News & Commentary
Jaguar recovery in the Green Corridor is a model for community-driven conservation
A wild jaguar in western Brazil photographed by B. Phalan
In Central and South America, jaguars serve as indicators of environmental quality, their presence signaling a healthy ecosystem. As apex predators, jaguars benefit biodiversity and help prevent overgrazing of vegetation and soil erosion. Due to their large home ranges and need for connected space, many wild cats are umbrella species. This means their habitat conservation benefits a diversity of plant and animal species. Throughout their range, jaguars serve as umbrella species for other wild felines ranging from pumas (a sympatric carnivore) to small housecat-sized southern tiger cats, as habitat protection and coexistence methods apply to them as well.
An Isolated Habitat
In Brazil, the jaguar’s range spans five distinct biomes: Amazon rainforest, Cerrado savannah, semiarid Caatinga shrubland, coastal Atlantic Forest, and the Pantanal wetlands. Of these five, habitat within the Atlantic Forest biome – a corridor bordering the Atlantic Ocean – is the most fragmented and isolated. As apex predators, these big cats have large home ranges and require a lot of space. Camera trapping data in the 2000s estimated a jaguar population density of 2-2.84 jaguars per 100 square kilometers in protected lands across four of the five biomes (the outlier was the Pantanal, which supported a much higher density of 10.3 jaguars per 100 square km). The Atlantic Forest population is of special concern, as jaguar habitat protected from development within the region mainly consists of several small, isolated Indigenous lands and state and national parks.
As a contiguous stretch of forest within a fragmented biome, the Brazil-Argentina Green Corridor is considered the largest and most critical habitat area for jaguars in the Atlantic Forest. This area consists of 457,000 acres of protected land linking two adjacent national parks, Iguazú in Misiones Province, Argentina, and Iguaçu in Paraná, Brazil. It is a subtropical rainforest containing the largest waterfall system in the world, with about 275 individual falls in the area.
The two parks are home to two big cats – jaguars and pumas – as well as numerous butterfly, reptile and bird species including rare harpy eagles. At one time this area had a robust jaguar population estimated at 400-800. However, numbers sharply declined at the end of the 1990s. By 2005, the Green Corridor population dropped down to just 40 jaguars, 5-10% of prior numbers. An “extinction vortex” seemed imminent, especially on the Brazil side of the park, which counted just 9-11 jaguars by 2009.
Why did the jaguars decline?
Threats to jaguars in the southernmost part of their range mirror those in other regions (habitat loss, livestock conflicts, poaching). The highly fragmented nature of the Atlantic Forest adds an additional barrier to their survival. The Brazil-Argentina Green Corridor is isolated from other jaguar populations – meaning genetic diversity is low. Deforestation in Paraná, Brazil (which lost 13% of its forest cover between 2000 and 2020) was a catalyst for the jaguar decline. While pumas are still present throughout Argentina, jaguars are absent from most of their historic range within the country, down to just a handful of isolated holdouts. Loss of land to development and livestock production in the area surrounding the park further isolated this jaguar population.
While jaguars have protections as endangered species in both localities, human conflict can still be a threat. Many people fear jaguars. With wild prey harder to find in fragmented landscapes, jaguars adapted their hunting behavior. The corridor experienced more frequent jaguar interactions with humans and predation on cattle, leading to ranchers killing more jaguars in retaliation while the population declined.
Cross-border Conservation and Coexistence: A Holistic Approach
Fortunately, the jaguars’ outlook has changed for the better. While the spotted cats have not rebounded to historic levels yet, dedicated conservation efforts successfully reversed their decline. Today, there are at least 105 in the corridor, including at least 28 jaguars on the Brazilian side of the park. In addition, another rare species is making a comeback in this region. Conservationists in northeastern Argentina have recently restored giant otters – a critical keystone species – to their waterways. This rewilding effort marks the otters’ first presence in Argentina since their extirpation 40 years ago. This restoration project, along with the jaguar recovery, shows that conservationists are not just protecting what is left, but working to restore what has been lost.
Community initiatives like the Jaguar Crocheteers – local women crocheting jaguar themed crafts – help raise local awareness and funding for conservation efforts. The Green Corridor jaguar recovery effort is spearheaded by Yara Barros, a wildlife biologist and executive coordinator of the Jaguars of Iguaçu Project. She won the 2025 Whitley Award for her efforts, an honor recognizing conservation work in the Global South. In many ways, women have led the way for the jaguar.
The Jaguars of Iguaçu Project emphasizes coexistence, community outreach and engagement, jaguar population monitoring and research, and education campaigns. Yara Barros offers landowners local resources like secure pen building, coexistence training and ranger-rancher patrols to keep cattle safe from jaguar or puma predation. Having options (and jaguar-proof enclosures) mean livestock producers are more likely to reach out to conservation groups for predator deterrents and training, rather than killing jaguars they see on their land.
Barros’ goal is “turning fear into fascination” – changing local perceptions of big cats from a source of fear to an integral part of the ecosystem. “A lot of fear comes from not understanding,” she said in a feature on Mongabay. “When someone calls us saying they saw a jaguar or had an incident, we respond immediately — even in the middle of the night. This builds trust that we’re here to help solve the problem, so they don’t feel they have to kill the jaguar…We want people to stop seeing them as just big cats and start seeing them as a magnificent species that just wants to exist.”
Jaguar conservation work in the Green Corridor is integrative and collaborative:
- Mitigating the financial impact of livestock predation and providing preventative, nonlethal resources
- Conserving land and standing against further deforestation in jaguar habitat
- The creation of a Paraná state action plan for pumas and jaguars in the region addressing threats specific to these species
- Partnership with a local airport (Foz do Iguaçu) to promote environmental sustainability and jaguar conservation awareness
- Local community initiatives like the Jaguar Crocheteers
- Fostering awe, empathy, and fascination for jaguars – not as a resource, but as wild animals with intrinsic value
- Conducting research and collaboratively monitoring jaguars across the two countries to track populations
- Responsible ecotourism – tourists’ desire and curiosity to see wild jaguars can provide more funding for local conservation efforts
Paradigm Shift
On-the-ground conservation work conducted in places like Paraná and Misiones Province sometimes gets overlooked. The Global North often dominates the narrative around conservation science and policy. For instance, state wildlife agencies and organizations often herald and embrace the North American Model (NAM) as “the world’s best and most successful” conservation model for principles that historically helped rescue certain species like pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and bison from extinction. However, the model is limited in scope. The NAM has drawn criticism for its shortcomings – emphasis on game species and hunting, failure to acknowledge or accommodate relevant stakeholders, exclusion of traditional Indigenous knowledge and conservation solutions, and a long history of hostility towards carnivores. The tenets of the NAM uphold an ideology of settler colonialism, utilitarianism, and individualism, reflecting the beliefs of the sport hunters who established it.
The current system of wildlife management in North America has a strong bias in favor of lethal management. This is especially true with carnivores, even when evidence allegedly supporting liberal or unlimited killing – like claims these animals are negatively impacting game species or domestic animals – is overblown or lacking. Despite conflicts being comparatively rare, our native carnivores like wolves and bobcats are frequently persecuted because they are perceived as a threat to these human interests. The ideology NAM promotes views carnivores as primarily “consumptive natural resources” to be “sustainably used” for hunting and trapping opportunities. The underpinning is that these animals exist for our recreation or otherwise require economic value attached to make them worth conserving.
In addition, North American carnivores are frequent targets of killing contests that devalue and demonize them, stemming from insidious cultural biases against these species rather than scientific basis. Just like jaguar ecotourism, however, photographing or viewing wild wolves or bobcats – who inspire fascination and wonder for many – can provide more recurring benefits and conservation awareness. Conservation work centered around coexistence, mutualism, and intrinsic worth of wildlife, while embraced by a growing number of Americans, is not only resisted by the status quo, but viewed as completely antithetical to the NAM. But should it be?
Jaguar conservation in the Brazil-Argentina Green Corridor is an example of reclaiming relationships with wildlife. We can look to this example of community-led, transformative, and restorative efforts for inspiration. Yara Barros’ work is driven by her compassion for jaguars and a desire for others to become enchanted by them. Jaguars and other wild carnivores deserve to be valued for who they are, not just what utilitarian benefits we obtain from them. Rather than dangerous, lurking predators that rouse fear and are viewed as threats, native carnivores can instead be viewed with empathy, understanding and respect.
This article was contributed by Peggy Clark, a Geospatial Science student at Radford University in Radford, Virginia
August Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at August Wildlife Commission Meetings.
August Wildlife Commission Meetings
August is here—and so are critical opportunities to stand up for wildlife.
This month, wildlife commissions in Montana, Florida, and Nebraska are weighing decisions that could cause serious harm: from Montana’s aggressive push to kill more wolves, to Florida’s proposed return of the black bear trophy hunt, to Nebraska’s plan to expand mountain lion hunting. These proposals ignore science, ethics, and overwhelming public opposition—and we need to speak out.
Wildlife commission meetings are where these choices are made, and your voice can tip the balance. Whether you attend in person, testify virtually, or submit written comments, your advocacy helps hold these agencies accountable and demand a better future for wildlife.
Below is the full list of August meetings by state and date. And don’t forget—our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit are always available to help you prepare. Let’s make it clear: the public is watching, and we won’t stay silent.
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: August 4
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Read more on their website. This meeting is scheduled to be streamed live and recorded at www.youtube.com/user/outdooroklahoma.
Maine
Meeting Date: August 6
Location:353 Water Street, Room 400, Augusta, ME
Details: Click here for agenda
Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: August 7
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: More details coming soon.
