by Alex Brown, Alabama Reflector
May 19, 2025

This story originally appeared on Stateline.

State wildlife agencies have a big job.

While the federal government protects animals listed under the Endangered Species Act, states are tasked with keeping the vast majority of other species out of the “emergency room.” Habitat loss, pollution and climate change are making that job much more difficult.

At the same time, states are finding it harder to count on the hunting and fishing revenues that have long funded most of their work. Agencies say they have more challenges than ever before, and less money to take them on.

In many states, lawmakers are rethinking the long-standing model for wildlife management. They’re considering new funding sources to make the agencies less reliant on license fees. They’re asking wildlife managers to expand their work beyond traditional “game” species, adding protections for threatened insects and other animals. And some are scrutinizing the commissions that have long governed wildlife management.

Some of the proposals have seen broad support from outdoors lovers who want to strengthen their wildlife agencies. Others have drawn opposition from sporting groups, who fear the new focus will diminish hunting and fishing opportunities.

“We’re seeing quite a bit of action this year,” said Logan Christian, wildlife and habitat specialist with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. “We definitely have noticed that states are working on strengthening their wildlife agencies.”

As Stateline previously reported, New Mexico enacted the most sweeping overhaul this year. It renamed the Department of Game & Fish as the Department of Wildlife, giving it a more explicit focus on non-game species. Budget writers provided $10.5 million in new funding over the next three years to help threatened species. And lawmakers created a new process for appointing the agency’s commissioners, with guidelines ensuring a diversity of expertise and experience.

Wildlife advocates in other states say the New Mexico overhaul was a game changer. But lawmakers elsewhere are taking a more piecemeal approach.

Dollars

Numerous states are reconsidering their wildlife agencies’ funding model.

“There’s definitely a growing awareness that the current management system is outdated and really unfit for 21st century challenges,” said Michelle Lute, executive director of Wildlife for All, a nonprofit focused on overhauling state wildlife governance. “State wildlife agencies are seeing that they can’t rely on hunting and fishing license fees to be able to do this work.”

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Utah enacted a new tax on wind and solar projects that will help fund the state’s wildlife agency. The revenue could double the department’s funding to protect non-game species, from $5 million to $10 million.

“We have a funding model in place for game species,” said Paul Thompson, administrator of the Species Protection Account with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. “Funding to work on some of our native species programs has been really hard to come by.”

The new revenue could allow the agency to invest in more biologists, conservation easements, watershed restoration projects and native fish hatchery programs. State Rep. Casey Snider, the Republican who sponsored the bill, argued that the clean energy sector should pay because its development is harming Utah’s habitat.

“Wind and solar projects have an outsized impact on [non-game] species, and they have not been contributing financially,” he said.

But industry leaders said the law will threaten the state’s energy development.

“[The measure will] severely strain the economics of an existing project and send a negative message to developers and the financial institutions that provide capital for these projects,” said Theresa Foxley, chief of staff to rPlus Energies, a renewable developer, in testimony to lawmakers.

Lawmakers in Oregon are considering an increase to the state’s tax on hotel and short-term rental stays to help fund non-game wildlife work. The proposal would bring in about $30 million annually. State Rep. Ken Helm, the bill’s Democratic sponsor, said the state wildlife agency’s division to manage non-game species “has come and gone over the last 30 years as funding is available.”

Growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity have created urgency to find a stable funding source, he said. Helm said the lodging tax is a logical source, because the state’s tourism industry is centered on the outdoors. He noted that Oregon’s natural resources agencies receive only a tiny fraction of the state’s general revenue.

Travel and tourism groups oppose the bill, arguing it could drive visitors elsewhere. Helm has also proposed a bill that would bring in wildlife funding through an income tax increase.

He said his message to fellow lawmakers was: “I’ve given you two ways to get the money we need for this agency. Nobody’s been able to come up with a better idea. Just pick one.”

The bill was heard in committee earlier this month, but has not yet advanced.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Hawaii approved a “green fee” — a lodging tax increase of 0.75% that Democratic Gov. Josh Green’s office estimates will bring in $100 million annually to help protect the state from climate change. While the fund is not explicitly focused on wildlife, it’s expected to contribute to efforts such as coral reef restoration and watershed protection that will benefit important habitats.

