News & Commentary
Michigan NRC decision gives coyotes a reprieve
On May 8, 2025, Michigan’s Natural Resources Commission reaffirmed their decision to protect coyotes who are denning and raising young pups. Back in March 2024, the commission voted 4-2 to shorten the coyote hunting season from year-round to nine months, reversing a prior decision in 2016. Citing ethics, the importance of fair chase and public input from Michigan residents, this rule change made it unlawful to hunt coyotes on public land between April 16 and July 14, protecting young pups dependent on their parents from being orphaned.
Despite their ecological importance, coyotes are subject to relentless persecution across much of their range. Predator hunting and trapping groups, unhappy with any limitation of coyote hunting, sued the Commission in an attempt to force the year-round season to return. Hunter coalitions claimed giving coyotes a reprieve was not “science-based decision making” and that it was “the American hunter’s role to control populations and help ecosystems thrive”, not native carnivores. Others described coyotes as threats to deer herds and “doing the most damage to a great deal of our wildlife”, demonstrating a lack of respect for the role of carnivores in the ecosystem.
However, Michigan’s ethical choice to shorten the coyote hunting season isn’t unscientific – values inform all wildlife decision-making. Science can be cited to support for or against one’s position, but science cannot dictate that states should allow unlimited killing of coyotes. In actuality, hunting groups defend positions based on their own value judgements and beliefs (that wildlife agencies should prioritize game species and the interests of hunters) just as much as coyote advocates.
In a court filing, the Michigan NRC cited their findings that a year-round coyote season didn’t significantly increase the number of coyotes killed, reduce conflicts with humans or livestock, or increase deer populations for hunters. Additionally, some Michigan cities have acknowledged that fewer than 1% of coyotes exhibit aggressive or nuisance behaviors (which communities can mitigate by not feeding coyotes or conditioning them to humans).
This month, the NRC stood firm for a second time, leaving the shortened season in place for now. This decision affirms the importance of public wildlife advocacy. With persistence, we can challenge dominant narratives and successfully advocate for and build a more just system for all wildlife species. Reforming wildlife management means respecting and valuing all wildlife species, including coyotes and other carnivores.
New “Military Defense Zones” Endanger Wildlife and Democracy
From Border Wall to Occupied Wildlands: Why the New “Military Defense Zones” Endanger Wildlife and Democracy
New “Military Defense Zones” Endanger Wildlife and Democracy
In January of this year, the Trump administration quietly invoked National Security Presidential Memorandum-4 (NSPM-4) to transfer over 100,000 acres of public lands in West Texas and eastern New Mexico from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Defense. These lands—part of the rugged and biodiverse Chihuahuan Desert—are now classified as “National Defense Areas,” a previously unused legal designation that gives the military unprecedented policing power over civilian lands.
According to a recent Christian Science Monitor report where Wildlife for All was interviewed, this is the first time in U.S. history that a National Defense Area has been established on domestic public lands at this scale. Within these zones, the Army has the authority to detain people for trespassing—whether they are migrants, American citizens, or others the military deems “unauthorized.” Though no detentions have been made so far, a military spokesperson stated they’ve helped Border Patrol detect more than 150 people within these areas.
This is a seismic shift. And it’s not just about immigration.
The establishment of military-controlled zones on public lands sets a dangerous precedent for sidelining environmental protections and democratic oversight under the guise of national security. These lands are not just lines on a map—they are critical ecosystems, home to endangered species like the Mexican gray wolf, jaguar, and the ocelot. They are also vital corridors for migratory species struggling to survive amid habitat loss and climate disruption like Monarch butterflies and ferruginous pygmy owls.
Transferring land management from civilian to military control eliminates the checks and balances that come with public accountability. No environmental review. No input from Tribal governments, local communities, or wildlife experts. No regard for species protected under laws like the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.
This latest move is a direct escalation from the Trump-era border wall construction, which bulldozed fragile desert habitats and severed animal migration routes in the name of “security.” But while the wall had physical visibility and generated widespread backlash, these new National Defense Areas are far more insidious—quietly stripping away civilian access and democratic protections under a cloud of secrecy.
And the timing couldn’t be more revealing.
Illegal border crossings are at their lowest levels in at least 25 years, according to the Monitor article. Yet rather than scaling back enforcement, the federal government is expanding military occupation of public lands. It’s a solution in search of a crisis—and the collateral damage includes not just people, but wildlife, civil liberties, and democratic norms.
At Wildlife for All, we believe that how a society treats its land reflects how it treats its people. And this militarization of public space reflects an alarming shift in priorities—away from democracy, stewardship, and ecological integrity, and toward surveillance, exclusion, and authoritarian control.
What You Can Do About these “Military Defense Zones:”
-
Read and share our full explainer on NSPM-4 and what it means for wildlife and democracy: NSPM-4: The Border Wall Was Just the Beginning
-
Contact your elected officials and demand congressional oversight of NSPM-4 and any future use of public lands for military control without public review. (202) 224-3121
-
Stay informed and support grassroots efforts that defend ecological integrity and democratic accountability in borderlands communities. Follow: Border Kindness, Defend O’odham Jewed, Alianza Indigena sin Fronteras, Yaqui So Cal, Armadillos Ni Un Migrante Menos SAR group.
This isn’t just a fight for wildlife—it’s a fight for the soul of our public lands. Let’s not give them up without a voice.
Protect Monarchs—and the Endangered Species Act Itself
Take two actions: comment to protect monarch butterflies as endangered and to protect the Endangered Species Act itself by 11:59 p.m ET Monday, May 19.
Protect Monarchs—and the Endangered Species Act Itself
If you’ve ever watched a monarch butterfly float past you on a summer breeze, you’ve glimpsed one of the great wonders of the natural world. Their epic migrations stretch across thousands of miles. Their bright orange wings have inspired artists, children, and conservationists alike. And now, monarch butterflies are closer than ever to disappearing.
Monarch populations have plummeted. The migratory western monarch population, in particular, has seen a steady decline, with fewer than 2,000 individuals recorded in 2020, compared to millions in the 1980s. The eastern monarch population has also faced severe losses, including an 84% decline from 1996 to 2014. According to the Species Status Assessment, the eastern monarch faces a 48-69% chance of extinction within the next 60 years, while the western monarch has a staggering 98-99% probability of extinction. These alarming statistics make clear that protecting the monarch under the Endangered Species Act is essential to prevent its extinction.
Without federal protections, scientists estimate there’s a high probability that monarchs will go extinct within our lifetime. That’s why we’re urging everyone who cares about the natural world to take two critical actions TODAY:
1. Submit a comment to protect monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act (by 11:59 p.m. ET Monday, May 19)
Monarchs depend entirely on milkweed to lay their eggs and complete their life cycle. But their habitats—milkweed fields, nectar-rich meadows, and vital overwintering groves—are vanishing due to pesticide use, development, and climate change.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened the public comment period to consider listing monarch butterflies as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We need as many people as possible to raise their voices in support.
- Deadline: 11:59 p.m. ET Monday May 19, 2025
- Submit your comment here: regulations.gov link
- Need help? We’ve provided a sample comment at the end of this post.
This listing wouldn’t just protect monarchs—it would enhance habitat restoration efforts, coordinate recovery strategies, and bring national attention to one of the most iconic species at risk of extinction.
