News & Commentary
State SGCN analysis shows wildlife decline as new federal “open unless closed” policy expands pressure
Wildlife for All statement on federal “open unless closed” policy as SGCN analysis shows wildlife decline.
For Immediate Release: January 15, 2026
Federal “Open Unless Closed” Policy Expands Pressure on Public Lands as States Document Worsening Wildlife Decline
New SCGN Analysis Shows Growing Mismatch Between Federal Policy and Ecological Reality
Albuquerque, N.M.—In response to an announcement Monday from Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Doug Burgum reframing public lands and waters as “open unless closed” to expanded hunting access, Wildlife for All warns that the policy represents a significant shift in wildlife governance at a moment of accelerating biodiversity decline.
The announced-on-X “open unless closed” framework from Burgum reverses decades of conservation practice by treating wildlife protection and refuge purpose as exceptions rather than the baseline. This approach increases ecological risk because it treats access as the default and conservation as an exception—shifting the burden of proof onto underfunded managers and eroding precaution in already-stressed systems.
In practice, such policies lead to more pressure on wildlife because no habitat provides safety and closures require time, funding, political capital, and litigation risk—resources most agencies do not have. It weakens land managers’ adaptive management capacity and site-level discretion, casts stewardship as obstruction and insulates deregulatory decisions from science-informed scrutiny.
This shift comes as states themselves are documenting unprecedented conservation needs. A new Wildlife for All analysis of 2025 State Wildlife Action Plans shows that most states are identifying significantly more Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) than they did a decade ago, evidence that current conservation systems are failing to meet the rising challenges of biodiversity loss, climate stress and chronic underfunding.
In response, Michelle Lute, PhD, executive director at Wildlife for All issued the following statement:
“This is not a neutral access update but instead is a dangerous mismatch between political pandering and the biodiversity crisis unfolding on the ground. At the exact moment states are documenting record increases in species at risk, federal leaders are choosing to expand pressure on already-stressed wildlife and ecosystems.
“Wildlife refuges and public lands exist to conserve wildlife first. An ‘open unless closed’ approach flips that purpose on its head. Access decisions that ignore ecological realities risk accelerating species and ecosystem decline rather than preventing it.
“This decision is a governance failure and exposes Burgum’s Interior Department as the sham it is under this administration. Expanding access without safeguards shifts responsibility onto underfunded managers and pushes more species closer to crisis. Further, added extractive recreational pressure while deprioritizing precaution, including safeguards around lead ammunition, places additional strain on agencies already struggling to manage the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change with limited resources.”
Wildlife for All urges federal leaders to align public lands policy with the ecological realities states are documenting and calls on state leaders to support federal refuge and park managers in responding to federal policy gaps. U.S. wildlife policy at every level must recommit to science-informed, ethical wildlife governance that protects biodiversity and acknowledges the challenges of modern wildlife conservation.
###
About Wildlife for All
Wildlife for All is a national organization dedicated to reforming wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. Through research, advocacy, and education, we aim to protect wildlife and ensure that policies reflect the values of all Americans.
Oppose Utah’s Cougar Removal Plan
Wildlife officials are floating Utah’s cougar removal plan for multiple management units as an “experiment” to boost deer numbers.
Utah’s Cougar Removal Plan Is Not Science — It’s a Governance Failure
Utah wildlife officials are advancing a proposal to lethally remove mountain lions across multiple management units as an “experiment” to increase mule deer numbers. The proposal frames lethal control as a management tool, despite the lack of credible evidence that such actions deliver long-term ecological benefits.
Importantly, this approach did not originate from new peer‑reviewed science or from agency biologists calling for population reduction. Instead, it reflects political priorities imposed on wildlife, an increasingly common pattern across the country.
This matters because state wildlife agencies are legally tasked with managing wildlife based on science and the public trust, not political expediency.
Framing this as “science-based management” obscures a far more troubling reality: this plan fails basic scientific standards, violates ethical wildlife stewardship, and exposes deep flaws in how wildlife governance is operating in Utah.
This is not a debate about whether carnivores should exist, nor if we should coexist with them (hint: we must). It is a test of whether wildlife policy will be grounded in evidence, transparency, and public trust, or driven by political pressure and outdated assumptions.
What Is Utah’s Cougar Removal Plan?
According to statements made in public meetings, Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) is proposing a multi-year cougar removal program across six management units. Officials have acknowledged that:
- Cougar populations are difficult to count and current estimates are uncertain due to Utah’s harmful 2023 bill that allows unlimited, year-round killing.
- The project could run for three years or longer.
- Unreported mortality (read: poaching) is likely and difficult to monitor.
- The plan lacks baseline data, success metrics, safeguards, and ecosystem monitoring.
The stated goal is to determine whether killing cougars will improve mule deer populations. But we already know that doesn’t work … and that carnivores aren’t the reason ungulate populations decline.
Decades of peer-reviewed research across the western United States tell a consistent story: broad, sustained carnivore removal does not deliver long-term or landscape-scale recovery of ungulate populations.
Here’s why: deer declines are driven by habitat loss—not cougars. Mule deer numbers are primarily shaped by habitat quality and fragmentation, drought and climate stress, winter severity, diseases like CWD, and migration corridor loss. When these limiting factors are not addressed, removing carnivores provides little measurable benefit and is in fact, a misdiagnosis of the problem.
Further, carnivore removal destabilizes ecosystems. Large-scale cougar killing disrupts social structure, increases turnover, and can lead to younger, more transient animals moving across the landscape that can mean increased conflict with humans and livestock. And again, there is no sustained benefit to prey populations.
Even studies showing short-term prey increases involve narrowly targeted, time-limited actions, not open-ended culls across multiple units. The evidence is clear: killing cougars at this scale, without clear purpose or accountability, won’t fix deer declines and risks destabilizing ecosystems in ways that are hard to reverse.
And ask any scientist: this is not a credible experiment. A legitimate scientific study would have:
- Baseline data
- Clear success and failure metrics
- Defined parameters
- Independent oversight
- Monitoring of broader ecosystem impacts
Utah’s proposal includes none of these safeguards. There are no thresholds that would halt the project if cougar populations decline further, nor plans to assess cascading ecological effects.
Critically, this proposal was not listed on a public agenda, meaning the public was denied notice and opportunity to comment until it surfaced through questioning at a Regional Advisory Council meeting. That lack of transparency alone should raise serious red flags.
Calling this an “experiment” does not make it science. This is a high-risk culling program that shifts attention away from real solutions and places an apex carnivore at risk.
Why This Fails Ethics and Public Trust
This proposal highlights a deeper failure in state wildlife governance: State wildlife commissions are often structured to prioritize a narrow set of interests, while excluding much of the public from meaningful representation.
That is not democratic wildlife management. It is regulatory capture.
Wildlife belongs to everyone. Decisions about wild neighbors should reflect ecological knowledge, ethical values, and the democratic process, not backroom politics. Wildlife is held in trust for all people, including future generations and arguably for wildlife themselves, not managed solely to maximize one species for a single user group.
This proposal:
- Treats an apex carnivore as expendable
- Uses uncertainty as a justification for killing more cougars, placing all of the risk on a population that is already declining
- Advances lethal methods without public consent, and at risk to their safety
- Risks irreversible ecological harm without demonstrated likelihood of benefit
Ethical wildlife management requires precaution, especially when uncertainty is high and stakes are irreversible.
Utah’s cougar proposal highlights a deeper problem facing wildlife management nationwide:
When agencies are structured to prioritize game production over ecosystem health, carnivores become scapegoats for failures rooted in habitat loss, climate change, and policy inertia.
Killing carnivores is politically easier than restoring habitat, protecting migration corridors, limiting development pressure, ending private deer breeding, or addressing climate impacts. But just because something is easy does not mean it’s effective, or responsible.
Conversely, science-informed stewardship, real conservation invests in habitat restoration and connectivity, funds nonlethal coexistence strategies, and addresses root causes of wildlife decline. This means transparent decision-making, independent scientific review of the full spectrum of scientific and ethical knowledge available, and providing for meaningful public participation.
Lethal removal, when used at all, must be narrow, temporary, evidence-driven, and precautionary, not broad, speculative, and politically motivated.
Real leadership that follows science‑informed, ethical wildlife management would center peer‑reviewed ecological research, prioritize coexistence and ecosystem health, and resist special interest interference that undermines the public trust.
Utah’s proposal does none of these things. Mountain lions are not variables in a political experiment. They are essential members of functioning ecosystems, and they deserve better than this.
Decisions this big should never happen quietly.
Speak Out Against Utah’s Cougar Removal Plan
If You Live in Utah:
- Attend the Utah Wildlife Board meeting: 9 a.m. Jan. 8 at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 S Waterfowl Wy, Farmington, UT 84025. Show up. Speak up.
- Submit a public comment demanding transparency, science-based criteria, and safeguards using this form.
- Contact your state legislators and request oversight using this toolkit from our partner, Utah Mountain Lion Conservation.
If You Don’t Live in Utah:
- Sign Utah Mountain Lion Conservation’s petition opposing this plan.
- Share credible information about this proposal.
- Support organizations defending science-informed carnivore management with a donation or your time.
- Pay attention, because similar proposals are spreading across states.
Wildlife governance reform is not abstract. It’s happening right now, decision by decision, often out of public view. This is a political decision made within a system that routinely sidelines ecological data, public values, and best available science.
At Wildlife for All, we focus on fixing the system that produces these outcomes. Join us.
January Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at January Wildlife Commission Meetings.
January Wildlife Commission Meetings
A new year brings new resolutions, and if protecting wildlife is one of yours, January is the time to act.
State wildlife commission meetings are among the first major decision-making spaces to open each year, and what happens in these rooms sets the tone for wildlife policy for months to come. From hunting and trapping rules to endangered species protections, funding priorities, and agency accountability, January meetings shape how wildlife — and the public — are treated all year long.
These meetings don’t usually make headlines. But they are where wildlife governance actually happens. They are where science is either upheld or sidelined. Where public voices are either welcomed or quietly shut out. And where decisions with life-or-death consequences for wildlife are often made with very little public oversight.
Showing up matters. Submitting a public comment matters. Even listening in matters. Participation is how we push back against closed-door decision-making and remind agencies that wildlife belongs to everyone, not just a powerful few.
If you’re looking for a meaningful way to start the year, make January the month you engage in wildlife governance where you live. Below you’ll find a list of January wildlife commission meetings by state and date. Visit our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare your comments or testimony—and start 2026 by putting science, ethics, democracy, and ecosystem health into action.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: January 6
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Zoom. To view via webinar, register here.
Task Force Meetings: The Oyster Task Force meets Jan. 11 at 10 a.m. at the New Orleans Lakefront Airport, 6001 Stars and Stripes Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70126. The public is invited to attend. To listen in to the meeting via webinar register here. If you would like to call in via phone, you can log onto the webinar by dialing in at 215-861-0674, and using the password- 806520#.
The Gulf Council will hold three in-person hearings (one in Louisiana) and one webinar to gather public comments on Draft Reef Fish Amendment 58A: Modifications to Shallow-Water Grouper Management Measures. Details on proposed changes can be found here. The public hearings will begin at 6 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 13 at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Large Conference Room #2039, 200 Dulles Drive, Lafayette, LA 70508. There is also a virtual hearing at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 2. Register Here. The original Gulf Council press release can be found here.
