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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
The bird flu has caused a massive loss in breeding females in the world’s largest populations of southern elephant seals on a remote island in the South Atlantic.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is deadly to birds and other animals, causing widespread wildlife deaths around the world. HPAI’s arrival on South Georgia in 2023 appears to have severely impacted the island’s largest southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) population.
Researchers used drone surveys to count elephant seals at three South Georgia beaches during the 2022 breeding season, before the virus arrived, and again in 2024, after HPAI had spread then estimated the impact on the entire island’s population.
Breeding females were the focus of the study because they maintain the population’s reproductive capacity and care for the next generation. Losing large numbers of breeding females in a species with late sexual maturity can threaten long-term population stability.
At the three monitored beaches, researchers observed a nearly 50% drop in breeding females between 2022 and 2024. Scaled to the entire island, this suggests that roughly 53,000 females were absent during the 2024 breeding season, representing a 33.7% decrease from projected numbers for South Georgia
Although several hypotheses could explain this decline, the timing of HPAI’s arrival and its spread in the elephant seal population, alongside the sharp drop in numbers, the authors stated, “is too pronounced to be coincidental.”
In the midst of reports reiterating the dire state of climate change, the Trump administration appears to be taking the United States in the opposing direction—a stance that presents risks for wildlife and wildlife professionals alike.
On October 29th, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Oregon State University released their 2025 State of the Climate Report, and the findings were bleak. The report claims, “We are hurtling toward climate chaos. The planet’s vital signs are flashing red. The consequences of human-driven alterations of the climate are no longer future threats but are here now.”
Less than a week later, the United Nations Environment Programme released its 16th edition of the Emissions Gap Report, which concluded: “On the10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, the message is clear: only decisive, accelerated [greenhouse gas] emission reductions can align the world with the goals of the Paris Agreement and limit the escalation of climate risks and damages that, already today, are severe, and hit the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest.” The Paris Agreement is an international treaty adopted in 2015 to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, but preferably less than 1.5 degrees Celsius, above pre-industrial levels.
Both reports spotlight that greater losses are expected for ecosystems and wildlife in the future. The Potsdam Institute report states that “more than 3,500 assessed wild animal species are threatened by climate change and numerous examples of climate-related species population collapse have been documented.”
While melting ice caps, biodiversity loss, rising seas, or greenhouse gas emissions are troubling trends, political influence in scientific discourse around climate change may be far more troubling.
“The political objective…is often some trivial tinkering with the laws, some useless appropriation, or some pasting of pretty labels on ugly realities.”—Aldo Leopold, Conservation Ethic, Journal of Forestry, Volume 31, Issue 6, October 1933
The growing politicization of climate change
This year, the Trump Administration has announced seven actions that include the term “climate change.” Each action frames climate change as a social or political issue rather than a topic of scientific importance. This affects the availability of funding for climate science, opportunities for international collaboration and access to information and other resources that support the work of wildlife professionals.
Of the seven actions announced this year:
Four rescinded or called for the recission of past Executive Orders or regulatory actions that mention climate change.
One called for the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and for the “United States’ withdrawal from any agreement, pact, accord, or similar commitment made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Accordingly, the U.S. did not send a delegation to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) this November.
One seeks to identify and legally remove any “State laws purporting to address ‘climate change’ or involving ‘environmental, social, and governance’ initiatives.”
The final action defines “Gold Standard Science” which places the “generation, use, interpretation, and communication of scientific information” for each agency under the direction of a political appointee. The order also calls for “unbiased peer review,” which is not further defined and appears to de-emphasize reliance on studies that occur outside of a controlled environment (like most climate science) by emphasizing reproducibility, uncertainty and consideration of alternative scientific opinions.
In response to the last order, the U.S. Department of Energy released a non-peer-reviewed report in July that casts doubt on the current state of climate science while regularly highlighting “the important positive effect” of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A quick search also finds several news headlines reporting politics-driven word choice manipulation from leaked government memos, though federal agencies deny such memos exist.
These actions clearly signal that climate change is no longer a priority of the federal government. This political framing of a topic with scientific importance will undoubtedly have long-term effects on the work of wildlife biologists, and not just due to rising temperatures.
