News & Commentary
Wolf Pups Bring Hope — But Colorado’s Wolves Are Still in Crisis
Wolf Pups Bring Hope — But Colorado’s Wolves Are Still in Crisis
Wolf Pups Bring Hope — But Colorado’s Wolves Are Still in Crisis
Wolf pups have been spotted again in Colorado. In a world so often marked by loss and destruction, this news brings much-needed hope: life is continuing. Families are growing.
But behind this hopeful image lies a stark and urgent reality. Colorado’s wolves—newly reintroduced after decades of absence—are struggling to survive, and they are dying at the hands of the very systems meant to protect them.
Since Colorado voters chose to reintroduce wolves to the state, 25 wolves have been released. Nine of them are already dead. That’s more than one in three. Most of these deaths have come at the hands of humans.
Some were poached. One was killed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) itself. Others have crossed invisible lines into Wyoming, where federal protections disappear and cruelty is legal. One collared wolf was shot by USDA Wildlife Services during a livestock conflict response. These are not random tragedies. These are the result of a management system that still sees killing as a tool and conflict as inevitable.
We are at a tipping point. Colorado’s wolf population is far too small to withstand this level of loss. Scientific models of “acceptable” mortality—25 to 30% annually—are based on long-established populations, not a fledgling group trying to gain a foothold.
As biologist and author Marc Bekoff writes, these numbers ignore something even more important: the lives of individual wolves. Every wolf matters. Every life lost is a family shattered.
Wolves aren’t just symbols or statistics. They are living, breathing, feeling animals with families, relationships, and memories. When CPW killed Wolf 2405, they didn’t just remove a datapoint—they ended a life. They broke up a family. The mother lost a son. His siblings lost a brother.
We encourage you to read Marc Bekoff’s recent reflection, “Colorado’s New Wolves: A Story of Tragedy, Killing, and Survival.”
He writes: “We’ve killed too much, too often. It’s high time for wolves to be respected for who they are, rather than being used as unfeeling objects—as pawns—for people with different conservation or political agendas.”
Coexistence is not a radical dream. It’s an ethical imperative.
Colorado has a second chance to lead. We can choose a different path—one where coexistence does not include killing, where the lives of wolves aren’t seen as expendable. We can invest in non-lethal conflict prevention, support rural communities with real solutions, and shift toward a model of compassionate conservation that centers the lives of individual animals and the ecosystems they support.
Let Colorado’s new wolf pups remind us what’s at stake. And let the deaths of their kin be a rallying cry—for reform, for protection, and for the wild future we still have time to create.
Read more: Colorado’s New Wolves: A Story of Tragedy, Killing, and Survival. Then, take action.
June Wildlife Commission Meetings
Speak up for wildlife at June Wildlife Commission Meetings.
June Wildlife Commission Meetings
June is here, and it’s time to rally for wildlife at this month’s state wildlife commission meetings! Are you ready to keep the momentum going?
Wildlife commission meetings are key moments to shape state policies and push for wildlife management grounded in science, ethics, and the public interest. Your voice can make a real impact. Whether you show up in person, speak online, or submit written comments, your participation helps hold decision-makers accountable and center wildlife’s needs.
Below you’ll find a full list of states holding wildlife commission meetings in June, ordered by date. As you plan how to engage, check out our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit for tips and support. Let’s show up strong and keep fighting for change!
Delaware
Meeting Date: June 3
Location:Little Creek Hunter Education Training Center, 3018 Bayside Drive, Dover, DE
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 7 p.m. This will be a hybrid meeting with an in-person option at the Little Creek Hunter Education Center and a virtual option via Teams. To join virtually via Teams, click here and enter this Meeting ID: 238 526 838 982 6 and Passcode: ph3QR6vF. To join by phone (audio-only) dial 1-302-504-8986 and enter code 938331860#. For more information, contact Joe Rogerson at Joseph.Rogerson@delaware.govor 302-739-9912.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: June 3
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for meeting details
Notes: Start time 9 a.m. Register for the Zoom webinar to comment online/virtually or to watch live. Commission meetings are open to the public. To comment, you can attend the meeting in person at the location listed above, submit written comments before the meeting by emailing Comments@wlf.la.gov. Your email must include the agenda item # in the subject of your email. The body of your message should include your name and address before your comment. During the Zoom meeting you may submit comments by using the Q&A feature at the bottom of the Zoom application. During the designated comment period, click Q&A at the bottom of your Zoom window, type your name, physical address, and question/comment, and then press enter.
North Carolina
Meeting Date: June 4-5
Location: Commission Room, 5th Floor, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC
Details: Click here for agenda and details. | Agenda package
Notes: June 4 WRC Committee Meetings:
9:00 am – 10:15 am Habitat Nongame & Endangered Species | Agenda
10:15 am – 11:15 am Small Game & Wild Turkey | Agenda
11:15 am – 12:00 pm Finance, Audit & Compliance | Agenda
1:30 pm – 2:30 pm Education & Communication | Agenda
2:30 pm – 3:45 pm Committee of the Whole | Agenda
Note – If a committee meeting ends early, the next Committee meeting may begin 5 minutes after the previous committee ends.
The board will meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, June 5. Members of the public may join in person or via Zoom by registering in advance: https://ncwildlife-org.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_xjCQTSxSTKSmnoBdmDsYlw.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: June 5-6
Location: Dakota Event Center, Aberdeen, SD
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: June 5, 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. CT | June 6, 8 a.m.-12 p.m. CT. Livestream watch link. Zoom Meeting Link | To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458 | To provide comments, join the meeting in person, via zoom, or via conference call per the info above. Please inform Gail Buus at gail.buus@state.sd.us by 1 pm CST if you plan to speak during the meeting. Testifiers should provide their full names, whom they are representing, city of residence, and which proposed topic they will be addressing. Written comments can be submitted here. Here are guidelines for submission. To be included in the public record, comments must include full name and city of residence and meet the submission deadline of seventy-two hours before the meeting (not including the day of the meeting).
