Tom Rowland Podcast Episode 395 is a conversation with Aurelia Skipwith, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who oversaw the opening of more than four million acres for hunting and fishing access during her term. She shares how an Indianapolis city kid was introduced to the outdoors through family in rural Mississippi, how degrees in molecular biology and law led her to wildlife policy, and why she sees hunters and anglers as the true engine of American conservation.
▶ Watch on YouTube · 🎧 Listen now
Aurelia Skipwith served as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Born and raised in Indianapolis with family roots in rural Mississippi, she holds a degree in molecular biology and a law degree, and she was appointed to lead the agency, where she focused on expanding hunting and fishing access and supporting conservation.
During her time leading the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than four million acres were opened for hunting and fishing access. Expanding sportsmen's access across the refuge system was one of the central priorities of her term.
Aurelia describes herself as a city girl, born and raised in Indianapolis, but her family hailed from rural Mississippi. Summers spent with her grandfather, cousins, aunts, and uncles down south, helping with chores that felt like fun to her, made a lasting impression and set the foundation for a career in the outdoors and wildlife.
Aurelia credits hunters as the true stewards of conservation, the ones whose dollars and participation allow the country to protect wildlife even for species that are never hunted. She points to honoring hunters on the federal duck stamp as one way the agency acknowledges their central role in sustaining wildlife.
Aurelia holds a degree in molecular biology and a law degree, a combination of science and policy training that shaped her approach to leading the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and working at the intersection of wildlife science and federal law.
Aurelia emphasizes partnership: hunters and fishermen working alongside the agency to protect and expand access and to support conservation of the species they care about. She frames sportsmen not as outsiders to be managed but as essential partners in sustaining wildlife and the lands and waters they depend on.
It is not every day you get the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the line, and Aurelia has a genuinely compelling story. A city kid from Indianapolis who found the outdoors through family, then earned a biology degree and a law degree, then ended up running the agency and opening millions of acres to hunters and anglers. I wanted to hear how she got there and what she thinks the relationship between sportsmen and conservation should look like. Press play in the YouTube player above.
Aurelia is candid that she is a city girl from Indianapolis, not someone who grew up in the field. What changed her was summers in rural Mississippi with her grandfather and extended family, where outdoor chores felt like play and left a lasting mark. She traces the line from those summers to molecular biology, to law school, to leading a federal wildlife agency. Listen to how that path came together in the episode.
More than four million acres were opened to hunting and fishing access during Aurelia's term, and she explains why expanding access across the refuge system mattered so much to her. For anyone who has ever run into a locked gate or a shrinking place to hunt, this is the policy that pushes the other direction. She lays out the thinking behind it. Hear the details in the player above.
Aurelia makes the case that hunters are the foundation of conservation funding, the people whose participation lets the country protect wildlife even for species that are never hunted. She points to honoring hunters on the federal duck stamp as a deliberate acknowledgment of that role. It is a clear, well-argued version of a point sportsmen know in their bones. Listen to her make it in the episode.
Rather than treating hunters and anglers as a constituency to manage, Aurelia frames them as essential partners, working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect and expand access and to conserve the species everyone cares about. She talks about what that partnership looks like in practice and where it can go. Press play to hear her vision for it.
▶ Watch on YouTube · 🎧 Listen now
What I took away from talking with Aurelia is how naturally the science, the law, and the love of the outdoors fit together in the way she leads. The four-million-acre number is the headline, but the deeper point is her view of hunters and anglers as partners rather than problems.
For anyone who cares about access and conservation, this is a conversation worth your time. Listen to the whole thing.
The Tom Rowland Podcast brings you long-form conversations with the most accomplished anglers, hunters, conservationists, and outdoor professionals in the game. Listen to every full-length Tom Rowland Podcast interview.
Aurelia Skipwith served as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where she oversaw the opening of more than four million acres for hunting and fishing access. Born and raised in Indianapolis with family roots in rural Mississippi, she was introduced to the outdoors through summers with family in the South and went on to earn a degree in molecular biology and a law degree. As director she focused on expanding sportsmen's access and on conservation built around the central role of hunters and anglers.