U.S. climate science on the cusp
A recent court filing in a case challenging reductions in force (RIFs) directives issued during the government shutdown revealed that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) had “intended on imminently abolishing” well over 50% of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) employees at national and regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASC). While a temporary restraining order has blocked implementation of the RIFs for now, the reductions would severely disrupt hundreds of climate projects nationwide. These projects provide essential scientific information and tools to wildlife biologists and land managers from other government agencies universities, and nonprofits to adapt to the effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, water, land and people.
Sea-level rise has become “saltwater intrusion” or “nuisance flooding” due to pressures to not use the term “climate change.” Credit: Metropolitan Transportation Authority
The Wildlife Society has a long history of supporting CASCs and the centers are a core resource in the development of important wildlife management documents like State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). Even if the centers are spared from the RIFs, the administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget seeks to cut climate funding across the entire federal government, framing it as funding for “climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.” This includes a proposed USGS budget that “eliminates programs that… focus on social agendas (e.g., climate change) to instead focus on achieving dominance in energy and critical minerals.”
Politics as an influencing force on wildlife science and management
A 2022 paper published in Conservation Science and Practice reports that “the local, state, or national political climate influenced the way that climate change information was used in SWAPs.” The paper, which included information from interviews with authors of the influential state plans, noted that some authors had difficulty getting approval to use terms like “climate change” and others relied on alternative language to “avoid arousing negative feedback from the public or elected officials.” SWAPs are science-based blueprints developed by each U.S. state and territory to proactively conserve wildlife and their habitats before they become endangered.
The potential effect of political influence on science is noticeable when looking at papers published in TWS journals over the past five administrations. During Republican administrations, fewer papers mention the term “climate change” when compared to the 30-year trend line of climate change mentions. There is also a spike in papers referencing “climate change” in the year following a Republican administration. This spike may indicate that some papers were held back from the scientific literature during those years or that the authors did not feel comfortable connecting climate change to the management implications of their research. It could also indicate opposing political pressure from Democratic administrations to produce counter messaging, after which we see mentions stabilizing around the general trend line. Regardless of the administration, references to climate change in TWS journals continue to climb at a steady rate, reflecting the growing impact of rising global temperatures on wildlife management.
The evolving lexicon of climate science and the role of TWS
While many wildlife professionals are struggling with how to navigate political pressures, nearly all that I have spoken with about their work and climate change have emphasized that their underlying science is unaffected by politics. In some cases, they even claim the science is improved through forcing authors to use more descriptive or precise language.
“It has happened before that great ideas were heralded by growing pains in the body politic, semi-comic to those onlookers not yet infected by them. The insignificance of what we conservationists, in our political capacity, say and do, does not detract from the significance of our persistent desire to do something.”- Aldo Leopold, Conservation Ethic, Journal of Forestry, Volume 31, Issue 6, October 1933
The challenge in turning that desire and science into something productive, however, lies in deciphering the patchwork of euphemisms that result from actual and perceived political pressures:
Climate change becomes “extreme weather”
Adaptation becomes “resilience”
Sea-level rise becomes “saltwater intrusion” or “nuisance flooding”
Species and habitat loss become “ecosystem shifts”
If the quality of science remains intact, why should TWS care about what terminology is used? Well, a 2022 study published in Ecological Economics, found that “even subtle word changes can significantly influence opinion and behavior, well beyond what is usually assumed.” Politicians, advocacy groups, lawyers and journalists on both sides of the aisle understand the power of words and can use that to drive desired outcomes.
During Republican administrations, fewer papers published in TWS journals mention the term “climate change” when compared to the 30-year trend line of climate change mentions. Credit: The Wildlife Society
Using shared terminology also allows professionals to collaborate, compare data, and build consensus. Substitutions may seem benign, but they can dilute urgency, obscure the underlying cause of scientific observations, and affect the ability of policymakers, the public and other scientists to find relevant research. By omitting familiar terms in favor of scientific precision or in response to political pressures, wildlife professionals may numb the public with scientific jargon. This may also reduce the impact of their findings with policy makers and other scientists who must sift through documents several hundred pages long all while maintaining the cognitive ability to quickly detect and decipher euphemistic language relevant to climate change.
