News & Commentary
Release: New Mexico Captures Naturally Dispersing Colorado Wolf
New Mexico Captures Naturally Dispersing Colorado Wolf: A Colorado wolf entered New Mexico and was immediately captured and returned because states treat natural wolf movement as a problem.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 12, 2025
New Mexico Captures Naturally Dispersing Colorado Wolf, Igniting Outcry from Scientists, Conservation Groups
Young wolf’s capture shows why effective recovery must follow ecology, not state lines
Santa Fe, N.M. — A gray wolf entered New Mexico from Colorado and was immediately captured and returned to Colorado—not for conflict, but because of an agreement that treats naturally occurring wolf movement as a problem.
On Dec. 11, a lone gray wolf was released back in Colorado after New Mexico Game and Fish (NMDGF) captured him roughly ten miles southwest of Tres Piedras, more than 200 miles south of his last known location. The wolf, referred to as 2403 in reference to the year he was collared (2024) and originally from Colorado’s Copper Creek pack, had dispersed from his pack’s territory earlier this fall — a normal and expected behavior for young wolves seeking new territories and potential mates.
Conservation groups are responding to the capture and forced return of this naturally dispersing gray wolf by the NMDGF, acting under a multi-state Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) designed to prevent northern gray wolves from entering the state. Under the MOU, the two agencies coordinated capture, transport and release of the wolf to Grand County, Colo. The relocation was not in response to any conflict but because, according to the CPW statement, NMDGF wants “to protect the integrity of the Mexican wolf recovery program.”
The incident highlights ongoing tension among agencies, advocates and scientists regarding recovery of both northern and Mexican gray wolves.
“Wolves disperse widely by nature and do so according to their own instinct and knowledge of the land. A single northern wolf crossing into New Mexico is not a genetic threat to the Mexican gray wolf,” said Nico Lorenzen, wildlife associate of Wild Arizona. “What is a threat and waste of limited management funding is the continued effort to police wolf movement along state lines instead of following robust science.”
“What often gets lost in the debate over wolf reintroduction and relocation is that wherever native wild canids roam, they are fulfilling their critically important niche and benefiting ecosystems,” said Michelle Lute, PhD in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “A wolf walking across a border is not a problem. The problem is agencies trying to herd wolves into political boxes instead of designing nature-based solutions that work with evolving, functional ecosystems, especially in an era of massive human-driven declines in wildlife diversity and abundance.”
Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) remain one of North America’s most endangered mammals, suffering from genetic inbreeding following their near extinction and repopulating from seven remaining wild lobos. Mexican gray wolves are on average as related as full siblings and additionally remain the target of anthropogenic mortality, including vehicle collisions and illegal killing. Scientists argue their recovery depends on greater protections, genetic rescue, northward expansion, and connected habitat that allows movement between subpopulations.
“Trapping and relocating any wolf that steps over an invisible line does nothing to advance recovery goals. Genetic integrity is maintained through robust recovery planning — not by removing every northern wolf that enters New Mexico,” said Sally Paez, staff attorney for New Mexico Wild. “This approach ignores what the science tells us about carnivore movement and long-term viability.”
The MOU among Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah requires the capture and return of wolves that cross state borders. Conservationists say the policy treats wolves like contraband rather than wildlife and undermines effective recovery.
Relocation of wolf 2403 comes on the heels of renewed attention to the Mexican gray wolf known as “Taylor,” whose movements north of I-40 earlier this year brought forward similar questions about how agencies should respond when wolves cross administrative boundaries. In both instances, wolves were exhibiting typical dispersal behavior, underscoring that individual animals can and do move across large landscapes regardless of jurisdictional lines.
“This situation shows exactly why wolf recovery cannot succeed under policies built on jurisdiction and arbitrary political boundaries instead of biology,” said Leia Barnett, New Mexico conservation lead for WildEarth Guardians. “We need updated, science-based regional management that recognizes wolves as part of dynamic, wide-ranging ecosystems.”
“This young wolf was doing exactly what wild wolves have always done, dispersing. His journey reflects both the ecological momentum of Colorado’s recovery effort and the deep permeability of the southern Rockies, a landscape wolves have moved through for millennia, long before modern state borders existed,” said Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “If recovery is going to succeed, we have to allow wolves to be active agents in that process, not obstacles to be contained.”
“Historically, gray wolf populations in western North America were contiguously distributed from northern arctic regions well into Mesoamerica as far south as present day Mexico City. Dispersing wolves moved back and forth among adjacent populations, categorized as subspecies by taxonomists,” explained David Parsons, former Mexican wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “The exchange of genes kept gray wolf populations both genetically and physically healthy, enhancing their ability to adapt and evolve to environmental changes. The Colorado northern gray wolf and the Mexican gray wolf that recently crossed boundaries heading in each other’s direction were simply retracing ancient pathways of wolf movements. Rather than being viewed as a problem, these movements should be encouraged and celebrated as successful milestones toward west-wide gray wolf recovery efforts.”
“The age-old connections between wolves came close to being reestablished thanks to the one-paw-after-another odyssey of a northern gray wolf who was just days away from possibly meeting the love of his life and helping to infuse the highly inbred Mexican wolf population with life-giving genes,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “New Mexico Game and Fish and other agencies should respect the instinctual wisdom of wild animals as well as the recommendations of esteemed geneticists who have explained that Mexican wolves absolutely need genetic help from northern wolves.”
Background:
Colorado is in the third year of restoring a self-sustaining northern gray wolf population following voter-approved reintroduction. The Copper Creek wolf pack has become a focal point of debate over wolf management. CPW captured wolf 2403 along with his mother and three of four siblings in Grand County and relocated the family to Pitkin County. The capture process also resulted in the death of the father, who was already suffering from a gunshot wound. CPW failed to find one pup, who was left to likely starve without the help of his parents and pack. In August 2024, CPW and Wildlife Services shot a wolf in Rio Blanco County, a county away from where the Copper Creek pack was relocated to, following reports of sheep depredation. The animal’s body was not recovered, but DNA analysis later confirmed he was the missing Copper Creek pup. CPW also later lethally removed another of the pack’s pups in Pitkin County. Of the once thriving seven-member Cooper Creek wolf pack (consisting of two parents and five pups), Wolf 2403 is one of four surviving members (based on current knowledge of survivorship).
Meanwhile, Mexican gray wolves remain one of the most endangered mammals in North America, confined largely to the artificially bounded experimental population area in southern Arizona and New Mexico. Multiple wolves have dispersed north to the Grand Canyon region and northern New Mexico. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in concert with NMDGF have captured all wolves — except the wolf dubbed Taylor currently roaming the Mount Taylor area — where they either remain in captivity or were released south of the I-40 boundary. Their recovery has been slowed by genetic bottlenecks, limited northward connectivity, and management restrictions that prevent the natural formation of multiple subpopulations needed for long-term viability.
###
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.
About Wild Arizona
Wild Arizona is a nonprofit whose mission is to protect, unite, and restore wild lands and waters across Arizona and beyond, for the enrichment and health of all generations, and to ensure Arizona’s native plants and animals a lasting home in wild nature.
About Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project
The Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project is a nonprofit dedicated to bringing back wolves to help restore ecological health in the Grand Canyon region, while also recognizing wolves as sentient beings with intrinsic value and worth.
About WildEarth Guardians
WildEarth Guardians protects and restores the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West.
About New Mexico Wild
New Mexico Wild is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) grassroots organization dedicated to the protection, restoration, and continued enjoyment of New Mexico’s wildlands and wilderness areas.
Through Yellow Eyes: How Storytelling Can Challenge Dominant Narratives About Wildlife
Cougars, bobcats, wolves and other native carnivores have faced a long history of fear, misunderstanding and persecution in North America. Often they have been perceived as threats or obstacles to human interests. Though many people today recognize these species as essential to healthy ecosystems and deserving of compassion and respect, carnivores were historically marked for extermination. From the beginning, state wildlife systems were built around hunting and trapping and rooted in narratives viewing carnivores as pests rather than integral to ecosystems. Today, significant disparities still persist in the way these species are treated under the law, despite increasing high public support for greater protections.