Iowa
Meeting Date: January 8
Location: Virtual only
Details: Click here for details and agenda.
Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. Comments regarding agenda items may be submitted for public record to Alicia.Plathe@dnr.iowa.gov or 6200 Park Ave Ste 200, Des Moines IA 50321 up to 24 hours prior to the business meeting. Teleconference: 361-245-0121 ; PIN: 803 292 109# Video Conference: meet.google.com/smw-cnju-drz
Kansas
Meeting Date: January 8
Location: The Territory Ballroom, 119 W Main St, Council Grove, KS 66846
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 12 p.m. You can watch and comment via Zoom; register here. Register by entering your first and last name and email address. Once registered, you will be provided a link to “Join the Meeting.” You will be muted upon entering the meeting. To comment or ask a question, use the “Raise Hand” feature or type your question into the Chat. Dial 1-877-853-5257 for call-in. When a meeting ID is requested, enter 895 1538 6515#, and when a participant ID is requested, enter #. Watch the live video/audio stream at https://ksoutdoors.com/commission-meeting.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: January 8-9
Location: Ramkota Hotel and Convention Center, Pierre, SD
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: January 8, 1-5 p.m. CST | January 9, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. CST. Livestream link. Zoom Meeting Link. To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458. Inform Gail Buus at gail.buus@state.sd.us by 1 pm CST if you plan to speak during the meeting. Testifiers should provide their full names, whom they are representing, city of residence, and which proposed topic they will be addressing. Written comments can be submitted here. Here are guidelines for submission. To be included in the public record, comments must include full name and city of residence and meet the submission deadline of seventy-two hours before the meeting (not including the day of the meeting).
Tennessee
Meeting Date: January 8-9
Location: Region II Office, Ellington Agricultural Center, Nashville, TN
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 1 p.m. on Jan. 8 and 9 a.m. on Jan. 9. It is unclear how to watch remotely, or how to provide comments.
Utah
Meeting Date: January 8
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. Watch live: https://youtube.com/live/PB0dsu8FmIo
Action: Comment in opposition to the proposed plan to kill all cougars in several management units.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: January 9
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agenda and details here.
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.
New Mexico
Meeting Date: Jan. 9
Location: Santa Fe
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Comment in person by signing up to speak via a card. Register in advance to attend this meeting virtually via Zoom. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The commission may hear verbal public comments from virtual attendees at this meeting. If comments are taken, you will be asked to virtually raise your hand and then acknowledged to speak when it is your turn. A live webcast of this meeting will be available on the commission’s Webcast page and on our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/NMGameandFish. Comments will not be taken on the live webcast or on YouTube.
Washington
Meeting Date: January 9
Location: Virtual
Details: Click here for agenda and details
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. Watch on Zoom. Watch livestream.
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: January 12
Location: Enid, location TBD
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 1/6)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. It’s not clear how to comment or speak; we suggest emailing the department to ask. It’s also unclear if there is a virtual participation option. Read more on their website.
California – Wildlife Resources Committee only
Meeting Date: January 13
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, 715 P Street, Second Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: January 13
Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room,1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ 08691
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: The public is welcome to attend and participate in the public portion of each meeting. Meeting starts at 10 a.m. and will be held both in person and via GoToMeeting (audio only). Call in: +1 (312) 757-3121 | Access Code: 848-342-077. Per the website, public comments may be made in person or online and will be limited to 3 minutes per person. More information about the Commission is on its website, including a meeting guide and how to connect. For help, contact Kristen.Meistrell@dep.nj.gov.
Wyoming
Meeting Date: January 13-14
Location: Wyoming Game and Fish Headquarters, 5400 Bishop Blvd., Cheyenne WY
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: This meeting will be conducted in person and via Zoom. Please note there are different links for each day. If you wish to speak to the Commission and comment on an agenda item in person, please complete the comment form provided at the meeting. If you wish to speak to the Commission and comment on an agenda item via Zoom, please submit an Advanced Agenda Item Comment Form, which is attached to the agenda to toni.bell2@wyo.gov.
January 13 session begins at 9 a.m. Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83256946532 Webinar ID: 832 5694 6532
January 14 session begins at 8 a.m. Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88063368042 Webinar ID: 880 6336 8042
Arkansas
Meeting Date: January 14
Location: Little Rock
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 1/6)
Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. Watch the meeting on YouTube.
Idaho
Meeting Date: January 14-15
Location: Idaho Fish and Game Headquarters, 600 South Walnut, Boise, ID 83707
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Virtual participation available; https://zoom.us/j/91287823590. Call-in number: 253-215-8782, webinar ID: 912 8782 3590. Password is “meeting” if needed. Per the website, “The Fish and Game Commission usually holds a publica 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.
Michigan
Meeting Date: January 14
Location: Lansing Community College, West Campus Rooms M119-121, 5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917
Details: Click here for agenda (no agenda as of 1/6) and details.
Notes: 9:30 a.m. Persons registering to provide comments on a topic listed on the agenda on or before the Friday preceding the meeting will be allowed up to 5 minutes for their comments. Persons registering to comment on a topic not listed on the agenda, after the Friday preceding the meeting, or at the meeting will be allowed up to 3 minutes. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments on agenda items, please write to Natural Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, or email nrc@michigan.gov. Read more on the Commission website.
Arizona
Meeting Date: January 16
Location: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086
Details: Click here for agenda (note this was not available as of 1/6) and details
Notes: Meeting location opens at 7:45 a.m. Meeting begins at 8:00 a.m Lunch Break at 12:00 p.m. Members of the public may view the meeting from any Department Regional Office. Members of the public attending in person wanting to speak on a specific agenda item may submit Speaker Cards (Blue Cards) if they wish to speak to the Commission and may only address the Commission by attending in person or from any regional office. Copies of any presentations, documents, etc. discussed during the meeting will be available by contacting sprice@azgfd.gov. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on topics raised in public comment. Any items requiring further discussion or action will be included on a future Commission meeting agenda. View live webcasts at www.azgfd.gov/commissioncam. Listen to the meeting by calling 404-397-1516, Access code: 280 046 234##.
Oregon
Meeting Date: January 16
Location: ODFW Headquarters Classroom, 4034 Fairview Industrial DR SE, Salem, OR 97302
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: Commission meetings begin at 8 a.m. and proceed chronologically through the agenda. If you wish to receive written materials prepared for any of the agenda items, please contact the Director’s Office in Salem at (503) 947-6044 or email ODFW.Commission@odfw.oregon.gov to request a packet for those items that interest you. Members of the public can view a livestream of the meeting via the agency’s YouTube channel or on the Commission page. Members of the public may also view a livestream of this meeting at ODFW Headquarters, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem. Comment and testimony are limited to 3 minutes or less.The Fish and Wildlife Commission has moved to hybrid meetings, meaning that you have the option to attend in-person or virtually. Those who would like to provide virtual testimony on an Exhibit scheduled on this agenda must REGISTER no less than 48 hours (Wednesday January 14 at 8 a.m.) in advance to receive a testimony link to the meeting. To provide testimony on an agenda item in-person, registration will also be available at the meeting. To provide testimony virtually or in-person during Public Forum you must contact the Director’s office no less than 48 hours (8 a.m. Wednesday January 14) in advance of the meeting for approval. Meeting is livestreamed here.
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: January 20
Location: Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive in Concord, NH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes:Commission meetings are regularly scheduled at 1 p.m. on the third Tuesday of every month at Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive in Concord, NH. Meetings of the NH Fish and Game Commission are open to the public, unless otherwise noted.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: January 21
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 2 p.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom. After registering, you will automatically receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 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.
Texas
Meeting Date: January 21-22
Location: TBD
Details: Click here for agenda (not posted as of 1/6) and meeting details
Notes: The site reads, “Live streaming video and audio will be available,” but links were not available at time of webpage publishing. Watch the live stream.
Action: Comment on the state’s CWD rule change proposal.
Vermont
Meeting Date: January 21
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda posted as of 12/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Unclear how to comment or speak either virtually or in person. Full meeting schedule for 2026 is here.
Virginia
Meeting Date: January 21-22
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: The following committees meet on January 21: Finance, Audit, and Compliance; Education, Planning and Outreach; Wildlife and Boat; and Law Enforcement. Full commission meeting starts at 9 a.m. Jan. 22. 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.
Alaska
Meeting Date: January 22
Location: James and Elsie Nolan Center, located at 296 Campbell Drive, Wrangell, AK
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: One-day work session in Wrangell on Thursday, January 22, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m., at the James and Elsie Nolan Center, located at 296 Campbell Drive. Meeting topics include agency reports, board committee reports and assignments, approval of the 2026/2027 board meeting dates and locations, and other administrative business. The board will not be taking any regulatory action during the meeting. The meeting is open to the public in person and via live video stream. The link for listening will be posted online at https://adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main the day of the meeting. Live audio will also be accessible by calling +1 253 215 8782 and entering the meeting ID: 851 2837 0142. The board will not be taking oral testimony during the Work Session but is accepting written comments. Comments can be submitted online at https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.meetinginfo&date=01-222026&meeting=wrangell. Comments can also be mailed to: ADF&G Boards Support Section, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526; or sent via fax to (907) 465-6094. The deadline for submitting written comments to be included in the meeting workbook is Friday, Jan. 16. 2026 meeting schedule is here.
Action: Comment on regulation changes to trapping and hunting seasons and limits. The deadlines for receiving comments are Jan. 9 for the Southeast Region meeting, and March 6 for the Southcentral Region meeting.
Nebraska
Meeting Date: January 22-23
Location: Lincoln, more details TBD
Details: Click here for meeting agenda (note none posted as of 1/6) and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 8 a.m. Interested persons may attend and testify orally or by written submission at the public hearing. Interested persons or organizations may submit written comments prior to the hearing, which will be entered into the hearing record if they: 1) include a request to be included as part of the hearing record; 2) include the name and address of the person or organization submitting the comments; and 3) are received by Sheri Henderson at the Lincoln office, 2200 North 33rd Street, Lincoln, NE 68503-0370. It is unclear if the meeting will be livestreamed and if virtual participation is possible.
Hawai’i—Meeting 2
Meeting Date: January 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.
Nevada
Meeting Date: January 23-24
Location: Washoe County Administrative Complex Building A, Commission Chambers, 1001 E. Ninth Street, Reno NV 89512
Details: Click here for agenda (note no agenda posted as of 1/6) and details
Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. Public comment will be taken on each action item following Commission discussion and before any action is taken; links coming once NDOW posts the meeting agenda. Persons attending virtually wishing to comment are invited to raise their virtual hands in the virtual meeting forum during the appropriate time; each person offering public comment during this period will be limited to not more than three minutes.
Ohio
Meeting Date: January 28
Location: Wildlife District 1 Office, 1500 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting begins at 6 p.m. Comments for open forums during Ohio Wildlife Council meetings must be about a current rule proposal. If you have a topic that is not a current rule proposal, please email the council with your comment or question or speak to a council member before or after a meeting. If the topic falls within the wildlife, fish, or law section, feel free to reach out at our open houses or email the Division of Wildlife at wildinfo@dnr.ohio.gov. Speakers must register by 5 p.m. the Monday before the meeting via the Public Comment Form, which must be submitted to wildlife.council@dnr.ohio.gov. Along with the form, submit any handouts you plan to provide. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes. There will be a maximum of ten speaker slots available. PowerPoint presentations are not permitted.
