New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption

Nov 21, 2025

New Evidence Undermines the “Kill to Protect” Assumption — What It Means for Wildlife Conservation and True Coexistence

A gray wolf stands amidst tree cover, staring at the camera. Image courtesy of The Seattle Times.

It’s a troubling paradox in wildlife management: many policies continue to permit—or even promote—lethal control of wolves (and other large carnivores) in the name of protecting livestock or reducing human-wildlife conflict. Yet in recent years, a growing body of rigorous science is challenging the idea that killing predators reliably reduces livestock losses or improves coexistence outcomes. A newly released peer-reviewed article “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” (2025) adds substantial fuel to that critique by reviewing the best available studies across multiple countries and contexts.

This paper is a powerful tool for advocates for just, democratic wildlife policies, because it erodes a commonly assumed justification for predator killing and invites us instead toward more reasoned, science-driven coexistence strategies.

Below, we break down what the study shows, explore its implications for policy and practice, and suggest how this new evidence supports, strengthens, and can sharpen our collective arguments and advocacy.

Making Sense of the Science: What the Paper Did and Found

The authors asked a deceptively simple but deeply consequential question: do we have strong, consistent evidence that removing (killing or otherwise eliminating) wolves leads to fewer losses of livestock or domestic animals? In other words, does lethal control reliably deliver on its promised protection?

Instead of conducting a new experiment, the authors performed a review (a kind of systematic evaluation) of the best available studies, across several countries, that examine the links between lethal wolf control and livestock losses from wolves. In doing so, they examined:

- The quality of study design (how well the study isolates cause and effect, controls confounding factors, uses proper controls, etc.).
- The consistency, magnitude, and direction of reported effects.
- Whether alternative explanations or unintended consequences (e.g., behavioral changes, compensatory effects, social disruption of packs) were considered.

Because many past studies suffer from methodological flaws (lack of controls, failure to account for confounding variables), the authors were especially attentive to whether the evidence reaches a level that justifies policy reliance.

Their central verdict: the evidence is inadequate to support the claim that removing wolves reliably prevents livestock losses. Some of the main findings:

- Many of the studies that claim success of lethal control have weak design or interpretive problems (e.g., they don’t adequately account for confounding factors, small sample sizes, or changes in livestock management coinciding with predator removal).
- In some cases, livestock losses either did not decline, or even increased, after predator removal (or in neighboring areas). Thus, removing wolves in one area may displace conflict or destabilize predator social structure in a way that backfires.
- The authors emphasize that lethal control may produce unintended negative consequences: for example, destabilizing pack social structure can lead to more unpredictable wolf behavior (or influx of new individuals), or increased risky behaviors.
- Across diverse settings, there is no consistent pattern showing that lethal removal reliably leads to net benefit for livestock protection.

In sum, for anyone hoping to defend lethal control on scientific grounds, this review seriously weakens that case.

Implications for Coexistence Practices and Policies
This new review doesn’t just stir academic debates — it has direct, consequential implications for how wildlife agencies, ranchers, communities, and advocates manage carnivores.

Shifting the burden of proof and the default stance
- One of the permanent challenges in wildlife policy is that lethal control is often treated as a default or default fallback—“if conflict increases, kill more predators.” But this paper supports the stronger presumption in favor of nonlethal, precautionary policies, because lethal control has failed to deliver predictable net positive outcomes.
- Advocates can point to this review to argue that wildlife agencies should no longer be allowed to justify predator killing simply by citing tradition or “expert judgment” — countless studies have killed wolves and failed to produce robust, transparent evidence of benefit. It’s time to move on to what we know works and is supported by the majority of Americans: non-lethal coexistence.
Strengthening the ethics-based argument
- Wildlife for All’s mission is grounded in the moral belief that wild animals deserve to live freely and be treated fairly. The science helps us go beyond purely moral appeals: when you show that lethal control is not just morally questionable, but also scientifically weak or contradictory, you can reach a broader audience, including those who aren’t initially motivated by animal wellbeing but by evidence-based policy.
- Skeptical stakeholders (e.g., ranchers, rural communities, policymakers) often say “We can’t afford risk — we need the option to shoot wolves.” This paper undercuts that by showing the option may not reliably reduce risk — and may in some cases exacerbate it.
Encouraging investment in nonlethal, adaptive strategies
- If the “kill to protect” assumption is undermined, then nonlethal tools — guard animals, electric fencing, range riders, deterrents, improved husbandry, compensation programs, and community-based surveillance — should not be treated as secondary or fallback, but as first-line strategies. This shifts budget, policy priority, and the mindset of wildlife agencies.
- Because lethal strategies may carry hidden costs (e.g., social disruption, unforeseen predator behavior, negative public sentiment, reputational and liability risks), the comparative cost-benefit of nonlethal options becomes more compelling.
Improving monitoring, transparency, and accountability
- The article calls out methodological weaknesses and lack of rigorous standards in predator control studies. We can use this as a call to demand stronger monitoring, open data, independent review, and clear metrics of success (or failure) in wildlife policy and agency action.
Messaging and persuasion to skeptical audiences
- With this paper in hand, advocates can more confidently engage with policymakers who claim to care about evidence-based decision-making. Our message to such officials: “Scientific review shows that removals are not reliably effective and carry risks — let’s instead prioritize proven nonlethal methods and monitor carefully.”
- In regulatory or legal settings (e.g., comment periods, wildlife commission hearings), citing this peer-reviewed review strengthens the legitimacy of coexistence strategies.
Expanding the approach beyond wolves
- Although the focus is on wolves, the logic and methods are relevant to other large carnivores such as coyotes and mountain lions. Lethal control of predators is not a safe “go-to” and must always be justified by strong, context-specific evidence.

