Rethinking the costs and benefits of habitat modification

September 4, 2025 by Kaylyn Zipp

Research on old food plots from the early 2000s finds that leaving the edge brushy increases bird use and results in fewer invasive plant species, suggesting that the characteristics of the food plot are influential in its success.

Food plots, small forest openings planted every two to four years with cereal crops or clover, are a long-standing management tool across public and private lands in the Southeast to boost hunter access. These clearings are meant to improve access for hunters and provide clear lines of sight on game species. But food plots are often promoted as beneficial to a variety of wildlife, including birds, as well.

“Food plots were a shiny object for a bit and studied heavily, but research on them has stalled despite their widespread use,” said Kirk Stodola, a coauthor of a study published recently in the Georgia Journal of Science and a member of the Illinois Natural History Survey. There has been little modern research evaluating the potential ecological trade-offs, particularly for nongame species.

Aerial imagery of a food plot created in 2007 demonstrates how it breaks up the surrounding forest. Credit: Nathan Klaus

Reexamining a common practice

In the early 2000s, Stodola and the study’s lead author, Nathan Klaus, a biologist at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, investigated 13 sites across three treatment types to quantify how food plots and their structural differences influence birds’ use during the breeding season. They looked at traditional food plots, novel food plots with brushy edges and unmanaged forest. Novel food plots with brushy edges contained hardwood sprouts, blackberry (Rubus sp.), and herbaceous cover within the shrubby edge and had been created by felled trees four years prior to the survey.

Their study found that brushy-edge food plots can benefit early successional birds and that this added structure supported 32 different early successional species that rely on young, shrubby habitat. However, bird species that inhabit the forest interior decreased around the traditional and novel food plots, representing a trade-off in the management approach.

Signs dictate the benefits of food plots, but contemporary studies of their benefits may question this line of thinking. Credit Nathan Klaus

The findings of this study echo a broader shift in the history of forestry and land management in the Southeast. Decades ago, many forests were managed with multi-use objectives in mind, balancing timber production with wildlife habitat creation. Practices like clearcutting and prescribed burning inadvertently created ideal conditions for early successional species, including the golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), a now-declining bird species that depends on young forests with dense shrub cover.

Today, with timber production declining on many public lands and more forests aging into closed-canopy stages, early successional habitats are decreasing and taking the species that rely on them with them.

“What we’ve seen during my career of almost 30 years in Georgia is that we’ve lost our golden-winged warblers,” Klaus said.

But food plots, especially those with brushy edges, could fill that gap.

Benefits and costs

Not all is well with food plots—Klaus said there are hidden costs that cause people to raise questions about their value compared to logging or prescribed burn programs.

For one, many are in remote areas. “Just getting equipment out there can take days,” he said. “It requires staff time, road maintenance and significant equipment expenses just to prep, plant and maintain a single site.”

Food plots with brushy edges were found to increase early successional bird use. Credit Nathan Klaus

Traditional food plots also had more invasive plants, raising concerns about their ecological trade-offs and the possibility that they are giving a foothold to these otherwise unimpacted spaces. Some of the invasives were planted purposefully in the past, prior to an understanding of their negative ecological effect.

But brushy edge food plots had lower instances of invasive species. Once invasive plant species are established, their removal can be grueling.

“It’s wretched, miserable work,” Klaus said. “You’re out in the summer with a backpack sprayer—a lot of times you’re filled with briars, sweaty in the full sun, and it’s just terrible.”

Looking to the future

The authors believe that this research reminds us that with new tools comes new responsibility to reexamine how management techniques continue to impact areas.

“Oftentimes the effects of these management measures turn out to not be nearly as clear-cut as we think they are,” Klaus said.

A traditional food plot from the study. Credit Nathan Klaus

Scientists suspect rainbow snake decline in Florida

September 4, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is seeking public reports of one snake species to understand how it is faring in the state. Rainbow snakes (Farancia erytrogramma) are hard to find, but researchers suspect they are declining due to the dropping population of American eels—one of the snakes’ prey species—habitat loss and snake fungal disease. “We need help from Floridians and visitors to better understand where rainbow snakes still occur in the state,” said Kevin Enge, a research scientist with FWC’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. “Every sighting report gives us valuable data about their current distribution and helps us assess the health of the species in Florida.”