South Carolina
Meeting Date: January 29
Location:107-108 Botany Bay Conference Room at Headquarters at 260 D. Epting Lane, West Columbia, SC 29172 – at State Farmer’s Market complex off of Highway 321
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda available at time of webpage posting). Calendar invite here.
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. Please use the following link and select the “Watch Live” button if you would like to watch the Board meeting: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/
Georgia
Meeting Date: January 30
Location: A.W. Jones Heritage Center, 610 Beachview Drive, St. Simons Island, GA 31522
Details: Click here for details. (note the meeting agenda was not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Watch online here. It is unclear how to comment or participate outside of attending in person.
Chronic Wasting Disease Is Spreading Because State Wildlife Governance Is Failing
CWD spreads where state wildlife governance fails and captive deer industries face little oversight.
Image courtesy of Rocky Ridge Whitetails, Pennsylvania.
Chronic Wasting Disease Is Spreading Because State Wildlife Governance Is Failing
How Weak Oversight and Industry Pressure Are Driving the CWD Crisis
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is an always-fatal neurological disease that threatens the future of wild deer across North America.
Its spread is not inevitable: it accelerates when state wildlife systems fail. In many states, rules governing captive deer and elk movement, testing, and reporting lag far behind what science tells us is necessary to protect wildlife that should be held in the public trust.
In Texas, that systemic vulnerability collided with something worse: a private deer-breeding industry that treats wildlife like inventory, combined with loopholes and weak enforcement that make it easy to hide violations. Recently, a prominent breeder allegedly falsified records, dodged disease-testing rules, and moved deer under the table … and now multiple animals tied to the “ghost deer” investigation have tested positive for CWD.
What is Chronic Wasting Disease?
First identified in Colorado in the late 1960s, CWD has since spread to many U.S. states and several other countries — a warning sign of what happens when a persistent wildlife disease meets fragmented oversight and high-risk industry practices.
CWD has been present in Texas for more than a decade. The first known case was recorded in 2012 in a wild mule deer in the Hueco Mountains of West Texas. Just three years later, the disease was detected in a white-tailed deer inside a deer breeding facility in Medina County, west of San Antonio.
Since then, the pattern has been unmistakable: 87% of all CWD cases in Texas have occurred in captive breeding facilities, not in free-ranging herds.
CWD spreads easily through saliva, urine, feces, blood, and contaminated environments. Infected deer gradually lose neurological function, experiencing severe weight loss, lack of coordination, drooling, and drooping ears — symptoms that often go unnoticed until shortly before death.
As one expert put it bluntly, “This disease is literally eating holes in the deer’s brain.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says CWD has not been shown to infect humans, but it strongly advises people not to eat meat from infected animals.
Because the disease is 100% fatal, it is one of the largest threats facing deer and other cervids today.
Conservationists have repeatedly warned that allowing deer from breeding facilities to mingle—directly or indirectly—with wild deer is one of the most significant drivers of CWD spread. Yet instead of tightening safeguards, wildlife agencies face relentless political pressure from breeders and ranchers to weaken testing requirements and lift quarantines that limit the sale and movement of captive deer. That pressure has real consequences for wildlife held in trust for the public.
Wait, you can farm deer?
Image courtesy of Orion Whitetails, Wisconsin.
CWD didn’t spread because deer are “the problem.” It spread because we’ve allowed a little-regulated industry to commercialize wildlife, and because state laws across the country have created loopholes big enough to drive a deer trailer through.
Across the U.S., the captive deer industry has exploded. Across the U.S., captive deer breeding and shooting preserves operate in a patchwork of legal definitions and weak safeguards.
A 2016 Wildlife Society survey found:
- 20 of 32 states had deer-breeding facilities — anywhere from 5 to 1,332 sites — holding more than 140,000 captive deer.
- 20 of 29 states had commercial shooting preserves holding another 25,000+ deer.
- These facilities weren’t even regulated consistently: captive deer were considered wildlife in some states, livestock in others, and game animals in a few — making enforcement wildly uneven.
- Only a minority of states required basic safeguards like minimum acreage, release times before deer can be shot, stocking density limits, or habitat standards.
This legal gray zone created perfect conditions for disease to spread: high densities of stressed animals, long-distance transport across state lines, inconsistent testing, and minimal public oversight — even though the consequences fall squarely on the public’s wildlife.
That’s why CWD didn’t emerge from nowhere. It emerged from a system that treated deer like inventory rather than public trust resources.
And the Texas “ghost deer” case is just one example of what can go wrong. In that case, a prominent breeder allegedly falsified records, moved animals through a black-market network, and evaded testing requirements. Multiple animals tied to the operation later tested positive for CWD.
This legal gray zone also enables a lucrative industry built on transporting deer across state lines, selective breeding for grotesquely oversized antlers, and selling semen, urine, and trophy animals like commodities. The economic incentives are enormous: an estimated 10,000 deer and elk farms in North America generate more than $4 billion a year, and the push for profit drives movement of animals and lobbying for weaker rules.
And while industry leaders deny problems, the reality is simple: moving captive animals around the country increases the risk of moving infected animals, period. Wildlife biologists and many hunters have been sounding the alarm for years. CWD thrives in exactly these conditions: high densities, long-distance transport, inconsistent testing, and escapes from captive pens that allow for mingling with wild animals.
And weakened state oversight makes the issue worse. In Missouri, for example, fewer than half of breeders participated in voluntary disease monitoring, and Idaho only requires CWD testing of farmed elk for 10% of carcasses which the producers can select.
While scientists haven’t been able to prove a direct causal link, the circumstantial evidence is alarming. In Missouri, all wild deer that tested positive for CWD were found within a 29-square-mile radius of two infected captive facilities. Wildlife agencies in numerous states have documented wild positives appearing near farms previously thought to be disease-free.
Image courtesy of Missouri Farm Bureau.
How does this epidemic of CWD keep spreading?
This isn’t an isolated scandal. It’s a symptom of a governance model that allows political pressure, industry interests, and decades-old policies to override public trust and science-based safeguards.
State wildlife agencies are not just failing to contain CWD — they are allowing a major source of contamination to continue operating for private profit. When a commercial industry moves live wildlife, biological materials, and contaminated animals across the landscape, the costs of disease fall on wild deer, ecosystems, hunters, and the public at large.
That raises a fundamental question under the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that these agencies purport to follow: how does allowing wildlife to be commercialized, transported, and exposed to disease for private gain align with the principle that wildlife is a public trust resource?
Can carnivores control CWD?
At the same time, state wildlife management continues to suppress one of nature’s most effective disease-response mechanisms. Carnivores can detect and selectively remove sick animals year-round using their superior senses, such as an olfactory capacity in wolves that is estimated to be 10,000 times more powerful than that of humans. While no one claims predators can eliminate CWD entirely, a growing body of ecological evidence suggests they can slow its spread and reduce its prevalence in infected herds.
Emerging research suggests that large carnivores don’t just remove sick animals, they may also significantly reduce the amount of infectious prions entering the environment. A 2023 study examining bobcats fed CWD-infected material found that only about 2% of prions remained detectable in scat after one day, roughly 1% the next day, and none by the third day.
These findings mirror earlier results from studies of mountain lions, indicating that most ingested prions are neutralized or sequestered during digestion rather than reintroduced into soil and plants where they can remain infectious for years.
In a 2021 experiment, captive mountain lions were fed mule deer tissue spiked with CWD prions. Researchers recovered only 2.8–3.9% of the original prion load after gut passage, and prions were shed only during the first defecation following consumption. The majority of ingested prions were effectively eliminated, suggesting that mountain lions feeding on infected carcasses may reduce environmental contamination.
Long-term exposure studies are even more striking. Over nearly 18 years, captive mountain lions consumed parts of more than 432 CWD-infected deer carcasses — representing over 14,000 kilograms of infected material — without showing any clinical signs of prion disease. Extensive tissue testing revealed no evidence of CWD infection, findings that align with broader research showing strong barriers to prion transmission outside the deer family. In short: predators can safely consume infected prey without becoming disease reservoirs.
Similar results have been documented in other carnivores. In a separate study, captive coyotes removed most CWD prion infectivity from elk brain tissue during digestion, with prions no longer detectable one to three days after ingestion.
Together, these findings point to an overlooked ecological reality: intact ecosystems with functioning carnivore communities may help limit the environmental persistence of CWD.
It’s also important to be precise about what we know, and what has yet to be studied. There are currently no published studies directly measuring how wolves process or shed CWD prions after consuming infected animals. However, observational patterns across North America are telling. To date, CWD has generally failed to establish or persist in areas with intact, active wolf populations, instead appearing along the margins of wolf territories or in regions where wolves have been heavily reduced or eliminated. 
This does not prove that wolves prevent CWD. But combined with what we know about predator selectivity, carcass removal, and prion reduction in other large carnivores, including other canids like coyotes, it raises a critical question for wildlife governance: why are states aggressively suppressing wolves and other carnivores while simultaneously claiming they lack tools to slow the spread of wildlife disease? Ignoring ecological function while accommodating high-risk commercial practices is not “science-based management,” it’s political expediency.
As veterinarian Jim Keen, D.V.M. documented, and wildlife biologist and former Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation CEO Dr. Gary Wolfe have argued, it is ecologically irresponsible not to consider the role of predators in managing wildlife disease. Wolves function as “CWD border guards,” Gary Wolfe says, naturally culling infirm animals before they shed prions into the environment.
Yet many states aggressively reduce wolf populations through extended hunting and trapping seasons, undermining a natural check on disease while simultaneously permitting high-risk captive wildlife operations to continue largely unchecked.
Ignoring this body of evidence while weakening predator protections and accommodating high-risk captive wildlife industries isn’t just inconsistent, reveals the priorities of a wildlife governance system that caves to political pressure instead of defending ecological function and public trust.
This isn’t a Texas problem, or a Missouri problem, or an Idaho problem. It’s a national, structural failure that state wildlife agencies and lawmakers are failing to contain.
The Texas “ghost deer” case is just one visible example of what happens when oversight collapses: wild deer suffer, ecosystems are destabilized, and the public is left to deal with the consequences.
Release: New Mexico Captures Naturally Dispersing Colorado Wolf
New Mexico Captures Naturally Dispersing Colorado Wolf: A Colorado wolf entered New Mexico and was immediately captured and returned because states treat natural wolf movement as a problem.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 12, 2025
New Mexico Captures Naturally Dispersing Colorado Wolf, Igniting Outcry from Scientists, Conservation Groups
Young wolf’s capture shows why effective recovery must follow ecology, not state lines
Santa Fe, N.M. — A gray wolf entered New Mexico from Colorado and was immediately captured and returned to Colorado—not for conflict, but because of an agreement that treats naturally occurring wolf movement as a problem.
On Dec. 11, a lone gray wolf was released back in Colorado after New Mexico Game and Fish (NMDGF) captured him roughly ten miles southwest of Tres Piedras, more than 200 miles south of his last known location. The wolf, referred to as 2403 in reference to the year he was collared (2024) and originally from Colorado’s Copper Creek pack, had dispersed from his pack’s territory earlier this fall — a normal and expected behavior for young wolves seeking new territories and potential mates.
Conservation groups are responding to the capture and forced return of this naturally dispersing gray wolf by the NMDGF, acting under a multi-state Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) designed to prevent northern gray wolves from entering the state. Under the MOU, the two agencies coordinated capture, transport and release of the wolf to Grand County, Colo. The relocation was not in response to any conflict but because, according to the CPW statement, NMDGF wants “to protect the integrity of the Mexican wolf recovery program.”
The incident highlights ongoing tension among agencies, advocates and scientists regarding recovery of both northern and Mexican gray wolves.
“Wolves disperse widely by nature and do so according to their own instinct and knowledge of the land. A single northern wolf crossing into New Mexico is not a genetic threat to the Mexican gray wolf,” said Nico Lorenzen, wildlife associate of Wild Arizona. “What is a threat and waste of limited management funding is the continued effort to police wolf movement along state lines instead of following robust science.”
“What often gets lost in the debate over wolf reintroduction and relocation is that wherever native wild canids roam, they are fulfilling their critically important niche and benefiting ecosystems,” said Michelle Lute, PhD in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “A wolf walking across a border is not a problem. The problem is agencies trying to herd wolves into political boxes instead of designing nature-based solutions that work with evolving, functional ecosystems, especially in an era of massive human-driven declines in wildlife diversity and abundance.”
Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) remain one of North America’s most endangered mammals, suffering from genetic inbreeding following their near extinction and repopulating from seven remaining wild lobos. Mexican gray wolves are on average as related as full siblings and additionally remain the target of anthropogenic mortality, including vehicle collisions and illegal killing. Scientists argue their recovery depends on greater protections, genetic rescue, northward expansion, and connected habitat that allows movement between subpopulations.
“Trapping and relocating any wolf that steps over an invisible line does nothing to advance recovery goals. Genetic integrity is maintained through robust recovery planning — not by removing every northern wolf that enters New Mexico,” said Sally Paez, staff attorney for New Mexico Wild. “This approach ignores what the science tells us about carnivore movement and long-term viability.”
The MOU among Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah requires the capture and return of wolves that cross state borders. Conservationists say the policy treats wolves like contraband rather than wildlife and undermines effective recovery.
Relocation of wolf 2403 comes on the heels of renewed attention to the Mexican gray wolf known as “Taylor,” whose movements north of I-40 earlier this year brought forward similar questions about how agencies should respond when wolves cross administrative boundaries. In both instances, wolves were exhibiting typical dispersal behavior, underscoring that individual animals can and do move across large landscapes regardless of jurisdictional lines.
“This situation shows exactly why wolf recovery cannot succeed under policies built on jurisdiction and arbitrary political boundaries instead of biology,” said Leia Barnett, New Mexico conservation lead for WildEarth Guardians. “We need updated, science-based regional management that recognizes wolves as part of dynamic, wide-ranging ecosystems.”
“This young wolf was doing exactly what wild wolves have always done, dispersing. His journey reflects both the ecological momentum of Colorado’s recovery effort and the deep permeability of the southern Rockies, a landscape wolves have moved through for millennia, long before modern state borders existed,” said Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “If recovery is going to succeed, we have to allow wolves to be active agents in that process, not obstacles to be contained.”
“Historically, gray wolf populations in western North America were contiguously distributed from northern arctic regions well into Mesoamerica as far south as present day Mexico City. Dispersing wolves moved back and forth among adjacent populations, categorized as subspecies by taxonomists,” explained David Parsons, former Mexican wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “The exchange of genes kept gray wolf populations both genetically and physically healthy, enhancing their ability to adapt and evolve to environmental changes. The Colorado northern gray wolf and the Mexican gray wolf that recently crossed boundaries heading in each other’s direction were simply retracing ancient pathways of wolf movements. Rather than being viewed as a problem, these movements should be encouraged and celebrated as successful milestones toward west-wide gray wolf recovery efforts.”
“The age-old connections between wolves came close to being reestablished thanks to the one-paw-after-another odyssey of a northern gray wolf who was just days away from possibly meeting the love of his life and helping to infuse the highly inbred Mexican wolf population with life-giving genes,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “New Mexico Game and Fish and other agencies should respect the instinctual wisdom of wild animals as well as the recommendations of esteemed geneticists who have explained that Mexican wolves absolutely need genetic help from northern wolves.”
Background:
Colorado is in the third year of restoring a self-sustaining northern gray wolf population following voter-approved reintroduction. The Copper Creek wolf pack has become a focal point of debate over wolf management. CPW captured wolf 2403 along with his mother and three of four siblings in Grand County and relocated the family to Pitkin County. The capture process also resulted in the death of the father, who was already suffering from a gunshot wound. CPW failed to find one pup, who was left to likely starve without the help of his parents and pack. In August 2024, CPW and Wildlife Services shot a wolf in Rio Blanco County, a county away from where the Copper Creek pack was relocated to, following reports of sheep depredation. The animal’s body was not recovered, but DNA analysis later confirmed he was the missing Copper Creek pup. CPW also later lethally removed another of the pack’s pups in Pitkin County. Of the once thriving seven-member Cooper Creek wolf pack (consisting of two parents and five pups), Wolf 2403 is one of four surviving members (based on current knowledge of survivorship).
Meanwhile, Mexican gray wolves remain one of the most endangered mammals in North America, confined largely to the artificially bounded experimental population area in southern Arizona and New Mexico. Multiple wolves have dispersed north to the Grand Canyon region and northern New Mexico. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in concert with NMDGF have captured all wolves — except the wolf dubbed Taylor currently roaming the Mount Taylor area — where they either remain in captivity or were released south of the I-40 boundary. Their recovery has been slowed by genetic bottlenecks, limited northward connectivity, and management restrictions that prevent the natural formation of multiple subpopulations needed for long-term viability.
###
About Wildlife for All
Wildlife for All is a national organization dedicated to reforming wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. Through research, advocacy, and education, we aim to protect wildlife and ensure that policies reflect the values of all Americans.
About Wild Arizona
Wild Arizona is a nonprofit whose mission is to protect, unite, and restore wild lands and waters across Arizona and beyond, for the enrichment and health of all generations, and to ensure Arizona’s native plants and animals a lasting home in wild nature.
About Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project
The Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project is a nonprofit dedicated to bringing back wolves to help restore ecological health in the Grand Canyon region, while also recognizing wolves as sentient beings with intrinsic value and worth.
About WildEarth Guardians
WildEarth Guardians protects and restores the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and health of the American West.
About New Mexico Wild
New Mexico Wild is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) grassroots organization dedicated to the protection, restoration, and continued enjoyment of New Mexico’s wildlands and wilderness areas.
Through Yellow Eyes: How Storytelling Can Challenge Dominant Narratives About Wildlife
Cougars, bobcats, wolves and other native carnivores have faced a long history of fear, misunderstanding and persecution in North America. Often they have been perceived as threats or obstacles to human interests. Though many people today recognize these species as essential to healthy ecosystems and deserving of compassion and respect, carnivores were historically marked for extermination. From the beginning, state wildlife systems were built around hunting and trapping and rooted in narratives viewing carnivores as pests rather than integral to ecosystems. Today, significant disparities still persist in the way these species are treated under the law, despite increasing high public support for greater protections.
Literature is one way we can challenge entrenched narratives. Some media reinforces negative archetypes about wildlife, portraying certain animals as good and others (like bats, snakes, wolves, or ravens) as inherently sinister or evil. However, storytelling can also inspire wonder for the natural world and foster empathy for misunderstood wildlife. Early environmental advocates like Ernest Seton – often credited with the genre of realistic animal fiction – wrote about wolves in 1898 in ways that challenged dominant narratives of the time, emphasizing noble and admirable characteristics of a maligned species.
The Wild Perspective
Rutherford Montgomery (1894-1985), wrote many books and short stories about western life and animals in the United States. Yellow Eyes, his story about a cougar, is set in Sleepy Cat Mountain (western Colorado) in the 1930s, while Rufus tells the story of a bobcat in Willow Creek (southwest Montana) set around the 1860s gold rush prior to statehood. Both of these settings are explored mainly from the titular wildcats’ point of view. By giving readers a chance to see the harsh and majestic beauty of wild landscapes through the eyes of a cougar or bobcat (while keeping them “purely animal”), Montgomery fosters empathy for Rufus and Yellow Eyes. Both wildcats struggle to survive in an environment inherent with many dangers – from other animals, humans, and the natural world itself. Only the human characters have dialogue, but we have access to how the animals react and respond to the events around them. This excerpt from Rufus uses sensory detail, showing how the bobcat perceives a Montana blizzard during his first winter as an independent adult:
“Clouds scudded across the sky and big snowflakes floated down through the still air. Rufus hunted as usual and caught enough rabbits for a good meal, but before he started back to his den a cold wind started to blow and increased to a gale. The big flakes changed to powdered ice, which stung Rufus’ face. Rufus had only a dim memory of what winter was like. He had slept through blizzards, curled up with his sisters in a snug den when he was little.”
Montgomery’s approach also allows readers to see and critique how settler-colonialist mindsets devalue predators as animals that exist only to be hunted for bounties or frivolous entertainment. In an early chapter of Rufus, we briefly encounter prospectors in search of gold who meet with a trapper. Tom Hardy, the leader of the prospectors, has a pack of four hounds and enjoys using them to hunt predators for sport. Once the hounds see Rufus the bobcat, they chase him into a big pine tree at the edge of a deep rocky arroyo. Rufus hisses and snarls down at the dogs – not knowing about the danger of humans and guns yet, he perceives the hounds as the main danger. Hardy decides to dislodge the bobcat from the tree with a gunshot, stating “When that cat hits the ground, you’ll see some real action as the dogs tear him apart.” Rufus feels the impact of the bullet explode as it splinters the branch beneath him – but quickly leaps away in the other direction from the hounds. By risking the long jump down into the deep arroyo and hiding in a narrow cave in the wall until the prospectors call off the hunt, he survives. Later on, Rufus witnesses the death of a wolf – killed by three gunshots from a man on a horse. These two encounters teach him that a man with a gun is dangerous and can kill from a distance, which helps him to survive and avoid humans.
At the beginning of Yellow Eyes, a government predator hunter “Cougar George” shoots a mother cougar and soon discovers she has kittens. He sets a live trap, capturing Yellow Eyes along with his two brothers Fuzzy and Runty so he can use the young cougars to train his hounds to kill. Yellow Eyes, the largest and smartest of the litter, is the only one to survive the chase – the sight of the pack of hounds mauling his two brothers becomes permanently ingrained in his memory. As a lone orphaned cub, Yellow Eyes is old and skilled enough to catch prey like jackrabbits independently, but must learn other lessons and ways of the wild on his own, such as that skunks should be avoided. As he grows up, he learns from experience and becomes a skilled hunter of deer. At the same time, he is also being hunted by Cougar George, and later on other men who relish the challenge and bounty offered for killing a cougar who has eluded many attempts before. These people see Yellow Eyes and his kind as nothing more than “varmints to be slaughtered”.