State Rep. Amy Perruso, a Democrat who was among the advocates for a green fee, said the COVID-19 pandemic was a wakeup call.

“With the absence of tourists, we saw a lot more fish in the ocean, everything about the environment was so much more healthy because we didn’t have 10 million extra people,” she said. “If we’re going to do something to protect the environment, [tourism] is a logical connection.”

Washington state was among the first to significantly invest in non-game conservation through state tax revenue, with legislation enacted two years ago. The budget passed by lawmakers this session continues that work, with $14 million set aside for biodiversity and species recovery each of the next two years.

Lawmakers in Kansas and North Carolina also proposed using more general fund revenue for wildlife work, although those measures have not advanced.

Mission

In other states, lawmakers are focused on expanding their wildlife agencies’ mission to more non-game species. Last year, Colorado gave wildlife managers the authority to manage insects and other invertebrates, as well as rare plants.

“Invertebrates are wildlife, and their conservation benefits the entire ecosystem, including the species [state wildlife officials] traditionally managed,” said Richard Reading, vice chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. “They do everything from creating our soils to filtering our water to pollinating the food we eat.”

Reading also serves as vice president of science and conservation at the Butterfly Pavilion, an insect zoo. He noted that studies are showing that many invertebrate species are in rapid decline. In addition to expanding the agency’s authority, lawmakers provided funding for six staff members to take on the additional work.

A similar bill in Nevada, focused on invertebrates, advanced through the Assembly’s natural resources committee.

“There’s definitely concerns about declines in pollinator species,” said Assemblymember Howard Watts, a Democrat who sponsored the bill. “Our wildlife agency can and should take proactive action to do research, surveys and habitat improvement to keep these species off the [endangered species list].”

Watts said the bill would allow wildlife managers to consider insects in state plans to protect imperiled species. He said the Nevada Department of Wildlife has requested an entomologist position if it’s asked to take on the additional species. Beyond that, he said, the measure would not require additional money, as it’s focused on voluntary, proactive work, rather than additional regulations.

Another bill in Pennsylvania would expand wildlife managers’ authority to include insects. That measure has been approved by the House Environmental and Natural Resources Protection Committee.

Sporting groups have largely been supportive of efforts to provide new funding sources to manage non-game species. But some are skeptical of plans to expand agencies’ mission without an increase in revenue.

“Most hunters and anglers understand that healthy game populations are dependent on ecosystem integrity,” said Devin O’Dea, Western policy and conservation manager with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a nonprofit focused on public lands. “But when you take a model that’s been developed with the intent of enforcing regulations for fish and game species, expand that scope without funding and additional capacity, it’s a recipe for something to fall off the plate.”

Governance

Meanwhile, some legislators want to rethink the commission model that oversees wildlife governance. Critics say that governors often select commissioners who are hunting guides, farmers and political donors. Once appointed, they enact wildlife policies to suit their economic interests.

Florida state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani, a Democrat, drafted a bill that would overhaul the state’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Her proposal would increase the board from seven to nine members. It would designate seats for scientists, conservationists, local officials, farmers, hunters and anglers.

“The commission has made decisions not based on science or conservation, but based on developers or landowners that engage in agricultural practices,” she said. “We tried to strike a balance to ensure there are voices with an environmental background, with a conservation and wildlife background, with an academic background.”

The bill did not advance, but Eskamani said grassroots support is building for systemic changes in wildlife management.

Some sporting groups are more wary of commission overhaul proposals.

“We have seen examples where proposed changes to commissions were politically motivated or motivated by anti-hunting and anti-angling interests,” said Kent Keene senior manager for Western states and agriculture policy with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, a group that promotes hunting and fishing priorities on Capitol Hill. “When those changes are focused on science-based needs, then the sportsmen’s community has a long history of supporting those steps to ensure we are protecting our heritage.”

Some hunting and fishing groups have emphasized that the expanded mission should come with additional funding, so agencies aren’t stretched thin. Keene noted that hunters and anglers pay an excise tax on the purchase of gear, which provides an important funding source for wildlife agencies. Some have proposed a similar “backpack tax” on gear for hikers, birdwatchers and others.

