News & Commentary
Prevent Bobcat Trapping in Indiana
We need your voice to prevent bobcat trapping in Indiana.
In 2024, Indiana lawmakers passed a bill mandating the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to establish a bobcat trapping season by 2025, the first in decades. This decision will allow up to 250 of these elusive and once-endangered wildcats to be trapped and killed in southern Indiana.
Indiana’s bobcats have faced significant challenges over the years, with unregulated hunting and habitat loss leading to their designation as an endangered species in 1969. Thanks to dedicated conservation efforts, they were removed from the state’s endangered list in 2005.
Bobcats Trapping Isn’t Necessary
The legislators pushing forward this proposal, despite a clear lack of demand from the public and no scientific evidence to justify it, raises serious ethical concerns. In fact, the state rallied in 2018 to defeat a similar measure.
These legislators claim the bobcat population threatens game like deer, rabbits, and turkeys, but research does not support these claims. Rather, it shows that bobcats play a key role in controlling rodent populations, helping maintain balance in the natural world.
The proposed trapping methods—foothold traps and cable snares—are widely recognized as inhumane. These traps often cause prolonged suffering and can unintentionally capture non-target animals such as pets and endangered species.
Instead of prioritizing the protection of Indiana’s wildlife, this effort seems more aligned with catering to a small group of recreational trappers. Without a comprehensive population survey, there is no solid scientific justification for allowing a hunting or trapping season. Their population is still recovering from coming within a breath of extinction and remains fragile.
January 16th Bobcat Trapping Regulations Public Hearing
Mark your calendars! The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) is holding a critical public hearing on January 16th where you can comment on the proposed quota of 250 bobcats to be trapped and snared. This is an opportunity to make your voice heard and demand a quota of ZERO for bobcat trapping.
Event Details:
- When: January 16th, 5:30 PM
- Where: Johnson County Fairgrounds (Scott Hall), 250 Fairgrounds Street, Franklin, Indiana
If you care about bobcats and their vital role in Indiana’s ecosystems, this is your chance to stand up for them! We want to fill the room with supporters, so please attend if you can.
Can’t Attend? Here’s How You Can Help:
If you’re unable to attend the hearing, you can still make a difference by submitting a written comment:
- Email: Send your comment to abonar@nrc.in.gov
- Online Submission: Use the NRC’s Rulemaking Docket and select “Bobcat Amendments” to submit your feedback.
Even if you’ve already submitted a comment or spoken at the November hearing, your work isn’t done. Encourage at least two friends to participate by submitting a comment or attending the hearing. Additionally, consider writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper to raise awareness about this issue.
Tips for Writing Your Comment or Testimony
Whether you’re speaking at the hearing or submitting a written comment, here’s a simple outline to follow:
- Introduce Yourself: Share your name and where you’re from.
- Express Your Concern: Explain why you care about bobcats and why you oppose the proposed trapping quota.
- Make Your Ask: Politely and firmly request a bobcat trapping quota of ZERO.
If you need assistance crafting your testimony or comment, send us an email.
Pack the Room for Bobcats!
The Indiana chapter of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is asking for people to show up at the meeting and rally for bobcats. They will provide buttons for attendees to wear in support of bobcats. Even if you choose not to speak, your presence and visible support can make a huge impact.
It’s time to get loud again. This time, your voice can once again be the difference. The DNR is required to listen to public opinion before making its final decision, and the time to act is now.
30th Anniversary of Wolf Reintroduction: Changing the Narrative
Wolf #9, the mother of the first pups, in the Rose Creek acclimation pen, 1995. Credit: NPS, Barry O’Neill
30th Anniversary of Wolf Reintroduction: Changing the Narrative
Today, January 12, marks the 30th anniversary of the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, of a monumental moment in conservation history. On this day in 1995, 8 wolves crossed the border into the park, beginning their journey back to their historic range—a landscape they had been eradicated from due to settler colonialism and misguided predator eradication policies.
Truck carrying wolves driving through Roosevelt Arch with school children watching, January 12, 1995. Credit: NPS, Diane Papineau
Reintroducing wolves was a bold step toward righting this wrong. While the process was—and is—hard on individual animals, it was a larger victory for restoring the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Wolves, as keystone species, play a critical role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Their return to Yellowstone has profoundly shaped the park, benefiting everything from riparian corridors to aspen and willow groves to beavers and songbirds.
Their journey back to the wild is a testament to what we can achieve when we prioritize science and ethics in wildlife management. Yet as we celebrate this milestone, we must also acknowledge the ongoing work to protect and advocate for wolves.
Three decades later, we’re still battling the same misinformation and resistance we saw at the reintroduction. How is it that we’re still fighting the same anti-wolf rhetoric?
The truth is, culture and narrative hold immense power. For 30 years, mainstream culture has been flooded with messages that paint wolves as villains rather than acknowledging their intrinsic value, vital ecosystem role, and the wild inspiration they provide. The stories that do tell these benefits are often overshadowed by fearmongering and baseless hatred.
To truly protect wolves, we must reframe the conversation. This doesn’t mean arguing every Internet troll into submission with facts. You can’t change a perspective based on emotion with logic, no matter how much it makes sense.
Reframing the conversation means flooding the national dialogue with a narrative of value for wolves, using compelling stories that showcase wolves as essential, sentient beings. It means refusing to let sensationalist media “both sides” this issue and instead, ask them to tell the story of wolves with clarity and compassion. It means fighting back against misinformation with arguments that upend the point, such as showcasing how many unattended cattle grazing on public lands die from disease and weather versus from wolves (hint: it’s orders of magnitudes of difference).
Crystal Bench wolf acclimation pen, October 1994. Credit: NPS, Jim Peaco
We’ve seen the power of narrative change before—now it’s time to apply it to save wolves. Share their stories, show up at meetings, and amplify their importance until the negative voices are drowned out by a chorus of support for wolves and wild nature.