Special meeting: The Crab Task Force meets at 10 a.m. Tuesday, August 5 in the Terrebonne Parish Main Library, 151 Library Dr. Houma, LA 70360. To listen in to the meeting via webinar register at: https://wlf-la.zoom.us/
Arizona
Meeting Date: August 8
Location: Little America Hotel, 2515 E Butler Ave, Flagstaff, AZ 8600
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting location opens at 7:45 a.m. Meeting begins at 8:00 a.m. Lunch Break at 12:00 p.m. The public may attend the meeting in person or view the meeting at www.azgfd.gov/commissioncam or may listen to the meeting by calling 404-397-1516, Access code: 280 046 234##. Members of the public may view the meeting from any Department Regional Office and the Department’s Headquarters via video teleconference. Members of the public attending in person wanting to speak on a specific agenda item may submit Speaker Cards (Blue Cards) if they wish to speak to the Commission and may only address the Commission by attending in person or from any regional office. Copies of any presentations, documents, etc. discussed during the meeting will be available by contacting sprice@azgfd.gov. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on topics raised in public comment. Any items requiring further discussion or action will be included on a future Commission meeting agenda.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: August 8
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agendas are posted at least 6 days prior to the date of the meeting but an agenda for this month was not available when this webpage was posted. Keep checking back on this webpage.
Notes: Meeting starts at 9.a.m. Attend in person and arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the meeting start time in order to add your name to the sign-in sheet. To speak virtually, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov. Include your name and the agenda item on which you would like to testify. Once your request has been received, you will receive an email with the Zoom link. Requests may be also made during the meeting. Meetings will be livestreamed at: https://youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr. To submit a comment, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure time for BLNR Member review.
Nevada
Meeting Date: August 11-12
Location: Bristlecone Convention Center & Visitors Bureau, 150 6th Street, Ely NV 89301
Details: Click here for agenda (coming soon; not up at time of webpage publishing) and details
Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. Public comment will be taken on each action item following Commission discussion and before any action is taken; links coming once NDOW posts the meeting agenda. Persons attending virtually wishing to comment are invited to raise their virtual hands in the virtual meeting forum during the appropriate time; each person offering public comment during this period will be limited to not more than three minutes.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: August 12
Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room,1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ 08691
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: The public is welcome to attend and participate in the public portion of each meeting. Meeting starts at 10 a.m. and will be held both in person and via GoToMeeting (audio only). Call in: +1 (312) 757-3121 | Access Code: 848-342-077. Per the website, public comments may be made in person or online and will be limited to 3 minutes per person. More information about the Commission is on its website, including a meeting guide and how to connect. For help, contact Kristen.Meistrell@dep.nj.gov.
Wisconsin
Meeting Date: August 12-13
Location: TBD; not available at time of webpage publishing
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details (note no agenda is available at time of website publishing).
Notes: The Natural Resources Board will meet in-person. Remote testimony from the public via Zoom may be accepted for this meeting. In person public appearances are also welcome. Members of the public can submit their request to testify remotely, in person, or their written comments by the posted deadline date for Board consideration, typically one week before the meeting date. Watch live on YouTube. Please contact Ashley Bystol, NRB Liaison, at 608-267-7420 or by email at DNRNRBLiaison@wisconsin.gov with NRB-related questions, to request information, submit written comments or to register to testify at a meeting.
Arkansas
Meeting Date: August 13-14
Location: Little Rock
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda is online at time of webpage publishing).
Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. 2025 meeting schedule is here. Archive of 2025 meetings is here. Watch the meeting on YouTube.
California
Meeting Date: August 13-14
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building 715 P Street, 2nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Commission meetings are live-streamed (also referred to as a live webcast) with full audio and video. If you simply want to observe the meeting, but do not wish to comment on any item, we encourage you to view the live webcast available at www.fgc.ca.gov. How to join (if you plan to provide comment). More on all meetings in 2025. The Tribal Committee meets 8/12.
Florida
Meeting Date: August 13-14
Location: Florida Public Safety Institute, Conference Center Building, 85 Academy Dr. Havana, FL 32333
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. each day. Public comments will be accepted in person during the meeting. For in-person comments, please review the speaker registration guidelines at https://myfwc.com/about/commission/. Advance comments are due by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 16. If you would like to provide comments via mail, please send those comments to: FWC Commissioners, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
Action: Oppose a black bear hunt. Despite overwhelming public opposition, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is once again pushing a black bear trophy hunt. This is a politically driven move—not a science-based necessity. Black bears are still recovering from past overexploitation, and the public has made it clear: killing bears for sport has no place in Florida. The Commission is limiting public comment to just two hours, so arrive early and be prepared to speak out. Take action and learn more here.
Iowa
Meeting Date: August 14
Location: Unknown, no agenda posted at time webpage was published
Details: Click here for details (note no agenda was available at time of webpage publishing.
Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. Teleconference: 442-242-3609 ; PIN: 883 789 392# Video Conference: meet.google.com/sco-mbns-qva. Comments regarding agenda items may be submitted for public record to Alicia.Plathe@dnr.iowa.gov or 6200 Park Ave Ste 200, Des Moines IA 50321 up to 24 hours prior to the business meeting.
Kansas
Meeting Date: August 14
Location: Finnup Center for Conservation Education at the Lee Richardson Zoo, 312 E. Finnup Drive, Garden City, KS
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 12 p.m. You can watch and comment via Zoom; register here. Once registered, you will emailed a link to “Join the Meeting.” You will be muted upon entering the meeting. To comment or ask a question, use the “Raise Hand” feature or type your question in the chat function. To call in, dial: 1-877-853-5257. When a meeting ID is requested, enter: 850 1361 0088#. When a participant ID is requested, enter: #. Watch the live video/audio stream at https://ksoutdoors.com/commission-meeting.
Action: Proposed regulations to be voted on:
115-2-1: Amount of Fees Regulation and Economic Impact Statement (EIS)
115-4-4. Big game; legal equipment and taking methods Regulation and EIS
115-25-9. Deer; open season, bag limit, and permits Regulation and EIS
115-25-9a. Deer; open season, bag limit, and permits; additional considerations; military subunits Regulation and Economic
115-25-12. Coyotes; seasons. Regulations and Economic Impact Statement (PDF 546.44 kB)
Michigan
Meeting Date: August 14
Location: Treetops Resort 3962 Wilkinson Rd Gaylord, Michigan 49735
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: 8:30 a.m. Coffee with Commissioners. 9:30 a.m. meeting. Persons registering to provide comments on a topic listed on the agenda on or before the Friday preceding the meeting will be allowed up to 5 minutes for their comments. Persons registering to comment on a topic not listed on the agenda, after the Friday preceding the meeting, or at the meeting will be allowed up to 3 minutes. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments on agenda items, please write to Natural Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, or email nrc@michigan.gov. Read more on the Commission website.
Washington
Meeting Date: August 14-16
Location: Hybrid, Bellingham
Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available as of 6/3)
Notes: Registration for those wishing to provide virtual comments closes at 5 p.m. the day before the meeting begins. Registrants will be called upon and typically have 3 minutes to speak. If you are unable to participate, you can submit your comments on the Commission contact page. If you haven’t pre-registered and wish to attend and speak in person, complete a Public Testimony Form, available at the registration table. The form must be submitted at least 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the agenda item you wish to testify on.
New Mexico
Meeting Date: August 15
Location: Los Alamos
Details: Click here for details (no agenda available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Comment in person by signing up to speak via a card. Register in advance to attend this meeting virtually via Zoom (link TBD; see agenda once posted). After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The commission may hear verbal public comments from virtual attendees at this meeting. If comments are taken, you will be asked to virtually raise your hand and then acknowledged to speak when it is your turn. A live webcast of this meeting will be available on the commission’s Webcast page and on our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/NMGameandFish. Comments will not be taken on the live webcast or on YouTube.
Oregon
Meeting Date: August 15
Location: Salem, location TBD
Details: Click here for details; agenda not posted at time of webpage publishing
Notes: Commission meetings begin at 8 a.m. and proceed chronologically through the agenda. If you wish to receive written materials prepared for any of the agenda items, please contact the Director’s Office in Salem at (503) 947-6044 or email ODFW.Commission@odfw.oregon.gov to request a packet for those items that interest you. Members of the public can view a livestream of the meeting via the agency’s YouTube channel or on the Commission page. Members of the public may also view a livestream of this meeting at ODFW Headquarters, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem. Comment and testimony are limited to 3 minutes or less. Submit written comments and/or register to speak virtually. Those who would like to provide virtual testimony must register no less than 48 hours in advance to receive a testimony link to the meeting. To provide testimony on an agenda item in-person, registration will be available at the meeting. To provide in-person public comment, fill out a “Witness Registration” form available at the meeting. To provide testimony virtually or in-person during Public Forum you must contact the Director’s office no less than 48 hours (8 a.m. Wednesday June 11) in advance of the meeting for approval.’
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: August 190
Location: Owl Brook Hunter Education Center, 387 Perch Pond Rd, Holderness, NH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meetings are generally at 1 p.m. on the third Tuesday of every month. Meetings of the NH Fish and Game Commission are open to the public, unless otherwise noted.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: August 20
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for details (per the website, the agenda will be posted here no later than 2 business days before the meeting.)
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 060655. Or join via audio: (929) 205-6099. Webinar ID: 813 6562 8609. Passcode: 060655. Anyone wishing to be placed on the agenda to speak at the monthly business meeting must begin by notifying the Board in writing 2 weeks prior to the Board meeting; for more detailed information, contact Susan Sacco.
Ohio
Meeting Date: August 20
Location: Wildlife District 1 Office, 1500 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting begins at 6 p.m. Comments for open forums during Ohio Wildlife Council meetings must be about a current rule proposal. If you have a topic that is not a current rule proposal, please email the council with your comment or question or speak to a council member before or after a meeting. If the topic falls within the wildlife, fish, or law section, feel free to reach out at our open houses or email the Division of Wildlife at wildinfo@dnr.ohio.gov. Speakers must register by 5:00 p.m. the Monday before the meeting. The attached Public Comment Form will need to be completed and submitted to wildlife.council@dnr.ohio.gov. Along with the form, submit any handouts you plan to provide. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes. There will be a maximum of ten speaker slots available. PowerPoint presentations are not permitted.
