mule deer

by: Thomas Plank

posted in:

September 9, 2026

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

Click here to cancel reply.

by: Tristan Henry

posted in:

September 8, 2026

The Owyhee Evolved with Fire. Just Not Like This.

Editor’s note: This piece was written in late August as crews were wrapping up work on the Big Grass Fire. The fire has since been contained, and attention has turned to post-fire restoration. The Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act (S. 1942) remains in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The Big Grass Fire has burned nearly 590,000 acres in prime upland and mule deer habitat across Oregon and Idaho’s Owyhee Watershed and is now the largest wildfire in modern Oregon history. Thankfully, it appears to have lost steam with just a few remaining hot spots. The fire has lasted weeks and forced thousands of evacuations in Pleasant Valley, South Mountain, and Jordan Valley, burning at least four homes. The Jordan Valley Rangeland Fire Protection Association, a crew of local ranchers who volunteer to fight fire on their own ground, has been running trucks around the clock for weeks and is now running low on fuel. Statewide, more than 2.5 million acres have burned this season, and the cold fall nights are still two months away.

I have hunted sage grouse and chukar in this country. I have watched the sun break over the Owyhee rim with my dog running ahead. I know what is riding on the weeks and months ahead. As the Oregon field representative for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, I have listened to ranchers, hunters, and land managers all ask for the same thing again and again: certainty about how this place will be managed in the years to come.

The landscape evolved with fire, but not like this

Fire has always had a place in the West, and the sagebrush country in the northern Great Basin is no different. Historically, it burned on cycles measured in centuries, the spread of flames limited by the patchy fuel of its bunchgrass landscape. What has changed is not the fire, but what fuels it. Cheatgrass and medusahead, invasive annual grasses native to Europe and Asia, arrived in the late 1800s in shipments of contaminated grain and quickly gained a foothold in the American West.

The sagebrush country of the Owyhee. Photo credit: Brian Grossenbacher

The challenge with these non-native annual grasses is that they germinate quickly and abundantly to fill in the bare soil and forb covered spaces between native sagebrush and bunchgrass. These annual grasses have much finer and shallower root depths than native perennial bunchgrasses. They dry out weeks earlier than the cold weather bunchgrasses of the northern Great Basin. And now these invasives cover millions of acres of the Great Basin.Adding to these woes is the fact that land invaded by cheatgrass is roughly twice as likely to burn as native rangeland.

Every fire that burns on this landscape leaves behind widened interstitial spaces and more bare ground, which is primed for the expansion of invasive annual grasses, setting the stage for the next blaze to move even faster. This cycle has been building for decades, but this summer it is compounding at a scale that portends a bleak future for habitat and the species and hunters that rely on it.

The new fire cycle is having outsized impacts

What burns is only part of the story. The larger changing patterns of weather and climate are changing what this country can grow. Perennial bunchgrasses are working capital for grazers and hunters. Their roots go deep into the soil, which keeps them green and less likely to burn well into summer. Cheatgrass cures to tinder dryness within a few weeks, and once its awns harden, it goes from acceptable forage to a liability for grazing animals. The hardened seeds can stick in an animal’s eyes and mouth, causing lasting injury. Medusa head is even worse, so silica-rich it is nearly inedible.

Cured cheatgrass and medusahead. Photo credit: James Wicks

The animals tell the same story. Mule deer and cattle alike require a minimum quality of forage. This is something native perennials readily provide, while invasive annual grasses offer considerably less—outside a brief window in early spring they are neither nutritious nor easy to digest— and they cure out by early summer, leaving deer short of feed in late summer and fall, exactly when they are needing to put on weight to survive the winter months. Researchers at the University of Wyoming tracked 115 GPS-collared mule deer and found that deer begin steering clear of an area once invasive annual grasses reached 13 percent coverage, and strongly avoid it past 20 percent. Left unchecked in that study area, those grasses could erase nearly two-thirds of high-quality mule deer habitat within 20 years. The pattern holds for birds too; Sage grouse across the Great Basin have been projected to decline 57 percent by 2044 if the fire and invasive grass cycle runs on unchanged.

