The Next Congress Should Put Guardrails Back Around America’s Public Lands

Presidents will come and go. America’s national parks, public lands, wildlife, and cultural treasures should not rise and fall with them.

This November, Americans will elect a new Congress. Inevitably, much of the campaign will revolve around taxes, immigration, health care, inflation, and other issues that dominate our politics.

But voters who care about national parks, wildlife, clean water, forests, and public lands should be asking congressional candidates another question:

What will you do to make sure one president cannot dismantle decades of conservation policy with the stroke of a pen?

That question has become increasingly urgent during President Donald Trump’s second administration.

Over the past two years, the administration has pursued significant changes to federal environmental and public-land policy. The administration argues that these actions reduce regulatory burdens, increase domestic energy and mineral production, restore local control, and bring environmental laws closer to their original statutory meaning.

Conservation organizations, tribes, environmental attorneys, and other critics see something very different: an unprecedented effort to weaken protections that Americans spent generations building.

Whatever happens in the courts and whatever happens in the next presidential election, the experience of the past two years has exposed weaknesses in America's conservation laws that Congress has the constitutional power to address.

The next Congress should consider doing exactly that.

Bears Ears: How Permanent Is a National Monument?

Few places illustrate the vulnerability of federal conservation policy better than Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.

President Barack Obama created Bears Ears in 2016, protecting approximately 1.35 million acres containing extraordinary archaeological, cultural, geological, and natural resources.

President Trump dramatically reduced the monument during his first administration. President Joe Biden subsequently restored it.

Then Trump returned to office.

On July 13, 2026, Trump issued another proclamation reducing Bears Ears to approximately 121,096 acres, excluding roughly 1.24 million acres from the monument.

The administration argues that the smaller monument complies with the Antiquities Act's requirement that monuments encompass the "smallest area compatible" with protecting the objects for which they were designated.

The proclamation also provides that excluded lands may, subject to existing protections and applicable law, become available for mineral leasing, mining claims, and other uses.

It is important to note that removing land from the monument does not automatically eliminate every protection covering it. Some excluded areas retain protections under wilderness designations, Wilderness Study Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, the Endangered Species Act, and other federal laws.

Nevertheless, Bears Ears presents a fundamental conservation question:

Should a national monument be capable of expanding, shrinking, expanding again, and shrinking again depending upon who occupies the White House?

Congress can answer that question.

Reform #1: Amend the Antiquities Act

Congress should clarify the Antiquities Act so that a president may create national monuments but cannot abolish one or substantially reduce its boundaries without congressional approval.

That distinction matters.

Congress delegated monument-designation authority to the president. Congress can explicitly determine what authority accompanies, or does not accompany, that delegation.

Congress could also legislatively designate important existing monuments, including Bears Ears, thereby providing protections based on statute rather than presidential proclamation.

There are competing proposals over presidential monument authority. Some would move in the opposite direction and reserve monument establishment or expansion to Congress.

That debate makes the underlying issue particularly appropriate for congressional consideration: Congress should decide the limits of presidential authority rather than leave the future of major landscapes perpetually dependent upon changing interpretations of executive power.

The Endangered Species Act Without Habitat?

Another major change involves one of America's most important wildlife laws.

For decades, regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act interpreted prohibited "harm" to protected wildlife to include certain significant habitat modifications that actually kill or injure wildlife by interfering with essential behavior such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

The Trump administration rescinded that regulatory definition in July.

The administration argues that the old interpretation expanded federal authority beyond the language Congress enacted and unnecessarily burdened landowners and businesses.

Conservation organizations strongly disagree and have sued to overturn the change. They argue that protecting an endangered animal while allowing destruction of habitat necessary for its survival makes little biological sense.

The administration has made additional ESA regulatory changes, including eliminating future use of the general "blanket rule" approach for newly listed threatened species and changing regulations governing critical-habitat decisions.

Again, Congress does not have to leave such fundamental questions to regulatory interpretation.

Reform #2: Put Habitat Protection Directly Into the ESA

Congress should amend the Endangered Species Act to explicitly state when significant habitat modification constitutes prohibited harm to a listed species.

That would accomplish something larger than simply reversing a Trump regulation.

