LISTEN: ESA rule changes, explained

December 12, 2025 by Katie Perkins

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed four rule changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

This episode of “Our Wild Lives” unpacks the four-rule proposal that could narrow ESA consultations, limit critical habitat, remove automatic protections for threatened species and elevate economic considerations. The episode is part of a coverage package looking at the ways these rules may change management of endangered species. The first part of this series examining listing decision impacts was published yesterday.

TWS staff members Cameron Kovach, Kaylyn Zipp and Kelly O’Connor explain why these changes are happening, how they affect wildlife professionals and communities and how to submit substantive public comments, which can be submitted until December 22, 2025.

“Our Wild Lives” is The Wildlife Society’s weekly podcast, sharing compelling stories from wildlife professionals doing critical work around the world. Your hosts, Katie Perkins and Ed Arnett, of The Wildlife Society, bring you thought-provoking conversations with leading experts and emerging voices.

New episodes are released weekly wherever you get your podcasts. Please email comms@wildlife.org with feedback or future episode suggestions.

Changes to national park fee structure and attendance passes

December 12, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

The U.S. Department of Interior has announced that non-U.S. residents will pay a higher rate to enter national parks, which they say will help support care and maintenance. The agency said revenue generated from the new fee structure will support “upgrades to visitor facilities, essential maintenance, and improved services nationwide.” Several resident-only fee-free days were also announced as well as a modernization of the pass. Visitors will now be able to purchase and use their passes instantly, store them on their phones and link them to credit cards.

The new fee structure will be implemented January 1, 2026. The Annual Pass will cost $80 for U.S. residents and $250 for nonresidents. Nonresident visitors without annual passes will also pay a $100 per person fee at certain parks like Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite and Acadia national parks.

“These policies ensure that U.S. taxpayers, who already support the National Park system, continue to enjoy affordable access, while international visitors contribute their fair share to maintaining and improving our parks for future generations,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.

Read more at the National Park Service.

Wildlife investments boost economy, jobs

December 11, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

When agencies and nonprofits spend money to restore wildlife and open land for the public, the payoff reaches far beyond the woods and wetlands—it also boosts state economies.

A new economic analysis from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation calculated the direct spending on conservation, restoration, and management of fish and wildlife across all 50 states, as well as the derived economic benefits. The economic analysis included funds directly spent on conservation by nonprofits and federal, state and local agencies, including land purchases to protect habitat, habitat restoration and efforts to maintain public access for hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing. National spending estimates came from government reports. The analysis estimated state-level spending by allocating federal and nonprofit investments across states based on conservation program spending. The model determined the economic ripple effects of that spending; it determined how many jobs were supported, how much it added to the nation’s gross domestic product, and the tax revenue it generated for federal, state and local governments.

Overall, the findings show that conservation dollars are hard at work. The $55.3 billion invested directly in fish and wildlife efforts generated $115.8 billion in total economic activity. That spending supported more than 575,000 jobs, put $48.8 billion into people’s pockets, added $76.6 billion to the U.S. economy, and returned $16.3 billion in tax revenue. The economic analysis did not include indirect effects such as cleaner water, ecosystem services or healthier ecosystems. The findings highlight that investing in nature pays off.

Read more in the Conservation Economy report.

Endangered species rules rollback to 2019

December 11, 2025 by Kaylyn Zipp

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced four proposed rule changes that will narrow the definitions of critical habitat and alter criteria for listing or delisting a species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The revision package would largely reinstate earlier standards enacted by the first Trump administration.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also states that rule changes are in line with the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, the court ruling which overturned Chevron deference. Chevron deference was the prior established legal principle from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., stating that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law that the agency is responsible for administering, rather than substituting the court’s own judgment. Since the Chevron deference was overturned, courts must now look to the plain text of the law and exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.

Together, the four proposed changes would reshape critical habitat designation, review of federal projects, and threatened species protection.

During the first Trump Administration, TWS expressed concerns about many of these proposed changes, highlighting the “potential negative impact on wildlife professionals’ ability to advance the conservation of species listed under the ESA through science-based management and conservation.” Conversely, USFWS Director Brian Nesvik said the proposals “reaffirm our commitment to science-based conservation that works hand in hand with America’s energy, agricultural and infrastructure priorities.”

Listing and delisting species
The USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes changes to regulatory text governing how species are listed, delisted, or reclassified under the ESA that mimic text from 2019. The changes in the ESA text will also alter designation of critical habitat and interpretation of the term “foreseeable future.”