Texas
Meeting Date: August 20-21
Location: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Headquarters, Commission Hearing Room, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: Work Session: 9 a.m. Wednesday, May 21, 2025 Commission Meeting: 9 a.m. Thursday, May 22, 2025 Comment online through 5 p.m. May 21 using the links in the meeting agenda. The site reads, “Live streaming video and audio will be available,” but links were not available at time of webpage publishing.
Colorado
Meeting Date: August 21-22
Location: Pueblo Convention Center at 320 Central Main Street, Pueblo, 81003
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Written comments will be accepted at any time. However, to ensure sufficient time for consideration prior to the meeting, comments should be provided to the Division of Parks and Wildlife by noon on the following date:
August 7, 2025, for mailing by the Division of Parks and Wildlife to the Parks and Wildlife Commission on August 8, 2025. Rulemaking notice. The cutoff to speak online is Friday, August 15 at noon at noon but you can still show up in person to comment or email the commission (though these won’t be counted in the official public record if received after noon on 6/6).
Maryland
Meeting Date: August 21
Location: Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service, 580 Taylor Avenue, Tawes State Office Building, E-1, Annapolis MD 21401
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Google Meet available for virtual participation. Note: Unless notified otherwise, all meetings will be held via Google Meet. When meeting in person, they will be held in the C-4 Conference Room of the Department of Natural Resources—Tawes State Office Building beginning at 10:30 a.m. Available parking is located at the Navy Stadium Parking Lot. Send written comments to wac.dnr@maryland.gov.
Montana
Meeting Date: August 21
Location: Montana WILD Auditorium and virtually via Zoom
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. Public comments will be accepted on the following proposals through August 4, 2025 with final action to be taken at the August 21 meeting. AMENDMENTS: Public comment will be accepted on any and all amendments through August 14, 2025. Comments must be limited to the content of the amendment. Public comment willl be offered during the meeting. In-person comments can be made at the meeting venue or at any FWP Regional Office throughout the state. Comment can also be made to the Commission virtually through Zoom. Registration for Zoom comment will open on August 6 and will close on August 20 at Noon. A link to register will be posted with the agenda.
Nebraska
Meeting Date: August 21-22
Location: McCook, specific location will be posted with agenda
Details: Click here for meeting agenda and details. Agenda for informational session.
Notes: Meeting starts at 8 a.m. ll interested persons may attend and testify orally or by written submission at the public hearing. Interested persons or organizations may submit written comments prior to the hearing, which will be entered into the hearing record if they: 1) include a request to be included as part of the hearing record; 2) include the name and address of the person or organization submitting the comments; and 3) are received by Sheri Henderson at the Lincoln office, 2200 North 33rd Street, Lincoln, NE 68503-0370. It is unclear if the meeting will be livestreamed and if virtual participation is possible.
Action: The general agenda has mountain lion hunting on the items for discussion.
South Carolina
Meeting Date: August 21
Location:260 D. Epting Lane, West Columbia, SC
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda available at time of webpage posting)
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Anyone wishing to make comments to the Board please email your name and topic to board@dnr.sc.gov at least 24 hours in advance. Contact Sandy Rucker 803-734-9102 or ruckers@dnr.sc.gov for assistance.
Tennessee
Meeting Date: August 21-22
Location:Region II Office, Ellington Agricultural Center, Nashville, TN
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda is available at the time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 1 p.m. on August 21 and 9 a.m. on August 22. No agenda listed and it is unclear how to watch remotely, or how to provide comments.
Utah
Meeting Date: August 21
Location: Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington, Utah
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Unless otherwise noted, all Wildlife Board meetings are on Thursdays at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington. Board meetings begin at 9 a.m, unless otherwise indicated. Feedback occurs at Regional Advisory Council (RAC) meetings. If you wish to comment during a RAC or Board meeting, you must attend the meeting in person — you may not submit comments online during the meeting. When you come to the meeting, pick up a comment card, fill it out and speak at the podium when your name is called. Find the full schedule here. Agendas and minutes are here.
RAC Schedule
- Central July 29, 6 p.m.
- Northern July 30, 6 p.m.
- Southern Aug. 5, 6 p.m.
- Southeastern Aug. 6, 6 p.m.
- Northeastern Aug. 7, 6 p.m.
Virginia
Meeting Date: August 21
Location: 7870 Villa Park Dr, Suite 400, Henrico, VA 23228
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda or details besides location and time were available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Public comment on agenda items and non-agenda items are welcome at any regularly scheduled Board or Board Committee meeting. Please see the meeting schedule for dates and additional details. The following committees meet at 9 a.m. on August 20: Finance, Audit, and Compliance; Education, Planning and Outreach; Wildlife and Boat; and Law Enforcement.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: August 22
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agendas are posted at least 6 days prior to the date of the meeting but an agenda for this month was not available when this webpage was posted. Keep checking back on this webpage.
Notes: Meeting starts at 9.a.m. Attend in person and arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the meeting start time in order to add your name to the sign-in sheet. To speak virtually, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov. Include your name and the agenda item on which you would like to testify. Once your request has been received, you will receive an email with the Zoom link. Requests may be also made during the meeting. Meetings will be livestreamed at: https://youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr. To submit a comment, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure time for BLNR Member review.
Delaware
Meeting Date: August 26
Location:Little Creek Hunter Education Training Center, 3018 Bayside Drive, Dover, DE
Details: Click here for agenda (not posted at time of webpage publishing) and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 7 p.m. This will be a hybrid meeting with an in-person option at the Little Creek Hunter Education Center and a virtual option via Teams. To join virtually via Teams, click here and enter this Meeting ID: 238 526 838 982 6 and Passcode: ph3QR6vF. To join by phone (audio-only) dial 1-302-504-8986 and enter code 938331860#. For more information, contact Joe Rogerson at Joseph.Rogerson@delaware.govor 302-739-9912.
Georgia
Meeting Date: August 26
Location: Ft. Yargo State Park, 210 S. Broad St. Winder, GA 30680
Details: Click here for details. (note the meeting agenda was not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m.It is unclear how to sign up to speak, submit a comment, or if virtual participation is possible. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.
Stop the Florida Black Bear Hunt
Stop the Florida black bear hunt: The Florida Wildlife Commission needs to hear from you today.
Stop the Black Bear Hunt: Florida’s Wildlife Deserve Protection, Not Exploitation
Florida’s wildlife agency is once again putting politics over science and public will—this time with devastating consequences for the state’s iconic black bears.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is preparing for a final vote on August 13 to reopen the trophy hunt on black bears. That’s right: despite overwhelming public opposition and the agency’s own shameful history with bear hunting, staff are now pushing a proposal that includes some of the most inhumane and reckless methods possible—like using packs of dogs to chase bears for miles (hounding) and piles of bait to lure them into shooting range.
This is not wildlife management. This is cruelty dressed up as conservation.
A Black Bear Hunt the Public Overwhelmingly Rejects
Floridians have made their position clear in more than 13,000 public comments, with 75% opposed to the hunt. Additionally, polling shows:
-
81% oppose bear hunting altogether
-
89% oppose hounding
-
86% oppose baiting
The public hasn’t forgotten what happened last time. In 2015, FWC held a so-called “management hunt” that killed 304 bears in just two days, including many lactating mothers. Their cubs were left to suffer and die. It was a bloodbath—and a national embarrassment.
Now, FWC is poised to make it worse. The current plan doesn’t just allow inhumane tactics; it would also let hunters wait up to 24 hours before reporting kills—amplifying chaos, suffering, and the risk of cubs being orphaned again.
One of the most alarming parts of this proposal? It would hand sole authority over bear hunting quotas to the agency’s executive director, permanently removing Commission oversight and eliminating public input entirely.
FWC staff even admit that black bears are not overpopulated: “While we have enough suitable bear habitat to support our current bear population levels, if the four largest subpopulations continue to grow at current rates, we will not have enough habitat at some point in the future.”
This is a power grab that rigs the system in favor of politically motivated decision-making—and locks out the people bears actually need protection from: trophy hunters, industry groups, and the narrow interests lobbying behind closed doors.
This is a systemic failure of democracy. Wildlife decisions should be grounded in ecological science, ethics, and the values of all Floridians—not just the preferences of a vocal few.
The Commission Can Stop This Black Bear Hunt
The Commission still has a choice. They can stop this before more bears die needlessly. But they need to hear from you. Your voice is crucial. Tell the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to reject this proposal and protect Florida’s black bears from exploitation and cruelty.
➡️ TAKE ACTION: Submit your comment to the Commission now.
SAMPLE COMMENT
Subject: I Oppose the Proposed Black Bear Hunt
Dear Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed black bear hunt. The vast majority of Floridians—your constituents—have made it clear they do not support this kind of policy. According to your own data, over 80% of the public opposes bear hunting, and even more oppose inhumane practices like hounding and baiting.
This proposal does not reflect sound wildlife management or ecological science. It reflects a system captured by narrow interests that prioritize trophy hunting over conservation, ethics, and the values of everyday Floridians. Wildlife governance should serve the public good—not a small minority of people who want to kill bears for sport.
It is also deeply troubling that the plan would strip the Commission of oversight authority and hand permanent decision-making power to the Executive Director. That change would silence the public and remove crucial checks and balances from a system that is already struggling to earn public trust.
Please reject this proposal. Florida’s black bears deserve protection, not persecution.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your City or County]
Not a Florida resident? Your voice still matters. Florida’s iconic wildlife belongs to all of us—and so do the consequences of reckless management. As a visitor or potential tourist, you have a right to express concern over policies that promote cruelty and undermine Florida’s natural heritage. Tell the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission that trophy hunting, hounding, and baiting tarnish the state’s reputation and threaten the very wildlife many travel to see.
Submit a comment using the above link and let them know: Florida should be a destination for wildlife watching—not wildlife killing.
Then, take the following actions:
- Attend the August 13th FWC meeting in Tallahassee, where the final vote will take place.
- Contact Governor Ron DeSantis and state legislators (Florida House here) to express your views.
- Support or oppose petitions like those hosted by Sierra Club Florida or Change.org.
Together, we can hold decision-makers accountable and defend wildlife from policies that value killing over coexistence.