It would settle the issue legislatively.

Congress could define "harm" with enough specificity to protect habitat genuinely necessary for species survival and recovery while establishing clearer standards for landowners and regulated industries.

Congress could similarly clarify that critical-habitat designations should principally rest on biological and conservation requirements and explicitly address how agencies should consider climate-driven changes to future habitat.

The principle should be simple:

You cannot save wildlife without saving the places wildlife needs to survive.

America's Roadless Forests Are Vulnerable Too

The administration's actions extend well beyond monuments and endangered species.

The Trump administration has moved to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which restricts road construction, logging, and certain other development across tens of millions of acres of national forest.

The administration says returning greater authority to local forest managers would improve forest management, reduce regulatory barriers, and help address wildfire risks.

Opponents argue that the rule protects some of America's most intact forests, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and backcountry recreation areas and that eliminating it could open previously protected landscapes to greater development.

Once again, the controversy exposes the vulnerability of conservation policies based primarily upon administrative rules.

Reform #3: Turn the Roadless Rule Into Law

Congress should codify core protections of the Roadless Rule.

Legislation could permanently protect inventoried roadless areas from new commercial road construction and large-scale development while providing carefully written exceptions for wildfire response, ecological restoration, tribal access, public safety, existing rights, and other legitimate needs.

Doing so would transform a regulatory policy vulnerable to changing administrations into a statutory national conservation standard.

Restore Congress's Voice Over Selling America's Public Estate

Congress should also address another recurring threat: disposal of federal land.

Public lands certainly require occasional boundary adjustments, exchanges, and disposals. Some small parcels make little sense for the federal government to retain.

But large-scale disposal of America's public estate is something entirely different.

Reform #4: Establish Stronger Protections Against Large-Scale Public-Land Disposal

Congress should establish a presumption that major federal public lands remain in public ownership unless Congress specifically authorizes their disposal.

Any major disposal proposal could be required to undergo public review and analysis of recreational access, wildlife habitat, water resources, tribal interests, cultural resources, local economic effects, and conservation values.

Protecting public ownership also has the potential for bipartisan support. Proposals such as the Public Lands in Public Hands Act demonstrate that concern over disposal of federal lands does not necessarily fit neatly within traditional partisan boundaries.

Keeping public lands public can be common ground.

Put Environmental Review Back in Statute

The Trump administration has also substantially rewritten the Department of the Interior's procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Interior describes its changes as reforms intended to reduce bureaucracy and accelerate permitting while maintaining NEPA's procedural requirements. Critics worry that important environmental-review requirements can consequently become increasingly dependent upon executive interpretation.

Reform #5: Establish a Clear Statutory Floor for Environmental Review

Congress should specify minimum requirements for major federal actions.

Those requirements could include analysis of reasonable alternatives, significant environmental consequences, effects on nearby communities and tribes, opportunities for meaningful public participation, and disclosure of important scientific information.

Congress could simultaneously establish reasonable deadlines and page limits for routine reviews.

Environmental review does not have to mean endless review.

The objective should be better decisions made within predictable timelines, rather than choosing between environmental protection and administrative efficiency.

Protect the Lands Surrounding National Parks

A national park boundary does not create an ecological force field.

Oil wells, mines, roads, industrial development, and other activities immediately outside a park can affect its water, wildlife, viewsheds, night skies, cultural resources, and visitor experience.

That concern has played out around places such as Chaco Culture National Historical Park, where mineral development on surrounding federal lands has generated years of controversy.

Reform #6: Require a "National Park Neighbor" Review

Congress should require federal agencies proposing major extractive or industrial projects within a specified distance of a National Park System unit to formally evaluate impacts upon park resources.

This would not automatically prohibit development.

It would require decision-makers to acknowledge that actions immediately outside Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Glacier, Chaco, or another protected area can damage resources inside it.

For particularly important landscapes, Congress could go further by establishing permanent mineral withdrawals or conservation areas.

Give Wildlife Room to Move

America's conservation laws were largely created when wildlife management focused on protecting individual parks, refuges, forests, and wilderness areas.

Wildlife does not recognize those boundaries.

