News & Commentary
New Mexico Game & Fish Cancels Squirrel Killing Contest
An Abert’s squirrel sits in a bed of leaves looking at the camera in Bandolier National Monument.
It’s easy to understand why it’s hard for some people to understand science-based conservation. After all, reading tedious regulations and research papers isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
Good thing it’s ours.
After seeing our name pop up in a recent article from a popular hunting magazine, we couldn’t help but wonder: what made us so famous?
Turns out, a Wildlife for All board member, along with other concerned citizens in New Mexico, helped to stop a hunter recruitment event that was functionally a wildlife killing contest.
From the (now removed) New Mexico Department of Fish & Game (NMDGF) Facebook post: 
Harvest one of each of the four small-game squirrel species (Abert’s squirrel, fox squirrel, gray squirrel and red squirrel) within the state of New Mexico. Take a photo of each. Submit all four photographs to the Department. Hunters who complete the challenge in New Mexico will receive special awards, and their photographs will appear on this page.
Note the use of the word “harvest.” Also note that this post is encouraging said “harvest” simply to win “special awards.”
We’re opposed to wildlife killing contests, where people win cash and prizes to kill wildlife, on basic moral grounds and because of their general lack of scientific grounding.
Killing contests are unethical, aren’t “management,” and cause a lot of pain and suffering just for the gratification of the participants. Even though this was termed a “challenge,” let’s call a spade a spade: this was encouraging killing for the sake of killing.
And while the article about us states that this can’t possibly be a killing contest since New Mexico banned those, they’re mistaken. New Mexico banned wildlife killing contests only for coyotes in 2019. There’s no prohibition on holding a killing contest in the state for other species.
What’s more, the article critiques Wildlife for All and others opposed to this killing contest as people unfamiliar with the state’s wanton waste laws, or laws that require hunters to take the edible portions of game animals so as to not waste them after killing them.
Once again, this article is incorrect and unsurprisingly only shows a partial understanding of New Mexico’s laws. The statutory requirement that edible parts of game animals be consumed does not apply to squirrels (or pikas, marmots, bears, javelinas, and cougars).
Perhaps more worrisome than a critique that is only partially grounded in an understanding of current law is the fact that this same critique is untethered from any science as well.
The leading mammalogist in the state wrote in response to this killing contest that, “Sustainable hunting requires data on animal distribution, population demographics across time, and hunter take. These types of information for New Mexico’s tree squirrels have not been the subject of rigorous scientific study. Rather, these mammal[s] are managed mainly by tradition, rather than rigorous science.”
She goes on to describe the four species of squirrels present within the state of New Mexico, two of which are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the New Mexico State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), which is actually being revised right now.
An Arizona gray squirrel eats an acorn on a tree limb Photo by Focused On Nature via Flickr
SGCN is a designation states give species who are in need of additional research because not much is known about their population or range, or are danger of declining to the point where they might need to be listed on the state or federal Endangered Species List to prevent their extinction.
So when NMDGF spokesperson Darren Vaughan says in an emailed statement that the contest was canceled “because of public misperception regarding the opportunity’s intent … as well as a lack of awareness surrounding regulations set by agency biologists to conserve squirrel populations,” we’re curious.
Whose lack of awareness is Mr. Vaughan referring to? We know the NMDGF employees are hard-working and dedicated folks who serve the state as best they can with limited resources, an outdated mission, and an incomplete scope of authority. Yet this case does feel a bit like the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing.
Of course, we want to assume best intent. Perhaps when a group of people used their voices to call out NMDGF for spending resources to promote a killing contest that commodified and disrespected animals—rather than spending money on authentic conservation—someone inside NMDGF raised a red flag when they realized that two SGNCs were on this killing contest’s “harvest” list.
Why? Well, something else only people who are deeply involved in conservation might know is that the state’s SWAP is being revised right now, something that only occurs once per decade.
New Mexico’s list of SGCNs is growing rapidly because of the challenges all wildlife in this country is facing: climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, hunting pressures, and conflict with humans. That makes the addition of two SCGN species in this killing contest even more egregious.
We applaud those who opposed this killing contest based on their values, their scientific knowledge, and frankly, just using their good ol’ common sense.
This situation clearly demonstrates that state wildlife management agencies MUST modernize their focus to truly make their mission about conservation of all species. It’s also clear they also need our help in prioritizing biodiversity protection over hunter opportunity. There are many native, nongame species that need funding, but sadly the current wildlife management system and funding structure incentivizes the department to focus on recruiting more hunters and anglers through contests like these to sell more licenses and therefore qualify for more federal dollars: wash, rinse, repeat.
