Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How Birds Began Migrating to the Arctic to Breed

News Feed
Tuesday, September 16, 2025

Golden autumn sunlight glints through the sedges and shrubs of the tundra in northern Alaska. Winter is approaching, and soon the region will be buried under snow and ice. For the past three months the chatter of the Arctic Tern colony has served as the soundtrack of the summer breeding season. But now, with daylight waning, the terns need to head south. In an instant, the usually noisy birds will fall silent, a behavior known as “dread.” Moments later the entire colony will take to the skies to begin its 25,000-mile journey to Antarctica—the longest known migration of any animal on Earth.The Arctic Tern is not the only bird that spends its breeding season in the Arctic. Billions of birds belonging to nearly 200 species—from small sparrows such as the Smith’s Longspur to large waterfowl such as the Greater White-fronted Goose—make their way to the far north every spring to reproduce and then make the return flight south for the winter. It’s no easy feat. Migration is costly. Even under ideal conditions, such an epic journey requires huge amounts of energy and exposes the travelers to dangerous weather. The mortality risk is high.But undertaking these trips allows the birds to take advantage of the seasonal conditions in these environments. The endless summer sun supports lush plant growth, flourishing insect swarms, and plentiful fish populations nourished by zooplankton blooms. With 24 hours of light a day, the birds can more easily catch food such as slippery fish and tiny insects. The round-the-clock daylight also means many of the animals that prey on birds are less likely to sneak up on a nest unnoticed.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Scientists have long wondered when birds began making these extraordinary journeys. New fossils that we and our colleagues have discovered and analyzed are finally providing some clues. A decade of expeditions to the Arctic Circle in Alaska has yielded a trove of bird fossils—including several hatchlings. The remains, which date to approximately 73 million years ago during the Late Cretaceous period, constitute the earliest known record of birds reproducing at polar latitude. The fossils hint that early birds may have already been traveling to the top of the world to raise the next generation of winged wonders.The polar migration of birds is one of nature’s great spectacles. To make the marathon journey to the Arctic, birds need physical stamina. They typically have various anatomical and behavioral adaptations to long-distance travel. The Arctic Tern, for example, is a marvel of efficiency. Its skeleton is lightweight and partially filled with air, allowing it to glide for long distances without expending any energy to flap its wings. It can eat on the move, plucking fish from the surface of the ocean as it flies. And, like many migratory birds, it can sleep while gliding.Migrants also need to be skilled navigators to reach their breeding ground. The precise methods by which birds find their way remain mysterious, but biologists generally agree that they use some combination of visual landmarks; the position of the sun, moon and stars; Earth’s magnetic field; and scent-based clues. A degree of learning also seems to be involved—in many species, first-time migrants appear to simply fly in the correct general direction, whereas experienced birds may use landmarks to take a more efficient route.Scientists have rediscovered dozens of three-dimensionally preserved teeth and bones from hatchling birds, including this tip of a beak, from the Arctic Circle in Alaska, showing that birds were reproducing at polar latitude by 73 million years ago.As impressive as the trip itself is, the Arctic migration is part of a much grander scheme: the birds are literally changing their ecosystems at their destinations. Although most Arctic birds are only physically in the Arctic for the breeding season, they spur the success of plants by pollinating flowers and dispersing seeds. They also help to manage insect and rodent populations and, by extension, help to control the spread of disease. In fact, birds are so critical to the success of their habitats that they are hypothesized to have played a key role in structuring remote ecosystems over deep time. Birds carry small organisms, such as plants and insects, over long distances to colonize remote polar regions. Were it not for the evolution of migratory birds, today’s tundra would be much more barren.Despite the importance of migration for the birds themselves and for the wider landscape they inhabit, we actually know very little about the origins of this phenomenon. To answer such a fundamental question, we have to look backward in time to the fossil record. Unfortunately, the polar fossil record is sparse, and most of the fossil-bearing sediments there are covered in ice or water. In spots where these sediments are exposed, fieldwork is often challenging, dangerous and expensive. Furthermore, bird bones are some of the rarest fossils in the world because they are small and fragile, making them less likely to survive long enough to fossilize, let alone to be discovered by paleontologists.In the rare cases when we do manage to find a fossil bird in the Arctic, it can be difficult to determine whether that bird was a visiting migrant or a permanent resident. Let’s