2. Speak up against the Trump administration’s proposal to gut the definition of “harm” under the ESA (also by 11:59 p.m. ET Monday, May 19)
It’s hard to imagine, but the same administration that tried to remove protections for gray wolves and other imperiled species is now targeting the very core of the Endangered Species Act itself. They’ve proposed to narrow the legal definition of “harm”—a foundational part of how the ESA works. For decades, courts have affirmed that destroying a species’ habitat counts as harming it. That definition has been crucial for protecting animals like the monarch, who can’t survive without their shrinking homes.
If this change is finalized, developers and extractive industries could bulldoze habitats without violating the law, even if doing so drives species toward extinction.
- Deadline: 11:59 p.m. ET Monday May 19, 2025
- See how to submit your comment here: Toolkit: Protect the Endangered Species Act
Sample Comment in Support of Listing Monarchs
I fully support the proposal to list the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA is one of the most effective conservation laws in the world and has a 99 percent success rate at stopping extinction.
Monarch butterflies have experienced devastating population declines, and without urgent protections and recovery plans, they are likely to vanish in our lifetime. Listing the monarch as threatened would ensure that habitat protections, coordinated recovery actions, and legal safeguards are applied before it’s too late.
I also oppose any changes to weaken the definition of “harm” under the ESA. Habitat destruction is harm, and weakening that definition would gut the Act’s ability to protect species like monarchs, who depend entirely on specific habitats to survive.
Thank you for your leadership in protecting one of the most iconic and beloved pollinators in North America.
Every Species Matters
The USFWS is also considering listing the bleached sandhill skipper (Polites sabuleti sinemaculata), and Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi).
The bleached sandhill skipper is known only to only live in Humboldt County, Nevada in salt flats with dense growth of Distichlis spicata (saltgrass), which probably serves as the larval hostplant. The skipper faces threats from declining groundwater levels due to agriculture use and a proposed geothermal energy project, habitat trampling by livestock grazing, and drought and increased heat due to climate change. Recent surveys have located fewer than 1,000 individuals annually.
Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee species historically occurred in healthy populations across large geographic areas; it was found in western Canada and the United States: southwestern Manitoba southwest to western South Dakota south to southern Colorado west to northern California north to the Yukon and Northwest Territories south to central British Columbia; a few populations have also been documented in eastern Canada.
This cuckoo bumble bee historically was found throughout Washington. Recent surveys reveal significant declines in their numbers, distribution, and ranges. Range-wide surveys in Washington detected this species in only six localities, including one near the far northeastern part of the state.
If you can, comment for these two species with your Monarch comments; it’s easy to do because they are on the same federal rule notice.
Take Action: Every Comment Counts
We’re up against powerful special interests that want to weaken the very tools we use to protect life on Earth. Your voice—alongside thousands of others—can make a real difference.
Submit your comments today, share this post widely, and let’s do everything we can to ensure that future generations can witness the miracle of the monarch butterfly.
Why All Species Matter: Longfin Delta Smelt
The longfin delta smelt deserves the same level of attention and protection as the gray wolf and other species. This fish is currently the target of dangerous Congressional effort to strip its Endangered Species Act safeguards.
Why We Need to Care About the Longfin Delta Smelt as Much as the Gray Wolf
There’s been a lot of rightful attention on recent Congressional efforts to strip protections from gray wolves. People are outraged — and they should be. The proposed wolf delisting bills are a brazen political attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), aimed at appeasing powerful interests. We’re proud to stand with the Team Wolf coalition and the Endangered Species Coalition in fighting those bills.
But there’s another ESA rollback happening right now that has flown under the radar. And it deserves just as much attention.
It’s about a tiny fish: the San Francisco Bay-Delta longfin delta smelt.
This species isn’t big or charismatic. It doesn’t howl like the wolf or roam like the grizzly. But it plays an irreplaceable role in the Bay-Delta ecosystem, supporting migratory birds, salmon, and the health of the estuary as a whole. Its decline is a clear sign of ecosystem collapse — a warning flare we cannot afford to ignore.
Yet Congress is moving to rescind the smelt’s newly granted ESA protections through H.J. Res. 78 — a resolution that doesn’t just end protections for this one species, but sets a dangerous legal precedent for dismantling any future ESA listing using procedural trickery under the Congressional Review Act.
The longfin delta smelt has waited over three decades for the protections it was found to need as far back as 1992. When it was finally listed under the ESA in 2024, the science showed it was in critical danger, with a 50–80% chance of extinction under current conditions.
This tiny fish isn’t dying in a vacuum. It’s dying because the Bay-Delta is being siphoned dry by agribusiness and development. And now, some in Congress are trying to legalize its extinction for short-term political gain.
As advocates, we need to have an honest conversation about which species get our attention and why. When we post about a mammal like a wolf or bear, engagement on our social accounts and website surges. When we post about a fish or bird or insect, it drops. And yet all are vital to the fabric of life, and both are equally deserving of protection.
The longfin delta smelt may not speak to your heart the same way a wolf does. But its extinction would speak volumes about us — about how we prioritize life, science, and justice.
There is no hierarchy in extinction. Every species matters. Let’s prove it by speaking out for the longfin delta smelt.
Tell Congress to vote NO on H.J. Res. 78 and protect the longfin smelt — and the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. Call today: (202) 224-3121.
P.S. And don’t forget to comment by 11:59 p.m. Monday, May 19 to protect habitat for endangered species, too.
Protect the Endangered Species Act
Learn why urgent action is needed to protect the Endangered Species Act and defend the wildlife and habitats that depend on it.
On Endangered Species Day, Take a Stand for Habitat — and the Law That Protects It
This Endangered Species Day, we should be celebrating the incredible resilience of life—the wolves, whales, owls, orchids, frogs, and ferns that have survived against the odds thanks to people like you and one of the most powerful environmental laws in the world: the Endangered Species Act.
But instead, we’re fighting to stop the federal government from dismantling the very heart of that law. And we need your help to protect the Endangered Species Act.
Right now, the Trump administration is trying to gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by erasing the legal definition of “harm.” This might sound technical, but it’s not—it’s about whether we can stop the destruction of wildlife habitat before animals are injured or killed.
What is happening?
On April 17, the administration proposed to eliminate the ESA’s regulatory definition of “harm,” a move that would strip away essential habitat protections for some of the most imperiled species in the country. This flies in the face of decades of law, science, and precedent—and it would have devastating consequences by giving industry the green light to destroy vulnerable wildlife and the last places that should be their refuge.
We are in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. Habitat loss is the number one driver of extinction. If we don’t protect the places wildlife need to survive, we can’t protect wildlife. Period.
The ESA was created to prevent extinction, not rationalize it. There are no second chances when a species disappears forever.
Habitat destruction is the #1 reason species go extinct.
The ESA has long-recognized that “harm” to wildlife doesn’t just mean physically injuring an animal. It also means destroying the places they need to live—like their nesting sites, breeding grounds, or feeding habitats.
Take away an animal’s habitat, and you’re taking away its ability to survive. The current definition of harm—established by scientists, lawyers, and upheld by the Supreme Court—allows us to proactively protect species by preventing harmful development and habitat destruction before it’s too late.
Redefining “harm” is just another industry giveaway
One of the most powerful tools in the ESA has been its ability to protect animals as well as the places they live. That’s because the ESA defines “harm” to endangered species to include the destruction of their habitat—something industries like logging, oil and gas, and large-scale development have always resented.
