News & Commentary

Bill Would Remove Federal Protections From Endangered Mexican Gray Wolves

Jul 2, 2025

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

Jul 1, 2025

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

Who Really Speaks For Wildlife? Michelle Lute on the CSU Animal-Human Policy Center Podcast

Jun 30, 2025

Michelle dives into the history—and the harm—of the so-called North American Model of Wildlife Conservation on the CSU Animal-Human Policy Center podcast. What began as a description of early Euro-American conservation has been warped into a prescription for how we manage wildlife today: one that leaves out Indigenous knowledge, future generations, non-consumptive values, and even wildlife themselves.

Listen to Podcast ►

Court Upholds Michigan’s Shortened Coyote Season

Jun 29, 2025

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

Jun 17, 2025

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.

June Wildlife Commission Meetings

Jun 2, 2025

Speak up for wildlife at June Wildlife Commission Meetings.

June Wildlife Commission Meetings

June is here, and it’s time to rally for wildlife at this month’s state wildlife commission meetings! Are you ready to keep the momentum going?

Below you’ll find a full list of states holding wildlife commission meetings in June, 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!

Delaware

Meeting Date: June 3

Location:Little Creek Hunter Education Training Center, 3018 Bayside Drive, Dover, DE

Details: Click here for agenda 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.

Louisiana

Meeting Date: June 3

Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Details: Click here for meeting details

Notes: Start time 9 a.m. Register for the Zoom webinar 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.

North Carolina

Meeting Date: June 4-5

Location: Commission Room, 5th Floor, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC

Details: Click here for agenda and details. | Agenda package

Notes: June 4 WRC Committee Meetings:
9:00 am – 10:15 am Habitat Nongame & Endangered Species | Agenda
10:15 am – 11:15 am Small Game & Wild Turkey | Agenda
11:15 am – 12:00 pm Finance, Audit & Compliance | Agenda
1:30 pm – 2:30 pm Education & Communication | Agenda
2:30 pm – 3:45 pm Committee of the Whole | Agenda
Note – If a committee meeting ends early, the next Committee meeting may begin 5 minutes after the previous committee ends.

The board will meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, June 5. Members of the public may join in person or via Zoom by registering in advance: https://ncwildlife-org.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_xjCQTSxSTKSmnoBdmDsYlw.

South Dakota

Meeting Date: June 5-6

Location: Dakota Event Center, Aberdeen, SD

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: June 5, 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. CT | June 6, 8 a.m.-12 p.m. CT. Livestream watch link. Zoom Meeting Link | To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458 | To provide comments, join the meeting in person, via zoom, or via conference call per the info above. Please 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).

Oklahoma

Meeting Date: June 9

Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Details: No agenda available as of 6/2

Notes: Read more on their website.

Colorado Office Hours

Meeting Date: June 10

Location: Morgridge Commons, 815 Cooper Ave, 2nd Floor, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601

Details: Commissioner hours with Eden Vardy

Notes: 4:40-6:20 p.m. In person only.

New Jersey

Meeting Date: June 10

Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room,1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ 08691

Details: Click here for agenda

California

Meeting Date: June 11-12

Location: East End Complex Auditorium,1500 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95814

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Action: Oppose the northern California counties declaring wolf emergencies (now 6) and bring science-based comments in support of wolves. You may need to debunk the recent misleading UC Davis study from a husband-wife team in the College of Agriculture that isn’t offering a peer-reviewed paper but is circulating misinformation on the frequency of wolf predation and its effects on cattle.

Colorado

Meeting Date: June 11-12

Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Durango, 501 Camino del Rio, Durango, CO 81301

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: 8:30 a.m. Wed, May 7 through 3 p.m. Thu, May 8. The cutoff to speak online is Friday,June 6 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).

Michigan

Meeting Date: June 12

Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Bay City – Riverfront, One Wenonah Park Place, Bay City, MI 48708

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.

Utah

Meeting Date: June 12

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.