say we find exactly the same species, in rocks from exactly the same time period, at both temperate and polar latitudes. Even then, we can’t say the extinct species migrated. There’s always the possibility that it merely inhabited a broad area year-round. The range of the modern-day Common Raven, for instance, encompasses practically the entire Northern Hemisphere.There is a clever way to home in on whether a fossil deposit contains migratory birds, however. The vast majority of living birds that inhabit polar regions migrate to lower latitudes after the breeding season ends. So, if we find fossil evidence of birds not just present but breeding at polar latitudes, we are headed in the right direction. This is where our work on fossils from a Late Cretaceous body of rock in northern Alaska called the Prince Creek Formation comes in.At the beginning of the 1993 movie Jurassic Park, a team of paleontologists gently brushes away sand to reveal an intact dinosaur skeleton in the badlands of Montana. Although fossil fieldwork is never as simple as removing loose sediment with a paintbrush (sorry, Steven Spielberg), Arctic fieldwork is in a league of its own. Winter brings temperatures as low as –50 degrees Fahrenheit, tons of snow and limited hours of daylight. The summer isn’t a walk in the park, either: giant mosquitoes are out in force, it’s almost always rainy and cold, and there is So. Much. Mud. Moreover, large mammals are out and about, making potentially dangerous wildlife encounters a concern.In August of 2022 one of us (Wilson) was on her second trip to the Arctic. It was about five in the morning when she awoke in her tent along the Colville River near the Prince Creek Formation. The sun had already been up for hours. With a couple more hours before she needed to be up, she was frustrated that she had to climb out of her warm sleeping bag to pee. She begrudgingly put on a hat and coat and unzipped her tent, still half asleep. Then her heart stopped. About 20 yards away, right near one of her crewmates’ tents, was a giant, fuzzy brown blob. She tried frantically to remember her bear training: Should she call out and try to wake everyone else up? Grab her bear spray? Try to scare it out of the camp? Only after putting herself through this roller coaster of emotions did she finally realize that the “bear” had a large set of horns on its head. Thankfully, the camp visitor was just a musk ox.Brittany Cheung (feature icons) and Rebecca Gelernter (bird illustrations)One may wonder why we bother with such extreme fieldwork. Wilson has often found herself wondering the same thing while working in –30-degree-F weather. But for the same reason the fieldwork is challenging, the fossil discoveries in the Arctic are some of the most exciting in the world. The Prince Creek Formation is located at a modern-day latitude of 70 degrees north and preserves fossils of animals that lived an estimated 72.8 million years ago. Plate tectonic activity has shifted Alaska south since that time. During the Late Cretaceous, these species would have been living at an even higher paleolatitude of 80 to 85 degrees north, practically at the North Pole. Summers would have brought plentiful light and warmth, but year-round occupants of the ecosystem had to endure winters with freezing temperatures, snowfall and about four months of continuous darkness.Paleontologists have known about dinosaurs from the Prince Creek Formation since 1983, but it’s only in the past couple of decades that work led by Patrick Druckenmiller of the University of Alaska Museum of the North and Gregory Erickson of Florida State University has begun to change our perception of Arctic life in the Cretaceous. Their team’s discovery of baby dinosaur fossils helped to demonstrate that dinosaurs were year-round inhabitants of the ecosystem because the baby dinosaurs would have been too young to migrate before the onset of winter. More recently, smaller bones found alongside the dinosaur fossils have led to another exciting discovery: the oldest evidence of polar bird reproduction.To date, we have identified more than 50 three-dimensionally preserved bird bones, along with dozens of teeth, from the site. The fossils are so tiny that they could all fit together in a single jam jar. Nevertheless, they represent one of the best collections of Late Cretaceous North American bird fossils and document the presence of at least three types of birds that lived alongside nonbird dinosaurs in Arctic Alaska. Not only that, but many of the fossils belong to baby birds and represent the earliest known growth stages of these groups of birds. Together these fossils demonstrate that birds have been nesting in the Arctic for at least 73 million years, nearly half the time they have existed on Earth.Close study of these delicate fossils has allowed us to reconstruct the birds of the Prince Creek Formation and their role in the ecosystem. Picture the Arctic in early summer 73 million years ago. The coastal floodplain that was desolate throughout the long winter is now lush with plant life and buzzing with insects. It’s the perfect setting for a newly hatched chick to grow up in. A head pops up from a bowl-shaped nest. It belongs to a baby ornithurine, a close relative of modern birds. He is still covered in downy feathers and scrambles about on skinny legs, not yet ready to take flight. While learning his way around the world, he takes special care to stick