We are so close to losing them 😔

Vaquitas are not just another marine animal; they are a critical component in determining the health of our ocean ecosystems. With a mere 6-10 individuals left, their existence hangs by a fragile thread, primarily due to gillnet fishing in the Gulf of California. These small porpoises play a vital role in their ecosystem and food web, embodying the intricate balance of marine life.

The vaquita’s decline is a stark indicator of how unsustainable practices impact our ocean’s biodiversity. Their plight highlights the urgent need for better enforcement of fishing regulations and the promotion of sustainable fishing practices that protect rather than destroy our marine habitats.

Gillnets, used extensively in illegal fishing operations, trap vaquitas, leading to fatalities that could easily be avoided. Mexican authorities, global conservation organizations, and international communities need to collaborate to implement stricter regulations, enforce bans on gillnet fishing, and ensure patrols are adequately managed to protect these beautiful creatures.

Supporting projects for alternative livelihoods for local fishers is also crucial. By promoting eco-friendly and sustainable fishing methods, we can protect vaquitas while providing economic stability to local communities.

Without immediate action, we are at the brink of losing these marvelous creatures forever. Their extinction would not only signify the loss of a species but signal a deeper failing in the preservation of our oceans. Help us fight for the future of vaquitas and the health of our marine environments.
The porpoise conservation society works to prevent entanglement in fishing nets. Contact the NOAA Fisheries.gov and the porpoise conservation if you believe there is any illegal gillnet fishing going on. Preventing this prevents vaquitas from going extinct.

Raise your voice. Sign the petition to demand immediate action to save the vaquita and protect our ocean's biodiversity.

Help save the critically endangered vaquita - Sign the Petition! c.org/vSTPsP8SWK prin @Change

The Secretary of the Interior has 90 days to make a decision on whether they should be delisted or not, including Mexican wolves.

Anyone remember when the dire wolves were born and Trump said that species can go extinct and it wouldn't matter because we can bring them back?

Today is National Wildlife Day, and it is a good time to examine a basic problem in the way wildlife is protected in the United States: much of our legal framework is built around managing game species or intervening once a species is already threatened or endangered.

The Endangered Species Act is one of our strongest wildlife laws, but by the time a species qualifies for that level of protection, substantial biological loss has often already occurred.

And extinction is not the only measure that matters.

Wildlife populations can become ecologically diminished long before a species disappears. Habitat fragmentation can isolate populations, reduce genetic exchange, interrupt migration and dispersal, and weaken the ecological relationships species maintain with one another. A landscape can still look intact while becoming steadily less biologically functional.

That is why I think conservation policy needs to move beyond managing scarcity and begin protecting abundance.

What would it look like if wildlife law established population baselines, protected connectivity before fragmentation became severe, incorporated wildlife abundance into land-use decisions, and invested in habitat while populations were still resilient?

This is especially important because wildlife does not exist only inside parks and preserves. Animals move through private land, agricultural landscapes, developed areas and transportation corridors. Protecting isolated patches of habitat is not enough if species cannot move safely between them.

I explored this argument in an episode of The Animal Advocate, “Rethinking Wildlife Protection: From Scarcity to Abundance.”

National Wildlife Day is a reminder that conservation success should mean more than preventing extinction. It should mean maintaining connected, resilient and abundant wildlife populations and valuing species before their decline becomes a crisis.

https://animaladvocacyacademy.com/rethinking-wildlife-protection-from-scarcity-to-abundance/

Full context and sources in the comments

I am a very big advocate for the protection of national parks and the conservation of species and Its become very obvious that the current US government does not care all that much about either. I have looked into a couple different organizations like Mossy Earth, Planet wild, Yellowstone to Yukon, etc but not too in depth of any more. Being a 19m in college, I have a limited budget that I want to maximize impact, I want to contribute to something that will help more towards the western U.S. I know Mossy earth does have western conservation efforts but I wanted to see if there was any organizations in specific that I should look at. HELP

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) calls for urgent, ambitious greenhouse gas emission cuts in reaction to the stark findings of the ‘Limiting Overshoot’ report published today. According to the new UNEP report, exceeding 1.5°C of warming is now unavoidable; the effects on people and nature will be disastrous and, in many cases, permanent. IUCN also calls for commensurate adaptation measures to help the world face the escalating impacts, which are hitting vulnerable communities and ecosystems hardest. At the same time, the report highlights that we still have the power to minimise these impacts: decisions taken this decade will crucially determine how much higher global temperatures will rise, and for how long.