It’s why we’re helping to advance legislation that will not only help modernize the mission of NMDGF but also equitably increase license fees to help fund its mission. And we’re committed to helping the department find other, diversified sources of funding, too, so that they can focus on saving all the wildlife of New Mexico, even its squirrels.
Learn more about State Wildlife Action Plans with our primer on how to get involved in your state.
Florida Wildlife Federation joins growing list of opponents to Florida “right-to-hunt” ballot initiative
The Florida Wildlife Federation is the latest group—and the first sportsmen’s organization—to announce its opposition to the so-called “Right to Hunt” amendment on the November ballot in Florida.
On its Facebook page, the Federation explained that it has always “supported hunting and fishing in balance with science-based wildlife management.” The Federation said it opposes the amendment because it “introduces unnecessary interference with the Florida Constitution and is overly vague in its language, leaving it vulnerable to misinterpretation or misuse.”
Hunting and fishing rights are already protected under Florida law. Supporters of the amendment seek to enshrine an undemocratic status quo, arguing that hunting and fishing should be prioritized because it directly funds conservation (more accurately, hunting licenses and Pittman-Robertson revenue largely fund state wildlife agencies, whose activities and policies focus primarily on hunting and fishing management and are sometimes at odds with conservation).
The FWF joins a growing list of opponents to the measure, including Wildlife for All, the Florida Democratic Party, and the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club.
We encourage you to share your thoughts with FWF by leaving a comment on their Facebook post to join us in thanking them for taking a principled stance on this important issue.
Rolling Stone: Inside the Growing and Controversial World of Wildlife-Killing Contests
Wildlife for All Executive Director Michelle Lute and founder Kevin Bixby are quoted in a new article from Rolling Stone, “Inside the Growing and Controversial World of Wildlife-Killing Contests.” Following the money, the piece details how millions of dollars have been doled out in competitions where hundreds of animal lose their lives, stirring up a culture war among hunters over questions of what it means to be an ethical hunter.
“This is part of a deeply problematic picture emerging about the gun lobby getting involved in promoting hunting to youth,” says Michelle Lute, the co-executive director of Wildlife for All. “And all of this is happening under the guise of conservation when it’s not.”
New Survey Reveals Strong Support for Wildlife Policy Reform
A new nationwide survey conducted by Colorado State University and Project Coyote reveals strong support for criminalizing acts of cruelty to wildlife. Between 77.5 and 85.8% of respondents said they would support various federal and state policies restricting killing of wild carnivores and banning practices such as running down wolves with snowmobiles.
The results also demonstrate the importance of raising awareness of the need for reform. While people are largely aware of animal cruelty in lab testing and factory farming, few realize the extent of the lack of protections for native carnivores. The majority of people surveyed were previously unaware that species like wolves, foxes, bobcats, and coyotes can be killed without limit across much of their range in North America. With few exceptions (such as cougars in California), states afford few legal protections for wild carnivores not classified as endangered, compared to other hunted big game species such as deer and elk.
The results showed:
- 74.1% of respondents originally believed that “for all carnivore species (e.g. coyotes, bobcats, and foxes), there are limits in my state on the number that can be killed by a hunter in one season” prior to taking the survey (false for all states).
- 85.8% of respondents supported federal legislation criminalizing cruelty to wildlife
- 80.2% backed banning the use of snowmobiles to run over wildlife
- 81.7% supported state laws banning wildlife killing contests and restricting hunting seasons for carnivores
- 78.2% supported banning wildlife killing contests under federal law
- 77.5% supported mandating bag limits for all carnivores under federal law
Representing Colorado State University’s Animal-Human Policy Center, Dr. Rebecca Niemiec stated: “We found that the United States public strongly supports a variety of animal protection policies, especially policies that reduce suffering among wild carnivores. However, we also found that the public underestimates the extent to which others in the country care about these issues. By correcting these perceptions, we can show the public and policymakers that reducing animal suffering is indeed a priority for the vast majority of Americans.”
Representing Project Coyote, Renee Seacor stated: “The legal, relentless persecution of wild carnivores doesn’t match broad public values in the United States. This survey conducted in partnership with the Animal-Human Policy Center provides essential data for our ongoing policy reform work and will help convince policymakers to take more immediate action to address the mismanagement of our nation’s wildlife. Thanks to the support of Coyote Collective members, we will continue collaborating with researchers, like-minded organizations, wildlife advocates, and policymakers to safeguard our nation’s wild carnivores from unjust and unscientific persecution.”
Read a fact sheet about the survey here.
View the survey results in full here.
