ST. PAUL, Minn. - Efforts to protect popular species in Minnesota, such as walleye, have resulted in plenty of debates and policy action. But conservation groups say there's one species that needs more attention.

A bill in the Legislature would end commercial harvesting of the state's native turtle population. Introduced by Rep. Samantha Vang - DFL-Brooklyn Center - it would prohibit the trapping of turtles for commercial purposes.

It comes nearly two decades after Minnesota put a pause on issuing new licenses for trapping. But Vang said she thinks that isn't enough, and says there are still about 20 sellers working in the state, trapping turtles to be sold as pets or for their meat.

"Tens of thousands of turtles are trapped each year in Minnesota," said Vang. "And they play a major role in our ecosystem."

The Department of Natural Resources, which backs Vang's proposal, says the 2002 moratorium slowed harvest numbers, but certain types of turtles have seen occasional spikes in recent years.

Some Republican lawmakers question whether Minnesota should focus more on other factors, such as roadkill. Supporters of the bill say the turtle-harvesting industry remains significant and shouldn't be ignored.

The measure would still allow turtles to be trapped for recreational and personal use. As for the commercial trade, Christopher Smith - conservation committee chair for the Minnesota Herpetological Society - said current rules aren't sustainable for trying to maintain healthy populations for these creatures.

"They're very slow to mature, they are very long-lived," said Smith. "And when adult turtles, especially adult females, are removed from the population, it doesn't take many individuals to actually result in overall population impact."

Vang's proposal has seen some House debate, and was laid over to possibly be included in an omnibus bill.

The Center for Biological Diversity says 30 states prohibit commercial turtle trapping. It cites Minnesota as among the states with weak protection laws on the books.


get more stories like this via email

Monarch butterflies could be on the federal Endangered Species list by year's end.

Eastern monarchs found in New York and other northeastern states saw an 80% population decline between the 1980s and 2020. Their Western counterparts have seen a 90% population drop. Environmental groups petitioned for them to be listed as "threatened" back in 2014 and the monarch became a candidate species in 2020.

Rebeca Quiñonez-Piñón, monarch recovery strategist and climate resilient habitat director for the National Wildlife Federation, said monarch butterflies face many threats.

"The main threats that we have identified for the monarch butterfly are habitat loss and fragmentation of the remaining habitats," Quiñonez-Piñón outlined. "Climate change is at the top of the list, definitely, and the excessive use of pesticides."

She called monarch butterflies a "canary in the coal mine" for pollinators and the ecosystem, a warning more needs to be done to help the environment. A dozen species of bumblebees are also candidates under the Endangered Species Act. They also fall victim to the same threats of monarch butterflies.

Home gardeners can play a role in helping monarch butterfly populations, by planting milkweed and goldenrod, which are helpful to the species. Milkweed is the only plant on which monarch butterfly caterpillars can eat and survive.

Mary Phillips, head of native plant habitat strategy for the federation, said there are some mistakes people make in trying to help monarchs thrive.

"Don't worry if, you know, you see the various predators," Phillips advised. "There's also a milkweed bug that sometimes goes on these plants. People get nervous about that. It's OK, it's natural, it'll go away. It will not harm the milkweed overall."

She added another common mistake is spraying garden or systemic pesticides which can harm monarchs. Some states are taking action to end the use of certain pesticides harmful to bees, butterflies and other pollinators. New York passed a law banning some uses of neonicotinoids because of their harmful effects on pollinators and other species.

A federal court in Montana has held a hearing more than two years after a coalition of environmental advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service over expanding cattle grazing in the Paradise Valley, part of the Custer Gallatin National Forest.

The coalition, which includes Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Western Watersheds Project, sued the agencies for extending the cattle grazing season by a month on nearly 1,400 acres of forest land.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the plan will mean more interactions between young, unattended cattle and grizzly bears, which would not end well for either one.

"Putting calves out a month early when they're very small just provides a 'fast food snack' for a grizzly bear," Garrity pointed out. "A small calf makes an easy target for a grizzly bear. They can't defend themselves. They're not very big."

Garrity noted ranchers then complain about bear activity to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which traps and kills the grizzlies. The Forest Service said the new policy does not increase grazing because it is counted by plots of land rather than acreage.

Garrity pointed out groups are working to restore the grizzly bear, which is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. He added the Forest Service is not doing its part to help achieve balance.

"There's about a thousand grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem," Garrity reported. "There's hundreds of thousand of cattle. We don't have a shortage of cattle in this country but grizzly bears are threatened with extinction."

The federal judge could overturn the new grazing rules or order a complete environmental review.

From Little Red Riding Hood to the Halloween thriller "Wolf Man," stories often paint wolves as scary creatures but conservationists argued it is the wrong view.

Most gray wolves across the contiguous U.S. are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. An exception includes the Northern Rocky Mountain population in parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, where states are in charge of managing wolf populations.

Eric Clewis, senior Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, said wolves have proved polarizing in recent years but they do not need to be.

"The preferred outlook really is just wolves as a native wildlife species on the landscape, rather than treating it as either this pure icon of wilderness or this just bloodthirsty animal that's out there trying to reduce elk or deer populations or decimate livestock," Clewis urged.

The gray wolf was one of the first species listed under the 1973 federal Endangered Species Act, when he said the population was "pretty much wiped out." He believes people should "take pride" in the recovery of the wolves so far.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees endangered species, announced a first-ever National Recovery Plan for the species, with an expected completion date at the end of next year. The agency said in a news release it plans to continue to work with tribes and states to "craft enduring solutions."

Clewis argued recent actions by state agencies have been misguided.

"We've had a whole suite of bills passed in all three states that are aimed more at reducing the wolf population than actually managing it based on any biological justification or recent science," Clewis explained.

The Fish and Wildlife Service noted Idaho and Montana had recently passed laws "designed to substantially reduce" the wolf populations there, "using means and measures that are at odds with modern professional wildlife management."