Elk migrate between national parks and national forests. Salmon move between federal, state, tribal, and private lands. Grizzly bears roam across enormous landscapes. Climate change is shifting habitats northward and upward.

Twenty-first-century conservation therefore requires protecting connections between protected places.

Reform #7: Establish a National Wildlife Corridor Program

Congress should create a permanent wildlife-corridor program directing federal agencies to identify major migration routes and habitat connections.

Federal transportation projects could incorporate wildlife crossings where scientifically justified. Land-management agencies could prioritize habitat connectivity when revising management plans, while voluntary conservation programs could help private landowners maintain migration corridors.

Congress could also expand grants to states, tribes, local governments, and private landowners for wildlife crossings and habitat restoration.

The goal would not be another enormous federal land designation.

It would be ensuring that America's existing protected lands do not become ecological islands.

A Law Is Meaningless If Nobody Is Left to Enforce It

There is another, less visible way to weaken America's conservation system.

You don't necessarily have to repeal the Endangered Species Act, sell a national park, or abolish a wildlife refuge.

You can simply make the agencies responsible for protecting them incapable of doing their jobs.

The National Park Service needs rangers, maintenance workers, biologists, archaeologists, historians, firefighters, engineers, and law-enforcement officers.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs scientists capable of reviewing endangered-species listings, developing recovery plans, restoring habitat, and managing wildlife refuges.

The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service need professionals capable of monitoring millions of acres, fighting wildfires, restoring watersheds, administering recreation, conducting environmental reviews, enforcing permits, and managing competing demands upon public lands.

When staffing disappears, those responsibilities don't disappear with it.

Trails deteriorate.

Visitor centers close.

Scientific studies are delayed.

Endangered-species recovery plans fall behind.

Invasive species spread.

Cultural resources receive less protection.

Maintenance backlogs grow.

And agencies increasingly find themselves managing America's natural heritage in permanent crisis mode.

This creates another vulnerability that Congress should address.

Reform #8: Give Conservation Agencies Stable Funding and Staffing

Congress should establish more durable funding and staffing safeguards for America's major conservation agencies.

That does not mean Congress should guarantee every agency an ever-increasing budget or prevent legitimate efforts to make government more efficient.

Agencies should be accountable for how they spend taxpayer dollars.

But there is an enormous difference between improving government efficiency and systematically reducing an agency's ability to carry out responsibilities Congress has assigned to it.

Congress could establish minimum operational-capacity requirements for the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management.

It could require agencies to publicly report how proposed staffing reductions would affect visitor services, law enforcement, wildfire response, endangered-species recovery, scientific monitoring, maintenance, and resource protection.

Congress could also place restrictions on an administration's ability to effectively dismantle congressionally created programs through mass layoffs, hiring freezes, office closures, or wholesale reorganizations without congressional approval.

And Congress could expand the use of dedicated conservation funding that cannot easily be redirected by whichever administration happens to occupy the White House.

There is already a successful model.

The Great American Outdoors Act, signed by President Trump in 2020 with strong bipartisan congressional support, permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provided billions of dollars to address deferred maintenance on federal lands.

Congress should build upon that approach.

Because protecting public lands requires more than drawing lines on a map.

Congress can create the strongest conservation laws in the world. But those laws mean little if there aren't enough people, scientists, rangers, and resources to carry them out.

Make Conservation Harder to Politicize

There is a larger lesson behind all eight proposals.

Environmental policy has increasingly become a pendulum.

One administration writes regulations.

The next rescinds them.

The following administration restores them.

Then another administration removes them again.

Bears Ears may be the most visible example, but the same pattern increasingly affects endangered species, climate policy, environmental review, drilling, logging, agency staffing, and other public-land decisions.

That instability isn't particularly good for conservation.

It isn't particularly good for industry either.

Businesses, communities, tribes, landowners, recreationists, and conservation organizations all benefit from knowing what the rules will be five, ten, or twenty years from now.

Congress exists in part to make those rules.

Congress Should Legislate Again

For decades, Congress passed some of America's greatest conservation laws.

The Antiquities Act.

The National Park Service Organic Act.

The Wilderness Act.

The National Environmental Policy Act.