How You Can Help Wolves:
First, we need to change the culture around wolves. This is something everyone can contribute to, whether you live in a state with wolves or not. If your state doesn’t have wolves yet, you can still focus on changing the conversation around wildlife—especially other maligned species that are often treated as pests. We need to reshape how people think about wolves and predators in general, building a culture that values their ecological roles and intrinsic value.
If you do have wolves in your state, we need to build power on the ground. That means paying close attention to state legislatures, wildlife commissions, and agency personnel appointments—because these are the people and systems making decisions about wolves. We also need to fight for cultural change, telling stories that show the value of wolves beyond numbers on a population chart.
This is a long-term fight. It’s about winning hearts and minds *and* pushing for policy change at every level. What if you could get your city council to adopt a pro-wolf resolution? Or influence a land grant university to stop labeling wolves and other predators as “nuisance” species? Think about the spheres of influence you already have—whether it’s through community groups, schools, or even your local library.
Not everyone has to be the one giving testimony at a hearing—that’s okay! There are so many ways to contribute. You can volunteer to help research for a nonprofit, amplify messaging, or organize events in your community. Maybe you start a wolf working group or create a local coalition.
And examples of grassroots action are everywhere. Just look at the Wolf Welcoming Committee, which was started by Susan Prince and Jennie Sharp in Sisters, Oregon. These two tenacious women founded the group in order to positively influence public opinion about wolves and to create an accepting environment as they re-establish in Central Oregon. Now wolves are thriving in the nearby Metolius River watershed, and this mighty little groups is poised to be ambassadors for their wild and human neighbors alike. So with a little motivation, one or two people *can* make a difference—and together, we can build a movement that reforms state policies to protect wolves and ensure their future.
Additionally, now is the time to get involved in your state’s Wildlife Action Plan revision, most states are starting the process of revising them to be finalized in 2025. This is a once in a decade opportunity to ask that wolves be included on the list of SGCN if they aren’t already.
Something you can do year-round is monitor your state wildlife commission (if your state has wolves, if not: help a state that does) or board meetings and participate by giving written and oral testimony. Whether or not wolves are on the agenda, there are opportunities to give public comment about coexistence, robust science and genuine conservation efforts that your state should be engaging in. This is an opportunity to build relationships with the ultimate wildlife decision-makers in your state. We can’t give the opposition more fodder to say we don’t care about wildlife because we don’t show up. Use our talking points on our website and download our advocacy toolkit.
Finally, when your state wildlife commission has an opening for a new or possible reappointment of a commissioner or board member, engage in the state’s process for suggesting candidates or if they don’t have that, help identify and then write letters of support for good candidates. If your state senate has a confirmation process, that is another opportunity to support candidates with strong backgrounds and expertise in conservation.
Let this 30th anniversary inspire us to continue fighting for wildlife, ensuring their place in the ecosystems they call home. Join us in honoring 30 years of Yellowstone’s wolves and in working toward a future where all wildlife can thrive.
Together, we can reclaim the story of wolves—and their rightful place in the wild, keeping their legacy alive for generations to come.
Grizzly Bears Stay Protected – For Now
Grizzly Bears Stay Protected – For Now
In cautious good news, this week brought a significant development in wildlife conservation: grizzly bears stay protected. The Biden administration declined to remove grizzly bears from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list, rejecting petitions from Montana and Wyoming to delist the iconic species. Their announcement also resolved a court-ordered settlement with Idaho, which petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to strip protections from all grizzlies in the lower 48.
While this is a positive step toward ensuring the continued survival of grizzly bears, it’s essential to approach the news with cautious optimism.
The good: USFWS concluded that grizzly bears remain threatened by habitat loss, human-wildlife conflict, and climate change. Maintaining ESA protections recognizes the importance of addressing these ongoing threats before delisting is even considered.
The proposed single Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is a positive step toward recognizing the need for connectivity between currently isolated grizzly populations, which often suffer from limited genetic exchange. However, the new DPS map excludes significant portions of these bears’ historic range (they were found everywhere in the Great Plains and West except deserts) and substantial areas of ideal grizzly habitat.
The warning signs: This decision is not without concerning caveats. While the agency declined the petitions from Montana and Wyoming, it “compromised” with a proposal to allow private landowners to kill bears to protect livestock, and without a permit if livestock are in imminent danger.
The USFWS also proposed a new rule that would designate a management area for grizzly populations in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington. This plan, while still under review, suggests removing ESA protections for grizzlies outside this area and loosens the restrictions on when grizzlies can be killed.
Our take? Safeguards must remain in place until grizzlies are not only fully recovered but also safeguarded by state-level regulations capable of ensuring their long-term survival. And we, as advocates, must remain watchful as this rulemaking process unfolds.
Narrative Note: What Does “More Tools and Flexibility” Mean?
Word choice with federal and state agencies often signals more than the average reader knows. In defending the proposed rule, outgoing USFWS director Martha Williams described it as providing “more tools and flexibility” for managing grizzly bear populations. Unfortunately, in this context, such language often translates to increased opportunities for lethal measures. States like Montana and Wyoming, in particular, have a track record of prioritizing hunting and lethal predator control over coexistence strategies.
This underscores the need for vigilance. The rulemaking process includes environmental analysis and a public comment period, giving advocates and concerned citizens an opportunity to ensure grizzly bears don’t lose critical protections.
Grizzly bears are an apex predator and a keystone species, playing an essential role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Yet their survival depends on more than federal protections—it also requires a cultural shift toward coexistence. Human-wildlife conflict remains one of the biggest threats to grizzlies, especially in areas where their habitat overlaps with human activity.
States that petitioned for delisting often fail to invest in proactive measures like bear-proof trash systems, livestock guardian programs, and public education. Instead, they rely on reactive, lethal strategies that exacerbate conflict rather than solve it.
