Share article

I feel deep sadness about bird flu and environmental loss. Is this normal?

Print article

Australia’s beloved animals are again under threat as the H5N1 strain of bird flu spreads, with more mass deaths expected. Scientists are bracing for another wave of ecological loss and are particularly concerned about rare and threatened species.

It’s normal to find this news overwhelming, especially in the wake of a growing list of environmental disasters: from algal blooms to coral bleaching, and floods and fires that devastate wildlife and ecosystems.

We research ecological grief – the deep sadness people feel about the loss of nature – and climate emotions – human feelings in response to the climate crisis. We have listened to hundreds of people talk about their feelings about our environment, and their fears and hopes for its future. Some describe sadness, anger or concern. Others try to avoid bad news.

These responses are rarely simple. They are often rooted in particular places and species we love, and in the memories, identities and relationships attached to them. Because of this, grief can co-exist with feelings like awe, pride, belonging and care.

Here, we share some ways to make space for your feelings and find connection and support.

What is ecological grief?

Grief is an understandable response to witnessing harm to places and species that matter to us. We might experience environmental loss directly, particularly when we live or work in threatened places. At other times, we encounter it through news and social media, or against the wider backdrop of future threats such as climate change. Because ecological loss is ongoing, cumulative, and sometimes ambiguous, we need to practise support, connection and care in ways that we can sustain over time.

Don’t let yourself be misled. Understand issues with help from experts

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Yet our feelings in response to loss are often hard to talk about, especially when they are minimised or dismissed by others. Our society is not very good at “doing grief”. Death is difficult to understand, and can feel like something to be avoided at all costs.

In addition, many of us have lost the rituals and gathering places that enable us to process loss together, such as those offered through spiritual or cultural practices. This can lead to disenfranchised grief, when loss is not acknowledged or validated, leaving people feeling isolated.

Becoming more “grief literate” means developing the knowledge, values and practical skills to understand grief, and support ourselves and others. For environmental loss, this might involve talking with people who are feeling a similar way, spending time in restorative places, or making art, either alone or in groups.

A growing awareness of loss

The good news is communities and professionals are coming together to support people as they grapple with ecological loss. In Australia, organisations like Psychology for a Safe Climate host a network of mental health practitioners who are aware of the realities of climate change and can provide professional support.

Psychology for a Safe Climate also offers regular “climate cafes”, where people can connect with others who share concerns about beloved species and ecosystems.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have learnt to live amid the drastic changes to Country wrought by centuries of colonisation. Their knowledge and practices offer a vital source of wisdom for all, but must be treated with respect and reciprocity if they are offered beyond their own communities. We Al-li shares Indigenous cultural traditions and trauma informed practices through online courses and other training.

Across the world, new groups are forming to support people grappling with ecological grief. US-based not-for-profit Good Grief Network runs peer-to-peer programs delivered by over 180 facilitators globally. Another organisation, Radical Joy, invites people to “make beauty in a wounded place”, either together or alone.

Paying attention to feelings

As we work with people experiencing ecological loss, we are slowly learning to notice and respond to how we are feeling in ourselves. This might include noticing we need to rest, or take a break from news about ecological “doom”.

It might be as simple as going outside and feeling the grass under our feet, or the wind on our face.

For people in environmental professions, Claudia’s team at the University of Queensland have created an ecological grief resource to guide workplaces to provide better support. It encourages compassionate listening with a colleague, which involves listening without judging or offering solutions. It also suggests undertaking a project – like holding a remembrance event or creating something using art – to honour a loss.

With colleagues at Black Dog Institute and the University of Sydney, Chloe developed an activity booklet for young people, families and all those interested in creative tools for exploring climate and environmental feelings. It provides joyful, open-ended prompts for drawing, photography, and writing that can help people of all ages understand their relationship to the natural world.

Making space for grief

Perhaps most importantly, we have learned that paying attention to feelings like ecological grief is not a distraction from responding to pressing environmental challenges.

By making space for grief, you also create opportunities for care, connection and action. This can sustain us all for the long haul, helping us focus on small, achievable changes without losing sight of the bigger picture.

If you are experiencing overwhelming grief or emotional distress, free and confidential support is available anytime in Australia. Call Lifeline at 13 11 14, Griefline at 1300 845 745, or Beyond Blue at 1300 22 4636.

Aug 06, 2026 | 7:49 pm ET

By Connie Poten Anja HeisterShare

Deficient data means Montana FWP should stop wolf hunting | News From The States

Description

A gray wolf. (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife)

How many wolves are left in Montana?

Nobody knows.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks admitted that its iPOM counting method over-estimated wolf numbers for years. Instead of 1,094 wolves, FWP’s revised iPOM 2.0 method now estimates that Montana’s population is 725 wolves—34% less. 

Longtime wolf researchers say the population is closer to 400 wolves. 

Either way, the tipping point has been breached; wolves are in perilous decline. The average pack has plummeted to four wolves, well below a healthy, functioning pack size.

Yet FWP is proposing a quota of 250 wolves and 20 wolves per person. 

In 2025, FWP recorded 328 wolf mortalities including the 247 killed by hunters and trappers. and those killed by vehicle collisions and other causes.