The Clean Air Act.

The Clean Water Act.

The Endangered Species Act.

Republican and Democratic presidents alike signed landmark conservation laws, and conservation legislation historically attracted coalitions that crossed ideological and geographic lines.

Today's Congress too often leaves enormous policy questions unresolved. Presidents consequently push the boundaries of executive authority, agencies reinterpret old statutes, environmental organizations and industries sue, judges decide what Congress meant, and the rules change again after the next election.

There is another way.

Congress can legislate.

The next Congress could:

1. Clarify the Antiquities Act so presidents cannot unilaterally dismantle national monuments.
2. Put habitat protection explicitly into the Endangered Species Act.
3. Codify protections for America's roadless national forests.
4. Strengthen safeguards against large-scale disposal of public lands.
5. Establish a statutory floor for meaningful environmental review.
6. Require consideration of threats to national parks from nearby federal development.
7. Create a national wildlife-corridor program.
8. Provide conservation agencies with stable funding, staffing, and operational capacity.

These policies would outlast a Trump administration.

They would also outlast the administration that follows it.

And that is precisely the point.

The Question to Ask This Election

Americans shouldn't have to wonder every four years whether a national monument will still exist after the next inauguration.

A species shouldn't gain or lose fundamental habitat protections simply because control of the executive branch changes.

A national park shouldn't deteriorate because the federal government no longer employs enough people to maintain or protect it.

And lands preserved for generations shouldn't suddenly become disposable because one administration has a different interpretation of a decades-old statute.

Presidents need authority to govern.

But presidents also need guardrails.

Our Constitution provides a branch of government capable of creating them: Congress.

So as candidates ask for our votes this fall, Americans who care about national parks, wildlife, wilderness, and public lands should ask them something in return:

What laws will you support to ensure these places are still protected long after the next president is gone?

Because America's public lands belong to generations yet to come.

Their future should never depend upon the signature, or whims, of one person.

###

Meet Sean Smith, a master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning
conservationist and former National Park and Forest Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount St. Helens, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and in the QR code included. 

The Endangered Species Act Is Under Attack Again. Wildlife Can't Afford for Us to Look Away

For more than 50 years, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has served as America's emergency room for wildlife. When species are on the brink of extinction, the ESA has stepped in to protect not only the animals themselves, but also the habitats they need to survive and recover.

Thanks to the law, iconic species such as the bald eagle, American alligator, peregrine falcon, gray whale, and California condor have been pulled back from the edge of extinction. The ESA has prevented the disappearance of more than 99% of the species placed under its protection. It is widely regarded as one of the most successful conservation laws ever enacted.

Now, however, the Trump administration has finalized and proposed a series of regulatory changes that conservationists say could fundamentally weaken that law.

The Administration's New Rules

The most controversial change removes the federal regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. For decades, federal regulations interpreted "harm" to include significant habitat destruction or degradation when it kills or injures protected wildlife by impairing essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. That interpretation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995.

By rescinding that definition, the administration argues it is restoring the law to its original meaning and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on landowners, businesses, and infrastructure projects. Interior officials contend the previous interpretation expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.

The administration has also finalized or proposed several additional changes that collectively narrow ESA protections, including:

• Eliminating automatic protections for newly listed threatened species unless the government adopts species-specific rules.
• Requiring greater consideration of economic impacts when designating critical habitat.
• Revising listing and federal consultation regulations in ways that critics argue make habitat protections more difficult to implement.

Viewed individually, each rule may appear technical. Together, they represent one of the most significant regulatory rollbacks of the Endangered Species Act in decades.

Why Habitat Matters

Imagine making it illegal to shoot a bald eagle—but perfectly legal to cut down every tree where bald eagles nest.

That's the practical concern many wildlife biologists have raised.

For most endangered species, habitat loss is the single greatest threat to survival. A wolf cannot recover without connected forests. Salmon cannot return without healthy rivers. Red-cockaded woodpeckers cannot persist without mature longleaf pine forests. Florida panthers cannot expand if every remaining corridor becomes subdivisions and highways.

Species don't disappear only because individuals are killed.

They disappear because the places that sustain them disappear.