Nebraska

Meeting Date: June 12-13

Location:Chimney Rock Room at Country Inn and Suites, 665 Chase Blvd. Sidney, NE

Details: Click here for meeting agenda and details. Agenda for informational session.

Notes: Informational session starts at 1 p.m. June 12. Meeting starts at 8 a.m. June 13. All 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 1 p.m. CT April 16, 2025 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.

Arizona

Meeting Date: June 13

Location: Payson Town Hall, 303 N Beeline Highway, Payson AZ 85541

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: 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: June 13

Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i

New Mexico

Meeting Date: June 13

Location: Roswell

Details: Click here for agenda and details

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. 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: June 13

Location: Pendelton City Hall; The Vert Auditorium, 480 SW Dorion Ave, Pendleton, OR 97801

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: April 17 Winchester Bay Tour; April 18 Winchester Bay Public Meeting. Meeting starts at 8 a.m. 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 by 8 a.m., Wednesday, June 11. 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.

Nevada

Meeting Date: June 13-14

Location: Nannini Administration Building, 540 Court Street, Ste 102, Elko NV 89801

Details: Click here for agenda 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. If you wish to make public comment, please use this link for Friday, June 13, 2025: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83628323424?pwd=XapyVfHU1sIK9rFqgSvCSLecZKHbct.1 Passcode: 905406 If you wish to make public comment, please use this link for Saturday, June 14, 2025: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81168781893?pwd=GYWtGqJarcHdlLx4fV6eH8ZbwOveGO.1 Passcode: 550078 Public comment will be taken on each action item following Commission discussion and before any action is taken. 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.

Action: 26A. Commission General Regulations – Workshop/Public FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Comment Allowed Commission General Regulation 525 – Coyote Hunting Contest Regulations – Chief Game Warden Kristy Knight The Commission will hold a workshop to consider amending Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 503 to provide for season and licensing requirements for participants of coyote hunting contests.

Oppose the codification of wildlife killing contests; the commission is trying to skirt banning these by trying to regulate them instead by requiring participants to hold a hunting license. Let the commission know this does not fix the problem.

New Hampshire

Meeting Date: June 17

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.

Arkansas

Meeting Date: June 18-19

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.

Maryland

Meeting Date: June 18

Location: Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service, 580 Taylor Avenue, Tawes State Office Building, E-1, Annapolis MD 21401

Details: No agenda was available at time of webpage publishing; meeting schedule is listed at the end of the January agenda. Keep checking their website for updates.

Notes: Google Meet. 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.

Massachusetts

Meeting Date: June 18

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

Vermont

Meeting Date: June 18

Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620

Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda available as of 6/2)

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.

Montana

Meeting Date: June 19

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 were accepted on the June agenda topics through May 27 with final action to be taken at the June 19 meeting. The comment period is now closed. Public comment can still be offered during the meeting both in-person and via Zoom. Registration for Zoom comment will open on June 4 (check back to this page for details) and will close on June 18. In-person comments can be made at the meeting venue or at any FWP Regional Office throughout the state.

Action: An amendment to the 2025 Mountain Lion Quotas was proposed by Commissioner Susan Kirby Brooke, Region 3. Public comment on this amendment ONLY will run through June 12. If you would like to comment on Commissioner Brooke’s amendment, please find the separate survey for this amendment below under “2025-2026 Mountain Lion Quotas.”

Georgia

Meeting Date: June 24

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.

Wisconsin

Meeting Date: June 24-25

Location: Rm. G09, State Natural Resources Bldg. (GEF 2), 101 S. Webster St., Madison WI 53703. Enter the building at the 101 S. Webster St. entrance and take the hallway to the right to the reception desk.

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.

Kansas

Meeting Date: April 24

Location: Dole-Specter Conference Center, 1430 South Fossil Street, Russel, 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.