Read more at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Fred Johnson wins Caesar Kleberg Award

September 3, 2025 by Olivia Milloway

After building a career connecting research and management, Fred Johnson was awarded the 2025 Caesar Kleberg Award for Excellence in Applied Wildlife Research.

“It feels really great to get recognition for the role I’ve played through more than 40 years—not strictly research, not strictly management, but something in between,” Johnson said.

The award recognizes those who have distinguished themselves in applied wildlife research and contributed to “on the ground” applications of management and conservation. Johnson worked for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for more than 40 years. Since retiring from USGS, Johnson, who is a Certified Wildlife Biologist®, has worked at Aarhus University in Denmark and the University of Florida.

Johnson studied wildlife at the University of Texas, Austin at the Caesar Kleberg Institute for Wildlife Studies. He then landed his first job at the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. “I had a mentor there that really impressed upon me the importance of science-based decision-making,” he said.

When he graduated and started working, he found it difficult to parse the objective and subjective sides of decision-making. “When there was disagreement, it wasn’t clear whether the disagreements were about science or how outcomes of management are valued,” Johnson said. “I felt that there needed to be someone who could stand in the middle and bridge the gap between the scientists and the managers,” he said, a role that is rarely institutionalized in federal agencies.

Johnson ventures out for fieldwork in Svalbard, Norway. Courtesy of Fred Johnson

After working as the Waterfowl Management Program Coordinator for the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, he moved to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where he specialized in migratory bird management. After nearly two decades, he transferred to the USGS Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, now called the Southeast Ecological Science Center. In his role as a principal investigator, Johnson applied ecological theory to real-world problems in natural resource management.

“He has devoted his exceptional career to research in applied wildlife ecology, and his extraordinary contributions have been used extensively for on-the-ground management,” wrote James Nichols, Byron Williams and Rollin Sparrowe in a nomination letter for Johnson. Each of the three men who nominated Johnson for this award brings a lifetime of achievement and expertise in wildlife management: Nichols is a senior scientist emeritus for the USGS, Williams served as the CEO of TWS and Chief of the USGS Cooperative Research Units, and Sparrowe is a retired deputy assistant director of the USFWS.

After “retiring,” Johnson has been employed as a senior research fellow at Aarhus University in Denmark, where he focuses mainly on waterfowl and seabirds through the United Nations Environment Programme. He also works as a natural resources consultant in Iceland and Canada.

For Johnson, this brand of retirement has meant an opportunity to apply his knowledge and skills of wildlife science to new ecological and political systems in Europe. He is also exploring new interests, like writing a book. His first work, Adaptive Management of Animal Populations: A Primer, will be published next year by the University of Florida Press. Johnson is driven by a deep love for wildlife and seeing the positive change that science can bring about in the world around him. “I’ll never stop working,” he said.

AI cracks the code to monitor mixed bird colonies

September 3, 2025 by Kaylyn Zipp

Researchers in Israel have used artificial intelligence-powered cameras, trained by biologists and computer scientists, to monitor large seabird colonies with precision and efficiency.

“Every year, we would get the question of how many breeders from each species were in the colony,” said Inbal Schekler, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Haifa. “The question was hard to answer and to compare along the years because of the density of the colony, the observation error and the counting method itself, which changed through time.”

Schekler is responsible for monitoring and reporting on a breeding colony of terns, located on an island within a large salt production facility along the Mediterranean Sea of northern Israel, where approximately 90% of the local breeding population now exists as a single, large, dense colony. Over recent decades, common tern (Sterna hirundo) and little tern (Sternula albifrons) populations in Israel have undergone significant change. The loss of suitable breeding habitats has led to increased aggregation that heightens their vulnerability to catastrophic events such as predation and disease outbreaks, while also potentially intensifying competition between individuals of the same species and with other species.

Images of the common tern (a) and little tern (b). Common terns (a) beaks are red and they have solid black foreheads, while little tern (b) beaks are yellow and they have black and white foreheads. Common terns are twice as large. Credit: Alexis Lours and Julio Jesús Añel Perez/Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Accurate data is essential for protecting biodiversity and effectively managing species. Yet traditional wildlife monitoring methods, such as direct observation and counting birds on images, are labor-intensive, prone to human error, and often impractical for densely populated breeding colonies like this one. Although breeding counts were conducted roughly once a week from April to August over the years, different professional observers were in charge over time, and different methods were used, introducing variability and inconsistency into the data collection process.

