Author: Michael Cravens, AWF's Advocacy and Conservation Director

Michael Cravens is the Advocacy and Conservation Director for the Arizona Wildlife Federation and Vice Chair of Arizona Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. A dedicated hunter and outdoorsman, he lives in Flagstaff with his wife, two kids, and their German short-haired pointer and wire-haired dachshund.

There is a unique irony in conservation advocacy. The work often happens in hearing rooms, congressional offices, and policy meetings far removed from the landscapes advocates spend their careers fighting to protect. Days are consumed by legislative language, regulatory comments, coalition meetings, and endless hours in front of a computer. Yet the credibility and the inspiration behind that work comes from somewhere entirely different.

It comes from mornings spent in a duck blind, long hikes into elk country, quiet evenings on a stream, the anticipation of a covey rise, or the simple joy of watching a trout rise to a dry fly.

For those who advocate for America's public lands and wildlife, spending time outdoors is not a distraction from the mission; it is the mission.

As the Advocacy and Conservation Director for the Arizona Wildlife Federation, I spend a lot of time in places like Capitol Hill that don't look much like the landscapes I'm working to conserve.

Much of my job is spent discussing legislation, reviewing policy, meeting with elected officials, and advocating for Arizona's public lands, wildlife, and outdoor heritage. Those conversations are critically important. Decisions made in Washington, D.C. can have lasting impacts on the landscapes that millions of Americans hunt, fish, hike, camp, and explore each year. 

Whether discussing public land management, habitat restoration, conservation funding, or wildlife policy, every meeting represents another opportunity to ensure Arizona's sportsmen and women have a voice in the nation's capital.

But once the meetings conclude, the briefcase is put up, the fly rod comes out, and the Potomac River becomes the next destination for chasing American shad or striped bass. To some, it might look like a chance to unwind after a busy day on Capitol Hill. While I certainly enjoy every minute on the water, that's not the real reason I go. I fish because it reminds me why I'm there.

I firmly believe that the best conservation advocates are the ones who actively hunt, fish, hike, camp, and recreate on the very lands they're working to protect. Conservation isn't something you can fully understand from behind a desk. You have to experience it. You have to watch the sun rise over a river, hear elk bugle across a canyon, feel the excitement of a fish taking your fly, and appreciate the simple privilege of spending time outdoors.

When I sit down with members of Congress to talk about protecting public lands, conserving wildlife habitat, investing in conservation programs, or ensuring access for hunters and anglers, I'm not speaking in abstract terms. I'm thinking about places I've hunted with my children, rivers we’ve fished, and public lands where families like mine are creating memories that will last a lifetime. Those experiences make the work personal.

Fishing for American shad in Washington, D.C. has become one of my favorite traditions because those fish represent something bigger than a day on the water. Their story is one of restoration. Once abundant, then diminished, and now returning in many rivers thanks to decades of conservation work, they are living proof that when we invest in habitat, improve water quality, and commit to science-based management, wildlife responds. Every fish I catch serves as a reminder that conservation works.

Striped bass tell a similar story. Their history has seen incredible successes as well as ongoing challenges, demonstrating that conservation is never finished. Healthy fisheries require continued stewardship, thoughtful management, and people who care enough to remain engaged.

Standing along the Potomac, it's impossible not to think about the connection between those fish and the meetings taking place just a few miles away. Decisions made in Washington influence conservation efforts across the country, including the places I call home in Arizona. That connection reinforces something I've always believed. Advocacy cannot exist in a vacuum. If we want to be effective voices for conservation, we have to stay connected to the resource. We have to keep hunting every fall, fishing every spring, hiking our public lands, introducing kids to the outdoors, and experiencing firsthand the opportunities we're asking our elected leaders to protect. That's where credibility comes from.

Hunters and anglers have always been among America's greatest conservationists. Through license purchases, excise taxes, volunteer work, and decades of advocacy, they've invested billions of dollars into wildlife conservation. More importantly, they've developed a deep understanding of why these places matter, not because someone told them they should, but because they've experienced them for themselves, and I consider myself fortunate to be part of that tradition.

Every trip to D.C. reminds me that conservation doesn't begin inside the Capitol. It begins on our public lands and waters. It begins with people who care enough to get outside. It begins with early mornings, muddy boots, sore shoulders from carrying a pack, and quiet moments on a river waiting for the next rise. Those experiences give purpose to every meeting I attend and every conversation I have with policymakers.

At the end of the day, I don't advocate for healthy forests because they look good in a report. I advocate for them because I've walked through them. I don't fight for clean rivers because the science tells me they're important, although it certainly does. I fight for them because I've stood in them with a fly rod in my hand. I don't work to protect public lands because it's simply my job. I do it because those places have shaped who I am.

Washington, D.C., may be where many conservation decisions are made, but the purpose behind those decisions will always be found somewhere else, on public lands, along riverbanks, in mountain forests, and across the wild places that define our sporting heritage.

The best conservation advocates don't simply argue for these places. They know them, they use them, they love them, and they never forget to enjoy them.

Author: Alexander (Alex) Bickers

Alex Bickers is a conservation professional and volunteer Content Creator & Program Assistant for Get Outdoors Arizona, where he helps research and create newsletter content, business spotlights, and stories that connect people to the outdoors. His background includes supervisory roles at animal sanctuaries and zoos, contributing to high standards of animal welfare and conservation. Alex is dedicated to protecting wildlife and wild lands.

Lately, wildlife conservationists from all across the United States have been saying the same thing: We need to protect our public lands.  It's no surprise that this call to action is happening now, as we've been seeing wave after wave of political attacks on our public lands and their protections.  But as all these wildlife-focused organizations rally to conserve these lands, you might ask: What does all this actually have to do with wildlife?  

Two of the biggest threats to wildlife in the United States are habitat destruction and habitat fragmentation.  Habitat destruction is when a natural environment is altered in a way that no longer allows the native wildlife to live there.  Mountain lions can't live in cities, bighorn sheep can't live on farmland, and otters can't live in polluted rivers.  As human development expands and people unsustainably extract natural resources, viable wildlife habitat shrinks.

When habitat isn't totally destroyed, it is fragmented.  Habitat fragmentation is the division of wildlife habitat into smaller, separated pieces of habitat.  Habitat fragmentation requires animals to cross busy roads or human civilization in order to get to other parts of their habitat for mates or resources- if they can even get there at all.  It isolates their range into smaller, unconnected pieces of land that may be impossible or dangerous to reach.  As a result, not only are animals more limited in space and resources, but animal populations are split apart into smaller groups that may not have enough individuals and genetic diversity to thrive.