The delisting standard would return to the 2019 definition, which removed explicit references to “recovery” as a basis for delisting. Under the proposed rule, delisting would require one of the three circumstances:  

  1. The species is extinct 
  2. The species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened
  3. The listed population doesn’t meet the ESA’s definition of a “species” 

Currently, listing, delisting and reclassification must rely on the best scientific and commercial data available “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.” The proposed rule change would remove “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination,” signaling that agencies may acknowledge or discuss economic impacts when presenting listing decisions, although the ESA still prohibits economic factors from influencing the determination itself.

Critical habitat designations

Critical habitat is the land or water a species currently occupies and, in some cases, areas it does not currently occupy but that are essential for the species’ conservation. The ESA mandates that a federal agency must avoid destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat. The ESA requires that critical habitat be designated to the “maximum extent prudent and determinable.” The proposed rule would expand the circumstances under which the USFWS and NMFS could conclude that designating critical habitat for a species is not prudent. This could make it more likely that listed species will receive no critical habitat designation in some circumstances.

The proposal would also restore a two-step process for designating and protecting unoccupied critical habitat, areas where a species does not currently live but would be beneficial for the species recovery. To designate such areas, the USFWS and NMFS must first determine that occupied habitat is insufficient for recovery. Secondly, they must demonstrate that unoccupied areas are essential for that recovery. In the proposed rule change, the agencies state “Congress has also made clear that it intended for designation of unoccupied areas as critical habitat to meet a higher standard than designating occupied areas.” 

Critical habitat exclusions

A separate proposed rule in this package outlines how economic, national security, and other impacts are weighed when considering whether to exclude areas from a critical habitat designation. Under the ESA (Section 4(b(2))), the agency may choose not to include an area if the costs of designation outweigh the conservation benefits “unless the Secretary determines that the exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.” 

The proposed rule states that exclusion analysis will be performed either when a proponent of excluding the area has presented credible information in support of the request or when the Secretary exercises his or her discretion to evaluate any area for potential exclusion. The ESA does not define how impacts must be weighed. As long as the exclusion analysis considers all relevant impacts consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), which dictates how agencies make decisions, the ESA affords the Secretary broad discretion in deciding whether exclusion is appropriate.

Reinstating the definition of “foreseeable future” 

The agencies propose returning to an earlier interpretation of “foreseeable future,” based on a 2009 memorandum opinion from the U.S. Department of the Interior. Under the proposal, foreseeable future would extend only as far as scientists can reasonably determine that future threats and species’ responses to those threats are likely. 

Because many climate-driven impacts occur over long time frames, this narrower definition may limit the extent to which climate change and shifting species distributions can be incorporated into listing decisions for threatened species.

Calling on wildlife professionals to weigh in

The Wildlife Society (TWS), in its Issue Statement on the U.S. Endangered Species Act, supports listing decisions and critical habitat designations based solely on the status of the species in question, as supported by best-available knowledge, and opposes listing justifications influenced by economic and political consideration. TWS supports clear, transparent rules that ensure critical habitat is designated where needed. 

These proposed rules expand circumstances where designations of species status and critical habitat are more discretionary and can be circumvented. Affording this increased discretion introduces uncertainty into conservation decision making and risks allowing non-scientific consideration to overshadow rigorous biological analysis. Weakening critical habitat provisions and deemphasizing recovery plans indeed may slow recovery and hinder eventual delisting. 

Comments on listing, delisting and general critical habitat designation can be made here. Comments on critical habitat exclusions can be made here. The comment period opened November 21, 2025, and will close Dec 22, 2025. 

This story kicks off a series breaking down each proposed change, outlining how it will impact species and managers. 

How do Yellowstone’s large mammals beat the heat?

December 10, 2025 by Olivia Milloway

When scorching summer temperatures hit, humans crank up the air conditioning, go for a swim or visit their favorite ice cream shop.

Large mammals in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem don’t have the same luxuries, but they take a similar strategy: visiting different places. As climate change brings increasing summer temperatures, new research shows that an animal’s environment—more than their physiology—influences how they respond.

“These behavioral changes are a potential first line of defense that these populations have against increasing temperatures, which is encouraging,” said Justine Becker, a TWS member and researcher at Montana State University.

In a new study published in Ecosphere, Becker and her colleagues analyzed nearly two decades of GPS location data from nine species of animals in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and surrounding areas to see if large mammals change their behavior in response to increasing temperatures—and if they do, what factors enable them to do so.