Full transcript of the Tom Rowland Podcast, Episode 395 — Aurelia Skipwith — Opening 4 Million Acres for Hunting and Fishing.
Aurelia Skipwith: The self-imposed tax that the hunters and anglers pay — bless them, because they truly are the advocates when it comes to conservation. They're putting their money where their mouth is, and because of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, their activities fund state fish and wildlife and game agencies so they can do their conservation work. It really is hoping to sustain our wildlife, and I was really excited this year — you'll see this going forward on our duck stamp. We are honoring our hunters and giving them that acknowledgment that when it comes to conservation, they are truly the ones allowing us to be stewards for everyone else, even for the species that aren't hunted. Good afternoon. This is Aurelia Skipwith, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and this is the Tom Rowland Podcast.
Tom Rowland: Hey everybody, welcome to the podcast today. We've got a great guest — the US Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service is here with us. Director Aurelia Skipwith has a very interesting story of being introduced to the outdoors as a young lady. She's a city girl who learned all about the outdoors through her family, like most of us, and she's a very smart individual — she has a degree in molecular biology and also a law degree. She was appointed director of the Fish and Wildlife Service by President Trump, and she has done a really good job expanding access for hunting and fishing during her term so far. Over four million acres have been opened for hunting and fishing through the Fish and Wildlife Service. She's going to tell us all about that, what the future plans are, and how hunters and fishermen can work together with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to continue to protect and expand our access, and help with the conservation of all the species that we love so much. So with no further ado, Director Aurelia Skipwith.
Tom Rowland: Since the first episode we've had a dedicated email address because I want to get to know you and hear from you — your suggestions have made some of the best shows we've ever made, because you've suggested amazing guests I might not have known about otherwise. I'd like to find an even better way to communicate with you. I've looked into private Facebook groups and all kinds of different things, and I think I found the best way: text. You can simply text me at (305) 930-7346, and I will text you back. That's a place where we can open a conversation — you can tell me why you think a guy or a girl would make a great podcast guest. I can also give you information on when new shows are dropping and discounts exclusive to the podcast audience. So that's (305) 930-7346 — shoot me a text and see what happens; I will text you back. Director Skipwith, how are you this afternoon?
Aurelia Skipwith: I'm really good. It's been another fantastic day here at the Service, and even more special being able to talk to the American public about what we do here. So it's truly an honor to be here — thanks for having me.
Tom Rowland: Well, it's an honor to have you on. You have a very cool story, and I'd like to know more about it. I've been doing a little digging, but it all starts with an introduction to the outdoors for you to end up in a career like this. I'd imagine, as with most people, that interest probably started with someone introducing you to hunting or fishing at a young age and then developing from there. Is that your story?
Aurelia Skipwith: Yeah, that's pretty much my story, and it starts with family. I was born and raised in Indianapolis, so I'm a city girl, but my family hails from rural Mississippi. During the summers, my mom, my sister, my father and I would go down and spend time with my grandpa, my cousins, my aunts and uncles — they're all there in Mississippi. My grandpa had his garden, his hound dogs, and his pig farm, and he would always catch me outside hanging out with him, helping with what were duties for him but was just a lot of fun for me. It makes it that much more special when you're doing it with family, being outdoors with family — that really made a lasting impression. And fishing — I have this story from when I was about five years old. My uncle Joe, my great uncle, took the whole family to a state park about thirty minutes from Indianapolis. At the end of the day he called me "Wee Wee," which was my nickname, and said, "You caught the biggest fish." I looked at him and said, "I'm the only one who caught a fish." Those are the kind of memories you can look back on years later, and they're so impressionable, but you're having fun. That's what I want the next generation to have too, because it's those experiences at a young age that introduce you to conservation. Growing up, we didn't call it conservation — it was just a way of life, that's just what you did. Now conservation is really about being stewards of the land — if you take care of the land, it'll take care of you. It's about taking care of the wildlife. Here at the Service, we're the stewards for the American people; these are their resources. Knowing that's our responsibility makes it that much more impactful, knowing the decisions we make have long-lasting impact as well as being tradition for a lot of folks. I started in this field young, and it's lasted with me this long — it's one of those things I'll always have appreciation for, nature and what God has created for us.