Webinar Info: We will be using Zoom Webinar® for this meeting. As a participant, you will not have audio or video capabilities by default. During the open forum and public hearing, if you’d like to testify, please ‘Raise Your Hand’ using the button at the bottom of the screen, or by pressing *9 on your phone. To lower your hand via phone, press *9 again. When it’s your turn to speak, the meeting host will unmute you, allowing you to have audio but no video. If your phone is muted when called upon, press *6 to unmute. • *9 to ‘Raise Your Hand’ or ‘Lower Your Hand.’ • *6 to Unmute or Mute
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: June 9
Location: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Details: No agenda available as of 6/2
Notes: Read more on their website.
Colorado Office Hours
Meeting Date: June 10
Location: Morgridge Commons, 815 Cooper Ave, 2nd Floor, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Details: Commissioner hours with Eden Vardy
Notes: 4:40-6:20 p.m. In person only.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: June 10
Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room,1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ 08691
Details: Click here for agenda
Notes: The public is welcome to attend and participate in the public portion of each meeting. Meeting starts at 10 a.m. and will be held both in person and via GoToMeeting (audio only). Call in: +1 (312) 757-3121 | Access Code: 848-342-077. Per the website, public comments may be made in person or online and will be limited to 3 minutes per person. More information about the Commission is on its website, including a meeting guide and how to connect. For help, contact Kristen.Meistrell@dep.nj.gov.
California
Meeting Date: June 11-12
Location: East End Complex Auditorium,1500 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Commission meetings are live-streamed (also referred to as a live webcast) with full audio and video. If you simply want to observe the meeting, but do not wish to comment on any item, we encourage you to view the live webcast available at www.fgc.ca.gov. How to join (if you plan to provide comment). More on all meetings in 2025.
Action: Oppose the northern California counties declaring wolf emergencies (now 6) and bring science-based comments in support of wolves. You may need to debunk the recent misleading UC Davis study from a husband-wife team in the College of Agriculture that isn’t offering a peer-reviewed paper but is circulating misinformation on the frequency of wolf predation and its effects on cattle.
Colorado
Meeting Date: June 11-12
Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Durango, 501 Camino del Rio, Durango, CO 81301
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: 8:30 a.m. Wed, May 7 through 3 p.m. Thu, May 8. The cutoff to speak online is Friday,June 6 at noon but you can still show up in person to comment or email the commission (though these won’t be counted in the official public record if received after noon on 6/6).
Michigan
Meeting Date: June 12
Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Bay City – Riverfront, One Wenonah Park Place, Bay City, MI 48708
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: 8:30 a.m. Coffee with Commissioners. 9:30 a.m. meeting. 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.
Utah
Meeting Date: June 12
Location: Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington, Utah
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Unless otherwise noted, all Wildlife Board meetings are on Thursdays at the Eccles Wildlife Education Center, 1157 South Waterfowl Way, Farmington. Board meetings begin at 9 a.m, unless otherwise indicated. Feedback occurs at Regional Advisory Council (RAC) meetings. If you wish to comment during a RAC or Board meeting, you must attend the meeting in person — you may not submit comments online during the meeting. When you come to the meeting, pick up a comment card, fill it out and speak at the podium when your name is called. Find the full schedule here. Agendas and minutes are here.
Nebraska
Meeting Date: June 12-13
Location:Chimney Rock Room at Country Inn and Suites, 665 Chase Blvd. Sidney, NE
Details: Click here for meeting agenda and details. Agenda for informational session.
Notes: Informational session starts at 1 p.m. June 12. Meeting starts at 8 a.m. June 13. All 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 1 p.m. CT April 16, 2025 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.
Action: The general agenda has mountain lion hunting on the items for discussion.
Arizona
Meeting Date: June 13
Location: Payson Town Hall, 303 N Beeline Highway, Payson AZ 85541
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: The public may attend the meeting in person or view the meeting at www.azgfd.gov/commissioncam or may listen to the meeting by calling 404-397-1516, Access code: 280 046 234##. Members of the public may view the meeting from any Department Regional Office and the Department’s Headquarters via video teleconference. Members of the public attending in person wanting to speak on a specific agenda item may submit Speaker Cards (Blue Cards) if they wish to speak to the Commission and may only address the Commission by attending in person or from any regional office. Copies of any presentations, documents, etc. discussed during the meeting will be available by contacting sprice@azgfd.gov. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on topics raised in public comment. Any items requiring further discussion or action will be included on a future Commission meeting agenda.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: June 13
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.
New Mexico
Meeting Date: June 13
Location: Roswell
Details: Click here for agenda and details
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.
Oregon
Meeting Date: June 13
Location: Pendelton City Hall; The Vert Auditorium, 480 SW Dorion Ave, Pendleton, OR 97801
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: April 17 Winchester Bay Tour; April 18 Winchester Bay Public Meeting. Meeting starts at 8 a.m. 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. Submit written comments and/or register to speak virtually by 8 a.m., Wednesday, June 11. Those who would like to provide virtual testimony 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 be available at the meeting. To provide in-person public comment, fill out a “Witness Registration” form available at the meeting. To provide testimony virtually or in-person during Public Forum you must contact the Director’s office no less than 48 hours (8 a.m. Wednesday June 11) in advance of the meeting for approval.