This nutritional productivity is measurable. The USDA’s Rangeland Analysis Platform shows Malheur and Harney counties together produced roughly 540 million pounds less herbaceous growth than their ten-year average through midsummer. This year, production over the last two weeks of July is down 28 percent in Malheur County and nearly 25 percent in Harney County. A dry summer explains some of that, but the longer trend is even clearer. Across Bureau of Land Management rangelands from 1991 to 2020, annual grasses and forbs increased while perennial cover declined, with annuals now out-producing perennials on some 52 million acres. Feed that cures in July is feed that nobody grazes in September, and becomes fine fire fuel weeks ahead of schedule, increasing the probability of fire’s return.

Holding the line

Restoring burned rangeland is a race against the calendar. Holding back invasive annual grasses requires the deployment of seed and pre-emergent herbicides in a tight window before winter precipitation gives cheatgrass and medusahead their headstart. This leaves agencies only a few months to assess the burn, line up funding, contract crews and aircraft, and get seeds and herbicides on the ground. On top of all this, the success of the native species reseeding lies in the hands of nature bringing fall rains for the seeds to successfully germinate.

Bleak as this may seem, there is reason for hope in the form of new and old chemical applications. Imazapic, sold as Plateau, has been the standard pre-emergent treatment for years, though its hold on annual grasses tends to fade within the first year or two as the seed bank reestablishes. A newer option, indaziflam, sold as Rejuvra, targets that seed bank directly and has shown control lasting three to four years in field trials across the region, without harming existing native shrubs or established perennial grasses. Camera-trap research in Colorado found mule deer spending more time on ground treated with Rejuvra, where native shrubs like antelope bitterbrush rebounded once the annual grasses were knocked back. Applied at scale and combined with reseeding efforts, these tools could change the trajectory of this post-fire landscape. Therein lies the rub: getting funding, staffing, and gathering native seeds at a scale to match the size of the fires burning across the West from agencies whose workforces are stretched thin.

Bird hunters in the Owyhee. Photo credit: Brian Grossenbacher

There is another reason for optimism. We are looking at this country differently. Researchers at Oregon State University, the Agricultural Research Service, The Nature Conservancy, and state and federal wildlife agencies have built a framework that sorts this landscape by the three drivers that actually move the needle for local residents: invasive annual grasses, conifer encroachment, and wildfire. This tool works across public and private lines, giving people a common picture. A rancher, a BLM range specialist, a Tribal biologist, and a bird hunter can stand on the same rim, agree on what they are looking at and which direction it is trending, and get straight to the question of what to do about it. In places where trust is earned slowly, that is as good as gold.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. Ranchers, Tribes, hunters and anglers, and local leaders in Malheur County have spent more than six years building the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act, legislation that would deliver adaptive rangeland management, restoration funding opportunities, and long-term management certainty for this landscape. The Senate passed it by unanimous consent in December 2024, only to see it expire without a House vote before the session of Congress adjourned. It is back in this current Congress as S. 1942, waiting to be considered by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Everyone who helped build that bill has been asking for the same thing since 2019: a durable framework for managing this country so the community is not left guessing at what comes next every time the sky turns orange.

The coalition of ranchers, Tribes, hunters, and anglers that built this legislation is still at the table – or at least they will be when this fire season ends. And the bill that would make certainty the law of the land, rather than a hope renewed every Congress, is further along than it has ever been. Opportunity and urgency rarely show up in the Owyhee in the same season. This year, they have.

If you hunt, fish, or simply believe this country is worth getting right, now is the time to say so. Learn more about TRCP’s work in the Owyhee, and let your members of Congress know that the Owyhee’s ranchers, Tribes, and hunters and anglers have waited long enough.

by: Michael O'Casey

posted in:

September 4, 2026

Hunters and Anglers Weigh in to Ask the Forest Service to Retain Roadless Safeguards

How sportsmen and women can help shape the future of America’s national forests.

