My metal etching Death Comes Ripping was exhibited as part of the national juried show The Vault: Metal Transformed - A National Exhibition of Metal Artworks held at d'Art Center in Norfolk, Virginia. The exhibition was from June 6 to July 11, 2026.

My painting "Kamala Harris" has been selected to be part of the 46th Annual Juried University of Wyoming Art Museum Student Exhibition. The exhibition runs at the art museum in Laramie, WY from February 23rd through May 15th 2021.

This show was organized in response to COVID-19 and its impact on the University of Wyoming College of Law. Three of my artworks are a part of this exhibition.

Coverage of the Dispatches from Exile show in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle.

An article reviewing the Dispatches from Exile show in the Laramie Boomerang.

I joined the Wolf Connection podcast with Filmmaker Alan Lacy to talk about the new film about Colorado wolf reintroduction that we worked on together.

Videos from places I have visited and some of my artwork as well.

This election, I am in strong opposition to Amendment 83 the so-called "Right to Hunt."

If passed it would be a disaster for wildlife management in Colorado turning every wildlife management decision into a court battle. We don't want judges and lawyers making wildlife management decisions.

Disgustingly, the proponents have said that they want to use this to overturn bans on shooting mama bears coming out of their dens in the spring, baiting bears with things like donuts, chasing bears up trees with dogs and then shooting them out of the tree. They also want to bring back leg hold traps that are not only cruel, they also hurt our dogs and children.

Here is some additional information about Amendment 83:

Amendment 83 misleads voters into thinking they are protecting the right to hunt and fish when it actually takes away our voice in future wildlife decisions. Constitutional amendments are supposed to be rare, and only added to protect fundamental rights and better define how the government operates. Because constitutional amendments are difficult to change, voters should understand not only what Amendment 83 says today, but how it could affect future wildlife policy.

Amendment 83 isn’t about protecting hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and that isn’t under threat. Amendment 83 would put new, vague language into the Constitution that future laws, regulations, ballot measures, and wildlife decisions would have to satisfy. That means it could change the balance between voters, the legislature, the Parks and Wildlife Commission, and the courts when future wildlife questions arise.
This amendment is part of a national campaign backed by wealthy, out-of-state special interests that have pushed nearly identical measures in states across the country. This measure imports one-size-fits-all constitutional language developed outside our state, rather than addressing the needs of Coloradans.

Colorado's wildlife policies should be shaped by Colorado voters, elected officials, wildlife experts, and local communities, not outside special interests with a national agenda.

The biggest consequence of passing Amendment 83 is moving wildlife decisions from the public process into the courts. Adding this amendment into the state constitution will result in future decisions becoming legal disputes over what words like “preferred,” “necessary,” and “traditional” mean. That could mean more litigation, greater costs for the state, and less flexibility for voters, legislators, and wildlife commissioners to respond to circumstances that no one can predict today.

Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected in Colorado, and neither is under threat. The amendment would give hunting and fishing a constitutionally preferred status in wildlife management, potentially changing the balance between voters, the legislature, the Parks and Wildlife Commission, local governments, and the courts.

Amendment 83 would permanently lock a particular approach to wildlife management into its constitution, rather than allow Coloradans to make those decisions through science, public participation, and the democratic process.

Colorado’s wildlife and public lands belong to all of us, and decisions about their future should remain science-based, flexible, and accountable to Colorado voters, rather than locked into our constitution or decided in court.

Amendment 83 isn’t about protecting hunting and fishing. It’s about changing who gets to make wildlife policy.

Amendment 83 isn’t about protecting hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and that isn’t under threat.

Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected in Colorado, yet this measure would give them special constitutional status, making it harder for voters, local communities, lawmakers, and wildlife experts to have a voice and adapt to changing conservation needs.

Amendment 83 would put new, vague language into the Constitution that future laws, regulations, ballot measures, and wildlife decisions would have to satisfy. That means it could change the balance between voters, the legislature, the Parks and Wildlife Commission, and the courts when future wildlife questions arise.