Nevada
Meeting Date: June 13-14
Location: Nannini Administration Building, 540 Court Street, Ste 102, Elko NV 89801
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Any person who would like to comment to the Commission about a specific agenda item must make a written request to the Director at least four calendar days prior to the meeting. The time allotted for public comment and the number of speakers will be at the Commission’s discretion. If you wish to make public comment, please use this link for Friday, June 13, 2025: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83628323424?pwd=XapyVfHU1sIK9rFqgSvCSLecZKHbct.1 Passcode: 905406 If you wish to make public comment, please use this link for Saturday, June 14, 2025: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81168781893?pwd=GYWtGqJarcHdlLx4fV6eH8ZbwOveGO.1 Passcode: 550078 Public comment will be taken on each action item following Commission discussion and before any action is taken. Persons attending virtually wishing to comment are invited to raise their virtual hands in the virtual meeting forum during the appropriate time; each person offering public comment during this period will be limited to not more than three minutes.
Action: 26A. Commission General Regulations – Workshop/Public FOR POSSIBLE ACTION Comment Allowed Commission General Regulation 525 – Coyote Hunting Contest Regulations – Chief Game Warden Kristy Knight The Commission will hold a workshop to consider amending Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 503 to provide for season and licensing requirements for participants of coyote hunting contests.
Oppose the codification of wildlife killing contests; the commission is trying to skirt banning these by trying to regulate them instead by requiring participants to hold a hunting license. Let the commission know this does not fix the problem.
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: June 17
Location: Owl Brook Hunter Education Center, 387 Perch Pond Rd, Holderness, NH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meetings are generally at 1 p.m. on the third Tuesday of every month. Meetings of the NH Fish and Game Commission are open to the public, unless otherwise noted.
Arkansas
Meeting Date: June 18-19
Location: Camden
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda is online at time of webpage publishing).
Notes: Unclear how to speak at meetings or provide virtual testimony or written comments. 2025 meeting schedule is here. Archive of 2025 meetings is here. Watch the meeting on YouTube.
Maryland
Meeting Date: June 18
Location: Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service, 580 Taylor Avenue, Tawes State Office Building, E-1, Annapolis MD 21401
Details: No agenda was available at time of webpage publishing; meeting schedule is listed at the end of the January agenda. Keep checking their website for updates.
Notes: Google Meet. Note: Unless notified otherwise, all meetings will be held via Google Meet. When meeting in person, they will be held in the C-4 Conference Room of the Department of Natural Resources—Tawes State Office Building beginning at 10:30 a.m. Available parking is located at the Navy Stadium Parking Lot. Send written comments to wac.dnr@maryland.gov.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: June 18
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 at least 2 days before the meeting
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode 060655. Or join via audio: (929) 205-6099. Webinar ID: 813 6562 8609. Passcode: 060655. 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.
Vermont
Meeting Date: June 18
Location: National Life Dewey Conference Room, 1 National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05620
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda available as of 6/2)
Notes: Meeting starts at 5 p.m. Unclear how to comment or speak either virtually or in person. Full meeting schedule for 2025 is here.
Montana
Meeting Date: June 19
Location: Montana WILD Auditorium and virtually via Zoom
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: Meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. Public comments were accepted on the June agenda topics through May 27 with final action to be taken at the June 19 meeting. The comment period is now closed. Public comment can still be offered during the meeting both in-person and via Zoom. Registration for Zoom comment will open on June 4 (check back to this page for details) and will close on June 18. In-person comments can be made at the meeting venue or at any FWP Regional Office throughout the state.
Action: An amendment to the 2025 Mountain Lion Quotas was proposed by Commissioner Susan Kirby Brooke, Region 3. Public comment on this amendment ONLY will run through June 12. If you would like to comment on Commissioner Brooke’s amendment, please find the separate survey for this amendment below under “2025-2026 Mountain Lion Quotas.”
Georgia
Meeting Date: June 24
Location: Ft. Yargo State Park, 210 S. Broad St. Winder, GA 30680
Details: Click here for details. (note the meeting agenda was not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m.It is unclear how to sign up to speak, submit a comment, or if virtual participation is possible. Here is the full 2025 meeting schedule.
Wisconsin
Meeting Date: June 24-25
Location: Rm. G09, State Natural Resources Bldg. (GEF 2), 101 S. Webster St., Madison WI 53703. Enter the building at the 101 S. Webster St. entrance and take the hallway to the right to the reception desk.
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details (note no agenda is available at time of website publishing).
Notes: The Natural Resources Board will meet in-person. Remote testimony from the public via Zoom may be accepted for this meeting. In person public appearances are also welcome. Members of the public can submit their request to testify remotely, in person, or their written comments by the posted deadline date for Board consideration, typically one week before the meeting date. Watch live on YouTube. Please contact Ashley Bystol, NRB Liaison, at 608-267-7420 or by email at DNRNRBLiaison@wisconsin.gov with NRB-related questions, to request information, submit written comments or to register to testify at a meeting.
Kansas
Meeting Date: April 24
Location: Dole-Specter Conference Center, 1430 South Fossil Street, Russel, KS
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.
Washington
Meeting Date: June 26-28
Location: Hybrid, Olympia
Details: Click here for agenda and schedule details (no agenda available as of 6/3)
Notes: Registration for those wishing to provide virtual comments closes at 5 p.m. the day before the meeting begins. Registrants will be called upon and typically have 3 minutes to speak. If you are unable to participate, you can submit your comments on the Commission contact page. If you haven’t pre-registered and wish to attend and speak in person, complete a Public Testimony Form, available at the registration table. The form must be submitted at least 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the agenda item you wish to testify on.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: June 27
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.