Photo of Grizzly 399 and Spirit by C. Adams, Grand Teton National Park
Focus Your Fight: Remembering Grizzly 399
This news also arrives on the heels of our collective heartbreak over the loss of Grizzly 399, the world’s most famous grizzly bear. At 27 years old, the matriarch captivated millions with her resilience and grace, becoming a symbol of what is possible when people choose to coexist with wildlife. Her death in a vehicle collision serves as a stark reminder of the precariousness of grizzly populations, the role we play in their lives, and the urgent need to protect their future.
The decision to keep grizzly bears on the ESA list is an important victory, but it’s just one step in a much larger fight. This announcement kicks off a rulemaking process that could weaken protections in the future. We must remain engaged, ensuring that public comments and environmental reviews prioritize ethical and science-based strategies centering coexistence.
In December, 15 national, regional, and state environmental, tribal, and animal welfare groups filed a petition to the USFWS to adopt a new approach to recovering grizzly bears in the U.S. Northern Rockies. Based on a new science-based report by Dr. Christopher Servheen, the former USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator who served in that role from 1981-2016, the report details site-specific management actions to aid in the bears’ recovery and calls for a new approach to managing the bears as one unified population with natural connectivity between ecosystems rather than continuing with the current practice of managing isolated populations of bears. As you advocate for these iconic bears, lift up this research and its conclusions in your advocacy.
Grizzlies symbolize the wildness and resilience of North America’s landscapes. To honor Grizzly 399’s legacy, let’s commit to advocating for a future where grizzlies thrive. We can start by participating in the upcoming rulemaking process, advocating for state-level regulations that prioritize coexistence, and supporting organizations working to protect grizzly habitats.
How You Can Help Grizzly Bears Stay Protected
- Stay informed about the USFWS rulemaking process and participate in the public comment period.
- Show up at the meetings: FWS will present more details about the decision at several public meetings later this month. They include:
- Jan. 28, 2025: Missoula, at the Hilton Garden Inn, 3720 N. Reserve St. Information meeting 3-5 p.m., public hearing 6-8 p.m. MST
- Jan. 29: Coeur d’Alene, ID. Information meeting 3-5 p.m., public hearing 6-8 p.m. PST
- Jan. 30: Virtual meeting https://www.fws.gov/grizzlyrulemaking
- 6-8 p.m. MST
- Feb. 10: Cody, WY. Information meeting 3-5 p.m., public hearing 6-8 p.m. MST
- Show up at the meetings: FWS will present more details about the decision at several public meetings later this month. They include:
- Advocate for ethical, science-based management strategies centering coexistence at the state level—many states have wildlife commission meetings this month.
- Support organizations working to promote coexistence and protect grizzly habitats.
The fight for grizzly bears is far from over. Let’s honor Grizzly 399 and her legacy by ensuring these incredible creatures continue to roam wild and free for generations to come.
WDFW Escalates War on Wolves with Columbia Pack Decision
WDFW Escalates War on Wolves with Latest Lethal Removal Decision
Columbia Pack victim of manipulated narrative and anti-coexistence bias
For Immediate Release: January 7, 2025
Olympia, Wash.—Yesterday, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announced it approved the lethal removal of wolves from the Columbia Pack in yet another disheartening step away from science-based, ethical wildlife management. The department’s increasingly aggressive actions against wolves over the past eight months signal a disturbing trend that prioritizes a narrow set of interests over Washington’s ecological health and public interest.
A troubling element of this decision is the department’s apparent manipulation of depredation data to bolster their narrative. In previous incident reports from last fall, WDFW grouped related depredations together, presenting a cohesive picture of wolf-livestock interactions. Now, these incidents are inexplicably listed separately in the data grid on their website, inflating the appearance of conflict and providing a skewed justification for lethal removals. This approach erodes public trust and raises serious questions about the department’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
In response, Wildlife for All issued the following statement:
“Since last year, WDFW has displayed an uncharacteristically aggressive stance toward wolves, authorizing lethal actions at an alarming rate,” said Michelle Lute, Ph.D. in wolf conservation, executive director of Wildlife for All. “This approach ignores a growing body of research that shows killing wolves often exacerbates livestock conflicts rather than reducing them. The loss of pack members can disrupt social cohesion, leading to more unpredictable and problematic wolf behavior. Additionally, this tactic undermines the hard-won but ongoing recovery of wolves in Washington, a species that both remains at risk and is critical to healthy ecosystems.
“WDFW’s decision-making should reflect the best available science, and offer more transparency into the current use of coexistence strategies, not only to protect livestock but also honor the public’s overwhelming support for wolf protection. Wolves are a public trust species—belonging to all Washingtonians—and play a vital role in maintaining ecological balance. Decisions about their management should be made transparently, ethically, and in alignment with science—not shaped to fit a narrative that disproportionately favors lethal control. Wildlife for All demands that WDFW halt this escalation of lethal actions and recommit to meaningful coexistence solutions that respect both wildlife and communities.”
See our previous statement on WDFW’s war on wolves.
###
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.
January Wildlife Commission Meetings
It’s time to get active in January Wildlife Commission Meetings.
January Wildlife Commission Meetings
Welcome to 2025, wildlife advocates! As we start this new year, let’s kick it off with activism.
Wildlife commission meetings are critical opportunities to influence state policies and ensure that wildlife is managed in a way that reflects ecological principles and public values. Your voice matters. Whether you choose to attend in person, speak virtually, or submit comments, participating in these meetings is a meaningful way to stand up for wildlife.
Below is the list of every state with a wildlife commission meeting in January, listed from first to last by date. As you plan your comments and engagement, use the resources on our Resources Page and Advocacy Toolkit to prepare. Check below for meeting details by state and instructions for how to engage. Let’s make a difference!
Oklahoma
Meeting Date: January 6
Location: Oklahoma City
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: It’s not clear how to comment or speak; we suggest emailing the department to ask. It’s also unclear if there is a virtual participation option.
Louisiana
Meeting Date: January 7
Location: LDWF Headquarters, Joe L. Herring Room, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: The website does not have an agenda up yet and it is unclear how to speak or comment, as well as if virtual participation is allowed. From the website: “The Commission meets the first Thursday of every month. Unless otherwise noted, Commission meetings begin at 9:30 am. Commission meetings are open to the public. A live audio/video stream of each meeting is also available via Zoom for those who are not able to attend in person.”
Colorado
Meeting Date: January 8-9
Location: CPW Headquarters – Hunter Education Building, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Speaking Deadline: January 3 for virtual attendance. To speak in person (recommended), arrive early and grab a blue card to sign up to speak. Virtual speaking deadline was Friday, January 3 at noon.
If you are only able to provide written comments, please email all Commissioners at least 24-hours in advance of meeting start time at dnr_cpwcommission@state.co.us.
Notes: See our Colorado action alert page for more details, including talking points.
Alaska
Meeting Date: January 9
Location: Best Western Lake Lucille Inn, 1300 W Lake Lucille Drive, Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Comments due January 3; use this form. Meeting notice and agenda here.
Iowa
Meeting Date: January 9
Location: Des Moines
Details: Click here for agenda and details.
Notes: The meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. Teleconference: 442-242-3609 PIN: 883 789 392#. Video conference: meet.google.com/sco-mbns-qva. If you are unable to attend the business meeting, comments regarding agenda items may be submitted for public record to Alicia Plathe at Alicia.Plathe@dnr.iowa.gov or 6200 Park Ave Ste 200, Des Moines IA 50321 up to 24 hours prior to the business meeting.
Utah
Meeting Date: January 9
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; the last one was in December. 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. Learn how to make a presentation to the RAC or Board.
Michigan
Meeting Date: January 9
Location: Lansing Community College – Downtown, 600 North Grand Avenue, Michigan Room, Lansing, MI 48933
Details: No agenda is available yet.
Notes: The meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. It is unclear how to comment or if it is possible to speak virtually. Public comment guidelines are available on the website.
South Dakota
Meeting Date: January 9-10
Location: Ramkota Convention Center, Pierre
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: The meeting is January 9, 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. and January 10, 8 a.m.-12 p.m. Public comments are welcome during the meeting. To provide comments, join the meeting in person or via Zoom.To join via conference call, dial 1.669.900.9128 | Webinar ID: 912 6417 6710 | Passcode: 970458. Watch the Livestream here. To speak, register by 1 pm by emailing: Liz.Kierl@state.sd.us. Testifiers should provide their full names, whom they are representing, city of residence, and which proposed topic they will be addressing. You can also submit a public comment using this form. Here is a helpful page on how to effect change with the department and commission. Full meeting schedule for the year is here.
Tennessee
Meeting Date: January 9-10
Location: Dyersburg
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda is available at the time of webpage publishing)
Notes: No agenda listed and it is unclear how to watch remotely, or how to provide comments.
Hawai’i
Meeting Date: January 10
Location: 1151 Punchbowl St. Room 132 (Kalanimoku Building), Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
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. Virtual attendance is available; register by January 9. 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: January 10
Location: New Mexico State Library, Piñon Room, 1209 Camino Carlos Rey, Santa Fe, NM 87509
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting 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 here. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The commission may hear verbal public comments from virtual attendees at this meeting. If comments are taken, you will be asked to virtually raise your hand and then acknowledged to speak when it is your turn. A live webcast of this meeting will be available on the commission’s Webcast page and on our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/NMGameandFish. Comments will not be taken on the live webcast or on YouTube.
Washington
Meeting Date: January 10
Location: Olympia
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: To listen to the meeting, please access it at the Zoom Link. In-person: Registration closes 15 minutes before Open Public Input and 15 minutes prior to any individual agenda items that have a public comment period. Virtual: You must sign up by 5 p.m. the day before each meeting begins, for this meeting 5 p.m. January 9. If you are unable to participate, you can submit your comments on the Commission contact page. Written comments can also be emailed to commission@dfw.wa.gov, or sent by postal mail to: Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, Post Office Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504-3. If you wish to provide written comment to the Commission at an upcoming meeting, it needs to be received by 8 a.m. on the Thursday before the Commission meeting so that Commissioners have time to review them before the meeting starts.
New Jersey
Meeting Date: January 14
Location: Assunpink Wildlife Management Area – Central Region Office, Large Conference Room 1 Eldridge Rd., Robbinsville Twp, NJ
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 10 a.m. Agenda not online at time of webpage publishing. Comments are only in person “in order to guarantee the best opportunity for public participation.” Listen online via GoToMeetingor call in +1 (312) 757-3121 Access Code: 848-342-077
Arkansas
Meeting Date: January 15-16
Location: Little Rock
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.
California
Meeting Date: January 15
Location: Natural Resources Headquarters Building 715 P Street, Second Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Public comments must be submitted by January 14. To participate in the meeting remotely, you may join via Zoom or by telephone directly at https://wildlife-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82507253166. If you join via Zoom on your computer or mobile phone app (Options 1, 2, and 4) use the “raise hand” feature to indicate that you would like to participate in the conversation. If you join via phone only (Option 3), press “*2” to virtually raise your hand to indicate you would like to participate in the conversation; if you press *2 again, you will lower your hand. When the committee chair calls on you, you may need to unmute yourself as well. You also have the option of turning on your video during committee meetings. Please see the meeting agenda for full instructions regarding speaking at the meeting.
Ohio
Meeting Date: January 15
Location: Wildlife District 1 Office, 1500 Dublin Rd., Columbus, OH
Details: Click here for agenda and details
Notes: Meeting starts at 6 p.m. Public comments are accepted during the meeting. 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 (wildlife.council@dnr.ohio.gov), or speak to a council member before or after a meeting 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 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.
Massachusetts
Meeting Date: January 15
Location: MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note agenda is not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Unclear how to submit comments or speak at meetings, whether in person or virtually. Attendees can go in person or join via Zoom, passcode: 456456 or join via audio: (929) 205-6099. Webinar ID: 821 7021 4789, Passcode: 456456
Vermont
Meeting Date: January 15
Location: TBD
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note agenda is not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Unclear how to comment or speak either virtually or in person. Full meeting schedule for 2025 is here.