Removing habitat protections means developers, mining companies, energy projects, or other land uses may face fewer ESA restrictions if habitat destruction is not considered unlawful "harm" under the Act. Environmental organizations argue this creates a significant gap in one of the law's most effective conservation tools.

Why Americans Should Care—Even If They Aren't Wildlife Enthusiasts

It's easy to think endangered species only matter to birdwatchers or national park visitors.

But healthy ecosystems quietly perform services every American depends on.

Forests filter drinking water.

Healthy Forests are more wildfire resilient.

Predators help maintain balanced ecosystems.

Wetlands reduce flooding.

Native plants stabilize soils and improve water quality.

Pollinators support billions of dollars in agriculture.

When ecosystems unravel, people ultimately pay the price through higher costs, degraded recreation opportunities, increased flood damage, declining fisheries, and reduced biodiversity.

Protecting endangered species isn't simply about saving charismatic animals.

It's about maintaining the natural systems that support human communities.

The Administration's Perspective

Supporters of the new regulations argue the ESA has become overly burdensome, slowing housing construction, energy development, infrastructure, and economic growth.

They contend federal agencies stretched the meaning of "harm" beyond what Congress intended and believe states, private landowners, and tailored species-specific protections can provide conservation while reducing regulatory uncertainty.

Whether these reforms ultimately improve conservation or weaken it will likely be decided not only by policymakers but also by the federal courts.

Conservation Organizations Are Fighting Back

Environmental organizations have responded quickly.

Within days of the final "harm" rule, a coalition including the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, and other organizations filed suit in federal court.

Their central argument is straightforward:

If destroying the habitat essential to an endangered animal's survival is no longer considered "harm," then one of the Endangered Species Act's core protections becomes largely meaningless.

Additional lawsuits challenging other ESA rule changes are expected as more regulations take effect.

What Citizens Can Do

If you believe strong endangered species protections matter, there are several constructive ways to get involved.

1. Submit public comments.
Many federal regulatory changes include public comment periods. Agencies are legally required to review substantive comments before finalizing rules.

2. Support conservation organizations.
Groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, the National Wildlife Federation, and local conservation organizations rely on public support to pursue scientific research, education, and litigation.

3. Contact your elected officials.
Members of Congress can influence appropriations, oversight, and future amendments to the Endangered Species Act.  All of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for reelection this November. Constituents voicing their support for a strong ESA during an election cycle, will increase the likelihood of their pausing before supporting its weakening.

4. Stay informed.
Regulatory changes often receive far less attention than legislation, despite having enormous real-world consequences.

5. Speak up locally.
Many endangered species depend on state, county, and local land-use decisions as much as federal policy.

Conservation Is an American Value

Protecting endangered species has never been solely about preventing extinction.

It reflects a deeper national value: that some parts of America's natural heritage are worth passing on intact to future generations.

Political administrations come and go. Regulations change. Court decisions are issued and later revisited.

But extinction is permanent.

Once a species disappears, no future Congress, president, or court can bring it back.

The Endangered Species Act has helped ensure that America's wildlife remains part of our shared inheritance. Whether it continues to do so will depend not only on judges and elected officials, but on whether citizens continue to insist that conserving our natural heritage remains a national priority.

###

Meet Sean Smith, a master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning
conservationist and former National Park and Forest Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount St. Helens, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and in the QR code included. 

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: America’s Wolves at a Crossroads

For anyone who cares about wildlife, public lands, and the health of America’s ecosystems,
the last several weeks have delivered a complicated mix of hope, frustration, and alarm.

The story of wolf recovery in the United States has always been controversial. Wolves inspire awe in some Americans and anger in others. But regardless of where someone stands politically or culturally, one thing is undeniable: wolves are a foundational species in North America’s ecosystems. Their presence reshapes landscapes, restores ecological balance, and reminds us that true wilderness still exists.

Today, wolf recovery is simultaneously advancing in inspiring ways while also facing renewed political and federal attacks.

This is the good, the bad, and the ugly of wolf conservation in America.

The Good: Wolves Are Returning to Places They Haven’t Been Seen in Generations

Perhaps the most hopeful recent development came from Sequoia National Park, where a gray wolf was documented for the first time in more than a century.