close to his parents. Unlike many other Late Cretaceous birds, he and his relatives have a toothless beak that serves as a precise tool for picking off creeping insects under their watchful eyes. This chick hatched a month ago and is already off to a strong start thanks to a new evolutionary innovation: the larger egg laid by advanced ornithurine birds.The coastal floodplain offers premium real estate for nesting. Dinosaurs of all kinds are preparing for the arrival of their young, and last year’s young are still recovering from their first Arctic winter. The ornithurine chick and his family aren’t the only types of birds here to call this landscape home. Kick-diving hesperornithines are hunting in the river waters, and ternlike ichthyornithines are wheeling overhead. And they’re all here for the same reason birds still nest in the Arctic today: lots and lots of sunshine.The Prince Creek birds provide definitive evidence that birds bred in the Arctic during the Cretaceous. Whether they migrated there from elsewhere to reproduce is tougher to establish. We can get at this question from a few angles, however. Let’s start by considering whether these birds had the ability to make such a journey in the first place. We know that any birds from the preceding Jurassic period are unlikely to have flown very far. Such early birds had not yet evolved many of the features that help modern birds fly skillfully and efficiently. For example, the iconic Archaeopteryx was capable of flight, but it appears to have had relatively low endurance and couldn’t perform complex maneuvers. The keeled sternum, or breastbone, that anchors the pectoral muscles in modern birds was either absent or at most a flat cartilaginous plate in Archaeopteryx. Clawed fingers interrupted the leading edge of its wing, and compared with birds of today, its feathers appear to have been less flexible and thus less adept at forming a coherent airfoil. Even its tail seems like an archaic reminder of Archaeopteryx’s grounded ancestry. Whereas modern birds have a short tail with a special plough-shaped bone called the pygostyle that lets them spread their tail feathers into a fan, Archaeopteryx retained a long and aerodynamically unwieldy tail similar to that of its theropod dinosaur ancestors.Researchers excavate a fossil site along the Colville River in northern Alaska.Over time birds evolved a panoply of skeletal and soft-tissue features that improved their flight capabilities. The bony tail became shorter, and the fingertips diminished from large claws to tiny bones hidden under the feathers. Advanced Cretaceous birds in the group Ornithothoraces, which includes the Prince Creek specimens, are in many ways the first birds with an unquestionably proficient flight apparatus. In these birds, the sternum bears a keel that provides additional attachment for the muscles that power the flight stroke. The shoulder joint is oriented higher on the back, allowing for better positioning of the wings. The first finger also anchors an alula, a cluster of small feathers that acts as a mini airfoil, helping in fine maneuvers. Thanks to these anatomical innovations, the Prince Creek birds (apart from the flightless hesperornithines) would have been capable of flying great distances to the Arctic to breed.A closer look at where these birds fit in the avian family tree provides more clues to how they came to reproduce in the far north. Ornithothoraces is divided into two groups: the enantiornithines and the ornithurines. Enantiornithines were the dominant birds for most of the Cretaceous period. These toothed birds ranged from sparrow- to turkey-size and showed a great diversity of forms, from Longirostravis, with its slender bill, to the blunt-toothed Bohaiornis, to the toucan-beaked Falcatakely. They lived almost everywhere.Ornithurines, which include modern birds and their close relatives, were rarer in Cretaceous ecosystems. Like enantiornithines, most Cretaceous ornithurines still had teeth. But advanced members of the group differed from enantiornithines in having fewer teeth; no gastralia, or belly ribs; and separated pubis bones, which allowed them to lay larger eggs. In contrast to the enantiornithines, which seem to have thrived in forested environments, ornithurines appear to have stuck largely to aquatic habitats during the Cretaceous.Intriguingly, the Prince Creek bird fossils all come from ornithurine birds. We have identified bones and teeth of three types so far: ternlike ichthyornithines; hesperornithines, which used their feet to propel themselves through water; and some nearly modern close relatives of living birds. Notably absent from our assemblage are any enantiornithines. If all Ornithothoraces were capable of long-distance flight, why are the otherwise ubiquitous enantiornithines missing from Alaska?To recover small bones and teeth, the team washes fossil-bearing sediments through screens and takes the resulting concentrate back to the laboratory for examination under a microscope.We suspect one answer lies in the egg. Anyone who regularly cooks eggs has probably noticed a little white blob, which for many people spoils the otherwise appetizing appearance of the yolk. This blob is the chalazae, a pair of protein-rich “tethers” that attach the yolk to the shell. Chalazae protect the embryo when birds rotate their eggs in the nest to ensure that the embryos get thoroughly bathed in nutrients during incubation. Reptiles, which