Signs of Renewal

By Logan Christian

In nature, renewal happens everywhere, on both vast and short timescales. Our geologic record reveals numerous global mass extinction events that nearly wiped out all life on our planet, yet after each of these events, life bounced back, even if it took several million years. As Dr. Malcolm from Jurassic Park once said, “Life finds a way.”

Fortunately, you don’t have to live for millions of years to observe life bouncing back. You can also see renewal happening over the scale of a lifetime. Take the occurrence of forest fires, particularly the more intense ones we’ve seen in recent years. A forest fire can wipe out nearly all life across hundreds of square miles. Yet not long after, the processes of ecological succession quickly go to work: rhizomes in the soil provide the foundation for mosses to grow, which in turn provide a home for insects. Birds feed on those insects, spreading seeds into the burned area. Before you know it, the blackened hillside you saw as a kid is already in the early stages of a forest by the time you are an adult.

These processes of renewal in nature were here long before humans were around, and they will continue long after we are gone. We can take some solace in that. Life truly finds a way. An interesting question to ask ourselves then, is whether humanity can work with the processes of renewal, for the benefit of ourselves and the biosphere, or will we continue to work against it, potentially to our own demise.

It’s easy to see examples of us working against renewal. On a planetary scale, human activity is rapidly changing our climate and biosphere, causing mass displacement of people and reduction of our planet’s biodiversity. Here in the United States, all three branches of our government are expediting this process, rolling back environmental protections on an unprecedented scale. To name just a few examples, the Supreme Court determined that wetlands are no longer considered waters of the United States, opening them up for development, Congress has weakened the Endangered Species Act, requiring consideration of economic impacts in every species listing decision, and the executive branch is defunding and destaffing federal land management agencies, taking away their capacity to conserve public lands.

Most of the bedrock environmental protections being decimated were enacted in the 20th century. From the acts of the early 20th century which created our country’s system of national monuments and parks, to the numerous policies enacted in the 60s and 70s like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, these laws have been relatively unchanged for decades.

However, it isn’t the first time these laws have received backlash. Environmental policy was one of the prime targets of the deregulatory era of the 70s and 80s. Much of this backlash came to a head during the Timber Wars of the 80s and 90s, when the endangered spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest was pitted against the livelihoods of people working in the timber industry. That conflict came to define much of the narrative we see today that is being used to roll back environmental protections. Livelihoods and the economy are being pitted against nature.

However, polling on environmental issues shows quite clearly where most people actually stand. For example, roughly 84% of Americans support laws protecting endangered species, and this broad support shows up consistently across most environmental laws that protect public land, wildlife, clean water, clean air, and a liveable climate. Most Americans want our government to protect a liveable planet for present and future generations.

So what do we do when national policy does not reflect what the people want? One answer is to push back on what’s happening at the national level, and this is certainly a strategy that has been effective recently. Proposals to sell off public land were met with stiff public opposition, with hundreds of thousands of people calling their representatives and taking to social media to highlight places that are important to them that could soon be up for sale. Public lands are still under immense threat, but the public land sell-off proposal was squashed.

These examples may seem like grasping at straws, but there is actually much more reason for hope playing out all around the country. Sometimes, you just have to zoom in to see renewal in action.

Take the issue of wildlife crossings. A decade ago, very few states were working to address the issue of wildlife-vehicle collisions, which annually kill over 200 people, cost over $8 billion, and kill 1-2 million large animals across US roadways. A few early adopters in the US and Canada started implementing modified tunnels, bridges, and other types of wildlife crossings to address this issue starting in the 80s and 90s. However, at the time, crossings were mostly used in areas where very high-profile large mammals were causing accidents, like moose on I-80 at Parley’s Summit in Utah, or grizzly bears crossing Highway 93 on the lands of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana.