Schekler and her coauthors wanted to improve the accuracy of counts and turned to collaboration with computer scientists. In their new paper in Ecological Informatics, the team discussed how AI can help overcome errors introduced by human observation without disturbing the colony, as often occurs with traditional monitoring methods.

Creating solutions

The team, led by Eyal Halabi, a researcher at the University of Haifa, and Schekler, trained an object detection algorithm using more than 1,600 labeled images of terns captured by automated cameras.

“The model was successful because we incorporated into our algorithm the same features we use in the field to monitor and distinguish between the species,” Schekler said. The camera-based algorithm was used not only to count birds but also to monitor behaviors like sitting, standing, flying and breeding and map the exact location of every breeding bird in the colony.

A visualization of AI species detection. Common terns have red squares and little terns have yellow squares. Credit: Schekler et., al 2025

The model was trained to recognize species, chicks and occasional nontarget visitors like black-winged stilts (Himantopus himantopus) and spur-winged lapwings (Vanellus spinosus). Crucially, it used behavioral cues, like long periods of sitting during incubation, to distinguish breeding adults from nonbreeders.

When implemented, the AI-powered system mapped daily nest locations, providing high-resolution data on colony structure and dynamics with over 90% accuracy. The model offers a powerful, noninvasive tool for improving seabird conservation and could transform how seabirds in dense mixed colonies are monitored in difficult-to-access or sensitive habitats.

Moving Forward

The success of this framework demonstrates the potential for AI-powered monitoring and the power of collaboration between computer scientists and ecologists. AI has the potential, when trained correctly, to reduce errors and bias, reduce logistical challenges and be cost-effective. Cameras are also able to flag threats like predators and monitor rising water levels that could flood nests. As more conservation efforts seek to minimize the human footprint while maximizing data quality, solutions like this could become essential in the modern conservation toolkit.

Schekler is excited to apply this technology to other issues facing the colony, such as the large mortalities chicks have experienced in recent years.

Has Trump admin affected ecological research and management?

September 2, 2025 by Kaylyn Zipp

On Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump administration started restructuring the federal workforce and making policy changes that marked a sharp departure from long-standing operational norms. In response, The Wildlife Society, along with 13 other scientific societies, groups and organizations, created a nationwide survey to assess some of the initial impacts of these policies on members. The survey echoes long-held fears that these changes have had devastating consequences for science and reveals the emerging extent of the damage. The survey results provide the first systematic documentation of how recent federal policy changes have affected scientific research.

The anonymous survey was distributed by the professional societies to tens of thousands of scientists in ecology, evolution and marine science in professional societies, which captured nearly 1,400 responses across career stages and sectors, including academia, nonprofits and federal agencies. Approximately 20% of respondents were TWS members. Results show 83% of respondents said federal policies had either an “extremely negative impact” or caused “irreparable harm” to their field.

A small minority—2%—was in support of the administration’s changes. But most of the responses paint a grim picture of how recent federal policy changes have impacted scientific research and training programs that ultimately will trickle down to how conservation and management actions can be informed and implemented.

To the majority, science is under siege

In open-ended survey responses, scientists described widespread disruptions to research, job insecurity, censorship and the erosion of institutional expertise. Their concerns cut across sectors, career stages and disciplines, but the perspective was clear. To them, recent federal actions are undermining the foundations of American science.

Respondents report increased uncertainty, stress and anxiety due to the changes the current administration has made. Credit: Impacts on Science

To many, silence is now part of science. Nearly half of all respondents (48%) mentioned being silenced in scientific communications, expressing that they felt pressured to self-censor language in reports, grant proposals and public communications. Commonly silenced terms included “climate change,” “climate models” and even “diverse.” Some respondents raised alarms about the integrity of federally produced data. They expressed concern that censorship and political interference could distort scientific objectivity and integrity and erode public trust.

“Already, we hear about data being created to support the desired research outcomes, which is illegal and violates every tenet of scientific inquiry,” wrote one respondent.

Disruptions to scientific work were also widespread. Respondents cited concerns about research that supports public priorities, such as food security, flood mitigation, disease surveillance and wildlife conservation, being disrupted or halted. Due to the restructuring, fieldwork has been frequently abandoned since January due to travel restrictions, delays in grant processing, or the firing of key federal collaborators.

Respondents also felt that the reduction in force across agencies has hollowed out staffing and expertise. Several respondents noted gaps in legal compliance, risk assessment and basic operational capacity, with fears that more people will leave due to the working environment.

