News & Commentary
A Proposed VT Bill Would Add Nonhunters to the Fish and Wildlife Board
Currently only hunters, anglers and trappers can serve on the board that sets wildlife policy in Vermont. A bill in the legislature would change that by requiring “more balanced viewpoints” on the board (read a NYT feature on the bill here). Hunters object, saying the current system works fine so why change it? But if that is true, why does Vermont identify more than 1000 species in need of conservation attention in its state wildlilfe action plan?
Do cougars require killing?
It is often said that cougars and other carnivores need to be hunted to keep their numbers in check. Otherwise, they would deplete deer populations, and attack too many livestock and even people. That is the what opponents say of a Colorado ballot initiative that would end hunting and trapping of cougars, bobcats and lynx. However, these claims are not supported by science, as hunter and outdoor writer Ted Williams explains in this essay.
For Asha, Let Nature Takes Its Course
Captive Mexican Wolf at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico. (Source: USFW)
In the vast expanse of Southwestern wild places, one lone wolf has captivated the hearts of many — Asha, the dispersing Mexican gray wolf on a journey of epic proportions.
As she roams across the landscapes of Northern New Mexico for the second time, her path not only tells the story of a remarkable individual but also unveils the secrets of critical dispersal corridors that are essential for the survival of her species. Recent observations of Asha’s movements raise questions about the wisdom of intervening in her natural wanderings. As the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contemplate the potential need for human intervention — they’re letting Asha alone for now — it is crucial to consider the broader implications of her journey, not just for her but for the entire ecosystem.
One study on wolf dispersal highlights a corridor spanning around 26 miles, connecting core Mexican gray wolf habitat in the Gila National Forest to suitable habitat in the Jemez Mountains and beyond in southwestern Colorado. This corridor, just over half a mile wide in some areas, stands as a critical pathway for the dispersal of wolves in the region.
The precarious nature of this corridor, or other possible paths delicately following the remnants of forested land cover, underscores the challenges faced by Mexican wolves like Asha. The conversion of vital habitats into cropland exacerbates the already arduous task of crossing the diverse terrains of the Southwest. Not having access to the details of Asha’s GPS collar data, we can only surmise that she may have followed this corridor.
Wherever her exact path has taken, we can be confident that it’s been a dangerous one at times. Crossing Interstate 40, the arbitrary boundary the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has set for lobos, is just one of many challenges she faces. In addition to vehicles moving at lethal speeds, bullets intended for coyotes might find their way to Asha. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Asha’s journey serves as a living testament to the importance of preserving these tenuous corridors and allowing wild wolves (and other animals) to use these corridors in pursuit of suitable core wildlands.
By allowing her to roam freely, the agencies have the opportunity to showcase the significance of such pathways for the recovery of wolf populations not only in Northern New Mexico but potentially in southern Colorado and Utah. Asha, in her quest for a mate, is becoming a pioneer for lobo recovery in these regions. Independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies assert that the recovery of Mexican gray wolves hinges on their access to habitats in the Southern Rocky Mountains and Grand Canyon Ecosystem, both situated north of I-40. Ideal habitats for Mexican wolves extend beyond this geographical boundary, emphasizing the importance of recognizing their inherent need to follow natural corridors and establish sub-populations in additional areas.
As we follow Asha’s trail, let’s celebrate her resilience and acknowledge that sometimes, the best course of action is to let nature take its course. Resisting the urge to intervene in wild animals’ lives is an essential aspect of coexistence, where humans and animals learn to live with each other.
Peacefully accommodating our neighbors of all ilk is the only way we and our hot, hungry, and crowed planet will survive the current crises we face. Contact Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and ask her to rescind New Mexico’s opposition to wolf recovery efforts north of I-40. In doing so, we may find that Asha’s path becomes a beacon for larger rewilding initiatives, emphasizing the critical role of dispersal corridors in the preservation of wildlife and wild places.
This first appeared as an op-ed in the Santa Fe New Mexican. For more on this topic, read about Asha’s first journey and its ending by capture here.
Proposed Washington State Policy Seeks to Define, Prioritize “Conservation”
Given how important “conservation” is to, well, protecting wildlife, you’d think that there would be general agreement on what the term means. Turns out that is not the case. Although the word appears in many state statutes, it often goes undefined, leading to widespread confusion about what state wildlife managers ought to be doing.