Fast forward to 2026, and now over 20 states have enacted legislation to study, fund, and construct wildlife crossings in coordination with state transportation and wildlife agencies. Utah has been a leader on this issue. If you drive the length of I-15, you can observe hundreds of miles of specialized fencing installed to funnel deer to safer crossing areas. The state legislature invested $20 million into wildlife crossings in 2023, and a bill is currently awaiting the governor’s signature that would provide permanent funding for these efforts.

Another sign of renewal can be observed when we look at how many states are working to improve outdoor access opportunities. Last year, states across the country introduced over 300 bills focused on improving outdoor access. These include measures to create state offices of outdoor recreation, provide more outdoor access opportunities to underserved groups, and help fund efforts to restore and conserve the places that provide not only recreation opportunities, but also habitat for wildlife and clean watersheds that enhance water availability and quality.

For another example of positive change happening at smaller scales, look at what's happening in state wildlife agencies around the country. For over a century, state wildlife agencies were by and large created by and for hunters. This was in many ways a good model for wildlife conservation: hunting and fishing license sales and federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition helped fund state wildlife agencies, which in turn supported wildlife conservation. Yet it also meant most of the funding and attention for wildlife conservation was focused primarily on species that are hunted and fished: think mule deer and non-native rainbow trout.

Today, many states are working to establish more robust, broad-based public funding for state wildlife agencies, and modernizing their governance structure to ensure that the interests of all people and all wildlife are considered. For example, New Mexico passed legislation last year to add over $10 million to the state wildlife agency’s budget for conserving Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), and reformed the state’s wildlife commission to explicitly require appointing people with a background in wildlife conservation and science to make decisions on behalf of wildlife. This year, Oregon passed a bill to increase the state transient lodging tax (which will still be among the lowest TLTs in the country), and use a portion of the new revenue as a permanent funding source for the state wildlife agency to conserve sensitive species, improve habitat connectivity, and invest in human-wildlife coexistence programs.

Renewal is also happening within the conservation community. Most of the oldest environmental organizations in the US have not been keen to address issues of injustice within the conservation movement. Nor have they sought meaningful input from Indigenous people, people of color, communities most impacted by pollution or those denied access to the outdoors. Yet this too is changing.

During the previous presidential administration, a strong coalition of people working to address these issues, known as the America the Beautiful For All Coalition, came together to help shape several federal conservation efforts, such as 30x30 Initiative, an effort to conserve 30% of lands and waters by 2030. While the 30x30 Initiative has now been rescinded at the federal level, at least 10 states have adopted similar conservation measures, and tailored them to the unique resource conservation needs, livelihoods, and people of their state. In Hawaii, the state’s 30x30 initiative focuses on centering the values and perspectives of Native Hawaiians. In Vermont, the state’s 30x30 Initiative includes areas of private land that can be counted towards the 30% goal where landowners are engaged in long-term, sustainable land management practices.

One lesson we can take from what’s happening around the country is the importance of action at smaller scales, particularly at the state level. We do need bedrock environmental protections at the federal level to provide the funding, coordination, and expertise for conservation. Yet we also need states to tailor their conservation efforts to local context, provide supplemental funding for state-specific initiatives, and create regulations that reflect the shared resources of that state. That requires considering both the livelihoods that depend on those resources, and the broader public who benefits from the conservation of those resources.

State policy is an incredibly important tool for action on this front, and one that often gets overlooked. Many people feel that there is no hope for conservation until we see an administration change at the federal level. But that does not reflect what we are seeing at the state level. And it does not align with the shortening timeframe humans have to correct course and work with the processes of renewal. We already have much of the science, know-how, and public support to facilitate renewal of nature for the benefit of all. What is often lacking are the efforts to use local and state policy to put all that knowledge and political will to use, in a way that makes sense for local context and people.