South Carolina
Meeting Date: January 16
Location: 260 D Epting Lane, West Columbia, SC 29172
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 10 a.m. Contact Sandy Rucker at 803-734-9102 or ruckers@dnr.sc.gov for more information or how to participate.
Wyoming
Meeting Date: January 16-17
Location: The Elk Room at the Wyoming Game and Fish Headquarters, 5400 Bishop Blvd., Cheyenne
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: This meeting will be conducted in person and via Zoom (Webinar ID: 836 5448 7680—for January 16th only). 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, by Monday January 13 to toni.bell2@wyo.gov. The session on January 16 begins at noon, and the session on the 17th at 8 a.m. Here is the January 17th Zoom link (Webinar ID: 864 7851 9309).
New Hampshire
Meeting Date: January 21
Location: Fish and Game Headquarters, 11 Hazen Drive in Concord, NH
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details (note no agenda is available at time of website publishing).
Notes: Commission meetings are regularly scheduled at 1:00 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. Many items happen at subcommittees; find a list of those here.
Texas
Meeting Date: January 22-23
Location: Austin
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details
Notes: Comment online through 5 p.m. January 22 using the links in the meeting agenda.
Virginia
Meeting Date: January 23
Location: 7870 Villa Park Dr, Suite 400, Henrico, VA 23228
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note no agenda or details besides location and time were available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 9 a.m. Public comment on agenda items and non-agenda items are welcome at any regularly scheduled Board or Board Committee meeting. Please see the meeting schedule for dates and additional details,
Nebraska
Meeting Date: January 23-24
Location: Lincoln
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note agenda was note available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: It is not clear from the website how to speak at a meeting, or how to submit comments beforehand. It is also unclear if the meeting will be livestreamed and if virtual participation is possible.
Nevada
Meeting Date: January 24-25
Location: Reno
Details: Click here for agenda and details (note agenda was note available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes:Per procedures on website, 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. Submit written comments on items prior to the meeting at wildlifecommission@ndow.org or attend in-person and make a comment during the meeting.
Idaho
Meeting Date: January 28-29 (or possibly just January 29)
Location: Idaho Fish and Game – Headquarters, 600 S. Walnut Street, Boise, ID 83712
Details: Click here for agenda and meeting details.
Notes: It is unclear if the meeting is both January 28-29 or just January 29; the website has conflicting information. Watch via Zoom; call-in number is 253-215-8782 and webinar ID is 912 8782 3590. 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: January 30
Location: K-State Alumni Center, Tadtman Boardroom, Manhattan, KS
Details: Click here for agenda and details. (note no agenda was available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: Meeting starts at 12 p.m. It is unclear how to sign up to speak, submit a comment, or if virtual participation is possible.
Georgia
Meeting Date: January 31
Location: A. W. Jones Heritage Center, 610 Beachview Drive, St. Simons Island, GA 3152
Details: Click here for agenda and details. (note the agenda link shows December information; the January agenda was not available at time of webpage publishing)
Notes: 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.
USFWS Investigating Illegal Killing of Copper Creek Male
Illegal Wolf Killing in Grand County Highlights Need for Broad Accountability, Focus on Coexistence
Gunshot Wound Confirmed as Cause of Death for Copper Creek Pack Male Gray Wolf 2309-OR
Grand County, Colo.—Yesterday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced they are investigating the illegal killing of a gray wolf in Grand County.
The wolf, identified as 2309-OR, was the father of the Copper Creek pack—the first pack to produce pups after reintroduction. The pack was captured by Colorado Parks and Wildlife in August 2024 and slated for relocation after nearby ranchers refused to follow best practices for coexistence, but 2309-OR died in captivity days after capture and one pup was never found.
When 2309-OR was captured, Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials described him as being “in poor health.” Tragically, he died on September 3, 2024. Now, USFWS is releasing the results of the necropsy, which revealed that his condition and death were caused by a gunshot wound.
In response, Michelle Lute, PhD, executive director at Wildlife for All issued the following statement:
“The illegal killing of a gray wolf in Grand County is an appalling act of violence against one of nature’s most vital and misunderstood predators. This crime threatens not only ecosystem health and wolf recovery, but also calls into question the safety of wolves across Colorado. We call on state and federal officials to increase transparency and accountability while investigating this incident swiftly and thoroughly.”
“For too long, wolves have been scapegoated and targeted with violence. This tragedy underscores the need for comprehensive reforms in wildlife governance to foster coexistence and accountability. Losing one of the first breeding males in the state in many decades highlights the urgent need to strengthen protections for wolves and ensure accountability for those who harm them.
“We also call on media agencies and outlets to increase the accuracy of reporting to prevent false narratives. It’s time to stop giving outsized attention to overstated controversy and instead, focus on solutions. There are nearly 3 million head of cattle and sheep combined in Colorado, and last year, there were only 17 confirmed wolf kills: said another way, 0.0006% of livestock died from wolf attacks last year. In contrast, approximately 3.5%—more than 100,000 cows and calves—die from respiratory and digestive illnesses annually in Colorado.
“We must recognize the critical role wolves play on the landscape and respect that they are here to stay. Wildlife belongs to all of us, and it is our collective responsibility to protect it.”
###
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.
Missouri Man Illegally Killed a Mountain Lion
A Missouri man illegally killed a mountain lion in November, underscoring the need for coexistence
Mountain lions are one of North America’s most iconic carnivores—and one of the most misunderstood. A story broke last week detailing how, in November, a Missouri man illegally killed a mountain lion that had traveled more than 400 miles on a journey as the lion searched for a territory to call home.