New Mexico Loses Another Wildlife Commissioner
Friday, the New Mexico Wildlife Federation released news that Edward Garcia resigned from the New Mexico Game Commission effective Aug. 1. While there is no additional information available at this time, the loss of yet another commissioner adds additional weight to calls for improved commission processes designed to increase stability.
Wildlife commissioners play a crucial role in shaping the policies that affect our wild species and ecosystems. Appointed by governors, these decision-makers oversee state wildlife agencies, set hunting regulations, and influence conservation efforts.
A single wildlife commissioner can influence policies that protect imperiled species, uphold ethical standards in wildlife management, and prioritize ecosystem health. By appointing commissioners who understand the importance of balancing diverse public interests—including those of non-consumptive users like wildlife watchers, hikers, and advocates for ecological integrity—we can create more inclusive, compassionate, and forward-thinking wildlife governance.
This is why Wildlife for All is committed to supporting the appointment of diverse, informed, and compassionate commissioners. Our Ideal Commissioner webpage provides guidance on the qualities we believe every wildlife commissioner should possess, including a commitment to scientific integrity, ethical wildlife management, and inclusivity of all stakeholders.
Importantly, the ideal commissioner has the understanding to serve as a trustee of the wildlife public trust for all, including future generations and for wild animals themselves. We hope to see the next New Mexico commissioner reflect these values.
Committee Fails To Ban Snowmobiling Over Wildlife
Despite global public outcry for months, the Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee advanced a toothless bill from a biased, undemocratic working group
Cheyenne, Wyo.—At today’s meeting the Wyoming State Legislature Joint Committee on Travel, Recreation, Wildlife, and Cultural Resources had the opportunity to address the public’s overwhelming demand to ban snowmobiling over wildlife.
Instead, lawmakers passed draft legislation requiring the quick dispatch of predators disabled by vehicles used to chase them down. Despite months of global outcry and testimony from concerned citizens, conservationists, and animal welfare advocates after the incident where a young wolf was not only disabled by a snowmobile but tortured in public afterwards, the committee’s watered-down bill falls short of any meaningful protections and would even codify running predators over with snowmobiles.
The bill, drafted by a working group with clear ties to special interests related to agriculture, lacks enforceability and fails to address the core issue: the cruelty inflicted on wildlife through this practice. Many who attended the meeting expressed frustration at the biased and undemocratic process, which left the voices of the public largely unheard.
Of the 15 public comments allowed, 13 strongly advocated for a ban on this widely opposed practice, but the voices of the two special interest representatives supporting the bill were given undue weight. Ten out of 12 committee members voted in favor, with two members absent.
Not a single legislator acknowledged the cruelty of the state’s current laws allowing motorized vehicles to hunt down predators. The committee’s decision to punt this issue to general session is a devastating blow to wolves and other predators in Wyoming, continuing the state’s legacy of ignoring calls for more humane wildlife management.
In response, Wildlife for All issued the following statement:
“It’s outrageous that despite overwhelming public outrage and the clear need for action, the committee has violated the trust of its constituents by offering a bill that does nothing to address the cruelty of running over wildlife with vehicles,” said Michelle Lute, Ph.D., executive director of Wildlife for All. “As winter and the forthcoming legislative session approaches, the urgency to take meaningful action grows. In light of this, and the overwhelming united front from wildlife stakeholders—whether they’re wildlife watchers or advocates or hunters—it’s unthinkable that the committee has opted for this weak and ineffective response that continues to leave Wyoming’s wildlife vulnerable.
“The committee’s process was undemocratic from the start, dominated by special interests and insiders while ignoring the voices of everyday Wyomingites and folks who love visiting the state because of its unparalleled natural heritage. But this fight is far from over. We’re building people power in Wyoming so that decision-makers will be forced to listen to their constituents and outlaw cruelty to wildlife once and for all.”
###
About Wildlife for All
Wildlife for All is a national organization dedicated to reforming wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. Through research, advocacy, and education, we aim to protect wildlife and ensure that policies reflect the values of all Americans.
Hunters Need Predators
In North America, there is a long history since European settlement of hostility and intolerance towards native predators like cougars, bobcats, wolves, and coyotes. This antipathy is reflected today in the current system of state wildlife management, which continues to permit extensive (and sometimes unlimited and year-round) hunting of these species. However, native predators play critical ecological roles, some of which benefit hunters themselves.