CPW Commission: The Settlement Isn’t The Story
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission settling a lawsuit isn’t the story; the double standard is.
The Settlement Isn’t the Story. The Double Standard Is.
The recent settlement between the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission (via the state attorney’s general’s office) and a coalition of hunting advocacy groups marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for ethical, science-based wildlife management. While the agreement includes a minor financial payment and additional training for commissioners, it’s essential to recognize the broader implications.
This lawsuit was never solely about procedural concerns; it was an attempt to suppress voices advocating for a more inclusive and ecologically sound approach to wildlife management.
The terms of the settlement? Technically minor. The state agreed to conduct trainings on open meetings (which it already did as part of annual compliance training), as well as to pay a portion of the litigant’s legal fees (under $3,000). No one was removed from the commission. No wrongdoing was admitted.
And yet, the Sportsmen’s Alliance and its allies are declaring victory. Why? Because this was never about process. It was
about power.
This legal action was part of a broader backlash against progress—an attempt to chill participation by commissioners who bring new, science-based, and ecologically grounded perspectives to the table. We’ve seen this play out across the country, from ideologically motivated attacks on Commissioner Lorna Smith in Washington or a similarly frivolous lawsuit against Michigan’s commission after they voted to give coyotes a three-month break from being killed every year.
At Wildlife for All, we reaffirm our support for commissioners who prioritize ecological integrity and public interest over narrow special interests. We encourage continued public engagement to ensure that wildlife policies the CPW Commission puts forward reflect the values of all Coloradans.
Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy stood firm in their principles and continued to advocate for wildlife and the public trust. Their courage matters.
And while the settlement may appear minor in content, its symbolic implications are significant.
The way the Sportsmen’s Alliance and Safari Club International are celebrating the settlement absolutely suggests they see it as a win for the status quo—keeping decision-making power in a narrow set of hands and pushing back against any attempt to broaden representation on the commission.
Their messaging is loud, triumphant, and clearly aimed at reinforcing the idea that conservation must always revolve around hunting interests. And their victory lap is less about emails and more about reasserting control, ensuring that conservation continues to center on hunting and trapping interests.
The state attorney’s general office, to its credit, did fulfill its legal responsibility to defend the commissioners. But the muted tone of the agency’s response has left many advocates disappointed. It’s possible they chose a quiet posture to avoid further inflaming tensions—and we can understand the instinct to keep the temperature down in a politically sensitive environment.
Still, silence has consequences. When one side is loudly declaring victory and shaping the public narrative, and the agency tasked with serving all Coloradans remains mostly quiet, it can appear as though the state is stepping back from its duty to protect inclusive governance and defend science-based perspectives.
It’s also telling that the first and most vocal commissioner response came from someone who publicly opposed both Prop 127, yet almost no one knows this op-ed exists. This commissioner was even at a rally in opposition of Prop 127 publicly, an action which passed without comment from most. That’s not just a coincidence—it reflects longstanding comfort with traditional views, while reform-minded voices are often treated with suspicion or sidelined entirely.
The CPW Commission is supposed to represent all Coloradans. But even modest steps toward including more diverse voices—people who view wildlife as more than just game—are met with legal challenges, smear campaigns, and, too often, institutional reticence.
When commissioners aligned with hunting interests speak out, it’s “normal.” When others speak from a conservation science or ecological justice perspective? It’s “controversial.”
That’s the double standard. And it’s deeply entrenched.
When hunters, anglers, and trappers dominate commission seats, it’s considered tradition. When someone from a biology, animal advocacy, or conservation science background is appointed? Suddenly, it’s political.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
And notably absent from the hunting groups’ narrative? Commissioner Rich Reading’s independently authored op-ed in support of Prop 127, which clearly articulated how coexistence aligns with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The lawsuit authors ignored it because it didn’t fit their storyline of secret coordination or political scheming. When the facts don’t serve the narrative, they’re simply left out.
The story here isn’t just that hunting groups sued. It’s that our system—intentionally or not—still reinforces a narrow definition of who gets to lead and who has a voice. And unless we actively work to change that, progress will always come under attack.
This moment should be a wake-up call: the fight for fair, inclusive, and ecologically sound wildlife governance is far from over. Reform isn’t just political—it’s necessary. Wildlife needs commissioners who understand ecosystems, not just sport hunting. And the public deserves a system that values all voices—not just the loudest ones.
The lawsuit may be over. But the deeper story—the one about fairness, power, and representation—is far from settled. That story is just beginning.
Stateline Interviews Wildlife for All About Role in Passing SB5
New article alert: Stateline Interviews Wildlife for All About Role in Passing SB5
Stateline Interviews Wildlife for All About Role in Passing SB5
We’re proud to share that Wildlife for All was featured in a recent syndicated article by Stateline, “As states rethink wildlife management, New Mexico offers a new model,” which highlights the groundbreaking reforms in New Mexico’s wildlife governance. Our Executive Director, Dr. Michelle Lute, shared insights on how Senate Bill 5 (SB5) represents a transformative shift toward more inclusive, science-based, and democratic wildlife management—setting an important example for other states to follow.
This legislation is a significant step toward inclusive, science-based wildlife management. As Michelle Lute, PhD, noted, “That’s the biggest game changer… That’s the legislation we’ll be pointing to as a model in future years.”
At Wildlife for All, we believe that wildlife conservation should reflect the diverse ways people connect with nature. That’s why we are thrilled to see New Mexico’s Senate Bill 5 (SB5) signed into law, marking a transformative shift in how the state manages its wildlife.
We are proud to have been part of the coalition that championed this reform and look forward to working with other states to implement similar changes.
