logo
Looking to keep wildlife out of the ‘emergency room,' states expand managers' role

Looking to keep wildlife out of the ‘emergency room,' states expand managers' role

Yahoo19-05-2025

The Mojave desert tortoise is among the species in Utah in need of conservation help. Earlier this year, state lawmakers enacted a tax on renewable energy development to provide more funding for wildlife managers to support non-game species. (Photo by Dana Wilson/Bureau of Land Management/Flickr)
State wildlife agencies have a big job.
While the federal government protects animals listed under the Endangered Species Act, states are tasked with keeping the vast majority of other species out of the 'emergency room.' Habitat loss, pollution and climate change are making that job much more difficult.
At the same time, states are finding it harder to count on the hunting and fishing revenues that have long funded most of their work. Agencies say they have more challenges than ever before, and less money to take them on.
In many states, lawmakers are rethinking the long-standing model for wildlife management. They're considering new funding sources to make the agencies less reliant on license fees. They're asking wildlife managers to expand their work beyond traditional 'game' species, adding protections for threatened insects and other animals. And some are scrutinizing the commissions that have long governed wildlife management.
Some of the proposals have seen broad support from outdoors lovers who want to strengthen their wildlife agencies. Others have drawn opposition from sporting groups, who fear the new focus will diminish hunting and fishing opportunities.
'We're seeing quite a bit of action this year,' said Logan Christian, wildlife and habitat specialist with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. 'We definitely have noticed that states are working on strengthening their wildlife agencies.'
As Stateline previously reported, New Mexico enacted the most sweeping overhaul this year. It renamed the Department of Game & Fish as the Department of Wildlife, giving it a more explicit focus on non-game species. Budget writers provided $10.5 million in new funding over the next three years to help threatened species. And lawmakers created a new process for appointing the agency's commissioners, with guidelines ensuring a diversity of expertise and experience.
Wildlife advocates in other states say the New Mexico overhaul was a game changer. But lawmakers elsewhere are taking a more piecemeal approach.
Numerous states are reconsidering their wildlife agencies' funding model.
'There's definitely a growing awareness that the current management system is outdated and really unfit for 21st century challenges,' said Michelle Lute, executive director of Wildlife for All, a nonprofit focused on overhauling state wildlife governance. 'State wildlife agencies are seeing that they can't rely on hunting and fishing license fees to be able to do this work.'
There's definitely a growing awareness that the current management system is outdated and really unfit for 21st century challenges.
– Michelle Lute, executive director of Wildlife for All
Earlier this year, lawmakers in Utah enacted a new tax on wind and solar projects that will help fund the state's wildlife agency. The revenue could double the department's funding to protect non-game species, from $5 million to $10 million.
'We have a funding model in place for game species,' said Paul Thompson, administrator of the Species Protection Account with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 'Funding to work on some of our native species programs has been really hard to come by.'
The new revenue could allow the agency to invest in more biologists, conservation easements, watershed restoration projects and native fish hatchery programs. State Rep. Casey Snider, the Republican who sponsored the bill, argued that the clean energy sector should pay because its development is harming Utah's habitat.
'Wind and solar projects have an outsized impact on [non-game] species, and they have not been contributing financially,' he said.
But industry leaders said the law will threaten the state's energy development.
'[The measure will] severely strain the economics of an existing project and send a negative message to developers and the financial institutions that provide capital for these projects,' said Theresa Foxley, chief of staff to rPlus Energies, a renewable developer, in testimony to lawmakers.
Lawmakers in Oregon are considering an increase to the state's tax on hotel and short-term rental stays to help fund non-game wildlife work. The proposal would bring in about $30 million annually. State Rep. Ken Helm, the bill's Democratic sponsor, said the state wildlife agency's division to manage non-game species 'has come and gone over the last 30 years as funding is available.'
Growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity have created urgency to find a stable funding source, he said. Helm said the lodging tax is a logical source, because the state's tourism industry is centered on the outdoors. He noted that Oregon's natural resources agencies receive only a tiny fraction of the state's general revenue.
Travel and tourism groups oppose the bill, arguing it could drive visitors elsewhere. Helm has also proposed a bill that would bring in wildlife funding through an income tax increase.
He said his message to fellow lawmakers was: 'I've given you two ways to get the money we need for this agency. Nobody's been able to come up with a better idea. Just pick one.'
The bill was heard in committee earlier this month, but has not yet advanced.
As states rethink wildlife management, New Mexico offers a new model
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Hawaii approved a 'green fee' — a lodging tax increase of 0.75% that Democratic Gov. Josh Green's office estimates will bring in $100 million annually to help protect the state from climate change. While the fund is not explicitly focused on wildlife, it's expected to contribute to efforts such as coral reef restoration and watershed protection that will benefit important habitats.