Supporting climate change as a scientific inquiry
As we contemplate the role of TWS in the evolving lexicon around climate change, the Society remains vigilant in monitoring and promoting the highest science standards in setting wildlife policies and decisions. This includes continuing to support necessary scientific dialogue on climate change as it relates to wildlife through committees, Working Groups, policy positions and our publications. One example is the explicit inclusion of a “Climate Implications” section in the Journal of Wildlife Management, which helps institutionalize climate change as a subject of scientific inquiry as opposed to a political issue.
Such changes empower wildlife professionals to discuss climate change topics that they may otherwise view as being politically risky. Other organizations like the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), a nonprofit trade association, also recognize the politically charged nature of climate change and follow a similar model for providing tools and support to agency employees in crafting SWAPs. In 2022, AFWA released the Second Edition of its Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Change into State Wildlife Action Plans and other Management Plans. Thanks in part to these efforts, all 50 states and territories now include climate change information within their plans—a significant increase from just four states in 2005.
Building dialogue for the future
To quote a Buffalo Springfield song from 1966, a time also characterized by divisive politics, “Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.” The politicization of science has legitimate consequences. Both political parties have used climate change to further partisan divides and wildlife professionals must now navigate the repercussions of science as a political issue. Your feedback can help shape how TWS moves forward. The goal is to reflect the unified voice of the profession in navigating an issue with consequences that extend far beyond our members and U.S. politics.
I encourage everyone in TWS to continue this dialogue. Talk to your representatives in Congress and in your state legislature, but don’t stop there. Reach out and let TWS know how we can best support you. Contact your representative on Council and discuss your big ideas for the future of the wildlife profession. Share your frustrations, success stories, challenges and disagreements. At the end of the day, the true issue we’re talking about is not which political party you belong to, but rather how we maintain the integrity of the wildlife profession, our mission and the legacy of TWS—an organization that has seen a lot of politics in its time.
“A professional organization, from which their political masters are excluded, offers the only hope for the young wildlife managers to achieve satisfactorily independent careers, and of really participating in the shaping of policies in the conservation field.”— W.L. McAtee, first editor of the Journal of Wildlife Management in a 1936 letter to Paul Errington regarding the formation of The Wildlife Society,
To read the climate change reports referenced in this article click the links below:
Join fellow TWS members in supporting this year’s Giving Tuesday campaign. The funds from this year’s campaign will support TWS policy engagement, including bipartisan dialogue with policymakers on the importance of wildlife science and wildlife professionals in resource management decisions.
Australian researchers discovered two distinct adaptations that help bettongs bite through the shells of nuts that would break the jaws of most animals. The rabbit-sized marsupials often eat seeds from the sandalwood genus, including Australia’s native peach, or quandong. While most bettong species typically feed on softer foods, the burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur) and the brush-tailed bettong (Bettongia penicillata) go for the harder-to-reach but more nutritious nuts. But researchers were surprised to find that these two species have different adaptations. The burrowing bettong has a shorter face, allowing it to bite harder than other species. Meanwhile, the part of the skull responsible for seed-biting on the brush-tailed bettong is reinforced, giving extra support. Because they also spend time searching for soft foods like roots, tubers and fungi, bettongs are ecosystem engineers. When they dig for food, they till the soil, helping with water filtration, seed germination and improving overall soil health. As the marsupials have been dwindling due to predation and habitat loss, researchers hope that the new study will help wildlife managers find better areas to reintroduce bettongs. “Understanding animal dietary needs and their associated adaptations is invaluable information for conservation of threatened species,” said Rex Mitchell, a coauthor on the study and researcher at Flinders University, in a release.
Researchers in Germany found that nearly a quarter of a local bat’s diet is made up of common pests. But only with enough nearby natural areas such as wetlands to supplement their diet. Researchers from the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and the University of Potsdam tracked 128 common noctule bats (Nyctalus noctula) in northeastern Germany over the span of three years. They attached tiny radio transmitters to the bats, each weighing less than 1.5 grams, to track their movements while foraging. The researchers found that while farms make up about 95% of the landscape in the study area, the bats only spend around 55% of their time foraging there. While natural areas like forests, grasslands, wetlands and other water bodies only made up around 0.5% of the study area, bats spent about a third of their time foraging in these areas. “If we compare the proportionate habitat use with how frequently this habitat type occurs in the landscape, it becomes clear that bats only visit agricultural areas out of necessity and clearly prefer other landscape types,” said Marit Kelling, lead author of the paper and Ph.D. student at the University of Potsdam and Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, in a statement. In order to preserve these agricultural pest control services, the authors said it is critical to maintain natural habitats around farmland.