For more details, read the full article here: As states rethink wildlife management, New Mexico offers a new model.
Reimagining Wildlife Management: Centering Values Beyond the Status Quo
Wildlife Value Types
In 1980, Yale professor Dr. Stephen Kellert (1943–2016) developed a groundbreaking framework to understand how people relate to wildlife. He identified eleven distinct value orientations that shape public attitudes toward animals—from deep reverence to outright aversion.
Here’s a quick snapshot of Kellert’s value types:
- Ecologistic – valuing wildlife for its role in the ecosystem and the services it provides to the environment
- Moralistic – seeing animals as sentient beings with intrinsic value and a right to ethical treatment
- Humanistic – forming emotional connections with animals, expressing care and concern for their wellbeing
- Aesthetic – appreciating the beauty of animals through nature, art, photography, and film
- Symbolic – valuing wildlife for spiritual or cultural meaning
- Naturalistic – enjoying personal experiences with wildlife, like birdwatching or hiking
- Scientific – valuing animals for the knowledge they help us gain through study and research
- Neutralistic – feeling indifferent or disconnected from wildlife
- Utilitarian – valuing animals primarily for the material benefits they provide, such as hunting or trapping income
- Dominionistic – seeking control over animals, sometimes for sport or convenience
- Negativistic – fearing or resenting wild animals, often viewing them as dangerous or harmful
Whose Values Count?
Although many state wildlife agencies claim to use a science-based approach, decisions are often driven more by values than data. In practice, current wildlife policy heavily favors utilitarian, negativistic and dominionistic values. Agencies often use science selectively to justify decisions that serve predetermined objectives—especially those benefiting recreational hunting or managing species seen as “nuisances.”
Science can inform and indicate the likely outcomes of decisions, but it is values that drive and determine decisions made. Rather than taking a holistic approach that looks at entire ecosystems, the dominant paradigm in wildlife management emphasizes managing specific species to maximize recreational opportunities and other uses to humans. This approach neglects the diverse and shifting values of the broader public. Additionally, as Kellert’s framework indicates, these values are separate from – and sometimes conflict with – an ecological framework and other values.
For example, hunters often prefer that wildlife agencies manage white-tailed deer herds using a “maximum sustained yield” (MSY) model. This approach seeks to maintain deer herds at densities that produce the greatest number of fawns to ensure optimal hunter opportunity. But this model overlooks broader ecological impacts. Elevated deer populations can degrade plant biodiversity and forest health, even at levels below MSY targets.
As former Pennsylvania Game Commission biologist Gary Alt explained:
“Ninety-three percent of Pennsylvania’s hunters hunt deer and surveys indicate that hunter satisfaction is closely tied to the number of deer they see. These hunters demand to see more deer than the land could ever possibly sustain and they very effectively lobby administrators and policy makers (the commissioners), forcing them to implement seasons and bag limits that have no chance of ever balancing the deer herd with their habitat…. Development of an adequate, sustainable, broader-based conservation funding program will be necessary to solve this and other problems. Currently the Game Commission is almost totally dependent on hunter-generated monies.” (source)
This focus on satisfying hunter demand can directly conflict with ecological priorities.
Meanwhile, the same system often treats native carnivores like wolves, coyotes, and bobcats with hostility. Instead of valuing their ecological roles as keystone species, they’re targeted for population suppression. Across much of their range, they can be legally hunted or trapped with no limits and few restrictions—and in many states, they’re even killed in contests that reward the most kills.
These practices stem from negativistic and dominionistic values—views that see carnivores as threats or obstacles to human interests. But many people today recognize these species as essential to healthy ecosystems and deserving of compassion and respect.
Dr. Francisco Santiago-Ávila, a former postdoctoral researcher at the University of Wisconsin’s Carnivore Coexistence Lab and currently the Science and Advocacy Director at Washington Wildlife First, summed it up this way:
“The scientific and unethical failure of the agency when it comes to educating the public and ‘managing’ wolves and most other wildlife… is due to the agency’s perspective of wild animals as ‘natural resources’ that humans can do whatever they wish to as long as it is done in a sustainable manner. This view of wild animals as resources rather than living beings deserving of care and respect is actually an ethical position (not a scientific one) that goes unstated… This institutional perspective instrumentalizes all wildlife, dismisses their wellbeing, and promotes their killing rather than their ethical consideration.” (source)
Bobcat in Marin County, California | Credit: Stefanie Kraus
So what would it look like to reimagine wildlife management through a different lens?
A system informed by ecological, moralistic, and humanistic values would take a more holistic approach. It would emphasize entire ecosystems—not just certain species managed for human use—and protect wildlife for their roles in nature, their intrinsic worth, and their right to live free from cruelty. This approach would shift away from a disproportionate emphasis on management of ungulates and other species that are hunted to recognize the importance of native carnivores as well as species that are not hunted like hummingbirds, salamanders and bats.
For instance, using bobcats as an example:
- Ecological values would recognize how bobcats contribute to biodiversity—not just as predators, but as part of a healthy food web.
- Humanistic values show up when a wildlife photographer develops a bond with a particular bobcat, appreciating that animal not just as a population statistic, but as an individual life.
- Moralistic values demand that we end cruel practices like trapping and wildlife killing contests, replacing them with policies rooted in respect and compassion.
As Kevin Hansen wrote in Bobcat: Master of Survival, “an informed, caring, and engaged public” is crucial to the bobcat’s future – not just wildlife managers or industry interests. These animals are intelligent, adaptive, and worthy of more than being reduced to targets or trophies.
We need a new paradigm in wildlife management—one that embraces the full range of public values and respects the diversity of life. Because wildlife doesn’t just exist for human use. It exists for its own sake, and for the health of the planet we all share.