Public lands (such as National Parks, National Forests, National Monuments, and BLM Lands) prevent large amounts of connected land from becoming urbanized, thereby protecting crucial wildlife habitat and migration corridors from being destroyed.  They make up some of the largest continuous pieces of wildlife habitat in the country, and they provide protections for wildlife that simply would not exist if the land were free to be sold off, drained of resources, and developed.  Some types of public lands even take it a step further, offering total protection of the natural landscape: The Wilderness Act of 1964 established Wilderness Areas that must remain completely preserved as they would be without human presence.  

So taking all that into account, it's easy to see how these lands provide important wildlife habitat.  But when it comes to public lands and how they benefit wildlife, there is still one final piece to this puzzle, and that's the human element.  Think about this: What creates a conservationist?  What makes people care enough about wildlife to want to conserve it?  Public lands allow people to connect with nature by immersing themselves in it; they give people the opportunity to enjoy outdoor recreation in natural areas that they would otherwise not have access to.  Public lands are where someone might see their first desert tortoise and spark a lifelong interest, or where a child might hunt their first deer and end up later becoming a wildlife biologist.  The bond with nature that people form on these lands follows them for life and gets passed down through generations.

Like everyone keeps saying, public lands belong to all of us, and we have a right to enjoy the lands that make this country one of a kind.  But if that's not enough reason to care, just remember: Public lands are not just for us.  They're for our wildlife as well.

Author: Elise Ketcham, Communications Manager, Arizona Wildlife Federation

Elise has been a dedicated team member of the Arizona Wildlife Federation for over two years. She is an advocate for the protection of and public education about our wildlife species and public lands. A passionate birder and regular hiker, she also leads AWF's All Afield Hikes once a month.

Every river, stream, wetland, and ephemeral wash in Arizona plays a role in supporting life across our landscape. When water is present and functioning within a healthy system, wildlife thrives, recreation expands, and local businesses and communities benefit. But when those systems are disrupted, the impacts ripple quickly across both ecosystems and people.

While most of us in the conservation space appreciate the importance of water quality and quantity in Arizona on an ecological level, sometimes economic numbers speak more clearly, especially to our decision-makers. A recent analysis from Audubon Southwest provides data backing the economic importance of water in Arizona. According to their study, between September 2024 and August 2025, water-based outdoor recreation generated more than $11.7 billion in economic output in Arizona, contributed $6.9 billion to the state’s GDP, and supported more than 72,000 jobs. Roughly 2.2 million Arizonans participate in water-based outdoor recreation each year.

Those numbers reflect the economic powerhouse of guides, outfitters, rural communities, and small businesses that depend on both water quality and quantity. But they also point back to something fundamental in conservation: wildlife habitat.

Riparian areas, those lovely green ribbons along rivers and streams, make up less than 1% of Arizona’s landscape yet support the majority of the state’s wildlife at some point in their lives. Birds rely on them for migration and cover for their young. Amphibians depend on them for breeding. Mammals use them as travel corridors across otherwise dry and often hot terrain.

Water is often the limiting factor in a dry state like Arizona, meaning it can directly curb a population’s size and growth. When water systems are disrupted, the impacts compound quickly. Reduced flows shrink available habitat. Warmer, shallower water stresses fish and amphibians. Declining water quality further limits what species can survive. In a place where water is already scarce, these issues are amplified.

In Arizona, water quantity and water quality are inseparable. You cannot have a healthy habitat without enough water, and you cannot support wildlife if that water is degraded. The same goes for us. We need a sufficient water supply to continue supporting our growing communities, and we need clean water for our own health.

Protecting water in Arizona means considering it at a systemic level: watershed health, groundwater management, flow regimes, and policy decisions that recognize the full value of water across the landscape.

And that brings us back to the bigger picture. The same systems that support people, native wildlife, and riparian habitat are also driving billions of dollars in economic activity and supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the state. The findings from Audubon Southwest’s analysis reinforce what’s visible on the ground: when water systems are healthy, Arizona works, both ecologically and economically.

Because in Arizona, water is the foundation on which everything else depends.

Author: Elise Ketcham, Communications Manager, Arizona Wildlife Federation

Elise has been a dedicated team member of the Arizona Wildlife Federation for over two years. She is an advocate for the protection of and public education about our wildlife species and public lands. A passionate birder and regular hiker, she also leads AWF's All Afield Hikes once a month.

When people hear the term “public lands,” it can mean a lot of things: your local city park, a county open space, or a nearby trail system. All of these places are public in the sense that they’re meant for people to access and enjoy.

But in conservation and policy conversations, “public lands” often refers to something more specific: federal public lands.

What Are Federal Public Lands?

Federal public lands are lands owned and managed by the U.S. government, places like National Forests, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, National Parks, National Monuments, and National Wildlife Refuges.

These lands are held in trust for all Americans and managed under federal law. In other words, they belong to all of us.

Depending on the agency and designation, these lands support a wide range of uses. Recreation, wildlife habitat, grazing, and resource development all play a role. Some landscapes are managed for multiple uses, like BLM lands and many National Forests, while others prioritize conservation and preservation, like National Parks and many Wildlife Refuges.

Not All Public Lands Are the Same

It’s important to recognize that not all public lands are managed the same way.

Take city parks, for example. They are still public lands, but they’re owned and managed by local governments. Their primary purpose is community recreation -- playgrounds, sports fields, and walking paths. They operate under local policies and serve a very different role than large federal landscapes.

Then there are State Trust Lands in Arizona, which fall into another category entirely. These lands are managed by the state to generate revenue for public schools and other institutions. While public access is allowed in many areas, it’s not the primary purpose -- and access can be limited.

Why the Distinction Matters

So while all of these places are “public lands” in a broad sense, they serve very different purposes and are managed under very different systems.

When we talk about protecting public lands in Arizona, we’re most often referring to federal public lands -- the large, connected landscapes that support wildlife movement, provide opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, and other forms of outdoor recreation, and contribute significantly to the state’s economy.

These are the places where conservation decisions can shape the future of wildlife habitat, migration corridors, and access for generations to come.

Author: Alexander (Alex) Bickers

Alex Bickers is a conservation professional and volunteer Content Creator & Program Assistant for Get Outdoors Arizona, where he helps research and create newsletter content, business spotlights, and stories that connect people to the outdoors. His background includes supervisory roles at animal sanctuaries and zoos, contributing to high standards of animal welfare and conservation. Alex is dedicated to protecting wildlife and wild lands.

If you're ever outside on a warm day, spending time around flowering plants like mesquite trees or milkweed, you may find yourself face-to-face with quite the unusual sight: a two-inch-long insect with a gorgeous blue-black iridescent body, rusty orange wings, straight or curled antennae, and long legs that gracefully dangle beneath it as it flies through the air. With beautiful features like these, one could be forgiven for mistaking this animal for a fairy.

...Well, in my opinion, anyway!

Tarantula hawks, or wasps in the genera Pepsis and Hemipepsis, can be found all over our great state of Arizona. While not everyone may share my enthusiastic admiration of these creatures, there is no doubt that they play an important role in the ecosystems they inhabit.

As their name suggests, tarantula hawk wasps rely on tarantulas for their survival. Tarantulas act as the host species, and tarantula hawks are parasitoids for part of their life cycle. First, an adult female tarantula hawk searches until she finds a tarantula burrow. There, she purposefully steps along the silk at the entrance of the den to coax the spider out before attacking. The wasp then delivers a sting that paralyzes the spider. Once immobilized, she drags it into the burrow, lays a single egg on its abdomen, and covers the entrance before leaving.

Once the larva hatches, it slowly consumes the paralyzed tarantula over the course of several weeks, eating around the vital organs at first to keep the spider alive while it feeds. Eventually, the spider dies, and the larva spins a silk cocoon in which it pupates into an adult wasp.

Despite their carnivorous larval stage, adult tarantula hawks feed on pollen and nectar, acting as important pollinators as they move between blooms of flowers.  In fact, tarantula hawk wasps are one of this region's main pollinators of milkweed, which happens to be the only plant on which monarch butterflies will lay their eggs and monarch caterpillars will feed upon.  Tarantula hawks may not be primary drivers of monarch populations, but still, who would have thought that a parasitic wasp could have any positive impact on an endangered butterfly?

Now, given their massive size and a name like "tarantula hawk," it's understandable why some people find these wasps to be intimidating. In fact, although males cannot sting, the sting of the female tarantula hawk is considered one of the most painful in the insect world. The good news is that these wasps tend to be incredibly docile, and a sting from one is rare. These wasps are also solitary, so you do not have to worry about bumping into a nest.

Tarantula hawk wasps are unfortunately one of the many misunderstood animals in this region. Despite their powerful sting, they have so much beauty and value to offer. Like many pollinators, they are threatened by pesticide use and habitat destruction. Planting some of their favorite plants, such as mesquite and milkweed, can help these insects thrive, along with supporting healthy habitats for the tarantulas they depend on. Because wasps of all types tend to get a bad reputation, simply caring about these animals and encouraging others to appreciate them is important conservation work.

Tarantula hawk wasps are one of the most unique and divisive animals in the American Southwest. Some people fear them, while others are eager to catch a glimpse, but one thing is for certain: this would not be home without them.

Sources:

“Pepsis Wasp.” Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, www.desertmuseum.org/kids/facts/?animal=Pepsis+Wasp

Benson, Z., et al. “Tarantula Hawks of Colorado: CSU Extension.” Colorado State University Office of Engagement and Extension, Aug. 2025, extension.colostate.edu/resource/tarantula-hawks-of-colorado/

“Monarch." U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov/species/monarch-danaus-plexippus

Author: Alexander (Alex) Bickers

Alex Bickers is a conservation professional and volunteer Content Creator & Program Assistant for Get Outdoors Arizona, where he helps research and create newsletter content, business spotlights, and stories that connect people to the outdoors. His background includes supervisory roles at animal sanctuaries and zoos, contributing to high standards of animal welfare and conservation. Alex is dedicated to protecting wildlife and wild lands.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress established a national program aimed at helping the American people by protecting our natural heritage, safeguarding natural resources, and providing outdoor recreation opportunities. Thus, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was born: a program that invests revenue from federal offshore energy development to protect land and water resources while expanding public access to them. In the decades since its creation, the LWCF has become widely recognized as one of the nation’s most successful conservation and recreation programs and a key contributor to the growth of outdoor recreation in the United States.

To ensure fair and diverse use of the fund, LWCF dollars are distributed in several ways. At the federal level, the program supports land acquisition by agencies including the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service for outdoor recreation, conservation, and public access. The LWCF also provides critical funding for related federal programs. At the state level, the LWCF includes a grant program that distributes funds to states to support planning, land and water acquisition, and the development of outdoor recreation facilities that benefit local communities.

For much of its history, the LWCF relied on Congress to decide each year how much funding to provide, often receiving far less than its authorized amount. As demand for outdoor recreation opportunities has grown, so has the need for consistent and reliable funding. In response, the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) was signed into law in 2020, permanently authorizing full funding for the LWCF at up to $900 million annually using non-taxpayer dollars from offshore energy revenues. This funding supports the development of local parks, increased protection and access to federal public lands, and expanded outdoor recreation opportunities nationwide.

Over its 60-year history, the LWCF has played a central role in protecting wildlife habitat, expanding public access to land and water, and supporting outdoor recreation across the country. With the additional stability provided by GAOA, the program has helped create thousands of parks and recreation sites and supports an outdoor recreation industry that generates over $1 trillion annually and supports more than 5 million U.S. jobs, while increasing access to hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and other outdoor activities.

Unfortunately, over the past year, multiple proposals have emerged that would delay or divert LWCF funding. One major concern is Secretarial Order 3442, issued in September 2025. Conservation advocates warn that this order could limit how LWCF funds are used by deprioritizing projects on BLM and Forest Service lands, potentially halting current projects and preventing future ones. The order also requires approval from state governors and county officials for certain land acquisitions, introducing additional political hurdles that could block conservation efforts. Additionally, it allows states to use LWCF funds to purchase federally protected lands deemed “surplus,” raising concerns about public lands being sold off and setting a troubling precedent for the future.

The LWCF was created to benefit all Americans, and slowing its progress undermines that promise. We urge the federal government to uphold the original intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Great American Outdoors Act, and to stand with the American people by protecting our shared outdoor legacy.

Sources: 

• "The Land and Water Conservation Fund Public Access to America’s Outdoor Heritage – Now at Risk" -Trust for Public Land. tpl.org

• "Land and Water Conservation Fund" - U.S. Department of the Interior. doi.gov

• Vincent, Carol Hardy.  Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

• "BHA Calls For Reversal of Attack on Land and Water Conservation Fund" - Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. backcountryhunters.org

By David Willms, National Wildlife Federation

David Willms is associate vice president for public lands at the National Wildlife Federation. He is a passionate hunter, hiker, and backpacker, and when he’s not at work, he can be found exploring our nation’s public lands with his family.

On June 11th, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) released a proposal as part of the Senate Energy and Natural  Resources Committee' contribution to the Senate’s budget reconciliation bill—otherwise known as the  “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Unless you’ve been a contestant on “Alone”, or otherwise lost in the  backcountry, you know that this provision mandates the sale of millions of acres of public lands across the  west. But, you may not know everything it does.  

So, here’s a no-frills breakdown of what’s in the bill, what it does, and what to do if you’re concerned  about losing access to your favorite hunting spot.

Mandates a Massive Sell-Off of Public Land

The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to begin disposing of, “as  soon as practicable” after bill passage, and every 60 days after that:  

• Not less than 0.5% and not more than 0.75% of all Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed  surface acres nationwide; and 

• Not less than .05% and not more than 0.75% of all National Forest System (USFS) lands created  from the public domain.  

Framing this in terms of percentage of overall acreage instead of actual acres is a clever way to make it  look like these sales do not impact much. However, this translates into a mandate that the BLM and USFS  sell at least 2 million acres and up to just over 3 million acres of public lands—within five years. On the  high end, that’s an area larger than Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks combined. Stated another  way, we could sell every acre of Rhode Island and Delaware, and still need to sell over a million acres to  meet the mandate of this proposal. That’s a lot of land.  

Where Would Sales Occur, and What’s Exempted from Sale

Lands are eligible for sale in 11 western states—all of them from the Rockies to the Pacific—except  Montana. Within those states, millions of acres are excluded from sale. For example, there are 15 different exemptions for lands designated by Congress or the Antiquities Act for things like National Parks,  Wilderness Areas, and National Monuments. Additionally, the bill excludes “valid existing rights”, which  it defines to include things like mining claims, grazing permits, mineral leases, and rights of way—among  other things.  

So, with all of these exclusions, what is actually eligible for sale? In short, everything else. This can certainly  include degraded parcels in or near municipalities, but it can also include things like Wilderness Study  Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and countless parcels of remote, wild, and lightly managed lands that  offer prime elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and upland bird habitat. 

There is also a very real risk of lands that are currently exempted becoming eligible for sale. On May 27^th,  the Department of Justice issued a memorandum analyzing the President’s authority to revoke national  monument designations made by predecessors using the Antiquities Act. The memorandum concluded  that the President has such authority should he choose to exercise it. Many monuments designated in the  past three decades remain BLM and USFS lands, and are administered by those agencies. This means that  should the President rescind national monuments like Bears Ears, Grand Staircase, or Chuckwalla, those  acres could then be eligible for sale under this bill.  

All of this means that determining which lands are truly eligible for sale is a difficult proposition. Several  maps are circulating online depicting lands that could be eligible for sale. These maps almost certainly  contain errors, but they are a good starting point since the author of the public land sale provision did not  provide any maps of his own depicting lands eligible for disposal. 

What Lands Will Be Sold? It’s Vague—And That’s the Problem

Under the bill, the Secretaries of Interior (BLM) and Agriculture (USFS) can nominate lands for sale.  However, the bill also allows “interested parties” to nominate land. 

The term “interested parties” is undefined. It expressly includes states and local governments. However,  without further definition it may also include developers, corporations, individuals, wealthy landowners,  or even foreign entities or governments. 

Once the Secretary or Interested Parties nominate land, the Secretary must prioritize lands for sale that  are (1) nominated by States or local governments; (2) adjacent to existing developed areas; (3) have access  to existing infrastructure; (4) are suitable for residential housing; (5) reduce checkerboard land patterns;  or 6) are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.  

The listed priorities are not an exclusive list. Each Secretary has broad discretion to prioritize other types  of land is wishes to sell under a very squishy purpose (detailed below). Importantly, there’s also no  requirement that nominations consider impacts to public access, wildlife values, water, or important  traditional uses like hunting and fishing. 

Purpose of Land Sales: Housing Is the Justification—But Not the Requirement

Proponents of selling public lands have marketed this bill as a solution to the West’s housing crisis,  claiming that these land sales will free up space for “affordable housing.” But do not take the bait. As  currently drafted, this bill will not address the affordable housing crisis. In fact, it does not use the word  “affordable” a single time. The closest it comes is saying that the one nominating land for disposal must  explain the extent developing the parcel would “address local housing needs (including housing supply  and affordability).” But, the very next section, which mandates what the Secretary considers when selling  a property, does not require prioritizing affordability. In fact, it does not even require that the land be  used for housing of any kind. 

Instead, it says lands must be used for “housing or to address associated community needs”—a phrase  that is undefined and left up to the Secretary to interpret. “Associated community needs” could include 

luxury homes, data centers, golf courses, business parks, or any number of other uses that have little or  nothing to do with affordability, or even housing. 

Mandated Land Sales Give Preference to States, Local Governments and Large Landowners

Admittedly, the lands most likely to be sold under this bill are those in the hills, foothills, and open spaces  near western communities. These are often the most valuable and scenic real estate around. Anyone who  has tried to buy property near Jackson, Flagstaff, Bend, Vail, or St. George knows these lands don’t come  cheap. Selling them at fair market value (as the bill requires) makes affordable housing even less likely. 

The bill also gives states or local governments a right of first refusal on land purchases. What does this  mean? Well, it means if a Tribe, corporation, individual, or other interested person has earned the right  to purchase the land, a state or local government can purchase it instead. And that’s not all. The bill  contains a provision that limits someone from purchasing more than two parcels of public land at a sale.  However, states, local governments, and landowners adjacent to nominated parcels are not limited in  what they can purchase.  

This means two things. First, this bill is really constructed to facilitate transferring as much land to states  and local governments as possible. Second, it creates a path for certain landowners to lock up lands. Here’s  an example of how this could work in practice. Let’s use the ranch at the center of the corner crossing  controversy in south central Wyoming, which is checkerboarded BLM land on exceptional elk habitat.  Under this bill, the owner of that ranch could voluntarily cancel his grazing leases on BLM lands adjoining  his lands (remember, lands with grazing leases are exempt from sale). Then, he could immediately  nominate those parcels for disposal, and purchase them all. It could meet the “associated community  needs” test because it would create new property tax revenue for the county—an obvious need. Also,  reducing checkerboard land patterns is a mandated priority for the Secretary to consider in a land sale.  No more checkerboard. No more corner-crossing. No more hunting. 

In short, this bill isn’t about helping working families find homes—it’s about paving the way for land  disposal with no public input. 

What about Public Input or Public Process? There is None

Many people do not know this, but there is an existing process to dispose of public lands. Congress passed  the Federal Land Planning Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976 to ensure that public lands are managed for  multiple uses—grazing, recreation, energy, wildlife and fisheries, clean water, and more. It also  established that lands managed by the BLM remain in public ownership unless there’s a strong case for  disposal. Here’s how that typically works: 

• BLM conducts land use planning, including public meetings and coordination with state and local  governments. 

• Lands identified for disposal go through a transparent review process, often including  environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Just because land is  identified as suitable for disposal, does not require that the land must be sold, nor does it provide  any timeline for sale. 

• The public gets a chance to weigh in, including local residents, hunters, ranchers, Tribes, and  others who use or value these lands.  

• Sales occur at fair market value, and include public notice and a competitive bidding process,  unless certain exemptions apply. 

• Congressional notification required for sales exceeding 2,500 acres. Congress has 90-days for  either body to formally disapprove, or the sale can proceed.  

Of course, this means that the process can be slow because of all of the various boxes that must be  checked before a parcel is sold. However, that process exists for good reasons. It ensures that land isn’t  sold off just to meet a short-term political or budgetary goal and that local voices are heard before public  land changes hands. Remember, public lands can only be sold once. Once sold for development, they are  gone from the federal estate forever.  

This bill completely bypasses FLPMA, including the public process for land use planning, the public process  for identifying parcels that could be subject to disposal; the requirements for conducting a sale, and the  duty to notify Congress. Instead, this bill deems any parcel sold under its provisions as complying with  FLPMA. In completely takes the public out of the process, only requiring consultation with the Governor,  local government and “each applicable Indian Tribe” prior to selling public lands. 

Where Does the Money Go? Not Where It Should

Under current law—specifically the Federal Land Transaction and Facilitation Act (FLTFA)—when BLM  lands are sold, the proceeds go into a fund that helps acquire high-priority conservation lands and access easements so we don’t wind up with fragmented landscapes or blocked access. In short, the proceeds  ensure that by selling fewer desirable lands, we are able to invest in replacing those acres or improving  acres in a way that achieves a net positive for our public lands. But this bill changes those rules. Under  this proposal: 

• 90% of the revenue would be sent to the U.S. Treasury 

• 5% would go to local governments 

• 5% would go to deferred maintenance on public lands in the state where the sale occurred 

The bill’s proponents anticipate raising $5 to $10 billion through these sales, yet hardly any of that money  would be reinvested in the land or the users who rely on it. This is a raw deal for the people who care for,  work on, and recreate on public lands. 

Why Hunters and Anglers Should Be Alarmed 

Make no mistake: This proposal is the most aggressive public land disposal effort we’ve seen in decades.  It’s a mandated, fast-tracked land sale that removes public involvement and undermines the long standing principle that public lands should stay in public hands unless there’s a compelling reason  otherwise. 

For hunters and anglers, the consequences are enormous: 

• Loss of access to millions of acres that are open to hunting, fishing, and camping today

• Loss of habitat critical to big game, birds, and fish—especially in winter ranges, migration  corridors, and riparian zones 

• Loss of economic activity in rural communities that rely on outdoor recreation

• Creates a precedent, making it easier for similar efforts to be pushed in future Congresses 

In states like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah—where public lands make up the majority of  the landscape—this bill would fundamentally alter where and how we hunt, fish, and raise our kids to do  the same. 

What’s Next and What You Can Do to Help

This bill hasn’t passed yet. This means that changes to text could be forthcoming. A draft of new text  started circulating on June 14^th that would have stripped the exemption for grazing leases (meaning  millions more acres could be jeopardized), and tried to tighten language around using lands for local  housing and associated infrastructure (unsuccessfully). Agriculture interests quickly rang alarm bells and  received assurances that no grazing leases would be sold.  

This quick reaction from Senators shows this can be stopped—but only if people speak up. Here’s how you can help: 

• Call your Senators and tell them to oppose any effort to sell off our public lands. Come with facts,  not hyperbole. Remind them that the overwhelming majority of voters in their state, regardless  of political party, opposes selling public lands—yes even in Utah. 

• Call county commissioners, state legislators and other elected officials that may have the ear of  your elected senators. They need to hear from their constituents and advocate on their behalf.  

• Spread the word to your hunting and angling circles, and beyond. Many people haven’t heard  about this proposal yet. 

• Social media is a powerful tool to spread the word. Use it. 

• Support conservation organizations that are actively working to defend public land and access. They are working around the clock on your behalf to fight back on this sell-off.  

• Call your Representatives because if the Senate passes a bill with land sales in it, the House gets  another shot at removing it. Our most ardent defenders like Representatives Zinke (R-MT), Downing (R-MT), and Simpson (R-ID) need our continued support, and help finding additional  allies.  

We’ve defended public lands before—and we can do it again. But it takes all of us showing up and speaking  out.

The Bottom Line

This Congressional proposal is a direct threat to our shared legacy of public lands. If passed, it would  constitute the largest public land sell-off in modern U.S. history, and would do little—if anything—to  meaningfully address affordable housing. 

For those of us who hunt, fish, and rely on open spaces, this fight isn’t about politics. It’s about preserving  what makes the West special—for our generation and the next. To paraphrase Representative Zinke: public lands aren’t red. They aren’t blue. They are red, white, and blue.  

Don’t let them sell what belongs to all Americans. Keep public lands in public hands.

The outdoors has always been a big part of my life, but as a mother of young children, it can be difficult to get out there as much as I’d like to. However, in recent years, I've made it a priority to get outside more, and thankfully, my brother introduced me to the Arizona Small Game Challenge.

The challenge, created by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in partnership with the Valley of the Sun Chapter of Quail Forever, consists of four individual challenges that recognize the diverse landscapes and rewards associated with small game hunting throughout Arizona. 

I signed up for the challenge, and I’m so glad I did! The Arizona Small Game Challenge includes the Desert Small Game Challenge, Native Quail Challenge, Mountain Small Game Challenge, and the Ultimate Upland Bird Challenge. To complete these challenges, only one challenge can be fulfilled per year. Embarking on this journey with my dogs led us on some incredible adventures across Arizona — many of which I had never experienced before. While it took me several years to finish, I am proud to be the first woman in Arizona to complete all four of the Arizona Small Game Challenges.

This challenge has opened my eyes to the vast diversity of habitats and species Arizona has to offer. If I had to choose the three most challenging species, I would say the dusky grouse, chukar, and Mearns’ quail stand out. Each of these species inhabits very different terrains, making them some of the most physically demanding hunts I’ve undertaken. In particular, I’ve developed a deep love for mountain grouse hunting. 

Since signing up for the challenge and becoming a member of Quail Forever, I’ve had the opportunity to mentor other women who share an interest in quail hunting. It’s been rewarding to connect with others and share my passion for the outdoors. If you're interested in small game hunting but aren't sure where to begin, there are many organizations in Arizona that offer beginner camps, which are fantastic resources — check out a list of some below. I highly encourage you to get out there and experience the breathtaking landscapes Arizona has to offer!

Christy Ling is an outdoor enthusiast who also enjoys spending time with her family in the great outdoors. Christy is also the first woman to complete all four of the Arizona Small Game Challenges.

Beginner Small Game Hunting Camps:

Arizona Wildlife Federation’s Annual Family Squirrel Camp

Valley of the Sun Quail Forever’s Annual Women’s Quail Camp

HerUpland Quail Hunt Camp

Yuma Desert Doves — Women On The Wing Pheasants Forever Chapter Camps

The lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasuae yerbabuenae) feeds exclusively on the fruit and nectar of agave and night-blooming cacti such as saguaro and organpipe, pollinating flowers in the process. Photo Courtesy of Bruce Taubert.

Authors: Sophia Ruger, ASU Undergraduate Student Researcher, and Kelli L. Larson, Professor of Geography and Sustainability at ASU, with input from Andrew Trgovac.

Sophia Ruger is completing her Sustainability degree and a certificate in Geographic Information Science. She hopes to provide applicable solutions for significant environmental and health-related issues in cities across the globe. If she’s not busy at school, she is out rock climbing, wakeboarding, or sewing at home. She is searching for internships or professional experiences, so feel free to connect with her through LinkedIn.

Kelli Larson is a Professor at Arizona State University who moved to the Sonoran Desert in 2005 and regularly engages students in her research. Her work focuses on how people interact with nature and manage urban landscapes and the environment. When she is not working, Kelli practices yoga and loves to hike, paddle, and otherwise explore nature and different places throughout Arizona and elsewhere. She also enjoys spending time with her dogs, going to plays, and cooking. You can learn more about Kelli or contact her through ASU.

The story begins in 1972 when the first wildlife habitat in Arizona was certified in Prescott on August 21st. This was the year before the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) officially launched their wildlife gardening program. Since then, thousands of properties have been certified statewide, although the frequency of certifications remained low until the 2000s. When our team at Arizona State University started analyzing data on certified wildlife gardens from the NWF in May 2024, over 4,000 properties—including residential yards and other types of properties—had been certified in Arizona to provide shelter, food, water, and places for wildlife to raise their young. 

The Arizona Wildlife Federation (AWF) is one of the 26 state affiliates active in promoting gardening for wildlife through the Certified Wildlife Habitat® program. Our team is collaborating with both AWF and NWF to understand: how and why have wildlife-certified gardens expanded over time, and who and where are these gardeners? 

As seen in the chart below, the years 2006 and 2023 saw the most certifications in the state, with a peak of 296 in 2023 alone. Mary Phillips, who leads the national Garden for Wildlife/Certified Wildlife Habitat® program, explains: “The national program celebrated its 50^th anniversary in 2023, and both AWF and NWF received high levels of media attention and engaged in outreach that year, resulting in more awareness and certification applications.” Although we do not yet know what caused the peaks prior to 2015, when Mary started working with NWF, we are exploring the factors underlying the rise and decline of wildlife-certified gardens over time. The mortgage crisis of 2007-2010 may be one factor leading to declines since the number of certifications between 2011 and 2016 decreased dramatically. With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic around 2020, we later saw a surge. Mary adds, “With people at home, gardening, and sustainable practices surged nationwide as they were inspired to do something positive that generated visible increases in butterflies, birds, and bees to support and enjoy where they live. In Arizona, the use of drought-tolerant native plants is an added appeal to residents in their quest to conserve water and support AZ wildlife.”   

Just as we see temporal patterns in the rise and fall of certified habitats in the state, interesting geographic patterns are also evident in the data. Across 190 cities and towns in Arizona with at least one or more certified properties, the top 20 (highlighted in the map below) contain 72% of the total (at around 3000 habitats), and the top 10 contain 50% of the certified habitats in the state.

Larger circles represent more community gardens per resident.

With 976 gardens, Tucson contains the most (23%) Certified Wildlife Habitat® in the state; this translates into approximately 18 gardens for every 10,000 residents in Tucson. Coming in second, Phoenix — as the largest city in the state — has 11% (470), which amounts to fewer than 3 gardens per 10,000 residents. Along with these large cities in the top 20 are other municipalities in the metro Phoenix area including Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, Glendale, Chandler, and Gilbert. Other top towns are Prescott, Sedona, and Flagstaff to the north and Bisbee and Ajo to the south. 

It is not surprising that cities and their suburbs with some of the largest populations in the state have the most gardens, but what is happening in smaller towns like Ajo, Bisbee, Sierra Vista, and Hereford? Perhaps conservation initiatives around the San Pedro River or the birding culture in the region contribute to the cluster of garden efforts in southeastern Arizona. With further research, our team aims to identify the factors leading to certifications in particular places across the state.

Ajo and Bisbee are two small towns in Arizona with around 100 recorded habitats, which amounts to more than 1% of their residents gardening for wildlife (compared to only 0.03% in Phoenix). The high Certified Wildlife Habitat® count among these relatively small towns indicates a significant effort to provide wildlife habitat in these communities. With Bisbee’s population of 5,008 residents and 104 gardens, the town hosts two gardens per 100 residents (or 2% of the community). With Ajo’s population of 2,922 and 96 gardens, they host the highest number of gardens per capita at 3% (or three gardens for every 100 residents). 

So, why do Ajo and Bisbee have a relatively large number of Certified Wildlife Habitat® relative to their populations? One reason is that both towns have been certified through the NWF’s Community Wildlife Habitats®, which requires a certain number of habitats. This community-level program extends the gardening for wildlife effort beyond individual properties by bringing together committed gardeners to expand habitat for wildlife in their municipalities. As Keith Ashley, the Deputy Director of the Arizona Wildlife Federation explains, “When you take a close look at the data like this, you can really see the impact that a small group of changemakers like "Project Wildlife Bisbee" can have. When they decided to get their community certified, they inspired so many people to get involved with habitat creation and maintenance. Imagine what a difference it would make if we had a few Arizona communities becoming certified each year for the next few decades!”

Finally, we are exploring: who are the people behind Certified Wildlife Habitat®? Specifically, based on the data we have available from NWF (as shown in the pie chart below), which landowners are certifying their properties as wildlife habitat across the state? Mostly, so far, they are residents like you. That is, more than 90% of all habitats certified since 1972 (3,448 total) were established by residents at their homes, and 40 additional habitats are located in community gardens.   

Among the other 7% of non-residential habitats (227; see the pie chart below), 34% are located in schoolyards (represented by teal), especially at K-12 institutions. Certified Wildlife Habitat® at schoolyards makes good sense because many people visit schoolyards, and these habitat gardens can be educational for students learning biology and other subjects. Additional habitats are managed by private entities (in yellow) including farms (23% of non-residential property) and churches (18%) are the next most common types of property. Relatively few certified habitats are on other types of properties, as shown in the graph. 

In moving forward with our research, our ASU-based team hopes to better understand the reasons for designing and maintaining Certified Wildlife Habitat® in residential yards and other types of property. By identifying barriers or challenges with gardening for wildlife, moreover, we can provide information and other resources to overcome them. By doing so, we hope to expand wildlife habitat across Arizona and the U.S. in collaboration with the National Wildlife Federation and our state chapter. As we learn more, this information could help NWF and AWF, among other organizations, to support habitat gardeners. Based on previous research, we know that certified habitats make a real difference by increasing biodiversity by hosting a larger variety of vegetation and bird species. 

To get certified or learn more, visit https://certifiedwildlifehabitat.nwf.org/.

Learn about the biodiversity impacts of Certified Wildlife Habitat®

Read more about constraints to wildlife gardening and associated tips

Be sure to sign up for Arizona Wildlife Federation’s E-News to receive regular updates on Gardening for Wildlife in Arizona!

Meet the ASU Team

Critical to American agriculture, this non-native European honey bee (Apis mellifera) is visiting a saguaro cactus blossom. Honey bees can compete with native bees for resources, which presents complicated conservation questions. Photo Courtesy of Bruce Taubert.

Authors: Sharika Kapur, ASU Undergraduate Student Researcher, and Kelli L. Larson, Professor of Geography and Sustainability at ASU

Sharika Kapur is majoring in Sustainability with a concentration in Society and Sustainability. She aspires to leverage her education to drive positive social and ecological change. Beyond her academic pursuits, she loves to express herself creatively through painting and sculpting. She would love to connect with others passionate about environmental health. You can reach her via LinkedIn.

Kelli Larson is a Professor at Arizona State University who moved to the Sonoran Desert in 2005 and regularly engages students in her research. Her work focuses on how people interact with nature and manage urban landscapes and the environment. When she is not working, Kelli practices yoga and loves to hike, paddle, and otherwise explore nature and different places throughout Arizona and elsewhere. She also enjoys spending time with her dogs, going to plays, and cooking. You can learn more about Kelli or contact her through ASU.

The lawn-care industry has globally promoted neat, uniform, and weed-free turfgrass landscapes, often characterized by lush, hyper-green lawns. However, these lawns not only reduce biodiversity but also demand a significant amount of water to survive, particularly in semi-arid regions like Arizona. Instead of managing monocultural lawns —that is, landscapes comprising a single species of turfgrass, residents can transform their yards into habitat to support wildlife and improve biodiversity in neighborhoods. Perhaps now is the time to make your yard do more — for wildlife and you.

Research conducted at Arizona State University shows promise for people adopting yards to support local wildlife across the U.S. Several studies conducted by Kelli Larson, a Professor of geography and sustainability at ASU, reveal insights on residents’ yard preferences and priorities. Much of Larson’s research has focused on metro Phoenix, but her work also includes surveying residents across six metropolitan areas including Los Angeles, Miami, Baltimore, Boston, and Minneapolis–Saint Paul. Across these regions and elsewhere, evidence suggests that many residents are willing to support alternative yard designs, though residents face certain constraints that slow the shift towards wildlife-supporting landscapes.

In particular, Larson’s research has found that very few survey respondents maintain monocultural lawns. Although nearly all surveyed residents in the six-region study had at least some grass in their yards, less than 3% reported having no other plants. In other words, very few people maintain a lawn with a single turfgrass species. Additionally, a 2018 study of U.S. households showed that about 60% of surveyed residents have already added features to support wildlife to their yards, and approximately half planned to do so in the future (i.e., in the next 5-10 years). As shown in the graph on the right, these features include native plants, trees, and other types of vegetation (e.g., shrubs). 

Although survey data indicate great promise for expanding wildlife-supporting yards, several survey-based studies have specifically identified aesthetics and low maintenance as higher priorities than increasing plant variety and supporting wildlife (see the chart below). In the 2018 survey of residents, beauty literally tops the chart, and, related to a neat aesthetic (purple bars), people tended to prioritize weed-free yards. For this reason, yard designs must first consider people’s aesthetic preferences, which include flowering plants, the color green, and a natural look or an orderly appearance. Meanwhile, personal enjoyment and low-maintenance priorities (aqua bars) — both of which relate to leisure — were among the top three priorities.  Meanwhile, wildlife-related priorities (dark green) — including habitat provisioning and plant diversity — are less important, although they are still moderately important to residents, on average.

Overall, these results indicate that in order to expand wildlife habitat in people’s yards a, residential and other landscapes must be designed to meet aesthetic preferences and limit the time and effort involved in maintaining them — at least for a majority of people to appreciate and sustain them.  