Another proposal in New Hampshire would give the wildlife agency’s executive director the authority to make policy decisions, relegating the Fish and Game Commission to an advisory body. That bill did not advance.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post Looking to keep wildlife out of the ‘emergency room,’ states expand managers’ role appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article discusses the challenges and evolving approaches to wildlife conservation and funding in various U.S. states, highlighting efforts to expand protections beyond traditional game species and to diversify funding sources, including new taxes and fees. The focus on environmental conservation, support for climate-related fees, and the framing around expanding government roles in wildlife protection align with generally center-left priorities. However, the piece presents multiple perspectives, including opposition from industry and sporting groups, maintaining a balanced tone without strong partisan language.

SUMMARY: Severe weather is expected to return to Alabama Tuesday night, with a level 3 out of 5 risk for areas including Cullman, Fayette, and Madison counties. The storm outlook predicts scattered to numerous thunderstorms, with potential for damaging winds, large hail, and a low tornado threat. The severe weather will begin around 4 p.m. and last until 2 a.m. Wednesday, affecting different regions at various times. The storms are linked to a cold front, and rainfall could range from half an inch to higher amounts in more humid southern areas. The weather will clear by Wednesday morning.

Alert Day Tuesday: Severe Weather returns to Alabama’s forecast Tuesday night Subscribe to WVTM on YouTube now for more: …

Source

by Paige Gross, Alabama Reflector
May 18, 2025

Colorado was first in the nation to pass comprehensive AI regulation, in 2024, but less than a year before the law goes into effect, lawmakers find themselves trying to clean up the landmark legislation, with the hopes of refining some of the terms that Colorado businesses say could slow growth and stifle innovation.

“It signals leadership in a proactive stance on AI, risks and the benefits as well,” said Ryan Thompson, a tech and telecom lawyer at Hogan Lovells. “But on the con side, when you have a law that is broadly written, it could very well end up being overly broad and difficult to implement.”

The law is one example of how state legislators across the country have attempted to ensure privacy, fairness and consumer protection while leaving room for tech companies to grow these technologies on a global scale.

They’re doing so because the federal government has not yet regulated AI. Yet there’s been a big shift toward bipartisan support to enact some regulations in the last year, said Jeff Le, founder and managing principal of tech policy consultancy 100 Mile Strategies LLC.

“The polling is very clear that people are really worried about artificial intelligence,” Le said.

At least 550 AI bills have been introduced across 45 states and Puerto Rico in 2025, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported. And as legislative bodies study the technology to develop their own laws, many are looking to California and Colorado for inspiration.

The states have made history in the ways they’ve legislated AI with two different approaches. While California initially led the way on state-level AI regulation with multiple bills that increase business accountability, combat discrimination and regulate how businesses use data, Colorado became the first U.S. state to enact comprehensive AI legislation last year.

There are pros and cons to each approach, Thompson said. There’s an advantage to having a cohesive framework, nomenclature and set of obligations for everyone, he said. But narrower laws may create more clarity on specific aspects of the industry.

Colorado’s law, set to go into effect in February, could be a lesson to the rest of the country how to proceed.

Colorado’s Law

As it stands, Colorado’s law — called Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence — is the most comprehensive law regulating artificial intelligence in the nation. Other states, like California, Virginia and Connecticut have come close with similar bills in the last few years, but lawmakers or governors ultimately blocked them.

When Gov. Jared Polis signed it into law last year, he said that some parts of the law may need to be amended for more specificity.

Sen. Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez said in a statement to States Newsroom that his committee worked this year with industry and civil groups to develop SB 318, a bill meant to clean up the specific applications and descriptions about AI after hearing concerns from the state’s businesses community.

But the legislative session ended May 7 without a resolution, and the law will go into effect as written in February. It makes developers of AI responsible for consumer protections around “high risk” AI systems.

The law requires developers to disclose certain information about AI systems to those who will deploy it, and outline the potential risks of algorithmic discrimination — the potentially discriminatory outcomes that could come from decision-making algorithms, many of which are currently being used to sort and rank job applications, mortgages and health information, among other tasks. 

“There’s not necessarily the frustration that this law exists, but rather frustration with some of its provisions,” said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at Mayer Brown who specializes in data privacy and AI law. “Some are vague and it’s difficult to apply them to actual use cases.”