They even tried to overturn this protection in the Supreme Court back in 1995. But the Court upheld it, affirming what biologists and common sense have long told us: if you destroy a species’ habitat, you’re harming the species.
If you recall anything about the infamous fight over spotted owls in the Northwest, it was the destructive logging industry that wanted to run over their ESA protections. Industry hasn’t changed in the time since that fight in the 1990s and now Trump is giving them carte blanche to destroy everything and everyone in their way.
This proposal is nothing short of a giveaway to industry at the expense of our most vulnerable species. It’s a deliberate attempt to weaken the ESA—one of the most effective conservation laws in the world—at a time when we should be strengthening it.
In short, it’s a gift to polluters and developers, and a death sentence for wildlife species already hanging by a thread.
The proposed rule change would:
- Strip away a vital legal tool in the ESA
- Make it harder to stop destructive activities like logging, mining, and drilling or even curtail their most destructive impacts
- Force agencies to wait until wildlife are already injured or dying to take action
- Undermine 30 years of legal precedent and scientific consensus
Let’s be clear: we can’t count on the federal government to protect wildlife anymore. This isn’t just about a rule change—it’s about whether our laws will continue to serve life and the public interest, or bend to the will of wealthy, extractive industries.
And this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Trump administration has also floated reviving the so-called “God Squad,” a panel of officials with the power to waive species protections entirely. Even more disturbingly, Trump’s Interior Secretary has implied that we might not need endangered species protections at all, because science could one day recreate extinct animals in a lab, even though that has been thoroughly debunked.
This is reckless, unscientific, and morally bankrupt. The good news? We can still stop this and protect the Endangered Species Act. But we have to act now.
What You Can Do TODAY
Even though this is an uphill fight, this is our moment to push back. Public pressure works when we have enough of it—and we have until May 19 to make our voices heard.
1. Call & Email Your Members of Congress
Tell your Senators and Representatives: Defend the Endangered Species Act. Stop the rollback of the “harm” rule. Find yours here: (202) 224-3121
Suggested script:
Hi, my name is [Your Name] and I’m a constituent from [Your Town]. I’m calling to urge [Senator/Representative Name] to speak out against the proposed rollback of the “harm” definition in the Endangered Species Act.
Habitat destruction is the leading cause of extinction, and the current definition allows us to stop harm before it happens. This rule change would gut the ESA and put countless species at greater risk.
Please do everything you can to oppose this proposal and defend the full power of the Endangered Species Act. Thank you.
Ocelot photo courtesy of the Center for Biological Diversity
2. Submit a Public Comment
The Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting public input until May 19, 2025. Submit your comment here.
Please personalize this suggested comment:
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act.
Habitat loss is the number one driver of extinction. The current definition of harm—upheld by the Supreme Court—is critical to ensuring that we can protect species before they are killed or injured by habitat destruction.
Stripping this language would delay interventions, increase legal ambiguity, and undermine the ESA’s science-based, preventative purpose. Please retain the current definition of harm and uphold the full protections of the Endangered Species Act.
Our wildlife—and our future—depend on it.
The Endangered Species Act can’t work if we dismantle its core protections. On this Endangered Species Day, let’s remember: extinction is a policy choice. So is protection.
Take action. Be bold. And let’s keep fighting for a future where all life has a place to thrive.
Take Action for Grizzlies Before It’s Too Late
Take action for grizzlies to honor Endangered Species Day. Learn why grizzlies are still at risk and how you can take action to protect one of North America’s most iconic and threatened species—before it’s too late.
Take Action for Grizzlies Before It’s Too Late
Tomorrow marks Endangered Species Day, and there’s no more urgent time to speak up for one of the most iconic and imperiled animals in North America: the grizzly bear.
Just this week, we learned that another of grizzly 399’s famous quad cubs has been killed—hit by a car in Grand Teton National Park. This is the second of her offspring to die due to human causes. The first was killed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department after people left unsecured food and trash out. These losses aren’t accidents—they’re the result of failed human responsibility and broken wildlife management systems.
Meanwhile, grizzly bear habitats are shrinking, roads are slicing through core ranges, and conflicts with livestock and hunters are still the leading cause of grizzly deaths. These bears are facing increasing pressure—not less—and yet the USFWS wants to weaken the very protections that have kept grizzlies from sliding into extinction.
Right now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering a new proposal to manage grizzlies in the Lower 48 as a single “distinct population segment” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agency had planned four public meetings, but those meetings were canceled to give the Trump administration time to rewrite the rule. That’s a massive red flag.
The proposal includes a 4(d) rule that would make it easier to kill grizzlies for so-called “conflicts”—many of which are entirely preventable if people secure food and reduce attractants. The rule could also cut protections in states like California, Oregon, New Mexico, and Colorado, where grizzlies aren’t currently found but could return if given the chance. In contrast, just last month, a feasibility study found that grizzly bears could thrive in several areas of their native home range in California. Imagine what is possible if our government was even just a fraction as proactive as the study’s authors.
Let’s be clear: grizzlies are slow to reproduce, and even small losses of adult bears can undo decades of conservation progress. They need continued federal protection under the ESA—not a patchwork of state management systems that could open the door to trophy hunting, shoot-on-sight policies, and industry pressure.
The Biden administration originally put forward this proposal as a compromise. Now, the Trump administration is undermining it behind closed doors with their work to gut the definition of “harm” under the ESA.
What You Can Do Today:
Submit your public comment before the deadline: Friday, May 16, 2025.
Sample Comment (Customize It!)
As an American who cares deeply about wildlife and healthy ecosystems, I strongly support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to continue ESA protections for grizzly bears in the Lower 48.
I oppose any 4(d) rule that would increase “management flexibility” by allowing more grizzlies to be killed for conflicts that result from human negligence, such as unsecured food or livestock attractants. These rules will lead to more dead bears and will undermine grizzly recovery efforts.
I urge the Service to keep all current recovery zones intact and maintain the full range of protections under the Endangered Species Act. Grizzly bears need space, safety, and strong federal oversight—not piecemeal state control or weakened enforcement.
Grizzlies are part of our natural heritage, and their survival is a direct reflection of how seriously we take our responsibility to future generations. Please uphold the ESA and reject any provisions that weaken protections for grizzlies or their habitats.
Why It Matters
Grizzlies don’t have lobbyists. They don’t get to call a senator. But you do.
If you’ve ever had the chance to see a grizzly in the wild—or even just imagine it—you know how awe-inspiring, powerful, and irreplaceable these animals are. They are ecosystem engineers, cultural icons, and symbols of wildness and resilience.
We are at a tipping point. Without strong protections, we risk reversing decades of progress and handing off a future where grizzlies only exist in museums and memories. In honor of Endangered Species Day, make your voice heard. Tell the federal government: grizzlies still need our protection—and our respect.
Act now before the comment period closes: Submit your comment here
Wildlife for All is committed to protecting America’s most imperiled species and fighting for science-based, ethical wildlife policy. Together, we can ensure that grizzly bears have a future in the wild—where they belong.
NSPM-4: The Border Wall Was Just the Beginning
NSPM-4: The Border Wall Was Just the Beginning
For years, conservationists, Indigenous leaders, and communities across the Southwest have sounded the alarm about the devastating effects of border wall construction on ecosystems, wildlife, and people. But a far more sweeping threat has now emerged—one that goes beyond walls of steel and concrete.
In January 2025, the Trump administration quietly invoked National Security Presidential Memorandum-4 (NSPM-4) to designate a massive swath of land—170 square miles of federal land in southern New Mexico—as a National Defense Area, transferring control from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Defense. This military takeover—done without Congressional approval—sidesteps foundational environmental protections and represents the largest expansion of military power on U.S. public lands in modern history.
Framed as an effort to “repel an invasion,” this land grab has nothing to do with national safety—and everything to do with power and control. It sets a dangerous precedent, where the Executive Branch can bypass environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) under the guise of “national defense.”
Let’s be clear: if the federal government can militarize public lands in the Southwest with no environmental review, it can do the same elsewhere. This is about more than border policy. It’s about the erosion of democratic oversight and the normalization of military control over civilian lands.
A Threat To Biodiversity And Democracy
The lands seized under NSPM-4 are part of one of the most ecologically significant regions in North America: the Chihuahuan Desert, which contains fragile desert ecosystems, transboundary watersheds, and a globally significant biodiversity corridor vital to species like the jaguar, mountain lions, Coues deer, bighorn sheep, Sonoran pronghorn, jaguarundi (if we can ever recover their population), Mexican gray wolf, monarch butterflies, and ferruginous pygmy owls—just to name a few.
Militarizing this area doesn’t just damage ecosystems — it symbolizes a dangerous ideology of division and domination that ignores both science and justice. Previous border wall construction already inflicted massive environmental damage—fragmenting habitats, blocking wildlife migration routes, and turning protected public lands into militarized zones. A 2024 camera study along the Arizona border found an 86% reduction in wildlife crossings in areas with border walls compared to areas with vehicle barriers.
The wide-ranging species listed above need connected habitat to survive and reproduce. Low-flying birds like the ferruginous pygmy owls can’t clear new 30-foot barriers and could be genetically cut off from populations across the border. Monarch butterflies are already deeply threatened by habitat fragmentation and loss that disrupts their multi-generational migration cycle. Border lighting systems and patrol roads create additional harm — disrupting nocturnal wildlife, fragmenting wilderness areas, and increasing mortality through collisions and stress.
The wall divides Tribal nations like the Tohono O’odham, severing cultural and ceremonial routes that predate the U.S. border itself. It cuts off communities from the Rio Grande, limits access to outdoor recreation and spiritual places, and replaces natural beauty with concrete, steel, and surveillance. Migrants are funneled into dangerous terrain where thousands have died — a deliberate policy choice that weaponizes the desert.
Now, NSPM-4 threatens to finish the job: closing off what little habitat connectivity remains and placing these species at further risk while migrants who “trespass” in this zone are disappeared without oversight or recourse—all with zero public accountability. By placing the lands in question under military control, the administration has effectively erased decades of environmental safeguards. The Department of Defense is operating without public oversight or accountability on U.S. soil. Not only is this unheard-of, it’s frighteningly dangerous. NSPM-4 threatens not only wildlife and habitat but also democratic oversight of how our public lands are managed.
NSPM-4 Sets A Dangerous Precedent
NSPM-4 represents the largest expansion of military power on public lands in modern U.S. history. It sets a chilling precedent: that the Executive Branch can invoke emergency powers to override environmental laws and hand control of public lands to the military. Under NSPM-4, the Department of Defense has sweeping authority to conduct operations—including construction, patrols, surveillance, and arrests—without public input or transparency. That means no environmental assessments, no community consultation, and no legal checks on what the military does with our lands.
From Alt National Park Service:
The White House recently issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 4 (NSPM-4), which significantly expands the U.S. military’s involvement in border enforcement along the southern border. While it may appear to be a straightforward national security move, the details raise serious concerns about threats to public lands and civil liberties.
NSPM-4 gives the Department of Defense the authority to take control of federal lands to carry out military operations aimed at “repelling invasions” and “sealing the border.” This includes lands managed by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture—such as national wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands. Indian reservations are excluded, but there are no other geographic limits specified.
The memorandum also gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to override existing legal protections—including those under the Engle Act—allowing emergency withdrawal and restriction of public land use for military purposes without the usual legal oversight.
Why This Matters
– The military can designate these areas as National Defense Areas, closing off public access—possibly for years, or even indefinitely.
– Military personnel are authorized to exclude individuals from these areas and operate under rules of engagement set by the Secretary of Defense. While the memo says actions must comply with the law, it provides little in the way of oversight or accountability.
– Most troubling is the precedent this sets: using “national security” to override environmental protections and civilian control of public lands. Once this power is established, it could easily be applied elsewhere under the broad label of a “national emergency.”
Can Trump legally do this? Maybe—but it’s highly contested. He’s using fringe legal interpretations and emergency powers that stretch existing laws to their limit. Any actual deployment or land seizure under NSPM-4 would almost certainly trigger legal challenges and court battles over civil rights, federalism, and environmental law. Trump (or any president) might be able to deploy the military this way using existing laws, but it is legally questionable and almost certainly challenged in court.
He’s relying on broad, vague powers—like declaring a “national emergency” or labeling immigration as an “invasion”—to justify military action on U.S. soil. While there are some old laws that let the military use public land for defense, they were never meant for routine border enforcement or shutting out the public from them.
So, while he can try to do it under NSPM-4, it’s not clearly legal—and it could easily be stopped by lawsuits or court rulings saying it violates the Constitution or oversteps presidential power.
You can read the full memo on the White House website under the title: “Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions.”
This secrecy is not just undemocratic—it’s dangerous. It erases decades of restoration work, cross-border scientific collaboration, and the hard-fought environmental safeguards that communities and conservation groups have spent years defending.
If it can happen at the southern border, it can happen anywhere. Borderlands communities—including conservationists, Indigenous leaders, ranchers, and scientists—have long been excluded from decisions about the lands they live on and care for. Now, with military jurisdiction in place, even the pretense of public input has been abandoned.
This isn’t just a border issue—it’s a democratic crisis. An environmental justice crisis. When public lands are militarized, the public loses its voice.
The wall was never just a wall. It was the first move in a larger campaign to undermine science, sideline communities, and consolidate executive power. It reflects a broader ideology—one that sees ecosystems and Indigenous communities as expendable, and treats public land as a battlefield instead of a shared resource. Now, military authority is being used to do what border walls could not: claim control over some of the wildest and most sacred places in America.
We’re Standing Up
At Wildlife for All, we believe that public lands belong to the people—not the Pentagon. That biodiversity is not a political bargaining chip—it is a foundation of life. And the public must have a voice in decisions about land, wildlife, and governance.
We’re demanding:
- The full repeal of NSPM-4 and the return of all seized lands to civilian control.
- Full restoration of environmental protections for borderlands habitats.
- A permanent moratorium on further militarization of public lands.
The border wall was never just about immigration. It was about setting the stage for this kind of unchecked executive power—power that threatens ecosystems, communities, and the very principles of democracy. Let them know you won’t stand for this, either.
Help Raise The Alarm
This isn’t just about a border wall—it’s about unchecked power, disappearing oversight, and ecosystems under siege.
- Share this story. Talk about it. Bring it into the conversation in your community and networks.