As an avid archery elk hunter, I understand that the most impressive bugles are often found when you work to put some distance between yourself and roads. National forest inventoried roadless areas, what many hunters simply call the backcountry, provide secure habitat for elk, mule deer, and other big game while conserving cold, clean headwaters that sustain trout and salmon.

These landscapes are important to America’s sporting traditions. They also provide clean drinking water, maintain habitat connectivity, support rural economies, and provide large blocks of intact habitat that sustain wildlife and are difficult to replace once development arrives.

At the same time, hunters and anglers understand that many areas within our 193 million acres of national forest lands need more active management. Thinning, prescribed fire, watershed restoration, and habitat treatments reduce risks to communities and improve the health and resilience of forests.

We can have healthy habitats and fire-resilient landscapes, and the Forest Service has an opportunity to continue to conserve habitat without roads in a way that gives fire management necessary flexibility and retains the core backcountry values that make these places unique.

What the Forest Service Is Proposing

The U.S. Forest Service has released a proposed rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that evaluates changes to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which generally limits road building and timber harvest within inventoried roadless areas while allowing exceptions for wildfire response, forest health, public safety, and other management needs.

The agency’s preferred approach, Alternative 2, would fully rescind the national rule across 44.7 million acres of national forest system lands. Future decisions about road building would be made exclusively through individual forest plans and project-level reviews. The separate Idaho and Colorado- specific roadless rules would remain in place.

The DEIS also evaluates Alternative 1 that would retain the 2001 roadless rule in its entirety, along with Alternative 3, which would maintain a national roadless rule but apply it to a substantially smaller acreage of inventoried roadless areas.

A Path Forward

The Forest Service has the opportunity to draw from the full range of DEIS alternatives to develop a durable national rule. Hunters and anglers would benefit from a rule that conserves the values of the backcountry while increasing management flexibility to shield communities from wildfire while simultaneously restoring forests for the benefit of wildlife and watersheds.

The agency could look to the durable rules in Colorado and Idaho as models for how meaningful backcountry conservation can be paired with targeted management flexibility.

Take Action

The Forest Service is accepting public comments on the proposed rule and DEIS through October 6, 2026. Add your voice to the more than 273,000 comments that have already been submitted to weigh in on the future of backcountry management.

Use the sample comment below as a starting point. Adding a few sentences about a roadless area, national forest, hunting unit, fishery, or community that matters to you will make your comment more personal and effective.

SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS BY October 6

Sample Comment

I hunt and/or fish in [name of national forest]. National forest inventoried roadless areas are important to me because [briefly describe your personal connection or what makes these places valuable].

I support retaining durable backcountry conservation measures while providing carefully defined flexibility for forest restoration, community safeguarding, and fish and wildlife habitat improvement projects. The Forest Service does not need to choose between healthy forests and conserving the intact backcountry landscapes on which hunters, anglers, wildlife, and communities depend.

Rather than removing the national rule, which would create inconsistent management across the country and potential conflict, I recommend that the Forest Service finalize a durable national Roadless Rule that safeguards intact backcountry habitat while providing flexibility for necessary community safeguards and restoration. Specifically, the final rule should:

Provide carefully targeted flexibility for community safeguarding and restoration. Adapt the rule’s exceptions so necessary fuels reduction, forest-health and fish and wildlife habitat projects can move forward under clear conservation standards, while limiting new road construction to what is truly necessary.

Retain strong national conservation measures for roadless areas. Maintain durable conservation direction for intact backcountry lands, including the 9.3 million acres of roadless areas in the Tongass National Forest.

Draw from the Idaho and Colorado Roadless Rules. Recognize these durable state-based approaches as models that can inform a national rule to pair strong backcountry safeguards with carefully defined flexibility near communities and in areas where restoration is needed.

Please maintain a national Roadless Rule and draw from the full range of alternatives to develop a durable framework that retains management for inventoried roadless areas, while providing targeted flexibility for necessary fire management. This balanced approach would support healthier forests, safer communities, and secure fish and wildlife habitat and lasting hunting and fishing opportunities.

