News & Commentary
Mulchatna Bear Control: Why Alaska’s Aerial Gunning Program Demands Reform
If You’re Horrified by Alaska’s Bear Gunning, This Is Why State Wildlife Governance Matters
This is not an isolated controversy. It is a warning about how wildlife governance works across the United States, and why systemic reform is urgently needed.
What’s Happening in Alaska?
Image courtesy of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaska Board of Game have authorized the large-scale killing of brown and black bears across roughly 40,000 square miles in Southwest Alaska as part of the Mulchatna predator control program.
State officials argue the killings are intended to increase caribou numbers for hunting opportunities. But many wildlife scientists, former Alaska wildlife officials, conservation organizations, and members of the public dispute both the scientific basis and legality of the program.
According to Alaska Wildlife Alliance, nearly 200 bears — including at least 36 cubs — were killed between 2023 and 2025. Some were shot only miles from federally protected landscapes connected to Katmai National Park and Brooks Falls, home to some of the nation’s most beloved brown bears.
Multiple lawsuits have challenged the program. Courts have previously ruled that aspects of the policy were unlawfully adopted without proper public process or sufficient scientific review. Judges have also criticized state officials for acting in “bad faith.”
Yet the killings continue. Despite years of public opposition, lawsuits, court rulings, and criticism from former state biologists, Alaska has resumed aerial gunning operations once again.
Mulchatna Is a Governance Crisis
What’s happening in Alaska is not just about one predator control program; it reveals a deeper structural problem in wildlife governance.
Across the country, a small number of appointed officials on state wildlife commissions and game boards make decisions that shape predator policy, biodiversity, ecosystem health, habitat management, and coexistence, often with limited public accountability and under intense pressure from politically entrenched interests.
In many states:
- Wildlife commissions are dominated by narrow interests rather than broad public representation.
- Public participation is limited or minimized.
- Agencies rely heavily on hunting and fishing revenue structures that can skew management priorities toward a small number of species and perceived small list of “legitimate” stakeholders.
- Science is often overridden by political pressure, and whole bodies of science around ecosystem health and coexistence are often minimized or ignored.
- Wildlife are treated primarily as resources for extraction rather than as vital members of ecosystems.
The Mulchatna bear program reflects all of these failures at once.
According to retired Alaska wildlife biologists who publicly opposed the program, there is weak evidence that large-scale bear killing will restore the Mulchatna caribou herd. Research and agency reports have pointed to climate impacts, habitat change, disease, and other ecological pressures as major contributors to the herd’s decline.
At the same time, Alaska moved forward with aggressive predator removal despite lacking sufficient bear population data in the region. That is politically driven management under the banner of “science.”
The Board of Game reinstated this program despite major public opposition, legal challenges, and warnings from former agency biologists. Courts have repeatedly deferred to agency discretion on technical wildlife decisions, which means the structure, transparency, and values of wildlife governance itself become critically important.
It’s important to note that this is not just a debate about one predator control program; it is a case study in how wildlife governance systems function.
State wildlife commissions and agencies make decisions every year that affect entire ecosystems. Those decisions are often framed as “science-based,” but science does not operate outside systems of power, political priorities, funding structures, and public accountability.
Wildlife Belongs to the Public
Wildlife are held in the public trust. That means state agencies are supposed to manage wildlife for current and future generations, not only for the loudest or most politically influential constituencies.
But the public cannot meaningfully shape wildlife policy if decisions are made behind closed doors, if public input is minimized, or if governance systems exclude diverse voices and values.
This is why Wildlife for All focuses on systemic change: because if the public is excluded from decision-making until after harmful policies are already in place, communities are left constantly fighting defensive battles instead of proactively shaping ethical, democratic, science-informed wildlife policy from the beginning.
Wildlife governance should not be controlled by the loudest or most politically entrenched interests. It should reflect biodiversity protection, ecological science, democratic participation, coexistence, and the public trust responsibility to steward wildlife for all life.
These decisions move through wildlife governance systems: state game boards, agencies, regulatory processes, and political structures that shape whose voices are prioritized and what values drive policy. And once policies are approved, courts often defer to agencies and boards on “technical wildlife management decisions,” making harmful programs extremely difficult to stop after the fact.
We cannot spend the next 30 years only reacting after policies are already in motion and wildlife are already being killed.
Instead of constantly scrambling to respond after wildlife has already been harmed, we need to change the systems that keep producing these outcomes in the first place. We must build a system of wildlife governance that is more democratic, transparent, science-informed, and accountable to the public — not just politically entrenched interests.
In our view, state wildlife governance should:
- Be democratic and transparent
- Follow science-informed policy grounded in ecosystem health
- Create pathways for public accountability in wildlife decision-making
- Include diverse representation on wildlife commissions
- Fund conservation to support biodiversity protect and value for all species
- Root policy in coexistence, ecological integrity, and justice for all life
Because wildlife management decisions should not be controlled by narrow political interests at the expense of ecosystems, predators, biodiversity, and public trust.
Take Action
Let’s fight the short-term and the long-term battles. Right now, your voice is needed. Contact Alaska leaders and urge them to end aerial predator control TODAY:
Governor Mike Dunleavy
Instagram: @govmikedunleavy
Phone: (907) 465-3500
Contact: https://aws.state.ak.us/crmforms/home/feedback
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Instagram: @adfg.official
Phone: (907) 465-4100
Contact: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=contacts.emailus
Alaska Board of Game
Email: dfg.bog.comments@alaska.gov
Phone: (907) 465-4110
Talking Points
- Nearly 200 bears, including cubs, have already been killed through aerial gunning operations in Southwest Alaska.
- The program was originally adopted without proper public process or sufficient bear population data.
- Multiple courts have found aspects of the program unlawful or criticized the State’s actions and process.
- Retired Alaska wildlife biologists and former agency officials have publicly questioned the scientific justification for the program.
- Research and agency reports suggest climate impacts, disease, habitat conditions, and other ecological pressures are major drivers of the Mulchatna caribou decline, not simply bear predation.
- Bears reproduce slowly. Removing large numbers of bears, including females and cubs, can have long-term ecological consequences.
- Wildlife belongs to the public and should be managed transparently, ethically, and using the best available science.
- Alaska should invest in science-based wildlife management, habitat restoration, monitoring, and ecosystem resilience , not costly predator eradication programs.
- People cannot meaningfully participate in wildlife governance if decisions are made behind closed doors or with limited public input.
Wildlife belongs to all of us, and to themselves, not just the loudest or most politically entrenched interests. Decisions that affect predators, biodiversity, ecosystems, and coexistence should not happen without meaningful public accountability.
Sample Email/Call Script
Hello, my name is [NAME], and I’m calling to urge [OFFICIAL/AGENCY] to oppose the Mulchatna bear control program and end aerial gunning of bears in Southwest Alaska.
I’m deeply concerned that nearly 200 bears — including cubs — have already been killed under a program that has faced repeated legal challenges and widespread criticism from scientists, former wildlife officials, and the public.
I believe wildlife management decisions should be guided by credible science, transparency, and ecosystem health, not politically driven predator control programs adopted without adequate public process or sufficient bear population data.
Bears are an essential part of healthy ecosystems, and large-scale aerial killing programs raise serious ecological and ethical concerns.
I urge [OFFICIAL/AGENCY] to:
- End the Mulchatna bear control program,
- Invest in habitat research on the Mulchatna caribou herd,
- Ensure transparent public process and accountability in wildlife governance,
- And prioritize long-term ecosystem health over politically driven predator eradication.
Thank you for your time.
Photo of Grizzly 399 and Spirit by C. Adams, Grand Teton National Park
The future of wildlife will not be decided only in Congress or the courts. It is also being decided in state commission meetings, regulatory hearings, funding structures, and governance systems that most people never hear about until a crisis erupts. This is exactly why reforming state wildlife commissions and agencies matters.