Tom Rowland: So from that early introduction to the outdoors, did that have an impact on what you chose to study and what you were interested in at school?
Aurelia Skipwith: Yeah, I studied biology — I got my bachelor's in biology and my master's in molecular genetics in the animal sciences department at Purdue University. I worked for several years before going to get my law degree. I always enjoyed wildlife and the outdoors — that's really where my niche was, so that's what I ended up studying. When it came to law, that was from experiences working in the field and realizing there was a piece missing. I realized that if I really wanted to make a difference and be the best that I could be, I needed to figure out how to fix a problem. I was working at an agriculture company and found out that if you took the same product you had used here in the US for years to another country, you could go to jail there. So it was about — even if you have the best science in the world, proven, and you have laws and regulations that prevent you from using that science, then what good is that science? That's why I went back and got my law degree — because it's really the combination of putting those two together, realizing you need the laws to facilitate the use of that science for better management practices, and so on.
Tom Rowland: That's interesting. So when you coupled molecular biology and law together, I'd imagine that becoming director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service wasn't necessarily the goal — it would have been one of several possible career paths. When you were putting those two things together and devoting a significant portion of your life to law school, what did you think you might do with that combination if not this?
Aurelia Skipwith: You know, there are so many possibilities, and that's what I like about the law and about science — there's a lot of transferable knowledge that can go into specific niches. At least with law, it's about how you think about things and how you evaluate things. So there's a whole world of possibilities — even here at the Service, we're still figuring out how to make policies for wildlife and land management that are productive for multiple uses, and how we make that work for all the interested stakeholders. That's the foundation I have for myself, and it can fit into multiple areas — different organizations, careers, or companies. But it's been an honor to serve in this administration, to serve for President Trump and under the leadership of Secretary Bernhardt. It's really shown me that being at the Fish and Wildlife Service, you have such an impact on so many people in a variety of ways that's sometimes really understated. Thinking about a lot of what we've done this past year, it's absolutely historic — the amount of land we've opened for hunting and fishing is all based in science. You're looking at the regulations — how do you do it safely so you still have sustainable populations?
Tom Rowland: That's one of the main things I wanted to talk to you about today — sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, we have a bit of a delay on the Zoom here. But I want to talk about access. Is this figure correct — 2.3 million acres were opened this year?
Aurelia Skipwith: This year, yes.
Tom Rowland: Okay, 2.3 million acres opened to hunting and fishing — that's historic and really amazing. Can you describe that? If people see that figure, 2.3 million acres, how does that affect me, where did that land come from, and what was it being used for previously that now it's open to the public to hunt? I'm really interested in that.
Aurelia Skipwith: Yeah, so President Trump's administration has been focused on public access, because it's the people's land — how do we make that available? The Fish and Wildlife Service has 95 million land acres and over 700 million water acres. Between our National Wildlife Refuge System and our National Fish Hatcheries, we didn't have all those opportunities open, so we were directed by the President — the Secretary said, "Get it done," and I really like that aspect of just getting it done. This gave us the chance to ask what species are there that we could hunt where the populations allow it. We did the environmental assessments to confirm that, looking at species we hadn't hunted before — that's an opportunity. When you look at the lands, the question is, why weren't those lands open before? Because we could do it. Another helpful piece was working with the states — you can have the land there, but if people can't decipher the regulations, that becomes a hindrance. So the goal was making it more feasible, efficient, and streamlined. We looked at the states' regulations and aligned more with those, and we were actually able to reduce our own regulations by over 5,000 because they were either duplicative of what the states had or inconsistent with them. So it was a comprehensive approach — we have the acres, we can do it in a safe and responsible manner, so let's provide those opportunities for people to take part in their American heritage of hunting and fishing and say, "We're open for business."