In short: this study reinforces our collective vision with empirical muscle. Rather than moralizing in a vacuum, we demand that policies rest on defensible science — and because the science is weak in favor of lethal control, most proposals to kill predators must be treated as presumptively unjustifiable unless proven otherwise.

Toward a Future of Just, Evidence-Informed Coexistence

The release of “Inadequate Evidence that Removing Wolves Prevents Domestic Animal Losses” is a timely and powerful moment for wildlife advocacy. It helps shift the narrative from “we must kill predators to protect livestock” to “let’s ask: is killing really helping — and if not, what better tools exist?”

For Wildlife for All, this is more than a research citation — it is a clarion call. It helps us:

reinforce that coexistence is not a utopian dream but a rational policy option;
press for higher scientific standards and accountability in wildlife agencies;
strengthen alliances between scientists, advocates, and communities; and
offer a persuasive pathway to those still clinging to lethal control: you don’t have to reject your concern for livestock or safety — but you do have a duty to demand stronger evidence to inform policies and practices.

In the years ahead, it will be essential for us to help translate this kind of science into concrete policy change: biological impact assessments, funding for nonlethal tools, legislative oversight, and public education.

The uphill battle is real, but we carry not just moral conviction, but stronger scientific justification. If the future of coexistence depends on opening minds and shifting practices, this paper gives us one more powerful bridge toward that future — a future in which wolves, other carnivores, and human communities can share the land with more dignity and fewer unnecessary killings.

The Trump Administration Is Rushing to Gut the Endangered Species Act — Here’s How to Fight Back

Nov 21, 2025

The Trump Administration is rushing to gut the Endangered Species Act with a short comment period right before the holidays. Here is how you can fight back.

The Trump Administration Is Rushing to Gut the Endangered Species Act — Here’s How to Fight Back

4 Separate Attacks on the ESA.

30 Days to Respond.

Your Voice Matters More Than Ever.

The Trump Administration just launched a sweeping attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act, the very law that often stands between imperiled wildlife and extinction. Four proposed rule changes would reopen the door to political and industry influence over decisions that are supposed to be driven by science and the public interest.

If enacted, these rules would:

Weaken protections for newly listed species by eliminating automatic safeguards and forcing case-by-case political fights over whether a species deserves protection.
Narrow the definition of critical habitat, excluding areas species need to recover as climate change accelerates.
Allow economic and corporate impacts to outweigh scientific evidence in listing decisions.
Limit the scope of federal review so agencies can more easily greenlight harmful projects, from logging to drilling, even when they place wildlife in harm’s way.

The Endangered Species Act is one of the strongest environmental laws we have—but it only works when the federal government enforces its standards. These changes don’t just threaten species on the brink; they undermine the democratic process itself.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. State wildlife governance is already heavily shaped by industry power, and federal protections are often the only meaningful check left for species on the edge of extinction. These proposed rollbacks would further shift decision-making away from science, away from democratic accountability, and away from the basic values that the public overwhelmingly supports.

The United States is in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. From frogs to monarch butterflies, wolverines to manatees and owls to salmon, our wild neighbors can’t survive if we let political pressure override what the science tells us clearly: species on the brink and the ecosystems they rely on require bold, proactive protection. Take two actions: comment to protect monarch butterflies as endangered by Monday, May 19, and to protect the Endangered Species Act itself.

A 30-day public comment period is now open. We need a strong public record showing that people across the country reject these rollbacks and support a democratic, science-based approach to wildlife governance.

Take Action for the Endangered Species Act

Agencies are required by law to read and respond to all substantive, unique comments. This is one of the most important democratic tools we have to push back.

Below is a guide to help you craft your own comment. Once you’ve read through the guide, head to the bottom of the post for direct links to each docket where you can submit your comment.

Your comment doesn’t need to be long. What matters is that it’s yours. Your voice matters—and right now, it’s needed more than ever.

How to Write an Effective Public Comment

Public comments are one of the most effective tools available to ordinary people (not lobbyists, not industry groups) to influence federal rules. But for that influence to count, comments must be unique, substantive, and grounded in your own perspective.

This guide is designed to help you do exactly that. Below, you’ll find a clear explanation of why personalized comments carry far more weight than form letters, along with sample sentences to help you craft a comment in your own words.