Washington

Meeting Date: June 26-28

Location: Hybrid, Olympia

Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available as of 6/3)

Hawai’i

Meeting Date: June 27

Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i

CPW Commission: The Settlement Isn’t The Story

May 29, 2025

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission settling a lawsuit isn’t the story; the double standard is.

The Settlement Isn’t the Story. The Double Standard Is.

The recent settlement between the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission (via the state attorney’s general’s office) and a coalition of hunting advocacy groups marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for ethical, science-based wildlife management. While the agreement includes a minor financial payment and additional training for commissioners, it’s essential to recognize the broader implications.

This lawsuit was never solely about procedural concerns; it was an attempt to suppress voices advocating for a more inclusive and ecologically sound approach to wildlife management.

The terms of the settlement? Technically minor. The state agreed to conduct trainings on open meetings (which it already did as part of annual compliance training), as well as to pay a portion of the litigant’s legal fees (under $3,000). No one was removed from the commission. No wrongdoing was admitted.

And yet, the Sportsmen’s Alliance and its allies are declaring victory. Why? Because this was never about process. It was about power.

This legal action was part of a broader backlash against progress—an attempt to chill participation by commissioners who bring new, science-based, and ecologically grounded perspectives to the table. We’ve seen this play out across the country, from ideologically motivated attacks on Commissioner Lorna Smith in Washington or a similarly frivolous lawsuit against Michigan’s commission after they voted to give coyotes a three-month break from being killed every year.

At Wildlife for All, we reaffirm our support for commissioners who prioritize ecological integrity and public interest over narrow special interests. We encourage continued public engagement to ensure that wildlife policies the CPW Commission puts forward reflect the values of all Coloradans.

Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy stood firm in their principles and continued to advocate for wildlife and the public trust. Their courage matters.

And while the settlement may appear minor in content, its symbolic implications are significant.

The way the Sportsmen’s Alliance and Safari Club International are celebrating the settlement absolutely suggests they see it as a win for the status quo—keeping decision-making power in a narrow set of hands and pushing back against any attempt to broaden representation on the commission.

Their messaging is loud, triumphant, and clearly aimed at reinforcing the idea that conservation must always revolve around hunting interests. And their victory lap is less about emails and more about reasserting control, ensuring that conservation continues to center on hunting and trapping interests.

The state attorney’s general office, to its credit, did fulfill its legal responsibility to defend the commissioners. But the muted tone of the agency’s response has left many advocates disappointed. It’s possible they chose a quiet posture to avoid further inflaming tensions—and we can understand the instinct to keep the temperature down in a politically sensitive environment.

Still, silence has consequences. When one side is loudly declaring victory and shaping the public narrative, and the agency tasked with serving all Coloradans remains mostly quiet, it can appear as though the state is stepping back from its duty to protect inclusive governance and defend science-based perspectives.

It’s also telling that the first and most vocal commissioner response came from someone who publicly opposed both Prop 127, yet almost no one knows this op-ed exists. This commissioner was even at a rally in opposition of Prop 127 publicly, an action which passed without comment from most. That’s not just a coincidence—it reflects longstanding comfort with traditional views, while reform-minded voices are often treated with suspicion or sidelined entirely.

The CPW Commission is supposed to represent all Coloradans. But even modest steps toward including more diverse voices—people who view wildlife as more than just game—are met with legal challenges, smear campaigns, and, too often, institutional reticence.

When commissioners aligned with hunting interests speak out, it’s “normal.” When others speak from a conservation science or ecological justice perspective? It’s “controversial.”

That’s the double standard. And it’s deeply entrenched.

When hunters, anglers, and trappers dominate commission seats, it’s considered tradition. When someone from a biology, animal advocacy, or conservation science background is appointed? Suddenly, it’s political.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

And notably absent from the hunting groups’ narrative? Commissioner Rich Reading’s independently authored op-ed in support of Prop 127, which clearly articulated how coexistence aligns with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The lawsuit authors ignored it because it didn’t fit their storyline of secret coordination or political scheming. When the facts don’t serve the narrative, they’re simply left out.