- Stay informed. The more people know what’s happening on public lands, the harder it is for this crisis to stay hidden.
- Join us. Follow Wildlife for All and help build a movement that defends wildlife, democracy, and justice for all life.
This Is a Moment for Solidarity
This is not just a southern border issue—it is a national issue. If we don’t resist this normalization of military control, other public lands—national parks, refuges, forests—could be next. We cannot allow emergency powers and fear-mongering to become tools of environmental destruction and democratic erosion.
It’s time to organize, not capitulate. To protect the species like the jaguar and the desert tortoise. To defend cross-border kinship with all humans and the right to wildness. To stand up for democracy, biodiversity, and justice—for all life.
The wall was just the beginning. What we do now will decide what comes next.
May Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at May Wildlife Commission Meetings.
May Wildlife Commission Meetings
Spring is in full swing and it’s time to gear up to advocate for wildlife at May wildlife commission meetings. Are you ready to keep up the pressure this month?
Wildlife commission meetings are critical opportunities to influence state policies and ensure that wildlife is managed in a way that reflects ecological principles and public values. Your voice matters. Whether you choose to attend in person, speak virtually, or submit comments, participating in these meetings is a meaningful way to stand up for wildlife.
Below is the list of every state with a wildlife commission meeting in May, listed from first to last by date. As you plan your comments and engagement, use the resources on our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare. Check below for meeting details by state and instructions for how to engage. Let’s make a difference!
Louisiana
Meeting Date: May 1
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Start time 9 a.m. Register for the Zoom webinar to comment online/virtually or to watch live. Commission meetings are open to the public. To comment, you can attend the meeting in person at the location listed above, submit written comments before the meeting by emailing Comments@wlf.la.gov. Your email must include the agenda item # in the subject of your email. The body of your message should include your name and address before your comment. During the Zoom meeting you may submit comments by using the Q&A feature at the bottom of the Zoom application. During the designated comment period, click Q&A at the bottom of your Zoom window, type your name, physical address, and question/comment, and then press enter.
Action: The Louisiana Alligator Advisory Council will meet May 8 at 1 p.m. at the LSU Ag Center, 1105 West Port St., Abbeville, LA 70510.
Utah
Meeting Date: May 1
Location: Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington, Utah
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Unless otherwise noted, all Wildlife Board meetings are on Thursdays at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington. Board meetings begin at 9 a.m, unless otherwise indicated. Feedback occurs at Regional Advisory Council (RAC) meetings. If you wish to comment during a RAC or Board meeting, you must attend the meeting in person — you may not submit comments online during the meeting. When you come to the meeting, pick up a comment card, fill it out and speak at the podium when your name is called. Find the full schedule here. Agendas and minutes are here.
RAC Meeting Schedule:
- Central: 6 p.m. May 13
- Northern: 6 p.m. May 14
- Southern: 6 p.m. May 20
- Southeastern: 6 p.m. May 21
- Northeastern: 6 p.m. May 22
Nevada
Meeting Date: May 2-3
Location: Washoe County Administrative Complex, Building A, Commission Chambers, 1001 E. Ninth Street, Reno, NV 89512
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. If you wish to make public comment, please use this link for Friday, May 2, 2025: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84816032969?pwd=UGz4SSRWw3VeOmQPxufzpu5cbJlFh6.1 Passcode: 304015 If you wish to make public comment, please use this link for Saturday, May 3, 2025: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85073698671?pwd=6SdzWxoQFQbUuaB7gb6XqGrvAOipqd.1 Passcode: 714543 Public comment will be taken on each action item following Commission discussion and before any action is taken. Persons attending virtually wishing to comment are invited to raise their virtual hands in the virtual meeting forum during the appropriate time; each person offering public comment during this period will be limited to not more than three minutes.
Action: Item 11. Oppose the codification of wildlife killing contests; the commission is trying to skirt banning these by trying to regulate them instead by requiring participants to hold a hunting license. Let the commission know this does not fix the problem. Item 8 is a petition by Cody Knight for a hound hunting permit to be implemented in Nevada for hunting with dogs for mountain lion, bobcat, and black bear. We don’t know much about this petition but it will be telling if they grant this while refusing to entertain our petition in the slightest about incidental trapping of mountain lions and the subsequent harm it causes them.
West Virginia
Meeting Date: May 4
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 1 p.m. Send comments to wvnrcommission@wv.gov. To send written comments, contact: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Director’s Office, 324th Avenue, South Charleston, WV 25303.
Oklahoma – CANCELED
Meeting Date: May 5
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: Noted as canceled online.
Notes: Read more on their website.
Colorado
Meeting Date: May 7-8
Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Durango, 501 Camino del Rio, Durango, CO 81301
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: 8:30 a.m. Wed, May 7 through 3 p.m. Thu, May 8. The cutoff to speak online is Friday, May 2 at noon but you can still show up in person to comment or email the commission (though these won’t be counted in the official public record if received after noon on 5/2).
Action: 11A. Final “Big Game” season regulations adoption. There is a wolf program update, item 13a. 13b is a wolf damage claim from Don Gittleston. There is a citizen petition for education with corvids, item 17. And there are multiple habitat program items on Thursday afternoon.
Iowa
Meeting Date: May 8
Location:6200 Park Ave, Ste 200, Des Moines, Walnut Woods Conference Room
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. Teleconference: 442-242-3609 ; PIN: 883 789 392# Video Conference: meet.google.com/sco-mbns-qva. Comments regarding agenda items may be submitted for public record to Alicia.Plathe@dnr.iowa.gov or 6200 Park Ave Ste 200, Des Moines IA 50321 up to 24 hours prior to the business meeting.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: May 8-9
Location: Custer State Park Event Barn, Custer, SD
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: May 8, 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. MT | May 9, 8 a.m.-12 p.m. MT Livestream watch link. Zoom Meeting Link | To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458 | To provide comments, join the meeting in person, via zoom, or via conference call per the info above. Please inform Gail Buus at gail.buus@state.sd.us by 1 pm CST if you plan to speak during the meeting. Testifiers should provide their full names, whom they are representing, city of residence, and which proposed topic they will be addressing. Written comments can be submitted here. Here are guidelines for submission. To be included in the public record, comments must include full name and city of residence and meet the submission deadline of seventy-two hours before the meeting (not including the day of the meeting).
Webinar Info: We will be using Zoom Webinar® for this meeting. As a participant, you will not have audio or video capabilities by default. During the open forum and public hearing, if you’d like to testify, please ‘Raise Your Hand’ using the button at the bottom of the screen, or by pressing *9 on your phone. To lower your hand via phone, press *9 again. When it’s your turn to speak, the meeting host will unmute you, allowing you to have audio but no video. If your phone is muted when called upon, press *6 to unmute. • *9 to ‘Raise Your Hand’ or ‘Lower Your Hand.’ • *6 to Unmute or Mute
Michigan
Meeting Date: May 8
Location: Lansing Community College, West Campus Rooms M119-121, 5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 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.
Action: Under NRC/Director Orders i. Wildlife Conservation Order Amendment No. 4 of 2025 Coyote Hunting Season. Also comment and let the Commission know you oppose the DNR plan to gas Canada geese through USDA Wildlife Service mobile vans.