This article was contributed by Peggy Clark, a Geospatial and Environmental Science student at Radford University in Radford, Virginia.
New Mexico Passes Historic Reform Bill SB5
New Mexico Passes Historic Reform Bill SB5
Victory for Wildlife and Democracy: New Mexico Passes Historic Reform Bill SB5
In a landmark win for wildlife, ecosystems, and everyday New Mexicans, Senate Bill 5 (SB5) has officially become law—marking the first comprehensive reform of New Mexico’s wildlife governance structure in over a century. This is a huge milestone for equitable, science-informed wildlife management in the state, and one that Wildlife for All is proud to have championed alongside our partners in a broad coalition unlike any other in the country.
SB5 is a transformative piece of legislation that puts New Mexico at the forefront of modern wildlife governance and lays the groundwork for similar reforms nationwide.
What SB5 Accomplishes
SB5 is rooted in the idea that managing wildlife for the benefit of all is critical for addressing today’s ecological challenges. Here’s what the bill achieves:
-
- Modernizes the mission of the Department of Game and Fish: Already in effect, the agency’s statutory mission goes beyond managing game species to include “any species of wildlife” and to consider “the science-based reasons for protection of a species.” This change means that broader ecosystem conservation and biodiversity protection will take a front seat in policymaking—recognizing the reality that diverse wildlife need protection in the face of growing threats.
- Changes the name of the commission and department to reflect their authentic conservation goals: To align with this broader mission, the department and commission will receive new names: the State Wildlife Commission and Department of Wildlife by July 2026. The Department will slowly roll out these changes. All marketing assets like truck decals and brochures that use the current name and logo do not need to be replaced immediately and will be phased out over time.
- Establishes a professionalized, nonpartisan Wildlife Commission: Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, appointments to the commission must meet new qualifications, emphasizing scientific expertise and diverse representation, including tribal and conservation perspectives. Commissioners will be limited to two terms of six years each. A nominating committee will consider candidates and make recommendations to the government for appointments. Senate confirmation of the governor’s appointments will continue as it has previously.
- Increases to state agency funding: Starting April 1, 2027, license fees for hunting and trapping will increase for the first time in decades. Additionally, a separate bill secured $10.5 million over three years for work on Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) — a state list of wildlife with populations in decline or at risk of losing habitat. This essential funding will help recover the many declining species that would otherwise fall through the cracks.
Despite the governor’s line-item veto eliminating independent review of commissioner removals, the core pillars of reform remain intact. The new commission will still be more qualified, more representative, and less politically vulnerable than its predecessors. That’s worth celebrating.
Why It Matters
New Mexico has long been governed by outdated wildlife policies and agency structures built for a different era. SB5 recognizes that wildlife conservation today must be inclusive, science-informed, and responsive to both climate change and mass extinction.
This law also reflects a growing public demand for more democratic representation and enhanced wildlife decision-making for all species. It gives Indigenous leaders, conservation scientists, birders, hikers, and other nature lovers a stronger voice in how wildlife is managed. That’s a win for people and the planet.
What’s Next
Wildlife for All is already working with coalitions in other states to replicate the success of SB5. Our goal? Ensure every state updates its wildlife governance structures to meet the needs of this century.
SB5 gives us a clear, tested framework to bring to legislatures across the country. As the bill’s various provisions roll out, we’ll be working to ensure strong implementation and continued public involvement. This is just the beginning.
Key Dates to Watch
- July 1, 2025: Land of Enchantment funding dedicates $10.5 million over three years to the Department to protect SGCN
- July 1, 2026: New Department and Commission names are official — but we’re not going to wait until then to call them the State Wildlife Commission and New Mexico Department of Wildlife
- January 1, 2027: New commissioner nominating committee, qualifications and appointment criteria begin
- April 1, 2027: License fees for hunting and trapping will increase and discounts will be offered for low income households
Let’s take a moment to celebrate this breakthrough. It’s not every day we get a chance to fundamentally change how wildlife is governed in a way that reflects 21st-century values and science.
SB5 is more than a bill—it’s a blueprint for change. And Wildlife for All is committed to carrying it forward, one state at a time.
Michigan NRC decision gives coyotes a reprieve
On May 8, 2025, Michigan’s Natural Resources Commission reaffirmed their decision to protect coyotes who are denning and raising young pups. Back in March 2024, the commission voted 4-2 to shorten the coyote hunting season from year-round to nine months, reversing a prior decision in 2016. Citing ethics, the importance of fair chase and public input from Michigan residents, this rule change made it unlawful to hunt coyotes on public land between April 16 and July 14, protecting young pups dependent on their parents from being orphaned.
Despite their ecological importance, coyotes are subject to relentless persecution across much of their range. Predator hunting and trapping groups, unhappy with any limitation of coyote hunting, sued the Commission in an attempt to force the year-round season to return. Hunter coalitions claimed giving coyotes a reprieve was not “science-based decision making” and that it was “the American hunter’s role to control populations and help ecosystems thrive”, not native carnivores. Others described coyotes as threats to deer herds and “doing the most damage to a great deal of our wildlife”, demonstrating a lack of respect for the role of carnivores in the ecosystem.
However, Michigan’s ethical choice to shorten the coyote hunting season isn’t unscientific – values inform all wildlife decision-making. Science can be cited to support for or against one’s position, but science cannot dictate that states should allow unlimited killing of coyotes. In actuality, hunting groups defend positions based on their own value judgements and beliefs (that wildlife agencies should prioritize game species and the interests of hunters) just as much as coyote advocates.
