The U.S. Department of the Interior has expanded hunting and fishing access by adding 42 new opportunities across 87,000 acres at national wildlife refuges and hatcheries, enhancing public recreation while supporting conservation and local economies.
The Interior has expanded access within the National Wildlife Refuge system and the National Fish Hatchery system, according to a statement released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Hunting and fishing are more than just traditional pastimes, as they are also vital to the conservation of our lands and waters, our outdoor recreation economy, and our American way of life,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in the release.
This will be the first time hunting opportunities will be available at Southern Maryland Woodlands National Wildlife Refuge and hunting opportunities will formally open at Grasslands Wildlife Management Area in California. Additionally, this will be the first time sport fishing will occur at the North Attleboro National Fish Hatchery in Massachusetts.
This initiative triples the number of recreational opportunities and quintuples the number of units opened or expanded. The locations span 16 units within the refuge system and one in the hatchery system, including sites in Alabama, California, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Texas and Washington.
“Hunting and fishing significantly benefit the outdoors by helping manage wildlife populations, promote outdoor stewardship and contribute to local economies,” said Brian Nesvik, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “These refuges and hatcheries provide incredible opportunities for sportsmen and sportswomen and their families across the country to pass on a fishing and hunting heritage to future generations.”
Plant-eating animals in Yellowstone National Park have more diverse diets than scientists previously thought. When characterizing a given animal’s diet, doing so based off their species alone won’t give a complete picture.
“We found that the sharpest divisions in what animals were eating were not strictly based on species, season or space—but a combination of those things,” said Tyler Kartzinel, coauthor of a new study and associate professor at Brown University. In an ecosystem as dynamic as Yellowstone, understanding what migratory herbivores are eating—and when—is key so that park scientists can sustainably manage the landscape.
Kartzinel and his team collaborated with scientists at Yellowstone National Park to track five species of herbivores: pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemiondus), elk (Cervus canadensis) and bison (Bison bison). They collected fecal samples for DNA analysis to determine what the herbivores had been eating.
At Brown University’s Genomic Opportunities Lab, Kartzinel specializes in connecting conservationists and managers—who he describes as the “muddy boots scientists” that are in the field protecting species—with his lab’s services in modern genomic technology and data science. “We can answer questions about animal behavior, nutrition and health in ways we couldn’t 20 or even five years ago,” he said.
Foundational questions
Kartzinel first came to work with park scientists from Yellowstone in 2018. Together, their main goal was to understand the drivers of migration patterns of wildlife across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem—particularly, why they tend to gather in lowland areas during the winter and disperse uphill to higher elevations during the summer.
To answer these questions while engaging students in research, Kartzinel designed a class for undergraduates where he taught students how to use cutting-edge genomic tools through analyzing bison feces from Yellowstone.
Hannah Hoff monitors plant communities in Yellowstone National Park. Credit: Tyler Kartzinel
But before the eager undergraduates could start the analysis, the samples needed to make it from the digestive tract of herbivores all the way to Providence, Rhode Island for analysis. Yellowstone biologists and citizen scientists tracked the study’s focal animals using GPS collars and watched them from a spotting scope, waiting for them to defecate. Then, one spotter would keep an eye on the pile of dung while another would venture out into the field. Once the herd had passed, the spotter would play a game of hot and cold via walkie-talkie until they found the correct pile of waste. The scientists and volunteers continued this work throughout the migratory cycle for each of the four other ungulate species, collecting samples and shipping them to Kartzinel’s team.
Over the course of the semester, the students prepared the samples, sequenced the DNA and compiled their findings into a report for the park service. Multiple papers have been published from the collaboration so far, including students as coauthors.
Since that initial collaboration, the project has grown in scope to learn more about the foraging decisions of herbivores—and the consequences of these decisions—across Yellowstone.
Rethinking herbivory
Before working in Yellowstone, Kartzinel worked in East Africa, where herbivores tend to stick to certain dietary niches—for example, zebras (Equus quagga) eat mostly grasses, while giraffes (Giraffa reticulata) eat trees and shrubs. Yellowstone is a different story, where herbivores’ dietary niches are much less consistently defined.
When Kartzinel and his colleagues began to share initial results, they got one main question in response: Why aren’t these animals eating as much grass as people say they’re eating?
Kartzinel spent the next few years going back over his work. Meanwhile, he recruited doctoral candidate Hannah Hoff, who had a background in botany and data science, to continue to document more of the 1,400 plant species present in the park.
The inspiration for this most recent study came to Hoff when she took a seminar on the history of how scientists study human genetics and evolution. She learned about the discredited field of race science, where so-called “race scientists” attempted to find genetic evidence to support the idea that there were biological differences between the human races. These pseudoscientific findings were used by eugenicists and white supremacists to justify policies that reinforced racial hierarchies.
Hannah Hoff locates a cactus (Opunita polycantha) to collect for DNA analysis and for addition to a growing reference library of DNA specimens to help profile herbivore diets in Yellowstone National Park. Credit: Tyler Kartzinel
For the seminar, she read “The Apportionment of Human Diversity,” Richard Lewontin’s 1972 landmark paper that threw into question what people thought they knew about human categories. “Lewontin showed that there was much more genetic variation within the continental groups of people than between them, and that basically blew race science out of the water and became the foundation of our modern understanding of human evolutionary history,” Kartzinel said.
While studying herbivore niches and human race science is “a totally different sphere” with separate social, cultural and ethical considerations, the base of their assumptions was similar. “Race scientists” were looking for statistical evidence to justify the lines they had drawn around human populations. “For us, that was the “ah-ha” moment: we recognized that wildlife biologists are probably making the same kind of mistake when looking for statistical evidence to “prove” animals eat what we think they eat.”
The team took a page out of Lewontin’s playbook. “That was Hannah’s stroke of genius: let’s throw away our preconceived notions, embrace the artificial intelligence revolution and use a simple model to figure out what really makes these diets different,” Kartzinel said. They titled their resulting paper “The apportionment of dietary diversity in wildlife” as a nod to Lewontin’s work and the inspiration for their analysis. “It’s an important part of this story: the history of the way that science grapples with—and then overcomes—ideas that are stuck because of bias.”
Turning back to the landscape
Their analyses supported previous findings that the diets of herbivores were fairly variable and that the distinctions between species’ diets in Yellowstone were smaller than scientists previously thought. Factors that were more important than species in predicting an animal’s diet included time of year and where the animal was in its migratory cycle.
“In certain places at certain times, species have some common dietary characteristics—but they’re not all identical,” he said. “If some species are foraging under similar circumstances, their diets can look the same.” For example, many species of animals take advantage of summer wildflowers while foraging in the upland meadows. In the winter, animals tend to turn towards coniferous trees and shrubs.
Tyler Kartzinel and Hannah Hoff scan habitats for unique kinds of plants that herbivores could eat during their migration. Credit: Eliza Atwood
There were some species distinctions, though. In the winter, bison tended to continue to forage for grasses over other types of vegetation, while smaller animals like mule deer and pronghorn tended to eat evergreen trees.
“Species-based differences are a reasonable starting point. But we also owe it to ourselves to not make the assumption that species is always the most important grouping—because sometimes it may not be,” Kartzinel said. “If we forget that classification is a process that needs interrogation, we’re vulnerable to making mistakes.”
Kartzinel said that having a better understanding of what animals are eating—and at what time of year—can help park scientists make more informed decisions about the sustainability of the ecosystem. Their research began by answering the basic question of what’s fueling herbivore migration. “Now that we have a list of plants that these animals are eating throughout their migration, we’re thinking about what other assumptions we might be making that might mislead us for the next 10 or 50 years of management decisions,” Kartzinel said.
“This goes way beyond Yellowstone. This is relevant to anywhere where people think they know what animals are eating but might not really.”
The Bird Conservancy of the Rockies has won The Wildlife Society’s 2025 Group Achievement Award for their work protecting birds and their habitats through science, education and stewardship.
The Group Achievement Award recognizes an organization whose outstanding achievements benefit both wildlife and TWS.
“Bird Conservancy of the Rockies is thrilled to be recognized,” said Brant Ryder, the organization’s chief conservation science director. “This award is a testament to our commitment and ability to work closely with the wildlife conservation community.”
Based 20 minutes outside of Denver, the Bird Conservancy of the Rockies (BCR) operates from Colorado to the Great Plains, Mexico and beyond. Their work centers on a multidisciplinary, integrative approach to wildlife conservation involving a focus on both the ecological and human dimensions of conservation challenges.
A Bird Conservancy biologist shows participants a Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) during a Barr Lake Bird Banding Station visit. Credit: Bird Conservancy of the Rockies
In recent years, BCR’s scientific accomplishments have included learning more about the flight patterns of black swifts (Cypseloides niger), understanding nonbreeding grassland birds in the Chihuahuan desert, and using bird surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. These projects work toward filling key knowledge gaps, improving conservation return on investment, and ultimately, helping recover declining bird populations.
A seasonal field technician completes a grassland bird survey for Bird Conservancy’s Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions program. Credit: Bird Conservancy of the Rockies
BCR’s stewardship team collaborated with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service to map opportunities for ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) restoration following forest fires.
On the education side, they trained high school students in bird banding skills.
“It is the combination of these three programmatic areas that are the vital legs of the conservation stool,” Ryder said.
For much of its work, BCR relies on its partnerships. “We also want to recognize that this work does not take place in a vacuum, and there are countless other organizations that contribute,” Ryder said. “I hope that being recognized with the group achievement award opens up more collaborative opportunities to work with new partners and in new ways that we haven’t previously.”
In one scene, an indigo snake weaves around a monarch butterfly, gopher tortoise, pitcher plants and flowers, with the flames of a prescribed fire behind.
In another, flames burn on the ground below the impervious trunk of longleaf pine trees as red-cockaded woodpeckers vocalize around it.
This award was created to be a lasting recognition of the heritage established by Jay N. “Ding” Darling—an artist and prominent figure in the conservation movement as well as the first recipient of TWS’ Aldo Leopold Memorial Award—to promote wildlife and habitat conservation through art.
Colbert contributed artwork to commemorate ongoing conservation efforts in the Conecuh National Forest in Alabama—an area focused on restoring a native longleaf pine ecosystem.
Colbert’s work “250+ PBGs, Conecuh NF, Blackwater SF, 2024” depicts successes in recovering the red-cockaded woodpecker on state and national forests in Alabama. Credit: Michelle Colbert
Her piece “250+ PBGs, Conecuh NF, Blackwater SF, 2024” depicts how wildlife managers saw success in recovering the population of red-cockaded woodpeckers (Leuconotopicus borealis) to 250 potential breeding groups in Conecuh National Forest and bordering Blackwater State Forest. This represented the shared species recovery plan target for the two forests, reached almost three decades before the target.
Colbert’s artwork “Emperor of the Forest” depicts elements of a healthy longleaf pine ecosystem. Credit: Michelle Colbert
Her piece “Emperor of the Forest” depicts multiple elements of a healthy longleaf pine ecosystem, including a gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), gopher frog (Lithobates capito), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), pitcher plants and fire.
This work reflects wildlife management success in reintroducing hundreds of federally threatened indigo snakes into Conecuh. This success includes recaptures of released indigo snakes, documented breeding and the first confirmed wild-born indigo snake in Alabama in more than 60 years.
“When I was contacted by wildlife biologists to create both the indigo snake and the [red-cockaded woodpecker] pieces, I wanted to convey a sense of history and a rich narrative,” Colbert said. “I did research and worked with biologists to really understand why these species are so important ecologically and how we take steps in supporting their conservation. I think that marriage of design and scientific understanding really resonated with passionate individuals in the field of conservation.”
Derek Colbert, a Certified Wildlife Biologist® who works with the U.S. Forest Service in the Conecuh Ranger District, praised the artist in his nomination letter. “Michelle’s talent for capturing conservation efforts and achievements through her unique artistic style has undoubtedly helped take our conservation message to another level,” he said. “It’s one thing to hear about the environment, wildlife and work that goes into conservation; it’s another to see it and be able to take a piece home with you.”
Credit: Michelle Colbert
Vernon Compton, the director of the Gulf Coast Plain Ecosystem Partnership, which formed to protect biodiversity in the area and to increase buffers around military reservations, said that Colbert’s work is a “difference-maker” in his nomination letter. “I’ve seen the way adults and children are drawn to Michelle’s work and, from listening to them, have been able to see how her art not only educates, but inspires,” Compton wrote. “Future supporters and champions of wildlife stewardship may begin their journey of a lifetime of conservation support as a result.”
For the artist Colbert, her work is all about connectivity, whether that means connections between keystone species and native plants or negative connections with invasive species. “We should be sensitive to those connections as well as our human connection when representing nature in a deeper way,” she said.
When I reflect on my time as a young field biologist, I find myself reminiscing about nightly fireside chats with coworkers and friends. It’s one of those things that feels ordinary in the moment but becomes extraordinary when viewed through the lens of time. To spend all of that time connecting through conversation with my peers in a world illuminated by embers and devoid of distractions is unbelievably special and something that I will cherish forever.
Since going to law school, the frequency of my fireside chats has decreased. But several months ago, I participated in a Zoom call with many lawyers that somehow sparked the unique sense of purpose that always accompanied my fireside chats. The call was about vagueness.
How could vagueness spark purpose? On Feb. 21, 2025, a District Court judge issued a nationwide, preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from implementing two recently issued executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI or DEIA when also referencing “accessibility”) using the legal principle of “void for vagueness.”
Executive orders to end DEI
The executive orders titled Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity both attempted to frame DEI as inherently unlawful. They both directed agencies to “excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear,” “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions,” and encourage “the private sector to end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences” through the development of a strategic enforcement plan in coordination with the attorney general.
As part of the proposed strategic enforcement plans, the executive orders specifically instructed each agency to “include in every contract or grant award … a term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code [False Claims Act].” Under the False Claims Act, a person is liable for civil penalties when they knowingly make a false statement when fulfilling a federal government obligation or receiving a payment. So, in other words, if you receive federal money and then promote DEI in a way that conflicts with the Trump administration’s interpretation of anti-discrimination laws, you may face stiff financial penalties from the attorney general.
Such a broad and looming threat of enforcement against any organization or individual for operating or promoting DEI while receiving federal funds casts a large shadow over DEI work in the U.S. and has resulted in many organizations abandoning their efforts altogether. The U.S. Department of Education even started an official government website to “report illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning,” using an unambiguous URL—enddei.ed.gov (Note: The End DEI Portal is currently disabled pending the final verdict in a separate legal case—National Education Association v. US Department of Education).
Initial legal challenge
Following the executive orders, lawyers for the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and others said, “Not so fast,” and the court agreed. Without clearly defining key terms like “DEI,” “programs promoting DEI,” “illegal discrimination” or “equity-related,” the court concluded that the executive orders “infringe on core constitutional protections, and that the status quo must be maintained while plaintiffs and the government litigate the claims asserted in this case.”
Those core constitutional protections are the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Again, the court found that the inherent vagueness of the government’s plan to deter DEI programs combined with “the threat of private sector enforcement actions in furtherance of that deterrence constitutes a content-and-viewpoint-discriminatory restriction of speech” in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Fireside chats like this one in Graveyard Creek, Everglades National Park, helped me connect with my peers. Credit: Cameron Kovach
The court further expanded that logic to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A core element of due process is fair notice, or the notion that individuals have a clear articulation of what is expected of them, so they may have the opportunity to act accordingly. To emphasize that point, the court ruling quoted James Madison in the Federalist Papers: “Without an assurance that the laws supply fair notice, so much else of the Constitution risks becoming only a ‘parchment barrier’ against arbitrary power.” Accordingly, the court found that the “plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the Termination Provision [of the executive order] is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment.”
The plot thickens
On March 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit lifted the nationwide injunction after an emergency appeal from the government claimed that the injunction went too far. That means enforcement of the executive orders by federal agencies could resume while the case moves forward in the courts.
While the preliminary injunction and its subsequent suspension are an intriguing development, they are far from the end of this story. All of the actions to date are in response to a pretrial motion and emergency appeal. The merits of the case have yet to be litigated. This was a point emphasized in a concurring opinion of the Appeals Court ruling that stated, “The government has shown a sufficient likelihood of success to warrant a stay until we can hear and decide its appeal.”