Literature is one way we can challenge dominant narratives. Some media reinforces negative archetypes about wildlife, portraying certain animals as good and others (like bats, snakes, wolves, or ravens) as inherently sinister or evil. However, storytelling can also inspire wonder for the natural world and foster empathy for misunderstood wildlife. Early environmental advocates like Ernest Seton – often credited with the genre of realistic animal fiction – wrote about wolves in 1898 in ways that challenged dominant narratives of the time, emphasizing noble and admirable characteristics of a maligned species.
The Wild Perspective
Rutherford Montgomery (1894-1985), wrote many books and short stories about western life and animals in the United States. Yellow Eyes, his story about a cougar, is set in Sleepy Cat Mountain (western Colorado) in the 1930s, while Rufus tells the story of a bobcat in southwest Montana around the 1860s gold rush prior to statehood – both of these settings explored mainly from the titular wildcats’ point of view. By giving readers a chance to see the harsh and majestic beauty of wild landscapes through the eyes of a cougar or bobcat (while keeping them “purely animal”), Montgomery fosters empathy for Rufus and Yellow Eyes. Both wildcats struggle to survive in an environment inherent with many dangers – from other animals, humans, and the natural world itself. Only the human characters have dialogue, but we have access to how the animals react and respond to the events around them. This excerpt from Rufus uses sensory detail, showing how the bobcat perceives a Montana blizzard during his first winter as an independent adult:
“Clouds scudded across the sky and big snowflakes floated down through the still air. Rufus hunted as usual and caught enough rabbits for a good meal, but before he started back to his den a cold wind started to blow and increased to a gale. The big flakes changed to powdered ice, which stung Rufus’ face. Rufus had only a dim memory of what winter was like. He had slept through blizzards, curled up with his sisters in a snug den when he was little.”
Montgomery’s approach also allows readers to see and critique how settler-colonialist mindsets devalue predators as animals that exist only to be hunted for bounties or frivolous entertainment. In an early chapter of Rufus, we briefly encounter prospectors in search of gold who meet with a trapper. Tom Hardy, the leader of the prospectors, has a pack of four hounds and enjoys using them to hunt predators for sport. Once the hounds see Rufus the bobcat, they chase him into a big pine tree at the edge of a deep rocky arroyo. Rufus hisses and snarls down at the dogs – not knowing about the danger of humans and guns yet, he perceives the hounds as the main danger. Hardy decides to dislodge the bobcat from the tree with a gunshot, stating “When that cat hits the ground, you’ll see some real action as the dogs tear him apart.” Rufus feels the impact of the bullet explode as it splinters the branch beneath him – but quickly leaps away in the other direction from the hounds. By risking the long jump down into the deep arroyo and hiding in a narrow cave in the wall until the prospectors call off the hunt, he survives. Later on, Rufus witnesses the death of a wolf – killed by three gunshots from a man on a horse. These two encounters teach him that a man with a gun is dangerous and can kill from a distance, which helps him to survive and avoid humans.
At the beginning of Yellow Eyes, a government predator hunter “Cougar George” shoots a mother cougar and soon discovers she has kittens. He sets a live trap, capturing Yellow Eyes along with his two brothers Fuzzy and Runty so he can use the young cougars to train his hounds to kill. Yellow Eyes, the largest and smartest of the litter, is the only one to survive the chase – the sight of the pack of hounds mauling his two brothers becomes permanently ingrained in his memory. As a lone orphaned cub, Yellow Eyes is old and skilled enough to catch prey like jackrabbits independently, but must learn other lessons and ways of the wild on his own, such as that skunks should be avoided. As he grows up, he learns from experience and becomes a skilled hunter of deer. At the same time, he is also being hunted by Cougar George, and later on other men who relish the challenge and bounty offered for killing a cougar who has eluded many attempts before. These people see Yellow Eyes and his kind as nothing more than “varmints to be slaughtered”.
Treon, a young Native American man and subsistence hunter, is an important supporting character of Yellow Eyes. Befriending Yellow Eyes from a distance, he is the only person in the story to respect and understand the cougar, and is by far the most sympathetic human character. The way Cougar George and his friends talk about Native Americans (“they don’t have any sense…they’re all like that”) parallels their perception of cougars. During a pivotal scene, Treon discretely rubs coal oil into a deer carcass poisoned by Cougar George, making the meat unpalatable for Yellow Eyes and preventing him from consuming the poison. This passage from that scene shows the viewpoint of both Yellow Eyes and Treon:
Quote from Yellow Eyes by Rutherford Montgomery. Cougar drawing by Peggy Clark
While humans are major threats, nature itself is shown realistically as an often unforgiving place. Survival is never guaranteed even for a smart, powerful top predator, and a chance encounter can be a matter of life and death. This approach significantly differs from films like Disney’s Bambi adaptation which presents the forest as a idealized, harmonious utopia until it’s disrupted by hunters or forest fires (Felix Salten’s original novel Bambi: A Life in the Woods is a darker allegorical tale and shows predation as a natural part of the world). Yellow Eyes and Rufus must kill in order to eat, navigate changing seasons, and often face dangerous situations. Both are smart, adaptable survivors, but even they are injured and go hungry at times. They experience fear, frustration, and contentment. We also see other predators, like golden eagles and wolves, realistically hunt and kill prey and pose threats to the main characters along the way. This tension increases sympathy for the wildcat characters, showing how they adapt and navigate multiple challenges to their survival.
Yellow Eyes and Rufus both find mates, sharing food and showing care and concern for them. Both the male and female wildcats are given many positive qualities, including intelligence, affection, and resourcefulness. For example, Rufus and his mate Tabby survive a rabbit plague by learning to catch other prey – frogs, crayfish, and trout in the creek. When Yellow Eyes finds an adult female of his kind, who has also lost her family to federal persecution, the two of them experience a moment without fear or worry, “only the quiet satisfaction of having each other.” Rather than simple anthropomorphism, these qualities reflect behavior and social interaction observed in both bobcats and cougars, including the sharing of food.
Historical Context
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, cultural narratives played a major role in state and federal persecution of native carnivores. In 1931, the United States government passed the Animal Damage Control Act, which authorized funding for “the eradication and control of predatory and other wild animals”, which targeted species like cougars, wolves, bobcats and coyotes, as well as any wildlife considered obstacles to livestock production, like prairie dogs. While carnivores (and the prairie dogs) posed little threat to public safety, and didn’t impact the majority of western citizens, livestock industry interests demanded a predator-free landscape and called for permanent federal bounty laws.
Predator persecution and hatred extended well beyond actual impacts on livestock, game or other human interests. As Michael Robinson describes in his book Predatory Bureaucracy, native predators were killed in the 1800s “for the commercial value of their pelts, to protect livestock, and simply because frontier progress and even frontier religion seemed to demand predator extermination.” These species symbolized “a frontier unredeemed by civilization”, reflecting “Manifest Destiny” that called for displacement and cultural genocide of Native Americans. As the book details, many settlers viewed the simple existence of wolves, cougars, coyotes, bobcats, and lynx as “affronts to their life’s mission of ‘improving’ the untamed landscape”. This mindset faced little resistance even in early Euro-American conservation efforts. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, several hunters advocated for conservation laws to save species like bison and pronghorn from extinction and establish regulations for hunting game, while women provided support for national forests, tree planting, and protection for songbirds. Yet native predators had few public defenders and no conservation campaigns.
Central to the narrative recounted in Predatory Bureaucracy was Stanley P. Young, director of the Bureau of Biological Survey. This agency was a precursor to USDA Wildlife Services, which no longer aims to exterminate entire species but still kills thousands of native carnivores a year on behalf of private interests. He enlisted the public and hunters concerned with game species to ensure continuing funding and support for the predator-killing program, employing deliberate propaganda tactics in newspaper articles. Young used language describing species of native predators as criminals, labeling “The Wild Cat, the Mountain Lion, and the Coyote” as public enemies, gangsters, marauders, and pests. He extolled federal predator hunters as “soldiers of the wilderness” working diligently to “protect civilization against the desperadoes of the desert and mountain”. At the same time, the articles would downplay the cruel and indiscriminate nature of the methods used to kill wildlife, claiming that dying by poisoning was kinder than living in the wild.