The wolf, known as BEY03F, traveled hundreds of miles across California in search of territory and potentially a mate. Her appearance inside Sequoia is more than just a wildlife sighting. It is a historic milestone.

Gray wolves were eradicated from California by 1924. Their slow return since 2011 represents one of the most remarkable wildlife recovery stories in modern America.

Wolves matter because ecosystems evolved with them

When wolves disappear, prey populations can explode, streamside vegetation can collapse from overgrazing, and entire ecological systems become less healthy. The restoration of wolves in places like Yellowstone National Park famously demonstrated how predators can trigger positive ecological cascades affecting everything from elk behavior to river health.

Now, California may be witnessing the early stages of a similar ecological restoration.

The Sequoia wolf also symbolizes something larger: nature’s resilience. Even after decades of extermination campaigns, habitat destruction, and political hostility, wolves are still trying to come home.

The Bad: Wolf Recovery Faces Growing Political and Federal Resistance

At the same time wolves are naturally reclaiming parts of the West, political pressure against wolf recovery is intensifying.

In Colorado, federal officials have launched a review of the state’s voter-approved wolf reintroduction program.

Back in 2020, Colorado voters narrowly approved Proposition 114, requiring wolves to be reintroduced west of the Continental Divide. It was one of the few examples in American history where citizens directly voted to restore a predator species.

The program has not been without problems.

Livestock depredation has occurred. Ranchers have suffered real economic losses. Compensation costs have risen substantially. Rural communities that opposed the initiative from the beginning remain deeply skeptical.

Those concerns deserve acknowledgment and serious attention.

Successful wolf recovery requires more than simply releasing animals into the wild. It requires durable partnerships with ranchers, investment in non-lethal deterrence, rapid compensation systems, range riders, fencing improvements, carcass removal programs, and collaborative wildlife management.

But there is an important distinction between improving wolf management and undermining wolf recovery altogether.

The danger today is that political opposition is increasingly aimed not at coexistence, but at dismantling recovery efforts entirely.

That would be a mistake.

America has already seen what happens when fear, politics, and short-term economic pressures drive predator policy. Wolves were nearly exterminated across the lower 48 states once before. Repeating that history would represent a profound failure of stewardship.

The Ugly: The Return of Cyanide “Bombs” on Public Lands

If the political attacks on wolf recovery are troubling, the renewed federal embrace of M-44 cyanide devices is something even worse.

These devices — commonly called “cyanide bombs” — are spring-loaded traps that eject sodium cyanide into an animal’s mouth when triggered. They are designed to kill predators such as coyotes, foxes, and wolves.

The name sounds extreme because the reality is extreme.

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, Wildlife Services used cyanide bombs to kill more than 6,500 animals in 2023 before restrictions were imposed on some federal lands. More than 150 of those deaths were unintentional.

These devices have injured pets, harmed non-target wildlife, and even sickened people.

One of the most infamous incidents occurred in Idaho in 2017, when a 14-year-old boy accidentally triggered an M-44 device near his home. His dog was killed. The boy survived only because the wind blew the cyanide away from him.

Yet despite years of controversy and public opposition, federal agencies are again moving toward expanded authorization of these devices on public lands.

This is not wildlife management rooted in modern science or ecological ethics. It is a relic of an older philosophy, one that treated predators as vermin to be eradicated rather than as essential components of functioning ecosystems.

There is something deeply disturbing about using indiscriminate poison devices on lands owned by the American public.

Wolves Are About More Than Wolves

The fight over wolves is really a fight over what kind of relationship Americans want with the natural world.

Do we see public lands primarily as industrial landscapes to be controlled and run for private gain?

Or do we see them as living ecosystems worthy of restoration and protection that provide benefits such as clean air and water to all?

Wolves force us to confront difficult questions about coexistence, acceptance, and stewardship.

They also expose a broader truth: endangered species recovery is fragile.

Species can spend decades clawing their way back from extinction only to have political winds shift overnight. Recovery is not permanent. Conservation victories can be reversed surprisingly quickly.

That is why public engagement matters.