Agencies are legally obligated to consider and respond to each unique point raised in public comments, especially ones grounded in science, democratic process, and the public interest.

When thousands of people raise similar (but individually expressed) concerns, agencies must address them in the final rule or explain why they disagree.

Form letters, by contrast, are often lumped together and counted once.

If 20,000 people submit the same pasted paragraph, it is treated as a single comment representing 20,000 signatures—not 20,000 pieces of input. Form letters still matter symbolically, but they don’t carry the same weight in the rulemaking process.

Your own words have power. A few sentences of your perspective, values, or lived experience are far more influential than pages of copy-and-paste text.

You don’t need to be an expert. You just need to be clear about:

Your interest in wildlife or healthy ecosystems
Mexican gray wolf, Canis lupus baileyi, Robin Silver
Why these proposed rules concern you
How they undermine science, democratic decision-making, or public interest
What you want the agency to do instead

Keep it grounded, science-based, and values-forward. A paragraph or two is enough.

Below are plug-and-play lines you can adapt. (Do not copy them word-for-word—adjust them so they reflect your voice and experience.)

Open With Your Interest

I am submitting this comment because biodiversity and healthy ecosystems matter deeply to me.
As someone who lives in _____ and regularly sees the effects of habitat loss, I am concerned about weakening protections for imperiled species.
I care about science-informed stewardship of the wildlife in this country.

Emphasize Science & Values

The Endangered Species Act works because it centers science and the public interest—not political pressure or economic influence.
Science can tell us what species need to survive; values determine whether we choose to protect them. These rules shift decision-making away from both.
The proposed changes would allow industry considerations to outweigh both biological need and scientific reality.

List Concerns with the Proposed Rule Changes

Proposed Classification Rule (Section 4): Removing automatic protections from newly listed species places vulnerable wildlife at risk before recovery efforts even begin. Newly listed species could go unprotected while recovery is delayed.
Proposed 4(d) Rule (Section 4(d)): Eliminating the blanket rule for threatened species allows inconsistent protections and delays recovery for imperiled wildlife at a time when they need the fullest protection we can provide.
Proposed Exclusion Rule (Section 4(b)(2)): Narrowing criteria for critical habitat exclusions could allow economic interests to override habitat protection, threatening ecosystem health. If economic interests weigh more than essential habitat, entire ecosystems are at risk, not just wildlife species.
Proposed Consultation Rule (Section 7): Limiting federal review of agency actions would make it easier for destructive projects to proceed without fully assessing impacts on endangered wildlife.

Highlight Democratic Process & Accountability

Federal oversight is often the only check on state wildlife systems that are already heavily shaped by industry interests.
These rollbacks reduce public accountability at a time when most Americans support stronger environmental conservation protections.
A democratic, science-based process requires transparency and meaningful review.

Close With What You Want

I urge the agency to withdraw these proposed rules and maintain the ESA’s strong, science-based protections.
Please strengthen, not weaken, federal safeguards so states and industry cannot sidestep responsibility to protect imperiled wildlife.
I ask you to uphold the intent of the ESA: preventing extinction and ensuring future generations inherit thriving, resilient ecosystems.

Submit Your Comment

Now that you’ve written your comments, submit them to each of the four dockets at Regulations.gov:

FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0039 (Section 4: listing & delisting)
FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0044 (Section 7: federal consultation/interagency cooperation)
FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0029 (Section 4(d): threatened species protections)
FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0048 (Section 4(b)(2): critical habitat exclusions)

Thank you for taking action. At Wildlife for All, we believe that everyone deserves a meaningful voice in how wildlife is governed. When we show up as an informed public, agencies must respond, and the official record becomes stronger, more democratic, and more reflective of the values most people hold: science, coexistence, and a future where ecosystems can thrive.

Science must guide decisions about wildlife. Corporate influence should not. And endangered species deserve more than a political process designed to let them disappear quietly.

New Mexico Fish and Game stops wandering wolf “Taylor” in his tracks, sends him south for the second time

Nov 10, 2025

Another Mexican gray wolf was just punished for doing exactly what wolves are meant to do: migrate and search out new territory.

Mexican gray wolf photo available for media use with appropriate credit: Jim Clark/USFWS. Image is available for media use.

For immediate release: November 10, 2025

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Conservation groups are condemning the decision by the New Mexico Department of Fish and Game (NMDFG) to remove a wandering male Mexican gray wolf from the northern part of the state late last week. His removal marks the second time that the agency has tried to confine him south of Interstate 40, asserting that wolves must stay within the arbitrary bounds of the Mexican Gray Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA), which represents only some of the suitable wolf habitat in the Southwest and which was delineated for political rather than scientific reasons.

The wolf was named “Taylor” by conservation groups in honor of Mount Taylor, a place considered sacred by numerous southwestern Tribes, and where this wolf was originally encountered in May 2025 and to where he returned in July 2025 after his first translocation south into the Gila National Forest. He is the fifth wolf in recent years to venture north in New Mexico, and his “out-of-bounds” journey over the last four months has been free of conflict with humans. His recent movements suggested that he might be looking for a mate; January is the start of breeding season for this species.

“It’s ridiculous to keep moving wolves back south of Interstate 40 when wolves have clearly decided there’s great habitat to the north of the highway,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. “We fully expect that, like Asha before him, he’ll head right back to his northern territory. We can’t explain his desire, but we shouldn’t deny his instincts.”

“Wildlife should be wild and free,” said Chris Smith, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians. “Lobos are going to eventually re-establish in northern New Mexico, as they should. Enforcing arbitrary boundaries to keep wildlife where humans want them is not just a silly game–it is a threat to recovery.”

Independent wolf biologists have recommended that Mexican wolf dispersal to or reintroduction efforts in the southern Rocky Mountains of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado are necessary in order for the species to be recovered. Because Northern Rockies gray wolves, now reintroduced to Colorado, are close relatives capable of interbreeding with Mexican gray wolves, northern expansion is considered a critical element of long-term recovery. Allowing these populations to meet where their historical ranges overlap will restore natural gene flow and strengthen the long-term viability of both lineages.

Despite recovery science establishing the need for multiple, connected populations of Mexican wolves, state and federal agencies continue to enforce artificial boundaries and do not allow wolves north of Interstate 40 where suitable habitat abounds.

“Taylor is confirming what scientists and conservationists have been saying: wolves need room to roam, disperse, and find mates,” said Michelle Lute, PhD in wolf conservation and executive director of Wildlife for All. “These processes function at the landscape scale and cannot be constrained by administrative boundaries. Wolves like Taylor are expanding their range naturally, and the science is clear: recovery requires connectivity. We need wildlife governance that respects biology, not bureaucratic borders.”

“Taylor is charting his own path across ancestral landscapes, just as wolves have always done. Agencies claimed Asha had no mate in northern New Mexico, yet by removing every wolf who ventures north of I-40, they guarantee she never will,” said Claire Musser, executive director, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project. “True recovery requires giving lobos the freedom to disperse, to find family, and to shape their own futures on their own terms.”

“Taylor should not have been captured,” said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Mexican wolves need more room to roam, not confinement behind arbitrary political lines.”

“We’ve long known that the political boundaries imposed on Mexican gray wolf recovery do not match ecological ones, and that this poses a significant hindrance to recovery. We have an opportunity here to advance recovery efforts by simply allowing Taylor—and other lobos—to wander north into historic and suitable habitat, and yet we expend significant resources time and time again preventing just that,” said Luke Koenig, Gila grassroots organizer for New Mexico Wild.

###

November Wildlife Commission Meetings

Nov 3, 2025

Speak up for wildlife at November Wildlife Commission Meetings.

November Wildlife Commission Meetings

November wildlife commission meetings are some of the final ones in 2025. Don’t miss one of the last chances this year for you, the public, to be heard.

Only 22 states are meeting this month, but the decisions being made could shape the future of species and the health of ecosystems across the country. Commissions are weighing policies that determine how wildlife is managed, who gets representation in decision-making, and whether science or politics will guide the path forward.

These meetings rarely make national news—but they’re where the real work of wildlife governance happens. Showing up matters. Submitting a comment matters. Even listening in matters. Every act of participation helps move us closer to wildlife management that reflects ecological science, democratic values, and coexistence for all life—not outdated, special-interest rule.

Below you’ll find the full list of November commission meetings by state and date. Visit our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare your comments or testimony—and make sure your voice is part of the record before the year ends.

Note: planned meetings in Oklahoma (11/3) and Indiana (11/12) were cancelled.

Florida

Meeting Date: November 5-6

Location:Palm Beach State College, Dolly Hand Cultural Arts Center, 1977 SW College Dr., Belle Glade, FL 33430

Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details

Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. each day. Public comments will be accepted in person during the meeting. For in-person comments, please review the speaker registration guidelines at https://myfwc.com/about/commission/. Advance comments are due by 5 p.m. the Friday before the meeting. If you would like to provide comments via mail, please send those comments to: FWC Commissioners, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. If you do not wish or are unable to speak at the meeting but would like to provide comments, you may do so using the online comment form or by contacting the Commissioners directly via email at commissioners@myfwc.com.

Action: Speak out on the proposed rule, “Regulated Trapping of Wildlife in Florida.” Staff will present proposed rule amendments to modernize Florida’s current wildlife trapping regulations to include new registration, training, and reporting requirements, and updates to the allowed methods of take. These changes will better align with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Best Management Practices in support of humane trapping. Staff will also provide an update on stakeholder engagement and feedback received to date through public webinars, a commenting tool, and the work of the Trapping Technical Assistance Group. Public comment on this agenda item will be limited to no more than one hour. (This item may be moved to day one or postponed). See agenda for links.

Texas

Meeting Date: November 5-6

Location: El Paso Convention Center, Ocotillo Room, 1 Civic Center Plaza, El Paso, TX 79901

Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details

Notes: Work Session: 9 a.m. Wednesday, November 5, 2025. Commission Meeting: 9 a.m. Thursday, November 6, 2025. Comment online through 5 p.m. November 5 using the links in the meeting agenda. The site reads, “Live streaming video and audio will be available,” but links were not available at time of webpage publishing. Watch the live stream or listen by telephone: (888) 978-8818, access code: 8201869#.

Action: Comment on the state’s first mountain lion management plan.

Wyoming

Meeting Date: November 5-6

Location:Laramie at the Game and Fish Regional Office, 1212 South Adams Street

Details: Click here for agenda and details.

Notes: This meeting will be conducted in person and via Zoom. Please note there are different links for each day. If you wish to speak to the Commission and comment on an agenda item in person, please complete the comment form provided at the meeting. If you wish to speak to the Commission and comment on an agenda item via Zoom, please submit an Advanced Agenda Item Comment Form, which is attached to the agenda to toni.bell2@wyo.gov.

Wednesday, November 5 Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86841631317 Webinar ID: 868 4163 1317

Thursday, November 6, 2025 Tour – 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. The tour will include the Laramie Regional Office and Forensic Lab and is open to the public. The Laramie Regional Office is located at 1212 South Adams Street in Laramie.

California – Marine Resources Committee only

Meeting Date: November 6

Location: California Natural Resources Headquarters Building, 715 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. Marine Resources Committee meeting only. Meeting packet.

Louisiana

Meeting Date: November 6

Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Details: Click here for meeting details

Notes: Meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Zoom. To view via webinar, register here.

Michigan

Meeting Date: November 6

Location: Lansing Community College, West Campus Rooms M119-121, 5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917

Details: Click here for agenda (not available at time of webpage publishing) and details.

Notes: 9:30 a.m. Persons registering to provide comments on a topic listed on the agenda on or before the Friday preceding the meeting will be allowed up to 5 minutes for their comments. Persons registering to comment on a topic not listed on the agenda, after the Friday preceding the meeting, or at the meeting will be allowed up to 3 minutes. If you are unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments on agenda items, please write to Natural Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, or email nrc@michigan.gov. Read more on the Commission website.

New Hampshire

Meeting Date:November 6

Location:Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive in Concord, NH

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: There will be a Strategic Planning Committee Meeting held on November 6th @ 2:30 p.m., at the NH Fish & Game Department, 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, in the Director’s conference room. This meeting is open to the public. There will be a Resources & Infrastructure Committee Meeting held on November 10th at 11:00 a.m., at the Glenn Cove Wildlife Management Area, 49 Emery Ln., Greenland, NH 03840. This meeting is open to the public.

South Dakota

Meeting Date: November 6-7

Location: Lemmon

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: November 6, 2 p.m. – 3 p.m. MT | November 7, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. MT. To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458. Zoom meeting link. Livestream watch link. Meeting materials here. Inform Gail Buus at gail.buus@state.sd.us by 1 pm CST if you plan to speak during the meeting. Testifiers should provide their full names, whom they are representing, city of residence, and which proposed topic they will be addressing. Written comments can be submitted here. Here are guidelines for submission. To be included in the public record, comments must include full name and city of residence and meet the submission deadline of seventy-two hours before the meeting (not including the day of the meeting).

West Virginia

Meeting Date: November 6

Location: WVU Potomac State College – Davis Conference Center,101 Fort Avenue, Keyser, WV 26726

Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda or detailed meeting information is available at time of webpage publishing)

Notes: Meeting starts at 6 p.m. The agenda for the November 6, 2025 meeting will be posted closer to the meeting date. Send comments to wvnrcommission@wv.gov. To send written comments, contact: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Director’s Office, 324th Avenue, South Charleston, WV 25303. The meeting will be livestreamed on the West Virginia Department of Commerce’s YouTube channel and will be available starting the day of the meeting. The livestream is view-only. To provide public comments, you must attend in person at one of the six district locations listed above. If you can’t watch the meeting live, a recording will be posted and remain available until the next scheduled Commission meeting, so you can watch it at your convenience.

In-Person Locations
District 1 – 1110 Railroad St, Farmington, WV 26571
District 2 – 1 Depot St, Romney, WV 26757
District 3 – 738 Ward Rd, Elkins, WV 26241
District 4 – 2006 Robert C. Byrd Dr, Beckley, WV 25801
District 5 – 112 California Ave, Charleston, WV 25305
District 6 – 76 Conservation Way, Parkersburg, WV 26104
⚠️ Important Note About Public Comments: The livestream is view-only. To provide public comments, you must attend in person at one of the six district locations listed above.

Nevada

Meeting Date: November 7

Location: Clark County Government Center, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. Public comment will be taken on each action item following Commission discussion and before any action is taken; links coming once NDOW posts the meeting agenda. Persons attending virtually wishing to comment are invited to raise their virtual hands in the virtual meeting forum during the appropriate time; each person offering public comment during this period will be limited to not more than three minutes.

Action: Comment on the “Predation Management Plan” and “Coyote Killing Contests” agenda items. Oppose codifying killing contests into law. Point out that the management plan lacks coexistence measures.

New Mexico

Meeting Date: November 7

Location: Los Alamos

Details: Click here for details (no agenda available at time of webpage publishing)

Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Comment in person by signing up to speak via a card. Register in advance to attend this meeting virtually via Zoom (link TBD; see agenda once posted). After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The commission may hear verbal public comments from virtual attendees at this meeting. If comments are taken, you will be asked to virtually raise your hand and then acknowledged to speak when it is your turn. A live webcast of this meeting will be available on the commission’s Webcast page and on our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/NMGameandFish. Comments will not be taken on the live webcast or on YouTube.

Massachusetts

Meeting Date: November 12

Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts

Details: Click here for agenda and details (per the website, the agenda will be posted here no later than 2 business days before the meeting.)

Notes: Meeting starts at 3 p.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 484848. Or join via telephone: Join via audio: (929) 205-6099, Webinar ID: 867 4074 8593, Passcode: 484848. Anyone wishing to be placed on the agenda to speak at the monthly business meeting must begin by notifying the Board in writing 2 weeks prior to the Board meeting; for more detailed information, contact Susan Sacco.

New Jersey

Meeting Date: November 12

Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room,1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ 08691

Details: Click here for a genda

Notes: The public is welcome to attend and participate in the public portion of each meeting. Meeting starts at 10 a.m. and will be held both in person and via GoToMeeting (audio only). Call in: +1 (312) 757-3121 | Access Code: 848-342-077. Per the website, public comments may be made in person or online and will be limited to 3 minutes per person. More information about the Commission is on its website, including a meeting guide and how to connect. For help, contact Kristen.Meistrell@dep.nj.gov.

Ohio

Meeting Date: November 12

Location: Wildlife District 1 Office, 1500 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: Meeting begins at 6 p.m. Comments for open forums during Ohio Wildlife Council meetings must be about a current rule proposal. If you have a topic that is not a current rule proposal, please email the council with your comment or question or speak to a council member before or after a meeting. If the topic falls within the wildlife, fish, or law section, feel free to reach out at our open houses or email the Division of Wildlife at wildinfo@dnr.ohio.gov. Speakers must register by 5:00 p.m. the Monday before the meeting. The attached Public Comment Form will need to be completed and submitted to wildlife.council@dnr.ohio.gov. Along with the form, submit any handouts you plan to provide. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes. There will be a maximum of ten speaker slots available. PowerPoint presentations are not permitted.

Colorado

Meeting Date: November 13-14

Location: Northeastern Junior College, 100 College Ave, Sterling, CO 80751

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m.. Written comments will be accepted at any time. However, to ensure sufficient time for consideration prior to the meeting, comments should be provided to the Division of Parks and Wildlife by noon on Friday, 11/7. Email the commission (though these won’t be counted in the official public record if received after noon on 11/7).

Iowa

Meeting Date: November 13

Location: Des Moines

Details: Click here for details (note no agenda was available at time of webpage publishing.)

Notes: The meeting starts at 10 a.m. Comments regarding agenda items may be submitted for public record to Alicia.Plathe@dnr.iowa.gov or 6200 Park Ave Ste 200, Des Moines IA 50321 up to 24 hours prior to the business meeting.

Washington

Meeting Date: November 13-15

Location: Hybrid, Lynnwood

Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available at time of webpage publishing)

Notes: Registration for those wishing to provide virtual comments closes at 5 p.m. the day before the meeting begins. Registrants will be called upon and typically have 3 minutes to speak. If you are unable to participate, you can submit your comments on the Commission contact page. If you haven’t pre-registered and wish to attend and speak in person, complete a Public Testimony Form, available at the registration table. The form must be submitted at least 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the agenda item you wish to testify on.

Hawai’i

Meeting Date: November 14

Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i

Details: Meeting agendas are posted at least 6 days prior to the date of the meeting but an agenda for this month was not available when this webpage was posted. Keep checking back on this webpage.

Notes: Meeting starts at 9.a.m. Attend in person and arrive at least 15 minutes prior to the meeting start time in order to add your name to the sign-in sheet. To speak virtually, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov. Include your name and the agenda item on which you would like to testify. Once your request has been received, you will receive an email with the Zoom link. Requests may be also made during the meeting. Meetings will be livestreamed at: https://youtube.com/c/boardoflandandnaturalresourcesdlnr. To submit a comment, email blnr.testimony@hawaii.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to ensure time for BLNR Member review.

Arkansas

Meeting Date: November 19-20

Location: Little Rock

Details: Click here for agenda and details (no agenda posted as of 11/4)

Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. 2025 meeting schedule is here. Archive of 2025 meetings is here. Watch the meeting on YouTube.