And that reality has to change, because people cannot protect what they are excluded from.
Join us to shape the long-term fight for real change too.
Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act: What It Means and What To Do Next
The Supreme Court Just Gutted the Voting Rights Act
Here’s What That Means, and Why This Moment Demands Action
Jump to the bottom for how to take action.
Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called it the “completed demolition” of the Voting Rights Act.
That’s not hyperbole; it’s a clear description of what just happened.
For decades, the Voting Rights Act has been one of the most effective civil rights laws in U.S. history, a cornerstone of our multiracial democracy. It created the legal tools to challenge racial discrimination in voting, including the ability to contest maps that dilute the political power of Black and Brown communities.
With this decision, the Roberts Court removed a key check on abuse of power by politicians: the protection that stopped them from rigging voting maps to choose their voters. And while the ruling does not change voting maps today, it sends a clear signal that Republican legislatures are free to redraw voting maps and rig them against the will of the people.
The consequences of this ruling are already unfolding. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been one of the last remaining tools to challenge racial discrimination in voting and redistricting. Weakening it doesn’t just change how maps are drawn. It changes who has power in this country, at every level of government.
Across the South and beyond, states are moving quickly to redraw district maps in ways that reduce or eliminate representation for communities of color. In Louisiana, officials have gone so far as to disrupt an ongoing election process to redraw maps. In Mississippi, lawmakers are convening in a historic building tied to the Jim Crow era to take up new redistricting, symbolism that underscores exactly what’s at stake.
In some regions, particularly across the South, this could lock in long-term political control that does not reflect the majority of residents.
This is a rapid reordering of political power. At its core, this decision is about representation: who gets a voice in decisions that shape their lives, and who is sidelined.
The impacts extend far beyond congressional seats. State legislatures, county commissions, city councils: these are the bodies that determine policies on housing, healthcare, education, land use, and environmental protections.
Dozens of congressional seats and hundreds of state legislative seats could move out of the hands of Black and Brown communities. That translates into durable political majorities that do not reflect the public, and are less accountable to it. When representation is diluted, those decisions shift.
This is more serious than many people realize, and it affects everyone. When districts are drawn to insulate power rather than reflect people, it becomes harder to pass any policy that requires public accountability: whether that’s acting on climate realities, expanding healthcare, or protecting communities from harm.
A functioning democracy is how we protect wildlife and ecosystems, secure clean water, rein in pollution, and respond to the climate crisis. When voting rights are weakened, so is the ability to address environmental injustice.
That has direct consequences for wildlife. Wildlife policy is shaped by the same systems of representation, accountability, and public participation that this decision just destabilized.
Voting Rights Are a Wildlife Issue
It is easy to treat this ruling as separate from conservation but it isn’t. The systems that shape wildlife outcomes are the same systems that determine who has power, whose voices are heard, and what decisions get made.
When participation is limited and accountability weakens, policies drift away from science and public values, and toward the interests with the most access and influence.
That shows up everywhere: in federal policy, in state wildlife commissions, and in the local decisions that shape ecosystems on the ground. The outcomes people care about—wildlife protection, public lands, environmental safeguards, biodiversity—are all downstream of who holds power.
Meaningful conservation requires more than better policy. It requires systems that are transparent, accountable, and responsive to the public. Without that, even strong science and good intentions are not enough to produce durable change.
At Wildlife for All, we focus on state wildlife governance: the systems that determine how roughly 98% of wildlife is managed and whose values shape those decisions. These systems already operate with limited public accountability and disproportionate influence from narrow interest groups. Weakening voting rights deepens that imbalance, making it harder for communities (especially those already excluded) to shape the policies that affect the ecosystems they live in.
When voting rights are weakened, power consolidates, and when power consolidates, decisions about wildlife, land, and ecosystems move further away from the public and closer to industry interests that benefit from extraction and short-term gain.
That’s how we end up with public lands opened to intensified resource extraction, wildlife policies shaped by narrow stakeholder groups, and chronic underinvestment in coexistence and biodiversity protection.
Voting access is a wildlife issue. It’s a climate issue. It’s a justice issue. And it’s a democracy issue. Without meaningful participation, the system does not reflect the public interest; it just demonstrates who holds power.
This Decision Is Part of a Larger Pattern
The Callais ruling is designed to secure one-party rule for a generation: by buying influence and redrawing maps, billionaires are executing a legal coup hidden behind a court decision.
Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has steadily weakened the Voting Rights Act, first by gutting preclearance protections in 2013, and now by raising the bar for proving discrimination, further limiting the ability to challenge unfair maps.
Discrimination and exclusion are still very real in our country. The Voting Rights Act exists so everyone can come together and have an equal say, and this ruling erodes that right.
This move to gut the Voting Rights Act is a move fueled by fear. They are afraid of Black and brown voters. They are afraid of working people standing together to dismantle a rigged system because our collective power is their greatest threat.
The regime knows they’re losing, so instead of courting our votes, they are trying to keep Black and brown people from voting. They want to seize more power, controlling our elections so they can declare themselves the winners before we even cast our votes.
And it’s not happening in isolation. The same Court has issued decisions affecting reproductive rights, environmental protections, and regulatory authority, all of which consistently shift power upward, away from the public and toward institutions that are harder to influence.
This is what it looks like when the system stops working for the people it’s supposed to serve.
Congress Has the Power to Act, But It Won’t Without Pressure
The law itself is not the problem. Congress has the authority to restore and strengthen voting rights protections. It can pass legislation like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. It can set clear standards for fair representation.
What’s missing is not power; it’s political will. And political will does not materialize on its own. It is created by sustained, visible public pressure.
That means:
- Calling elected officials and asking directly what their plan is
- Showing up at town halls and public meetings
- Supporting organizations working on the ground in affected states
- Participating in protests, advocacy campaigns, and coalition efforts
- Making this issue impossible to ignore
This moment is both serious and urgent, and it’s time for action at every level, from local to national. This is about whether our votes have power and whether we choose our leaders, or politicians choose their voters instead.
The question now is whether people respond at the scale the moment requires. That includes building broader coalitions across race, geography, and political identity. It includes having difficult conversations with people who may not see the issue the same way but share a stake in a functioning democracy. It includes exposing how these decisions affect real lives, not just abstract principles.
We must also recognize that this is long-term work. Yes, some changes will happen quickly like legal challenges, protests, and legislative proposals, but others will take years to rebuild protections, shift political dynamics, and create systems that are more resilient and more representative.
The important part right now is showing up. The Voting Rights Act exists because ordinary people marched, bled, and refused to back down. They defied the odds, and so will we. This fight is about making sure democracy works for everyone. We choose to stay in the struggle.
What Happens Next Depends on What People Do Now
It’s easy to look at a Supreme Court decision and assume the outcome is fixed. It’s not.
Courts shape the landscape, but they do not determine the full trajectory. That depends on what happens next: how people organize, how institutions respond, and whether public pressure is strong enough to force change.
Nobody cheats when they’re confident they have power on their side. The reason these efforts are happening is because power is contested.
Take Action
If you’re asking what to do, start with what’s immediately in front of you:
- Sign and share petitions calling for a real plan to restore voting rights
- Contact your representatives and ask where they stand, and what they’re doing: (202) 224-3121 is the Congressional switchboard number
- Support organizations leading this work, especially in the South and other impacted regions
- Stay informed about redistricting efforts in your state and speak out against any changes that disenfranchise specific groups
- Talk to people in your network—family, friends, colleagues—about why everyone is needed right now
The goal is to build the kind of public pressure and collective power that can reshape the systems behind it. The systems in place rely on disengagement, on people believing their participation doesn’t matter, and on issues being siloed so the full picture never comes into focus.These actions are not symbolic; they are how pressure builds and pressure is how systems change.
This is ultimately about whether the United States has a democracy that reflects its people, or a system where power is insulated from them. Whether communities most affected by policy decisions have a voice in shaping them, and whether the systems that govern everything from voting to wildlife management operate with accountability, transparency, and public trust. Those are not separate issues. They are the same issue, viewed from different angles.
If the goal is a future where decisions are grounded in science, values, and coexistence—for all life—then the starting point is a democracy where people actually have power.
May Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at May Wildlife Commission Meetings.
May Wildlife Commission Meetings
This month, 28 state wildlife commissions are holding meetings that will shape how wildlife is managed across the country. If you’ve been paying attention to how these systems work, you already know the problem: decisions are often made without broad public input, even though wildlife is a public trust resource.
That only changes if people show up, speak on the record, and make it clear that these decisions are being watched.This month, there are 28 opportunities to do exactly that.
Below, you’ll find a list of May wildlife commission meetings by state and date. Visit our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare your comments or testimony—and turn this moment into action for wildlife in 2026.
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: May 4
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: Click here for agenda and details
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.
Colorado
Meeting Date: May 6-7
Location: Grand Junction Convention Center, 159 Main St., Grand Junction, CO 81501
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m.. Written comments will be accepted at any time. However, to ensure sufficient time for consideration prior to the meeting, comments should be provided to the Division of Parks and Wildlife by noon on Thursday, April 30. The virtual comment sign-up deadline is May 1 at noon MT. Email the commission (though these won’t be counted in the official public record if received after noon on 4/30). Watch the livestream.
Idaho
Meeting Date: May 6-7
Location: Idaho Department of Fish and Game Panhandle Regional Office, 2885 W. Kathleen Ave., Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83815
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: 9:00 a.m. PT start. Virtual participation available via Zoom. Call-in number: 253-215-8782 | Webinar ID: 912 8782 3590
Louisiana
Meeting Date: May 7
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Zoom.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: May 7-8
Location: Custer State Park Event Barn, Custer, SD
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: May 7, 1-5 p.m. MT | May 8, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. MT. Livestream link. Participate virtually using the Zoom Meeting Link. To join via conference call, dial 1.719.359.4580 | Webinar ID: 1 719 359 4580 | Passcode: 970458. Inform Gail Buus at gail.buus@state.sd.us by 1 p.m. CT 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).
Arizona
Meeting Date: May 8
Location: Yavapai County Administrative Services Building, Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 1st Floor, 1015 Fair Street, Prescott, AZ 86305
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##.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: May 8
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agenda and details here. (Note no agenda available as of 5/1)
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: May 8-9
Location: Washoe County Administrative Complex, Building A, Commission Chambers, 1001 E. Ninth Street, Reno, NV 89512
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: If you wish to make public comment, please use this link for Friday, May 8. Passcode: 484334. For Saturday, March 14, use this link. Passcode: 417326. Submit written comments on items prior to the meeting at wildlifecommission@ndow.org or attend and make comment during 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. 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.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: May 12
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 (note: no agenda available as of 5/1)
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.
Florida
Meeting Date: May 13
Location: Caloosa Sound Convention Center, Caloosa Ballroom, 1375 Monroe St, Fort Myers, FL 33901
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. Public comments will be accepted in person during the meeting. For in-person comments, please review the speaker registration guidelines at https://myfwc.com/about/commission/. Advance comments are due by 5 p.m. the Friday before the meeting. If you would like to provide comments via mail, please send those comments to: FWC Commissioners, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. If you do not wish or are unable to speak at the meeting but would like to provide comments, you may do so using the online comment form or by contacting the Commissioners directly via email at commissioners@myfwc.com.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: May 13
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details. (Note no agenda available as of 5/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.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.
Additionally, the Fisheries and Wildlife Board will hold a joint meeting with the DCR Stewardship Council on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 12:30 p.m., at the MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts, and in a Zoom webinar. Keep checking the above links for agenda and participation details.
Michigan
Meeting Date: May 13
Location: Treetops Resort Conference Center, 3962 Wilkinson Rd., Gaylord, Michigan, 49735
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. Persons registering to provide comments on a topic listed on the agenda on or before the Friday preceding the meeting will be allowed up to 5 minutes for their comments. Persons registering to comment on a topic not listed on the agenda, after the Friday preceding the meeting, or at the meeting will be allowed up to 3 minutes. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments on agenda items, please write to Natural Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, or email nrc@michigan.gov. Read more on the Commission website. Watch the livesteam here.
Utah
All agendas and meeting dates available here: https://wildlife.utah.gov/meetings (drop-down menus)
RAC meeting items
• Upland game and turkey recommendations
• Fishing informational – online survey
May 12 – CR
May 13 – NR
May 19 – SR – DNR Richfield City Complex
May 20 – SER
May 21 – NER
Utah’s Commission next meets on 6/11 but the RAC meetings inform the agenda items for the Commission and are the best opportunity to submit public comment. Continue to push back against Utah’s flawed and misguided plan to kill mountain lions year-round in several game management units.
California – Wildlife Resources Committee Only
Meeting Date: May 14
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 8:30 a.m.
Iowa
Meeting Date: May 14
Location:Butch Olofson Shooting Range, 11652 NW Nissen Dr, Polk City, IA 50226
Details: Click here for details and agenda (no agenda as of 5/1).
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.
Washington – Committees Only, No Commission Meeting
Meeting Date: May 14
Location: Web conference only
| May 14, 2026 Special Fish Committee Meeting – 1pm | Web conference |
| May 14, 2026 Special Wildlife Committee Meeting – 3pm | Web conference |
| May 14-16, 2026 – CANCELLED | Hybrid – Sequim |
| May 14, 2026 Special Big Tent Committee Meeting – 10am | Web conference |
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda available as of 5/1)
Notes: The agenda has many, many links to register for Zoom participant on the different days and how to comment on agenda items; you must look at this webpage to fully participate. 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.
Oregon
Meeting Date: May 15
Location: Virtual only
Details: Click here for details and agenda (note no agenda available as of 5/1)
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 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 in advance of the meeting for approval. Meeting is livestreamed here.
Georgia
Meeting Date: May 19
Location: DNR Board Room, 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE Suite 1252 East, Atlanta, GA 30334
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Watch online here. Comments are in person only. Join via Zoom by registering. Meeting ID: 837 1224 2696 | Passcode: 702784
Indiana
Meeting Date: May 19
Location: Fort Harrison State Park, The Garrison, 6002 North Post Road, Indianapolis, IN
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note that this shows March meeting info as of 5/1 but we expect it to be updated before the meeting start)
Notes:10 a.m. ET/9 a.m. CT. All meeting agendas are posted a week prior to the meeting.
Action: Oppose the unscientific bobcat hunting season in the rulemaking docket.
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: May 19
Location:Gunstock Mountain Resort, 719 Cherry Valley Rd., Gilford, NH 03249
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.
Arkansas
Meeting Date: May 20-21
Location: Little Rock, location TBD
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 5/1)
Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. Watch the meeting on YouTube.
Vermont
Meeting Date: May 20
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Attend the meeting virtually: Meeting ID: 282 535 999 934 4 Passcode: jr2FX2Dp Or call in (audio only): +1 802-828-7667,,884135585# Phone Conference ID: 884 135 585# Full meeting schedule for 2026 is here.
Action: Oppose the petition to extend the bear hunting season and to add bear baiting.
Public Hearings on 2026 Deer Season Proposal: Upcoming public meetings are as follows. Public comments may be emailed to ANR.fwpubliccomment@vermont.gov.