A female elk in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Credit: Alex Becker

Avoiding the doldrums of summer

Becker and her team analyzed the data from nine species and subspecies of both herbivores and carnivores, including Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis), American bison (Bison bison), North American cougar (Puma concolor cougar), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni), Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus), American pronghorn (Antilocapra americana americana) and gray wolf (Canis lupus).

The team wanted to know how three different factors influenced the animals’ abilities to change their behavior to adjust to heat: species-level life history traits like body size and diet, the intensity of the temperature changes and the animal’s environment.

Becker didn’t find any significant link between life history traits or intensity of temperature change and behavioral changes. Rather, what explained a species’ ability to alter its behavior was the type of environment it was in. How many different types of habitats available to an animal was the best predictor of how much they changed their behavior in response to increasing temperatures.

A pronghorn in a diverse landscape near the mountain foothills in southern Wyoming. Credit: Alex Becker

It’s all about how much the animals are moving regularly in their day-to-day compared to their movements during times of high temperatures. When an animal lives in an environment with lots of different habitat types, their daily routine likely includes moving between these patches. But for animals who live in habitats with less variation, they tend to stay in the same environment during normal temperatures. “That’s where we saw a larger change in their behavior,” Becker said.

One population where Becker saw this clearly were the pronghorn in Wyoming’s Shirley Basin, a sagebrush prairie landscape. Trees and running water are few and far between. For the most part, pronghorn stick to the open areas, munching on forbs and sagebrush. But when it gets too hot, Becker said “they may have to seek out those areas in the landscape like creek beds where there are larger trees and shrubs to find relief in the shade.”

Cougars, on the other hand, showed the least amount of behavioral plasticity. “While they changed their behavior, it was to the smallest extent,” Becker said. Because they’re large carnivores, it’s likely they’re less sensitive to higher temperatures than the herbivores, who generate a lot of heat when digesting plants. They also typically prefer varied environments that likely provide relief when the weather gets hot.

While cougars didn’t alter their behavior much in the heat, gray wolves did. Credit: Alex Becker

A climate resilient future

Some species like moose (A. alces) have developed unique behavioral adaptations to regulate their temperatures. Unlike other species of ungulates, moose aren’t able to sweat, so they typically spend a lot of time standing in water or wet areas to cool down.

But evolution happens over eons and the climate is changing quickly. “Our study suggests that one thing managers can do for not just one species, but the whole guild of large mammals in the Rocky Mountains, is protect and promote habitats where there are options for these animals to shift between different habitat types depending on the environmental conditions,” Becker said.

While the temperature changes weren’t catastrophic, each of the study populations showed a response to increasing temperatures. “These results suggested an optimistic message that [the animals] do have the ability to adjust their behavior and can do so across a diverse group of species,” Becker said.

But the animals also need access to varied habitats, year-round. Wildlife crossings, fence mitigation and public-private partnerships are all important strategies to improve habitat quality and connectivity.

Bison cool off near a creek in Yellowstone’s Lamar Valley. Credit: Alex Becker

Marine protected area is paying off for Canadian whales

December 10, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

Bottlenose whales off the east coast of Canada are showing signs of recovery two decades after officials designated a marine protected area. Hit hard by commercial whaling in the last century, the Scotian Shelf population of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) is still listed as endangered under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. Canada protected some of the population’s range in 2004 with the establishment of the Gully Marine Protected Area, situated around a deep marine trench the size of the Grand Canyon off the coast of Nova Scotia. Ship traffic and commercial fishing dropped in the area since the designation. Marine conditions have also improved. “At the broadest scale, submarine canyons stir up the oceanography, and that typically translates into more productivity, life and food—good for everything,” study coauthor Hal Whitehead, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, told Mongabay. Bottlenose whales are now recovering, according to decades of observations reported in a recent study.

Read more at Mongabay.

New species of snake named after Steve Irwin

December 9, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

A new species of wolf snake was named after Steve Irwin, the late Australian zookeeper and wildlife educator. The serpent was discovered on India’s Great Nicobar Island, just north of Sumatra. The Irwin’s wolf snake (Lycodon irwini) can grow up to a meter in length, is nonvenomous and feeds on amphibians, mammals and other reptiles. Although the species was just discovered, the researchers suggest it should be considered endangered because it’s likely only found on Great Nicobar. When describing the species in Evolutionary Systematics, the authors wrote about Irwin’s influence on the discovery: “His passion and dedication to wildlife education and conservation have inspired naturalists and conservationists worldwide, including the authors of the paper.”

Read more at Discover Wildlife.