Hyper-realistic artificial intelligence-generated photos and videos are flooding social media, spanning the spectrum of wildlife footage from cute to terrifying.
These tools advance the way people perceive wildlife, potentially in ways detached from reality. In a society already distanced from nature and heavily influenced by digital and social media platforms, these generated depictions often outside the bounds of reality can distort public perception.
José Guerrero-Casado
Misinformation of this nature can sway real-world conservation outcomes. Some wildlife professionals are concerned that AI-generated videos may have the potential to influence attitudes, policy debates, and funding priorities. As AI-generated content becomes more common and harder to detect, the big question for conservationists, educators, and policymakers is: How do we ensure the public can distinguish fact from fiction?
José Guerrero-Casado and his collaborators addressed this topic recently in a paper published in Conservation Biology. For our latest Q&A, The Wildlife Society caught up with Guerrero-Casada, a professor at the University of Córdoba in Spain to discuss the potential problems AI might cause for wildlife conservation. His responses have been edited for style and brevity.
What inspired this work?
Previous research, including our own, highlights a concerning disconnect between society and the natural world—particularly in terms of knowledge about native wildlife. For example, children often recognize African charismatic mammals more easily than common native species found in their own surroundings. In this context, children can be easily confused by AI-created videos, which usually do not show real animal behaviors.
How do AI-generated videos affect wildlife?
The interaction between AI-generated videos and wildlife can be quite concerning. In societies where knowledge about nature is limited, and where gaining attention on social media with sensational or misleading content is prioritized over sharing accurate information for biodiversity conservation, the production of realistic AI-generated videos is likely to increase dramatically in the coming years. For example, videos created by AI that portray wild animals as pets can go viral on social media, shaping public perception in harmful ways, even increasing the demand of this animals as pets, which can increase the illegal wildlife trade.
What challenges do AI-generated videos pose to conservation?
As a general rule, conservation actions should be supported by society and all stakeholders to be successful, for which a well-informed people is essential. However, fake videos can spread misinformation, and therefore, they can decrease the public awareness about biodiversity, making the implementation of some conservation actions more difficult.
For instance, some AI-generated videos depict highly implausible or exaggerated human-wildlife interactions—such as large carnivores entering homes, attacking pets, even harming people. Or wolves or bears attacking livestock. These videos are often presented in a format that imitates low-quality security footage, which can make them appear more authentic, increasing the appearance of human-wildlife conflict. This misinformation may even lead to increased demand for controlling or eradicating these species, reinforcing negative attitudes toward wildlife.
What management or policy implications do AI videos have for conservation?
It is crucial to develop reliable tools for detecting AI-generated content. Currently, social media platforms often rely on users to disclose when a video has been created using AI. However, this approach is problematic because many users do not provide that information. Some platforms have started implementing automatic labeling systems that tag content as “AI-generated” when detected, even if the creator does not disclose it. Nevertheless, as numerous examples show, accurately identifying AI-generated videos remains a significant challenge. Improving these detection and labeling mechanisms is essential for preventing misinformation and protecting conservation efforts.
How can we protect the public from harmful AI-generated videos?
One of the most urgent actions is to improve public awareness and critical thinking around digital content. When users encounter suspicious wildlife videos, they should be encouraged to verify the information using reliable sources—such as scientific publications, environmental agency websites, reputable NGOs, or even trusted social media profiles that specialize in nature education.
What can wildlife managers do?
Wildlife managers should prioritize identifying AI-generated fake content as early as possible. When such content is detected, it is essential to inform the public that the material is not real and explain why it can be harmful. Providing information about the potential negative consequences—such as spreading misinformation and influencing negative attitudes toward wildlife—can help raise awareness and reduce the impact of these videos.