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:

September 2, 2026

Hunters and Anglers Can Help Shape the Future of Our National Forest Road and Trail System

The Forest Service is revising the rule that determines which roads and trails are open, and hunters and anglers have an opportunity to inform the outcome. 

Virtually every hunt starts from a road. Many of these are National Forest roads that carry friends and families to their Labor Day campsite, the fourth-of-July swimming hole, where kids learn to ride a dirtbike, and where favorite hunting and fishing trips begin.  

The 2005 Travel Management Rule is the primary driver for how the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) makes intentional decisions about which roads, trails, and areas across our national forests are open to motor vehicles. The Forest Service administers more than 380,000 miles of road and 165,000 miles of trails across 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands, a system that supports recreation and wildlife-related visitation for more than 164 million people each year. Managing that system well is one of the most consequential things the agency does for fish, wildlife, and public access alike. 

Last week, the USFS opened a public scoping period on a forthcoming revision to the 2005 Travel Management Rule. This revision is a public process, and hunters and anglers are not opposed to updating the Travel Management Rule. However, refinements should be made to the proposed rule and hunters and anglers need to speak up to ensure that transportation management supports public access, conserves wildlife and healthy habitat, and manages for quality outdoor opportunities. 

Take action

A carefully designed revision can deliver better maps, more consistent game retrieval, expanded access for hunters with mobility limitations, and sustain a road system the agency can actually afford to maintain, all while sustaining the habitat that makes these places worth reaching. 

At TRCP, we see a path forward to improve management across several fronts:

Sustain fish and wildlife habitat alongside access

Keeping wildlife on public land is an access issue as much as a habitat issue. The rule revision is an opportunity to maintain clear fish and wildlife considerations in agency decisions. It is also a chance to retain the ability of local managers to use seasonal restrictions and coordinate closely with state fish and wildlife agencies and other stakeholders for the benefit of fish and game.

Maintain the “closed unless designated open” framework for motorized use

Continue limiting motorized travel to roads, trails, and areas that the Forest Service has designated as open and has identified using authoritative maps. Undesignated, unauthorized, and user-created routes should remain closed unless opened through a transparent process that considers fish and wildlife, conflicts among uses, public safety, and maintenance capacity.

Reduce conflict between user groups through better maps and clear criteria

The revision is an opportunity to keep conflict reduction as an explicit purpose of travel planning, and to strengthen the local collaboration that resolves these questions best. While enforcement is an important part of a safe road system, clear, current, integrated digital and paper maps showing designated routes, vehicle use type, and seasonal closure dates would reduce conflict, which is why the mapping provisions in this notice deserve support. It’s also important that the revised regulations include adequate and appropriate criteria aimed at reducing conflict among users to appropriately balance diverse recreational uses.

Continue making decisions on class 1 e-bikes through local travel planning

The proposal would allow Class 1 e-bikes on national forest lands where bicycles are permitted. E-bikes can expand recreational access, but opening most nonmotorized trails across the national forest system to e-bikes would add more recreational pressure to wildlife. Local managers should continue to determine when and where their use is appropriate through a transparent public process that balances the needs for wildlife and other trail users.

Create a road system that is safe, effective, and affordable

The USFS already struggles to adequately maintain its existing road system. We recommend retaining forest level decision making authority to identify and maintain an adequate road system needed to provide safe and efficient travel while meeting public-access, administrative use needs, and fish and wildlife habitat considerations. A revised rule should help the agency right-size its network to deliver safer roads, better fishing water, and access the public can count on year after year. The revised rule should define an “adequate and appropriate” road and trail network to ensure realistic maintenance and funding is aligned with the capacity the agency, partners, and volunteers can provide. 

How you can make a difference

The Forest Service is accepting comments on the proposed revision through September 23. Comments submitted now help shape the alternatives the agency analyzes, which is the stage where public input has the most influence. 