While hunting in the Ozark Highlands—an area of rolling hills and deep forests—a man spotted a mountain lion passing under his tree stand. Instead of marveling at the rare sight of this state-listed threatened species, he decided to shoot it—an act that blatantly violates Missouri law. Adding insult to injury, the man then posed for trophy photos with the slain animal, treating the unlawful killing as a moment of personal triumph (and proving once again that mountain lions are just trophies to this population of people). Mountain lions are a rare and protected species in Missouri, and their presence should be celebrated, not exploited.
This event is as tragic as it is absurd, and it raises serious questions. Why would someone’s first instinct be to kill a rare and protected animal, rather than appreciate its presence or report the sighting to authorities?
The incident also underscores a lack of hunting ethics. Firearm safety 101 says to always know your target before you pull the trigger. By killing a threatened species that the man was not authorized to hunt, this individual ignored one of the most basic tenets of firearm safety and ethical hunting. This man ignored all the laws governing his hunt. He didn’t have a permit. He wasn’t in danger. Instead, he watched the lion walk by and as it walked away, decided he wanted a trophy, leading him to pull the trigger.
The decision to pose for trophy photos compounds the outrage. Instead of showing remorse or acknowledging the significance of taking the life of a threatened animal, the man’s actions reflect a troubling attitude that treats wildlife, especially carnivores, as trophies and conquests rather than living beings deserving of respect.
While the fact that this Missouri man illegally killed a mountain lion should remain a focus, this incident underscores the broader challenges mountain lions face in a human-dominated world:
- Habitat loss and fragmentation: Urban development and agriculture have drastically reduced the range of mountain lions, forcing them into smaller territories and increasing encounters with humans. This mountain lion actually dispersed from Nebraska, traveling over 400 miles to southeast Missouri before she was killed.
- Persecution and misunderstanding: Mountain lions are often vilified as dangerous predators. Misconceptions about their behavior fuel unnecessary killings, even though attacks on humans are exceedingly rare.
- Hunting and poaching: Despite their protected status in some regions, illegal killings like this one remain a significant threat to mountain lion populations. Legal hunting of rebounding populations, such as Nebraska’s lions, also threatens regional recovery. Much of their historic habitat, especially across the East and Midwest, remain unoccupied.
Mountain lions hold intrinsic and ecological value, yet many people aren’t aware of just how important these big cats are. As apex predators, mountain lions play a critical role in maintaining healthy prey populations and therefore healthy ecosystems. By controlling populations of herbivores like deer, they help prevent overgrazing and reduce levels of disease within herds, which supports biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.
Beyond their ecological role, mountain lions have intrinsic value. These creatures are a testament to wildness and resilience, and their presence enriches the landscapes they inhabit. Killing them unnecessarily diminishes not only their existence but also the natural heritage they represent.
Perhaps a better question is, why Is violence so often people’s first instinct when it comes to wildlife? This incident in Missouri reflects a broader cultural issue: the default reaction to wildlife encounters is often fear or dominance. For some, seeing a mountain lion sparks an urge to shoot, driven by outdated narratives that frame predators as enemies rather than integral parts of the ecosystem.
It’s important to note this mindset is not isolated to Missouri. In Colorado, a mountain lion in Greeley was recently cornered by police after it accidentally entered a town and crossed onto the grounds of a school. Instead of waiting for Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers to assist, the untrained-in-wildlife-encounters police force cornered the animal into a “containment area,” leaving the animal no chance for escape or coexistence. They shot the mountain lion as he tried to escape.
The decision to kill or harass first and think later reveals how far we still have to go in fostering a culture of coexistence. While the safety of the public must be a priority, it should also be commonsense to always attempt proven coexistence strategies that keep wildlife and people safe. The failure to do so highlight our society’s overall lack of understanding and empathy for these animals, whose survival depends on humans giving them space rather than treating them as threats to be eliminated.
It’s clear that to better coexist with mountain lions, we need more education on wildlife laws, ethical hunting, and the importance of coexistence, particularly for hunters and communities in regions with established mountain lion populations and high likelihood of dispersing individuals.
We also need to strengthen protections. Mountain lions in Missouri and other states need more robust enforcement of protections, along with public messaging to emphasize the legal and ecological consequences of harming these animals.
Coexistence has to be the default, not the exception. By fostering a culture that values wildlife as part of our shared ecosystem, we can shift attitudes from fear and exploitation to understanding and respect.The deaths of these mountain lions are tragedies that could have been avoided. Instead of killing or cornering these animals, we should be working to ensure their survival in a world that is increasingly challenging for them.
Mountain lions are more than just symbols of wildness—they are key players in the health of our ecosystems and creatures with intrinsic worth. The next time someone encounters a mountain lion—or any wildlife—their first thought should not be to harm but to appreciate, understand, and protect.
Let’s honor the wild by choosing coexistence over violence.
Colorado Wildlife Commission January Action Alert
Colorado wildlife commission action alert: Your voice is needed to protect democracy and wildlife!
This lawsuit isn’t about legality (because it has none); it’s a clear intimidation tactic designed to silence commissioners who challenge the status quo and stand up for ecosystem-based, ethical wildlife management. It’s an attack on democratic principles and the right of public officials to represent diverse perspectives.The commissioners simply expressed their views as individuals in an op-ed about protecting mountain lions, a topic squarely within their role as public servants. Yet, these groups claim the act of signing on to an op-ed violates the state’s open meetings law—a breathtakingly absurd stretch of legal reasoning.
This isn’t about legitimate legal concerns; it’s about silencing dissent. The lawsuit’s real aim is to discourage other commissioners and decision-makers from speaking out against trophy hunting, using the courts as a weapon of intimidation. And it’s part of a troubling pattern: well-funded groups leverage anti-democracy tactics to protect the status quo and stifle conservation efforts.
Public commissions are supposed to represent diverse perspectives. It is extremely concerning that litigation has now become another weapon in the arsenal of extreme hunting groups trying to silence those who don’t agree with them.
1️⃣ Speak Out at the Colorado Wildlife Commission Meeting (Jan. 8-9 in Denver):
- Show up in person to support Jessica, Jack, and ethical wildlife policies. Just grab a blue card that morning to sign up to speak.