- Tuesday May 5, 6:30 p.m. at U-32 High School, 930 Gallison Hill Road, Montpelier, Vt.
- Thursday May 7, 6:30 p.m. at Green Mountain Conservation Camp, Kehoe, 636 Point of Pines Rd, Castleton, Vt.
Virginia
Meeting Date: May 20-21
Location: 7870 Villa Park Dr, Suite 400, Henrico, VA 23228
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda or details available as of 5/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. May 21. Public comment on agenda items and non-agenda items are welcome at any regularly scheduled Board or Board Committee meeting. The following committees meet sequentially starting at 9 a.m. on May 20: Finance, Audit, and Compliance; Education, Planning and Outreach; Wildlife and Boat; and Law Enforcement.
Hawai’i—Meeting 2
Meeting Date: May 22
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.
Texas
Meeting Date: May 27-28
Location: TPWD Headquarters in Austin, Texas
Details: Click here for agenda 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. Comment online through 5 p.m. May 27, 2026.
- Texas Statewide Recreational Trails Grants Funding – Recommended Approval of Trail Construction, Renovation, and Acquisition Projects
- Public Hunting Program – Establishment of an Open Season on Public Hunting Lands and Approval of Public Hunting Activities on State Parks
- Mountain Lion Harvest Reporting – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes
- Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules – Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes
Wisconsin
Meeting Date: May 27
Location: TBA
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details (note the agenda for May was not available as of 5/1)
Notes: The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. The public is encouraged to watch live on YouTube. 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.
Missouri
Meeting Date: MAY 28-29
Location: MDC Headquarters, 2901 W Truman Blvd., Jefferson City, MO 65102
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda available as of 5/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. 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
New Mexico
Meeting Date: May 28
Location: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Fidel Student Union Building, 801 Leroy Pl., Socorro, NM 87801
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 www.youtube.com/user/NMGameandFish. Comments will not be taken on the live webcast or on YouTube.
Action: Review and comment on the big game proposals under consideration.
Mississippi
Meeting Date: TBD
Location: TBD
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.
Maine
Meeting Date: TBD
Location: TBD
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.
Wildlife Services Killing Wolves: Why a Protected Wolf’s Death Was Not a Mistake
Wildlife Services Killing Wolves: Why a Protected Wolf’s Death Was Not a Mistake
Photo of a gray wolf collared in Northern California taken by CDFW wolf biologist Axel Hunnicutt.
Wildlife Services Killed a Protected Wolf in Oregon. That Wasn’t a Mistake. It Was the System Working as Designed.
BEY09M/CA102, a federally protected gray wolf traveled from California into Oregon. He was collared and tracked by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and had possibly found a mate in western Oregon.
He was killed by a federal program that said it was targeting coyotes.
According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s annual wolf report, USDA Wildlife Services killed two protected wolves in Klamath County, Oregon last summer. One of them was BEY09M/CA102.
This is a single sentence in a 12-page report and is being described as a “mistake.”
Even if you take that at face value, there are still basic questions that have not been answered. How does a Wildlife Services employee fail to distinguish between a wolf and a coyote? Why did it take so long for this to come to light? And what accountability exists when a federally protected animal is killed by the very systems meant to manage wildlife?
But focusing only on whether this was a mistake misses the larger point: this is what the system produces.
Wildlife Services and the Logic of Indiscriminate Killing
We know Wildlife Services is a rogue federal killing program that operates with limited transparency and minimal accountability. Each year, it kills more than 2 million animals across the country, including coyotes, mountain lions, bears, and federally protected species like condors and bald eagles.
The agency’s methods include aerial gunning, cyanide bombs, neck snares, leghold traps, and poisons. These are not precision tools but are indiscriminate methods designed for broad removal. Non-target animals are routinely caught in traps and killed, and much of this killing takes place on public lands, at a cost of more than $100 million annually to taxpayers.
Peer-reviewed research has repeatedly shown that this kind of indiscriminate lethal control destabilizes ecosystems. It can increase conflict by disrupting animal social structures, alter predator-prey dynamics, and accelerate biodiversity loss.
When a protected wolf is killed under this system, it is not an isolated error. It is a predictable outcome of how Wildlife Services operates. When “mistakes” like this happen, they are symptoms of a structure that prioritizes lethal control, lacks oversight, and too often operates outside public view.
When a system is built around maximizing lethal control, errors are built into the structure itself.
BEY10M, BEY09M/CA102’s brother, looks at the camera in a photo taken by CDFW wolf biologist Axel Hunnicutt. BEY09M/CA102 was “mistakenly” killed in Klamath County, Oregon, by USDA Wildlife Services in a coyote-focused predator control operation.
Wolves Recovery is Still Fragile
Gray wolves in California and western Oregon remain protected under the Endangered Species Act because recovery is still incomplete.
California’s wolf population is small and still expanding and Oregon’s western population has not yet met recovery goals. Dispersing wolves like BEY09M/CA102 play a critical role in that recovery process by establishing new territories and forming new packs.
Each individual matters.
In this case, the loss may also mean the loss of a potential breeding pair and a future pack. That is not just the death of one animal. It is a setback for regional recovery across state lines.
It also highlights a deeper contradiction. On one hand, state and federal agencies invest in tracking, monitoring, and recovering wolves. On the other, a federal program operating under a different mandate kills them.
That is not coordination. It is fragmentation.
A System Out of Alignment With Conservation
Wildlife Services reflects an outdated model of wildlife governance: one that prioritizes lethal control, responds to private interests, and operates with limited public oversight. That model is not equipped to meet the demands of a biodiversity crisis.
It is also out of step with public values as most people support coexistence, science-informed decision-making, and the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems. Yet the institutions responsible for wildlife management, including Wildlife Services, often operate according to a different set of priorities, beholden to the pressures of large trophy hunting lobbying or livestock industry demands.
This is not just a policy failure; it is a governance failure that fails to meet the needs of the majority.
Wildlife is a public trust resource. Decisions about wildlife should reflect the full public, not a narrow set of interests or a legacy system built around extraction and control.
The Path Forward: Turn Wildlife Services to Coexistence
Accountability in this case should not be optional, and this moment calls for more than an investigation: it calls for structural reform.
Our organizational long-term roadmap calls for dismantling Wildlife Services and replacing it with a federal coexistence program to shift away from indiscriminate killing toward non-lethal management, conflict prevention, and science-informed coexistence strategies that support both wildlife and communities. The goal is not simply to reduce harm, but to fundamentally shift the approach to human-wildlife relationships.
A federal coexistence program would prioritize non-lethal management, conflict prevention, and science-informed coexistence strategies that support both wildlife and communities. It would invest in tools that are already proven to reduce conflict, including technical tools like fladry and foxlights, range riders, livestock guardian animals, husbandry shifts, carcass management, and landscape-level planning.
It also means building a broader federal framework for biodiversity.
Right now, the United States lacks a coordinated national strategy for biodiversity protection. A modern system would include a federal biodiversity office to align conservation efforts across agencies, as well as durable public funding mechanisms that are not tied to hunting and fishing license sales.
That funding could support state-level biodiversity programs, restoration efforts, and community-based conservation work. It would also allow state wildlife agencies to move beyond a narrow focus on game species and toward a comprehensive mandate to protect ecosystems and all species.
Finally, reform requires democratizing decision-making. Wildlife governance must reflect the people it serves. That means increasing transparency, expanding public participation, and ensuring that policy is guided by science and the full range of public values.
Because this is not just about one wolf; it is about whether the institutions responsible for wildlife are capable of protecting it. And right now? They’re failing.
Join us to call for bottom-up change to the entire system.
Unreliable population estimates are guiding Montana wolf and Florida black bear management
A gray wolf stands amidst tree cover, staring at the camera. Image courtesy of The Seattle Times.