In a court filing, the Michigan NRC cited their findings that a year-round coyote season didn’t significantly increase the number of coyotes killed, reduce conflicts with humans or livestock, or increase deer populations for hunters. Additionally, some Michigan cities have acknowledged that fewer than 1% of coyotes exhibit aggressive or nuisance behaviors (which communities can mitigate by not feeding coyotes or conditioning them to humans).
This month, the NRC stood firm for a second time, leaving the shortened season in place for now. This decision affirms the importance of public wildlife advocacy. With persistence, we can challenge dominant narratives and successfully advocate for and build a more just system for all wildlife species. Reforming wildlife management means respecting and valuing all wildlife species, including coyotes and other carnivores.
New “Military Defense Zones” Endanger Wildlife and Democracy
From Border Wall to Occupied Wildlands: Why the New “Military Defense Zones” Endanger Wildlife and Democracy
New “Military Defense Zones” Endanger Wildlife and Democracy
In January of this year, the Trump administration quietly invoked National Security Presidential Memorandum-4 (NSPM-4) to transfer over 100,000 acres of public lands in West Texas and eastern New Mexico from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Defense. These lands—part of the rugged and biodiverse Chihuahuan Desert—are now classified as “National Defense Areas,” a previously unused legal designation that gives the military unprecedented policing power over civilian lands.
According to a recent Christian Science Monitor report where Wildlife for All was interviewed, this is the first time in U.S. history that a National Defense Area has been established on domestic public lands at this scale. Within these zones, the Army has the authority to detain people for trespassing—whether they are migrants, American citizens, or others the military deems “unauthorized.” Though no detentions have been made so far, a military spokesperson stated they’ve helped Border Patrol detect more than 150 people within these areas.
This is a seismic shift. And it’s not just about immigration.
The establishment of military-controlled zones on public lands sets a dangerous precedent for sidelining environmental protections and democratic oversight under the guise of national security. These lands are not just lines on a map—they are critical ecosystems, home to endangered species like the Mexican gray wolf, jaguar, and the ocelot. They are also vital corridors for migratory species struggling to survive amid habitat loss and climate disruption like Monarch butterflies and ferruginous pygmy owls.
Transferring land management from civilian to military control eliminates the checks and balances that come with public accountability. No environmental review. No input from Tribal governments, local communities, or wildlife experts. No regard for species protected under laws like the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.
This latest move is a direct escalation from the Trump-era border wall construction, which bulldozed fragile desert habitats and severed animal migration routes in the name of “security.” But while the wall had physical visibility and generated widespread backlash, these new National Defense Areas are far more insidious—quietly stripping away civilian access and democratic protections under a cloud of secrecy.
And the timing couldn’t be more revealing.
Illegal border crossings are at their lowest levels in at least 25 years, according to the Monitor article. Yet rather than scaling back enforcement, the federal government is expanding military occupation of public lands. It’s a solution in search of a crisis—and the collateral damage includes not just people, but wildlife, civil liberties, and democratic norms.
At Wildlife for All, we believe that how a society treats its land reflects how it treats its people. And this militarization of public space reflects an alarming shift in priorities—away from democracy, stewardship, and ecological integrity, and toward surveillance, exclusion, and authoritarian control.
What You Can Do About these “Military Defense Zones:”
-
Read and share our full explainer on NSPM-4 and what it means for wildlife and democracy: NSPM-4: The Border Wall Was Just the Beginning
-
Contact your elected officials and demand congressional oversight of NSPM-4 and any future use of public lands for military control without public review. (202) 224-3121
-
Stay informed and support grassroots efforts that defend ecological integrity and democratic accountability in borderlands communities. Follow: Border Kindness, Defend O’odham Jewed, Alianza Indigena sin Fronteras, Yaqui So Cal, Armadillos Ni Un Migrante Menos SAR group.
This isn’t just a fight for wildlife—it’s a fight for the soul of our public lands. Let’s not give them up without a voice.
Protect Monarchs—and the Endangered Species Act Itself
Take two actions: comment to protect monarch butterflies as endangered and to protect the Endangered Species Act itself by 11:59 p.m ET Monday, May 19.
Protect Monarchs—and the Endangered Species Act Itself
If you’ve ever watched a monarch butterfly float past you on a summer breeze, you’ve glimpsed one of the great wonders of the natural world. Their epic migrations stretch across thousands of miles. Their bright orange wings have inspired artists, children, and conservationists alike. And now, monarch butterflies are closer than ever to disappearing.
Monarch populations have plummeted. The migratory western monarch population, in particular, has seen a steady decline, with fewer than 2,000 individuals recorded in 2020, compared to millions in the 1980s. The eastern monarch population has also faced severe losses, including an 84% decline from 1996 to 2014. According to the Species Status Assessment, the eastern monarch faces a 48-69% chance of extinction within the next 60 years, while the western monarch has a staggering 98-99% probability of extinction. These alarming statistics make clear that protecting the monarch under the Endangered Species Act is essential to prevent its extinction.
Without federal protections, scientists estimate there’s a high probability that monarchs will go extinct within our lifetime. That’s why we’re urging everyone who cares about the natural world to take two critical actions TODAY:
1. Submit a comment to protect monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act (by 11:59 p.m. ET Monday, May 19)
Monarchs depend entirely on milkweed to lay their eggs and complete their life cycle. But their habitats—milkweed fields, nectar-rich meadows, and vital overwintering groves—are vanishing due to pesticide use, development, and climate change.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened the public comment period to consider listing monarch butterflies as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We need as many people as possible to raise their voices in support.
- Deadline: 11:59 p.m. ET Monday May 19, 2025
- Submit your comment here: regulations.gov link
- Need help? We’ve provided a sample comment at the end of this post.