What Concerned Citizens Can Do

If you care about wolves and endangered species recovery, there are meaningful actions you can take:

Submit Public Comments

Federal and state agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are legally required to consider public comments during rulemaking and environmental review processes. Thoughtful, respectful comments matter. The USFWS is taking comments on Colorado's Wolf Reintroduction efforts. Send your thoughts in support of Colorado's efforts to the USFWS today. 

Support Conservation Organizations

Groups working on predator coexistence, habitat protection, and legal advocacy rely heavily on public support. Organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Wolf Conservation Center play major roles in conservation efforts.

Advocate for Non-Lethal Management

Range riders, guard animals, fladry fencing, carcass management, and compensation programs help reduce livestock conflicts without resorting to extermination. Tell federal and state wildlife agencies to adopt non-lethal management practices.

Contact Elected Officials

Wildlife policy is increasingly political. Let elected leaders know that science-based conservation and biodiversity protection matter to you. Contact the House of Representatives, the US Senate, as well as your state lawmakers and let them know you support wolf recovery efforts.

Support Public Lands

Healthy wolf populations require connected, protected habitat. Supporting national parks, wilderness protections, and public land conservation directly benefits wildlife recovery.

Stay Informed and Speak Up

Much wildlife policy receives little public attention until a crisis occurs. Public awareness can shape outcomes before irreversible decisions are made.

A Final Thought

A wolf walking through Sequoia National Park after more than 100 years should remind us of something important:

Extinction is not always inevitable.

Given enough habitat, enough protection, and enough public will, nature can recover.

But recovery is never guaranteed.

The same country capable of bringing wolves back is also capable of poisoning them, trapping them, and politically dismantling decades of conservation progress.

The future of wolves in America will depend on which vision of stewardship ultimately prevails.

###

Meet Sean Smith, a master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning
conservationist and former National Park and Forest Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount St. Helens, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and in the QR code included. 

The Greatest Threat to Our National Parks Isn’t What We Thought

When I gave my TED Talk titled Why Protect National Parks ten years ago, I believed the
biggest threats to their survival were the usual suspects—urban sprawl creeping ever closer, reckless overuse, shrinking budgets, and the slow march of climate change. The solution seemed clear: keep the public engaged, remind people why these places matter, and keep fighting the good fight.

But I never imagined the biggest threat wouldn’t come from outside forces—but from the president himself.

A Storm Brewing Over Public Lands

In a blitz of executive orders, President Trump has taken a wrecking ball to the very foundations of our national parks. Thousands of park rangers fired. Budgets frozen. Protections for forests and wildlife gutted. Environmental safeguards rolled back. Each move may seem like just another bureaucratic shuffle, but together, they spell disaster for America’s most treasured landscapes.

The short-term fallout? A summer of chaos—park closures, mismanagement, and deep frustration for millions of visitors. The long-term risk? A national park system so weakened that it’s ripe for the taking. The same forces that have long eyed our public lands for private gain—real estate developers, fossil fuel companies, and politicians eager to hand over control to the states—now have an open door.

The Greatest Crisis Our Parks Have Ever Faced

Let’s be blunt—America’s national parks face an existential crisis. Not even World War I, the Great Depression, or World War II posed such a direct threat to their survival. During those dark times, we rallied to protect these lands, recognizing them as part of our national identity. With the stroke of a pen, Trump is unraveling over a century of conservation progress.

This isn’t just bad policy—it’s a fundamental assault on the very idea of public lands. National parks belong to all Americans, not just those with the deepest pockets or the best political connections.

What We Can Do

The good news? These parks have survived threats before—and they can again. But only if we step up.

• Stay informed – Policies can change overnight, but awareness is the first step in fighting back.
• Make your voice heard – Contact your representatives, support conservation groups, and demand accountability.
• Make your voice heard part 2: Write your local papers expressing your support for national parks, public lands, and opposition to Trump's policies.
• Spread the word: Post your support for parks on social media, and encourage your friends and colleagues to get involved.
• Amplify your impact: Join and support non-profits defending our public domain.
• Visit and support our parks – Show the world that these places matter as protected landscapes and as vital pieces of our national heritage.