Colorado's wildlife belongs to all of us, and wildlife policy should remain flexible, science-based, and accountable to Colorado voters, not just hunters, and certainly not special interests.

Wealthy special interests from out-of-state are pushing this, not Coloradans.

Wealthy special interests from out-of-state are pushing this, not Coloradans. This unnecessary constitutional amendment is pushed by out-of-state special interests and will limit Colorado voters' ability to shape future wildlife policy.

This measure imports one-size-fits-all constitutional language developed outside our state, rather than addressing the needs of Coloradans.

This unnecessary constitutional amendment is pushed by out-of-state special interests and will limit Colorado voters' ability to shape future wildlife policy.

This amendment is being pushed by the same far-right, MAGA-aligned political interests working across the country to weaken public accountability and give special interests greater control over public lands, scientific research, and other policies.

The vague language in Amendment 83 could open the door to cruel trophy hunting practices, restrict local control, and trigger costly lawsuits.

Colorado's wildlife policies should be shaped by Colorado voters, elected officials, wildlife experts, and local communities, not outside special interests with a national agenda.
Colorado's wildlife belongs to all of us, and wildlife policy should remain flexible, science-based, and accountable to Colorado voters, not just hunters, and certainly not special interests.

Amendment 83 would limit Colorado’s ability to respond to changing science and conservation needs.

Amendment 83 would limit Colorado’s ability to respond to changing science and conservation needs.

The amendment makes hunting and fishing the “preferred means” of managing wildlife and says regulation must be “necessary” for specified purposes, including “sound scientific wildlife conservation and management.” But these key terms are intentionally undefined and vague, creating uncertainty around future actions to address habitat, biodiversity, nongame species, disease, climate change, and other wildlife challenges.

This amendment would permanently add new and undefined constitutional language that future laws, regulations, ballot measures, and wildlife-management decisions would have to satisfy.

Future disputes could require courts to determine what those terms mean and how they apply to wildlife-management decisions.

Colorado has repeatedly used the democratic process to make decisions about wildlife management. The opportunity is to preserve that flexibility so future Coloradans can respond to changing science, conservation needs, and public values.

Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected in Colorado, yet this measure would give them special constitutional status, making it harder for voters, local communities, lawmakers, and wildlife experts to have a voice and adapt to changing conservation needs.

This will make it harder for voters, lawmakers, and wildlife experts to respond to changing science and conservation needs.

The biggest consequence may be moving wildlife decisions from the public process into the courts.

Adding this amendment into the state constitution will result in future decisions becoming legal disputes over what words like “preferred,” “necessary,” and “traditional” mean.
That could mean more litigation, greater costs for the state, and less flexibility for voters, legislators, and wildlife commissioners to respond to circumstances that no one can predict today.

The amendment would also create costly legal challenges over undefined terms like “traditional methods” and “necessary,” potentially opening the door to cruel and outdated practices Coloradans have previously banned.

The fundamental question is not whether hunting and fishing should be legal, because it already is in Colorado. It is whether Colorado should permanently lock a particular approach to wildlife management into its constitution, rather than allowing future Coloradans to make those decisions through science, public participation, and the democratic process.

Amendment 83 could open the door to cruel and outdated hunting practices.

By giving constitutional protection to vague “traditional methods,” Initiative 302 could make it harder for Colorado to restrict practices like trophy hunting, steel-jaw traps, bear baiting, and using packs of dogs to chase wildlife.

Coloradans have repeatedly rejected inhumane hunting practices, and we shouldn’t put vague language in our constitution that would reverse the voters’ decisions or make it harder for future generations to protect wildlife and advance humane, science-based management.

The amendment would also create costly legal challenges over undefined terms like “traditional methods” and “necessary,” potentially opening the door to cruel and outdated practices Coloradans have previously banned.

Colorado’s wildlife and public lands belong to all of us, and decisions about their future should remain science-based, flexible, and accountable to Colorado voters, rather than locked into our constitution or decided in court.