You might be thinking: but isn’t aesthetic appeal a personal preference? Indeed, it is. As explained by Professor Larson, varying aesthetic preferences are important to understand for landscaping decisions: “What constitutes a beautiful landscape to one person may be different from another. For example, some residents prefer tidy green lawns or simple, orderly yards, while others prefer a more natural look with diverse and abundant vegetation that better supports birds, pollinators, and other wildlife.”

In the same vein, people’s lifestyles vary dramatically, which affects how much time they can or will spend maintaining their yards. While some people love to spend time gardening, most want low-maintenance yards that limit the effort required to sustain them. In fact, Larson’s research has found that individuals who garden as a hobby are more likely to maintain wildlife-supporting gardens; meanwhile, time, costs, and other maintenance factors prevent many people from maintaining yards as wildlife habitat. 

Related to landscape aesthetics, Joan Nassauer, a Professor of landscape architecture at the University of Michigan, developed and tested a theory for using “cues to care” as a way of incorporating biodiversity into urban and rural landscapes managed by people.  In doing so, much of her research has been conducted in the twin cities of Minneapolis–St. Paul and in the Detroit area. In the 1990s, Nassauer defined “cues to care” as objective landscape characteristics that recognizably communicate that people are taking care of a landscape. In many urban, suburban, and rural settings, she has demonstrated how landscape designs that include “just enough” cues to care increase acceptance of habitats that might otherwise look messy, which contradicts social norms for neat and orderly yards. 

Professor Larson recommends using Nassauer’s “cues to care” theory to tame the often-unruly appearance attributed to more “natural looking” landscapes that provide habitat to wildlife. For designing wildlife-supporting yards that people appreciate, cues-to-care tips are detailed below. Overall, the idea is that more naturalistic yards can support local wildlife and garner aesthetic appreciation by incorporating elements that people tend to view positively. Since maintenance factors are also crucial for the integration of wildlife habitat in residents’ yards, Larson further recommends that residents make strategic decisions — alongside cues to care — to minimize the time and effort required in maintaining yards. 

Maintain a clear view through intentional design elements

Maintaining a “line of sight” is one strategy that gives the appearance of an intentional, well-designed yard. This entails adequately spacing plants to ensure that windows and doors are not obscured, which signifies deliberate placement of vegetation instead of uncontrolled growth. In general, the key is having clear views of the key exterior features of the house to ensure the property doesn’t appear overgrown and abandoned. Without a clear line of sight, yards may look disorganized since diverse and abundant plants can result in various focal points that cause visual chaos.

Incorporate linear and curvy edges to enhance visual appeal

A line of sight can be further maintained by adding planter boxes and containers or pathways and curvilinear features. For example, mowing strips along sideways or walkways—along with other crisp edges and linear or curved features — tend to convey care while garnering aesthetic appreciation. Painted fences, stone walls, and other elements work with the line of sight to further add order to the yard, effectively guiding the eye across the property. 

Design for eye-catching boldness and visual structure

Bold vegetation patterns can also indicate active management of the space while amplifying the beauty of yards. This includes choosing plants with varying shades of green and an array of colorful flowers. Another tactic to achieve boldness is creating visually impactful spaces by strategically arranging plants. For instance, a mix of high and low vegetation (i.e., differently sized trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants) adds dimension to the yard, as can pots and other containers. Having this sort of “vegetation structure” in yards also supports wildlife by providing places to find shelter and rear young.

Choose your plants to avoid messiness and reduce maintenance

Strategic vegetation choices can also be important for people who appreciate tidiness and easy-to-maintain yards. For instance, people may want to consider the extent of “leaf litter” or “organic debris” of their plant options since some shed leaves, seeds, and other organic matter more so than others. For residents who prefer tidier yards that are easy to maintain, they therefore might opt for plants with low litter. Alternatively, placing plants with no or low litter near walkways or entrances can reduce messy-looking organic matter and the need for clean-up in strategic locations of yards. 

Prioritize the plant attributes that make sense for your lifestyle

Another suggestion for reducing yard maintenance is opting for slow-growing plants; while they may take longer to achieve a certain size, slower-growing vegetation doesn’t need to be pruned as often, thereby minimizing time and costs. Similarly, low water-use or climate-adapted plants — such as plants native to the ecosystem where you live — can reduce the effort required to maintain yards. Irrigating less can also slow growth, thereby lessening the time and effort needed to prune plants or trim trees. 

Add non-living habitat features to provide food, water, and shelter

Wildlife-supporting features like nest boxes, bird feeders, and bird baths are easy to incorporate and also act as yard decorations. Requiring little upkeep, these simple additions still allow residents to express their commitment to supporting native wildlife to others. Similar to planters and container boxes, these objects can also help break up vegetation and create distinct areas of the yard for a more organized look. 

Whether through plant choices or other design features, maintaining a wildlife-supporting yard is an opportunity to showcase your creativity while supporting local birds, pollinators, and other wildlife. By prioritizing elements that garner aesthetic appreciation and are easy to maintain, you can achieve your priorities (and perhaps your neighbors’ too) while helping to protect wildlife and boost biodiversity. In doing so, you can even get your yard certified as wildlife habitat by the National Wildlife Federation. You’ll even receive a sign to let people know you are managing your yard to support local wildlife, which is a definite cue-of-care! 

Learn more about certified wildlife gardens in Arizona

Find out the biodiversity impacts of certified wildlife habitats in the U.S.

Read more about Larson’s team and research

Be sure to sign up for Arizona Wildlife Federation’s E-News to receive regular updates on Gardening for Wildlife in Arizona!

Meet the ASU Team

Other links to research articles and other resources:

Larson, K.L. et al. (2009). Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environmental Management, 44: 921-937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9353-1 

Larson, K. L. et al. (2022). Examining the potential to expand wildlife-supporting residential yards and gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning, 222, 104396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104396

Nassauer, J. I. (2011). Care and stewardship:  From home to planet. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100: 321-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.022.

Li, J., & Nassauer, J. I. (2020). Cues to care: A systematic analytical review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 201, 103821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103821

Cornell Lab. (2015). Tips to make a “messy” wildlife garden look good. All About Birds. Cornell Lab. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/tips-to-make-a-wildlife-garden-look-great/#. Last accessed August 2, 2024.