The biggest myth in wildlife policy is that it’s purely scientific. Not sure what we mean? Let’s look at two very different scenarios with the same fundamental problem.
Two different states, two different species, same underlying problem
In Montana, some policymakers have spent years escalating a war on wolves: expanding kill limits, legalizing tactics like snaring and night hunting, and removing safeguards to drive populations down. However, despite decreased protections, reported wolf kills this year fell below the 10-year average. Not because the system worked – rather, a warm, low-snow winter made wolves harder to track and a shortened trapping season reduced pressure.
Critically, the state wildlife agency’s approach to wolf management is built on shaky ground to begin with. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks relies on the Integrated Patch Occupancy Model (iPOM), a tool designed to estimate where wolves are, not how many exist. The iPOM model predicts distribution, not abundance. iPOM data is based on hunter observation and lacks peer review. In absence of more precise population modeling, reliance on iPOM could erroneously label declining wolf populations as stable. Montana’s aggressive wolf-hunting policies do not align with ecological principles or data, and lack reasonable safeguards for wolf populations. Without reliable population data, setting quotas to kill hundreds of wolves is not “responsible science-based management”, it’s guesswork with consequences.
In Florida, we see a parallel failure when state officials authorized a hunt quota of 172 black bears despite clear warning signs. Only one black bear subpopulation in the state has recent abundance data available, and in that unit, bear density declined by roughly two-thirds between 2014 and 2024. In this area, the Osceola National Forest Region, densities per square kilometer dropped from 0.12 to 0.04 (or down from 3 bears to 1 bear for every 25 square kilometers). Updated bear population estimates for other regions are still years away. Science would dictate waiting before authorizing a recreational hunt. Instead, the hunt moved forward. And while bear advocates intervened to buy licenses and helped reduce the final toll to 52 bears, those lives were still lost within a system that ignored its own data.
Perceptions of bears and wolves
The current wildlife management system is fundamentally undemocratic and does not adequately center ecological health or evolving public values. The loudest voices in carnivore policy (such as social media posts and lobbying efforts demonstrating extreme intolerance for wolves) are not necessarily the majority opinion in that state or region. These voices may override data, ecology, and fair representation in the decision-making process.
Recent Montana FWP surveys found that among ungulate hunters and general residents, attitudes towards wolves have significantly grown more positive. Support for wolves was especially high in Missoula and Gallatin counties (where the state’s two major universities are located) as well as the counties surrounding them. Most Montanans who encountered wild wolves, heard their howls, or discovered tracks described the interactions as positive rather than invoking fear. At the same time, Montanans’ tolerance for wolf hunting and trapping is significantly decreasing. Lowering or eliminating protections for carnivores like wolves does not decrease poaching or improve tolerance. In the Montana survey, wolf hunters and trappers themselves held the highest (and consistent) intolerance for the species, and make up a small minority of Montana’s residents.
Over 75% of public comments from Floridians who submitted input opposed this bear hunt. Opposition to baiting and hounding methods for hunting bears was even stronger. Recreational hunting is not necessary for black bear-human conflict management – it is a values-based decision. In Florida, most bear conflicts are resolved simply by securing trash and removing other attractants.
These two case studies showcase different species and different states, but the underlying pattern is the same. Hunt decisions proceeded without a reliable understanding of what wildlife populations can sustain.
Take Action
Wildlife management is often presented as science-driven. But in practice, state decisions routinely move forward on incomplete data and flawed assumptions. Values that prioritize “hunter opportunity” and normalize predator eradication shape the system, overriding both science and common sense.
Montana wolves and Florida black bears are just two examples of broader systemic problems in wildlife management. Wildlife deserve a system that gets it right by design: one that centers current science, accounts for uncertainty, and reflects the values of the public who believe in coexistence. Right now, we don’t have that system. And until we do, wildlife will continue to pay the price. Join us in building a wildlife governance system that is democratic, accountable, and grounded in both science and public values.
The Reality of Conservation In the United States
The Reality of Conservation In the United States
2025 webcam image capture of Mac Tíre (left) and Ginger, endangered red wolves at the Wolf Conservation Center in South Salem, New York
Who Is Actually Doing Conservation Work for Wildlife and Ecosystems?
Earth Day is tomorrow. Across the country, people will show up to do the actual work of conservation: restoring native habitat, monitoring species, cleaning waterways, removing invasives, and taking care of the places wildlife depend on.
That work is not symbolic. It improves soil health, increases biodiversity, restores habitat connectivity, supports pollinators, and stabilizes ecosystems that species rely on to survive. It is measurable, it is ongoing, and it is largely carried out by people who are not part of the hunting and fishing system.
And yet, that work is rarely centered in how conservation is defined or discussed by state wildlife agencies.
Instead, there is a persistent claim that hunting is conservation, and that wildlife depends on it to survive. That framing elevates one funding mechanism and one set of activities above all others, while sidelining the broader base of people and practices that are actually sustaining ecosystems across the country.
That claim doesn’t hold up, and it is used to reinforce a system where a small segment of the public maintains disproportionate influence over wildlife policy, funding, and management, while the majority of people contributing to conservation remain largely excluded from decision-making.
The result is a widespread definition of conservation that does not match reality. It obscures where conservation is happening, who is doing it, and what wildlife actually needs … all in the middle of a biodiversity crisis.
The Claim That Hunting Is Conservation
Hunters and anglers do contribute to state wildlife agency budgets, but they are not the sole source of funding and not even the majority when all revenue streams are accounted for. License sales make up a portion of agency funding, and federal excise taxes are often cited as hunter-funded, but most of those dollars come from purchases unrelated to hunting. A significant share of conservation funding also comes from the general public through taxes and other sources.
The claim that hunting is conservation helps maintain the status quo. It narrows the definition of conservation to activities tied to a specific user group and justifies a governance structure that does not reflect the values or participation of the majority of people.
More importantly, state wildlife agencies are not synonymous with conservation. A large portion of their work is focused on managing game species for harvest, maintaining hunting and fishing access, and producing opportunity for license buyers. That is a specific mandate, not a comprehensive conservation strategy.
Wildlife is a public trust resource that belongs to all of us (and to themselves), and everyone working to save them should be recognized for their contributions and be given a voice in decision-making.
Conservation Beyond State Wildlife Agencies
Meanwhile, much of the work that actually protects biodiversity happens outside that system. Activities like stream cleanups, native bee counts, planting native species, building birdhouses, clearing litter from roadways, and all the ways people show up for the planet on Earth Day and every day all help conserve wildlife and ecosystems. That work is largely funded and carried out by the broader public.
Conservation in this moment requires more than maintaining existing systems. It requires aligning wildlife governance with science, with the full scope of conservation work happening on the ground, and with the public that is already showing up to do that work.
If that alignment does not happen, the gap between what people are doing for wildlife and how decisions are made about wildlife will continue to grow.
How are you helping wildlife tomorrow? And what are you changing in your daily life to help them every day?
Conservationists Celebrate Release of Mexican Gray Wolves in México and Urge Family Pack Releases in the U.S.
Conservationists Celebrate Release of Mexican Gray Wolves in México and Urge Family Pack Releases in the U.S.
For immediate release April 8, 2026
“¡Que vivan los lobos!” – Conservationists Celebrate Release of Mexican Gray Wolves in Durango, México and Urge Family Pack Releases in the U.S.
TUCSON, Ariz. – Conservationists are celebrating the historic translocation of two families of Mexican gray wolves in Durango, Mexico, almost 50 years after the last wolves were removed from the state to initiate the captive breeding program that saved the subspecies from extinction.
Mexico has been releasing wolves in the states of Sonora and Chihuahua since 2011, but the Durango effort marks a major milestone in restoring wolves to a more southern part of their range. The wolves are in a pre-release pen and scheduled to be released into the wild in the coming weeks.