Use the sample comment below as a starting point. Adding a few sentences about a national forest, hunting unit, trail, or fishery that matters to you will make your comment more personal and more effective. 

Submit your Comments by September 23

Sample Comment 

I hunt and fish on [name of national forest, hunting unit, watershed, or state]. The roads and trails there matter to me because [briefly describe how you use them and what you value about the country they access]. 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the revision of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. I support several of the agency’s proposed changes, specifically, integrated digital maps of motorized designations, national consistency for downed big game retrieval, and expanded access for hunters who rely on adaptive mobility devices. I encourage the Forest Service to create a durable framework that supports access for both motorized and non-motorized users and sustains fish and wildlife habitat, while considering the needs of a future road system the agency can maintain. 

Specifically, I ask the Forest Service to: 

Develop clear fish and wildlife considerations into the revised framework that include considerations for route designations, redundant route closures, and other decision tools to account for and balance fish and wildlife habitat needs along with adequate public access

Affirm that local managers retain seasonal management tools to support vehicle class restrictions or seasonal closures when needed to conserve winter range, big game migrations, and other resource needs;

Retain the “closed unless designated open” approach for motorized use. Keep motorized travel limited to officially designated and mapped routes. If the agency wishes to open additional routes, I encourage you to do so by examining local opportunities, not by making a sweeping change that will likely increase conflict.
Keep conflict reduction central to travel management to support quality user experiences which includes limiting opening Class 1 e-bikes to a route specific evaluation process;

Define a transportation system that the agency can reasonably afford to maintain by developing “adequate and appropriate” measures guided by realistic long term funding, maintenance capacity, and public and administrative access needs;

Retain coordination with state and Tribal governments, specifically by providing formal cooperating agency status to state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies during the development of this DEIS.

The Forest Service does not need to choose between quality access and healthy fish and wildlife habitat. A revision that improves maps, adds consistency for game retrieval, expands access for hunters with mobility limitations, sustains wildlife security, and right-sizes the road system to available resources would serve hunters, anglers, rural communities, and the agency alike. 

by: Jaclyn Lunaas

posted in:

August 28, 2026

A Chance to Strengthen Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Protections

As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission considers several measures to strengthen Bay menhaden management, we offer specific guidance for submitting comments

As we explained in our Aug. 7 blog, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has an opportunity this November to strengthen protections for Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay through Draft Addendum II, which is now officially open for public comment until Oct. 9.

TRCP is recommending the following options that we believe will best achieve that goal:

Make the amount of Bay harvest responsive to coastwide management on the Atlantic.
Make the timing of harvest more precautionary to protect menhaden predators.
Make those timing limits actually mean something, by not allowing overharvest in certain periods.
Make the entire system adaptable, with regular intervals to review how management is working.

If you agree, simply click the link below to sign a petition to the ASMFC telling managers that you support precautionary management for menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. (Note that this petition is separate from one you may have already signed asking for coastal menhaden reallocation; for better menhaden management, it is important to sign both.) More details on each option are provided below, listed by relevant sections in the addendum.

Addendum II includes options for fishery managers to reduce the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap, spread harvest pressure across the fishing season via quota periods, and create a process for revisiting the cap at required regular intervals – but not all of the proposed options provide the same level of protection. So the ASMFC can elect to do more than simply cut the Bay Cap. It can build a smarter, more precautionary management system that protects menhaden when and where they are most important, keeps Bay harvest limits tied to the coastwide quota, and adapts as science improves. The ASMFC is considering a range of possible options for various potential actions, including the option to make no new management changes.

Section 3.1 – Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap Amount

TRCP’s preferred option: C1e – Link the Bay Cap to the TAC, with C2a limits

Don’t just lower the Bay Cap – fix the problem. The Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap is currently set at 51,000 metric tons. But the coastwide total allowable catch (TAC) can change over time as managers respond to the best available science – just as it did last year, when the ASMFC reduced the TAC by 20%, with no corresponding reduction to the Bay Cap.