The story here isn’t just that hunting groups sued. It’s that our system—intentionally or not—still reinforces a narrow definition of who gets to lead and who has a voice. And unless we actively work to change that, progress will always come under attack.

This moment should be a wake-up call: the fight for fair, inclusive, and ecologically sound wildlife governance is far from over. Reform isn’t just political—it’s necessary. Wildlife needs commissioners who understand ecosystems, not just sport hunting. And the public deserves a system that values all voices—not just the loudest ones.

The lawsuit may be over. But the deeper story—the one about fairness, power, and representation—is far from settled. That story is just beginning.

Stateline Interviews Wildlife for All About Role in Passing SB5

May 26, 2025

New article alert: Stateline Interviews Wildlife for All About Role in Passing SB5

Stateline Interviews Wildlife for All About Role in Passing SB5

We’re proud to share that Wildlife for All was featured in a recent syndicated article by Stateline, “As states rethink wildlife management, New Mexico offers a new model,” which highlights the groundbreaking reforms in New Mexico’s wildlife governance. Our Executive Director, Dr. Michelle Lute, shared insights on how Senate Bill 5 (SB5) represents a transformative shift toward more inclusive, science-based, and democratic wildlife management—setting an important example for other states to follow.

This legislation is a significant step toward inclusive, science-based wildlife management. As Michelle Lute, PhD, noted, “That’s the biggest game changer… That’s the legislation we’ll be pointing to as a model in future years.”

At Wildlife for All, we believe that wildlife conservation should reflect the diverse ways people connect with nature. That’s why we are thrilled to see New Mexico’s Senate Bill 5 (SB5) signed into law, marking a transformative shift in how the state manages its wildlife.

We are proud to have been part of the coalition that championed this reform and look forward to working with other states to implement similar changes.

For more details, read the full article here: As states rethink wildlife management, New Mexico offers a new model.

Reimagining Wildlife Management: Centering Values Beyond the Status Quo

May 25, 2025

Wildlife Value Types

In 1980, Yale professor Dr. Stephen Kellert (1943–2016) developed a groundbreaking framework to understand how people relate to wildlife. He identified eleven distinct value orientations that shape public attitudes toward animals—from deep reverence to outright aversion.

Here’s a quick snapshot of Kellert’s value types:

Ecologistic – valuing wildlife for its role in the ecosystem and the services it provides to the environment
Moralistic – seeing animals as sentient beings with intrinsic value and a right to ethical treatment
Humanistic – forming emotional connections with animals, expressing care and concern for their wellbeing
Aesthetic – appreciating the beauty of animals through nature, art, photography, and film
Symbolic – valuing wildlife for spiritual or cultural meaning
Naturalistic – enjoying personal experiences with wildlife, like birdwatching or hiking
Scientific – valuing animals for the knowledge they help us gain through study and research
Neutralistic – feeling indifferent or disconnected from wildlife
Utilitarian – valuing animals primarily for the material benefits they provide, such as hunting or trapping income
Dominionistic – seeking control over animals, sometimes for sport or convenience
Negativistic – fearing or resenting wild animals, often viewing them as dangerous or harmful

Whose Values Count?

Although many state wildlife agencies claim to use a science-based approach, decisions are often driven more by values than data. In practice, current wildlife policy heavily favors utilitarian, negativistic and dominionistic values. Agencies often use science selectively to justify decisions that serve predetermined objectives—especially those benefiting recreational hunting or managing species seen as “nuisances.”

Science can inform and indicate the likely outcomes of decisions, but it is values that drive and determine decisions made. Rather than taking a holistic approach that looks at entire ecosystems, the dominant paradigm in wildlife management emphasizes managing specific species to maximize recreational opportunities and other uses to humans. This approach neglects the diverse and shifting values of the broader public. Additionally, as Kellert’s framework indicates, these values are separate from – and sometimes conflict with – an ecological framework and other values.