In an effort to provide guidance to Washington State wildlife managers in the face of a biodiversity crisis and other threats, in 2021 the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (WFWC) released a three-page draft conservation policy.
The proposed policy declares conservation of the state’s wildlife for the benefit of all residents to be the top priority of wildlife management in the state. Conservation is defined as: Science informed actions to preserve the health and resilience of natural environments including fish, wildlife and humans, safeguard the intrinsic value of nature, and provide equitable benefits to current and future generations of human and non-human life. These actions include protecting and restoring air, soil, water, biological diversity, ecosystem processes and evolutionary potential.
The draft policy has proved surprisingly controversial. Wildlife advocates like Washington Wildlife First–a Wildlife for All coalition partner–strongly support it, but many hunting groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation oppose it as a threat to traditional values and hunting culture. They object to the use of terms like “preserve” and “intrinsic value” in the definition of conservation, which they argue should emphasize sustainable consumptive use of wildlife.
The debate in Washington over something as fundamental as the meaning and importance of conservation indicates how entrenched state wildlife management is throughout the U.S., and the challenge Wildlife for All and our partners face in reforming it.
WFWC hopes to finalize the policy before the end of the year. Read more at this Columbia Insight article here.
Lawsuit Challenges NJ Law Giving Hunters Majority on State Fish and Wildlife Council
A former New Jersey state legislator filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law that effectively gives hunting groups the power to select a majority of the 11-member NJ Fish and Wildlife Council, which sets wildlife policy for the state. The lawsuit was filed by former senator Ray Lesniak and the Lesniak Institute. Lesniak argued that the law which requires the governor to appoint six members to the Council from a list of recommended candidates submitted by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportmen’s Clubs effectively gives outsized power to a private interest group, in violation of the state constitution’s establishment of three distinct branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. The judge denied Lesniak’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt the fall bear hunt, which began October 9. Lesniak said he will appeal.
In an op-ed published in NJ.com, Wildlife for All co-executive directors Michelle Lute and Kevin Bixby applauded the lawsuit. “If successful, this litigation would end the stranglehold that a shrinking but powerful interest group–hunters–have long had on wildlife matters in New Jersey. It would set an important precedent that would open the door to democratizing wildlife management in other states, bringing fairness and justice to one of the least democratic arenas of public policy in the U.S.”
Stop next week’s bear hunt wildlife conservationists plead
The December black bear hunt begins on Monday. Harvested bears are brought to the Whittingham Wildlife Management Area check station in Freon where they are tagged by the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. December 5, 2016 (Patti Sapone | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com) Patti Sapone | NJ Advance MediaPatti Sapone | NJ Advance Media
By Kevin Bixby and Michelle Lute
In the world of wildlife management, few issues have sparked as much debate as the treatment of New Jersey’s bear population. A lawsuit brought by former state Senator Raymond Lesniak challenges the recent decision by the New Jersey Fish & Game Council to allow bear hunting for the next five years and seeks a preliminary injunction to halt this year’s bear season, scheduled to begin Oct. 9.
Lesniak’s lawsuit, filed on behalf of The Lesniak Institute and himself, is about more than bears. It raises questions about the outsize influence of private interests on the state’s Fish & Game Council’s decision making and shines a light on the undemocratic nature of wildlife governance in New Jersey.
We at Wildlife for All applaud the lawsuit. Our mission is to reform state wildlife management in every state to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting all wild species in the face of climate change and a global extinction crisis.
If successful, this litigation would end the stranglehold that a shrinking but powerful interest group — hunters — have long had on wildlife matters in New Jersey. It would set an important precedent that would open the door to democratizing wildlife management in other states, bringing fairness and justice to one of the least democratic arenas of public policy in the U.S.
Lesniak’s lawsuit revolves around a seemingly simple yet profoundly significant argument: the composition of the Fish & Game Council violates Article III of the New Jersey Constitution, which establishes a three-branch system of government with distinct legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
Lesniak contends that undue influence is wielded by the Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, a private organization, within the Council. With six of 11 council members appointed based on recommendations from these clubs, the lawsuit asserts that essential government functions are effectively outsourced to a select interest group.
At the heart of the issue lies the upcoming bear hunt to be held this month. Although the Fish & Game Council justified the hunt as needed to reduce human-bear conflicts, it has failed to pursue non-lethal methods of preventing conflict, such as requiring bear-resistant trash cans and discouraging bird feeders in bear country. These evidence-based measures are proven to significantly reduce incentives for bears to venture into residential areas for food.