Treon, a young Native American man and subsistence hunter, is an important supporting character of Yellow Eyes. Befriending Yellow Eyes from a distance, he is the only person in the story to respect and understand the cougar, and is by far the most sympathetic human character. The way Cougar George and his friends talk about Native Americans (“they don’t have any sense…they’re all like that”) parallels their perception of cougars. During a pivotal scene, Treon discretely rubs coal oil into a deer carcass poisoned by Cougar George, making the meat unpalatable for Yellow Eyes and preventing him from consuming the poison. This passage from that scene shows the viewpoint of both Yellow Eyes and Treon:
Quote from Yellow Eyes by Rutherford Montgomery. Cougar drawing by Peggy Clark
While humans are major threats, nature itself is shown realistically as an often unforgiving place. Survival is never guaranteed even for a smart, powerful top predator, and a chance encounter can be a matter of life and death. This approach significantly differs from films like Disney’s Bambi adaptation which presents the forest as a idealized, harmonious utopia until it’s disrupted by hunters or forest fires (Felix Salten’s original novel Bambi: A Life in the Woods is a darker allegorical tale and shows predation as a natural part of the world). Yellow Eyes and Rufus must kill in order to eat, navigate changing seasons, and often face dangerous situations. Both are smart, adaptable survivors, but also are injured and go hungry at times. They experience fear, frustration, and contentment. We also see other predators, like golden eagles and wolves, realistically hunt and kill prey and pose threats to the main characters along the way. This tension increases sympathy for the wildcat characters, showing how they adapt and navigate multiple challenges to their survival.
Yellow Eyes and Rufus both find mates, sharing food and showing care and concern for them. Both the male and female wildcats are given many positive qualities, including intelligence, affection, and resourcefulness. For example, Rufus and his mate Tabby survive a rabbit plague by learning to catch other prey – frogs, crayfish, and trout in the creek. When Yellow Eyes finds an adult female of his kind, who has also lost her family to federal persecution, the two of them experience a moment without fear or worry, “only the quiet satisfaction of having each other.” Rather than simple anthropomorphism, these qualities reflect behavior and social interaction observed in both bobcats and cougars, including the sharing of food.
Historical Context
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, cultural narratives played a major role in state and federal persecution of native carnivores. In 1931, the United States government passed the Animal Damage Control Act, which authorized funding for “the eradication and control of predatory and other wild animals”, which targeted species like cougars, wolves, bobcats and coyotes, as well as any wildlife considered obstacles to livestock production, like prairie dogs. While carnivores posed little threat to public safety, and didn’t impact the majority of western citizens, livestock industry interests demanded a predator-free landscape and called for permanent federal bounty laws.
Predator persecution and hatred extended well beyond actual impacts on livestock, game or other human interests. As Michael Robinson describes in his book Predatory Bureaucracy, native predators were killed in the 1800s “for the commercial value of their pelts, to protect livestock, and simply because frontier progress and even frontier religion seemed to demand predator extermination.” These species symbolized “a frontier unredeemed by civilization”, reflecting a Manifest Destiny worldview that called for displacement and cultural genocide of Native Americans. As the book details, many settlers viewed the simple existence of wolves, cougars, coyotes, bobcats, and lynx as “affronts to their life’s mission of ‘improving’ the untamed landscape”.
This mindset faced little resistance even in early Euro-American conservation efforts. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, several hunters advocated for conservation laws to save species like bison and pronghorn from extinction and establish regulations for hunting game, while women provided support for national forests, tree planting, and protection for songbirds. Despite this, native predators had few public defenders and no conservation campaigns. In The Wolf In the Southwest: The Making on an Endangered Species (1983), David E. Brown noted this complicity among wildlife agencies, hunters and conservationists alike. “Sportsmen and their associations, state game and fish departments, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Biological Survey all abetted the quest [of predator eradication]; almost none among them resisted it. Nor were naturalists and protectionists a factor in hindering the [Mexican gray] wolf’s demise. No voice was raised for a rational and effective program to maintain a small but representative wolf population while one still existed.”
Central to the narrative recounted in Predatory Bureaucracy was Stanley P. Young, director of the Bureau of Biological Survey. This agency was a precursor to USDA Wildlife Services, which no longer aims to exterminate entire species but still kills thousands of native carnivores a year on behalf of private interests. He enlisted the public and hunters concerned with game species to ensure continuing funding and support for the predator-killing program, employing deliberate propaganda tactics in newspaper articles.
The Bureau used language describing entire species of native predators as criminals, labeling “The Wild Cat, the Mountain Lion, and the Coyote” as public enemies, gangsters, marauders, pests, and the animal underworld. Young extolled federal predator hunters as “soldiers of the wilderness” working diligently to “protect civilization against the desperadoes of the desert and mountain”. At the same time, the articles would downplay the cruel and indiscriminate nature of the methods used to kill wildlife, claiming that dying by poisoning was kinder than living in the wild.
The Department of the Interior produced this photo of a cornered cougar, which appears in the National Archives in the 1939 Annual Forestry Report. The caption read in part: “Although coyotes, wolves, bob cats and bears are detrimental to game and domestic animals, the mountain lion is enemy No. 1. His favorite victims are deer, horses and cattle….The above picture was taken on Salt Creek, 20 miles from San Carlos and the mountain lion was one of 5 killed by Larsen in one day.” (Public Domain)
Cougars and bobcats did not gain any basic legal protections until around the 1970s – far behind the installation of basic regulations and protections for species like deer, elk, bighorn, bison, pronghorn, ducks, and wild turkeys. For decades under the established wildlife governance system, wild cats were targets of unchecked persecution, and could be killed year round without limit, or even the requirement of a license in most cases (and still are in some states). Joe Van Wormer’s The World of the Bobcat (1963) noted that in the 1960s, 13 states still had bounties on bobcats and the rest had discontinued the practice not because they valued the bobcat, but because they considered it ineffective as a control measure and susceptible to fraudulent practices. Wildlife was seen through a purely utilitarian lens, valued only in terms of human interests. Cougars’ and bobcats’ predation on deer, game birds, and livestock was erroneously seen to outweigh the ecological services they perform.
Modern Parallels
These worldviews still persist today within current wildlife management. Narratives that portray native carnivores as threats that must be “managed” through aggressive killing are rooted in colonialism, extractive industry, and utilitarianism. Fear based narratives about certain species are tied to a perceived need for domination and control – over both the wild and the decision making process.
- Wildlife policy terms like “harvest”, “predator management” and “depredators” are used to make predation sound sinister while normalizing the killing of wildlife.
- In their list of “25 Reasons Why Hunting is Conservation”, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation celebrates the recovery and population growth of deer, elk, ducks and other hunted species while simultaneously devaluing cougars, bears, wolves and coyotes as nuisances, labeling the reduction of their “growing populations” as conservation (“The government spends millions to control predators and varmints while hunters have proven more than willing to pay for that opportunity”). While hunting license fees do contribute to state wildlife agency funding (which includes some conservation projects), RMEF’s definition of “hunting is conservation” has little to do with conservation biology and plays into the same historical dynamics of “useful wildlife” that should be conserved and valued versus “predators and varmints” that should be managed and controlled.
- Podcaster Joe Rogan has defended historical predator eradication, making statements like “wolves are dominant, intelligent, calculating predators that they eradicated from the west for a reason”. He vilifies cougars as threats to pets and people, arguing that cougar trophy hunting should be called “monster control”.
- The group Sportsmens’ Alliance consistently uses “scary” images of predators (often snarling wolves and cougars standing over bloody carcasses of prey) to influence a negative emotional reaction to these species. One article “The Costs of Cougars” sensationalizes cougar attacks and labels them as threats to deer hunting, claiming wildlife managers can either “feed one cougar or feed fifty families”. (Those who value cougars on the landscape and want greater protections for them are stereotyped as “uninformed urban and suburban voters”.)
Challenging the Narrative
For wild animals, individuals are often treated as interchangeable numbers within a population, without much value on their own beyond human interests. However, public attitudes towards wildlife have shifted. Science has also upended many long-held assumptions about misunderstood species. For example, Panthera biologist Dr. Mark Elbroch described how his research directly contradicted preconceptions of cougars as “solitary, robotic killing machines” only encountering each other to mate or fight. Though most wildcats don’t form large prides in the same way lions do, individual cougars exhibit social relationships, reciprocity, and altruism.
Elbroch’s research in Wyoming found an intricate social network where cougars in the study area shared resources and food with each other, without correlation to the individuals being related. The loss of certain individual cougars – especially a resident male with an established territory – disrupts that network. Cougars and other predators self-regulate, and when stable social networks are allowed to remain in place, conflicts with people and domestic animals are less likely to occur.
Experts like Dr. Gosia Bryja have noted a similar dynamic in bears and wolves, underscoring the value and biological importance of the individual. Wolf packs, as family groups, are much more likely to disband and splinter following the death of the leading male or female. Bears that exhibit bold, adventurous behavioral traits and unconventional survival strategies (passed down from mothers to cubs) are more likely to cross roads and navigate fragmented landscapes, making these individuals vital to the genetic diversity of their species, but also disproportionately vulnerable to human-caused mortality.
But science itself is only one part of the story. Telling that story in a compelling way is a critical aspect of science communication, and it’s a role we can all take if we care about wildlife conservation. Storytelling directly challenges the view of wildlife solely as populations and species, through its depiction of an individual’s story. This can take many forms – film, literature, photography, audio. An October 2025 PBS documentary titled Willow: Diary of a Mountain Lion uses footage gained from 200 different trail cameras in a female cougar’s home range in Montana. Much like Yellow Eyes, this documentary challenges dominant narratives on cougars by depicting their behavior realistically, and allowing us to see through the eyes of one. Viewers watch Willow as she raises a litter of six cubs, interacts with other cougars, and faces the challenges of survival in the wild.
Photography is another powerful tool. One wildlife photographer, Karine Aigner, followed several generations of bobcats on a friend’s south Texas ranch, dubbed “Bobcat Manor”. Over time, she got to know these bobcats as individuals, and learned from observation that they have distinct personalities and mourn losses. By providing a closer glimpse into the lives of an extended bobcat family, Aigner’s storytelling through photography is a powerful voice for bobcats. Her work provides important advocacy for the species from rural Texas – a state where bobcats have zero protection and are intensively persecuted in killing contests across much of the landscape (outside safe areas like this particular ranch). Project Coyote’s #CaptureCoexistence initiative similarly uses the visual medium of photography to highlight the beauty and value of coyotes, bobcats, and other wild carnivores, raising awareness of their ecological importance.
Advocacy for biodiversity and conservation extends beyond stating facts and figures. Storytelling can help challenge misinformation, build empathy for misunderstood wildlife, and inspire a sense of wonder and stewardship for the natural world. By showing the audience who snakes, cougars, coyotes, or bobcats are – not villains or nuisances, but wildlife deserving of understanding and respect – storytelling can challenge harmful narratives about these species and shift how they are viewed or treated. Rutherford Montgomery’s portrayal of a cougar’s battle for survival is still relevant today as in the 1930s in how it challenges narratives about wildlife – inviting us to see through a pair of yellow eyes.
This article was contributed by Peggy Clark, a Geospatial Science/Ecology student at Radford University in Radford, Virginia
December Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at December Wildlife Commission Meetings.
December Wildlife Commission Meetings
December wildlife commission meetings are some of the final ones in 2025. Don’t miss one of the last chances this year for you, the public, to be heard.
It’s the last month of the year but the work for wildlife isn’t winding down. The decisions being made in state wildlife commission meetings shape the future of species and the health of ecosystems across the country. Commissions are weighing policies that determine how wildlife is managed, who gets representation in decision-making, and whether science or politics will guide the path forward.