For example, hunters often prefer that wildlife agencies manage white-tailed deer herds using a “maximum sustained yield” (MSY) model. This approach seeks to maintain deer herds at densities that produce the greatest number of fawns to ensure optimal hunter opportunity. But this model overlooks broader ecological impacts. Elevated deer populations can degrade plant biodiversity and forest health, even at levels below MSY targets.

As former Pennsylvania Game Commission biologist Gary Alt explained:

“Ninety-three percent of Pennsylvania’s hunters hunt deer and surveys indicate that hunter satisfaction is closely tied to the number of deer they see. These hunters demand to see more deer than the land could ever possibly sustain and they very effectively lobby administrators and policy makers (the commissioners), forcing them to implement seasons and bag limits that have no chance of ever balancing the deer herd with their habitat…. Development of an adequate, sustainable, broader-based conservation funding program will be necessary to solve this and other problems. Currently the Game Commission is almost totally dependent on hunter-generated monies.” (source)

This focus on satisfying hunter demand can directly conflict with ecological priorities.

Meanwhile, the same system often treats native carnivores like wolves, coyotes, and bobcats with hostility. Instead of valuing their ecological roles as keystone species, they’re targeted for population suppression. Across much of their range, they can be legally hunted or trapped with no limits and few restrictions—and in many states, they’re even killed in contests that reward the most kills.

These practices stem from negativistic and dominionistic values—views that see carnivores as threats or obstacles to human interests. But many people today recognize these species as essential to healthy ecosystems and deserving of compassion and respect.

Dr. Francisco Santiago-Ávila, a former postdoctoral researcher at the University of Wisconsin’s Carnivore Coexistence Lab and currently the Science and Advocacy Director at Washington Wildlife First, summed it up this way:

“The scientific and unethical failure of the agency when it comes to educating the public and ‘managing’ wolves and most other wildlife… is due to the agency’s perspective of wild animals as ‘natural resources’ that humans can do whatever they wish to as long as it is done in a sustainable manner. This view of wild animals as resources rather than living beings deserving of care and respect is actually an ethical position (not a scientific one) that goes unstated… This institutional perspective instrumentalizes all wildlife, dismisses their wellbeing, and promotes their killing rather than their ethical consideration.” (source)

Bobcat in Marin County, California | Credit: Stefanie Kraus

So what would it look like to reimagine wildlife management through a different lens?

A system informed by ecological, moralistic, and humanistic values would take a more holistic approach. It would emphasize entire ecosystems—not just certain species managed for human use—and protect wildlife for their roles in nature, their intrinsic worth, and their right to live free from cruelty. This approach would shift away from a disproportionate emphasis on management of ungulates and other species that are hunted to recognize the importance of native carnivores as well as species that are not hunted like hummingbirds, salamanders and bats.

For instance, using bobcats as an example:

Ecological values would recognize how bobcats contribute to biodiversity—not just as predators, but as part of a healthy food web.
Humanistic values show up when a wildlife photographer develops a bond with a particular bobcat, appreciating that animal not just as a population statistic, but as an individual life.
Moralistic values demand that we end cruel practices like trapping and wildlife killing contests, replacing them with policies rooted in respect and compassion.

As Kevin Hansen wrote in Bobcat: Master of Survival, “an informed, caring, and engaged public” is crucial to the bobcat’s future – not just wildlife managers or industry interests. These animals are intelligent, adaptive, and worthy of more than being reduced to targets or trophies.

We need a new paradigm in wildlife management—one that embraces the full range of public values and respects the diversity of life. Because wildlife doesn’t just exist for human use. It exists for its own sake, and for the health of the planet we all share.

This article was contributed by Peggy Clark, a Geospatial and Environmental Science student at Radford University in Radford, Virginia.