- Location: CPW Headquarters – Hunter Education Building, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216
- Can’t attend in person? Sign up to speak virtually using this form by Friday, Jan. 3 at noon.
- Here’s the commission meeting agenda
Talking Points for the Colorado Wildlife Commission Meeting
Support for the Commission and Commissioners Jessica Beaulieu and Jack Murphy against the lawsuit
- Defending Democracy:
- This lawsuit is a clear attempt to intimidate and silence commissioners who prioritize ethical, science-based wildlife management over trophy hunting interests. This undermines democratic decision-making and discourages diverse viewpoints.
- Thank you, Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy, for standing firm against political pressure and ensuring that Colorado’s wildlife management reflects public values and ecological science.
- Public Interest Over Special Interests:
- Wildlife management must serve all Coloradans, not just a small, vocal minority advocating for trophy hunting. Jessica Beaulieu and Jack Murphy’s work ensures broader public interests and the health of ecosystems are prioritized.
- Efforts to suppress their voices are not only undemocratic but also out of step with the majority of Coloradans who support ethical and sustainable conservation practices.
- Encourage the Commission:
- I urge this commission to stand united against intimidation and to uphold its commitment to ethical, balanced wildlife management.
- Supporting Commissioners Beaulieu and Murphy is critical to maintaining the integrity of this commission and ensuring the best outcomes for Colorado’s wildlife.
Agenda Item 13: CPW Recommendation to Deny Petition to Halt Wolf Reintroduction
- Support the Division’s Recommendation:
- Thank you to the Division for ignoring baseless opposition and upholding the law requiring wolf reintroduction. Science shows that wolves are essential for restoring balance to ecosystems and improving biodiversity.
- The vocal opposition to wolves is based on fear and misinformation, not science. Following through with the reintroduction is critical for Colorado’s leadership in conservation.
- Commit to Reintroduction:
- I urge the commission to follow CPW’s recommendation and deny this petition. Reintroducing wolves is not only legally mandated but also an opportunity to restore ecological balance that has been missing for decades.
Agenda Item 17a: Unlimited Take for Furbearers
- Call for Limits on Furbearer Killing:
- Unlimited take policies are unsustainable and harmful to Colorado’s ecosystems. Wildlife management should be based on science, not exploitation.
- I urge the commission to establish reasonable limits on furbearer take to ensure these species are protected from overharvesting and that their roles in ecosystems are preserved.
- Protect Ecosystems:
- Species classified as furbearers, like foxes and raccoons, play critical roles in maintaining healthy ecosystems. Unlimited killing undermines this balance and reflects outdated management practices.
Agenda Item 18: Modifying Harvest Limits for Mountain Lions
- Reduce Female Mountain Lion Harvests:
- Female mountain lions are essential for population stability, especially subadult females who are critical for future generations.
- I urge the commission to lower the harvest limits for female lions and include subadult females in the overall quota. Protecting these lions will help ensure a sustainable population and maintain ecological balance.
- Ecological and Ethical Responsibility:
- Mountain lions play a key role as apex predators in Colorado’s ecosystems. Overharvesting females disrupts populations and leads to unintended ecological consequences.
- Adopting stricter quotas will better align management with ethical conservation practices and public expectations.
Closing Statement for All Topics:
- Thank you for your commitment to ethical wildlife management and for considering the voices of Coloradans who value science, sustainability, and the preservation of our natural heritage. Together, we can create a future where wildlife and people thrive.
2️⃣ Write Letters to the Editor Supporting the Commission:
- Share your outrage with your local paper! This lawsuit is a baseless attempt to intimidate commissioners who prioritize public and wildlife interests over trophy hunting agendas. Colorado’s wildlife belongs to all Coloradans. Decisions about their future should be made by leaders guided by science, ethics, and a commitment to public interest, not by the influence of special interest groups.
3️⃣ Email Commissioners Directly:
- Send messages of support to the commission as a whole using this email and to individual commission members. Let them know Coloradans stand with them in defending democracy and wildlife conservation. You can find their emails on the Commissions’ website.
This is OUR chance to show that Colorado values ethical, democratic decision-making in wildlife policy. Together, we can stand strong against special interests and intimidation. ????
End the Incidental Trapping of Nevada’s Mountain Lions
Nevada’s Mountain Lions: Wildlife Management or Science? Not So Much
End the Incidental Trapping of Nevada’s Mountain Lions
Nevada has over 4,000 animal species, mammals, reptiles, birds, rodents, of which the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has management authority over about 900 of them. For such an arid state, such wildlife diversity is remarkable.
NDOW’s mission statement says, in part, that it is to “…protect, conserve, manage and restore wildlife and its habitat for the aesthetic, scientific, educational, recreational and economic benefits to citizens of Nevada and the United States…”
Do those lofty sentiments always hold true? Is biodiversity of primary importance in Nevada? Not always.
The truth is that NDOW and the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners (NBWC) sometimes pick winners and losers. Nevada’s mountain lions, coyotes, and ravens are three big losers. The terms apex species and keystone species are used to describe wildlife species which have been shown to exert a disproportionate beneficial impact on the integrity of our ecosystems.
The mountain lion is one such species. You’d think this status would warrant greater protections. Yet the opposite is true.
Although Nevada’s mountain lions have been categorized as a game species for decades, they are subject to hunting year-round, 24×7. No other game species in Nevada faces such risk year-round. NBWC pays Wildlife Services, the federal predator control program, to kill lions to protect or enhance bighorn sheep and mule deer herds without convincing evidence that lions are in any way a limiting factor for either ungulate species.
Mountain lions are frequently caught in bobcat traps and suffer grievous injury and death even though it is illegal to trap the animal in Nevada. Despite knowing about incidental lion trapping for many years, neither NDOW nor NBWC has done anything to address the issue despite accumulating an impressive amount of data and photos (Project 36, Project LIFT) to document it. Agency staff has examined more than 4,000 lion kills, primarily by hunters, in the past 20 years.