Losing Don Molde: On Living, Dying, and Loving Anyway
From left to right: Michelle Lute, Fauna Tomlinson, Chris Smith, and Don Molde gather for a photo after advocating for Nevada’s wildlife.
Wildlife for All’s executive director Michelle Lute, PhD, reflects on losing longtime WFA advisor and personal hero Don Molde.
Losing Don Molde: On Living, Dying, and Loving Anyway
Lately I’ve felt overwhelmed by how beautiful and tragically hurt our world is. Joanna Macy said it better: “Between the beauty of this world and the knowledge of what we are doing to it came a luminous and almost unbearable grief.”
I imagine many of you can relate, as working in conservation is a lesson in observing losses. The fireflies that no longer illuminate childhood. The birdsong we don’t wake to. The wildness everywhere that has been silenced, oppressed, subjugated. No matter how long or short our lives are, we’ve all experienced it, witnessed it, grieved it, fought it, and maybe even accepted it.
In one of my more accepting but angrier moments, I recently wrote of my generation: All we inherited was death and stories of abundance so we knew to properly grieve.
But I’m not entirely sure we know how to properly grieve immense losses. Losses that are so incomprehensible they take your breath away. Losses that forever change you as a person: you have who you were before and who you are after, as you continue on without the person you lost.
One of those profound losses hit our Wildlife for All community just last week with the passing of one of our most dedicated and stalwart wildlife advocates, Don Molde. Don was not only a Wildlife for All advisor, but my personal hero and friend. I last visited him in person early in 2024. When I left his house in Reno, I was aware I might not see him again, only because we never know how much time we get to spend together. During that visit, Don and I traded beers and stories. He was as sharp and inspiring as ever, having lived an epically full life filled with demonstrating courageous activism and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society— shelter dogs, incarcerated people, wild horses, cougars, coyotes. I doubt Don ever made an exception. He cared for everyone, even the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners that he long endeavored to reform.
I also suffered another personal loss in the last two weeks with the passing of my grandmother. She was a true matriarch of our large family and will be greatly missed. Like Don, she lived a full life in service to community. As overwhelmed by grief as I may be in this moment, I know to be grateful for ancestors who taught me so much. I am honored to count Don among my personal ancestors whose guidance I will always seek.
“Between the beauty of this world and the knowledge of what we are doing to it came a luminous and almost unbearable grief.”
—Joanna Macy
Those ancestors now also include the luminary Joanna Macy whom I quoted above, whose long legacy of scholarship has taught countless environmental advocates how to grieve our losses. She explained that grief “turns to reveal its other face, and the other face of our pain for the world is our love for the world, our absolutely inseparable connectedness with all life.”
Now, I realize this might be an odd thing for a biologist to admit, but I don’t really understand living and dying. And yet it’s the most natural thing to do. I spend my days trying to protect all forms of life, and have benefitted from the lessons the great teachers have given us, from Don, Joanna, and my grandmother to the animals that have allowed me to observe their living and dying. If you’ve ever buried a bird, watched a deer disappear into the trees, or met the eyes of a dying animal, you’ve known the sacredness of their lessons. Animals do not shy away from death. They do not deny it. And they keep on living. So I should know what it means to live and what we often consider its opposite, to die. We’re exposed to it all the time, on the news, in the animals that surround us, in English class when we read Shakespeare struggling with it—”Out, out brief candle!”
I know not where life goes when it leaves our ability to observe it. I do know our ancestors are here with us still, though no longer in animated carbon, corporeal bodies. I know that they live on in our hearts and in our minds. I know they feel very near to me when I’m in nature.
Whether you call them ancestors, friends, mentors, family—our lost loved ones are not gone. When we remember how they lived, how they embodied love, and how they continue to inspire us today, we can emulate their example and live in service to each other and the wild community we call home.
So perhaps in a way I do understand living and dying. It’s about loving all we can, while we can. And our departed loved ones, human and more-than-human ancestors, continue to show us how to do that. They are our north stars now.
Last night, I thought I was witness to yet another loss. A fledging sparrow was in my front yard, in a bad way but for reasons I couldn’t tell. I scooped them up, placed them in a quiet box with ventilation, and hoped against hope they’d be alive in the morning for me to take them to the local wildlife rescue. When I checked in the morning, with breath held, steeling myself for a tiny tragedy, I found the baby bird full of life and ready to be released. Perhaps they just needed a little respite for the big chaotic world (I bet many of us can relate). When they hopped away, the entire family of sparrows arrived immediately, chittering at the baby, chittering at me. And for a moment, the world felt again very possible and full of life. And in that moment, I heard Don talking to me, telling me that he’s still here with us in this fight.
May all we live to embody the wisdom, strength and determination of our ancestors, and along with it, the moxie of baby sparrows in a big, bright world.
Grief, Hope, and the Will to Keep Loving This World
If—or more realistically, when—the time comes for you to grieve, whether it’s over the state of the world or a more personal loss, you’re not alone. Some days, the grief arrives as sorrow. Other days, it arrives as rage, numbness, or fatigue. All of it is valid.
“Despite how degraded the world has become, it just keeps on being beautiful. It can’t help it.”
—Nick Cave
Sometimes, we need words. Sometimes, we need silence. And sometimes, it’s good to set the book down, walk yourself somewhere wild, sit quietly, and wait for our animal teachers to show us how to live, die and everything in between.
Below are a few books, essays, and conversations that have helped us at Wildlife for All, and many others, face this world with broken hearts and open eyes:
- Joanna Macy’s Active Hope – A foundational book for grief-tending and transformation. Her teachings remind us that our pain for the world is a reflection of our deep love for it.
- Albert Camus’ body of work – As this blog explains, Camus has a lot of good advice for us in the anxious age of the Anthropocene, including: “Sometimes, carrying on, just carrying on, is the superhuman achievement.”
- Terry Tempest Williams’ Refuge – A raw, luminous meditation on death, illness, and desert ecology. She writes, “Grief dares us to love once more.”
- Terry Tempest Williams’ essay from her book Erosion: Essays of Undoing – The seminal environmental author probes the depth of grief over her brother’s passing, his grief over environmental loss and their shared connection to the land and its protection.
- “Buckeye” by Scott Russell Sanders – A quiet, powerful reflection on mortality and the connection to land, family and all life.
- Nick Cave’s Faith, Hope and Carnage – An extraordinary memoir shaped by the death of his sons. As Cave writes, “Hope is optimism with a broken heart.”
- Hot Take Podcast – Thoughtful, emotionally honest conversations on climate and justice with nuance and heart.
- Project Drawdown – A science-backed plan for climate solutions, showing that we do have the tools—if we choose to act.
- The All We Can Save Project – A beautiful, fierce collection of essays from women climate leaders, offering truth and grounded hope.
- Cristina Eisenberg on Wolves as Teachers – A story about how wolves taught a scientist to listen, learn and live lightly on the land.
The Montana war on wolves is escalating
The Montana war on wolves is escalating. The state’s proposed regulations threaten to wipe out wolves within five years.
Alert: New Amendments Reveal Montana Commission Wants to Double Down on Wolf-Killing Ahead of Court Review
Just after a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service failed to properly consider science in its decision to not restore ESA protections for wolves—and specifically named Montana’s extreme anti-wolf policies as a threat—Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) commissioners added proposed amendments for the August 21 Commission meeting. The message? More reckless wolf killing is still on the table.
What’s in the latest plan:
-
Extended hunting seasons in Regions 1 and 2
-
A statewide quota of 458–500 wolves—nearly half of the entire population
-
A new requirement to immediately kill any uncollared wolf caught in a trap
-
Expanded trapping zones statewide
These amendments drop amid court scrutiny of federal protections—but Montana continues the slaughter regardless. The federal ruling may require the Fish & Wildlife Service to reconsider protections, but it cannot stop state-led killing programs in the meantime.
What you can do:
Public comment on the amendments closes August 17. Be specific:
-
Email: FWComm@mt.gov
-
Or submit online here, selecting the dropdown for each amendment
-
Focus on the proposals: extended seasons, inflated quotas, forced kills of uncollared wolves, and expanded trapping zones
State-level governance reform isn’t just theory—it’s our last line of defense. Wolves may now be edging toward federal protection, but Montana’s Commission must hear from us before it’s too late.
Montana’s War on Wolves: Science Ignored, Ecosystems at Risk
500 wolves. One season. One deeply broken system.
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) is proposing to allow up to 500 wolves to be killed during the 2025–2026 hunting and trapping season. If approved, this reckless plan would plunge Montana’s wolves below the minimum viable population threshold, imperil ecosystem health, and further erode public trust in wildlife governance.
A Montana war on wolves via this proposal would make it even easier for a small minority of politically connected people to decimate wolf populations across the state. This isn’t science. It’s fear. It’s cruelty. And it’s politics—dressed up as “management.”
The proposed regulations include:
- A statewide kill quota of 500 wolves, up from 334 last year.
- Individual limits of 30 wolves per person—15 via hunting, 15 via trapping.
- Removal of regional quotas, including in vulnerable areas like Region 3 (north of Yellowstone).
- Continued use of snaring and trapping, despite their inhumanity and impact on non-target species like grizzlies, wolverines, and lynx.
The quota is based on the Integrated Patch Occupancy Model (iPOM)—a tool that multiple scientific reviews have found deeply flawed. According to a 2023 critique from the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center, iPOM overestimates wolf populations by up to 150% (Crabtree et al., 2023; Creel, 2022). This means FWP is planning a mass cull using a fantasy number that does not reflect on-the-ground reality.
Even FWP’s own forecasting report (2023–2027) admits that harvesting 500 wolves annually would cause a population collapse within five years, falling below the state’s legal minimum of 15 breeding pairs. And yet, they’re moving forward, using a model that is widely known to be flawed and overestimates.
Meanwhile, wildlife watching and wolf tourism generates $82 million per year in the Greater Yellowstone area alone (WildLivelihoods, 2022). Compare that to the $285,000 generated annually by wolf hunting license sales—a drop in the economic bucket.
FWP claims it consulted “stakeholders” when drafting this proposal. The only group invited? The Montana Trappers Association. This isn’t consultation—it’s collusion.
Montanans want their wildlife agencies to reflect science, democracy, and public values—not cruelty and corruption. Public trust is being eroded by a system captured by anti-wolf special interests. Killing 500 wolves isn’t science-based, it’s ideological.
Wolves are not villains, pests, or trophies. They are highly intelligent, social animals who regulate prey populations, heal ecosystems, and help restore wild places. When wolves are on the landscape, everything—from elk herds to riverbanks—functions more naturally.
But time and again, state agencies ignore this reality. Instead of honoring science and ecological truth, Montana’s wildlife policies are being shaped by outdated, anti-predator ideologies and the lobbying of powerful interest groups. The new wolf-killing proposal is just the latest chapter in a broader assault—on wolves, on science, on public input, and on democratic values.
This is not just a wildlife issue. It’s a governance issue. And it’s a justice issue.
Montana’s wolf policy reflects a deeper sickness in how wildlife decisions are made across the U.S.—where political insiders control decision-making, and where fear is weaponized to maintain power.
But we’re not powerless. The Commission can still stop this plan. Montana residents have until August 4 to call for an end to senseless slaughter and instead demand a future guided by sound science, compassion, and democracy.
Let Montana know: Wolves are not our enemies. They’re guardians of wild places, ecosystem stewards, and part of our shared future. It’s time to stop the slaughter.
TAKE ACTION TO STOP THE MONTANA WAR ON WOLVES
- Submit your comment by August 4 (Scroll to “Fall 2025–Winter 2026 Furbearer and Wolf Trapping and Hunting Seasons and Quotas” and use the drop-down menu to find the comment form)
- Email the Commission: FWComm@mt.gov
- If you live in Montana, sign up to testify at the August 21 Commission hearing
- If you live in Montana, reach out to your commissioner (see below)
SAMPLE COMMENT
I strongly oppose the proposed 2024–2025 wolf hunting and trapping regulations. These policies are not grounded in sound science, violate the public trust, and pose a serious threat to the long-term viability of wolves in Montana and the greater Northern Rockies.
-
- The proposal leans heavily on the flawed Integrated Patch Occupancy Model (IPOM), which has been widely criticized by scientists and independent experts for underestimating population declines and overprojecting wolf presence.
- Even using FWP’s own data and modeling, if the state continues with the same aggressive quotas and policies, wolves in Montana could be effectively wiped out within five years. That is not management—it is extermination.
- Allowing 500 wolves to be killed in one year will fragment packs, reduce genetic connectivity, and increase the risk of local and regional extirpation. The loss of even a few dispersing individuals can have serious consequences for gene flow and recovery across the Northern Rockies.
- The Commission should maintain regional quotas instead of switching to a statewide quota to limit killing in places with already rapidly declining wolf populations, like Region 3 north of Yellowstone.
- Under no circumstances should a single person be able to kill 30 wolves.
- The Commission should limit the kill quota outside of Yellowstone in WMUs 313 and 316 to one wolf per unit, the lowest quota allowed under current legislation.
- There is no scientific or ethical justification for these extreme policies. Livestock losses to wolves remain extremely low—less than 1% of all cattle and sheep deaths according to USDA data—and wolf populations are not “overabundant” by any ecological measure.
I urge the Commission to reject this destructive proposal and instead uphold its legal and moral responsibility to manage wolves as part of a healthy, interconnected ecosystem. Montanans—and the broader public—deserve science-based wildlife policy that serves the common good, not fear-driven political agendas.
There are three options to testify in person at the August 21 meeting to stop the Montana war on wolves:
-
Attend and testify at Montana WILD Auditorium, 2668 Broadwater Ave., Helena., MT 59602.
-
Attend and testify at any of the seven FWP regional offices.
-
Comments can also be made via Zoom. Registration for Zoom comment will open prior to the meeting and be posted HERE
The meeting begins at 8:30 am. The “Furbearer and Wolf Trapping and Hunting Seasons and Quotas” are 11th and last on the agenda. This could change.
IF YOU LIVE IN MONTANA, make sure you email and call your Fish and Wildlife Commissioner.
Region 1 – Ian Wargo – Commission Vice Chair, Whitefish, 406-438-1714
Region 2 – Jeff Burrows, Hamilton, 406-438-1148
Region 3 – Susan Kirby Brooke, Bozeman, 406-438-0460
Region 4 – KC Walsh, Martinsdale, 406-438-3625
Region 5 – Brian Cebull, Billings, 406-438-2551
Region 6 – Lesley Robinson – Commission Chair, Dodson, 406-301-0787
Region 7 – William Lane, Ismay, 406-438-0143
Bill Would Remove Federal Protections From Endangered Mexican Gray Wolves
Contact: Michelle Lute, media@wildlifeforall.us
For Immediate Release, July 1, 2025
Mexican gray wolf photo available for media use with appropriate credit: Jim Clark/USFWS. Image is available for media use.
TUCSON, Ariz.— U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation this week to remove the Mexican gray wolf from the endangered species list, which would effectively end recovery efforts for this unique, highly imperiled subspecies.
Removing Endangered Species Act protections from Mexican wolves would stop releases of wolves from captivity to diversify the gene pool of wild wolves, end federal investigations into possible wolf predation on livestock, reduce federal funding that supports compensation for livestock losses, shut down monitoring of the wolves and remove federal prohibitions on killing them.
“Bypassing the Endangered Species Act to strip all protections from beleaguered Mexican gray wolves and leave them vulnerable to Arizona’s shoot-on-sight laws would cause a massacre,” said Michael Robinson, senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Southwest’s ecology would suffer, and we’d be left with a sadder, drabber landscape if Gosar and the livestock industry’s cruel vision for wolf extermination becomes law.”
Less than two and a half years after passage of the Endangered Species Act, the Mexican gray wolf was federally protected as endangered in April 1976. Seven of the last remaining Mexican wolves were captured and a breeding program kept the species from extinction. Wolves were reintroduced to Arizona and New Mexico in 1998, and in Mexico in 2011. Since then, their U.S. numbers have increased to 286 animals, but they remain imperiled due to dangerously low genetic diversity.
“Representative Gosar is recklessly out of touch with the science that supports carnivore recovery, and is simply pandering to the anti-wolf livestock industry’s desire to dominate public lands and control nature,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. “Decisions under the Endangered Species Act are supposed to be based on science, not the whims of Congress.”
The Endangered Species Act requires animals and plants to be protected if they are in danger of extinction due to habitat destruction, killings, inadequate regulations or other natural or human threats. Gosar’s bill is an attempt to circumvent the legal, science-based management of Mexican wolves. Species can be removed from the list if they are no longer in danger of extinction. Mexican wolves are nowhere close to meeting the delisting threshold.
“The Wolf Conservation Center is one of many partners in the Saving Animals From Extinction (SAFE) Program for Mexican wolves, a captive breeding and release effort focused on recovering wild, genetically robust populations,” said Regan Downey, director of education and advocacy at the Wolf Conservation Center. “We’ve worked tirelessly for decades to support thriving populations of Mexican wolves and refuse to be undermined by politicians who prioritize private industry over endangered wildlife.”
There would be no legal or regulatory limits on wolf killings in Arizona if the Mexican wolf were to be removed from the federal endangered list. Wolf killing in New Mexico would likely also increase. With a relatively small population size, a constricted range, a limited gene pool and an absence of protective rules in Arizona, any congressional delisting of the Mexican gray wolf would likely result in unrecoverable losses.
“We cannot allow disinformation and myth to guide decision making when it comes to protecting our irreplaceable wildlife and wild places,” said Erin Hunt, managing director of Lobos of the Southwest. “The Endangered Species Act is a proven success. For the past three decades, 84% of people have consistently supported the Act and the protection it provides to species in peril, with no evidence of lower support among people living in rural areas. Mexican wolves would be extinct if it weren’t for Endangered Species Act protection. Despite the false claims of a few, there are many people living in wolf country who want to see lobos restored and thriving on the landscapes where they belong.”
Livestock owners have benefited from Endangered Species Act protection for Mexican wolves, too. They are reimbursed with federal funds when there has been conflict between livestock and wolves.
“Without strong protections from the Endangered Species Act, Mexican gray wolves will once again be at risk from being eliminated from Arizona. That is just not a risk we should be taking with these highly endangered wolves,” said Sandy Bahr, director of Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter. “Rep. Gosar is once again demonstrating both his ignorance and his arrogance, as well as his total lack of concern for the creatures we share this Earth with, by pushing forward with this legislation.”
“Lobos have been an integral and irreplaceable part of the landscapes of the Southwest for millennia. They add a demonstrated ecological benefit, hold important cultural significance, and have captured the hearts and minds of New Mexicans and many others across the nation and the world,” said Leia Barnett, Greater Gila New Mexico advocate for WildEarth Guardians. “We cannot afford to entertain these ill-informed, industry-driven attacks on our bedrock environmental laws that protect these iconic species and their habitat.”
“I have seen that coexistence with wolves is possible when communities have access to practical, nonlethal tools and support. But this bill would strip away the protections that make that kind of progress achievable,” said Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “It ignores science, disregards the fragile status of Mexican gray wolves, and risks unraveling decades of careful recovery work.”
“The Mexican gray wolf has lived on the landscape of the American Southwest and Mexico for millions of years, long before either nation-state came into existence. Lobos had robust populations and a preeminent role in maintaining ecosystems keeping them safe from disease and unmitigated herbivory,” said Nico Lorenzen of Wild Arizona. “Rep. Gosar paints the current state of wolf conservation in misleading nationalist broad strokes that ignore robust science and how much the majority of Americans value our wild heritage. His unwillingness to understand the complex facts on the ground in favor of particular interest groups is a shortsighted attempt to harm a species that is still very much in need of recovery.”