New Mexico Passes Historic Reform Bill SB5

May 23, 2025

New Mexico Passes Historic Reform Bill SB5

Victory for Wildlife and Democracy: New Mexico Passes Historic Reform Bill SB5

In a landmark win for wildlife, ecosystems, and everyday New Mexicans, Senate Bill 5 (SB5) has officially become law—marking the first comprehensive reform of New Mexico’s wildlife governance structure in over a century. This is a huge milestone for equitable, science-informed wildlife management in the state, and one that Wildlife for All is proud to have championed alongside our partners in a broad coalition unlike any other in the country.

SB5 is a transformative piece of legislation that puts New Mexico at the forefront of modern wildlife governance—and lays the groundwork for similar reforms nationwide.

What SB5 Accomplishes

SB5 is rooted in the idea that managing wildlife for the benefit of all is critical for addressing today’s ecological challenges. Here’s what the bill achieves:

- Modernizes the mission of the Department of Game and Fish: Already in effect, the agency’s statutory mission goes beyond managing game species to include “any species of wildlife” and to consider “the science-based reasons for protection of a species.” This change means that broader ecosystem conservation and biodiversity protection will take a front seat in policymaking—recognizing the reality that diverse wildlife need protection in the face of growing threats.

- Changes the name of the commission and department to reflect their authentic conservation goals: To align with this broader mission, the department and commission will receive new names: the State Wildlife Commission and Department of Wildlife by July 2026. The Department will slowly roll out these changes. All marketing assets like truck decals and brochures that use the current name and logo do not need to be replaced immediately and will be phased out over time.

- Establishes a professionalized, nonpartisan Wildlife Commission: Beginning January 1, 2027, appointments to the commission must meet new qualifications, emphasizing scientific expertise and diverse representation, including tribal and conservation perspectives. Commissioners will be limited to two terms of six years each. A nominating committee will consider candidates and make recommendations to the government for appointments. Senate confirmation of the governor’s appointments will continue as it has previously.

Increases to state agency funding: Starting April 1, 2027, license fees for hunting and trapping will increase for the first time in decades. Additionally, a separate bill secured $10.5 million over three years for work on Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) — a state list of wildlife with populations in decline or at risk of losing habitat. This essential funding will help recover the many declining species that would otherwise fall through the cracks.

Despite the governor’s line-item veto eliminating independent review of commissioner removals, the core pillars of reform remain intact. The new commission will still be more qualified, more representative, and less politically vulnerable than its predecessors. That’s worth celebrating.

Why It Matters

New Mexico has long been governed by outdated wildlife policies and agency structures built for a different era. SB5 recognizes that wildlife conservation today must be inclusive, science-informed, and responsive to both climate change and mass extinction.

This law also reflects a growing public demand for more democratic representation and enhanced wildlife decision-making for all species. It gives Indigenous leaders, conservation scientists, birders, hikers, and other nature lovers a stronger voice in how wildlife is managed. That’s a win for people and the planet.

What’s Next

Wildlife for All is already working with coalitions in other states to replicate the success of SB5. Our goal? Ensure every state updates its wildlife governance structures to meet the needs of this century. SB5 gives us a clear, tested framework to bring to legislatures across the country.

As the bill’s various provisions roll out, we’ll be working to ensure strong implementation and continued public involvement. This is just the beginning.

Key Dates to Watch

July 1, 2025
- Land of Enchantment funding dedicates $10.5 million over three years to the Department to protect SGCN

July 1, 2026:
- New Department and Commission names are official — but we’re not going to wait until then to call them the State Wildlife Commission and New Mexico Department of Wildlife

January 1, 2027:
- New commissioner nominating committee, qualifications and appointment criteria begin

April 1, 2027:
- License fees for hunting and trapping will increase and discounts will be offered for low income households

Let’s take a moment to celebrate this breakthrough. It’s not every day we get a chance to fundamentally change how wildlife is governed in a way that reflects 21st-century values and science.

SB5 is more than a bill—it’s a blueprint for change. And Wildlife for All is committed to carrying it forward, one state at a time.

« Older Entries