This listing wouldn’t just protect monarchs—it would enhance habitat restoration efforts, coordinate recovery strategies, and bring national attention to one of the most iconic species at risk of extinction.
2. Speak up against the Trump administration’s proposal to gut the definition of “harm” under the ESA (also by 11:59 p.m. ET Monday, May 19)
It’s hard to imagine, but the same administration that tried to remove protections for gray wolves and other imperiled species is now targeting the very core of the Endangered Species Act itself. They’ve proposed to narrow the legal definition of “harm”—a foundational part of how the ESA works. For decades, courts have affirmed that destroying a species’ habitat counts as harming it. That definition has been crucial for protecting animals like the monarch, who can’t survive without their shrinking homes.
If this change is finalized, developers and extractive industries could bulldoze habitats without violating the law, even if doing so drives species toward extinction.
- Deadline: 11:59 p.m. ET Monday May 19, 2025
- See how to submit your comment here: Toolkit: Protect the Endangered Species Act
Sample Comment in Support of Listing Monarchs
I fully support the proposal to list the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA is one of the most effective conservation laws in the world and has a 99 percent success rate at stopping extinction.
Monarch butterflies have experienced devastating population declines, and without urgent protections and recovery plans, they are likely to vanish in our lifetime. Listing the monarch as threatened would ensure that habitat protections, coordinated recovery actions, and legal safeguards are applied before it’s too late.
I also oppose any changes to weaken the definition of “harm” under the ESA. Habitat destruction is harm, and weakening that definition would gut the Act’s ability to protect species like monarchs, who depend entirely on specific habitats to survive.
Thank you for your leadership in protecting one of the most iconic and beloved pollinators in North America.
Every Species Matters
The USFWS is also considering listing the bleached sandhill skipper (Polites sabuleti sinemaculata), and Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi).
The bleached sandhill skipper is known only to only live in Humboldt County, Nevada in salt flats with dense growth of Distichlis spicata (saltgrass), which probably serves as the larval hostplant. The skipper faces threats from declining groundwater levels due to agriculture use and a proposed geothermal energy project, habitat trampling by livestock grazing, and drought and increased heat due to climate change. Recent surveys have located fewer than 1,000 individuals annually.
Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee species historically occurred in healthy populations across large geographic areas; it was found in western Canada and the United States: southwestern Manitoba southwest to western South Dakota south to southern Colorado west to northern California north to the Yukon and Northwest Territories south to central British Columbia; a few populations have also been documented in eastern Canada.
This cuckoo bumble bee historically was found throughout Washington. Recent surveys reveal significant declines in their numbers, distribution, and ranges. Range-wide surveys in Washington detected this species in only six localities, including one near the far northeastern part of the state.
If you can, comment for these two species with your Monarch comments; it’s easy to do because they are on the same federal rule notice.
Take Action: Every Comment Counts
We’re up against powerful special interests that want to weaken the very tools we use to protect life on Earth. Your voice—alongside thousands of others—can make a real difference.
Submit your comments today, share this post widely, and let’s do everything we can to ensure that future generations can witness the miracle of the monarch butterfly.
Why All Species Matter: Longfin Delta Smelt
The longfin delta smelt deserves the same level of attention and protection as the gray wolf and other species. This fish is currently the target of dangerous Congressional effort to strip its Endangered Species Act safeguards.
Why We Need to Care About the Longfin Delta Smelt as Much as the Gray Wolf
There’s been a lot of rightful attention on recent Congressional efforts to strip protections from gray wolves. People are outraged — and they should be. The proposed wolf delisting bills are a brazen political attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), aimed at appeasing powerful interests. We’re proud to stand with the Team Wolf coalition and the Endangered Species Coalition in fighting those bills.
But there’s another ESA rollback happening right now that has flown under the radar. And it deserves just as much attention.
It’s about a tiny fish: the San Francisco Bay-Delta longfin delta smelt.
This species isn’t big or charismatic. It doesn’t howl like the wolf or roam like the grizzly. But it plays an irreplaceable role in the Bay-Delta ecosystem, supporting migratory birds, salmon, and the health of the estuary as a whole. Its decline is a clear sign of ecosystem collapse — a warning flare we cannot afford to ignore.
Yet Congress is moving to rescind the smelt’s newly granted ESA protections through H.J. Res. 78 — a resolution that doesn’t just end protections for this one species, but sets a dangerous legal precedent for dismantling any future ESA listing using procedural trickery under the Congressional Review Act.
The longfin delta smelt has waited over three decades for the protections it was found to need as far back as 1992. When it was finally listed under the ESA in 2024, the science showed it was in critical danger, with a 50–80% chance of extinction under current conditions.
This tiny fish isn’t dying in a vacuum. It’s dying because the Bay-Delta is being siphoned dry by agribusiness and development. And now, some in Congress are trying to legalize its extinction for short-term political gain.
As advocates, we need to have an honest conversation about which species get our attention and why. When we post about a mammal like a wolf or bear, engagement on our social accounts and website surges. When we post about a fish or bird or insect, it drops. And yet all are vital to the fabric of life, and both are equally deserving of protection.
The longfin delta smelt may not speak to your heart the same way a wolf does. But its extinction would speak volumes about us — about how we prioritize life, science, and justice.
There is no hierarchy in extinction. Every species matters. Let’s prove it by speaking out for the longfin delta smelt.
Tell Congress to vote NO on H.J. Res. 78 and protect the longfin smelt — and the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. Call today: (202) 224-3121.
P.S. And don’t forget to comment by 11:59 p.m. Monday, May 19 to protect habitat for endangered species, too.