The Department of the Interior produced this photo of a cornered cougar, which appears in the National Archives in the 1939 Annual Forestry Report. The caption read in part: “Although coyotes, wolves, bob cats and bears are detrimental to game and domestic animals, the mountain lion is enemy No. 1. His favorite victims are deer, horses and cattle….The above picture was taken on Salt Creek, 20 miles from San Carlos and the mountain lion was one of 5 killed by Larsen in one day.” (Public Domain)
Cougars and bobcats did not gain any basic legal protections until around the 1970s – far behind the installation of basic regulations and protections for species like deer, elk, bighorn, bison, pronghorn, ducks, and wild turkeys (which were deemed “valuable game”). For decades under the established wildlife governance system, both species were targeted year-round for sport, trophy, or bounty, with no limits, closed seasons, or even the requirement of a license in most cases (and still are in some states like Texas). Joe Van Wormer’s The World of the Bobcat (1963) noted that in the 1960s, 13 states still had bounties on bobcats and the rest had discontinued the practice not because they valued the bobcat, but because they considered it ineffective as a control measure and susceptible to fraudulent practices. Wildlife was seen through a purely utilitarian lens, and cougars’ and bobcats’ predation on deer, game birds, and livestock was erroneously seen to outweigh the ecological services they perform.
Modern Parallels
These mindsets still persist today within wildlife management. Narratives that portray native carnivores as threats that must be “managed” through killing are rooted in colonialism, extractive industry, and utilitarianism. Fear based narratives about certain species promoted in the name of “science-based wildlife management” are tied to a perceived need for domination and control – over both the wild and the decision making process.
- Wildlife policy terms like “harvest”, “predator management” and “depredators” are used to make predation sound sinister while normalizing the killing of wildlife.
- In their list of “25 Reasons Why Hunting is Conservation”, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation celebrates the recovery and population growth of deer, elk, ducks and other hunted species while simultaneously devaluing cougars, bears, wolves and coyotes as nuisances, labeling the reduction of their “growing populations” as conservation (“The government spends millions to control predators and varmints while hunters have proven more than willing to pay for that opportunity”). While hunting license fees do contribute to state wildlife agency funding (which includes some conservation projects), RMEF’s definition of “hunting is conservation” has little to do with conservation biology and plays into the same historical dynamics of “useful wildlife” that should be conserved and valued versus “predators and varmints” that should be managed and controlled.
- Podcaster Joe Rogan has defended historical predator eradication and opposed rewilding efforts, making statements like “wolves are dominant, intelligent, calculating predators that they eradicated from the west for a reason”.
- The group Sportsmens’ Alliance consistently uses “scary” images of predators (often snarling wolves and cougars standing over bloody carcasses of prey) to influence a negative emotional reaction to these species. One article “The Costs of Cougars” sensationalizes cougar attacks and labels them as threats to deer hunting, claiming wildlife managers can either “feed one cougar or feed fifty families”. (Those who value cougars on the landscape and want greater protections for them are stereotyped as “uninformed urban and suburban voters”.)
Challenging the Narrative
For wild animals, individuals are often treated as interchangeable numbers within a population, without much value on their own beyond human interests. However, public attitudes towards wildlife have shifted. Science has also upended many long-held assumptions about misunderstood species. For example, Panthera biologist Dr. Mark Elbroch described how his research directly contradicted preconceptions of cougars as “solitary, robotic killing machines” only encountering each other to mate or fight. Though most wildcats don’t form large prides in the same way lions do, individual cougars exhibit social relationships, reciprocity, and altruism. Elbroch’s research in Wyoming found an intricate social network where cougars in the study area shared resources and food with each other, without correlation to the individuals being related. The loss of certain individual cougars – especially a resident male with an established territory – disrupts that network. Dr. Gosia Bryja has noted a similar dynamic in bears and wolves, underscoring the value and biological importance of the individual. Bears that exhibit bold, adventurous behavioral traits and unconventional survival strategies (passed down from mothers to cubs) are more likely to cross roads and navigate fragmented landscapes, making these individuals vital to the genetic diversity of their species, but also disproportionately vulnerable to human-caused mortality.
But science itself is only one part of the story. Telling that story in a compelling way is a critical aspect of science communication, and it’s a role we can all take if we care about wildlife conservation. Storytelling directly challenges the view of wildlife solely as populations and species, through its depiction of an individual’s story. This can take many forms – film, literature, photography, audio. An October 2025 PBS documentary titled Willow: Diary of a Mountain Lion uses footage gained from 200 different trail cameras in a female cougar’s home range in Montana. Much like Yellow Eyes, this documentary challenges dominant narratives on cougars by depicting their behavior realistically, and allowing us to see through the eyes of one. Viewers watch Willow as she raises a litter of six cubs, interacts with other cougars, and faces the challenges of survival in the wild.
Photography is another powerful tool. One wildlife photographer, Karine Aigner, followed several generations of bobcats on a friend’s south Texas ranch, dubbed “Bobcat Manor”. Over time, she got to know these bobcats as individuals, and learned from observation that they have distinct personalities and mourn losses. By providing a closer glimpse into the lives of an extended bobcat family, Aigner’s storytelling through photography is a powerful voice for bobcats. Her work provides important advocacy for the species from rural Texas – a state where bobcats have zero protection and are intensively persecuted in killing contests across much of the landscape (outside safe areas like this particular ranch). Project Coyote’s #CaptureCoexistence initiative similarly uses the visual medium of photography to highlight the beauty and value of coyotes, bobcats, and other wild carnivores, raising awareness of their ecological importance.
Advocacy for biodiversity and conservation extends beyond stating facts and figures. Storytelling can help challenge misinformation, build empathy for misunderstood wildlife, and inspire a sense of wonder and stewardship for the natural world. By showing the audience who snakes, cougars, coyotes, or bobcats are – not villains or nuisances, but wildlife deserving of understanding and respect – storytelling can challenge harmful narratives about these species and shift how they are viewed or treated. Rutherford Montgomery’s portrayal of a cougar’s battle for survival is still relevant today as in the 1930s in how it challenges narratives about wildlife – inviting us to see through a pair of yellow eyes.
This article was contributed by Peggy Clark, a Geospatial Science/Ecology student at Radford University in Radford, Virginia
December Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at December Wildlife Commission Meetings.
December Wildlife Commission Meetings
December wildlife commission meetings are some of the final ones in 2025. Don’t miss one of the last chances this year for you, the public, to be heard.
It’s the last month of the year but the work for wildlife isn’t winding down. The decisions being made in state wildlife commission meetings shape the future of species and the health of ecosystems across the country. Commissions are weighing policies that determine how wildlife is managed, who gets representation in decision-making, and whether science or politics will guide the path forward.
These meetings rarely make national news—but they’re where the real work of wildlife governance happens. Showing up matters. Submitting a comment matters. Even listening in matters. Every act of participation helps move us closer to wildlife management that reflects ecological science, democratic values, and coexistence for all life—not outdated, special-interest rule.
Below you’ll find the full list of December commission meetings by state and date. Visit our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare your comments or testimony—and make sure your voice is part of the record before the year ends.
Alaska
Meeting Date: December 2
Location: Anchorage Egan Civic & Convention Center
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes:This is a non-regulatory meeting via web-conference at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. The main purpose of the Board meeting is to consider Agenda Change Requests (ACRs) submitted by the November 1, 2025, deadline for the 2025/2026 meeting cycle. Agenda Change Requests that are accepted by the board will be scheduled as proposals for board consideration at one of the regulatory meetings in 2026. The meeting is open to the public via live video which will be posted online at https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main the day of the meeting. Live audio will also be accessible by calling +1 253 215 8782 and entering the meeting ID: 812 9247 6371. The board will not be taking oral testimony during the meeting. The board is accepting written public comments for the meeting, due no later than Monday, November 24, 2025. Comments may be submitted through the Board’s website at https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main; or faxed to (907) 465-6094.
Delaware
Meeting Date: December 2
Location: TBA, 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 in Dover and a virtual option via Teams. To join virtually via Teams, click here and enter Meeting ID: 294 098 738 088 64 and passcode: 6wC69BX7. To join by phone (audio-only) dial 1-302-504-8986 and enter code 391878221#. For more information, contact the DNREC Wildlife Section, at 302-739-9912 or Joe Rogerson at Joseph.Rogerson@delaware.gov or 302-739-9912.
Georgia
Meeting Date: December 2
Location: Brasstown Valley Resort 6321 US-76 Young Harris, GA 30582
Details: Click here for details. (note the meeting agenda was not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Watch online here. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Zoom. To view via webinar, register here.