Here in Utah, it’s easy to see examples of state policy both working with and against renewal. From efforts to sell off public land, to the recent decision to allow unlimited hunting and trapping of mountain lions, we certainly have our fair share of working against renewal. Yet our state is also a leader on renewal in many ways. In addition to being ahead of the curve on developing wildlife crossings, Utah recently created a permanent funding source for threatened and endangered species conservation. Utah was also one of the first states to create a robustly funded state Watershed Restoration Initiative. We also have one of the first beaver relocation programs in the country, allowing beavers that are causing conflicts with landowners to be moved to places where they can live freely and put their ecosystem restoration skills to work.

Are these wins big enough to outweigh the many concerning things that are happening? Perhaps a more useful question is: can we expand what’s going well while course correcting on what’s less than optimal? To that, the clear answer is yes. It’s already happening.

So how do we course-correct in a state like Utah? One way is to get away from the tendency to speak in terms that separate people from nature. Many groups talk about “protecting wild places”, envisioning landscapes that are mostly devoid of human influence. Wilderness is important, but the myth of “pristine” nature neither acknowledges the 20,000 plus years that humans have influenced nature in North America, nor does it acknowledge the full picture of what conservation means in an era where human activity is dominant on the landscape.

The narrative of pristine nature also pits the environment against jobs and the economy. The relationship between economy and environment are certainly in need of redefinition and reform, but they are not mutually exclusive, as we have seen with efforts to expand clean energy in many states, creating thousands of jobs while reducing carbon emissions.

Additionally, the Pristine Myth focuses conservation efforts on increasingly scant wild places, while taking away attention from focusing on the places where human influence is dominant, but restoration and re-wilding are compatible. Restoration and re-wilding are terms that live in the same neighborhood as renewal, and they provide a very useful way to think about what’s next for the conservation movement in an era of human dominance on the landscape. Restoration generally means bringing nature back where it once was. For example, some localities have used wetland restoration to reduce their municipal water treatment costs, since wetlands have natural pollutant filtration properties. Rewilding is similar, but often refers to things like reintroducing species where they no longer roam. An example of this would be Utah’s program to relocate beavers to watersheds where they’re needed.

The conservation movement in the US started with an era of preservationism, wherein large swaths of land were placed into protection, often without meaningful input from the people living there, particularly the Indigenous people who not only hold those places sacred, but have treaty rights connected to those places. In part due to political opposition to preservationism, in the later part of the 20th century, the movement morphed more into what it is now, wherein the more politically neutral term “conservation” is more readily used. While large landscapes were and are still being designated as national parks, monuments, and wilderness, a greater focus on “conserving” the nature we already have has become more of the focus. Using the bedrock federal environmental protections created in the 60s and 70s like the ESA, NEPA, EPA, CWA, CAA, many individuals and organizations began defending nature from further development.

Perhaps the next phase of the movement will be renewal, which is already being rolled out in many places. Renewal is about humans working with nature. Examples include mitigating the impacts of roads on habitat via wildlife crossings and integrating riparian buffers and wildlife-friendly farming practices into agriculture. It may also include creating more greenspace in urban areas and enabling people to learn about their local flora and fauna through citizen science projects. This gets to the idea of not separating people from nature. We influence nature and nature influences us, because we are part of nature and nature is part of us.

Renewal works best when considering your local context. It won’t look the same in every place, and that’s a good thing. Success happens with many actions, both large and small. We can start by finding opportunities at the local and state scale. Working at those scales has an outsized impact. It keeps us focused on what’s working well locally, as well as things we can build upon. It helps us prioritize local wins. More people doing this will make all the difference.

Logan Christian is based in Salt Lake City, Utah and serves as the Wildlife and Habitat Specialist for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a non-partisan network of over 1300 state legislators working on environmental policy issues in all fifty states. Logan tracks environmental legislation trends and supports legislators working on a variety of issues including wildlife corridors and crossings, state wildlife agency relevance and funding, endangered species, wildlife disease, wildlife trafficking, human-wildlife coexistence, water conservation, and wildfire management. Logan holds a M.S. in Environmental Policy and Planning from the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability.