Alaska is currently drafting a 10-year plan aimed at preserving vulnerable wildlife populations throughout the state, joining efforts from other states across the nation.
The State Wildlife Action Plan specifically focuses on identifying ‘species of greatest conservation need,’ which are under threat due to issues such as declining populations, changing habitats, invasive species, and other concerns.
However, the federal funding that supports Alaska’s conservation efforts is now at risk.
President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed eliminating the entire State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, which has been pivotal since its inception in 2000.
This program has distributed essential funding to various states for wildlife conservation projects that adhere to their respective action plans.
In recent years, Alaska has received approximately $2.76 million in federal grants through this program to assist in its conservation efforts.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service budget summary, the Trump administration aims to cut this grant funding as a means of promoting private sector involvement in wildlife conservation.
The summary suggests that while the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is tasked with conserving natural resources, it cannot effectively do so without partnerships with states, tribes, and private landowners.
It claims that the budget for 2026 will eliminate grants that impose specific requirements on the types of species states should focus on conserving.
However, officials from Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game have clarified that states are already at liberty to determine how these grants are utilized, as the grants are implemented at their discretion.
The overarching goal of Alaska’s wildlife action plan is to address potential wildlife problems before they escalate to the point of requiring measures under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
As state biologist Julie Hagelin points out, proactive conservation measures are cost-effective, allowing for sustainable wildlife populations without the burdens associated with federal regulations.
Alaska’s constitutional mandate for sustained yield aligns with this proactive approach to wildlife conservation, thus emphasizing the long-term sustainability of its natural resources.
Recent projects funded by federal grants have addressed various wildlife issues.
For instance, funding has supported research into the threats facing Alaska’s bat populations from white-nose syndrome, a fungal disease devastating bat families in the Lower 48.
Other projects have focused on monitoring the Aleutian tern, a migratory bird species believed to be facing population declines, and studies to ensure the regeneration of forests and protection of habitats utilized by various bird and mammal species.
Nationally, the State Wildlife Grants program is widely recognized as essential for preventing the decline of fish and wildlife populations.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department highlights that this program allows for proactive conservation actions to maintain species health and avoid endangered status.
In Iowa, this grant has facilitated extensive conservation efforts that would not have been possible without it.
Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources emphasizes that the program effectively saves taxpayers money by focusing on prevention rather than costly recovery efforts for endangered species.
Interestingly, the first Trump administration lauded the program in 2020, highlighting two decades of conservation success.
Nevertheless, previous attempts to reduce funding for the program did not succeed as Congress ultimately maintained similar appropriations in subsequent budgets.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program continues to have bipartisan support from members of Congress, signified by a recent letter supported by 42 U.S. senators advocating for its continuity.
The federal grant program allocated about $55 million to states for wildlife conservation in the current fiscal year.
Alaska, California, and Texas received the highest amounts, maintaining this trend since 2002.
Additionally, related grant programs distributed approximately $6 million to tribal governments for various conservation projects, with funds allocated for initiatives ranging from fish surveys to habitat restoration.
A further competitive grant program has seen around $7 million appropriated annually, with recent Alaska projects focusing on endangered species like the Cook Inlet beluga whale.
If the federal grants remain intact, numerous Alaskan species stand to benefit significantly.
Alaska’s draft wildlife action plan identifies 362 vertebrate species classified as having ‘greatest conservation need,’ including numerous birds, fish, terrestrial mammals, marine mammals, and amphibians.
Notably, this number is smaller compared to the roughly 20 populations currently protected under the Endangered Species Act within Alaska.
For instance, the Alaska hare, or tundra hare, which has seen significant populations decreases, exemplifies a species of concern.
Despite their large size—up to 15 pounds—details about their population dynamics are still not thoroughly understood.
Historical accounts indicated groups of hundreds of hares were once common, but current observations suggest this species has dramatically reduced in numbers.
Funded research has led to valuable population data collection through innovative methods like snowmachine surveys, thereby informing state regulations on hunting.
Another species of concern is the gray-headed chickadee, known to have suffered population declines in Alaska.
The 2025 draft State Wildlife Action Plan bears many similarities to its predecessor from 2015 but adds 37 more species, particularly given recent habitat alterations affecting aquatic life.
An improved methodology for ranking species in need of conservation is now being employed, which was developed by the Alaska Center for Conservation Science at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
This plan not only directs federally funded projects but also aids in coordinating management actions among states, crucial for the conservation of migratory birds that migrate between northern breeding grounds and more compromised southern habitats.
The plan primarily excludes game species like caribou and commercially or sport-harvested fish, as they have other funding and management mechanisms in place.
It also does not include plants in its scope, unlike some other states’ wildlife action plans, such as Texas, which has a substantial list that exceeds 1,200 species of greatest conservation need.
With the Trump administration targeting various programs at the Fish and Wildlife Service for funding eliminations, including the National Wildlife Refuge Fund and others, the future of the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program hangs in the balance.
The proposed cuts underscore a shift away from federal funding reliance, posing significant implications for conservation efforts at state levels, particularly in Alaska.
image source from：adn