Montana
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: State Capitol Building, Room 317, and via Zoom
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 8 a.m. Public comments were accepted on the following proposals through November 23, 2025 with final potential action to be taken at the December 4 meeting. The public comment opportunity on the main agenda topics, prior to the meeting, is now CLOSED. In-person comments can be made at the meeting venue or at any FWP Regional Office throughout the state. Comments can also be made during the meeting virtually via Zoom, but you must register. Registration for Zoom comment will close December 3 at noon.
NEW INSTRUCTIONS for public comment: There are two dedicated methods to submit public comment to the Fish and Wildlife Commission on meeting agenda topics PRIOR TO the meeting: online portal or mail-in comments.
Online Portal (SurveyMonkey) – Each agenda item will have a survey at the bottom, below the linked documents, that is set up for submitting public comment. The survey also allows for letters or supporting documents to be attached. Public comment is still being accepted for the commissioner-proposed amendments through 12/1.
Mail-in of Public Comments – Public comments can also be mailed to the Commission at Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, c/o FWP Liaison – Director’s Office, PO Box 200701, Helena MT, 59620-0701
These two options are the only ways to submit comment and/or documents to the Commission on any agenda item prior the meeting. Should you have any questions about this process, please contact the FWP Liaison to the Commission at 406-594-8921. Public comment is always welcome in person during the meeting, or via Zoom. Those commenting via Zoom must register to comment. Registration will open on November 19.
North Carolina
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: Commission Room, 5th Floor, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Committees meet December 3: 9-9:30 am Executive; 9:30-10 am Boating Safety; 10-11 am Habitat Nongame & Endangered Species; 11 am – 12 pm Fisheries; 1:15-1:45 pm Migratory Birds & Waterfowl; 1:45-2:30 pm Wild Turkey; 2:30-3:30 pm Committee of the Whole. The board will meet at 9 a.m. on December 4. Members of the public may join via Zoom by registering in advance.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: South Dakota State Capitol Building, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: December 4, 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. CST | December 5, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. CST. To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458. Zoom meeting link. Livestream watch link. Meeting materials here. 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).
Tennessee
Meeting Date: December 4-5
Location: Region II Office, Ellington Agricultural Center, Nashville, TN
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 1 p.m. on December 4 and 9 a.m. on December 5. It is unclear how to watch remotely, or how to provide comments.
Utah
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington, Utah
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting materials here. 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. Watch live: https://youtube.com/live/PB0dsu8FmIo
Washington – Habitat Committee
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: Virtual
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: 1-3 p.m. Commissioners Linville, Garcia, Myers, Rowland. Agenda Topics: Lands 20/20 Overview. Watch on Zoom. Watch livestream.To join by phone, please dial 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 886 2573 9021
Arizona
Meeting Date: December 5
Location: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086
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. Members of the public may view the meeting from any Department Regional Office. 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. View live webcasts at www.azgfd.gov/commissioncam. Listen to the meeting by calling 404-397-1516, Access code: 280 046 234##.
Kentucky
Meeting Date: December 5
Location: #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort KY and Livestreamed Online
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes:The meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. (ET) in the Administration Building on the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources’ campus in Frankfort. It will be open to the public.The meeting also will be livestreamed and archived on the department’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/FishandWildlifeKY. A link to the livestream also will be posted on the department’s homepage at fw.ky.gov at the start of the meeting. Anyone wishing to address the Commission orally must sign in before the meeting and will have 3 minutes to speak during the public comment. Members of the public may submit emailed comments on Commission business items anytime to FW.PublicAffairs@ky.gov; these comments may include statements of support or opposition, or express concerns or questions. Emailed comments regarding a business item that are received before 5 p.m. at least two days before a scheduled meeting that includes opportunity for public comments may be read by staff during the public comment segment of the meeting. The Commission chair reserves the right to select representative comments to be shared orally or read from emails, subject to availability of time and potentially redundancy of comments.
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: December 8
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 12/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. It’s not clear how to comment or speak; we suggest emailing the department to ask. It’s also unclear if there is a virtual participation option. Read more on their website.
California – Marine Resources Committee only
Meeting Date: December 9
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, 715 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. Meeting packet.
California
Meeting Date: December 10-11
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, 715 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at Wednesday, 9:00 a.m. and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. Meeting packet. Information on how to join.
Maine
Meeting Date: December 10
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.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: December 10
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 3 p.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 758595. Or join via telephone: Join via audio: (929) 205-6099, Webinar ID: 876 7837 8555, Passcode: 758595. 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.
Wisconsin
Meeting Date: December 10
Location: TBD; not available at time of webpage publishing
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 10 in public meeting room G09, State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2), 101 South Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin. The Board will act on items 1-4 and 7 as listed on the agenda. The public is encouraged to watch live on YouTube. The deadline to register for public appearance requests and to submit written comments is 11 a.m. on Dec. 3, 2025. Remote testimony from the public via Zoom may be accepted. In-person public appearances are also welcome. 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. 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.
Iowa
Meeting Date:December 11
Location: Des Moines
Details: Click here for details (note no agenda as of 12/1.)
Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. 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: December 11
Location: Lansing Community College, West Campus Rooms M119-121, 5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917
Details: Click here for agenda (no agenda as of 12/1) and details.
Notes: 9:30 a.m. 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.
Missouri
Meeting Date: December 11-12
Location: MDC Headquarters, 2901 W Truman Blvd., Jefferson City, MO 65102
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda or details available as of 12/1)
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
West Virginia
Meeting Date: December 11
Location: WVU Potomac State College – Davis Conference Center,101 Fort Avenue, Keyser, WV 26726
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda as of 12/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 6 p.m.SSend 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 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. If you can’t watch the meeting live, a recording will be posted and remain available until the next scheduled Commission meeting, so you can watch it at your convenience.
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 About Public Comments: The livestream is view-only. To provide public comments, you must attend in person at one of the six district locations listed above.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: December 12
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.
Oregon
Meeting Date: December 12
Location: ODFW Headquarters Classroom, 4034 Fairview Industrial DR SE, Salem, OR 97302
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: Commission meetings begin at 8:30 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.The Fish and Wildlife Commission has moved to hybrid meetings, meaning that you have the option to attend in-person or virtually. Those who would like to provide virtual testimony on an Exhibit scheduled on this agenda must REGISTER no less than 48 hours (Wednesday December 10 at 8:00 AM) in advance to receive a testimony link to the meeting. To provide testimony on an agenda item in-person, registration will also be 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 December 10) in advance of the meeting for approval. Meeting is livestreamed here.
Washington
Meeting Date: December 12
Location: TBD
Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available as of 12/1)
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.
New Hampshire – Legislative Committee
Meeting Date: December 16
Location: Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive in Concord, NH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: There will be a Legislative Committee Meeting held on December 16, 2025 at 10:30 a.m., at the NH Fish & Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, in the east conference room. The public is entitled to attend.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: December 16
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.
Vermont
Meeting Date: December 17
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda posted as of 12/1)
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.
Mexican Wolf ‘Taylor’ Back Home Near New Mexico’s Mount Taylor
Mexican gray wolf photo available for media use with appropriate credit: Jim Clark/USFWS. Image is available for media use.
For immediate release: November 24, 2025
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.— An endangered Mexican gray wolf named Taylor has once again returned to his namesake mountain west of Albuquerque after having been captured and relocated twice by the New Mexico Game and Fish Department.
Taylor made his home on Mount Taylor before being trapped and translocated south of Interstate 40 to the Gila National Forest in May. In July he made his way back to Mount Taylor. Two weeks ago the department darted him from the air, removed him again and released him at the same spot in the Gila where they attempted his first relocation. Taylor immediately turned north and started running home. On Nov. 22 he arrived near Mount Taylor again.
“Wolves like Taylor can’t read maps, even those with lines drawn by politicians,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Government officials disregarded science when they drew this arbitrary boundary. Wildlife agencies need to let Taylor roam free. I’ll be celebrating if he finds a female northern wolf to raise pups with who will boost the genetic diversity of Mexican wolves.”
Taylor is the fifth Mexican wolf known to have spent time recently in the Mount Taylor region. Other Mexican wolves have gravitated to the area south of the Grand Canyon, which is also officially off-limits according to wildlife agencies.
“It’s the very definition of insanity for the agencies to be taking the same actions but expecting different results,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. “Taylor knows where he wants to be, and humans need to stop trying to impose their will on wild animals.”