For example, he said, the law includes certain carve-outs for “narrow procedural tasks” completed with AI, but the law does not define that term.

Rodriguez said he plans to continue conversations about amending the law through the summer — “It remains my goal to ensure we have a policy on the books that protects consumers without stifling innovation,” he said.

The balance of protections and innovation Rodriguez describes is the current crux of most AI legislation in the states. While most laws seek to put some sort of protections or guidelines in place to safeguard users against harm, many in the tech industry say they can’t be global competitors or grow the tech industry with protections like these in place.

“There’s a legitimate concern about, hey, if you over regulate the technology, then other countries are going to get ahead of us, and we’re going to be left behind,” Kourinian said. “So I think that’s the one concern with taking a Colorado approach, that there’s the perception that it might be over-regulation.”

California’s approach

That pressure to preserve the tech industry is what ultimately caused California Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto a similar, wide sweeping bill last year.

Senate Bill 1047 would have required safety testing of costly AI models to determine whether they would likely lead to mass death, endanger public infrastructure or enable severe cyberattacks. It made it through both chambers before Newsom said it could be “curtailing the very innovation that fuels advancement in favor of the public good.”

The state is in an interesting position because it’s home to an overwhelming majority of the country’s tech companies, said Teri Olle, Director of Economic Security California, an economic security advocacy group. Olle worked with lawmakers to develop SB 1047.

“You cannot walk down the street with your arms out without hitting somebody who’s …  involved in AI, and maybe a billionaire,” Olle said. “We are in it.”

But a large majority of Californians supported the bill, including 64% of voters who work in the tech industry. It seemed that people were hungry for some kind of regulations, Olle said, but the fear of stifling innovation was stronger.

Olle said the feeling was that decisionmakers were keen for AI regulations, but there’s a “not here, not now” attitude.

“California is interestingly left in the limbo where they don’t have a comprehensive AI law,” Kourinian said. “And instead is addressing it on a piecemeal basis or through various other laws that apply in different contexts.”

Since SB 1047 was vetoed, more targeted AI bills have been having success this year in Sacramento. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, a Bay Area Democrat, is the sponsor of two AI-related bills that advanced out of the State Assembly this month, one which regulates children’ s use of AI chatbots, and another called the Automated Decisions Safety Act that closely mirrors Colorado’s and other states approach in regulating decision-making algorithms. Bauer-Kahan has reintroduced the latter bill twice now, but it’s getting more traction this year

She said this incremental approach is just how California does things — “We tend to take more step-by-step approaches to legislation,” Bauer-Kahan said. In going too broad, you may risk watering down the focus of a law, she said.

The assemblymember, whose background is in regulatory law, said she would favor a federal approach to AI regulation.

“The problem is we don’t have a Congress that is going to do what our communities want, and so in the absence of their action, the states are stepping up,” she said.

Though the tech industry is such a huge part of California’s economy, Bauer-Kahan said she believes good regulation will not stop it from thriving, and in fact build more trust between companies and their users.

Moving forward

As many states close their legislative sessions in the coming weeks, those that have advanced AI laws, either in sweeping attempts like Colorado’s, or in a piece-by-piece approach like California, will likely continue to learn from other state’s approaches.

Even in tech-savvy California, Le said, legislators are not experts on the tech industry or its applications — “it does require serious inspection,” he said. And legislators will always struggle to keep up with the quickly changing norms of the tech industry.

Federal guidelines would simplify this process for every state, Le said, but it’s not clear how or when congress would seriously consider them, especially under a very pro-innovation, low regulation Trump administration. It’s likely that state legislative bodies will continue to explore what works best for them, and continue learning from states that pass influential laws in the meantime.

“I think the California context is generally not a question of if they’re going to do it,” Le said. “It’s how they’re going to do it.” 

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post California v Colorado: How two states leading AI legislation are approaching it differently appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

The content provides a balanced comparison between Colorado’s and California’s approaches to AI regulation, without overtly advocating for either state’s method. It presents both the advantages and challenges of each approach and includes quotes from industry experts and policymakers across the political spectrum, such as those from both states’ leadership. The article avoids ideological slant and highlights a general bipartisan push toward AI regulation. There is no clear ideological bias in the reporting, as it focuses on presenting factual details and differing perspectives without favoring one political ideology over another.