Tom Rowland: Wow, that's really awesome. So just so the audience is clear — those 95 million acres you have under the Service's control, is that National Forest land, BLM land? What would people know those 95 million acres as?
Aurelia Skipwith: They would know those 95 million acres as national wildlife refuges. The Fish and Wildlife Service is an independent federal agency under the Department of the Interior — we're a land management agency, and we've been around for about a hundred and fifty years, the longest-existing conservation agency here in the US. So we have that rich history of management. One of the great things about a refuge or a hatchery is that it's like a living museum — these are lands you can actually go on to hunt, fish, bird watch, bike, or just stand and watch nature happen around you. Some other public lands don't have those same opportunities that the Fish and Wildlife Service lands do.
Tom Rowland: I love that. One of the things I wanted to talk about is that this 2.3 million acres came from the top down as a directive — but how can a private citizen who's interested in hunting and fishing, and in maintaining, protecting, and expanding the right to hunt and fish on public lands, get involved? Should they join certain conservation groups, or is there something private citizens can do to help continue expanding and protecting the access we have now?
Aurelia Skipwith: That's a great question. I also want to highlight that while it was 2.3 million acres this year, since President Trump came into office we've continually expanded that — in total, since 2017, we've opened over four million acres. Each year we put out a proposed rule listing the areas we're opening or proposing to open, and it's part of a public comment process. That's part of the transparency we have here at the Fish and Wildlife Service and in the federal government. When that proposed rule goes out, we're looking for feedback — good and bad — from the public: leave this area open, or maybe we shouldn't open that one because it's too close to something else. That's part of hearing from the public. People can also always visit our website, where you can look up state by state where our refuges and national fish hatcheries are, and we have a map showing the areas that have been expanded and opened for hunting and fishing. We're trying to make it as user-friendly as possible so people can take part in these opportunities.
Tom Rowland: And what about being involved in conservation groups — does that help protect our access as well as other public access, in your opinion?
Aurelia Skipwith: It's always helpful to be part of organizations that align with your principles. I think it's beneficial to find a conservation organization that aligns with your views — some of them are really good and sophisticated and can put comments together and submit them. But we're just as responsive to a single citizen who reaches out to us by email. We love to hear from the public, whether it's a conservation organization or an individual person — our job as a federal agency is to serve the American people, so we need to be responsive regardless of whether you're in a group or acting alone. But it's always great to be in a group too.
Tom Rowland: It's nice to know that as a private citizen, your voice is heard whether you're part of a group you donate to, or you're just sending an email — your voice is as important as someone else's in a big group. A big group has money, finances, and sometimes lobbyists that can help further their agenda, but a private citizen has a voice as well. Most people who listen to this podcast understand that hunters and fishermen aren't just among the most invested in these lands, but are also financially responsible for a tremendous amount of conservation funding through a self-imposed tax on the equipment we buy — and that money goes right back into conservation. How do anti-hunting comments factor into your planning, since you're basing decisions in science? Is there an education program for people who don't understand hunting or why it's important?
Aurelia Skipwith: I'm laughing a little on the inside, because you'll always have a group of folks who are just going to say no — that's always going to be there, like with any issue. Then you have other folks who say, "Tell me more about it, help educate me," and that's really powerful. And then there's a third group who are all in — they understand it, they're well-versed. I'll go through each group quickly, starting with the one you mentioned: the self-imposed tax that hunters and anglers pay. Bless them, because they truly are the advocates when it comes to conservation — they're putting their money where their mouth is. Because of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, those activities fund state fish and wildlife and game agencies to do their conservation work, and it really helps sustain our wildlife. That's why I was excited this year — you'll see this going forward on our duck stamp, where we're honoring our hunters, giving them acknowledgment that when it comes to conservation, they are truly the ones allowing us to be stewards for everyone else, even species that aren't hunted. Then there's the group in the middle — folks who wonder or question, or are just new to conservation or hunting, and there are a lot of programs out there for them. Working with state fish and game agencies, there's the "R3" approach — retain, recruit, reactivate — educating people of all ages, especially starting with youth. There are organizations doing youth hunts and veteran hunts, giving people that background and showing them how to hunt or fish safely. I go out and participate in multiple events to help facilitate and get more people involved. Then the last group will submit comments just like everyone else, and what we look for are substantive comments — ones based on science or that present a real proposal, not just "I don't like it," which doesn't give us anything to evaluate. We need something of substance, and we're always here to answer questions, which helps move things forward.