Arizona
Meeting Date: May 9
Location: Mohave County Auditorium, 700 W. Beale Street Kingman, AZ 86401
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: The public may attend the meeting in person or view the meeting at www.azgfd.gov/commissioncam. or may listen to the meeting by calling 404-397-1516, Access code: 280 046 234##. Members of the public may view the meeting from any Department Regional Office and the Department’s Headquarters via video teleconference. *DUE TO THE MEETING LOCATION, PUBLIC COMMENT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FROM THE REGION 3 OFFICE IN KINGMAN. Members of the public attending in person wanting to speak on a specific agenda item may submit Speaker Cards (Blue Cards) if they wish to speak to the Commission and may only address the Commission by attending in person or from any regional office. Copies of any presentations, documents, etc. discussed during the meeting will be available by contacting sprice@azgfd.gov. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on topics raised in public comment. Any items requiring further discussion or action will be included on a future Commission meeting agenda.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: May 9
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.
Alabama
Meeting Date: May 10
Location: Troy University Trojan Center, Lamar Higgins Ballrooms, 321 Veterans Memorial Drive, Troy, Alabama 36082
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Comments are in-person only. Those who wish to address the Board must register between 8:00 and 8:30 am. Please bring 18 copies of all documents you wish to distribute to the Board to the Registration Table. Make sure your name and organization are on each document. After registering before the meeting, the person wishing to speak should go to the designated microphone when called. After being recognized by the Chair, the person should first give his/her name, city and county. The time limit to speak is three minutes. If several persons wish to speak on the same subject, the group should choose one speaker to represent them. The Chair may or may not choose to call on each person in that group to speak for additional information. Questions or debate from Advisory Board members shall be limited to 10 minutes. No person may speak twice until all registered speakers have spoken, and then only at the discretion of the Chair.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: May 13
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.
Arkansas
Meeting Date: April 16-17
Location: DeGray State Park
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda is online at time of webpage publishing).
Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. 2025 meeting schedule is here. Archive of 2025 meetings is here. Watch the meeting on YouTube.
California
Meeting Date: May 14-15
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, Second Floor, 715 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Meeting documents are not yet available. Commission meetings are live-streamed (also referred to as a live webcast) with full audio and video. If you simply want to observe the meeting, but do not wish to comment on any item, we encourage you to view the live webcast available at www.fgc.ca.gov. How to join (if you plan to provide comment). More on all meetings in 2025.
Action: Oppose the northern California counties declaring wolf emergencies (now 6) and bring science-based comments in support of wolves. Debunk the recent UC Davis study from a husband-wife team in the College of Agriculture that isn’t offering a peer-reviewed paper but is circulating misinformation on the frequency of wolf predation and its effects on cattle. Additionally, the Tribal Committee meets at 1:30 p.m.Wednesday, May 7. Agenda is here.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: May 14
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 654535. Or join via audio: (929) 205-6099. Webinar ID: 873 7570 7464. Passcode: 654535. 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.
Missouri
Meeting Date: May 14-15
Location: MDC Headquarters, 2901 W Truman Blvd., Jefferson City, MO 65102
Details: Click here for agenda and details )note: no agenda available at time of posting)
Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. Background documents related to open meeting agenda items are available for public viewing at Conservation Department Headquarters, Jefferson City, for eight calendar days prior to the meeting. Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. Recording the open meeting is permissible, pursuant to any guidelines established by the Commission to minimize disruption to the meeting. Individuals wishing to record the open meeting by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means should notify the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting so accommodations for such recording can be made. To view livestream of the open meeting, or to watch recordings of past meetings, go to http://on.mo.gov/2nodPJU
South Carolina
Meeting Date: May 15
Location: Room 107-108 Botany Bay Board Room on the 1st floor of SCDNR Headquarters at 260 D Epting Lane in West Columbia in the State Farmer’s Market complex on Highway 321
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda available at time of webpage posting)
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Anyone wishing to make comments to the Board please email your name and topic to board@dnr.sc.gov at least 24 hours in advance. Contact Sandy Rucker 803-734-9102 or ruckers@dnr.sc.gov for assistance.
Washington
Meeting Date: May 15-17
Location: Virtual only
Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available as of 5/3)
Notes: Registration for those wishing to provide virtual comments closes at 5 p.m. the day before the meeting begins. Registrants will be called upon and typically have 3 minutes to speak. If you are unable to participate, you can submit your comments on the Commission contact page. If you haven’t pre-registered and wish to attend and speak in person, complete a Public Testimony Form, available at the registration table. The form must be submitted at least 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the agenda item you wish to testify on.
Georgia
Meeting Date: May 20
Location:DNR Board Room 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SE Suite 1252 East, Atlanta, GA 30334
Details: Click here for details. (note the meeting agenda was not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m.It is unclear how to sign up to speak, submit a comment, or if virtual participation is possible. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.
Indiana
Meeting Date: May 20
Location: Fort Harrison State Park, The Garrison, 6002 North Post Road, Indianapolis, IN
Details: Agenda was not available when this webpage was published. Keep checking this webpage for details.
Notes:10 a.m. ET/9 a.m. CT. All meeting agendas are posted a week prior to the meeting.
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: May 20
Location: Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH
Details: Agenda was not available when this webpage was published (4/1). Keep checking this webpage for details.
Notes: Meetings are generally at 1 p.m. on the third Tuesday of every month. Meetings of the NH Fish and Game Commission are open to the public, unless otherwise noted.
Wyoming
Meeting Date: May 20-21
Location: Whiskey Mountain Conservation Camp
Details: Agenda not available at time of webpage publishing; keep checking back for updates
Notes: Commission Retreat at Whiskey Mountain Conservation Camp. It is unclear if public can listen or attend/observe.
Florida
Meeting Date: 5/21-22
Location:College of Central Florida, The Ewers Century Center, Klein Conference Center, Building 40, 3001 S.W. College Rd., Ocala, FL 34474
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. each day. Public comments will be accepted in person during the meeting. For in-person comments, please review the speaker registration guidelines at https://myfwc.com/about/commission/. Advance comments are due by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 16. If you would like to provide comments via mail, please send those comments to: FWC Commissioners, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
Action: Oppose a black bear hunt. At the December 2024 Commission meeting, Commissioners directed staff to develop a range of options for the Commission’s consideration for black bear hunting in 2025. Public comment on this agenda item will be limited to no more than two hours so get there early. Also, staff will seek approval to update Florida Endangered and Threatened Species List to maintain consistency with federal listing determinations or scientific names for 9 species. Three species will be updated to Federally-designated Threatened, including the red-cockaded woodpecker (currently Federally-designated Endangered), oceanic whitetip shark and queen conch (both currently with no status). Two species will be added to the Federally-designated Endangered list: the black-capped petrel (currently no status) and pillar coral (currently Federally-designated Threatened). One species, the Bachman’s warbler, will be removed from the list due to extinction. Additionally, staff will seek approval to update names for 3 species: scientific names of Audubon’s crested caracara, Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and the common and scientific names of the Rice’s whale.
Maryland
Meeting Date: May 21
Location: Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service, 580 Taylor Avenue, Tawes State Office Building, E-1, Annapolis MD 21401
Details: No agenda was available at time of webpage publishing; meeting schedule is listed at the end of the January agenda. Keep checking their website for updates.