Because the Bay Cap remained the same, the Chesapeake Bay now accounts for a larger share of the total coastwide harvest than it did previously. If managers are reducing the amount of menhaden that can be harvested coastwide, it doesn’t make sense for the Bay Cap to remain disconnected from those decisions. And this decision could be especially important this November when further TAC cuts are possible.

Total allowable catch (TAC): The maximum amount of Atlantic menhaden that can be removed coastwide, from all East Coast states, each year

Option C1e in the addendum would link the Bay Cap to approximately 13.6% of the annual coastwide TAC, with Option C2a establishing an upper annual harvest limit of 51,000 metric tons. At the current TAC, that would mean a Bay Cap of approximately 25,500 metric tons – a 50% reduction from the current cap.

And Option C1e does more than provide an immediate catch reduction. It fixes the disconnect between Bay and coastwide management. If the TAC decreases in the future, the Bay Cap would automatically decrease as well, preventing the Bay from accounting for an increasingly large share of the remaining harvest.

Section 3.2.1 – Chesapeake Bay Cap Distribution – Quota Periods

TRCP’s preferred option: B2 – 25% / 25% / 50% quota periods

How many menhaden are harvested matters. But when those fish are harvested also matters. Option B2 in this section would divide the Bay Cap into three equal-length periods, with 25% of total harvest allowed during the first period, 25% during the second, and 50% during the third. This would reduce the amount of industrial harvest that can occur early in the season (May to early July), when menhaden are particularly important as forage for predators, especially breeding ospreys — which have seen historically low chick survival rates in recent years due to a lack of menhaden.

The goal here isn’t to eliminate the reduction fishery from operating early in the season. It is to reduce the risk of concentrated harvest during periods when predators may have high forage needs. This is the essence of precautionary management: while scientists are still working to understand exactly how menhaden harvest affects forage availability and predators in the Bay, and waiting on the necessary research results, managers should reduce the risk of concentrated harvest during potentially sensitive periods rather than wait for all of the answers.

Section 3.2.2 – Chesapeake Bay Cap Distribution – Quota Period Overages & Underages

TRCP’s preferred option: B – Quota period overage payback

If there are quota periods, they need to mean something. Dividing the Bay Cap into quota periods only works if those periods actually limit when menhaden can be harvested.

Imagine if the ASMFC establishes a 25% limit for the first harvest period, but allows the fishery to exceed that amount without consequence as long as it stays below the overall annual cap. The quota period would effectively become a voluntary pacing target – not a meaningful management measure.

Under Option B, if the fishery exceeds its allocation during the first or second quota period, that overage would be deducted from the same quota period in the following year. At the same time, unused quota from the first two periods could roll into the third period. This provides flexibility while preventing the fishery from simply concentrating more harvest during an early period.

The question is simple: Should quota periods be enforceable management measures or merely voluntary pacing targets? TRCP believes they need to be meaningful management controls.

Section 3.3 – Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap Revisit Provision

TRCP’s preferred option: B – Three-year revisit provision

There is another important piece of this draft addendum: making sure the ASMFC will be required to regularly examine adjusting management as scientists learn more. There is still uncertainty about menhaden’s ecological role within the Chesapeake Bay and the appropriate level and timing of harvest. That’s a reason to take precautionary action now, but also to ensure management can change as scientists learn more.

Option B would require the ASMFC to revisit the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap every three years. A scheduled review would give managers a predictable opportunity to evaluate whether the cap is working and to incorporate new data. This is particularly important if the ASMFC adopts Option C1e to link the Bay Cap to the coastwide catch limit. Linking the Bay Cap to the coastwide TAC would create a new management approach, and the Board should have a formal opportunity to evaluate that approach and adjust as new science becomes available. That is adaptive, ecosystem-based fisheries management in practice.