lack chalazae, do not practice egg rotation. In fact, rotating a crocodile egg can disrupt development of and kill the embryo.So far paleontologists haven’t found any fossil chalazae that might allow them to trace the origin of this structure. But we have a hunch that it evolved in ornithurines because crocodilians, nonavian dinosaurs and enantiornithines all buried their eggs at least partially in the ground. Fossil clutches of enantiornithines demonstrate that they placed their eggs vertically in sediment or soil, leaving only the tops exposed. This arrangement would have stabilized the eggs, keeping the embryo safely attached to the yolk, but it was much less efficient for incubation. At best, brooding enantiornithines would have been able to make only partial contact with their eggs, resulting in poorer heat transfer and slower development of the embryo. In fact, some paleontologists speculate that they could not incubate via body contact at all, because the eggs were too small to support that parent’s weight.Perhaps the lack of this tiny embryo “seat belt” explains the absence of enantiornithines in the Arctic. Most modern birds that breed in northern Alaska nest from late May through June. For birds that can nest in vegetation, this is a lovely time of year. Yet even at the start of June, snow may still persist in patches, and the soil may remain chilly or even frozen. Temperatures were warmer in the Cretaceous, but the Arctic winter was still dark and cold, and spring would have taken longer to arrive than at more southern latitudes. For ground-nesting enantiornithines, cold soil would have been highly unwelcoming for nests.Why not just wait until later in the summer to nest? There may simply not have been enough time. Because enantiornithines could not provide full-contact incubation, their eggs probably took substantially longer to hatch than those of birds that can sit on their eggs in nests built in vegetation. The inexorable march of the seasons would have left almost no time for fledging for birds that hatched in late summer.The Arctic Tern migrates tens of thousands of miles every year between its breeding grounds in the Arctic and its wintering grounds in Antarctica.Mark Boulton/Science SourceStill, although enantiornithines took several years to grow to full size, they appear to have been highly precocial as hatchlings. In fact, there is some evidence they could fly within a day of hatching. That might seem to make up for the longer incubation time in the race against winter. But another aspect of enantiornithine biology might have thrown up a roadblock to Arctic breeding.Recently discovered fossils preserved in amber reveal that enantiornithines molted their body feathers all at once. This style of molting allowed them to trade their juvenile plumage for adult plumage rapidly when the time came. Yet it would have been a big liability in colder climates. If an early cold snap occurred during a molting interval, being caught half naked could have been deadly to small-bodied birds that had to generate their own body heat, as opposed to obtaining it from external sources such as the sun. By eliminating the possibility of nesting in the summer and overwintering, this molting pattern might have served as a barrier to those birds inhabiting Arctic environments year-round.Needing a longer runway to make it from the egg to migration-ready seems to have left enantiornithines unable to establish themselves in the Arctic. Ornithurines, in contrast, were able to exploit the Arctic at least seasonally thanks to evolutionary innovations in reproduction and development that occurred in their lineage.Our work on the Prince Creek birds is not over yet. We currently have only circumstantial evidence that they were migrating to the Arctic to breed rather than living there year-round. But we may be able to build our case with a technique called stable isotope analysis, which lets us use comparisons of the ratios of different forms, or isotopes, of the same element in an animal’s teeth or bones to infer its diet, reconstruct its environmental conditions, and even trace its movements over its lifetime.We know that dinosaurs were overwintering in the Arctic because their young would not have been ready to migrate anywhere the first winter after hatching. Perhaps comparisons of the isotopic compositions of bird and dinosaur teeth could inform us about the habits of the Prince Creek birds. Many biological factors, such as diet and metabolism, influence isotopic compositions, though. We still have a lot of groundwork to do to understand these factors before we apply stable isotope techniques to our fossil birds.Meanwhile let’s check in on our hatchling. The Late Cretaceous world is harsh for an ornithurine chick still learning the ropes. At just a month old, he is still very vulnerable and depends on his parents for comfort and safety. If he strays too far, he risks becoming dinner for one of the many dromaeosaurs who are also trying to provide for their young. Because of these predators, many of his siblings won’t survive to the end of the summer, and some just might end up as fossils in the long run. If he can make it a few months, perhaps he will fly south with his kin to somewhere sunny for the winter. He’d be one of the lucky ones. This scenario is the harsh reality of life at the top of the world. But in the remarkable adaptations and behaviors of birds lies hope for survival.

