Colorado’s Victory and a Cautionary Tale from Australia—U.S. Hunters Must Continue to Stand United

Despite healthy mountain lion populations and a well-regulated hunt, anti-hunting activists wanted to end it on ideological grounds. Colorado’s victory is important, but it’s just one battle in a longer fight to preserve hunting—and the lessons from Australia’s experience are a warning not to let your guard down.

In Australia, hunting rights, particularly game bird hunting, have been steadily eroded through a series of anti-hunting campaigns aimed at delegitimizing this critical component of wildlife management. This slow and steady chipping away at hunting rights didn’t happen all at once. Anti-hunting activists targeted specific types of hunting that seemed easier to isolate, like trapping, hoping other hunters would see it as someone else’s problem. But over time, their influence has snowballed, and now the broader hunting community faces constant attacks on its rights.

For instance, in Victoria—one of Australia’s primary duck-hunting states—repeated calls for hunting bans have been made despite sustainable management backed by decades of scientific data. Activists claim hunting has “lost its social license,” pressuring game departments and government bodies to yield. The result? Wildlife management policies that are increasingly shaped by ideology rather than science, leaving hunters fighting for their place in the broader conservation landscape.

Anti-hunting groups in Australia chose niche targets and used divide-and-conquer tactics, chipping away at specific hunts.

They went after duck hunting in non-duck hunting states, or only sought to ban a recreational season, where most control was done under agricultural control programs. They started with types that seemed easier to isolate and used emotionally charged language to sway public opinion. Unfortunately for Australia, it worked, and we lost many of our hunting rights before we managed to organize and fight back.

Today, they’re more aggressive than ever. It’s not uncommon for duck hunters to find activists on the water on the opening day of the season trying to scare ducks away from decoys. In some instances, these anti-hunters have actually tried to set up *in *the decoys.

Others style themselves as “animal rescue” operations and steal the downed ducks of hunters to “rescue” them. They display these dead ducks for photo ops (they fail to actually rescue them) and even dump them outside the offices of politicians.

The takeaway for American hunters? Don’t wait to defend a hunt until it affects you personally—because when one form of hunting is lost, the entire community is weakened. It might be hard to imagine anti-hunters coming after waterfowl hunting in America. After all, waterfowlers have been some of your country’s greatest conservationists. But remember, the goal of these groups isn’t just to end trapping or predator hunting–it’s to end all hunting. Once they have what they want when it comes to bears or mountain lions, they’ll come after the ducks, too.

Anti-hunting activism isn’t just a potential future threat—it’s happening right now in the United States, where activists are attacking Australia’s sustainable kangaroo export market, and they’re winning. U.S.-based pressure has already convinced major sportswear brands like Nike and Reebok to stop using “k-leather” made from kangaroo hide. This product, valued for its strength and durability, is a by-product of Australia’s regulated culling efforts—a practice essential for controlling kangaroo populations, protecting ecosystems, and minimizing agricultural damage.

The kangaroo population is healthy and abundant, and professional, science-based culling is critical to maintaining balance. But activists in the U.S. are pushing for a full ban on kangaroo leather imports, creating a ripple effect that undermines the commercial viability of this industry. Without a sustainable market, kangaroo control won’t stop; it will simply become less humane and less effective, with farmers or amateur shooters likely left to manage overpopulation, potentially resorting to methods like poisoning.

By attacking this industry, U.S. activists are following the same playbook that gutted the American fur trade, making management harder and pushing professional hunters out. This is yet another example of how emotion-driven advocacy can hurt practical, science-based management, leaving ecosystems and wildlife to suffer the consequences.

The Colorado vote is a clear example of what happens when people are given the facts: they support responsible, science-based wildlife management. Regulated hunting is sustainable, contributes to conservation, and keeps ecosystems balanced. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has long recognized this. Yet, anti-hunting activists in both Australia and the U.S. continue to spread misinformation, pushing public opinion toward sentiment-driven “management” rather than informed, science-backed policy.

In Australia, wildlife departments have started focusing on “social license,” a concept pushed by anti-hunting activists to suggest that hunting lacks public support. But public opinion isn’t a reliable basis for wildlife management; science is. As we’ve seen with the kangaroo industry, sentiment-based decision-making can lead to real-world consequences that undermine both conservation and economic sustainability. The U.S. must resist the same trap and ensure that wildlife management remains rooted in science, not popular opinion.

Colorado’s victory is a win, but it’s just one battle. If there’s one lesson to learn from Australia’s experience, it’s this: hunting rights can erode quickly if hunters don’t stand united–not just in the U.S. or Australia, but across the globe. The anti-hunting playbook is clear—they go after individual types of hunting, one at a time, hoping that hunters will only rally to protect what affects them directly. Don’t let them divide and conquer. Even if a specific hunt doesn’t impact you, every attack on hunting weakens the entire community and invites further restrictions.

U.S. hunters need to make it clear that they won’t let “social license” and ideology dictate the future of conservation. Stand united, stay informed, and ensure that science remains the foundation of wildlife management. Colorado’s victory proves that the public can and will support hunting when presented with the facts. But this fight will continue, and hunters everywhere must be ready to defend the practices that make conservation possible. Let’s make sure America doesn’t go down the path Australia has taken.

Feature image of an “animal rescue” operation via Victoria State Government Game Management Authority.