Tom Rowland: It's interesting — I'm sure you encounter those three groups often. You're working hand in hand with hunters and fishermen, but the other two groups probably make up the majority of people in the United States — people in the middle who've never been introduced to hunting or fishing and don't know anything about it, and certainly don't know that hunters and fishermen are financially responsible for funding conservation of species that aren't even hunted. That's why I ask about education programs — it's hard for a hunter to get accosted by someone asking, "Why are you doing this?" That's different than getting the information from scientists and the Fish and Wildlife Service directly, rather than someone screaming at a trailhead about whether hunting is good or beneficial. I'm always in favor of education programs, and I think it's a real success story — when you visit the museum Bass Pro Shops created, it's all about that theme of hunters and anglers funding conservation over the years. That's a good segue into another recent success story: the gray wolf being delisted. That's through your agency as well, is that correct?
Aurelia Skipwith: That is correct.
Tom Rowland: When a species is delisted, I know a long time ago when the American bald eagle was delisted, some people saw that as a tragedy, when it's really the greatest success story you could have. Especially for the gray wolf, which was almost extinct, was reintroduced, and has now come off the endangered species list — that's a huge success story for the whole country, for wildlife, and for your Service. So I just wonder where that news sits with people, and how you feel about the wolf, since it's a controversial animal anyway — how is that landing?
Aurelia Skipwith: It depends on which of those three groups you ask. I'm not sure if this podcast is live or not, but you'll see behind me I have a bald eagle taxidermy mount, and if you look around the rest of my office I have other taxidermy animals — but I'm very specific about what's in my office. The animals I have are animals that have recovered, because it's a success. The Endangered Species Act was created for species in peril, ones about to become extinct in the foreseeable future — that's when the US government comes in to say, okay, this animal is essentially in the hospital, how do we get it out? That's the end goal — the goal is not to keep them on the list, it's to show we've recovered the species to the point where the population is flourishing and the Fish and Wildlife Service no longer needs it under our jurisdiction. When it comes off the list, it returns to state management — it's not just out there unmanaged, it's now managed by the state. For the wolf, we first started trying to delist it back around 2007 and faced numerous court challenges along the way, but the science never changed — the Fish and Wildlife Service continually found the population biologically recovered. You look at the same five factors that put a species on the list in the first place.
Tom Rowland: Could you say what the five factors are that put a species on the list?
Aurelia Skipwith: You're looking at curtailment of habitat, the regulatory frameworks or assurances in place, other man-made or natural factors, and whether research or collection of the species has happened that impacts population numbers. Those are the factors you look at both for listing a species and for taking it off the list — and we reached the point of saying this is now biologically recovered, let's get it off the list and return it to state management. I think some see keeping a species on the list as proof the Endangered Species Act is working, but really the ESA is shown to work when we can collaborate with landowners — more than half of our 1,600 federally listed species are on private lands, so we have to work with private landowners, because that's where the habitat is. We have to work with organizations, states, and other federal agencies — there's a large amount of collaboration and cooperation required to reach this point, since these species were listed decades ago. This is truly a success story for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tom Rowland: It's interesting, because you could have a big rebound in one area, like around Yellowstone, and a lot of wolves there, but in another area, say around the Great Lakes, there might be more or fewer wolves, and in other parts of their native range they may not have rebounded to the same level. But you're looking at the overall population, and if it's sound and thriving nationally, that gets them off the list — and then it goes back to state management, where a state that's still struggling to repopulate an area might decide there's still no hunting for that animal there. Is that correct?