The fight for our national parks isn’t over. But if we don’t act now, we may soon find ourselves mourning their loss.

Are we really willing to let that happen?

###

Meet Sean Smith, the master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning conservationist and former National Park Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot, soaring through the skies like a bald eagle on a mission.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and at the included QR code. 

A Triumph for Conservation: Restoring Grizzly Bears to North Cascades National Park

Grizzly Bear ~ NPS

Nestled deep within the rugged beauty of the North Cascades, the village of Stehekin is a testament to the wild spirit permeating this pristine landscape. As a park ranger stationed in this remote outpost, my daily commute was through breathtaking scenery, winding along valley roads as I pedaled my bike from my apartment to the park's landing. Along the four-mile route, encounters with black bears were not just commonplace but expected, a daily reminder of the intricate dance between humans and wildlife in this untamed corner of the world.

The abundance of bears struck me most during my time in Stehekin. Having previously worked in renowned national parks like Glacier and Yellowstone, where grizzly sightings were rare and fleeting, witnessing the thriving population of black bears in Stehekin was a revelation. It was a testament to the resilience of these creatures, but it also served as a poignant reminder of what was missing—the iconic grizzly bear, once a dominant presence in these rugged mountains.

The story of the North Cascades grizzly is one of resilience and near-extinction. Once roaming freely throughout the region, these magnificent creatures were hunted mercilessly, their populations decimated by human encroachment and aggressive predator control measures. By the time conservation efforts began to gain traction, the North Cascades grizzly population had dwindled to a mere handful of individuals, teetering on the brink of oblivion.

But hope persisted, fueled by the tireless efforts of conservationists and advocates who recognized the vital role that grizzly bears play in shaping and maintaining healthy ecosystems. The tide slowly began to turn as public sentiment shifted to protect these iconic apex predators and restore their rightful place in the wilderness.

Thanks to the bold decision by the Biden Administration, that hope is on the verge of becoming reality. The recent announcement to embark on a comprehensive effort to restore healthy grizzly bear populations to North Cascades National Park marks a watershed moment in the ongoing conservation saga. While the plan is not perfect—the Park Service has deemed the population experimental, for example—it is a testament to the power of collective action and the unwavering commitment to preserving our natural heritage for future generations.

The significance of this decision cannot be overstated. By reintroducing grizzly bears to the North Cascades, we are restoring a vital piece of the ecosystem and reclaiming a symbol of wilderness and resilience. These magnificent animals serve as keystone species, exerting a profound influence on the dynamics of their environment and fostering biodiversity at every level.

As we celebrate this historic victory for grizzly bears and the ecosystems they inhabit, let us also take a moment to express our gratitude to both the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service for their leadership and dedication to conservation. Their tireless efforts have made this moment possible, and it is incumbent upon all of us to support and sustain their work as we strive toward a future where wild places and wild creatures thrive in harmony.

In the end, restoring grizzly bears to the North Cascades is not just a victory for conservation but for the spirit of wilderness that beats within us all. Let us embrace this moment with gratitude and humility, knowing that together, we can achieve extraordinary things in the name of preservation and stewardship.

###

Meet Sean Smith, the master of conservation, adventure, and storytelling! This award-winning conservationist and former National Park Ranger has trekked through the wilderness of Yellowstone, Glacier, and the North Cascades, keeping nature safe with his trusty ranger hat and boots. But Sean's talents don't stop there. He's a TEDx speaker and even a private pilot, soaring through the skies like a bald eagle on a mission.

But amidst all these adventures, Sean's heart beats for storytelling. He's been spinning tales since childhood, and now he writes thrilling national park novels that'll have you hooked from the first page. Imagine the drama and mystery of the mountains combined with the adrenaline of a rollercoaster ride. That's what you'll find in Sean's books, set against the majestic backdrop of Yellowstone, Gettysburg, and Mount Rainier. His most recent thriller is set in Glacier and will drop later this year.

So, if you're craving an escape into the wild, look no further. Grab a copy of Sean's novels and prepare for an unforgettable adventure. These stories will transport you to the heart of the national parks, where danger lurks and heroes rise. Don't miss out! Find all his captivating novels right here and at the included QR code.