If that scenario is repeated with a 250 quota, there will be 397 survivors. If the reality is 400 wolves left on the landscape, wolves will be effectively exterminated. 

By law (Montana Code Annotated 87-1-901), 450 wolves must be maintained in Montana to ensure 15 breeding pairs. This rule is the core foundational benchmark of the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan 2025.

The history of exaggerated numbers and quotas should trigger the Commission to suspend wolf killing to keep wolves at or above the legal number. This includes not giving FWP and USDA Wildlife Services carte blanche to kill an unlimited number of wolves, as proposed.

FWP’s deeply flawed iPOM was built on four bad models and the iPOM 2.0 does not improve it. Information is hidden; FWP can’t verify it. FWP no longer radio collars wolves and does not collect scat (markers) for genetic individual identification. The iPOM is riddled with bias and not updated with annual variables. FWP depends on phone surveys with game hunters six weeks after hunting season. This means coyotes are mistaken for wolves, the same wolves are counted multiple times, locations are sketchy, packs are guessed at. Relying on anecdotal sightings recollected by hunters untrained in data collection is the antithesis of reliable research. 

FWP chose not to adopt a method similar to Italy’s most accurate Integrated Spatial Model, which uses multiple lines of evidence and non-invasive inputs to determine individual genetic information, pack size and population estimates. Instead, FWP uses numbers which are wrong and irrelevant because wolf survival depends on family social structures and individuals holding families together. 

Wolves are held in the public trust. But as trustee, FWP pays only lip service to societal values, ignoring 74% of Montanans who want wolves on the landscape and hundreds of people who speak out against high quotas and killing methods that amount to persecution.

As the top apex predator, wolves provide humans healthy ecosystems by “culling weak deer and elk, suppressing coyotes that prey on calves/sheep, reducing disease transmission, restoring streamside vegetation that supports songbirds, beavers, trout and insects and reducing deer-vehicle collisions,” wrote Dr. Robert Crabtree, chief scientist, Yellowstone Ecological Research Center. “Naturally formed, larger packs are the key indicator of a healthy ecosystem.”

Deficient data, canine distemper, habitat destruction and catastrophic wildfires, heat and drought signal doom for this keenly intelligent, valuable species.

This is no time for recreationally killing 250 wolves struggling to survive. 

At the Aug. 19 meeting, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission can and should place a moratorium on wolf hunting and trapping until a transparent, reliable method of ascertaining wolf packs and wolf population health is established. It is the right thing to do in a time of great uncertainty. 

Poten is the co-founder and board president of Footloose Montana and Heister is the co-founder and executive director of Footloose Montana.

The eagle was found with shotgun pellets in its brain, federal prosecutors said.

ByBill Hutchinson 

Wednesday, August 5, 2026 1:20PM

• Washington man accused of shooting, killing bald eagle facing federal charges – ABC7 Chicago

Watch ABC News live news stream and get 24/7 latest, breaking news coverage, and live video.

Live

Watch ABC News live news stream and get 24/7 latest, breaking news coverage, and live video.

Federal criminal charges have been filed against a Washington state man whom authorities allege fatally shot a bald eagle in the head on his rural property, authorities said.

Benjamin G. Allen of Brush Prairie in Clark County, Washington, was charged Tuesday with violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and unlawfully killing a migratory bird, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington.

If convicted of the misdemeanor charges, Allen could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $500,000, the statement said.

ABC News could not reach Allen for comment on Wednesday. It was unclear if Allen has hired an attorney.

The 66-year-old Allen “is accused of shooting and killing the bird with a shotgun,” according to the statement.

00:00

03:06

Read More

The incident occurred on Feb. 5, 2026, when a witness reported hearing a gunshot coming from Allen’s property, the statement said.

“According to records in the case, special agents from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife were called to the property in Brush Prairie regarding a dead eagle with blood around its head,” according to the statement, which further said that agents interviewed Allen about the deceased eagle and “his actions that day.” The statement did not disclose what Allen may have told the agents.

“Allen kept chickens not far from where the dead eagle was discovered,” the statement noted, adding that an exam by a veterinarian concluded the eagle died from two shotgun pellets found in its brain.

Allen has been summoned to appear in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington, on Sept. 8.

While bald eagles are the national symbol of the United States, they are no longer considered endangered. The birds, however, are still protected under the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits individuals from killing them.

The charges against Allen come after a 42-year-old Texas man, Santos Guerrero, pleaded guilty in May to federal charges that he fatally shot a bald eagle on his property near Houston in 2024. Guerrero faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine when sentenced, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas.

In another case in Washington state, 49-year-old Travis John Branson of Cusick was sentenced to nearly four years in prison and fined $777,250 after he pleaded guilty in 2024 to charges stemming from the killing of numerous eagles and hawks on Washington’s Flathead Indian Reservation, according to federal prosecutors.

Prosecutors said Branson admitted to a self-described “killing spree” of thousands of eagles and hawks between 2009 and 2021, butchering the birds and selling their parts, including eagle feathers, on the black market. Prosecutors said investigators traced the deaths of 118 eagles and 107 hawks directly to Branson.