Aurelia Skipwith: That's correct.
Tom Rowland: That's interesting, because certain areas have tremendous food sources for wolves and they're doing very well there, while other areas haven't quite filtered back into their native range yet.
Aurelia Skipwith: Yeah, that's true. When we're looking at our list of species, we have recovery plans that outline what it takes to get a species from endangered down to threatened, and then what it takes to get it completely off the list. That's also our path forward, and it's beneficial for partners deciding how to make their investments to reach recovery — if it's more land the species needs, that gives them insight to invest in more habitat and range; if it's population numbers, we might look at captive breeding to supplement the population. Our recovery plans give guidance on the range we're targeting, which isn't necessarily the same as the historic range, because a lot has happened — human populations have increased a lot and spread out across the US since long before we were here. So there's a lot we look at that's guided by our recovery plans, until they say, yes, the species is flourishing.
Tom Rowland: What about species in the ocean — what's your role there? Is there a boundary you're responsible for? Are you involved in all US waters, fresh or salt water?
Aurelia Skipwith: No — we're responsible for what's here within the US, not the oceans; that falls under NOAA. It's funny — you might have salmon that, while they're in streams here in the US, fall under our jurisdiction, but as soon as they get to the ocean, that same fish falls under NOAA, and then it comes back and is under the US Fish and Wildlife Service again.
Tom Rowland: That's interesting — in a situation like that you'd have to work hand in hand with NOAA to get the science straight and make sure your decisions aren't conflicting.
Aurelia Skipwith: That's very true. We do work collaboratively with NOAA, and there are joint rules we work under too — they also administer the Endangered Species Act, as does the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Tom Rowland: Interesting, because just as you have animals that are threatened or endangered and rebound to historic numbers, that happens in the oceans too, with species like goliath grouper and sharks. I knew NOAA was the responsible agency, but I didn't know exactly how you worked together — that salmon example is perfect, showing how as soon as that fish enters the ocean it's under NOAA rather than Fish and Wildlife.
Tom Rowland: One of the things we touched on earlier is that you're self-admittedly a city girl. How is your agency focusing efforts on getting city folks, kids in particular, exposed to the outdoors? Are there programs for that?
Aurelia Skipwith: Yeah, there are programs — organizations out there that the Fish and Wildlife Service is engaging with. The Fish and Wildlife Service has 568 National Wildlife Refuges, and 101 of those are in urban settings, meaning within 25 miles of an area with 250,000 people or more. We've designated those as urban national wildlife refuges, so it's really not that far to go out and enjoy the great outdoors — you don't have to travel all the way to Wyoming or Montana. Our urban refuges are set up a little differently, because their success depends on the community — we have to be proactive about getting people to come engage with us, or it's hard to train the next generation or build volunteers. If it's not in a format that works for the community, it's hard to build those advocates and that interest in wildlife and the outdoors. So for our urban areas we have a heavy focus on engaging with the surrounding communities — we have outreach programs with schools, and in some districts we provide a lot of the curriculum for the science and outdoors piece, which is phenomenal because we can teach it in real time as we're experiencing it. In other districts, a fourth or third grade class might visit the refuge once a year, and some we see a couple of times each semester. There are multiple ways we're working on this, and we're always open to new ideas, because with 80% of the US population living in urban settings, we've got to engage with the urban community or we won't be able to fill our mission.
Tom Rowland: That's one of the reasons I asked, because it's a double-edged sword — as more people move to cities, fewer people live in rural areas, fewer people are farmers, and mega-farms have replaced small family farms where hunting was just part of what you did. Unless you have a family member who shows you how to hunt or fish, the chances of getting introduced to it are pretty slim. And if people aren't doing it, they don't care about it — they're not buying licenses or fishing equipment, so conservation falls to the bottom of everyone's list, whether it's voting for something or buying something that funds conservation. How much money does the duck stamp raise a year? I know it's a lot — do you know offhand?