Given the significance of the issues involved in this case, the legal nuance, the questions of constitutionality, and the already divided courts, it is likely this case will eventually reach the Supreme Court. Currently, the case remains active in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit after the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a request for a renewed preliminary injunction based on new factual developments. Despite denying the request, the District Court made sure to express its viewpoints on the merits of the case:
This Court remains of the view that Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their facial free speech and vagueness claims, as this Court previously explained. The Challenged Provisions forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in “equity-related” work and from “promoting DEI” in ways the administration may consider to violate antidiscrimination laws; they demand that the “private sector” “end . . . DEI” and threaten “strategic enforcement” to effectuate the “end[ing]” of “DEI”; and they threaten contractors and grantees with enforcement actions with the explicit purpose of “deter[ring]” such “programs or principles.” This Court remains deeply troubled that the Challenged Provisions, which constitute content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech (in addition to conduct), have the inherent and ineluctable effect of silencing speech that has long been, and remains, protected by the First Amendment. And they do so through impermissibly vague directives that exacerbate the speech-chilling aspects of the Challenged Provisions.
Historically, the metaphor used to describe the effect of laws that restrict speech
is “chill.” The more apt metaphor here is “extinguish.”Part of the explicit purpose andeffect of the Challenged Provisions is to stifle debate—to silence selected viewpoints, selected discourse—on matters of public concern. They forbid government contractors and grantees from engaging in discourse—including speech such as teaching, conferences, writing, speaking, etc.—if that discourse is “related” to “equity.” And they direct the “private sector” to “end” diversity, to “end” equity, and to “end” inclusion. “End” is not a mere “chill.” “Deter[rence]” is not a side-effect of the Challenged Provisions; their explicit goal is to “deter” not only “programs” but “principles”—i.e. ideas, concepts, values. After all, the opposite of inclusion is exclusion; the opposite of equity is inequity; and, at least in some forms, the opposite of diversity is segregation.
The role of TWS
The Wildlife Society will continue to watch this case and the several other high-profile legal battles around the Trump administration’s executive orders, as they have the potential to disrupt the legal landscape around DEI and impact the work of our organization and organizational units. For example, TWS has agreed to comply with all federal anti-discrimination laws as consistent with the above-referenced executive orders, but it remains unclear what that now entails.
Would a program to raise greater awareness of wildlife resources and opportunities rise to the level of illegal discrimination under the administration’s executive orders? What about efforts to create a more welcoming profession through community-focused initiatives like TWS’ Women of Wildlife, Student Development Working Group and Out in the Field? What about articles published in The Wildlife Professional, sessions at our conference or the presence of TWS’ DEI Vision?
Whether any of these activities reach the threshold of prompting government legal action for operating “programs promoting DEI” remains an open question. These programs were not established to support illegal preferencing, nor are they exclusionary in nature. Rather, TWS is promoting the growth of our profession, supporting our diverse membership and providing greater opportunities to advance the mission of TWS.
We do not believe that these actions violate federal anti-discrimination laws, with or without the executive orders. However, we will continue to revise and update our programs for compliance, as necessary, consistent with court precedent and any detailed guidance provided by the administration. For now, TWS encourages our members and organization units to follow the below guidance, which was originally reported in the National Law Review, and ensure that their programs:
Are broadly inclusive and open to all;
Do not include targets or goals based on race, gender, or any other protected characteristic;
Do not tie compensation or other rewards to the achievement of DEIA objectives or goals;
Do not provide benefits or awards (including scholarships, mentoring programs, travel grants, etc.) based on protected characteristics;
Do not require organizations to consider diverse groups of candidates for hiring or promotion; and
Do not require board membership to meet specific diversity goals.
I can’t even begin to speculate how this case will end, but the depth of advocacy and knowledge on both sides is impressive and the already historic nature of the case is clear. In listening to the lawyers discuss this case, it wasn’t just about legal interpretation. There was a sense of urgency and passion underlying their words that had me feeling nostalgic about my old fireside chats. These lawyers are putting everything they have into defending their positions, and it reminds me of the strong purpose that our community has always brought to the work of wildlife conservation. Know that every day there is a litany of lawyers litigating with the same zeal of wildlife professionals and know that TWS is and will continue to be welcome to all.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