Maryland

Meeting Date: November 19

Location: Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service, 580 Taylor Avenue, Tawes State Office Building, E-1, Annapolis MD 21401

Details: Click here for agenda and details. (Note no agenda was posted at time of webpage publishing.)

Notes: Google Meet available for virtual participation. Note: Unless notified otherwise, all meetings will be held via Google Meet. When meeting in person, they will be held in the C-4 Conference Room of the Department of Natural Resources—Tawes State Office Building beginning at 10:30 a.m. Available parking is located at the Navy Stadium Parking Lot. Send written comments to wac.dnr@maryland.gov.

Idaho

Meeting Date: November 20

Location: Idaho Fish and Game – Clearwater Regional Office, 3316 16th Street, Lewiston, ID 83501

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: Virtual participation available; https://zoom.us/j/91287823590. Call-in number: 253-215-8782, Webinar ID: 912 8782 3590; Password is “meeting” if needed. Per the website, “The Fish and Game Commission usually holds a public hearing in conjunction with each regular meeting. Members of the public who want to address the commission on any topic having to do with Fish and Game business may do so at the public hearing. All testimony will be taken into consideration when the commission makes decisions on agenda items at the meetings.” It is unclear how to submit comments in advance or if virtual comments/speaking is allowed. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.

Kansas

Meeting Date: November 20

Location: Great Bend, KS – Camp Aldrich Conference Center, 884 NE 110th Ave, Claflin, KS 67525

Details: Click here for agenda and details.

Notes: Meeting starts at 12 p.m. You can watch and comment via Zoom; register here. Once registered, you will emailed a link to “Join the Meeting.” You will be muted upon entering the meeting. To comment or ask a question, use the “Raise Hand” feature or type your question in the chat function. To call in, dial: 1-877-853-5257. When a meeting ID is requested, enter: 850 1361 0088#. When a participant ID is requested, enter: #. Watch the live video/audio stream at https://ksoutdoors.com/commission-meeting.

Action: Proposed regulations to be voted on: 115-15-2. Nongame species; general provisions. (see agenda for meeting packet)

Atascosa Borderlands, Chapter 5

Oct 30, 2025

In this episode of the mixed-media storytelling project Atascosa Borderlands, Mandy Culbertson examines the North American Model of Conservation and its impact on wildlife management in Arizona and beyond. She explains how hunting licenses and excise taxes, while historically key to funding state wildlife agencies, now create perverse incentives that prioritize game species over holistic ecosystem health. The conversation delves into the public trust doctrine as a transformative framework, and gives a fresh perspective on wildlife funding and conservation priorities. Mandy also explores the challenges facing modern conservation, from climate change to habitat loss, and the need to rethink outdated models to ensure the survival of species like the Coues deer in the Sonoran Borderlands.

Listen to Podcast ►

Wolf Awareness Week 2025

Oct 22, 2025

Wolf Awareness Week 2025 is here.

WOLF AWARENESS WEEK 2025:

Honoring Wolves, Exposing Broken Wildlife Governance, and Fighting for a Just Future

Wolf Awareness Week 2025 is here. Every third week of October, we celebrate Wolf Awareness Week — a tradition that began in 1996 when President Bill Clinton first recognized the occasion as a time to replace fear with understanding. This week is meant to honor wolves, one of North America’s most essential keystone species, and to shine a light on their ecological role and their ongoing fight for survival.

But to be honest — this year, it’s hard to feel celebratory even though we’re celebrating the 30th anniversary of wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone and central Idaho.

Across the country, wolves are being slaughtered at staggering rates under the banner of “management.” They are vilified in the media, scapegoated by industry, and failed by outdated state wildlife governance systems that treat them not as living beings essential to ecosystems, but as problems to be “controlled.”

From the Northern Rockies to the Southwest, the fight for wolves is a fight against entrenched political and economic power. And that’s exactly why reforming state wildlife governance is essential — not just for wolves, but for the health of every ecosystem they shape.

Wolves: A Keystone Species in Crisis

Wolves are not just another wildlife species. They are a keystone species and apex carnivore, meaning their presence — or absence — ripples through entire ecosystems. When wolves return, landscapes heal: ungulate populations rebalance, vegetation recovers, rivers stabilize, and biodiversity thrives. This is not romanticism; it’s science.

Yet, despite this well-established ecological reality, wolves remain under siege:

In the Northern Rockies, states like Montana and Idaho are in the midst of relentless killing sprees, setting quotas that allow for the slaughter of hundreds of wolves annually. These decisions are driven not by science, but by political pressure from livestock and trophy hunting interests.
In the Great Lakes region, state politicians are eagerly waiting for federal delisting to resume unscientific wolf hunts.
In Colorado and California, where wolves are making fragile returns, they face a coordinated disinformation campaign by Big Ag to turn the public against them.
Mexican gray wolf populations are still on the brink, with individuals dying over and over again from government-sanctioned “management” and illegal poaching.
And the wild population of red wolf numbers fewer than 25 individuals, confined to a tiny pocket of habitat in North Carolina.

This is not a failure of science. It’s a failure of governance.