State Rep. Amy Perruso, a Democrat who was among the advocates for a green fee, said the COVID-19 pandemic was a wakeup call.
'With the absence of tourists, we saw a lot more fish in the ocean, everything about the environment was so much more healthy because we didn't have 10 million extra people,' she said. 'If we're going to do something to protect the environment, [tourism] is a logical connection.'
Washington state was among the first to significantly invest in non-game conservation through state tax revenue, with legislation enacted two years ago. The budget passed by lawmakers this session continues that work, with $14 million set aside for biodiversity and species recovery each of the next two years.
Lawmakers in Kansas and North Carolina also proposed using more general fund revenue for wildlife work, although those measures have not advanced.
In other states, lawmakers are focused on expanding their wildlife agencies' mission to more non-game species. Last year, Colorado gave wildlife managers the authority to manage insects and other invertebrates, as well as rare plants.
'Invertebrates are wildlife, and their conservation benefits the entire ecosystem, including the species [state wildlife officials] traditionally managed,' said Richard Reading, vice chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. 'They do everything from creating our soils to filtering our water to pollinating the food we eat.'
Reading also serves as vice president of science and conservation at the Butterfly Pavilion, an insect zoo. He noted that studies are showing that many invertebrate species are in rapid decline. In addition to expanding the agency's authority, lawmakers provided funding for six staff members to take on the additional work.
A similar bill in Nevada, focused on invertebrates, advanced through the Assembly's natural resources committee.
'There's definitely concerns about declines in pollinator species,' said Assemblymember Howard Watts, a Democrat who sponsored the bill. 'Our wildlife agency can and should take proactive action to do research, surveys and habitat improvement to keep these species off the [endangered species list].'
Watts said the bill would allow wildlife managers to consider insects in state plans to protect imperiled species. He said the Nevada Department of Wildlife has requested an entomologist position if it's asked to take on the additional species. Beyond that, he said, the measure would not require additional money, as it's focused on voluntary, proactive work, rather than additional regulations.
State wildlife agencies focus on 'hook and bullet' work. Some see a new path.
Another bill in Pennsylvania would expand wildlife managers' authority to include insects. That measure has been approved by the House Environmental and Natural Resources Protection Committee.
Sporting groups have largely been supportive of efforts to provide new funding sources to manage non-game species. But some are skeptical of plans to expand agencies' mission without an increase in revenue.
'Most hunters and anglers understand that healthy game populations are dependent on ecosystem integrity,' said Devin O'Dea, Western policy and conservation manager with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a nonprofit focused on public lands. 'But when you take a model that's been developed with the intent of enforcing regulations for fish and game species, expand that scope without funding and additional capacity, it's a recipe for something to fall off the plate.'
Meanwhile, some legislators want to rethink the commission model that oversees wildlife governance. Critics say that governors often select commissioners who are hunting guides, farmers and political donors. Once appointed, they enact wildlife policies to suit their economic interests.
Florida state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani, a Democrat, drafted a bill that would overhaul the state's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Her proposal would increase the board from seven to nine members. It would designate seats for scientists, conservationists, local officials, farmers, hunters and anglers.
'The commission has made decisions not based on science or conservation, but based on developers or landowners that engage in agricultural practices,' she said. 'We tried to strike a balance to ensure there are voices with an environmental background, with a conservation and wildlife background, with an academic background.'
The bill did not advance, but Eskamani said grassroots support is building for systemic changes in wildlife management.
Some sporting groups are more wary of commission overhaul proposals.
'We have seen examples where proposed changes to commissions were politically motivated or motivated by anti-hunting and anti-angling interests,' said Kent Keene senior manager for Western states and agriculture policy with the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, a group that promotes hunting and fishing priorities on Capitol Hill. 'When those changes are focused on science-based needs, then the sportsmen's community has a long history of supporting those steps to ensure we are protecting our heritage.'
Some hunting and fishing groups have emphasized that the expanded mission should come with additional funding, so agencies aren't stretched thin. Keene noted that hunters and anglers pay an excise tax on the purchase of gear, which provides an important funding source for wildlife agencies. Some have proposed a similar 'backpack tax' on gear for hikers, birdwatchers and others.
Another proposal in New Hampshire would give the wildlife agency's executive director the authority to make policy decisions, relegating the Fish and Game Commission to an advisory body. That bill did not advance.
Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act

More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act

The Hill

time2 days ago

  • The Hill

Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act

More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.