Aurelia Skipwith: Since it started in 1934, it has brought in over $12 billion.
Tom Rowland: That's amazing. And the federal duck stamp, as most people listening will know, is part of your hunting license and required to duck hunt — that's a real success story too, along with the Wetlands Protection Act and all the money that goes toward protecting wetlands, ducks, and geese. If it weren't for that funding, you might have a shopping mall or airport built across every wetland, or wetlands could have been filled in entirely. But that was a huge conservation success story, protecting the wetlands, and the duck stamp money is a big part of that. I'm glad to hear about the outreach to urban communities, because without people being introduced to hunting and fishing and understanding what it's about, it just isn't a priority. So we've talked about a lot — I think it's exciting that access is such a big part of your agenda. Do you see that continuing as you move forward?
Aurelia Skipwith: Most definitely — that's why we're here, to serve. That means finding those opportunities to continue this trend, while also making sure we're working with private landowners, and that the decisions we make are always based in sound science, the rule of law, and common sense. Working lands still have to be working lands, so we use science to balance those interests — we're always looking for access, while also making sure we take care of the animals and that people can still make a living off the land they have.
Tom Rowland: The multi-use aspect you mentioned earlier is really important, but with all these different interests pulling on something like a struggling species or hunting rights, it's hard to balance. I guess it comes down to what the science says, and that's really where most of your decisions are based — is that right?
Aurelia Skipwith: Right. When we do our evaluations — say another federal agency comes to us needing to build a dam for water or utilities in an area — we work with them and look at the impact to the species there. If we see something that could adversely impact that species, we provide alternative measures or actions they can take to minimize that impact. There are discussions — it's an iterative process, knowing there are multiple uses of the same resources, but we use science to come to that final conclusion.
Tom Rowland: It's a big job, and you seem to be doing an excellent job keeping all of these things in mind, keeping wildlife front and center along with everything ancillary to that. It seems like a much bigger job than it looks like at first glance — I'm sure once you're in there, you realize how many people and organizations are tugging on every decision. But you seem to be doing a really good job with it, and I thank you for keeping access as a major priority, because for me access is the most important thing — well, conservation of the species is the most important, but having access to go see them, hunt them, fish for them, and access our public lands is super important. So thank you for that, and for spending this time with us. Is there anything you'd like to add before we finish up?
Aurelia Skipwith: President Trump and Secretary Bernhardt have been instrumental in making sure our public lands are open for the American people, and part of getting the message out about the US Fish and Wildlife Service is exactly what we're doing here today. The legacy I want to leave is this: one day, if you ask a little boy or a little girl what they want to be when they grow up, I would love for them to say they want to be an engineer, or in maintenance, or law enforcement, or a biologist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Everyone hears about the national parks, museums, and zoos, but it's the US Fish and Wildlife Service that's at the forefront of conservation of our wildlife. Being able to be here today and speak really helps get the message out about what we're doing, and allows us to make sure we're reaching that next generation so they have wildlife and land they can go hunt, fish, and enjoy like we're able to do today.
Tom Rowland: Nice. If people are interested in following along and getting more information, where would you point them? I know you're on Twitter — I've followed your account, and you're pretty active and do a good job on it. That might not be something people would expect from a director, but you do it well.
Aurelia Skipwith: Yeah, and that's the whole point — we have to figure out what methods of communication work for people, and if we're going to get our message out, we've got to communicate that way. So yes, I'm active on Twitter as US FWS Director, and you can always visit us at www.fws.gov. We'd love to hear from anyone — we're always here.
Tom Rowland: Great, well thank you so much for your time, Director Skipwith, and I look forward to doing this again. We'll do it again when there's some pending issue we can talk about, and maybe you can educate us on what's going on — I'd love to have you back on the show.
Aurelia Skipwith: That sounds fantastic.
Tom Rowland: Well, thank you very much. Everybody, go follow and get more information, and we'll see you again next week with another amazing guest. Alright, see you.
Subscribe to get the latest episodes, show notes, and exclusive content delivered straight to your inbox.