Notes: Google Meet. Note: Unless notified otherwise, all meetings will be held via Google Meet. When meeting in person, they will be held in the C-4 Conference Room of the Department of Natural Resources—Tawes State Office Building beginning at 10:30 a.m. Available parking is located at the Navy Stadium Parking Lot. Send written comments to wac.dnr@maryland.gov.
Texas
Meeting Date: May 21-22
Location: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Headquarters, Commission Hearing Room, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: Work Session: 9 a.m. Wednesday, May 21, 2025 Commission Meeting: 9 a.m. Thursday, May 22, 2025 Comment online through 5 p.m. May 21 using the links in the meeting agenda. The site reads, “Live streaming video and audio will be available,” but links were not available at time of webpage publishing.
Vermont
Meeting Date: April 9
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Unclear how to comment or speak either virtually or in person. Full meeting schedule for 2025 is here.
Action: The department will accept public comment on proposed updates to turkey season, moose season, deer season, cervid carcass importation rules, and moose harvest recommendations found here, via email to ANR.FWPublicComment@vermont.gov through May 25. Public hearings will be held at the following dates and locations:
- May 6, 6:30 p.m., Winooski Middle & High School, 60 Normand St., Winooski
- May 8, 6:30 p.m., Springfield High School, 303 South St., Springfield
Idaho
Meeting Date: May 22
Location: Idaho Fish and Game – Headquarters, 600 S. Walnut Street, Boise, ID 83712
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details.
Notes: Virtual participation available; call-in number is +1-408-418-9388 and webinar ID is 962 371 254. Password is “meeting” if needed. Per the website, “The Fish and Game Commission usually holds a public hearing in conjunction with each regular meeting. Members of the public who want to address the commission on any topic having to do with Fish and Game business may do so at the public hearing. All testimony will be taken into consideration when the commission makes decisions on agenda items at the meetings.” It is unclear how to submit comments in advance or if virtual comments/speaking is allowed. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.
Virginia
Meeting Date: May 22
Location: 7870 Villa Park Dr, Suite 400, Henrico, VA 23228
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda or details besides location and time were available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Public comment on agenda items and non-agenda items are welcome at any regularly scheduled Board or Board Committee meeting. Please see the meeting schedule for dates and additional details. The following committees meet at 9 a.m. on 5/21: Finance, Audit, and Compliance; Education, Planning and Outreach; Wildlife and Boat; and Law Enforcement.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: May 23
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.
Wisconsin
Meeting Date: May 27-28
Location: Rm. G09, State Natural Resources Bldg. (GEF 2), 101 S. Webster St., Madison WI 53703. Enter the building at the 101 S. Webster St. entrance and take the hallway to the right to the reception desk.
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details (note no agenda is available at time of website publishing).
Notes: The Natural Resources Board will meet in-person. Remote testimony from the public via Zoom may be accepted for this meeting. In person public appearances are also welcome. Members of the public can submit their request to testify remotely, in person, or their written comments by the posted deadline date for Board consideration, typically one week before the meeting date. Watch live on YouTube. Please contact Ashley Bystol, NRB Liaison, at 608-267-7420 or by email at DNRNRBLiaison@wisconsin.gov with NRB-related questions, to request information, submit written comments or to register to testify at a meeting.
When Journalism Stops Seeking Truth
When Journalism Stops Seeking Truth: A Response to the Mountain Daily Star
When Journalism Stops Seeking Truth: A Response to the Mountain Daily Star
Yesterday, The Mountain Daily Star published a story about our petition to ban the use of hounds in the recreational hunting of bears and mountain lions in Arizona. While we welcomed the opportunity to engage with the press, what resulted was not journalism — it was a one-sided defense of the very system we are trying to reform.
The article uncritically parrots an absurd claim from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZDGF): that “allegations by the petitioners that hunting with dogs disrupts ecosystem balance, represents a public safety hazard, is a risk to nontarget and protected wildlife, and violates Arizona’s laws and regulations are unfounded and not supported by information in the petition or anywhere we could find in the scientific literature.”
This is patently false — and logically incoherent. Our petition included dozens of references, including studies on carnivore behavior, landscape fragmentation, wildlife harassment, and legal frameworks under the Endangered Species Act. More importantly, the department’s logic is circular: by implying that hounding can’t be risky unless already proven in the peer-reviewed literature, they set up a false standard that conveniently excludes any evidence they choose not to acknowledge.
And let’s be clear: with only a handful of jaguars and ocelots returning to Arizona, the very idea of demanding peer-reviewed research specifically documenting the impact of hound packs on these rare species is laughable. By the time there is a large enough sample size to satisfy their arbitrary bar, it will likely be too late. In conservation science, precaution is not optional—it’s fundamental to ethical decision-making.
Our petition’s references, from peer-reviewed articles to government records, clearly document the ecological, ethical, and legal concerns associated with hounding. Notably, AZDGF presented no peer-reviewed science of its own in defense of the practice, a point that went unchallenged by the reporter.
That a state agency charged with wildlife protection and a news outlet supposedly committed to public service could overlook this basic truth is both irresponsible and telling.
Most frustratingly of all, the Mountain Daily Star, AZDGF, and the Commission have all ignored the central legal argument of our petition: that recreational hounding violates Arizona’s own fair chase standard. And what’s telling is that the Commission has used that argument to ban unsporting practices in the past.
Arizona law defines fair chase as “the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of free-range wildlife in a manner that does not give a hunter or an angler improper or unfair advantage over such wildlife.” That webpage goes on to define what that improper advantage looks like. Unleashing packs of GPS-collared dogs to run down a terrified animal for hours—often while the hunter is miles away—is the definition of improper advantage.
Rather than engage with this argument, the department and Commission dismissed it without explanation, and the reporter failed to mention it at all. That’s not just lazy journalism or bureaucratic evasion—it’s a deliberate refusal to grapple with a serious legal and ethical question at the heart of this debate.
Maybe more telling is that, despite multiple phone interviews and email exchanges, both Dr. Michelle Lute of Wildlife for All and Russ McSpadden of the Center for Biological Diversity were selectively quoted. This came as no surprise given the series of increasingly combative emails from the author to Dr. Lute where it became clear the intent of this piece was not to contact our organizations for information but instead to discredit our viewpoint. The story shows this bias clearly in the components and structure: simply review the amount of space given to the houndsmen, Arizona Game and Fish Department’s, and Commission’s arguments to discredit our petition—without scrutiny for their positions, we might add.
The lack of journalistic rigor may not be surprising given the background of the author. According to publicly available information, the reporter (who is also the paper’s editor-in-chief) has no formal training or professional experience or training in journalism, wildlife policy, or investigative reporting. While credentials aren’t everything, the resulting article fails to meet basic journalistic standards such as presenting multiple perspectives with as little bias as possible, independently verifying claims on both sides of an issue, and perhaps most especially, to serve as a watchdog against harm by critically interrogating the statements of those in power.
The story’s final paragraph erases any remaining boundary between reporting and blatant pro-hounding promotion. The writer recounts her personal day in the field with a houndsman where they treed one bobcat, positioning herself as a character witness for the very practice under public challenge. She uncritically describes the hounds as “practical tools” and includes a link to Lionheart—a promotional film produced by the pro-trophy hunting group Blood Origins—as a resource for readers. This is not a neutral offering of information: it’s propaganda posing as news. And this news outlet isn’t an unbiased community service, it’s a partisan blog positioning a singular worldview.