“We cannot afford to lose more federal employees due to low morale and stress,” wrote one respondent.

Across career stages, scientists expressed deep concern about a severe early-career bottleneck. Respondents cited cuts to training programs, reduced graduate admissions, rescinded offers and rising competition for limited jobs alongside better opportunities overseas as driving the fears.

“I worry that we will be losing out on a generation of gifted researchers and conservationists,” another respondent wrote. “Although I do not think the harm is irreparable at this point, it may be by the end of the administration, or at least it will take much longer to repair the damage done, likely decades.”

Results demonstrate the impact of policies on various areas of scientific work. Credit: Impacts on Science

Another wrote, “My entire department hired just one graduate student this year because although our funding has not yet been cut, the threat that it might be cut means that we cannot commit to paying graduate students in the future; so the threat of funding cuts has essentially the same effect as actual funding cuts because it makes it impossible to plan or to commit to future expenditures.”

The survey questions did not assume that all impacts were harmful and included options to indicate whether impacts were negative, neutral or positive. Like any survey, there is potential for bias. Those most negatively affected by recent policies may have been more likely to respond, while others, such as government employees, immigrants or members of marginalized groups, may have chosen not to respond due to fear of retaliation.  

Supporters stand by the restructuring

The 2% of respondents that welcomed the administration’s changes expressed the belief that recent federal policies have been beneficial.

“Useless research and programs that can’t self-fund or attract funding no longer can rely on [government] funding to continue and thus are shutting [down],” one respondent wrote. “This positive effect has been that people who never should have been working in this industry [are] now out of it.”

Another lauded “positive” changes. “We now have an administration in office that is working hard to actually do something positive for this country … strong foreign policy, deporting illegal immigrants, strengthening our economy, resetting fair trade policy, etc. The future of my research is bright and shiny!”

Respondents in support of the changes noted that some recent policies could result in stronger candidate pools, greater nonfederal funding attention to conservation, benefits to the removal of red tape, and benefits to changes in diversity, equity and inclusion programs. 

One respondent commented that they had seen increases in efficiency in the federal system. “Prior to this, it would take months of nonstop calling and emailing to get a simple answer,” the respondent remarked. “It was very evident these employees were not working on these permits or consultation efforts. This has made consulting much less stressful, with federal employees once again doing their jobs.”

A word cloud made from the responses of the survey where size of the word indicates how often it was repeated. Credit: Impacts on Science

These voices serve as a reminder that not all in the profession view these disruptions as harmful. In fact, some see them as necessary course correction.

Can we come back from this?

Some respondents believe the damage to U.S. science may already be beyond repair.

“It is terrifying to see the loss of scientific expertise that is draining out of the U.S. right now. It is so much like watching how Lysenkoism destroyed biological research in the USSR,” one respondent wrote, referring to Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko’s mid-20th century political campaign against genetics and science-based agriculture.

Respondents who thought the harm was already irreparable cited disruptions to time-sensitive data collection or training opportunities, damaged career prospects, and harm to constituents caused by the loss of institutional knowledge in the federal government as reasons why the current perceived damage could not be undone. A self-identified contractor highlighted how cuts to infrastructure restoration would prevent them from completing projects that would reduce damage from heavy flooding in their Midwest state. “Irreplaceable harm has been caused because the public will not be able to depend on the accuracy of information in federal reports and publications,” the individual wrote.

Some fear the worst is yet to come, warning that continued rejection of science for political reasons could cause lasting damage.

“Since Jan. 20, I have observed the state grow bolder with its willingness to reject scientific information that does not conform with its desired policies,” a respondent wrote.

Read the full report at Impacts on Science.

Wisconsin CWD project wins Wildlife Restoration Award

August 29, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

A large-scale study examining the impacts of chronic wasting disease on deer in Wisconsin has won The Wildlife Society’s 2025 Wildlife Restoration Award.

The awards are granted to outstanding projects supported by Wildlife Restoration funds (also known as Pittman-Robertson funds) and associated nonfederal matching funds. The Southwest Wisconsin Chronic Wasting Disease, Deer and Predator Study won in the Wildlife Research and Surveys category—one of the two possible awards up for grabs each year in the Wildlife Restoration Awards.

Managers first detected chronic wasting disease (CWD) in the southwestern part of Wisconsin in 2001. Following this finding, scientists began to examine factors that could affect deer survival in that area—everything from CWD itself to hunting, predation and habitat suitability.