“Instead of spending the time and money to relocate this amazing lobo again, wildlife officials should take a step back and let him roam — maybe learn from where he wanders,” said Chris Smith, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “Mexican wolves belong in the northern part of our state. Biologists and the wolves themselves seem to agree on that.”
Because of longstanding mismanagement that now includes the enforced separation of Mexican gray wolves from northern gray wolves, the Mexican wolf population in the United States — which stems from just seven animals — has lost genetic diversity in each of the last four years.
“Unsurprisingly, Taylor is moving north again. And again, we’re going to have to ask ourselves, do we expend taxpayer dollars and limited recovery resources enforcing political boundaries on a wild animal, or do we let natural instincts and recovery goals work together in a rare win-win,” said Luke Koenig, Gila grassroots organizer for New Mexico Wild. “Unfortunately, our track record with this seemingly no-brainer of a situation has been pretty poor. But we have yet another opportunity to make things right.”
“How ironic that time after time, the Fish and Wildlife Service keeps transporting wolves south again after their northward journeys claiming there are no other lobos for them to find for mates north of I-40,” said Mary Katherine Ray, wildlife chair of the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club. “With five wolves having made the trip in recent years, clearly there could be if they were all just allowed to roam.”
“Taylor is showing us, yet again, what wolves have been trying to tell us for years: recovery doesn’t follow a straight line drawn on a map. Dispersing wolves are the authors of their own futures, choosing the landscapes, corridors and potential mates that give their families the best chance to thrive,” said Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “When we step back and let lobos lead, they reveal the very pathways scientists have long identified as essential for true recovery across the Southwest and the wider Western United States. Taylor’s journey isn’t a management problem, it’s a reminder of what’s possible when we trust wild animals to find their way home.”
Independent scientists have determined that recovering Mexican wolves will require the subspecies to inhabit broader areas than presently permitted. These include the Rocky Mountains in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado and the Grand Canyon region of northern Arizona and southern Utah. Scientists also believe that connectivity with northern gray wolves in Colorado would bring much-needed genes to combat inbreeding in the Mexican wolf population.
“Taylor’s journey shows us what recovery looks like when wolves lead the way. They select the habitats, corridors and mates that give them the best chance to thrive,” said Michelle Lute, Ph.D. in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “With the border wall closing off natural dispersal toward the south, allowing wolves to move north is no longer optional for recovery, it’s necessary.”
“Robust conservation science stresses the need for high quality habitat with interconnected populations in order to ensure long term species persistence. Taylor and his lobo predecessors are repeatedly telling us where the best habitat is as they spread from an artificially bounded range” said Nico Lorenzen, wildlife associate for Wild Arizona. “As independent scientists have suggested, and further confirmed by the wolves themselves, the key to their recovery is allowing them to roam past I-40 and establish a healthy metapopulation.”
###
TAKE ACTION | Email mexicanwolfcomments@fws.gov and tell the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: This time, let Taylor stay.
New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption
New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption — What It Means for Wildlife Conservation and True Coexistence
A gray wolf stands amidst tree cover, staring at the camera. Image courtesy of The Seattle Times.
It’s a troubling paradox in wildlife management: many policies continue to permit—or even promote—lethal control of wolves (and other large carnivores) in the name of protecting livestock or reducing human-wildlife conflict. Yet in recent years, a growing body of rigorous science is challenging the idea that killing predators reliably reduces livestock losses or improves coexistence outcomes. A newly released peer-reviewed article “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” (2025) adds substantial fuel to that critique by reviewing the best available studies across multiple countries and contexts.
This paper is a powerful tool for advocates for just, democratic wildlife policies, because it erodes a commonly assumed justification for predator killing and invites us instead toward more reasoned, science-driven coexistence strategies.
Below, we break down what the study shows, explore its implications for policy and practice, and suggest how this new evidence supports, strengthens, and can sharpen our collective arguments and advocacy.
Making Sense of the Science: What the Paper Did and Found
The authors asked a deceptively simple but deeply consequential question: do we have strong, consistent evidence that removing (killing or otherwise eliminating) wolves leads to fewer losses of livestock or domestic animals? In other words, does lethal control reliably deliver on its promised protection?
Instead of conducting a new experiment, the authors performed a review (a kind of systematic evaluation) of the best available studies, across several countries, that examine the links between lethal wolf control and livestock losses from wolves. In doing so, they examined:
-
- The quality of study design (how well the study isolates cause and effect, controls confounding factors, uses proper controls, etc.).
- The consistency, magnitude, and direction of reported effects.
- Whether alternative explanations or unintended consequences (e.g., behavioral changes, compensatory effects, social disruption of packs) were considered.
- The quality of study design (how well the study isolates cause and effect, controls confounding factors, uses proper controls, etc.).
Because many past studies suffer from methodological flaws (lack of controls, failure to account for confounding variables), the authors were especially attentive to whether the evidence reaches a level that justifies policy reliance.
Their central verdict: the evidence is inadequate to support the claim that removing wolves reliably prevents livestock losses. Some of the main findings:
-
- Many of the studies that claim success of lethal control have weak design or interpretive problems (e.g., they don’t adequately account for confounding factors, small sample sizes, or changes in livestock management coinciding with predator removal).
- In some cases, livestock losses either did not decline, or even increased, after predator removal (or in neighboring areas). Thus, removing wolves in one area may displace conflict or destabilize predator social structure in a way that backfires.
- The authors emphasize that lethal control may produce unintended negative consequences: for example, destabilizing pack social structure can lead to more unpredictable wolf behavior (or influx of new individuals), or increased risky behaviors.
- Across diverse settings, there is no consistent pattern showing that lethal removal reliably leads to net benefit for livestock protection.
- Many of the studies that claim success of lethal control have weak design or interpretive problems (e.g., they don’t adequately account for confounding factors, small sample sizes, or changes in livestock management coinciding with predator removal).
In sum, for anyone hoping to defend lethal control on scientific grounds, this review seriously weakens that case.
Implications for Coexistence Practices and Policies
This new review doesn’t just stir academic debates — it has direct, consequential implications for how wildlife agencies, ranchers, communities, and advocates manage carnivores.
- Shifting the burden of proof and the default stance
- One of the permanent challenges in wildlife policy is that lethal control is often treated as a default or default fallback—“if conflict increases, kill more predators.” But this paper supports the stronger presumption in favor of nonlethal, precautionary policies, because lethal control has failed to deliver predictable net positive outcomes.
- Advocates can point to this review to argue that wildlife agencies should no longer be allowed to justify predator killing simply by citing tradition or “expert judgment” — countless studies have killed wolves and failed to produce robust, transparent evidence of benefit. It’s time to move on to what we know works and is supported by the majority of Americans: non-lethal coexistence.
- One of the permanent challenges in wildlife policy is that lethal control is often treated as a default or default fallback—“if conflict increases, kill more predators.” But this paper supports the stronger presumption in favor of nonlethal, precautionary policies, because lethal control has failed to deliver predictable net positive outcomes.
- Strengthening the ethics-based argument
- Wildlife for All’s mission is grounded in the moral belief that wild animals deserve to live freely and be treated fairly. The science helps us go beyond purely moral appeals: when you show that lethal control is not just morally questionable, but also scientifically weak or contradictory, you can reach a broader audience, including those who aren’t initially motivated by animal wellbeing but by evidence-based policy.
- Skeptical stakeholders (e.g., ranchers, rural communities, policymakers) often say “We can’t afford risk — we need the option to shoot wolves.” This paper undercuts that by showing the option may not reliably reduce risk — and may in some cases exacerbate it.
- Wildlife for All’s mission is grounded in the moral belief that wild animals deserve to live freely and be treated fairly. The science helps us go beyond purely moral appeals: when you show that lethal control is not just morally questionable, but also scientifically weak or contradictory, you can reach a broader audience, including those who aren’t initially motivated by animal wellbeing but by evidence-based policy.
- Encouraging investment in nonlethal, adaptive strategies
- If the “kill to protect” assumption is undermined, then nonlethal tools — guard animals, electric fencing, range riders, deterrents, improved husbandry, compensation programs, and community-based surveillance — should not be treated as secondary or fallback, but as first-line strategies. This shifts budget, policy priority, and the mindset of wildlife agencies.
- Because lethal strategies may carry hidden costs (e.g., social disruption, unforeseen predator behavior, negative public sentiment, reputational and liability risks), the comparative cost-benefit of nonlethal options becomes more compelling.