“Introducing these new wolf packs in Mexico is a sure sign that our partners to the south are dedicated to Mexican gray wolf recovery and our shared mission,” said Craig Miller, Defenders of Wildlife senior Southwest representative. “While we celebrate this moment today, we must remain vigilant on our side of the border and continue to be a stronghold for the Mexican gray wolf in the face of adversity.”
“While we celebrate this release of Mexican gray wolves in Mexico, we can’t ignore the ongoing barriers to recovery in Arizona and New Mexico, especially the outdated Interstate 40 boundary,” said Claire Musser, executive director, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “Agencies are supporting wolf restoration in one place while disregarding the science, and the wolves themselves, who have already demonstrated that the Grand Canyon ecoregion and northern New Mexico are critical to their future.”
Two wolf families from the U.S. were sent to Durango in March, including the Manada del Arroyo pack whose matriarch has been relocated to Mexico once before. Named “Llave” by U.S. schoolchildren, she was born in the U.S. in 2018, sent to Mexico in 2022, and moved freely back with her former mate, “Remus,” to southern New Mexico later that year. After Remus was killed in 2023, she was taken into captivity, paired with a wolf known as “Wonder,” and re-released into the Chiricahua Mountains of Arizona in April 2024. The pair and their puppies were taken back into captivity in May 2025.
“We’re delighted that there will once again be Mexican gray wolves in Mexico, roaming the forests of Durango, and we’re particularly impressed that the agencies released two entire families of wolves together,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. “This is how these highly-social animals should be released in the U.S. as well, both for the sake of the bonded individuals and to quickly improve the genetic diversity of the wild population.”
The second family of four wolves is composed of parents “Dave”, “Kali”, and their two children, all of whom were born in captivity in the US. Dave and Kali were both born in 2019, Dave at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge and Kali at the Endangered Wolf Center, and were introduced to one another in 2023.
“We’re thrilled for Dave, Kali, and their pups to experience the wild and get to live a life of freedom. Imagine how exciting it must be to see an open expanse of land with no fences in sight,” said Regan Downey, director of education and advocacy at the Wolf Conservation Center. “There are approximately 340 wolves waiting in facilities like ours around the U.S. and Mexico who deserve the same fate, and we’ll continue to advocate for their releases as well.”
“This is a great step in the restoration and recovery of the iconic and imperiled lobo,” said Chris Smith, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “Releasing bonded families of lobos is the most sensible way to bolster the population, whether in Mexico or the U.S. I hope to see similar releases in northern New Mexico, where wolves once roamed, in the not-too-distant future.”
“Llave and her family deserve their freedom, which was unjustly taken away from them by outdated livestock-first policies that impede recovery in the United States,” said Michelle Lute, PhD in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “Mexico’s leadership in restoring wolves as intact families shows what’s possible when science and coexistence guide policy. If the U.S. is equally serious about recovery, we must embrace policies that allow Mexican gray wolves to reclaim more of their historic range.”
“We are celebrating that these two wolf families are getting their freedom in a place where wild lobos have been absent for too long,” said Mary Katherine Ray, Wildlife Chair for the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club. “We applaud Mexico for releasing two complete and bonded wolf packs and continue to urge that the US Fish and Wildlife Service do the same north of the border where so much habitat remains empty without wolves.”
“The return of lobos to their historical range in Durango, Mexico marks an exciting milestone for Mexican gray wolves,” said Sally Paez, staff attorney for New Mexico Wild. “We commend the wildlife managers who are bringing this keystone species back to its natural habitat and the local communities who are working on coexistence and conservation efforts.”
“Every wolf stepping from captivity into the wild deserves to be celebrated,” said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s great to see reintroduction into wolfless habitats and specifically through releases of well-bonded family packs. I wish many exhilarating romps for these newly freed lobos. And I wish for the U.S. agencies to be inspired by the example from south of our border and allow wolves to wander the Grand Canyon and southern Rockies once again. We need truly connected landscapes that let wolves move safely across borders, beyond highways, and through corridors that support their natural dispersal.”
Wildlife for All is calling for people to take action by emailing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to thank them for releasing bonded Mexican gray wolf families in Mexico and to urge them to make this the standard in the U.S. using this email address: mexicanwolfcomments@fws.gov. Wildlife for All calls on the public to support policies that expand wolf recovery and hold agencies accountable to science and coexistence.
###
Wildlife for All Supports Washington Wildlife First Lawsuit
Wildlife for All supports Washington Wildlife First’s lawsuit against WDFW leadership.
Washington Wildlife First Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against WDFW Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope
Seattle, WA – Washington Wildlife First (WW1), its Executive Director Claire Loebs Davis, and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lorna Smith have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Director Kelly Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope, challenging what plaintiffs describe as a coordinated campaign to silence dissent and undermine independent oversight of the agency.
Filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint alleges that Susewind and Windrope used state authority, staff, and public resources to target, investigate, and discredit Washington Wildlife First, Davis, and Smith, in violation of their rights to their protected speech, advocacy, and association. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
The complaint describes a multi-year conflict between WDFW leadership and those calling for stronger wildlife protections, scientific integrity, transparency, and meaningful Commission oversight of the Department. Since 2021, WW1, Davis, and Smith have challenged numerous agency recommendations and pushed for greater accountability—efforts that increasingly influenced wildlife policy outcomes, most notably the Commission’s decision to halt the spring bear hunt after the Department failed to demonstrate a scientific management need.
According to the complaint, those policy disagreements—and the growing influence of independent commissioners and advocates—set the stage for the actions now at issue.
The complaint alleges that in early 2025, a convergence of events created an opening for retaliation: the new Governor declined to support commissioners who raised concerns about agency leadership, internal communications became available through public records, and agency leadership gained access to commissioner devices and records. According to the complaint, Susewind and Windrope used this moment to advance a targeted, internally directed effort to discredit and remove those commissioners and advocates who had most consistently called for oversight and reform.
That effort included directing staff to search and compile communications involving specific commissioners, diverting agency personnel and legal resources to construct allegations, and selectively curating materials—particularly involving Smith, Davis, WW1, and other wildlife advocates—while not undertaking comparable scrutiny of other commissioners despite evidence of similar behavior. The complaint alleges that this asymmetrical investigation was driven not by neutral enforcement, but by disagreement with the viewpoints expressed by those targeted.
This process culminated in the “Knoll Memo,” a document prepared at Susewind’s request that advanced unsupported, misleading, and inflammatory claims, and that was later used to support a formal investigation initiated by Governor Bob Ferguson. The lawsuit alleges that the memo—and the process used to produce it—was designed to manufacture the appearance of misconduct and justify retaliation.
At a press conference today, wildlife advocates and other experts concerned about a lack of government accountability, transparency and respect for public discourse and free speech explained why they support this legal action.
“This was never about enforcing rules—it was about removing dissent and oversight,” said Dr. Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila, WW1 Science & Advocacy Director. “Once that scrutiny began shaping decisions, instead of engaging with those concerns, Susewind and Windrope weaponized the department’s resources to go after the people responsible for it. That tells you everything you need to know.”
Civil rights attorney Alicia LeDuc Montgomery, who represents Washington Wildlife First and Davis, emphasized the constitutional stakes of the case:
“People in power cannot weaponize the machinery of government to punish citizens for speaking out and advocating for policy change,” said LeDuc Montgomery. “Our complaint alleges that state officials used public resources to target disfavored speakers and stigmatize protected advocacy simply because it did not align with their preferred views. That is not just improper—it is unconstitutional.”