Courtesy of nominators

The first phase of the study, which spanned from 2016 to 2020, involved collaring deer, collecting data, engaging with the community and creating models to determine the ecological effects of the disease. About 1,000 volunteers helped capture and collar 1,200 animals with tracking devices, and nearly 400 landowners provided researchers access to their property.

Phase two, which began in 2020 and continues today, involves tracking deaths, analyzing data and publishing the study’s findings and results.

Prior studies found that CWD curbed cervid populations in the intermountain West, but no studies examined the impact of CWD on the productive and abundant white-tailed deer (O. virginianus) populations east of the Great Plains until this long-term Wisconsin project.

The results include the finding that “CWD is substantially reducing the annual survival probability of both male and female white-tailed deer,” said Wendy Turner from the U.S. Geological Survey and Scott Hull from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in their nomination letter. While conducted in Wisconsin, they added that the findings have relevance across the range of white-tailed deer and for other cervid species affected by CWD. Areas with high prevalence of CWD also likely cause a decline in deer populations.

The team has communicated its work on CWD via more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies as well as podcasts, newsletters and webinars.

Project leader Daniel Storm holds a young collared deer. Courtesy of nominators

“The results of this study have broad implications for understanding and managing deer populations in the face of the increasing prevalence of CWD across North America,” the nominators wrote.

Daniel Storm, the project leader in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ Office of Applied Science, said that it’s “very gratifying” to get recognition for the project. “It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears from a lot of great people to accomplish what we did.”

He thanked collaborators, including the USGS Cooperative Wildlife Research Units at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Montana, and at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center.

“This project demonstrates the critical value of the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area in adding capacity to state agency-led research projects,” Storm said. “It really is a textbook example of what can be accomplished when state natural resource agencies and USGS work together.”

Osprey chicks are dying in their nests

August 29, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

A new report shows that osprey are declining again on Virginia’s eastern shore. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), which are on every continent but Antarctica, were once on the brink of extinction due to the insecticide DDT. After DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972, the species rebounded. However, it is on the decline once again in the Chesapeake Bay—this time, most likely because of a decrease in their prey, said Bryan Watts, director of the Center for Conservation Biology at The College of William and Mary in Virginia. In a new report published by the Center for Conservation Biology, osprey nesting pairs have declined nearly 90% from 1987 to 2025. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), the bird’s primary food in the region, are fished commercially and used for fish oil, fish meal, agricultural food and bait. “The osprey are yelling pretty loudly that, hey, there’s not enough menhaden for us to reproduce successfully,” Watts told the Associated Press. Commercial fishing companies deny that their activity is the cause of the osprey decline, although they acknowledge that fewer menhaden are showing up in their nets in certain parts of Chesapeake Bay. Other animals, like certain predator fishes and marine mammals, also rely on menhaden stocks for survival.

Read more at the Associated Press.

Wildlife Vocalizations: Analorena Cifuentes-Rincon

August 28, 2025 by Analorena Cifuentes-Rincon

My earliest memories are of sleeping beside shelves of medical supplies, in a single room that served as both our home and the only clinic for miles, in the rural mountains of Colombia. After her divorce, my mother, an auxiliary nurse, moved to a remote mountain town with my two older brothers and me. With no house, the underfunded public hospital offered her the only shelter available: the clinic itself. It was humble, but it became our home.

Urgent knocks at our door often came in the middle of the night. Patients arrived with injuries, fevers or premature births. Because I was the youngest, my mother often took me along when she traveled to distant communities—on foot, on horseback or in the back of a truck. I became her small assistant, carrying supplies, holding flashlights, calming frightened children.

She was the only healthcare provider for miles, responsible for everything: clinical care, school vaccinations, vector control, births and emergencies. Without veterinarians, she was even called to treat sick or injured animals. Salaries were irregular, and several months could pass without pay. Rural families showed their gratitude with vegetables, fruit or jars of honey that kept us fed. We grew our own crops too, blending the life of nurses with that of small farmers.