The core of the issue is the unchecked authority of the Sportsmen’s Clubs in shaping New Jersey’s wildlife management policies, which results in the Council’s apparent bias in favor of hunting as the primary means of wildlife management. This predisposition permeates every aspect of the Council’s policies and actions, marginalizing non-lethal solutions that could be more effective, humane, and sustainable in the long run.
Lesniak’s lawsuit seeks to prevent further harm to New Jersey’s bears. This measure underscores the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate judicial intervention to protect the state’s wildlife — a goal fully in line with Wildlife for All’s mission to ensure the well-being of all species.
This legal battle serves as a poignant reminder of the critical role that individuals and organizations play in safeguarding our natural world. Lesniak’s challenge against the Fish & Game Council’s composition not only raises concerns about the undue influence of interest groups but also advocates for a more transparent, data-driven, and ecologically responsible approach to wildlife management.
It is crucial to acknowledge that Lesniak is not alone in his concerns. A growing chorus of voices within the environmental community and the broader public have expressed skepticism about the bear hunt and the overarching policies of the Fish & Game Council.
As the lawsuit unfolds, it will undoubtedly attract the attention of those who believe that the fate of New Jersey’s wildlife should not be determined solely by a select few but should be a matter of public interest and informed, democratic decision-making, consistent with the commitment to equitable representation from Wildlife for All and our growing coalition of over 60 organizations.
This lawsuit against the New Jersey Fish & Game Council serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over wildlife conservation in the state. It challenges the status quo, raises essential questions about constitutional principles, and advocates for a more balanced and sustainable approach to protecting New Jersey’s bears and wildlife in general. With its success, New Jersey can become a model of democratic, effective wildlife policy-making.
Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, it underscores the importance of vigilant oversight and citizen engagement in matters that impact the environment we all share.
Kevin Bixby is the founder and co-executive director of Wildlife for All.
Michelle Lute has a Ph.D in wildlife conservation and serves as co-executive director of Wildlife for All. Kevin and Michelle have a collective six decades of wildlife conservation experience.
This first appeared as an op-ed in the New Jersey Star-Ledger
Wildlife for All joins call to end federal funding for state wildlife killing efforts
In response to the state of Alaska killing more than 100 bears and wolves by helicopter in June, supposedly to increase caribou numbers, a coalition of 35 wildlife and Indigenous groups, including Wildlife for All, sent a letter to Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland in August, renewing their demand that federal funds be withheld from states that practice or sanction the killing of native carnivores like wolves.
The groups claim that although the money granted to Alaska under the federal Pittman-Robertson Act was not used directly to buy the bullets or hire the gunners responsible for the killing, it was used to plan and otherwise support the operation. Pittman-Robertson funds are a significant source of income for state wildlife agencies, with more than $1 billion apportioned annually to the states in recent years. The funds are generated by a federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Most of the money is used by state wildlife agencies on projects to benefit hunted species, such as deer and elk, as well as for hunter education and programs to recruit more hunters and increase license sales.
Wildlife for All and our coalition members believe strongly that this system urgently needs to change to address the biodiversity crisis. Funding should be diversified so that state agencies can conserve the diversity of life.
Wildlife reforms advance in Colorado with Governor Polis’ latest commission appointments
Colorado big game hunter Erik Washburn explains how Governor Polis’ latest appointments to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, although not supported by some hunters, will be good for wildlife in the long run.
Wolf Connection #137: Michelle Lute
Michelle Lute is the Co-Executive Director for Wildlife For All, whose mission is to reform wildlife management in the U.S. to be more democratic, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. She is a conservation scientist and advocate with nearly twenty years experience in biodiversity conservation on public and private lands around the globe.
Michelle spoke about the efforts of Wildlife For All, the impacts of wildlife management on wolves and other predators, and how collaboration could be the key to reach solutions for wildlife and wild lands.
Sen. Baldwin’s ‘Midwest Gray Wolf Delisting’ Bill epitomizes abysmal wildlife policy
Current wolf conservation policies epitomize the bias of state and federal agencies to allow unjustified and unscientific lethal control through undemocratic processes that ignore diverse public values. As a result, wolves are used as a political bargaining tool by Republicans and Democrats alike. The latest move to delist wolves by US Senators Baldwin and Klobuchar is no exception.
Read this statement by Wildlife for All and our partners to learn more.