Counting ducks with drones

December 8, 2025 by Kaylyn Zipp

Above the glittering lake water, researchers envision a drone drifting in slow, deliberate arcs, its camera sweeping the water above bobbing birds like a searchlight. Seconds after it passes, the fan of a laptop on the tailgate of a pickup truck kicks on. As the drone lands safely back into the hands of the operator, a full report is generated with species counts, mapped habitats and analyzed trends.

For decades, estimating waterfowl abundance and habitat meant long hours in and out of the field. Researchers trekked across the landscape on foot or in expensive small planes and processed data for hours afterwards. Accuracy varied, influenced by factors ranging from weather to observer experience and the process could take weeks or even months to yield results.

But now, wildlife managers are working to create a smooth artificial intelligence technique that can count ducks accurately based on drone photography similar to the hypothetical scenario described above.

“AI is great at tedious, very time-consuming jobs—we can automate it and do what takes a lot of time nearly in real time,” said Yi Shang, a professor in engineering at the University of Missouri. “We get counts in a day with a regular desktop.”

In a study published recently in Drones, Shang and his collaborators designed and tested in the field an end-to-end automated system aimed at detecting migrating waterfowl species in Missouri. The system segments habitat into different types using drone imagery and deep learning, a type of AI that develops pattern recognition based on the data it is given.  

To create a system that could handle the diverse field conditions experienced in Missouri, researchers went out into the field and collected drone images of waterfowl under a variety of environmental conditions and across different altitudes, habitat types and sky conditions.

Aerial images of waterfowl in the Missouri wetlands used in the recent study. Credit: Yi Shang

Researchers used the images to create and test multiple deep learning models, including several You Only Look Once (YOLO) models, to detect and count mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), gadwalls (Mareca strepera) and teal species. These models can detect and identify multiple objects in an image. Other deep learning models determined six habitat types in the images: open water, cropland, harvested crop, wooded, herbaceous, and other. The system also used the birds’ locations to check where images overlapped, keeping the chance of counting the same bird twice at about 5%. Overall, the tool correctly identified birds and habitats more than 80% of the time and up to 95% under ideal conditions.

“AI is really helpful and for this case, it’s not replacing jobs,” said Shang. “It’s helping people to do their jobs better and process large amounts of information efficiently.”

From left to right Reid Viegut, Yang Zhang, and Robert Tang, in the field with the drone used for the project. Credit: Yi Shang

Waterfowl such as mallards, gadwall and teals are economically valuable game birds where population estimates are crucial to informing management strategies such as hunting seasons and wetland restoration priorities. Additionally, waterfowl can be an indicator of wetland ecosystem health, reflecting the underlying conditions of the ecosystem.

Shang and his collaborators hope that this system will give wildlife managers a faster, more accurate way to monitor waterfowl populations, giving managers better information to guide conservation decisions.

How can spiders survive the cold?

December 8, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

Some animals can use antifreeze to keep their cells from freezing solid in the winter. But scientists aren’t always sure how they do it. Researchers looked into how leaf-sac curling spiders (Clubiona sp.), which feed on pests found in orchards, stay active during the winter without freezing. “The ability of Clubiona and other winter-active spiders to continue to fend off pests in freezing temperatures is particularly important for perennial agriculture, as they could potentially be used to decrease reliance on insecticides and therefore also combat insecticide resistance,” said study coauthor Peter Davies of Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada. They found that the spiders use an antifreeze protein that binds to ice crystals and keeps them from spreading.

Read more at The FEBS Journal.

LISTEN: The North Carolina black bear revival

December 5, 2025 by Katie Perkins

From deep in the Blue Ridge Mountains to densely populated subdivisions, black bears in North Carolina are a conservation success story. In the 1970s populations were estimated at fewer than 1,000. Today, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) considers black bears (Ursus americanus) fully restored.

In the latest episode of “Our Wild Lives,” Katie Perkins sits down with Colleen Olfenbuttel, TWS member, longtime bear biologist and the NCWRC game mammals and survey unit supervisor, to unpack how science-based management helped the rebound of the once-rare species. They also talk about how wildlife managers are tackling coexistence in a quickly urbanizing state.

From bears causing crop circles to educating the public about BearWise guidelines, listen in for practical tips and exciting stories from Olfenbuttel’s more-than-17 years working with black bears.

“Our Wild Lives” is The Wildlife Society’s weekly podcast, sharing compelling stories from wildlife professionals doing critical work around the world. Your hosts, Katie Perkins and Ed Arnett of The Wildlife Society, bring you thought-provoking conversations with leading experts and emerging voices.

New episodes are released weekly wherever you get your podcasts. Please email comms@wildlife.org with feedback or future episode suggestions.