This story also illustrates a broader media trend identified in a recent Media Matters report: right-wing narratives are increasingly dominating online platforms, including in spaces traditionally viewed as neutral or apolitical. This piece is a textbook example—it launders ideological talking points from state officials and hunting interests under the guise of local reporting. By masquerading advocacy as journalism and omitting key voices and facts, the Mountain Daily Star’s story helps normalize and amplify a narrow worldview that undermines both democratic process and ecological truth.
This kind of slanted reporting isn’t unique to Arizona. A 2020 study on media coverage of wolf reintroduction in Colorado found that news outlets often gave outsized attention to a vocal minority opposed to wolves—especially those worried about impacts on livestock and hunting—while downplaying the broader public support for reintroduction. In other words, media outlets regularly amplify anti-wildlife talking points, even when they don’t reflect the views of most people. Sound familiar?
In the end, this article is less journalism than it is an endorsement of the status quo — one written with a clear ideological bent and a flimsy understanding of the actual issues at stake. It regurgitates agency spin, fails to engage with the core legal argument about Arizona’s own fair chase statute, and completely erases Indigenous and non-hunting perspectives.
Real journalistic research isn’t spending one pleasant day with a handful of calm hounds who treed a single animal before heading home. That’s actually the perfect embodiment of the right-wing mantra ”do your own research”—as long as that research is anecdotal, comfortable, and confirms the narrative you were always going to write.
This story is a case study in how the media can fail the public and in turn, seed bad-faith public discourse. By echoing agency talking points and dismissing dissenting voices, it reinforces a system that sidelines ecological integrity, democratic input, and ethical hunting standards.
Wildlife deserve better. The public deserves better. And Arizona deserves a media outlets willing to ask hard questions — not just fronts for right-wing talking points who pose as journalistic entities.
The good news is that no amount of biased coverage will stop the movement that’s building to reform wildlife governance in Arizona and across the country.
We’ll keep fighting for policies rooted in science, ethics, and democracy. And we’ll continue to welcome fair-minded journalists who are willing to ask tough questions of those in power and who want to challenge the status quo, not just those defending it.
Monday, April 21, 2025 Update: In a stunning twist that further undermines the credibility of the Mountain Daily Star’s coverage, the houndsman featured prominently in the story — Chris Watson — reportedly resigned from his position with the Arizona Working Dog Alliance (AWDA) over the weekend (see Facebook screenshot). Even more troubling, he now lists himself on Facebook as working for CMW Investigations, the private investigation firm where the reporter and editor of the piece, Molly K. Ottman, is also listed as working on her LinkedIn profile. That’s not just a red flag — it’s a glaring conflict of interest. Readers deserve transparency, and this kind of insider relationship calls the entire piece’s objectivity into question.
Tuesday, June 3, 2025 Update: We corrected the name of the private investigation firm in question to the accurate name: CMW Investigations. We apologize for the original error.
Screenshot 2025-04-21 at 12.38.41 PM
Screenshot 2025-04-21 at 12.38.55 PM
Screenshot 2025-04-21 at 4.01.14 PM
No, Dire Wolves Are Not Back
No, dire wolves are not back—but real wolves need your help
A collection of headlines from early April 2025 about dire wolves from https://www.webworm.co/p/direwolf
No, Dire Wolves Are Not Back—But We Should Talk About What Is Being Unleashed
There’s been a flurry of headlines this week claiming that dire wolves—the iconic, prehistoric predators that roamed North America more than 10,000 years ago—have been brought back from extinction. It’s the kind of story that sounds like science fiction: genetically modified wolves engineered to resemble dire wolves in both appearance and behavior. Cue the Jurassic Park theme.
But let’s pump the brakes.
Time Magazine’s cover about dire wolves.
Despite the breathless media framing, the truth is far less sensational. According to experts, these animals are not actual dire wolves, nor are they even genetically identical to them. Rather, they’re modern gray wolves that have been selectively bred or gene-edited to look more like their extinct cousins. Think of it as cosplay for canids.
Still, the story taps into powerful mythologies—of wildness, power, and control—that have long shaped public perceptions of wolves in North America. Dire wolves have always held a special place in the cultural imagination. They inspired songs (Grateful Dead fans, we see you), haunted HBO screens in Game of Thrones, and symbolized a kind of ancient, untamed wilderness. But romanticizing these animals while ignoring the realities of modern wolf conservation can be dangerous.
Because here’s the thing: real wolves are already under siege in the U.S.
From “wolf whacking” in Wyoming to anti-predator ballot initiatives, wild wolves are being scapegoated, persecuted, and politically targeted. And just like the rhetoric about oversized “Canadian” wolves used to justify retribution in the American West, this new narrative risks fueling more fear, misunderstanding, and ultimately, harm.
Instead of fantasizing about bringing back extinct species, we should focus on protecting the wolves we still have—and the ecosystems that depend on them. Wolves play a critical role in restoring ecological balance and maintaining biodiversity. But for wolves to fulfill that role, we need more than minimum population numbers to avoid relisting under the Endangered Species Act. We need ecologically effective population sizes, meaningful habitat protections, and respect for individual animals—not just as numbers on a spreadsheet, but as sentient beings with intrinsic value. True rewilding requires coexistence, not commodification.
And that brings us to what’s happening right now—because the threats to wolves are real and urgent:
1. Help Stop the Attack on Mexican Gray Wolves in New Mexico
The Catron County Commission is pushing a dangerous resolution to declare a “state of emergency” over the presence of endangered Mexican gray wolves—based on fear, misinformation, and exaggerated claims.
We’re calling on New Mexico residents to speak up! Sign the petition urging Governor Lujan Grisham to oppose this harmful resolution and stand up for science-based wildlife policy.
Take action: If you’re connected to New Mexico—either personally or through your networks—please share this link widely. Together, we can protect the Mexican gray wolf and fight back against anti-wildlife policies.
2. Tell Your Senators: Vote NO on Brian Nesvik
The U.S. Senate is considering Brian Nesvik, former director of Wyoming Game & Fish, for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Director. This is the same man who stood by while a wolf was tortured and run over in his state—and did nothing.
His record is clear: Nesvik prioritizes industry interests over wildlife conservation. From weakening predator protections to ignoring science in favor of ranching and trophy hunting, his leadership would be a disaster for endangered species, public lands, and the integrity of the USFWS.
Take action today: Call your senators and tell them to VOTE NO on Nesvik! Congressional Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Wildlife deserves a leader who will protect, not exploit.
3. Congress Is Coming for the Endangered Species Act—And Wolves Are in the Crosshairs
Once again, lawmakers are pushing dangerous bills to gut the Endangered Species Act and remove protections for wolves.
Several proposals in Congress aim to delist wolves nationwide, ignoring science, public support, and the essential ecological role wolves play. Even worse, some bills would weaken the ESA itself, making it harder to protect all imperiled species in the future.
These attacks are not about conservation—they’re about appeasing special interests at the expense of biodiversity and environmental justice.
Take action today: Call your representatives and demand they protect the ESA and keep wolves protected! Your voice matters.
Dire wolves may be extinct, but today’s wolves are still here—real, wild, and worth fighting for. Let’s stop the distracting fantasies and start advocating for the living beings and wild places that need us now.