- If the “kill to protect” assumption is undermined, then nonlethal tools — guard animals, electric fencing, range riders, deterrents, improved husbandry, compensation programs, and community-based surveillance — should not be treated as secondary or fallback, but as first-line strategies. This shifts budget, policy priority, and the mindset of wildlife agencies.
- Improving monitoring, transparency, and accountability
- The article calls out methodological weaknesses and lack of rigorous standards in predator control studies. We can use this as a call to demand stronger monitoring, open data, independent review, and clear metrics of success (or failure) in wildlife policy and agency action.
- Messaging and persuasion to skeptical audiences
- With this paper in hand, advocates can more confidently engage with policymakers who claim to care about evidence-based decision-making. Our message to such officials: “Scientific review shows that removals are not reliably effective and carry risks — let’s instead prioritize proven nonlethal methods and monitor carefully.”
- In regulatory or legal settings (e.g., comment periods, wildlife commission hearings), citing this peer-reviewed review strengthens the legitimacy of coexistence strategies.
- With this paper in hand, advocates can more confidently engage with policymakers who claim to care about evidence-based decision-making. Our message to such officials: “Scientific review shows that removals are not reliably effective and carry risks — let’s instead prioritize proven nonlethal methods and monitor carefully.”
- Expanding the approach beyond wolves
- Although the focus is on wolves, the logic and methods are relevant to other large carnivores such as coyotes and mountain lions. Lethal control of predators is not a safe “go-to” and must always be justified by strong, context-specific evidence.
- Although the focus is on wolves, the logic and methods are relevant to other large carnivores such as coyotes and mountain lions. Lethal control of predators is not a safe “go-to” and must always be justified by strong, context-specific evidence.
In short: this study reinforces our collective vision with empirical muscle. Rather than moralizing in a vacuum, we demand that policies rest on defensible science — and because the science is weak in favor of lethal control, most proposals to kill predators must be treated as presumptively unjustifiable unless proven otherwise.
Toward a Future of Just, Evidence-Informed Coexistence
The release of “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” is a timely and powerful moment for wildlife advocacy. It helps shift the narrative from “we must kill predators to protect livestock” to “let’s ask: is killing really helping — and if not, what better tools exist?”
For Wildlife for All, this is more than a research citation — it is a clarion call. It helps us:
- reinforce that coexistence is not a utopian dream but a rational policy option;
- press for higher scientific standards and accountability in wildlife agencies;
- strengthen alliances between scientists, advocates, and communities; and
- offer a persuasive pathway to those still clinging to lethal control: you don’t have to reject your concern for livestock or safety — but you do have a duty to demand stronger evidence to inform policies and practices.
In the years ahead, it will be essential for us to help translate this kind of science into concrete policy change: biological impact assessments, funding for nonlethal tools, legislative oversight, and public education.
The uphill battle is real, but we carry not just moral conviction, but stronger scientific justification. If the future of coexistence depends on opening minds and shifting practices, this paper gives us one more powerful bridge toward that future — a future in which wolves, other carnivores, and human communities can share the land with more dignity and fewer unnecessary killings.
The Trump Administration Is Rushing to Gut the Endangered Species Act — Here’s How to Fight Back
The Trump Administration is rushing to gut the Endangered Species Act with a short comment period right before the holidays. Here is how you can fight back.
The Trump Administration Is Rushing to Gut the Endangered Species Act — Here’s How to Fight Back
4 Separate Attacks on the ESA.
30 Days to Respond.
Your Voice Matters More Than Ever.
The Trump Administration just launched a sweeping attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act, the very law that often stands between imperiled wildlife and extinction. Four proposed rule changes would reopen the door to political and industry influence over decisions that are supposed to be driven by science and the public interest.
If enacted, these rules would:
- Weaken protections for newly listed species by eliminating automatic safeguards and forcing case-by-case political fights over whether a species deserves protection.
- Narrow the definition of critical habitat, excluding areas species need to recover as climate change accelerates.
- Allow economic and corporate impacts to outweigh scientific evidence in listing decisions.
- Limit the scope of federal review so agencies can more easily greenlight harmful projects, from logging to drilling, even when they place wildlife in harm’s way.
The Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest environmental laws we have—but it only works when the federal government enforces its standards. These changes don’t just threaten species on the brink; they undermine the democratic process itself.
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. State wildlife governance is already heavily shaped by industry power, and federal protections are often the only meaningful check left for species on the edge of extinction. These proposed rollbacks would further shift decision-making away from science, away from democratic accountability, and away from the basic values that the public overwhelmingly supports.
The United States is in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. From frogs to monarch butterflies, wolverines to manatees and owls to salmon, our wild neighbors can’t survive if we let political pressure override what the science tells us clearly: species on the brink and the ecosystems they rely on require bold, proactive protection.
A 30-day public comment period is now open. We need a strong public record showing that people across the country reject these rollbacks and support a democratic, science-based approach to wildlife governance.
Take Action for the Endangered Species Act
Agencies are required by law to read and respond to all substantive, unique comments. This is one of the most important democratic tools we have to push back.
Below is a guide to help you craft your own comment. Once you’ve read through the guide, head to the bottom of the post for direct links to each docket where you can submit your comment.
Your comment doesn’t need to be long. What matters is that it’s yours. Your voice matters—and right now, it’s needed more than ever.
How to Write an Effective Public Comment
Public comments are one of the most effective tools available to ordinary people (not lobbyists, not industry groups) to influence federal rules. But for that influence to count, comments must be unique, substantive, and grounded in your own perspective.
This guide is designed to help you do exactly that. Below, you’ll find a clear explanation of why personalized comments carry far more weight than form letters, along with sample sentences to help you craft a comment in your own words.
Agencies are legally obligated to consider and respond to each unique point raised in public comments, especially ones grounded in science, democratic process, and the public interest.
When thousands of people raise similar (but individually expressed) concerns, agencies must address them in the final rule or explain why they disagree.
Form letters, by contrast, are often lumped together and counted once.
If 20,000 people submit the same pasted paragraph, it is treated as a single comment representing 20,000 signatures—not 20,000 pieces of input. Form letters still matter symbolically, but they don’t carry the same weight in the rulemaking process.
Your own words have power. A few sentences of your perspective, values, or lived experience are far more influential than pages of copy-and-paste text.
You don’t need to be an expert. You just need to be clear about:
- Your interest in wildlife or healthy ecosystems
Mexican gray wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, Robin Silver
- Why these proposed rules concern you
- How they undermine science, democratic decision-making, or public interest
- What you want the agency to do instead
Keep it grounded, science-based, and values-forward. A paragraph or two is enough.
Below are plug-and-play lines you can adapt. (Do not copy them word-for-word—adjust them so they reflect your voice and experience.)
Open With Your Interest
- I am submitting this comment because biodiversity and healthy ecosystems matter deeply to me.
- As someone who lives in _____ and regularly sees the effects of habitat loss, I am concerned about weakening protections for imperiled species.
- I care about science-informed stewardship of the wildlife in this country.
Emphasize Science & Values
- The Endangered Species Act works because it centers science and the public interest—not political pressure or economic influence.
- Science can tell us what species need to survive; values determine whether we choose to protect them. These rules shift decision-making away from both.
- The proposed changes would allow industry considerations to outweigh both biological need and scientific reality.
List Concerns with the Proposed Rule Changes
- Proposed Classification Rule (Section 4): Removing automatic protections from newly listed species places vulnerable wildlife at risk before recovery efforts even begin. Newly listed species could go unprotected while recovery is delayed.
- Proposed 4(d) Rule (Section 4(d)): Eliminating the blanket rule for threatened species allows inconsistent protections and delays recovery for imperiled wildlife at a time when they need the fullest protection we can provide.
- Proposed Exclusion Rule (Section 4(b)(2)): Narrowing criteria for critical habitat exclusions could allow economic interests to override habitat protection, threatening ecosystem health. If economic interests weigh more than essential habitat, entire ecosystems are at risk, not just wildlife species.
- Proposed Consultation Rule (Section 7): Limiting federal review of agency actions would make it easier for destructive projects to proceed without fully assessing impacts on endangered wildlife.
Highlight Democratic Process & Accountability
- Federal oversight is often the only check on state wildlife systems that are already heavily shaped by industry interests.