These meetings rarely make national news—but they’re where the real work of wildlife governance happens. Showing up matters. Submitting a comment matters. Even listening in matters. Every act of participation helps move us closer to wildlife management that reflects ecological science, democratic values, and coexistence for all life—not outdated, special-interest rule.
Below you’ll find the full list of December commission meetings by state and date. Visit our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare your comments or testimony—and make sure your voice is part of the record before the year ends.
Alaska
Meeting Date: December 2
Location: Anchorage Egan Civic & Convention Center
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes:This is a non-regulatory meeting via web-conference at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. The main purpose of the Board meeting is to consider Agenda Change Requests (ACRs) submitted by the November 1, 2025, deadline for the 2025/2026 meeting cycle. Agenda Change Requests that are accepted by the board will be scheduled as proposals for board consideration at one of the regulatory meetings in 2026. The meeting is open to the public via live video which will be posted online at https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main the day of the meeting. Live audio will also be accessible by calling +1 253 215 8782 and entering the meeting ID: 812 9247 6371. The board will not be taking oral testimony during the meeting. The board is accepting written public comments for the meeting, due no later than Monday, November 24, 2025. Comments may be submitted through the Board’s website at https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=gameboard.main; or faxed to (907) 465-6094.
Delaware
Meeting Date: December 2
Location: TBA, Dover, DE
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 7 p.m. This will be a hybrid meeting with an in-person option in Dover and a virtual option via Teams. To join virtually via Teams, click here and enter Meeting ID: 294 098 738 088 64 and passcode: 6wC69BX7. To join by phone (audio-only) dial 1-302-504-8986 and enter code 391878221#. For more information, contact the DNREC Wildlife Section, at 302-739-9912 or Joe Rogerson at Joseph.Rogerson@delaware.gov or 302-739-9912.
Georgia
Meeting Date: December 2
Location: Brasstown Valley Resort 6321 US-76 Young Harris, GA 30582
Details: Click here for details. (note the meeting agenda was not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Watch online here. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Zoom. To view via webinar, register here.
Montana
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: State Capitol Building, Room 317, and via Zoom
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 8 a.m. Public comments were accepted on the following proposals through November 23, 2025 with final potential action to be taken at the December 4 meeting. The public comment opportunity on the main agenda topics, prior to the meeting, is now CLOSED. In-person comments can be made at the meeting venue or at any FWP Regional Office throughout the state. Comments can also be made during the meeting virtually via Zoom, but you must register. Registration for Zoom comment will close December 3 at noon.
NEW INSTRUCTIONS for public comment: There are two dedicated methods to submit public comment to the Fish and Wildlife Commission on meeting agenda topics PRIOR TO the meeting: online portal or mail-in comments.
Online Portal (SurveyMonkey) – Each agenda item will have a survey at the bottom, below the linked documents, that is set up for submitting public comment. The survey also allows for letters or supporting documents to be attached. Public comment is still being accepted for the commissioner-proposed amendments through 12/1.
Mail-in of Public Comments – Public comments can also be mailed to the Commission at Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, c/o FWP Liaison – Director’s Office, PO Box 200701, Helena MT, 59620-0701
These two options are the only ways to submit comment and/or documents to the Commission on any agenda item prior the meeting. Should you have any questions about this process, please contact the FWP Liaison to the Commission at 406-594-8921. Public comment is always welcome in person during the meeting, or via Zoom. Those commenting via Zoom must register to comment. Registration will open on November 19.
North Carolina
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: Commission Room, 5th Floor, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Committees meet December 3: 9-9:30 am Executive; 9:30-10 am Boating Safety; 10-11 am Habitat Nongame & Endangered Species; 11 am – 12 pm Fisheries; 1:15-1:45 pm Migratory Birds & Waterfowl; 1:45-2:30 pm Wild Turkey; 2:30-3:30 pm Committee of the Whole. The board will meet at 9 a.m. on December 4. Members of the public may join via Zoom by registering in advance.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: South Dakota State Capitol Building, 500 East Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: December 4, 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. CST | December 5, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. CST. To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458. Zoom meeting link. Livestream watch link. Meeting materials here. Inform Gail Buus at gail.buus@state.sd.us by 1 pm CST if you plan to speak during the meeting. Testifiers should provide their full names, whom they are representing, city of residence, and which proposed topic they will be addressing. Written comments can be submitted here. Here are guidelines for submission. To be included in the public record, comments must include full name and city of residence and meet the submission deadline of seventy-two hours before the meeting (not including the day of the meeting).
Tennessee
Meeting Date: December 4-5
Location: Region II Office, Ellington Agricultural Center, Nashville, TN
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 1 p.m. on December 4 and 9 a.m. on December 5. It is unclear how to watch remotely, or how to provide comments.
Utah
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington, Utah
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting materials here. Unless otherwise noted, all Wildlife Board meetings are on Thursdays at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington. Board meetings begin at 9 a.m, unless otherwise indicated. Feedback occurs at Regional Advisory Council (RAC) meetings. If you wish to comment during a RAC or Board meeting, you must attend the meeting in person — you may not submit comments online during the meeting. When you come to the meeting, pick up a comment card, fill it out and speak at the podium when your name is called. Find the full schedule here. Agendas and minutes are here. Watch live: https://youtube.com/live/PB0dsu8FmIo
Washington – Habitat Committee
Meeting Date: December 4
Location: Virtual
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: 1-3 p.m. Commissioners Linville, Garcia, Myers, Rowland. Agenda Topics: Lands 20/20 Overview. Watch on Zoom. Watch livestream.To join by phone, please dial 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 886 2573 9021
Arizona
Meeting Date: December 5
Location: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting location opens at 7:45 a.m. Meeting begins at 8:00 a.m Lunch Break at 12:00 p.m. Members of the public may view the meeting from any Department Regional Office. Members of the public attending in person wanting to speak on a specific agenda item may submit Speaker Cards (Blue Cards) if they wish to speak to the Commission and may only address the Commission by attending in person or from any regional office. Copies of any presentations, documents, etc. discussed during the meeting will be available by contacting sprice@azgfd.gov. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on topics raised in public comment. Any items requiring further discussion or action will be included on a future Commission meeting agenda. View live webcasts at www.azgfd.gov/commissioncam. Listen to the meeting by calling 404-397-1516, Access code: 280 046 234##.
Kentucky
Meeting Date: December 5
Location: #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort KY and Livestreamed Online
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes:The meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. (ET) in the Administration Building on the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources’ campus in Frankfort. It will be open to the public.The meeting also will be livestreamed and archived on the department’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/FishandWildlifeKY. A link to the livestream also will be posted on the department’s homepage at fw.ky.gov at the start of the meeting. Anyone wishing to address the Commission orally must sign in before the meeting and will have 3 minutes to speak during the public comment. Members of the public may submit emailed comments on Commission business items anytime to FW.PublicAffairs@ky.gov; these comments may include statements of support or opposition, or express concerns or questions. Emailed comments regarding a business item that are received before 5 p.m. at least two days before a scheduled meeting that includes opportunity for public comments may be read by staff during the public comment segment of the meeting. The Commission chair reserves the right to select representative comments to be shared orally or read from emails, subject to availability of time and potentially redundancy of comments.
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: December 8
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 12/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. It’s not clear how to comment or speak; we suggest emailing the department to ask. It’s also unclear if there is a virtual participation option. Read more on their website.
California – Marine Resources Committee only
Meeting Date: December 9
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, 715 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. Meeting packet.
California
Meeting Date: December 10-11
Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, 715 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at Wednesday, 9:00 a.m. and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. Meeting packet. Information on how to join.
Maine
Meeting Date: December 10
Location: 353 Water Street, Room 400, Augusta, ME
Details: Click here for agenda
Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. Those wishing to attend remotely (Microsoft Teams) please contact Becky.Orff@maine.gov for log in information.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: December 10
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 3 p.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 758595. Or join via telephone: Join via audio: (929) 205-6099, Webinar ID: 876 7837 8555, Passcode: 758595. Anyone wishing to be placed on the agenda to speak at the monthly business meeting must begin by notifying the Board in writing 2 weeks prior to the Board meeting; for more detailed information, contact Susan Sacco.
Wisconsin
Meeting Date: December 10
Location: TBD; not available at time of webpage publishing
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 10 in public meeting room G09, State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2), 101 South Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin. The Board will act on items 1-4 and 7 as listed on the agenda. The public is encouraged to watch live on YouTube. The deadline to register for public appearance requests and to submit written comments is 11 a.m. on Dec. 3, 2025. Remote testimony from the public via Zoom may be accepted. In-person public appearances are also welcome. The Natural Resources Board will meet in-person. Remote testimony from the public via Zoom may be accepted for this meeting. In person public appearances are also welcome. Members of the public can submit their request to testify remotely, in person, or their written comments by the posted deadline date for Board consideration, typically one week before the meeting date. Please contact Ashley Bystol, NRB Liaison, at 608-267-7420 or by email at DNRNRBLiaison@wisconsin.gov with NRB-related questions, to request information, submit written comments or to register to testify at a meeting.
Iowa
Meeting Date:December 11
Location: Des Moines
Details: Click here for details (note no agenda as of 12/1.)
Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. Comments regarding agenda items may be submitted for public record to Alicia.Plathe@dnr.iowa.gov or 6200 Park Ave Ste 200, Des Moines IA 50321 up to 24 hours prior to the business meeting.
Michigan
Meeting Date: December 11
Location: Lansing Community College, West Campus Rooms M119-121, 5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917
Details: Click here for agenda (no agenda as of 12/1) and details.
Notes: 9:30 a.m. Persons registering to provide comments on a topic listed on the agenda on or before the Friday preceding the meeting will be allowed up to 5 minutes for their comments. Persons registering to comment on a topic not listed on the agenda, after the Friday preceding the meeting, or at the meeting will be allowed up to 3 minutes. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments on agenda items, please write to Natural Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, or email nrc@michigan.gov. Read more on the Commission website.
Missouri
Meeting Date: December 11-12
Location: MDC Headquarters, 2901 W Truman Blvd., Jefferson City, MO 65102
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda or details available as of 12/1)
Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. Background documents related to open meeting agenda items are available for public viewing at Conservation Department Headquarters, Jefferson City, for eight calendar days prior to the meeting. Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. Recording the open meeting is permissible, pursuant to any guidelines established by the Commission to minimize disruption to the meeting. Individuals wishing to record the open meeting by audiotape, videotape, or other electronic means should notify the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting so accommodations for such recording can be made. To view livestream of the open meeting, or to watch recordings of past meetings, go to http://on.mo.gov/2nodPJU
West Virginia
Meeting Date: December 11
Location: WVU Potomac State College – Davis Conference Center,101 Fort Avenue, Keyser, WV 26726
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda as of 12/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 6 p.m.SSend comments to wvnrcommission@wv.gov. To send written comments, contact: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Director’s Office, 324th Avenue, South Charleston, WV 25303. The meeting will be livestreamed on the West Virginia Department of Commerce’s YouTube channel and will be available starting the day of the meeting. The livestream is view-only. To provide public comments, you must attend in person at one of the six district locations listed above. If you can’t watch the meeting live, a recording will be posted and remain available until the next scheduled Commission meeting, so you can watch it at your convenience.
