Opponents of a plan to allow hunters to kill more black bears in New Mexico over the next four years say escalating climate-change threats faced by wildlife are not being considered.

The state's Department of Game and Fish took public comments on the proposal last week.

Mary Katherine Ray, wildlife chair for the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club, said even though the increased number of bear kills is small, none of the density studies have been peer-approved or published. She noted fires have ravaged wildlife in recent years, while temperatures across the state continue to rise.

"How does this alter populations? The current proposals don't even consider it," Ray contended. "Instead, they expand hunting for bears into the heat of summer in two southern bear zones, and increase the bear kill quota in the Gila, where so much as burned down in recent years. These animals need a break."

The New Mexico Cattlegrowers Association maintains hunting is needed to control the number of predators and reduce conflicts with people. The Commission is scheduled to make a decision at its October meeting. In 2022, the largest forest fire in the state's history burned more than 341,000 acres and destroyed 220 structures.

Seasonal hunting limits for bears would be bumped up in several areas of the state, raising the total kills allowed to 864 from the current 804.

John Crenshaw, former chief of the Public Information and Outreach Division for the Texas Department of Game and Fish and member of the state's Wildlife Federation, told commissioners he supports the plan.

"We urge you to hold your ground," Crenshaw emphasized. "The department's professionals presented you with a conservative, biologically sound rule to govern bear and cougar hunting over the next four years. We strongly urge you to pass this rule as presented."

Thomas Solomon, a resident of Bernalillo County, shared a story about a recent bear break-in at his house east of Albuquerque. Solomon said the bear tore up his kitchen trying to get to bird feeders he had brought in overnight.

"Despite that, I harbor no ill will toward this bear or other apex predators," Solomon stated. "I live in their ecosystem. I don't think that we should increase the bear-cougar killing quotas, given all the other things that we are doing to harm their environment."

The proposal would keep cougar hunting limits the same in all but one management zone, where it would drop by 17 kills, reducing the yearly limit to 563.

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."

"The Creature from the Black Lagoon" is a scary story told around Halloween, but conservationists say the real danger in Georgia's swamps is how humans mistreat the wetlands.

The group Defenders of Wildlife is launching its "Real Scary Movies" campaign to show how pollution, overuse and habitat loss are the real danger to places such as the iconic Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.

Christian Hunt, a senior federal lands policy analyst for Defenders of Wildlife, said while the swamp's alligators, snakes and other creatures can be scary, humans remain the wetland's biggest threat.

"The true threat is how people manage wetlands. It's through pollution, mining, or the draining and conversion of wetlands and swamps. The only horror, the only creature, if you will, is our treatment of the places we vilify," he said.

October 13 through 19 is also National Wildlife Refuge Week, a time to visit America's network of lands and waters that conserve and protect our wildlife heritage. During this time, entrance fees to many refuges will be waived.

The Okefenokee refuge is home to hundreds of species, many listed as threatened or endangered. Hunt said nearby operations such as power plants and other industries can cause damage through pollution, mining, or draining swamps.

"Frankly, many people are scared of wilderness," he explained. "They're scared of the wild, and they create villains, such as, say, the creature of the Black Lagoon, to rationalize that fear."

Hunt added groups such as Defenders of Wildlife are working to preserve refuges like the Okefenokee, and says if those lands are damaged or destroyed, they might be gone for good.

"They protect some of the last vestiges of wilderness, particularly in the Southeast. It's hard to quantify what would be lost if we were to lose these places, but the loss would certainly be immense," he contended.