Wolves are persecuted not because they are a biological threat to ecosystems, but because they are a political inconvenience to industries that profit from their absence. Across most states, wildlife commissions are stacked with livestock and trophy hunting interests, and the agencies that should be stewards of biodiversity are instead beholden to extractive politics.

This is why Wildlife for All is fighting to transform state wildlife governance systems. Real democracy in wildlife management means giving all people — not just a politically connected few — a voice in how wildlife is managed. It means grounding decisions in science, ethics, and ecological health, not political favors or cultural resentments.

Wolf Awareness Week isn’t just a time to celebrate wolves. It’s a time to name the systems that are killing them.

Bright Spots in a Dark Landscape

Even in the face of relentless persecution, there are glimmers of hope:

A federal court ruled that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service improperly delisted Northern Rockies wolves, forcing a reassessment of the threats they face.
Conservation groups are challenging Montana’s record-high quota of 558 wolves for the 2025–26 season.
In North Carolina, wildlife crossings are being built along Highway 64 to help save the last red wolves in the wild.
New Mexico’s governor fired a wildlife commissioner over her ties to anti-wolf groups — a rare example of accountability.
Grassroots coexistence work in Colorado is shifting the narrative and building real solutions with ranchers.
Three new wolf packs were confirmed earlier this year in California.

These victories don’t erase the threats — but they remind us why we fight.

A new national survey shows that the American public overwhelmingly supports continued protections for gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act — including 75% of rural residents in wolf states and 79% of farmers and ranchers. For every person who strongly opposes protecting wolves, more than nine strongly support it. In a moment when political efforts to strip federal protections are gaining traction, this broad public backing is a powerful reminder that most Americans want wolves — and the wild places they depend on — to endure.

Wolf Awareness Week 2025 should not be about celebrating the fact that wolves still exist in spite of us. It should be about building a future where they thrive because of us — because we chose to evolve our governance, challenge entrenched power, and align our policies with science and justice.

Wolves deserve more than “management.” The language we use matters. Wolves are not a “resource” to be managed for recreational killing. They are sentient beings with intrinsic value, integral to the functioning of wild ecosystems.

How to Take Action During Wolf Awareness Week 2025

Speak up: Contact your state wildlife commission and demand science-based protections for wolves if you live in a state with wolves.
Educate: Share credible information that counters fearmongering and myths.
Organize: Join efforts to reform state wildlife governance so wolves — and all wildlife — have a future.
Support: Grassroots coexistence programs, legal challenges, and advocacy campaigns need public backing.

Wolves have survived centuries of eradication campaigns. Their endurance is a testament to their strength. But survival is not the same as justice.

This Wolf Awareness Week, let’s honor wolves not with platitudes, but with power-building — the kind that can transform broken systems and create a future where wolves are not fighting for scraps of safety, but thriving as the ecological keystones they are.

Ideology vs. Wildlife Science: A Conversation with Mandy Culbertson

Oct 17, 2025

Wildlife for All Communications Director Mandy Culbertson joins the 90 Miles to Needles podcast for an insightful discussion on ideology vs. wildlife science. The conversation covers wildlife protection and democratic governance, exploring how grassroots advocacy can drive meaningful change in state wildlife management.

Listen to Podcast ►

October Wildlife Commission Meetings

Oct 1, 2025

Speak up for wildlife at October Wildlife Commission Meetings.

October Wildlife Commission Meetings

October brings another round of wildlife commission meetings—and another round of opportunities for the public to push back against business-as-usual management.

From Washington to Colorado to New Hampshire, commissions are deciding policies that affect the lives of wildlife, the fate of their habitat, and the future of whole ecosystems. Too often, those decisions still elevate politics and industry demands over science, values, and the voices of the broader public.

These meetings don’t grab national headlines, but they’re where the rules that govern our wild neighbors are written. That makes public participation essential. Whether you testify, submit comments, or simply attend, your presence sends a message: wildlife deserves governance rooted in science, democracy, and coexistence—not outdated, kill-first policies.

Below you’ll find the full list of October wildlife commission meetings by state and date. Our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit are here to help you prepare. Let’s show commissions across the country that the public is paying attention—and demanding change.

Ohio

Meeting Date: October 1

Location: Wildlife District 1 Office, 1500 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH

Details: Click here for agenda and details

Notes: Meeting begins at 6 p.m. Comments for open forums during Ohio Wildlife Council meetings must be about a current rule proposal. If you have a topic that is not a current rule proposal, please email the council with your comment or question or speak to a council member before or after a meeting. If the topic falls within the wildlife, fish, or law section, feel free to reach out at our open houses or email the Division of Wildlife at wildinfo@dnr.ohio.gov. Speakers must register by 5:00 p.m. the Monday before the meeting. The attached Public Comment Form will need to be completed and submitted to wildlife.council@dnr.ohio.gov. Along with the form, submit any handouts you plan to provide. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes. There will be a maximum of ten speaker slots available. PowerPoint presentations are not permitted.