“This bill is a cynical ploy to appease special interests at the expense of the democratic process, public trust and the survival of one of North America’s most endangered mammals,” said Michelle Lute, Ph.D. in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “Stripping protections from Mexican gray wolves would empower local anti-wolf factions to increase their extermination efforts and make a mockery of the Endangered Species Act. Wildlife belong to all of us — not just the politicians and industries trying to sell our public lands and wildlife to the highest bidder. We need more democracy in wildlife management, not less.”
Since its passage in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has successfully prevented the extinction of more than 99% of the animals and plants placed on the endangered and threatened species lists.
###
About Wildlife for All – Wildlife for All is a national organization dedicated to reforming wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. Through research, advocacy, and education, we aim to protect wildlife and ensure that policies reflect the values of all Americans.
July Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at July Wildlife Commission Meetings.
July Wildlife Commission Meetings
We’re more than halfway through the year, and it’s time to rally for wildlife at this month’s state wildlife commission meetings! Are you ready to keep the momentum going?
Wildlife commission meetings are key moments to shape state policies and push for wildlife management grounded in science, ethics, and the public interest. Your voice can make a real impact. Whether you show up in person, speak online, or submit written comments, your participation helps hold decision-makers accountable and center wildlife’s needs.
Below you’ll find a full list of states holding wildlife commission meetings in July, ordered by date. As you plan how to engage, check out our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit for tips and support. Let’s show up strong and keep fighting for change!
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: July 7 — CANCELLED
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: Noted as canceled online.
Notes: Read more on their website.
Colorado Special Meeting
Meeting Date: July 7
Location: Virtual
Details: Meeting notice (no agenda as of 7/1)
Notes: 12:30-2:30 pm
Louisiana
Meeting Date: July 8
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Start time 9 a.m. Register for the Zoom webinar (no link available at time of posting but links are sent via email) to comment online/virtually or to watch live. Commission meetings are open to the public. To comment, you can attend the meeting in person at the location listed above, submit written comments before the meeting by emailing Comments@wlf.la.gov. Your email must include the agenda item # in the subject of your email. The body of your message should include your name and address before your comment. During the Zoom meeting you may submit comments by using the ‘Q&A’ feature at the bottom of the Zoom application. During the designated comment period, click ‘Q&A’ at the bottom of your Zoom window, type your name, physical address, and question/comment, and then press ‘enter.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: July 8
Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room,1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ 08691
Details: Click here for agenda
Notes: The public is welcome to attend and participate in the public portion of each meeting. Meeting starts at 10 a.m. and will be held both in person and via GoToMeeting (audio only). Call in: +1 (312) 757-3121 | Access Code: 848-342-077. Per the website, public comments may be made in person or online and will be limited to 3 minutes per person. More information about the Commission is on its website, including a meeting guide and how to connect. For help, contact Kristen.Meistrell@dep.nj.gov.
Iowa
Meeting Date: July 10
Location: 6200 Park Ave, Ste 200, Des Moines, Walnut Woods Conference Room
Details: Click here for details. No agenda as of 7/1.
Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. Teleconference: 442-242-3609 ; PIN: 883 789 392# Video Conference: meet.google.com/sco-mbns-qva. Comments regarding agenda items may be submitted for public record to Alicia.Plathe@dnr.iowa.gov or 6200 Park Ave Ste 200, Des Moines IA 50321 up to 24 hours prior to the business meeting.
Michigan
Meeting Date: July 10
Location: Lansing Community College, West Campus Rooms M119-121, 5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917
Details: Click here for details. No agenda as of 7/1.
Notes: 9:30 a.m. meeting. Persons registering to provide comments on a topic listed on the agenda on or before the Friday preceding the meeting will be allowed up to 5 minutes for their comments. Persons registering to comment on a topic not listed on the agenda, after the Friday preceding the meeting, or at the meeting will be allowed up to 3 minutes. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments on agenda items, please write to Natural Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, or email nrc@michigan.gov. Read more on the Commission website.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: July 10-11
Location: Yankton/Zoom
Details: Agenda not available as of 7/1
Notes: Livestream watch link. Inform Gail Buus at gail.buus@state.sd.us by 1 pm CST if you plan to speak during the meeting. Testifiers should provide their full names, whom they are representing, city of residence, and which proposed topic they will be addressing. Written comments can be submitted here. Here are guidelines for submission. To be included in the public record, comments must include full name and city of residence and meet the submission deadline of seventy-two hours before the meeting (not including the day of the meeting).
Webinar Info: We will be using Zoom Webinar® for this meeting. As a participant, you will not have audio or video capabilities by default. During the open forum and public hearing, if you’d like to testify, please ‘Raise Your Hand’ using the button at the bottom of the screen, or by pressing *9 on your phone. To lower your hand via phone, press *9 again. When it’s your turn to speak, the meeting host will unmute you, allowing you to have audio but no video. If your phone is muted when called upon, press *6 to unmute. • *9 to ‘Raise Your Hand’ or ‘Lower Your Hand.’ • *6 to Unmute or Mute
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: July 11
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agendas are posted at least 6 days prior to the date of the meeting but an agenda for this month was not available when this webpage was posted. Keep checking back on this webpage.
Notes: Meeting starts at 9.a.m. Attend in person and arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the meeting start time in order to add your name to the sign-in sheet. To speak virtually, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov. Include your name and the agenda item on which you would like to testify. Once your request has been received, you will receive an email with the Zoom link. Requests may be also made during the meeting. Meetings will be livestreamed at: https://youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr. To submit a comment, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure time for BLNR Member review.
Pennsylvania
Meeting Date: July 11-12
Location: PGC Headquarters – 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: 1 p.m. Friday, July 11 and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, July 12. Public comment is accepted in person only on a first-to-register, first-to-speak basis. Watch live on YouTube.
Indiana
Meeting Date: July 15
Location: Fort Harrison State Park, The Garrison, 6002 North Post Road, Indianapolis, IN
Details: Agenda was not available when this webpage was published. Keep checking this webpage for details.
Notes:10 a.m. ET/9 a.m. CT. All meeting agendas are posted a week prior to the meeting.
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: July 15
Location: Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH
Details: Agenda was not available when this webpage was published (7/1). Keep checking this webpage for details.
Notes: Meetings are generally at 1 p.m. on the third Tuesday of every month. Meetings of the NH Fish and Game Commission are open to the public, unless otherwise noted.
Wyoming
Meeting Date: July 15-16
Location:Casper, at the Ramkota Hotel & Conference Center, 800 N. Poplar Street
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: This meeting will be conducted in person and via Zoom. Please note there are different links for each day. If you wish to speak to the Commission and comment on an agenda item in person, please complete the comment form provided at the meeting. If you wish to speak to the Commission and comment on an agenda item via Zoom, please submit an Advanced Agenda Item Comment Form, which is attached to the agenda, by July 10 to toni.bell2@wyo.gov.
Tuesday, July 15, 2024 Executive Session begins at 8:00 a.m. Open Session begins at approximately 9:00 a.m. Zoom link | Webinar ID: 810 8767 3587
Wednesday, July 16, 2024 Executive Session (if needed) begins at 7:00 a.m. Open Session begins at 8:00 a.m. Zoom link | Webinar ID: 858 0598 5499
Action: Two items for comment on Wednesday, July 16 –>
- 13. Presenters: Dr. Dan Thompson, Large Carnivore Section Supervisor, and Ken Mills, Large Carnivore Biologist/Wolf Management Specialist, Wildlife Division. Chapter 47, Gray Wolf Hunting Seasons. The Commission will be asked to vote to approve the revised Chapter 47, Gray Wolf Hunting Seasons. 1 hour. 1:30-2:30 p.m.
- 14. Presenter: Dr. Dan Thompson, Large Carnivore Section Supervisor, and Justin Clapp, Large Carnivore Biologist, Wildlife Division. Chapter 42, Mountain Lion Hunting Seasons. The Commission will be asked to vote to approve the revised Chapter 42, Mountain Lion Hunting Seasons. 1 hour. 2:30-3:30 p.m.
Arkansas
Meeting Date: July 16-17
Location: Camden
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda is online at time of webpage publishing).
Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. 2025 meeting schedule is here. Archive of 2025 meetings is here. Watch the meeting on YouTube.
California – Marine Resources Committee Only
Meeting Date: July 16-17
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building 715 P Street, 2nd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details. Meeting documents here.
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Commission meetings are live-streamed (also referred to as a live webcast) with full audio and video. If you simply want to observe the meeting, but do not wish to comment on any item, we encourage you to view the live webcast available at www.fgc.ca.gov. How to join (if you plan to provide comment). More on all meetings in 2025.
Colorado Office Hours
Meeting Date: July 16
Location: Hunter Education Building, 711 Independent Ave, Grand Junction, CO 81505
Details: Commissioner hours with Richard Reading
Notes: 2-5 p.m. In person only.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: July 16
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details | Per the website the agenda will be posted at least 2 days before the meeting
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 060655. Or join via audio: (929) 205-6099. Webinar ID: 813 6562 8609. Passcode: 060655. Anyone wishing to be placed on the agenda to speak at the monthly business meeting must begin by notifying the Board in writing 2 weeks prior to the Board meeting; for more detailed information, contact Susan Sacco.
Ohio
Meeting Date: July 16
Location: Wildlife District 1 Office, 1500 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting begins at 6 p.m. Comments for open forums during Ohio Wildlife Council meetings must be about a current rule proposal. If you have a topic that is not a current rule proposal, please email the council with your comment or question (wildlife.council@dnr.ohio.gov), or speak to a council member before or after a meeting. If the topic falls within the wildlife, fish, or law section, feel free to reach out at our open houses or email the Division of Wildlife at wildinfo@dnr.ohio.gov. Speakers must register by 5 p.m. the Monday before the meeting. The Public Comment Form must be completed and submitted to wildlife.council@dnr.ohio.gov. Along with the form, submit any handouts you plan to provide. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes. There will be a maximum of ten speaker slots available. PowerPoint presentations are not permitted.
Vermont
Meeting Date: July 16
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Unclear how to comment or speak either virtually or in person. Full meeting schedule for 2025 is here.