In-Person Locations
District 1 – 1110 Railroad St, Farmington, WV 26571
District 2 – 1 Depot St, Romney, WV 26757
District 3 – 738 Ward Rd, Elkins, WV 26241
District 4 – 2006 Robert C. Byrd Dr, Beckley, WV 25801
District 5 – 112 California Ave, Charleston, WV 25305
District 6 – 76 Conservation Way, Parkersburg, WV 26104
⚠️ Important Note About Public Comments: The livestream is view-only. To provide public comments, you must attend in person at one of the six district locations listed above.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: December 12
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agendas are posted at least 6 days prior to the date of the meeting but an agenda for this month was not available when this webpage was posted. Keep checking back on this webpage.
Notes: Meeting starts at 9.a.m. Attend in person and arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the meeting start time in order to add your name to the sign-in sheet. To speak virtually, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov. Include your name and the agenda item on which you would like to testify. Once your request has been received, you will receive an email with the Zoom link. Requests may be also made during the meeting. Meetings will be livestreamed at: https://youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr. To submit a comment, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure time for BLNR Member review.
Oregon
Meeting Date: December 12
Location: ODFW Headquarters Classroom, 4034 Fairview Industrial DR SE, Salem, OR 97302
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: Commission meetings begin at 8:30 a.m. and proceed chronologically through the agenda. If you wish to receive written materials prepared for any of the agenda items, please contact the Director’s Office in Salem at (503) 947-6044 or email ODFW.Commission@odfw.oregon.gov to request a packet for those items that interest you. Members of the public can view a livestream of the meeting via the agency’s YouTube channel or on the Commission page. Members of the public may also view a livestream of this meeting at ODFW Headquarters, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem. Comment and testimony are limited to 3 minutes or less.The Fish and Wildlife Commission has moved to hybrid meetings, meaning that you have the option to attend in-person or virtually. Those who would like to provide virtual testimony on an Exhibit scheduled on this agenda must REGISTER no less than 48 hours (Wednesday December 10 at 8:00 AM) in advance to receive a testimony link to the meeting. To provide testimony on an agenda item in-person, registration will also be available at the meeting. To provide testimony virtually or in-person during Public Forum you must contact the Director’s office no less than 48 hours (8 a.m. Wednesday December 10) in advance of the meeting for approval. Meeting is livestreamed here.
Washington
Meeting Date: December 12
Location: TBD
Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available as of 12/1)
Notes: Registration for those wishing to provide virtual comments closes at 5 p.m. the day before the meeting begins. Registrants will be called upon and typically have 3 minutes to speak. If you are unable to participate, you can submit your comments on the Commission contact page. If you haven’t pre-registered and wish to attend and speak in person, complete a Public Testimony Form, available at the registration table. The form must be submitted at least 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the agenda item you wish to testify on.
New Hampshire – Legislative Committee
Meeting Date: December 16
Location: Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive in Concord, NH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: There will be a Legislative Committee Meeting held on December 16, 2025 at 10:30 a.m., at the NH Fish & Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, in the east conference room. The public is entitled to attend.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: December 16
Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room,1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ 08691
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: The public is welcome to attend and participate in the public portion of each meeting. Meeting starts at 10 a.m. and will be held both in person and via GoToMeeting (audio only). Call in: +1 (312) 757-3121 | Access Code: 848-342-077. Per the website, public comments may be made in person or online and will be limited to 3 minutes per person. More information about the Commission is on its website, including a meeting guide and how to connect. For help, contact Kristen.Meistrell@dep.nj.gov.
Vermont
Meeting Date: December 17
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda posted as of 12/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Unclear how to comment or speak either virtually or in person. Full meeting schedule for 2025 is here.
Mexican Wolf ‘Taylor’ Back Home Near New Mexico’s Mount Taylor
Mexican gray wolf photo available for media use with appropriate credit: Jim Clark/USFWS. Image is available for media use.
For immediate release: November 24, 2025
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.— An endangered Mexican gray wolf named Taylor has once again returned to his namesake mountain west of Albuquerque after having been captured and relocated twice by the New Mexico Game and Fish Department.
Taylor made his home on Mount Taylor before being trapped and translocated south of Interstate 40 to the Gila National Forest in May. In July he made his way back to Mount Taylor. Two weeks ago the department darted him from the air, removed him again and released him at the same spot in the Gila where they attempted his first relocation. Taylor immediately turned north and started running home. On Nov. 22 he arrived near Mount Taylor again.
“Wolves like Taylor can’t read maps, even those with lines drawn by politicians,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Government officials disregarded science when they drew this arbitrary boundary. Wildlife agencies need to let Taylor roam free. I’ll be celebrating if he finds a female northern wolf to raise pups with who will boost the genetic diversity of Mexican wolves.”
Taylor is the fifth Mexican wolf known to have spent time recently in the Mount Taylor region. Other Mexican wolves have gravitated to the area south of the Grand Canyon, which is also officially off-limits according to wildlife agencies.
“It’s the very definition of insanity for the agencies to be taking the same actions but expecting different results,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. “Taylor knows where he wants to be, and humans need to stop trying to impose their will on wild animals.”
“Instead of spending the time and money to relocate this amazing lobo again, wildlife officials should take a step back and let him roam — maybe learn from where he wanders,” said Chris Smith, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “Mexican wolves belong in the northern part of our state. Biologists and the wolves themselves seem to agree on that.”
Because of longstanding mismanagement that now includes the enforced separation of Mexican gray wolves from northern gray wolves, the Mexican wolf population in the United States — which stems from just seven animals — has lost genetic diversity in each of the last four years.
“Unsurprisingly, Taylor is moving north again. And again, we’re going to have to ask ourselves, do we expend taxpayer dollars and limited recovery resources enforcing political boundaries on a wild animal, or do we let natural instincts and recovery goals work together in a rare win-win,” said Luke Koenig, Gila grassroots organizer for New Mexico Wild. “Unfortunately, our track record with this seemingly no-brainer of a situation has been pretty poor. But we have yet another opportunity to make things right.”
“How ironic that time after time, the Fish and Wildlife Service keeps transporting wolves south again after their northward journeys claiming there are no other lobos for them to find for mates north of I-40,” said Mary Katherine Ray, wildlife chair of the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club. “With five wolves having made the trip in recent years, clearly there could be if they were all just allowed to roam.”
“Taylor is showing us, yet again, what wolves have been trying to tell us for years: recovery doesn’t follow a straight line drawn on a map. Dispersing wolves are the authors of their own futures, choosing the landscapes, corridors and potential mates that give their families the best chance to thrive,” said Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “When we step back and let lobos lead, they reveal the very pathways scientists have long identified as essential for true recovery across the Southwest and the wider Western United States. Taylor’s journey isn’t a management problem, it’s a reminder of what’s possible when we trust wild animals to find their way home.”
Independent scientists have determined that recovering Mexican wolves will require the subspecies to inhabit broader areas than presently permitted. These include the Rocky Mountains in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado and the Grand Canyon region of northern Arizona and southern Utah. Scientists also believe that connectivity with northern gray wolves in Colorado would bring much-needed genes to combat inbreeding in the Mexican wolf population.
“Taylor’s journey shows us what recovery looks like when wolves lead the way. They select the habitats, corridors and mates that give them the best chance to thrive,” said Michelle Lute, Ph.D. in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “With the border wall closing off natural dispersal toward the south, allowing wolves to move north is no longer optional for recovery, it’s necessary.”
“Robust conservation science stresses the need for high quality habitat with interconnected populations in order to ensure long term species persistence. Taylor and his lobo predecessors are repeatedly telling us where the best habitat is as they spread from an artificially bounded range” said Nico Lorenzen, wildlife associate for Wild Arizona. “As independent scientists have suggested, and further confirmed by the wolves themselves, the key to their recovery is allowing them to roam past I-40 and establish a healthy metapopulation.”
###
TAKE ACTION | Email mexicanwolfcomments@fws.gov and tell the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: This time, let Taylor stay.
New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption
New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption — What It Means for Wildlife Conservation and True Coexistence
A gray wolf stands amidst tree cover, staring at the camera. Image courtesy of The Seattle Times.
It’s a troubling paradox in wildlife management: many policies continue to permit—or even promote—lethal control of wolves (and other large carnivores) in the name of protecting livestock or reducing human-wildlife conflict. Yet in recent years, a growing body of rigorous science is challenging the idea that killing predators reliably reduces livestock losses or improves coexistence outcomes. A newly released peer-reviewed article “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” (2025) adds substantial fuel to that critique by reviewing the best available studies across multiple countries and contexts.
This paper is a powerful tool for advocates for just, democratic wildlife policies, because it erodes a commonly assumed justification for predator killing and invites us instead toward more reasoned, science-driven coexistence strategies.
Below, we break down what the study shows, explore its implications for policy and practice, and suggest how this new evidence supports, strengthens, and can sharpen our collective arguments and advocacy.
Making Sense of the Science: What the Paper Did and Found
The authors asked a deceptively simple but deeply consequential question: do we have strong, consistent evidence that removing (killing or otherwise eliminating) wolves leads to fewer losses of livestock or domestic animals? In other words, does lethal control reliably deliver on its promised protection?
Instead of conducting a new experiment, the authors performed a review (a kind of systematic evaluation) of the best available studies, across several countries, that examine the links between lethal wolf control and livestock losses from wolves. In doing so, they examined:
-
- The quality of study design (how well the study isolates cause and effect, controls confounding factors, uses proper controls, etc.).
- The consistency, magnitude, and direction of reported effects.
- Whether alternative explanations or unintended consequences (e.g., behavioral changes, compensatory effects, social disruption of packs) were considered.
- The quality of study design (how well the study isolates cause and effect, controls confounding factors, uses proper controls, etc.).
Because many past studies suffer from methodological flaws (lack of controls, failure to account for confounding variables), the authors were especially attentive to whether the evidence reaches a level that justifies policy reliance.
Their central verdict: the evidence is inadequate to support the claim that removing wolves reliably prevents livestock losses. Some of the main findings:
-
- Many of the studies that claim success of lethal control have weak design or interpretive problems (e.g., they don’t adequately account for confounding factors, small sample sizes, or changes in livestock management coinciding with predator removal).
- In some cases, livestock losses either did not decline, or even increased, after predator removal (or in neighboring areas). Thus, removing wolves in one area may displace conflict or destabilize predator social structure in a way that backfires.
- The authors emphasize that lethal control may produce unintended negative consequences: for example, destabilizing pack social structure can lead to more unpredictable wolf behavior (or influx of new individuals), or increased risky behaviors.
- Across diverse settings, there is no consistent pattern showing that lethal removal reliably leads to net benefit for livestock protection.
- Many of the studies that claim success of lethal control have weak design or interpretive problems (e.g., they don’t adequately account for confounding factors, small sample sizes, or changes in livestock management coinciding with predator removal).
In sum, for anyone hoping to defend lethal control on scientific grounds, this review seriously weakens that case.
Implications for Coexistence Practices and Policies
This new review doesn’t just stir academic debates — it has direct, consequential implications for how wildlife agencies, ranchers, communities, and advocates manage carnivores.
- Shifting the burden of proof and the default stance
- One of the permanent challenges in wildlife policy is that lethal control is often treated as a default or default fallback—“if conflict increases, kill more predators.” But this paper supports the stronger presumption in favor of nonlethal, precautionary policies, because lethal control has failed to deliver predictable net positive outcomes.
