foresters with the same – or better – resources than we have today.

These five lenses are how we turn over 1,600 pages of legislative text into a position. The Farm Bill may never get the airtime of a public lands fight or a hunting season opener, but it shapes more than most sportsmen and women realize. As both bills move through committee and floor votes this year, we’ll keep breaking down what’s at stake for hunters and anglers.

You can help. Conservation is, and should be, a shared priority regardless of party affiliation or ideology. Congress needs to hear that this is important to you. Take action HERE.

The Hunter & Angler’s Guide to the Farm Bill

We know it can be challenging to break through the alphabet soup of program acronyms to understand why the reauthorization and improvement of Farm Bill conservation programs is a top priority. In The Hunter & Anglers Guide to the Farm Bill, we demystify the Farm Bill and the crucial conservations programs that sportsmen and women should care about.

by: Tristan Henry

posted in: Highlights

June 30, 2026

Elk Hunting and Forest Planning in Oregon’s Blue Mountains

The ongoing Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision should balance motorized access with active forest management to keep elk on public lands

Wildfire, drought, the health of our forests, and hunter and angler access have been dinner-table conversations for families across the West for decades. These conversations hit even closer to home for those families who feed themselves with elk.

Across more than five million acres of public land in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington, the Forest Service has been working for over 20 years to update the plan that guides how these forests are managed. The agency will soon take public comment on the Blue Mountains Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and the stakes are hard to overstate. These forests hold some of the best public land elk hunting in the West and sustain rural economies. If done right, new management approaches can improve habitat and water quality, breathe life back into rural communities, produce more timber and reduce catastrophic fire on the landscape, and strengthen the fish and wildlife populations that hunters and anglers depend on.

Ranchers, loggers, hunters, and anglers agree this opportunity is real. TRCP and our partners are working to ensure the right management and planning tools are built into the final Blue Mountains plans, which will guide the Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman, and Umatilla National Forests for decades to come. Read more below to learn how you can get involved.

The Science of Elk Habitat

Good hunters understand habitat sets the stage for animal behavior. The availability and quality of food, shelter, and perceived safety dictate big game distribution. Hunters also understand that access matters, but when road networks are too dense and the quiet, quality habitat that elk need shrinks, the animals are forced to search for more appealing country.

As recreational activity has expanded on public land and forests have grown denser due to fire suppression and a lack of active management, herds often head for the quiet side of the fence on private agricultural ground. When elk seek food and/or security on private land, hunters may lose opportunity and landowners suffer crop damage and forage competition. Ultimately, wildlife managers may have to make the difficult choice to cut tag numbers or issue damage permits.

The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in northeast Oregon has produced some of the most important long-term research on elk behavior and road-based disturbance in the country. Starkey studies have consistently identified open, well-traveled roads as the single most important variable in determining where elk spend their time during hunting season. Rowland and colleagues reported in 2004 that reducing open-road density and creating areas that properly balance motorized access with active management projects improves quality elk habitat that keeps elk on public lands. More recent work at Starkey shows the same holds true for trails. In a controlled study published in 2018, Wisdom and colleagues found that while elk moved away from ATV riders, mountain bikers, hikers, and horseback riders, the strongest response was to motorized use. This pattern holds well beyond the Blue Mountains. Studies of elk herds in Montana have also found that elk consistently move to quieter country that keeps them away from motorized access during archery and rifle seasons.

Critically, the research also points to something every hunter should understand before this plan is finalized. Active management like thinning, prescribed fire, and fuels reduction can dramatically improve the amount and quality of food a landscape provides for elk. But better food only helps if elk are willing to use it. If the surrounding road network keeps them in a constant state of avoidance, the improved habitat goes unused. In other words, restoration work and road management must go hand in hand, or the investment does not deliver what it should.

Forest Planning Sets the Stage for Successful Elk Hunts

Forest plans are the control valve for many of the factors that contribute to robust populations of big game. These plans—developed through public process and shaped by collaboration between state and federal agencies—set the direction that every subsequent decision on the forest has to follow. When that plan includes clear direction on how many open roads a landscape can have and how human disturbance is managed during sensitive seasons, the individual projects like timber sales, habitat restoration, and new roads or trails all have to work toward those same goals. When the plan stays silent on those questions, each project is decided on its own, with no consistent standard.

The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests in Colorado offer a recent, applicable example. The GMUG’s 2024 final forest plan established more than 800,000 acres of Wildlife Management Areas with route density standards designed to maintain habitat function while allowing for more sustainable recreation and active management. The GMUG plan demonstrates that wildlife habitat management, recreation access and active forest management do not need to be competing objectives. When properly conducted, they can reinforce each other. Standards on the density of roads and trails gives land managers a clear framework for designing projects within the forest that improve both forest health and elk habitat, remove timber where needed, and give the public confidence that restoration investments will translate into wildlife on the ground.

The Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests support one of the largest Rocky Mountain elk herds in the country, and the Starkey Experimental Forest, with its wealth of science to inform habitat management, sits within the planning area. A revision is long overdue, and this is a real opportunity to account for the many ways people use these forests and to update how the plan manages roads in relation to elk habitat. Instead, the draft environmental impact statement recently released by the Forest Service for public comment does not include elk security and road density standards that have guided these forests since 1990, and it does so without putting a modern, science-based replacement in their place. That is a step backward on both counts: it abandons direction that has been in place for 35 years and sets aside the best-available Starkey research.

The Forest Service will soon take public comment on the Blue Mountains Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This is the time for hunters and anglers to weigh in. Comments from those who hunt these mountains are a meaningful contribution to the public process. This is a real chance to usher in a new era of management that better serves the communities that depend on these forests. Stay tuned to TRCP channels for upcoming opportunities for you to take action.

Hunting & Fishing Access

MAPping Public Access

Unlocking Public Lands

Public Land Access

Brian Flynn, Two Wolf Foundation's Story

Key Issues for America’s Hunters

Chronic Wasting Disease