Colorado
Meeting Date: July 17-18
Location: Grand Junction Convention Center, 159 Main Street, Grand Junction, CO 81501
Details: Click here for details. No agenda as of 7/1.
Notes: 8:30 a.m. Wed, May 7 through 3 p.m. Thu, May 8. The cutoff to speak online is Friday, July 11 at noon but you can still show up in person to comment or email the commission (though these won’t be counted in the official public record if received after noon on 7/11).
Idaho
Meeting Date: July 17
Location: Idaho Fish and Game – Headquarters, 600 S. Walnut Street, Boise, ID 83712
Details: Meeting agenda is no longer online but there’s not update on if this meeting is canceled or still on.
Notes: Virtual participation available; call-in number is +1-408-418-9388 and webinar ID is 962 371 254. Password is “meeting” if needed. Per the website, “The Fish and Game Commission usually holds a public hearing in conjunction with each regular meeting. Members of the public who want to address the commission on any topic having to do with Fish and Game business may do so at the public hearing. All testimony will be taken into consideration when the commission makes decisions on agenda items at the meetings.” It is unclear how to submit comments in advance or if virtual comments/speaking is allowed. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.
Missouri
Meeting Date: July 17-18
Location: MDC Headquarters, 2901 W Truman Blvd., Jefferson City, MO 65102
Details: Click here for agenda and details )note: no agenda available at time of posting)
Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. Background documents related to open meeting agenda items are available for public viewing at Conservation Department Headquarters, Jefferson City, for eight calendar days prior to the meeting. Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. Recording the open meeting is permissible, pursuant to any guidelines established by the Commission to minimize disruption to the meeting. Individuals wishing to record the open meeting by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means should notify the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting so accommodations for such recording can be made. To view livestream of the open meeting, or to watch recordings of past meetings, go to http://on.mo.gov/2nodPJU
Washington
Meeting Date: July 18
Location: Zoom
Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available as of 7/1)
Notes: Registration for those wishing to provide virtual comments closes at 5 p.m. the day before the meeting begins. Registrants will be called upon and typically have 3 minutes to speak. If you are unable to participate, you can submit your comments on the Commission contact page. If you haven’t pre-registered and wish to attend and speak in person, complete a Public Testimony Form, available at the registration table. The form must be submitted at least 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the agenda item you wish to testify on.
North Carolina
Meeting Date: July 24
Location: Commission Room, 5th Floor, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC
Details: No agenda available as of 7/1.
Notes: The board will meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, July 24. Members of the public may join in person or via Zoom by registering in advance: https://ncwildlife-org.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_xjCQTSxSTKSmnoBdmDsYlw.
Maine
Meeting Date: July 24
Location: Unknown
Details: No information available as of 7/1. Keep checking this website.
Notes: Typically the next meeting date is listed in the previous month’s minutes. As soon as they post their June meeting minutes, we should know more.
West Virginia
Meeting Date: July 24
Location: WVU Potomac State College – Davis Conference Center,101 Fort Avenue, Keyser, WV 26726
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda or detailed meeting information is available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Send comments to wvnrcommission@wv.gov. To send written comments, contact: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Director’s Office, 324th Avenue, South Charleston, WV 25303. The meeting will be livestreamed on the West Virginia Department of Commerce’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/@WVcommerce/streams and will be available starting the day of the meeting. The livestream is view-only. To provide public comments, you must attend in person at one of the six district locations listed above.
In-Person Locations
District 1 – 1110 Railroad St, Farmington, WV 26571
District 2 – 1 Depot St, Romney, WV 26757
District 3 – 738 Ward Rd, Elkins, WV 26241
District 4 – 2006 Robert C. Byrd Dr, Beckley, WV 25801
District 5 – 112 California Ave, Charleston, WV 25305
District 6 – 76 Conservation Way, Parkersburg, WV 26104
⚠️ Important Note for District 4 Attendees: If you plan to attend the meeting in person at this location, please allow extra travel time and plan your route accordingly to avoid delays due to ongoing road construction along Robert C. Byrd Drive.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: June 25
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agendas are posted at least 6 days prior to the date of the meeting but an agenda for this month was not available when this webpage was posted. Keep checking back on this webpage.
Notes: Meeting starts at 9.a.m. Attend in person and arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the meeting start time in order to add your name to the sign-in sheet. To speak virtually, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov. Include your name and the agenda item on which you would like to testify. Once your request has been received, you will receive an email with the Zoom link. Requests may be also made during the meeting. Meetings will be livestreamed at: https://youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr. To submit a comment, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure time for BLNR Member review.
Who Really Speaks For Wildlife? Michelle Lute on the CSU Animal-Human Policy Center Podcast
Court Upholds Michigan’s Shortened Coyote Season
Science, ethics, and Michigan coyotes
On June 3, 2025, an Ingham County judge ruled in favor of closing coyote hunting in Michigan during a three-month period while mother coyotes are nursing and raising pups. After the state’s Natural Resources Commission decided to shorten the season back in March 2024, hunting groups sued the agency, claiming the commission was swayed by emotion and social pressure rather than “sound scientific management”.
Nevertheless, the court upheld Michigan’s shortened coyote hunting season and determined that the commission did not violate its directive. As the judge stated: “Based on a complete and thorough review of the whole record, which is comprised of over 3,000 pages, it is abundantly clear the Commission fulfilled its duty under (state law) and used principles of sound scientific management to the greatest extent practicable in making its decision regarding the taking of coyotes.” The 66-page document for the court decision included an overview of 2024 Michigan NRC Wildlife Committee meetings discussing the coyote season, including numerous public comments for and against the change. Those weighing in included representatives from hunting groups and wildlife advocacy groups, hunters, and members of the broader public.
Dr. Nichole Biber, an Odawa tribal citizen and leader of the Wolf and Wildlife Preservation team on Michigan’s Anishinabek Caucus, was among the voices in support. She spoke about the consequences of ecological imbalance, and the importance of rethinking our relationship with the environment from domination to coexistence:
“You know, coyotes, a nonstop, unfettered, unlimited take, that’s not so good because if you’re looking at science, imbalance is coming from that. We look at Ma’iingan, the wolf. They took care of the coyote population…so here’s a consequence of just wiping them out, just like bringing the carp in [to the Great Lakes ecosystem]. So, you know, we can cling to this damaging approach that elevates…destruction or dominion as recreation, or we can sustain life in the places that are on the brink through collaboration and reorienting our relationships.” (page 30)
Another voice in support of the change came from a Michigan representative for Project Coyote, who addressed the intersection of science and ethics pertaining to wildlife. She noted the relevance of certain fields of research, such as carnivore neuroscience:
“The Pennsylvania Game Commission stated that after decades of using predator controls, such as bounties, with no effect, and the emergence of wildlife management as a science, the agency finally accepted the reality that predator control does not work, and that predators don’t compete with our hunters for game. The limiting factor is habitat. We must focus our efforts on habitat…In addition to the science, there are also deep ethical implications to year-round coyote hunting and related unethical practices, such as wildlife killing contests. Like our companion animals, coyotes have highly developed cognitive, emotional, and social capabilities. In an article in Scientific American entitled The Mind of the Predator, author Gareth Cook notes that neuroscience has discovered that coyotes and wolves and many other animals share common brain structures and processes that govern thinking and feeling in humans, and like us, have comparable capacities to experience emotional and psychological trauma. These discoveries suggest profound ethical implications for our treatment of wildlife. But Michigan law and hunting practices have not kept up with these latest neuroscience discoveries. Mainstream hunters consider it unethical to waste any animal killed, and yet coyote meat is not considered a food source for humans, and there is little demand for coyote pelts. Furthermore, wildlife killing contests that target coyotes for killing for cash and prizes remain legal across Michigan…” (page 42-43)
An Ethical Double Standard
In the lawsuit, hunter groups claimed wildlife commissions were being influenced by non-hunters. In reality, wildlife agencies often prioritize hunters and dominionistic values. State and federal wildlife agencies typically view hunters, anglers, trappers and agricultural interests as their primary “stakeholders”— shaping regulations accordingly. This narrow framing often results in institutional hostility towards carnivores like coyotes. Arguing that practices such as unrestricted year-round coyote killing should remain legal so long as the “resource” (read: overall coyote population) is not in danger of being wiped out is a value-based position, not a neutral or scientific one.
During a 2024 Wildlife Committee meeting, Justin Miller, a doctorate student at Michigan State University’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, mentioned the various factors influencing the proposed policy change. He acknowledged “diverse perspectives regarding this proposed regulatory change along a continuum that can be categorized as biological, stakeholder, economic and management.” For biological factors, Miller pointed out that coyote pups are typically born starting in mid-April. He added that while maintaining a year-round season from 2016 to 2024 did not appear to cause a decline in Michigan’s coyote population, it did increase the chance that female coyotes could be lactating (nursing) while hunted. This knowledge about coyotes informs us that a shortened season prohibiting hunting from April 15 to July 15 primarily reduces the vulnerability of lactating female coyotes and their pups.
At the same meeting, Miller noted that some people felt strong hostility towards coyotes. He cited an article from a county news outlet in northern Michigan covering a local predator killing contest as an example of “stakeholder opposition” to a shortened season. In the article hunters claim coyotes, foxes, and bobcats, “endanger game animals, pets, and even humans” with one competitor stating, “for every one of these [coyotes killed], you’re saving seven fawns.” (Source, cited on page 19 of court doc) The same article also quoted a local resident who exclaimed she was never going into the woods again upon seeing a bobcat killed during the contest – incorrectly perceiving the mere presence of a native bobcat living in the forests of Michigan as a dangerous threat. “I’m not going to take a chance, thank you. You guys just keep up the good work.” Killing competitions – and the lack of regulations that enable them – reinforce attitudes of exaggerated fear, intolerance, and persecution of carnivores, among both hunters and the general public. Such attitudes expressed by “stakeholders” display profound ignorance as well as a lack of respect for these species and their ecological importance.