- These rollbacks reduce public accountability at a time when most Americans support stronger environmental conservation protections.
- A democratic, science-based process requires transparency and meaningful review.
Close With What You Want
- I urge the agency to withdraw these proposed rules and maintain the ESA’s strong, science-based protections.
- Please strengthen, not weaken, federal safeguards so states and industry cannot sidestep responsibility to protect imperiled wildlife.
- I ask you to uphold the intent of the ESA: preventing extinction and ensuring future generations inherit thriving, resilient ecosystems.
Submit Your Comment
Now that you’ve written your comments, submit them to each of the four dockets at Regulations.gov:
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0039 (Section 4: listing & delisting)
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0044 (Section 7: federal consultation/interagency cooperation)
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0029 (Section 4(d): threatened species protections)
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0048 (Section 4(b)(2): critical habitat exclusions)
Thank you for taking action. At Wildlife for All, we believe that everyone deserves a meaningful voice in how wildlife is governed. When we show up as an informed public, agencies must respond, and the official record becomes stronger, more democratic, and more reflective of the values most people hold: science, coexistence, and a future where ecosystems can thrive.
Science must guide decisions about wildlife. Corporate influence should not. And endangered species deserve more than a political process designed to let them disappear quietly.
New Mexico Fish and Game stops wandering wolf “Taylor” in his tracks, sends him south for the second time
Another Mexican gray wolf was just punished for doing exactly what wolves are meant to do: migrate and search out new territory.
Mexican gray wolf photo available for media use with appropriate credit: Jim Clark/USFWS. Image is available for media use.
For immediate release: November 10, 2025
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Conservation groups are condemning the decision by the New Mexico Department of Fish and Game (NMDFG) to remove a wandering male Mexican gray wolf from the northern part of the state late last week. His removal marks the second time that the agency has tried to confine him south of Interstate 40, asserting that wolves must stay within the arbitrary bounds of the Mexican Gray Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA), which represents only some of the suitable wolf habitat in the Southwest and which was delineated for political rather than scientific reasons.
The wolf was named “Taylor” by conservation groups in honor of Mount Taylor, a place considered sacred by numerous southwestern Tribes, and where this wolf was originally encountered in May 2025 and to where he returned in July 2025 after his first translocation south into the Gila National Forest. He is the fifth wolf in recent years to venture north in New Mexico, and his “out-of-bounds” journey over the last four months has been free of conflict with humans. His recent movements suggested that he might be looking for a mate; January is the start of breeding season for this species.
“It’s ridiculous to keep moving wolves back south of Interstate 40 when wolves have clearly decided there’s great habitat to the north of the highway,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. “We fully expect that, like Asha before him, he’ll head right back to his northern territory. We can’t explain his desire, but we shouldn’t deny his instincts.”
“Wildlife should be wild and free,” said Chris Smith, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “Lobos are going to eventually re-establish in northern New Mexico, as they should. Enforcing arbitrary boundaries to keep wildlife where humans want them is not just a silly game–it is a threat to recovery.”
Independent wolf biologists have recommended that Mexican wolf dispersal to or reintroduction efforts in the southern Rocky Mountains of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado are necessary in order for the species to be recovered. Because Northern Rockies gray wolves, now reintroduced to Colorado, are close relatives capable of interbreeding with Mexican gray wolves, northern expansion is considered a critical element of long-term recovery. Allowing these populations to meet where their historical ranges overlap will restore natural gene flow and strengthen the long-term viability of both lineages.
Despite recovery science establishing the need for multiple, connected populations of Mexican wolves, state and federal agencies continue to enforce artificial boundaries and do not allow wolves north of Interstate 40 where suitable habitat abounds.
“Taylor is confirming what scientists and conservationists have been saying: wolves need room to roam, disperse, and find mates,” said Michelle Lute, PhD in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “These processes function at the landscape scale and cannot be constrained by administrative boundaries. Wolves like Taylor are expanding their range naturally, and the science is clear: recovery requires connectivity. We need wildlife governance that respects biology, not bureaucratic borders.”
“Taylor is charting his own path across ancestral landscapes, just as wolves have always done. Agencies claimed Asha had no mate in northern New Mexico, yet by removing every wolf who ventures north of I-40, they guarantee she never will,” said Claire Musser, executive director, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “True recovery requires giving lobos the freedom to disperse, to find family, and to shape their own futures on their own terms.”
“Taylor should not have been captured,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Mexican wolves need more room to roam, not confinement behind arbitrary political lines.”
“We’ve long known that the political boundaries imposed on Mexican gray wolf recovery do not match ecological ones, and that this poses a significant hindrance to recovery. We have an opportunity here to advance recovery efforts by simply allowing Taylor—and other lobos—to wander north into historic and suitable habitat, and yet we expend significant resources time and time again preventing just that,” said Luke Koenig, Gila grassroots organizer for New Mexico Wild.
###
November Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at November Wildlife Commission Meetings.
November Wildlife Commission Meetings
November wildlife commission meetings are some of the final ones in 2025. Don’t miss one of the last chances this year for you, the public, to be heard.
Only 22 states are meeting this month, but the decisions being made could shape the future of species and the health of ecosystems across the country. Commissions are weighing policies that determine how wildlife is managed, who gets representation in decision-making, and whether science or politics will guide the path forward.
These meetings rarely make national news—but they’re where the real work of wildlife governance happens. Showing up matters. Submitting a comment matters. Even listening in matters. Every act of participation helps move us closer to wildlife management that reflects ecological science, democratic values, and coexistence for all life—not outdated, special-interest rule.
Below you’ll find the full list of November commission meetings by state and date. Visit our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare your comments or testimony—and make sure your voice is part of the record before the year ends.
Note: planned meetings in Oklahoma (11/3) and Indiana (11/12) were cancelled.
Florida
Meeting Date: November 5-6
Location:Palm Beach State College, Dolly Hand Cultural Arts Center, 1977 SW College Dr., Belle Glade, FL 33430
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. the Friday before the meeting. If you would like to provide comments via mail, please send those comments to: FWC Commissioners, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. If you do not wish or are unable to speak at the meeting but would like to provide comments, you may do so using the online comment form or by contacting the Commissioners directly via email at commissioners@myfwc.com.
Action: Speak out on the proposed rule, “Regulated Trapping of Wildlife in Florida.” Staff will present proposed rule amendments to modernize Florida’s current wildlife trapping regulations to include new registration, training, and reporting requirements, and updates to the allowed methods of take. These changes will better align with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Best Management Practices in support of humane trapping. Staff will also provide an update on stakeholder engagement and feedback received to date through public webinars, a commenting tool, and the work of the Trapping Technical Assistance Group. Public comment on this agenda item will be limited to no more than one hour. (This item may be moved to day one or postponed). See agenda for links.
Texas
Meeting Date: November 5-6
Location: El Paso Convention Center, Ocotillo Room, 1 Civic Center Plaza, El Paso, TX 79901
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: Work Session: 9 a.m. Wednesday, November 5, 2025. Commission Meeting: 9 a.m. Thursday, November 6, 2025. Comment online through 5 p.m. November 5 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. Watch the live stream or listen by telephone: (888) 978-8818, access code: 8201869#.
Action: Comment on the state’s first mountain lion management plan.
Wyoming
Meeting Date: November 5-6
Location:Laramie at the Game and Fish Regional Office, 1212 South Adams 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 to toni.bell2@wyo.gov.
Wednesday, November 5 Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86841631317 Webinar ID: 868 4163 1317
Thursday, November 6, 2025 Tour – 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. The tour will include the Laramie Regional Office and Forensic Lab and is open to the public. The Laramie Regional Office is located at 1212 South Adams Street in Laramie.
California – Marine Resources Committee only
Meeting Date: November 6
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, 715 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. Marine Resources Committee meeting only. Meeting packet.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: November 6
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Zoom. To view via webinar, register here.
Michigan
Meeting Date: November 6
Location: Lansing Community College, West Campus Rooms M119-121, 5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917
Details: Click here for agenda (not available at time of webpage publishing) and details.
Notes: 9:30 a.m. 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.