- Advocates can point to this review to argue that wildlife agencies should no longer be allowed to justify predator killing simply by citing tradition or “expert judgment” — countless studies have killed wolves and failed to produce robust, transparent evidence of benefit. It’s time to move on to what we know works and is supported by the majority of Americans: non-lethal coexistence.
- One of the permanent challenges in wildlife policy is that lethal control is often treated as a default or default fallback—“if conflict increases, kill more predators.” But this paper supports the stronger presumption in favor of nonlethal, precautionary policies, because lethal control has failed to deliver predictable net positive outcomes.
- Strengthening the ethics-based argument
- Wildlife for All’s mission is grounded in the moral belief that wild animals deserve to live freely and be treated fairly. The science helps us go beyond purely moral appeals: when you show that lethal control is not just morally questionable, but also scientifically weak or contradictory, you can reach a broader audience, including those who aren’t initially motivated by animal wellbeing but by evidence-based policy.
- Skeptical stakeholders (e.g., ranchers, rural communities, policymakers) often say “We can’t afford risk — we need the option to shoot wolves.” This paper undercuts that by showing the option may not reliably reduce risk — and may in some cases exacerbate it.
- Wildlife for All’s mission is grounded in the moral belief that wild animals deserve to live freely and be treated fairly. The science helps us go beyond purely moral appeals: when you show that lethal control is not just morally questionable, but also scientifically weak or contradictory, you can reach a broader audience, including those who aren’t initially motivated by animal wellbeing but by evidence-based policy.
- Encouraging investment in nonlethal, adaptive strategies
- If the “kill to protect” assumption is undermined, then nonlethal tools — guard animals, electric fencing, range riders, deterrents, improved husbandry, compensation programs, and community-based surveillance — should not be treated as secondary or fallback, but as first-line strategies. This shifts budget, policy priority, and the mindset of wildlife agencies.
- Because lethal strategies may carry hidden costs (e.g., social disruption, unforeseen predator behavior, negative public sentiment, reputational and liability risks), the comparative cost-benefit of nonlethal options becomes more compelling.
- If the “kill to protect” assumption is undermined, then nonlethal tools — guard animals, electric fencing, range riders, deterrents, improved husbandry, compensation programs, and community-based surveillance — should not be treated as secondary or fallback, but as first-line strategies. This shifts budget, policy priority, and the mindset of wildlife agencies.
- Improving monitoring, transparency, and accountability
- The article calls out methodological weaknesses and lack of rigorous standards in predator control studies. We can use this as a call to demand stronger monitoring, open data, independent review, and clear metrics of success (or failure) in wildlife policy and agency action.
- Messaging and persuasion to skeptical audiences
- With this paper in hand, advocates can more confidently engage with policymakers who claim to care about evidence-based decision-making. Our message to such officials: “Scientific review shows that removals are not reliably effective and carry risks — let’s instead prioritize proven nonlethal methods and monitor carefully.”
- In regulatory or legal settings (e.g., comment periods, wildlife commission hearings), citing this peer-reviewed review strengthens the legitimacy of coexistence strategies.
- With this paper in hand, advocates can more confidently engage with policymakers who claim to care about evidence-based decision-making. Our message to such officials: “Scientific review shows that removals are not reliably effective and carry risks — let’s instead prioritize proven nonlethal methods and monitor carefully.”
- Expanding the approach beyond wolves
- Although the focus is on wolves, the logic and methods are relevant to other large carnivores such as coyotes and mountain lions. Lethal control of predators is not a safe “go-to” and must always be justified by strong, context-specific evidence.
- Although the focus is on wolves, the logic and methods are relevant to other large carnivores such as coyotes and mountain lions. Lethal control of predators is not a safe “go-to” and must always be justified by strong, context-specific evidence.
In short: this study reinforces our collective vision with empirical muscle. Rather than moralizing in a vacuum, we demand that policies rest on defensible science — and because the science is weak in favor of lethal control, most proposals to kill predators must be treated as presumptively unjustifiable unless proven otherwise.
Toward a Future of Just, Evidence-Informed Coexistence
The release of “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” is a timely and powerful moment for wildlife advocacy. It helps shift the narrative from “we must kill predators to protect livestock” to “let’s ask: is killing really helping — and if not, what better tools exist?”
For Wildlife for All, this is more than a research citation — it is a clarion call. It helps us:
- reinforce that coexistence is not a utopian dream but a rational policy option;
- press for higher scientific standards and accountability in wildlife agencies;
- strengthen alliances between scientists, advocates, and communities; and
- offer a persuasive pathway to those still clinging to lethal control: you don’t have to reject your concern for livestock or safety — but you do have a duty to demand stronger evidence to inform policies and practices.
In the years ahead, it will be essential for us to help translate this kind of science into concrete policy change: biological impact assessments, funding for nonlethal tools, legislative oversight, and public education.
The uphill battle is real, but we carry not just moral conviction, but stronger scientific justification. If the future of coexistence depends on opening minds and shifting practices, this paper gives us one more powerful bridge toward that future — a future in which wolves, other carnivores, and human communities can share the land with more dignity and fewer unnecessary killings.
The Trump Administration Is Rushing to Gut the Endangered Species Act — Here’s How to Fight Back
The Trump Administration is rushing to gut the Endangered Species Act with a short comment period right before the holidays. Here is how you can fight back.
The Trump Administration Is Rushing to Gut the Endangered Species Act — Here’s How to Fight Back
4 Separate Attacks on the ESA.
30 Days to Respond.
Your Voice Matters More Than Ever.
The Trump Administration just launched a sweeping attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act, the very law that often stands between imperiled wildlife and extinction. Four proposed rule changes would reopen the door to political and industry influence over decisions that are supposed to be driven by science and the public interest.
If enacted, these rules would:
- Weaken protections for newly listed species by eliminating automatic safeguards and forcing case-by-case political fights over whether a species deserves protection.
- Narrow the definition of critical habitat, excluding areas species need to recover as climate change accelerates.
- Allow economic and corporate impacts to outweigh scientific evidence in listing decisions.
- Limit the scope of federal review so agencies can more easily greenlight harmful projects, from logging to drilling, even when they place wildlife in harm’s way.
The Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest environmental laws we have—but it only works when the federal government enforces its standards. These changes don’t just threaten species on the brink; they undermine the democratic process itself.
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. State wildlife governance is already heavily shaped by industry power, and federal protections are often the only meaningful check left for species on the edge of extinction. These proposed rollbacks would further shift decision-making away from science, away from democratic accountability, and away from the basic values that the public overwhelmingly supports.
The United States is in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. From frogs to monarch butterflies, wolverines to manatees and owls to salmon, our wild neighbors can’t survive if we let political pressure override what the science tells us clearly: species on the brink and the ecosystems they rely on require bold, proactive protection.
A 30-day public comment period is now open. We need a strong public record showing that people across the country reject these rollbacks and support a democratic, science-based approach to wildlife governance.
Take Action for the Endangered Species Act
Agencies are required by law to read and respond to all substantive, unique comments. This is one of the most important democratic tools we have to push back.
Below is a guide to help you craft your own comment. Once you’ve read through the guide, head to the bottom of the post for direct links to each docket where you can submit your comment.
Your comment doesn’t need to be long. What matters is that it’s yours. Your voice matters—and right now, it’s needed more than ever.
How to Write an Effective Public Comment
Public comments are one of the most effective tools available to ordinary people (not lobbyists, not industry groups) to influence federal rules. But for that influence to count, comments must be unique, substantive, and grounded in your own perspective.
This guide is designed to help you do exactly that. Below, you’ll find a clear explanation of why personalized comments carry far more weight than form letters, along with sample sentences to help you craft a comment in your own words.
Agencies are legally obligated to consider and respond to each unique point raised in public comments, especially ones grounded in science, democratic process, and the public interest.
When thousands of people raise similar (but individually expressed) concerns, agencies must address them in the final rule or explain why they disagree.
Form letters, by contrast, are often lumped together and counted once.
If 20,000 people submit the same pasted paragraph, it is treated as a single comment representing 20,000 signatures—not 20,000 pieces of input. Form letters still matter symbolically, but they don’t carry the same weight in the rulemaking process.
Your own words have power. A few sentences of your perspective, values, or lived experience are far more influential than pages of copy-and-paste text.
You don’t need to be an expert. You just need to be clear about:
- Your interest in wildlife or healthy ecosystems
Mexican gray wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, Robin Silver
- Why these proposed rules concern you
- How they undermine science, democratic decision-making, or public interest
- What you want the agency to do instead
Keep it grounded, science-based, and values-forward. A paragraph or two is enough.
Below are plug-and-play lines you can adapt. (Do not copy them word-for-word—adjust them so they reflect your voice and experience.)
Open With Your Interest
- I am submitting this comment because biodiversity and healthy ecosystems matter deeply to me.
- As someone who lives in _____ and regularly sees the effects of habitat loss, I am concerned about weakening protections for imperiled species.
- I care about science-informed stewardship of the wildlife in this country.
Emphasize Science & Values
- The Endangered Species Act works because it centers science and the public interest—not political pressure or economic influence.
- Science can tell us what species need to survive; values determine whether we choose to protect them. These rules shift decision-making away from both.
- The proposed changes would allow industry considerations to outweigh both biological need and scientific reality.
List Concerns with the Proposed Rule Changes
- Proposed Classification Rule (Section 4): Removing automatic protections from newly listed species places vulnerable wildlife at risk before recovery efforts even begin. Newly listed species could go unprotected while recovery is delayed.
- Proposed 4(d) Rule (Section 4(d)): Eliminating the blanket rule for threatened species allows inconsistent protections and delays recovery for imperiled wildlife at a time when they need the fullest protection we can provide.
- Proposed Exclusion Rule (Section 4(b)(2)): Narrowing criteria for critical habitat exclusions could allow economic interests to override habitat protection, threatening ecosystem health. If economic interests weigh more than essential habitat, entire ecosystems are at risk, not just wildlife species.
- Proposed Consultation Rule (Section 7): Limiting federal review of agency actions would make it easier for destructive projects to proceed without fully assessing impacts on endangered wildlife.
Highlight Democratic Process & Accountability
- Federal oversight is often the only check on state wildlife systems that are already heavily shaped by industry interests.
- These rollbacks reduce public accountability at a time when most Americans support stronger environmental conservation protections.
- A democratic, science-based process requires transparency and meaningful review.
Close With What You Want
- I urge the agency to withdraw these proposed rules and maintain the ESA’s strong, science-based protections.
- Please strengthen, not weaken, federal safeguards so states and industry cannot sidestep responsibility to protect imperiled wildlife.
- I ask you to uphold the intent of the ESA: preventing extinction and ensuring future generations inherit thriving, resilient ecosystems.
Submit Your Comment
Now that you’ve written your comments, submit them to each of the four dockets at Regulations.gov:
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0039 (Section 4: listing & delisting)
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0044 (Section 7: federal consultation/interagency cooperation)
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0029 (Section 4(d): threatened species protections)
- FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0048 (Section 4(b)(2): critical habitat exclusions)
Thank you for taking action. At Wildlife for All, we believe that everyone deserves a meaningful voice in how wildlife is governed. When we show up as an informed public, agencies must respond, and the official record becomes stronger, more democratic, and more reflective of the values most people hold: science, coexistence, and a future where ecosystems can thrive.
Science must guide decisions about wildlife. Corporate influence should not. And endangered species deserve more than a political process designed to let them disappear quietly.