About one of every six or seven lions brought for examination shows abnormalities (toes, paws, teeth) consistent with prior trap or snare encounters. A University of Nevada, Reno Ph.D. student conducting research for her degree found that many of her collared lion subjects were having adverse experiences with traps. She published a peer-reviewed paper in 2018 in the Journal of Wildlife Management, a highly regarded professional publication, drawing attention to this troubling issue.
Due to the chronic puzzling years-long inattention to this issue by NDOW and NBWC, the Nevada Wildlife Alliance, WildEarthGuardians and the Mountain Lion Foundation, on behalf of their Nevada supporters, have filed a petition with NBWC requesting modifications to trapping regulations to reduce the unnecessary, mostly preventable incidental trapping injuries so well documented by the agency itself. It is the petitioner’s view that incidental trapping of mountain lions in Nevada has no basis or support from science and has nothing to do with principles of modern wildlife management.
So, if incidental trapping of Nevada’s mountain lions isn’t science or good wildlife management, what is it? One reasonable notion is that the years-long inattention by NDOW and NBWC is, perhaps, a form of benign neglect; accepting collateral damage from trappers on the assumption that damaged, injured or dead lions present less risk to mule deer and bighorns and hoping the public won’t notice. If readers cannot access the petition via the link above, it may be viewed at: nvwildlifealliance.org in the Blog Section. A posting, Project 36, available on the same website provides an earlier view of the same issue.
All support for our petition is welcome. Please let NDOW and NBWC know of your concerns. The commission’s next meeting is January 24th, and if you live in Nevada and can attend to show your support for mountain lions, please do so.
About the author
A member of Wildlife for All’s advisory committee, Don Molde is a 50-year Reno resident, retired psychiatrist, co-founder of Nevada Wildlife Alliance, former board member of Defenders of Wildlife, and former board member of the Nevada Humane Society. He has been active in wildlife advocacy for 45 years.
Wildlife Crossings: A No-Brainer
We need to invest in these solutions to save the lives of humans and animals
Wildlife crossings are a no-brainer for anyone seriously committed to coexistence. Whether a world-famous grizzly bear in Wyoming, an Eastern gray squirrel in your own backyard, or one of the 20 red wolves left in the wild, no animal deserves to die in a vehicle collision.
Many might be familiar with the story of P-22, the beloved California mountain lion who braved the perilous journey from the Santa Monica Mountains into Griffith Park. In his search for new territory, P-22 had journeyed across a highly trafficked 10-lane freeway, arriving safely into land previously uninhabited by other mountain lions. For over 10 years, P-22 was scarcely seen or heard, the only evidence of his presence being his GPS collar’s reports. He kept himself expertly hidden in a strange and new urban environment until he, like so many other animals, met his end on the same freeways he had once conquered.
More recently, in October, the need for more wildlife crossings in America was reignited with the passing of Grizzly 399. Grizzly 399, dubbed “the most famous bear in America” by many, had a remarkably well-documented life. The rearing of her many litters in Teton National Park, along with her careful shepherding of the cubs across human cities and streets, captured hearts across the United States. That is, until she, just like her young cub Snowy in 2016, died in a vehicle collision.
As of 2024, there are approximately 1,500 wildlife crossings spread across nearly all 50 states. (1) And one thing about wildlife crossings? We know they work. In Canada, one of the most well-known wildlife crossing complexes boasts an astonishing success rate. Over the course of 17 years, there’s been a drastic decrease in the mortality rates of animals like elk and grizzly bears in the Banff National Park. And, wildlife crossings are far from a vertebrate-only affair. Indeed, even reptiles and amphibians have been spotted utilizing these crossings all across Banff. (2) Banff is, at its core, a success story. Despite initial opposition over a decade ago, the Banff wildlife crossings are now touted as an ecological model to be emulated all throughout the world.
One more thing: wildlife crossings don’t simply save individual animals from cars, they contribute to saving species as a whole. Banff is one such example of this effect, where the crossings have allowed for grizzly bear populations to resist inbreeding and increase gene flow. (2) In a world where habitat fragmentation is a continuous threat, we need protections against low genetic diversity in animal populations now more than ever. In fact, this issue is considered one of the driving forces towards the creation of the Wallis Annenberg wildlife crossing. (3) Jumpstarted by the passing of P-22, this crossing aims in part to restore mountain lion populations, and would be the largest wildlife crossing in the world. (4)
There is a war on wildlife, and the metaphorical—and often very physical— bullets are being fired from all directions. Climate change, deforestation, habitat fragmentation, pollution, recreational hunting, trapping, and introduced species are all putting pressures on wildlife and ecosystems in ways we’ve never seen before. But, wildlife crossings are an easy solution, or at least, part of the solution. We have an opportunity to relatively easily relieve some of these environmental pressures, by reducing vehicle collision mortalities for animals of all species and ensuring their genetic wellbeing. It doesn’t fix everything, but part of wildlife is doing what we can right now, even if it is merely one step forwards in the long and spiraling staircase of wildlife management.
References
- How wildlife crossings protect both animals and people, CBS News
- As Banff’s famed wildlife overpasses turn 20, the world looks to Canada for conservation inspiration, Canadian Geographic
- Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, Annenberg Foundation
- What to Know About the World’s Largest Wildlife Crossing, The New York Times
About this post
This post is a guest post by Charlotte Cleveland, Wildlife for All intern. Charlotte is currently a biology student at Lake Forest College, where she is building a strong foundation in ecological research and sustainable conservation practices. Her academic pursuits are driven by a dedication to ethical wildlife management that integrates modern environmental values and biodiversity protection. Charlotte actively works to promote inclusive wildlife governance that balances ecological integrity with public interests and science-based policies. She aspires to contribute to wildlife conservation efforts that prioritize representation, equity, and accountability in state wildlife policies.