The lawsuit argues that this selective targeting, investigation, and baseless accusations constitute unlawful retaliation and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. While WDFW leadership focused its internal investigative efforts on those calling for greater scrutiny and accountability, it did not pursue similar action against other commissioners or stakeholder groups—a disparity the complaint alleges is direct evidence of viewpoint-based enforcement.
The plaintiffs’ disagreements with WDFW leadership span major wildlife policy and governance issues, including opposing the return of recreational spring bear hunting, calling for reform of wolf management rules, opposing efforts to downlist wolves before recovery goals are met, raising concerns about hatchery policy and expansion, challenging the 2026 Game Management Plan and its lack of meaningful environmental review, and pressing for transparency, scientific integrity, and meaningful Commission oversight. Their advocacy has also highlighted broader agency failures, including workplace safety violations, employee deaths, and a documented culture of bullying and retaliation within the Department.
“What makes this especially troubling is who it’s coming from,” Santiago-Ávila said. “This is a Director who has presided over systemic mismanagement—an illegal wildlife-killing program, repeated violations of environmental law, a documented culture of retaliation, and serious workplace safety failures that have resulted in injuries and even deaths. These are the issues we’ve been raising. This lawsuit won’t address those, but we clearly need those with the authority to oversee this agency to take this seriously, investigate and to act.”
The lawsuit further alleges that WDFW leadership sought to undermine Commissioner Smith’s role by isolating her from staff, restricting communication, and discouraging engagement with her and with WW1—raising serious concerns about the integrity of independent oversight within the agency.
Commissioner Smith described the impact on the Commission’s ability to function:
“The commission cannot operate effectively and wisely if commissioners feel bullied or are hesitant or afraid to speak or vote freely,” said Smith. “Commissioners now fear that the director will turn the might of the department against us if he disagrees with an expressed point of view. This atmosphere of fear and intimidation is not in the public interest.”
Smith warned that the consequences extend beyond any individual dispute:
“If this behavior goes unchecked, it will lead to the paralysis of the Commission, a chilling of public advocacy, and a return to a system where there is only one ‘acceptable’ viewpoint and meaningful oversight disappears.”
The plaintiffs argue that allowing such conduct to stand would deter commissioners, advocates, scientists, and members of the public from participating in wildlife policy decisions—undermining not only agency accountability, but democratic governance more broadly.
“If this stands, it tells every commissioner and every member of the public the same thing: speak up, ask questions, push for reform—and you could be next.” Santiago-Ávila said. “But we’re still here. If anything, being met with this kind of response only reinforces our concerns and why our work is necessary.”
Independent scientists and national wildlife policy leaders also warned that the case reflects broader risks to scientific integrity and democratic accountability:
“Sound public policy depends on open, transparent debate and independent scientific input,” said Dr. Adrian Treves, professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and director of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab. “WDFW leadership has a record of elevating preferred evidence while sidelining independent science and pressuring those who sought a more complete record.”
“Our democracy depends on evidence-based science, truth, and the free flow of information in public decision-making,” said Prof. Richard Steiner, marine scientist and Board Chair of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). “Public institutions have an ethical obligation to protect that process—even when it challenges those in power.”
“This is not just a conservation dispute—it reflects a broader effort to sideline those working to improve wildlife policy,” said Dr. Michele Lute, Executive Director of Wildlife for All. “When citizens, scientists, and commissioners are targeted for advancing evidence-based policies, it chills participation, erodes accountability, and sets a dangerous precedent nationwide.”
###
April Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at April Wildlife Commission Meetings.
April Wildlife Commission Meetings
No joke: this is where your 2026 activism gets real. April is when wildlife governance moves from early signals to decisive action. As spring takes hold, so do some of the most consequential decisions of the year.
This month, 34 states are holding wildlife commission meetings, with policies advancing that will shape hunting rules, species protections, funding priorities, and agency accountability for months—if not years—to come. What happens in these rooms doesn’t stay there: it ripples outward into ecosystems, communities, and the future of wildlife itself.
These meetings may not generate headlines, but they are where wildlife policy is made in real time—where science is either upheld or sidelined, where precaution is either applied or ignored, and where public trust is either strengthened or eroded.
If March was about building momentum, April is about showing up and using it. That means submitting a public comment, logging in to listen, showing up to speak, and advocating for species and ecosystems that cannot advocate for themselves to ensure decisions reflect public values, not narrow interests.
Participation isn’t symbolic. It’s power.
Below, you’ll find a list of April wildlife commission meetings by state and date. Visit our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare your comments or testimony—and turn this moment into action for wildlife in 2026.
Vermont
Meeting Date: April 1
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Attend the meeting virtually: Meeting ID: 282 535 999 934 4 Passcode: jr2FX2Dp Or call in (audio only): +1 802-828-7667,,884135585# Phone Conference ID: 884 135 585# Full meeting schedule for 2026 is here.
Action: Oppose the petition to extend the bear hunting season and to add bear baiting.
Delaware
Meeting Date: April 2
Location:Little Creek Hunter Education Training Center, 3018 Bayside Drive, Dover
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 6:30 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: 276 357 896 313 53 Passcode: Aq23Zo34. Join by phone (audio-only) dial 1-302-504-8986 and enter code 473148893#. For more information, contact the DNREC Wildlife Section, at 302-739-9912 or Joe Rogerson at Joseph.Rogerson@delaware.gov or 302-739-9912.
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: April 6
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: Click here for agenda and details
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.
Iowa
Meeting Date: April 8
Location: Appanoose County
Details: Click here for details and agenda (no agenda as of 4/1).
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: April 8
Lansing Community College West Campus Rooms M119-121 5708 Cornerstone Drive Lansing
Details: Click here for agenda 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. Watch the livesteam here.
Ohio
Meeting Date: April 8
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.
Kansas
Meeting Date: April 9
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, When a meeting ID is requested, enter 848 9980 1958#, and when a participant ID is requested, enter #. Watch the live video/audio stream at https://ksoutdoors.com/commission-meeting. Each Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission meeting includes two opportunities for public comment. No sign-up is needed, simply approach the microphone when invited. You can also submit public comment without attending Commission meeting via this form.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: April 9
Location: Vidalia Conference Center, 112 Front Street, Vidalia, LA
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Zoom. Also, the Louisiana Alligator Advisory Council will meet April 1 at 1 p.m. at the LSU Ag Center in Abbeville. The LSU Ag Center is located at 1105 West Port Street in Abbeville.
North Dakota
Meeting Date: April 9-21
Location: Varies by region
Details: Visit their website for updates and more details.
Notes: The North Dakota Game and Fish Advisory Board is made up of eight members, four landowners and four hunter/anglers. Board members serve as liaisons between the department and the North Dakota public. Bi-annual meetings are held in each of eight districts giving citizens an opportunity to discuss fish and wildlife related issues.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: April 9-10
Location: Matthews Training Center, Pierre, SD
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: April 9, 1-5 p.m. CT | April 10, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. CT. Livestream link. Zoom Meeting Link. To join via conference call, dial 1.719.359.4580 | Webinar ID: 1 719 359 4580 | 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).
Arizona
Meeting Date: April 10
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##.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: April 10
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Meeting agenda and details here. (Note no agenda available as of 4/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9.a.m. Attend in person and arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the meeting start time in order to add your name to the sign-in sheet. To speak virtually, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov. Include your name and the agenda item on which you would like to testify. Once your request has been received, you will receive an email with the Zoom link. Requests may be also made during the meeting. Meetings will be livestreamed at: https://youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr. To submit a comment, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure time for BLNR Member review.
Pennsylvania
Meeting Date: April 10-11
Location: PGC Headquarters – 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: 1 p.m. Friday, April 10 and 8:30 a.m. Saturday, April 11. Public comment is accepted in person only on a first-to-register, first-to-speak basis. Watch live on YouTube.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: April 14
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.