Chaco region ban on oil and gas drilling being reconsidered under Trump
Chaco region ban on oil and gas drilling being reconsidered under Trump

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

Chaco region ban on oil and gas drilling being reconsidered under Trump

Jun. 6—The Trump administration's focus on domestic energy production has pushed the Bureau of Land Management to reconsider a rule against oil drilling in a 10-mile area surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. As Department of Interior secretary, New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland issued an order in 2023 to prevent oil and natural gas drilling in the 10-mile radius surrounding Chaco Canyon for 20 years. The All Pueblo Council of Governors wants those protections to stay in place for the sake of protecting sacred sites in the Chaco region. But the Navajo Nation is suing to revoke the protections, arguing the withdrawal causes significant economic harm to its members. Increasing domestic energy production and mining is a Trump administration priority. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order telling agency heads to identify actions that impose an "undue burden" on the development of domestic energy resources, particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical minerals and nuclear energy resources and to make plans to revise or rescind those actions. "This will restore American prosperity — including for those men and women who have been forgotten by our economy in recent years. It will also rebuild our nation's economic and military security, which will deliver peace through strength," the order reads. Subsequently, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued an order in February essentially telling his agency to take steps to follow Trump's order, including "actions to review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands." When it comes to Chaco, the Bureau of Land Management is following that order to review withdrawn public lands. According to an agency spokesperson, no formal decision has been made yet related to the Chaco order, which prohibits oil and gas development and exploratory mining on federal lands within a 10-mile radius of the Chaco Culture National Historic Park. "It's deeply disappointing that Trump and his administration are working to undermine our communities rather than to address the struggles and concerns that New Mexicans face every day," Haaland said in a statement. The Bureau of Land Management held a tribal consultation in late May about considering revoking the Chaco order. Ahead of the meeting, Acoma Gov. Charles Riley called for a united tribal response to keep the protections in place. Recently, the All Pueblo Council of Governors also passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to weakening Chaco protections. "Chaco is a place that's very sacred to us," Riley said. "It contains many of our beliefs and origins. ... Many times, people don't understand our connection with these sites, whether it be Chaco, Mesa Verde, Bears Ears, things like that, many of our religious tribal leaders still go back to these places and call upon our ancestors to guide and protect our people, and that's what people don't understand." Acoma also received notice of the consultation late, only 19 days ahead of time instead of the typical 30, Riley said, giving the pueblo leaders less time to prepare, and the consultation didn't seem like a "true consultation," he said. "It just doesn't seem like this administration is listening. They hear you, but they're not listening," Riley said. 'A domino effect' As the Biden administration came to a close in January, the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the United States, the Interior Department, the Bureau of Land Management and Haaland, arguing that she failed in her statutory obligations and fiduciary duties to the Navajo Nation when issuing the order. Navajo Nation members hold mineral rights for land in the area, and the lawsuit argues that profiting off of those mineral rights will be effectively impossible with the checkerboard of surrounding federal lands ineligible for lease. "This will result in sizable financial losses, especially relative to modest incomes that are prevalent in this isolated region, and will significantly reduce economic activity and employment in the region, further detrimentally affecting the Nation and its citizens," the lawsuit reads. The Navajo Nation repeatedly proposed a 5-mile withdrawal radius as a compromise approach to protecting Chaco. The lawsuit argues that the U.S. government never officially considered that suggestion, so it didn't encourage public consideration of it. The office of Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren did not respond to a request for comment by the Journal's print deadline. In April, the Acoma and Laguna pueblos asked to join the lawsuit as intervenors on the side of the defendants. New Mexico's all-Democratic congressional delegation have been vocal about trying to protect certain wild or culturally significant areas in the state, like the Gila and Pecos watersheds, from mining and oil and gas development. In April, Sen. Ben Ray Luján and Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández led the reintroduction of a bill to make the 10-mile protected area around Chaco permanent. All five members of the delegation are cosponsors. It seems unlikely to pass in a Republican dominated Congress. "With the atmosphere of today and the push for shorter environmental reviews, the fast track of mining of uranium and oil and gas production, it really does threaten a lot of our sacred places around the country," Riley said. "And if we — God forbid — fail on Chaco, then, in my opinion, it's just a domino effect. Then, who's next? What's next?" Journal Capitol Bureau Chief Dan Boyd contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store