Coastwide TAC and Chesapeake Bay Protections Should Work Together

In addition to Draft Addendum II, the ASMFC will vote in November to set the 2027–2028 coastwide menhaden catch limit. TRCP supports setting this limit (the TAC) at a level with a 50% or less probability of exceeding the fishing mortality target based on the needs of striped bass and other predators. This approach would reduce the risk of fishing mortality reaching levels that could undermine menhaden’s important role as forage for other species.

The coastwide TAC and Chesapeake Bay management should work together. If the best available science supports reducing coastwide harvest to protect the ecosystem, the Bay harvest should respond accordingly, rather than remain disconnected from the coastwide TAC. That is why TRCP supports the options above, which would link the Bay Cap to the coastwide TAC while maintaining an upper limit on Bay harvest.

Together, these measures would create a more consistent approach to menhaden management – one that uses the best available science to limit fishing mortality coastwide while ensuring Chesapeake Bay harvest reflects those same conservation goals.

If you provide personalized comments to the ASMFC, be sure you are specific in stating your preferred option for each section of the addendum.

Make Your Voice Heard

The public comment period that runs until Oct. 9 is your chance to tell the ASMFC what you want commissioners to do before they make their final decision. If you care about healthy Chesapeake Bay fisheries, abundant forage for predators like striped bass, and a strong future for recreational fishing, tell the ASMFC to choose the strongest available protections for menhaden.

If you’d prefer to submit personalized comments to the Commission in a different way, there are multiple options to get involved. Here are five ways to submit comments:

In-person: Attend a hearing in-person or online (schedule)
Online: Survey
Online: Comment box on the Addendum II webpage (Please be specific on your preferred options for each section if you choose this option.)
Email: comments@asmfc.org (Use the email subject line: Atlantic Menhaden Draft Addendum II)
Mail: James Boyle, ASMFC, 1050 N. Highland Street, Suite 200-N, Arlington, VA 22201

Be sure that however you provide comment, you are specific in stating your preferred option for each section of the addendum.

Thank you for your support for menhaden conservation in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast. Your voice matters.

Banner image courtesy Joanna Steidle

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

mule deer

Sage Grouse Conservation

Ryan Sparks's Story

Key Issues for America’s Anglers

Forage Fish Recovery

Restoring the Mississippi River Delta

Colorado River

David Mangum's Story

Stewardship on America’s private lands

Farm Bill Conservation Programs

Hunters and anglers need a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill in 2026

Sage Grouse Conservation

Ward Burton's Story

Special Places Worth Protecting

Alaska

Colorado River

Pennsylvania

The Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests

The Pacific Northwest

Restoring the Mississippi River Delta

Franklin Adams's Story

Healthy Habitat Powers Every Pursuit

mule deer

Colorado River

Nature Based Solutions

Alex Harvey's Story

Science That Guides TRCP

Science Speaker Series

Science Snapshots

Science Blogs

Jamelle Ellis's Story

Conservation Across America

Public Land Access

Chronic Wasting Disease

Farm Bill Conservation Programs

To guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt & fish

Meet the TRCP Team

Our Partners

Corporate Council

Looking for more information?

To guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt & fish

Capital Conservation Awards Dinner

Step Into the Arena

Roosevelt Roast

BLM Seeks Projects to Open Landlocked Public Land

Stay Informed

Much at Stake for Atlantic Menhaden This November

Big Dreams and Big Bulls: The Bridger-Teton National Forest Needs Hunter and Angler Voices for Its Conservation Future

TRCP Supports Colorado Amendment 83: Right to Hunt & Fish

Looking for Press Releases?

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

TRCP Supports Colorado Amendment 83: Right to Hunt & Fish

Sage Grouse Conservation

Ryan Sparks's Story

Key Issues for America’s Anglers

Forage Fish Recovery

Restoring the Mississippi River Delta

Colorado River

David Mangum's Story

Stewardship on America’s private lands

Farm Bill Conservation Programs

Hunters and anglers need a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill in 2026

Sage Grouse Conservation

Ward Burton's Story

Special Places Worth Protecting

Alaska

Colorado River

Sample Comment 