Arkansas
Meeting Date: April 15-16
Location: Monticello, location TBD
Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 4/1)
Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. Watch the meeting on YouTube.
California
Meeting Date: April 15-16
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 8:30 a.m. on April 15 and 9 a.m. April 16. Meeting documents here. Tribal Committee meets Tuesday, 4/14 in the California Natural Resources Headquarters Building
715 P Street, Second Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. Agenda here. On Tuesday, April 21 8 a.m. Marine Protected Area Petitions (Del Norte through Monterey counties) meets at San Mateo Elks Lodge, 229 W. 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403. Agenda here.
Maryland
Meeting Date: April 15
Location: Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service, 580 Taylor Avenue, Tawes State Office Building, E-1, Annapolis MD 21401
Details: Click here for agenda and details. (Note no agenda was posted on 4/1)
Notes: Google Meet available for virtual participation. Note: Unless notified otherwise, all meetings will be held via Google Meet. When meeting in person, they will be held in the C-4 Conference Room of the Department of Natural Resources—Tawes State Office Building beginning at 10:30 a.m. Available parking is located at the Navy Stadium Parking Lot. Send written comments to wac.dnr@maryland.gov.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: April 15
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details. (Note no agenda available as of 4/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 1 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.
Wisconsin
Meeting Date: April 15
Location: Room G09, State Natural Resources Building (GEF2), 101 South Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. The public is encouraged to watch live on YouTube. 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.
Montana
Meeting Date: April 16
Location: Montana Heritage Center in Helena (225 N. Roberts St.) and virtually via Zoom
Details: Click here for agenda and details. (note no agenda available as of 4/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. This regular meeting of the Fish and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to be held virtually via Zoom. The Commission will take public comment on agenda items for registered commenters via Zoom. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, registration will open on the Fish, Wildlife & Parks’ website https://fwp.mt.gov/ on April 1 and close at noon on April 15.
Nebraska
Meeting Date: April 16-17
Location: Chadron State Park
Details: Click here for meeting agenda (note none posted as of 4/1) 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.
North Carolina
Meeting Date: April 16
Location: Commission Room, 5th Floor, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda available as of 4/1).
Notes: The board will meet at 9 a.m. Members of the public may join via Zoom by registering in advance; keep checking the meeting page for this link.
Tennessee
Meeting Date: April 16-17
Location:Wildlife Regs. Vote Location: UT Tennessee Institute of Agriculture Hotel: Courtyard Residence Inn Knoxville Downtown
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda available as of 4/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 1 p.m. on April 16 and 9 a.m. on April 17. It is unclear how to watch remotely, or how to provide comments.
Washington
Meeting Date: April 16-18
Location: Hybrid: Zoom and location TBD in Olympia
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda available as of 4/1)
Notes: The agenda has many, many links to register for Zoom participant on the different days and how to comment on agenda items; you must look at this webpage to fully participate. 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.
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: April 21
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.
Public Meetings:
- There will be a Governance Committee Meeting held on April 21, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., at the NH Fish & Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, in the Director’s conference room. The public is entitled to attend.
- There will be a Legislative Committee Meeting held on April 21, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., at the NH Fish & Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, in the west conference room. The public is entitled to attend.
- The NH Fish & Game Commission will present the 2025 Commission Awards of Excellence on April 21, 2026, at 11:00 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.
Wyoming
Meeting Date: April 21-22
Location: Riverton
Details: Click here for agenda and details. (No agenda available as of 4/1)
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.
Oregon
Meeting Date: April 23-24
Location: Lincoln City (Tour & Public Meeting)
Details: Click here for details and agenda (note no agenda available as of 4/1)
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 (April 21 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. April 21) in advance of the meeting for approval. Meeting is livestreamed here.
Hawai’i—Meeting 2
Meeting Date: April 24
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.
Georgia
Meeting Date: April 28
Location: George T. Bagby State Park is 330 Bagby Pkwy, Fort Gaines, GA 39851
Details: Click here for details and agenda
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Watch online here. Comments are in person only. Join via Zoom by registering. Meeting ID: 837 1224 2696 | Passcode: 702784
Alabama
Meeting Date: April 30
Location: Alabama State Capitol Auditorium in Montgomery, Alabama
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Comments are in-person only. Those who wish to address the Board must register between 8:00 and 8:30 am. Please bring 18 copies of all documents you wish to distribute to the Board to the Registration Table. Make sure your name and organization are on each document. After registering before the meeting, the person wishing to speak should go to the designated microphone when called. After being recognized by the Chair, the person should first give his/her name, city and county. The time limit to speak is three minutes. If several persons wish to speak on the same subject, the group should choose one speaker to represent them. The Chair may or may not choose to call on each person in that group to speak for additional information. Questions or debate from Advisory Board members shall be limited to 10 minutes. No person may speak twice until all registered speakers have spoken, and then only at the discretion of the Chair.
Utah
Meeting Date: April 30
Location: Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington, Utah
Details: Click here for agenda (not available on 4/1) and details. Meeting materials for Commission and RAC meetings here.
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
RAC meeting items
• Big game permit numbers
• Antlerless permit numbers
• CWMU rule amendments • CWMU management plans
• LOA management plans
April 14 – CR
April 15 – NR
April 21 – SR – Southern Utah University – Hunter Room
April 22 – SER
April 23 – NER
West Virginia
Meeting Date: April 30
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 4/1)
Notes: Meeting starts at 6 p.m. Send comments to wvnrcommission@wv.gov. To send written comments, contact: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Director’s Office, 324th Avenue, South Charleston, WV 25303. The meeting will be livestreamed on the West Virginia Department of Commerce’s YouTube channel 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.
Mississippi
Meeting Date: TBD
Location: TBD
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.
Maine
Meeting Date: TBD
Location: TBD
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.
New Mexico
Meeting Date: TBD
Location: TBD
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.
Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Charged with Poaching Violations
For Immediate Release: April 1, 2025
Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Charged with Poaching Violations
Alleged Actions Raise Serious Concerns About Ethics and Accountability in Wildlife Governance
Boise, ID—An Idaho Fish and Game commissioner has been charged with multiple misdemeanor wildlife violations, including unlawful killing of elk, hunting without a valid tag, trespassing, and shooting from a motorized vehicle, according to court records. The commissioner, who helps oversee hunting regulations and wildlife policy in the state, has pleaded not guilty and the case is ongoing.
The charges stem from a December 2025 incident in which two bull elk were allegedly killed illegally, including one on private property without permission.
In response, Michelle Lute, PhD, executive director at Wildlife for All issued the following statement:
“This situation is deeply troubling. Wildlife commissioners are entrusted with stewarding public resources and setting the ethical tone for hunting and wildlife management. Their role requires modeling the highest standards of legal and ethical behavior. These allegations represent a profound breach of that responsibility.
“The alleged actions of this commissioner are not an isolated incident, and taken with other incidents we have tracked, raise serious questions about who is selected to lead our wildlife agencies and what standards they are held to. When individuals in positions of power are implicated in the very violations they are meant to regulate, it erodes public trust and undermines the legitimacy of governance systems.
“Most hunters follow the law and care deeply about wildlife. Ethical hunting—done for legitimate purposes such as feeding oneself and one’s family—requires respect for animals, landowners, and regulations that protect everyone. Alleged actions like these fall far outside those standards and endanger both public safety directly and the public’s trust in governing bodies meant to set and enforce the rule of law.
“We need stronger accountability, transparency, and reform in how wildlife commissioners are appointed and overseen. Commissioners vetted and appointed for their conservation expertise and values would promote the highest standards of conservation ethics, not flagrantly erode the bedrock of our institutions by acting as if they are above the law. Wildlife belongs to all of us, and the public deserves decision-makers who reflect that responsibility.”
###
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.