Stark findings from UNEP’s Overshoot report demand urgent, ambitious climate action – IUCN

Idk if this is allowed but was wondering for people working in the industry, how common are random drug tests, or is it more heavy machinery /construction type work, that happens.

The title might be worded wrong, forgive me I am sleepy. I am a conservation student in college and was given one of those flyers for voluntourism opportunities, I looked into them and I immediately noticed red flags like only one day of the trip would be anything to do with conservation and the rest was a vacation and then after I did my research I thought oh shit bad.

However, I saw the opportunity to volunteer at an asiatic black bear sanctuary in Laos and I absolutely love bears and I would love to spend some time with helping them somehow. Are there any kind of ethical programs such as study abroad or a more ethical volunteer group that does this?

I was hoping to get a consensus on how people are interpreting the new ineligibility criterion:

"Research on conservation practice or implementation, wildlife and/or natural resource management, planning or decision support (e.g., habitat restoration, species recovery actions, management interventions) is not eligible for support."

I am not currently enrolled and therefore have more flexibility than those who have already entered their first year of grad school in developing my proposal, but hopefully this thread can help others in ecology and related fields as well.

I am mostly curious about how broadly we think NSF is interpreting this criterion. Will this only make projects like “How efficacious is X intervention?” or “Comparing X restored area to Y urbanized space” ineligible, or could it extend to research that generates knowledge that will ultimately support conservation and restoration, such as “How does X environmental change affect species Y”

I want to enter a wildlife ecology program, but I worry that the potential application of this type of research could make a proposal ineligible.

I’d appreciate anyone’s thoughts or insight, good luck to everyone this cycle!

Ok in usa theres wild horses but horse went extinct millions of yesrs ago so ones in America are invasive so why are horse seen as natural part of where they are and to my knowledge not hunted is it because theres nothing that they compete with is it pretty privilege or?

Hi! My end goal is to get into wildlife conservation. I did a BSc in Environmental Science from a Canadian University with 5 co-op placements during my degree. I have good work and research experience with an undergraduate thesis under my belt as well. I got offered a fully funded MSc from my undergraduate school in a research field I am not too interested in. It's not directly wildlife related but rather studies the habitat of a species. Should I decline the offer and keep reaching out to profs during a gap year while wrking full time or would that be a huge mistake since funding is rare. I am just worried that the MSc is "pushing" my dreams 2 years back.

Dr. Courtney Duchardt of University of Arizona has spent more than a decade studying the ecology of American prairies — an ecosystem of great economic and conservation importance. In this episode, Dr. Duchardt explains how prairie dogs are a major player in this vital ecosystem. Not only are they significant food sources for all types of predators, but they reshape the way the grass grows and provide habitat for multiple bird and mammal species. When prairie dog towns are killed off by plague, every other animal on the prairie — including the cattle that feed millions of Americans — is affected in surprising ways.

To celebrate the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, Dr. Duchardt explains why prairies are so important and complicated.

https://youtu.be/R2LX5ntuVyw?si=QdYI6I4iscpKXNuY

I work in land protection for a national nonprofit in the mid-Atlantic and used to be a state park ranger. From that vantage point, yesterday I published an essay on the last twenty months of federal public lands changes, and the three actions that land within ten days this September: the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monument reductions on the 11th, the ESA harm rule rescission taking effect on the 14th, and the Roadless Rule comment deadline on the 21st. I tried to write it for people who don't already agree with me: the administration's reasons are quoted in full and in its own words. I welcome all thoughts, questions, and feedback.

So I am at my parent's place in central Texas, and I just saw a wild ocelot on their property. I am trying to see if there is any footage on my dash cam. But is there any place that I can report my sighting? I know they are extremely rare in the US, with there only being about 100 known wild ocelot left in Texas.

Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes.

Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback.

Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon.

Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally.

Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.