New Hampshire
Meeting Date:November 6
Location:Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive in Concord, NH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: There will be a Strategic Planning Committee Meeting held on November 6th @ 2:30 p.m., at the NH Fish & Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, in the Director’s conference room. This meeting is open to the public. There will be a Resources & Infrastructure Committee Meeting held on November 10th at 11:00 a.m., at the Glenn Cove Wildlife Management Area, 49 Emery Ln., Greenland, NH 03840. This meeting is open to the public.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: November 6-7
Location: Lemmon
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: November 6, 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. MT | November 7, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. MT. To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458. Zoom meeting link. Livestream watch link. Meeting materials here. 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).
West Virginia
Meeting Date: November 6
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 6 p.m. The agenda for the November 6, 2025 meeting will be posted closer to the meeting date. 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 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. If you can’t watch the meeting live, a recording will be posted and remain available until the next scheduled Commission meeting, so you can watch it at your convenience.
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 About Public Comments: The livestream is view-only. To provide public comments, you must attend in person at one of the six district locations listed above.
Nevada
Meeting Date: November 7
Location: Clark County Government Center, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155
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. 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.
Action: Comment on the “Predation Management Plan” and “Coyote Killing Contests” agenda items. Oppose codifying killing contests into law. Point out that the management plan lacks coexistence measures.
New Mexico
Meeting Date: November 7
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.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: November 12
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 here no later than 2 business days before the meeting.)
Notes: Meeting starts at 3 p.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 484848. Or join via telephone: Join via audio: (929) 205-6099, Webinar ID: 867 4074 8593, Passcode: 484848. 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.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: November 12
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.
Ohio
Meeting Date: November 12
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.
Colorado
Meeting Date: November 13-14
Location: Northeastern Junior College, 100 College Ave, Sterling, CO 80751
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m.. 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 Friday, 11/7. Email the commission (though these won’t be counted in the official public record if received after noon on 11/7).
Iowa
Meeting Date: November 13
Location: Des Moines
Details: Click here for details (note no agenda was available at time of webpage publishing.)
Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. 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.
Washington
Meeting Date: November 13-15
Location: Hybrid, Lynnwood
Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available at time of webpage publishing)
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.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: November 14
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.
Arkansas
Meeting Date: November 19-20
Location: Little Rock
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 11/4)
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: November 19
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. (Note no agenda was posted at time of webpage publishing.)
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.
Idaho
Meeting Date: November 20
Location: Idaho Fish and Game – Clearwater Regional Office, 3316 16th Street, Lewiston, ID 83501
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Virtual participation available; https://zoom.us/j/91287823590. Call-in number: 253-215-8782, Webinar ID: 912 8782 3590; 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.
Kansas
Meeting Date: November 20
Location: Great Bend, KS – Camp Aldrich Conference Center, 884 NE 110th Ave, Claflin, KS 67525
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: 115-15-2. Nongame species; general provisions. (see agenda for meeting packet)
Atascosa Borderlands, Chapter 5
In this episode of the mixed-media storytelling project Atascosa Borderlands, Mandy Culbertson examines the North American Model of Conservation and its impact on wildlife management in Arizona and beyond. She explains how hunting licenses and excise taxes, while historically key to funding state wildlife agencies, now create perverse incentives that prioritize game species over holistic ecosystem health. The conversation delves into the public trust doctrine as a transformative framework, and gives a fresh perspective on wildlife funding and conservation priorities. Mandy also explores the challenges facing modern conservation, from climate change to habitat loss, and the need to rethink outdated models to ensure the survival of species like the Coues deer in the Sonoran Borderlands.
Wolf Awareness Week 2025
Wolf Awareness Week 2025 is here.
WOLF AWARENESS WEEK 2025:
Honoring Wolves, Exposing Broken Wildlife Governance, and Fighting for a Just Future
Wolf Awareness Week 2025 is here. Every third week of October, we celebrate Wolf Awareness Week — a tradition that began in 1996 when President Bill Clinton first recognized the occasion as a time to replace fear with understanding. This week is meant to honor wolves, one of North America’s most essential keystone species, and to shine a light on their ecological role and their ongoing fight for survival.
But to be honest — this year, it’s hard to feel celebratory even though we’re celebrating the 30th anniversary of wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone and central Idaho.
Across the country, wolves are being slaughtered at staggering rates under the banner of “management.” They are vilified in the media, scapegoated by industry, and failed by outdated state wildlife governance systems that treat them not as living beings essential to ecosystems, but as problems to be “controlled.”
From the Northern Rockies to the Southwest, the fight for wolves is a fight against entrenched political and economic power. And that’s exactly why reforming state wildlife governance is essential — not just for wolves, but for the health of every ecosystem they shape.
Wolves: A Keystone Species in Crisis
Wolves are not just another wildlife species. They are a keystone species and apex carnivore, meaning their presence — or absence — ripples through entire ecosystems. When wolves return, landscapes heal: ungulate populations rebalance, vegetation recovers, rivers stabilize, and biodiversity thrives. This is not romanticism; it’s science.
Yet, despite this well-established ecological reality, wolves remain under siege:
-
In the Northern Rockies, states like Montana and Idaho are in the midst of relentless killing sprees, setting quotas that allow for the slaughter of hundreds of wolves annually. These decisions are driven not by science, but by political pressure from livestock and trophy hunting interests.
-
In the Great Lakes region, state politicians are eagerly waiting for federal delisting to resume unscientific wolf hunts.
-
In Colorado and California, where wolves are making fragile returns, they face a coordinated disinformation campaign by Big Ag to turn the public against them.
-
Mexican gray wolf populations are still on the brink, with individuals dying over and over again from government-sanctioned “management” and illegal poaching.
-
And the wild population of red wolf numbers fewer than 25 individuals, confined to a tiny pocket of habitat in North Carolina.
This is not a failure of science. It’s a failure of governance.
Wolves are persecuted not because they are a biological threat to ecosystems, but because they are a political inconvenience to industries that profit from their absence. Across most states, wildlife commissions are stacked with livestock and trophy hunting interests, and the agencies that should be stewards of biodiversity are instead beholden to extractive politics.
This is why Wildlife for All is fighting to transform state wildlife governance systems. Real democracy in wildlife management means giving all people — not just a politically connected few — a voice in how wildlife is managed. It means grounding decisions in science, ethics, and ecological health, not political favors or cultural resentments.
Wolf Awareness Week isn’t just a time to celebrate wolves. It’s a time to name the systems that are killing them.
Bright Spots in a Dark Landscape
Even in the face of relentless persecution, there are glimmers of hope:
-
A federal court ruled that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly delisted Northern Rockies wolves, forcing a reassessment of the threats they face.
-
Conservation groups are challenging Montana’s record-high quota of 558 wolves for the 2025–26 season.
-
In North Carolina, wildlife crossings are being built along Highway 64 to help save the last red wolves in the wild.
-
New Mexico’s governor fired a wildlife commissioner over her ties to anti-wolf groups — a rare example of accountability.
-
Grassroots coexistence work in Colorado is shifting the narrative and building real solutions with ranchers.
-
Three new wolf packs were confirmed earlier this year in California.
These victories don’t erase the threats — but they remind us why we fight.
A new national survey shows that the American public overwhelmingly supports continued protections for gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act — including 75% of rural residents in wolf states and 79% of farmers and ranchers. For every person who strongly opposes protecting wolves, more than nine strongly support it. In a moment when political efforts to strip federal protections are gaining traction, this broad public backing is a powerful reminder that most Americans want wolves — and the wild places they depend on — to endure.
Wolf Awareness Week 2025 should not be about celebrating the fact that wolves still exist in spite of us. It should be about building a future where they thrive because of us — because we chose to evolve our governance, challenge entrenched power, and align our policies with science and justice.
Wolves deserve more than “management.” The language we use matters. Wolves are not a “resource” to be managed for recreational killing. They are sentient beings with intrinsic value, integral to the functioning of wild ecosystems.
How to Take Action During Wolf Awareness Week 2025
-
Speak up: Contact your state wildlife commission and demand science-based protections for wolves if you live in a state with wolves.
-
Educate: Share credible information that counters fearmongering and myths.
-
Organize: Join efforts to reform state wildlife governance so wolves — and all wildlife — have a future.
-
Support: Grassroots coexistence programs, legal challenges, and advocacy campaigns need public backing.
Wolves have survived centuries of eradication campaigns. Their endurance is a testament to their strength. But survival is not the same as justice.
This Wolf Awareness Week, let’s honor wolves not with platitudes, but with power-building — the kind that can transform broken systems and create a future where wolves are not fighting for scraps of safety, but thriving as the ecological keystones they are.