A recent piece entitled “Hunters Need Predators” by outdoor writer Ted Williams highlights the phenomenon of “predator cleansing”, a valuable service native carnivores perform in keeping herds healthier. For example, predators are hunters’ allies in combating Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), an always-fatal malady that affects ungulates like deer, elk, and moose. This disease is difficult to detect, continues to spread, and is considered a major threat to the future of ungulate hunting. However, bobcats potentially limit CWD contamination, as they are one of the few animals whose stomachs “deactivate” CWD prions when they consume infected deer. Wildlife ecologists have also noted that this disease has not flourished in areas where wolves roam the landscape. Other research indicates wolves and cougars selectively target infected deer and elk as prey, thus helping to keep herds healthier. Venison from CWD-infected animals is unsafe for human consumption but safe for wild predators.
“These and similar results in other states call into question the wisdom of permissive, in some cases unrestricted, hunting and trapping of cougars, wolves, coyotes and bobcats. If the whole of nature is good, no part can be bad. It’s time for all hunters to recognize predators as allies, not competitors.”
Read the op-ed here.
WDFW Issues Another Wolf Kill Order for Couse Pack
For Immediate Release: September 25, 2024
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Adheres to Outdated Management Practices, Issues Another Wolf Kill Order
Director approves lethal removal for the fourth time in two months
A gray wolf stands amidst tree cover, staring at the camera. Image courtesy of The Seattle Times.
Olympia, Wash.—The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Director Kelly Susewind approved a wolf kill order yesterday for the lethal removal of one adult from the Couse wolf pack territory in southeast Washington.
This action serves as the fourth approved wolf kill since July 31, a stark contrast to 2023 when only two wolves were killed by the department over the course of the entire year.
In response, Wildlife for All issued the following statement:
“The values of coexistence and compassion for wildlife are not reflected in the outdated policies of regulatory agencies like WDFW,” said Michelle Lute, Ph.D., executive director of Wildlife for All. “A small but powerful interest group continues to dominate wolf management in Washington, overshadowing the views of the majority of Washingtonians who value wolves and want non-lethal, proactive solutions supported by robust science. It’s time for the state to align its actions with true wildlife conservation.”
The best available science doesn’t support lethal control. Studies have shown that even the death of a single pack leader can result in fracture of pack structure and decreased reproduction in subsequent years.
This combination of increased mortality and decreased reproduction can compromise population recovery goals over time. Furthermore, pack instability can lead to increased livestock depredations following lethal control, rather than WDFW’s intended goal of decreasing conflict.
Instead, lethal wolf control is usually a political measure to pacify ranchers who demand action following livestock attack or losses yet who typically fail to exhaust coexistence measures or to implement them proactively.
“One wolf in the Couse Pack was already killed on July 8 of this year, proving that lethal removal doesn’t work,” Lute explained. “WDFW, like all state wildlife agencies, are trustees that manage wildlife in the public trust but are derelict in those duties when they choose to kill wolves in service to private businesses operating on our public lands. WDFW must start listening to their constituents, the diverse Washingtonians that value their natural heritage. Moreover, they can no longer ignore the growing body of evidence showing that consistent non-lethal prevention is the only way to manage wolves and livestock in shared landscapes.”
###
About Wildlife for All
Wildlife for All is a national organization dedicated to reforming wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. Through research, advocacy, and education, we aim to protect wildlife and ensure that policies reflect the values of all Americans.
Wild Ground is Common Ground
A recent op-ed (September 2, 2024) by Will Marlier challenges the notion that younger generations are “losing touch with nature”. He shares his experiences growing up and enjoying the outdoors in northeastern Vermont in the 2000s. Vermont, which is overall the most rural state and the third-oldest by population, is one of many states with ample opportunities for youth to hike, camp, play, and enjoy the natural world around them. Traditions and values inevitably change as new generations interact with wildlife and the outdoors in different ways, but interest in nature remains strong.
Will Marlier pushes back against the narrative often repeated in the wildlife management community that interest in hunting is waning in general because young/urban people are disconnected from nature and too immersed in their screens. That frequent narrative does not consider the alternative explanation that people have less interest in interacting with nature and wild animals in a consumptive way (i.e., hunting, hounding and trapping). As the writer says, this is not because they are disconnected from nature but because those are their values. He notes that on a national level, interest in activities like birdwatching, hiking, camping, and kayaking are growing in popularity. In contrast, practices like trapping for fur are slowly fading in approval and participation. Because values towards wildlife are shifting, this trend continues despite state wildlife agencies’ efforts to recruit more hunters, anglers, and trappers.