Perceived as competition, a threat, or an inconvenience
Why are ethics and ecology so often disregarded for coyotes, wolves, bobcats, and other native carnivores? In her essay “Ethical Exception”, graduate wildlife management student Jazmin Sunny Murphy described how this inconsistency stems from an exclusionary approach within the system of wildlife governance: “One of the reasons why coyotes do not receive the same ethical consideration that many other species do is because wildlife managers and many consumptive users view the species as a threat to economic stability and capital gain. The coyote is purely competition for game species or a threat to livestock. There is no in-between or room for consideration of the species as an animal functioning naturally in its native environment. When an animal, or any being for that matter, is reduced to no more than a nuisance, there is no obligation to treat said animal as anything more. The moral responsibility to respect or value life is absent where no such life exists.”
Policies that promote and encourage mass killing of coyotes, as well as dismissive and fear-based language, “are all reflective of the erasure of what the coyote truly is in an ecological and cultural sense.”
Many statements expressed at NRC meetings in opposition to a shortened season, as found in the court document, contain numerous appeals to fear-based emotion and control. Do any of these arguments sound like scientific or conservation based mindsets to you? Or are they simply based on emotion and personal values?
“Non-hunters don’t like it when their dogs or cats get killed or attacked by coyotes. They’re also not big fans of fawns being carried around by coyotes in their mouths, dead fawns that are being killed by coyotes. Coyotes need to be managed just like anything else.”
“I do support this keeping their year-long hunting on the coyotes. Coyote pups are pretty when they’re small. I filmed them when they didn’t have their eyes open. And I walked away from them, left them there. I didn’t know I did the right thing. But those things grow up, and become adults. In six months, they’re out there killing little turkeys, little rabbits, fawns, and everything else. So they need to be controlled. I support that wholeheartedly.”
“They are Michigan’s alpha predator. I’ve experienced it, and if anyone else hasn’t, I can’t begin to describe the feeling when you’re standing there helplessly watching as a coyote runs up and snatches a pet or a small animal, or two or three coyotes grab it and start eating it while it’s still alive. I have no sympathy for the coyote.”
“Let’s keep in mind, the predators in question are varmints, not much different than rats or mice, just larger, with a higher environmental impact on those who they impact. While on the way here from Grand Rapids today, I saw two coyote roadkill. This is a sight you would not have seen even a couple of years ago, and it’s an insight into the population of coyotes in our state.”
“I am here not just to protect coyote hunting, but to protect all hunting for future generations…The only evidence to support the [shortened coyote season] is completely based off emotions and political image. With all this evidence given by my fellow hunters, and the majority of the hunting community wanting to keep the year-long season, I fear that if this season is changed, what is next? All the evidence we have provided, and the season still gets changed over emotions and political views? This makes me fear for the entirety of hunting, not just coyotes. If we can’t get enough votes to oppose this change, hunting is in trouble. Because not only is the argument in opposition of the change more logical, there are more people opposing the change as well. If we can’t win this battle, God help all future hunting.”
“We are infested with them. And it seems to get worse every year. Coyotes are the apex predator everywhere in our state except where wolves are present, hunting and killing everything they can take down. We don’t need coyotes protected during their whelping seasons, which also happens to overlap the birth of white-tailed deer. More white-tail fawns are taken by a coyote than survive our area.…Almost everyone I talked to will tell you that if they’re out hunting, regardless of what, if they see a coyote, it turns into a coyote hunt. They are despised animals with no redeeming qualities, and yet they survive and are growing in numbers just like rats. Bounties should be placed on coyotes.”
“They’re in there waiting and looking for easy pets to prey on, as well as from – as well. From February till July, coyotes are the most aggressive. At this time, there are high – higher than normal human interactions. And during this time, they tend to look for pets to maul and kill. They see them as easy prey. This is to do with breeding season raising their aggression levels. This is when we need to be able to remove these animals the most.”
“My last and probably least important point is the alleged reason for the proposal: orphan coyote pups not surviving due to their mom being killed. That’s so rare, that also should be non-issue. I would offer this. Any pups that might not survive because their mom got killed are not going to outnumber how many pets get killed by coyotes in the lifetime of those pups. A week ago- or last Thursday night, I was able to remove a coyote off a property of an old couple whose dog was attacked. The week before that, I removed the coyote off the property of an old couple whose dog was killed. Last year, same thing. So I would offer this, yeah, that more pets will get killed by those coyotes than the few rare instance that pups don’t survive because their mom was killed.”
“These animals are feeding on adult white-tailed deer down to our small game, while having no predators in the Lower Peninsula to keep them in check. Conservationists must be able to manage them year-round.”
[From a hunting organization hosting a coyote killing contest] “We’re one of the top now (sic.) predator tournaments in the state. [We proposed starting] a late spring, early summer tournament. The tournament created incredible bonds that have happened with those people who hunt. Hunting coyotes in late spring, early summer would be a prime opportunity as opposed to the fall.”
“Coyotes no longer have a useful animal product worth any value. Fur prices are diminished to a point where it is no longer economical for a fur harvester to sell pelts unless it is for their own passion and desire. Since coyotes in Michigan are no longer have a use or an animal product, and are not a mesopredator in the lower Peninsula, they should also not be considered a game species in Michigan any more. A more accurate term to classify coyotes would be a DNR- and NRC-managed nuisance species or management species…With coyotes being classified as as game, as a game species in Michigan, it is being assumed they should be treated similar to other game species that have a quiet period. That is an incorrect assumption, since coyotes in Michigan are no longer seen as a game species from the hunting community, but as a management species or nuisance wildlife.”
(A study led by Dr. Jerry Belant, the Boone and Crocket Chair in MSU’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife monitored coyote predation on deer in Michigan. As cited in the court document: After a 16-week post-parturition period, 47 percent of the studied fawns were still alive, whereas the fawn mortality from coyotes was 13.1 percent. Coyotes killed “much less” than 8.6 percent of the adult female deer population. As for adult male deer mortality, “coyotes didn’t kill any of these bucks.”)
Similar deer studies in states like Delaware have shown that fawns have similar survival rates even in absence of predation, and a South Carolina study found that killing coyotes in an attempt to bolster fawn survival is ineffective. In the Delaware study area, where coyotes and other deer predators are virtually absent, just 45% of the studied fawns were still alive after 90 days of birth. All deaths were linked to birth defects, emaciation, disease, and other natural causes. Factors such as rainfall, birth weight, and doe age most influence a fawn’s chance of survival. In short, killing a coyote does not “save seven fawns”. Coyotes, bobcats, and other carnivores should not be vilified for their natural roles as predators – they are not limiting opportunities to hunt deer, and ecosystems benefit from their presence. When these animals eat fawns, this is simply nature’s way of removing a “doomed surplus” of prey that will die regardless.
A close look at the document of the judge’s decision to uphold the shortened coyote hunting season shows that the commission did not ignore science by giving coyotes a three-month reprieve. It also reveals the hypocrisy within claims that decisions giving a degree of protection or ethical consideration to carnivores are “unscientific” or “based on emotion”. Many of the arguments in favor of year-round, unrestricted killing from the case file are based off a personal dislike for coyotes (and carnivores in general) or a desire to control and dominate nature. The perceived need to kill carnivores to suppress their populations or reduce conflicts with pets and livestock is not supported by science.
If we can successfully advocate for more ethical, democratic, and ecologically sound policies for the most unjustly persecuted carnivore, the coyote, we can do the same for all wildlife.
Wolf Pups Bring Hope — But Colorado’s Wolves Are Still in Crisis
Wolf Pups Bring Hope — But Colorado’s Wolves Are Still in Crisis
Wolf Pups Bring Hope — But Colorado’s Wolves Are Still in Crisis
Wolf pups have been spotted again in Colorado. In a world so often marked by loss and destruction, this news brings much-needed hope: life is continuing. Families are growing.
But behind this hopeful image lies a stark and urgent reality. Colorado’s wolves—newly reintroduced after decades of absence—are struggling to survive, and they are dying at the hands of the very systems meant to protect them.
Since Colorado voters chose to reintroduce wolves to the state, 25 wolves have been released. Nine of them are already dead. That’s more than one in three. Most of these deaths have come at the hands of humans.
Some were poached. One was killed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) itself. Others have crossed invisible lines into Wyoming, where federal protections disappear and cruelty is legal. One collared wolf was shot by USDA Wildlife Services during a livestock conflict response. These are not random tragedies. These are the result of a management system that still sees killing as a tool and conflict as inevitable.
We are at a tipping point. Colorado’s wolf population is far too small to withstand this level of loss. Scientific models of “acceptable” mortality—25 to 30% annually—are based on long-established populations, not a fledgling group trying to gain a foothold.
As biologist and author Marc Bekoff writes, these numbers ignore something even more important: the lives of individual wolves. Every wolf matters. Every life lost is a family shattered.
Wolves aren’t just symbols or statistics. They are living, breathing, feeling animals with families, relationships, and memories. When CPW killed Wolf 2405, they didn’t just remove a datapoint—they ended a life. They broke up a family. The mother lost a son. His siblings lost a brother.
We encourage you to read Marc Bekoff’s recent reflection, “Colorado’s New Wolves: A Story of Tragedy, Killing, and Survival.”
He writes: “We’ve killed too much, too often. It’s high time for wolves to be respected for who they are, rather than being used as unfeeling objects—as pawns—for people with different conservation or political agendas.”
Coexistence is not a radical dream. It’s an ethical imperative.
Colorado has a second chance to lead. We can choose a different path—one where coexistence does not include killing, where the lives of wolves aren’t seen as expendable. We can invest in non-lethal conflict prevention, support rural communities with real solutions, and shift toward a model of compassionate conservation that centers the lives of individual animals and the ecosystems they support.
Let Colorado’s new wolf pups remind us what’s at stake. And let the deaths of their kin be a rallying cry—for reform, for protection, and for the wild future we still have time to create.
Read more: Colorado’s New Wolves: A Story of Tragedy, Killing, and Survival. Then, take action.