Cifuentes-Rincon holds a bird while conducting fieldwork on avian malaria in the town of Jardín, in Antioquia, Colombia. Credit: Analorena Cifuentes-Rincon

What made my mother extraordinary was her passion for education. Despite no formal studies beyond her nursing training, she read voraciously and became a teacher to many. After treating a patient, she explained how to prevent illness, improve hygiene or care for newborns. She taught expectant mothers about healthy pregnancies, guided families on nutrition, and helped bring countless children into the world. She led income projects for single mothers and sanitation campaigns in schools that had never seen running water. In our town, she was more than a nurse; she was a guide, a leader, a source of hope.

I still remember carrying a newborn while my mother asked me to wrap him in a blanket. We had no electricity, only the faint glow of a candle in the small room. The mother, exhausted and alone, had just given birth. My mother, calm and focused, worked with quiet determination. In that moment, I understood what she had been teaching me all along: in the real world, actions speak louder than words.

Cifuentes-Rincon conducts field work on rabies in her hometown of Doima in Colombia with colleagues from Virginia Tech. Credit: Jose Trujillo

Today, my work in wildlife, rabies research, and public health carries her legacy forward. My research often takes me to landscapes much like those of my childhood—remote, rural, resilient. In every investigation and presentation, I hear her voice reminding me that science, like healthcare, must be rooted in empathy and service.

If I have learned one thing, it is that empathy and divulgation are as essential in science as any instrument or dataset. Knowledge alone is never enough; its value lies in sharing it. My mother’s footsteps on mountain trails taught me that lasting change begins with trust, earned with one conversation, one visit, one act of care at a time.

Wildlife Vocalizations is a collection of short personal perspectives from people in the field of wildlife sciences. Learn more about Wildlife Vocalizations, and read other contributions.

Submit your story for Wildlife Vocalizations or nominate your peers and colleagues to encourage them to share their story.

For questions, please contact tws@wildlife.org.

The September issue of JWM is now available

August 28, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

The Journal of Wildlife Management is a benefit of membership in The Wildlife Society. Published eight times annually, it is one of the world’s leading scientific journals covering wildlife science, management and conservation, focusing on aspects of wildlife that can assist management and conservation.

Join today for access to The Journal of Wildlife Management and all the other great benefits of TWS membership.

Hunter participation is vital when it comes to helping scientists and managers keep track of the spread of chronic wasting disease, a deadly prion disease, in white-tailed deer. In the featured article for this issue, researchers wanted to know what drove hunters to participate in testing their deer when testing involvement is voluntary in Wisconsin.

Other articles look at how American woodcock (Scolopax minor) management can help eastern towhees (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), the habitat selection of imperiled flattened musk turtles (Sternotherus depressus), the occurrence of suitable natural tree cavities for nesting wood ducks in South Carolina and more.

Log in to read the September issue today.

Leslie Burger wins 2025 TWS education award

August 27, 2025 by The Wildlife Society

The Wildlife Society has granted its 2025 Excellence in Wildlife Education Award to Leslie Burger for her long career in teaching students of all levels.

The Excellence in Wildlife Education Award honors those who have demonstrated excellence in all areas of education, including teaching, advising, scholarships, program development and leadership. 

A professor in the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture at Mississippi State University, Burger has consistently helped launch careers, guide internships and improve understanding among her students.

For more than three decades, Burger has worked with graduate and undergraduate students as well as K-12 students, often teaching special courses designed to promote career success. “Leslie builds ecosystems of curiosity and exploration within her classrooms, and I am always impressed with her thoughtful experiential learning style of teaching, where the students develop critical-thinking and soft skills that are stepping-stones to professional success,” said Andy Kouba, professor and head of Burger’s academic department, in his nomination letter.

Steve Bullard, Mississippi State University’s associate dean in the College of Forest Resources, said in his nomination letter that Burger is “professional, engaged and universally respected—a consummate natural resource professional and exemplary educator who epitomizes the value of this prestigious award.”  

Burger called her win an “unexpected honor and privilege,” saying that it was humbling to see the nomination letters. “It was a good reminder that even as an individual, we have the power to make a difference,” she said.

While earlier in her career, Burger preferred fieldwork to teaching, she has grown to find more satisfaction in helping others excel in the field of wildlife conservation.

“In this day of complex, global-scale issues that seem so very large and intractable, I know that individuals can and do make a difference for conservation,” Burger said. “Education is one approach to solving these complex issues. Education is the silent fuel that keeps the conservation engine moving forward. It’s not as sexy as wildlife research, species or habitat recovery, ecosystem restoration or acquisition, and the like, but it is necessary.”

Burger has taught students of all levels for more than three decades.