New Study Critiques Misleading Trapping Standards
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Peer-Reviewed Study Critiques Misleading Trapping Standards
Calls for Immediate Reform as More States Push Unethical Trapping Practices
Madison, Wis.— A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study, ‘Best Management Practices for Furbearer Trapping Derived from Poor and Misleading Science’ co-authored by Naomi Louchouarn, Gilbert Proulx, Thomas Serfass, Carter Niemeyer and Adrian Treves, critically evaluates the methodology of a flawed study that U.S. state wildlife agencies heavily rely on to justify trapping.
Through their research, Louchouarn and colleagues expose significant problems in so-called “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for furbearer trapping in North America. As more state wildlife agencies adopt these misguided BMPs to justify and promote trapping, the implications for public policy, and wildlife and ethical standards are dire.
The Flaws in Trapping BMPs and Their National Implications
Despite a marked decline in public support for trapping and decreasing numbers of trappers, state wildlife agencies across the United States are increasingly relying on BMPs to sanction the use of inhumane traps. These practices are out of step with the values held by the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly favor wildlife conservation and appreciate the intrinsic value of living animals. The BMPs, as developed in White et al. (2021), were intended to meet internationally agreed-upon standards for humane trapping. However, Louchouarn and Treves’ evaluation reveals that these BMPs fail to align with current International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and are based on incomplete, inadequate, and non-replicable research methods.
Conflict of interest concerns also abound. In stark contrast to White and co-authors’ process, Louchouarn and colleagues’ study was reviewed by five anonymous peers recruited by the journal seeking unaffiliated experts after receiving all co-authors’ full disclosures concerning potential competing interests.
The implications of this flawed research are far-reaching. As more state agencies, such as Vermont Fish & Wildlife, adopt these BMPs instead of addressing public preferences to ban recreational trapping, they perpetuate unethical trapping practices that not only harm wildlife but also mislead the public into believing that these methods are humane. In reality, the White et al. study reveals that the BMPs allow for severe injuries—including amputations and deaths—up to 30% of the time, and are still considered to meet the BMP criteria.
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
“It is crucial, especially in cases where research is used to justify the consumptive, and sometimes controversial, use of wildlife, that journals hold researchers to the highest possible standards of transparency.” said Naomi Louchouarn, co-author of the study and associate researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “That highest possible standard requires transparency in the study methods and every effort throughout the scientific study process to reduce all possible biases, including the potential competing interests of the authors.”
Adrian Treves, co-author and professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, added, “Our scientific team followed the highest standards of independent review, to model how White et al. and the journal fell below those standards. The public cannot trust science when researchers and data collectors – agency staff and private commercial and recreational trappers – are invested in the industry they study. Even more worrisome are the many authors of White et al.’s employment in agencies that claim to regulate the industry that appears to emerge shining from their study.”
“Science should be held to the highest standards, especially when it forms the basis for public policy,” said Michelle Lute, PhD in wildlife management and executive director of Wildlife for All. “This evaluation of White et al. (2021) shows that the research underpinning trapping BMPs is not only flawed but also deeply misleading. We urge state wildlife agencies and legislators to reconsider their reliance on these standards and to push for more transparent, reproducible, and ethically sound practices.”
The Growing Discrepancy Between Public Values and State Policies
The increasing adoption of BMPs by state agencies comes at a time when public interest in trapping is waning as public opposition increases. The number of active trappers is steadily decreasing, as is the global market for animal pelts. Despite this, state agencies continue to promote trapping under the guise of these BMPs, often ignoring the public’s preference for non-lethal and ethical wildlife management.
“Roxy’s Law,” recently enacted in New Mexico, provides a stark contrast to the policies supported by BMPs. This law, inspired by the tragic death of a dog caught in a snare trap, bans the use of traps, snares, and poisons on public lands, except in certain controlled circumstances. It reflects a growing recognition among legislators and the public alike that traps are not only inhumane but also pose an unacceptable risk to both wildlife and domestic animals.
“The American public deserves policies that reflect their values—values that prioritize the well-being of wildlife and respect for life,” said Brenna Galdenzi, President of Protect Our Wildlife. “The current BMPs fail to meet these expectations. It’s time for a thorough review and reform of these practices.”
Wildlife for All, in collaboration with its member organizations, calls on state wildlife agencies and legislators to rethink their reliance on flawed BMPs. It’s time to align state policies with the values of the American public, who increasingly see wildlife as beings with intrinsic value, deserving of better protections and respect.
For more information or to schedule an interview with Naomi Louchouarn and Adrian Treves, please contact info@wildlifeforall.us.
You can read the full text of the study here, published in the open-access journal Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management.
# # #
About Wildlife for All
Wildlife for All is a national organization dedicated to reforming wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. Through research, advocacy, and education, we aim to protect wildlife and ensure that policies reflect the values of all Americans.