Tiny fossils hint at when birds began making their mind-blowing journey to the Arctic to breed

Golden autumn sunlight glints through the sedges and shrubs of the tundra in northern Alaska. Winter is approaching, and soon the region will be buried under snow and ice. For the past three months the chatter of the Arctic Tern colony has served as the soundtrack of the summer breeding season. But now, with daylight waning, the terns need to head south. In an instant, the usually noisy birds will fall silent, a behavior known as “dread.” Moments later the entire colony will take to the skies to begin its 25,000-mile journey to Antarctica—the longest known migration of any animal on Earth.

The Arctic Tern is not the only bird that spends its breeding season in the Arctic. Billions of birds belonging to nearly 200 species—from small sparrows such as the Smith’s Longspur to large waterfowl such as the Greater White-fronted Goose—make their way to the far north every spring to reproduce and then make the return flight south for the winter. It’s no easy feat. Migration is costly. Even under ideal conditions, such an epic journey requires huge amounts of energy and exposes the travelers to dangerous weather. The mortality risk is high.

But undertaking these trips allows the birds to take advantage of the seasonal conditions in these environments. The endless summer sun supports lush plant growth, flourishing insect swarms, and plentiful fish populations nourished by zooplankton blooms. With 24 hours of light a day, the birds can more easily catch food such as slippery fish and tiny insects. The round-the-clock daylight also means many of the animals that prey on birds are less likely to sneak up on a nest unnoticed.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Scientists have long wondered when birds began making these extraordinary journeys. New fossils that we and our colleagues have discovered and analyzed are finally providing some clues. A decade of expeditions to the Arctic Circle in Alaska has yielded a trove of bird fossils—including several hatchlings. The remains, which date to approximately 73 million years ago during the Late Cretaceous period, constitute the earliest known record of birds reproducing at polar latitude. The fossils hint that early birds may have already been traveling to the top of the world to raise the next generation of winged wonders.


The polar migration of birds is one of nature’s great spectacles. To make the marathon journey to the Arctic, birds need physical stamina. They typically have various anatomical and behavioral adaptations to long-distance travel. The Arctic Tern, for example, is a marvel of efficiency. Its skeleton is lightweight and partially filled with air, allowing it to glide for long distances without expending any energy to flap its wings. It can eat on the move, plucking fish from the surface of the ocean as it flies. And, like many migratory birds, it can sleep while gliding.

Migrants also need to be skilled navigators to reach their breeding ground. The precise methods by which birds find their way remain mysterious, but biologists generally agree that they use some combination of visual landmarks; the position of the sun, moon and stars; Earth’s magnetic field; and scent-based clues. A degree of learning also seems to be involved—in many species, first-time migrants appear to simply fly in the correct general direction, whereas experienced birds may use landmarks to take a more efficient route.

three-dimensionally preserved teeth

Scientists have rediscovered dozens of three-dimensionally preserved teeth and bones from hatchling birds, including this tip of a beak, from the Arctic Circle in Alaska, showing that birds were reproducing at polar latitude by 73 million years ago.

As impressive as the trip itself is, the Arctic migration is part of a much grander scheme: the birds are literally changing their ecosystems at their destinations. Although most Arctic birds are only physically in the Arctic for the breeding season, they spur the success of plants by pollinating flowers and dispersing seeds. They also help to manage insect and rodent populations and, by extension, help to control the spread of disease. In fact, birds are so critical to the success of their habitats that they are hypothesized to have played a key role in structuring remote ecosystems over deep time. Birds carry small organisms, such as plants and insects, over long distances to colonize remote polar regions. Were it not for the evolution of migratory birds, today’s tundra would be much more barren.

Despite the importance of migration for the birds themselves and for the wider landscape they inhabit, we actually know very little about the origins of this phenomenon. To answer such a fundamental question, we have to look backward in time to the fossil record. Unfortunately, the polar fossil record is sparse, and most of the fossil-bearing sediments there are covered in ice or water. In spots where these sediments are exposed, fieldwork is often challenging, dangerous and expensive. Furthermore, bird bones are some of the rarest fossils in the world because they are small and fragile, making them less likely to survive long enough to fossilize, let alone to be discovered by paleontologists.

In the rare cases when we do manage to find a fossil bird in the Arctic, it can be difficult to determine whether that bird was a visiting migrant or a permanent resident. Let’s say we find exactly the same species, in rocks from exactly the same time period, at both temperate and polar latitudes. Even then, we can’t say the extinct species migrated. There’s always the possibility that it merely inhabited a broad area year-round. The range of the modern-day Common Raven, for instance, encompasses practically the entire Northern Hemisphere.

There is a clever way to home in on whether a fossil deposit contains migratory birds, however. The vast majority of living birds that inhabit polar regions migrate to lower latitudes after the breeding season ends. So, if we find fossil evidence of birds not just present but breeding at polar latitudes, we are headed in the right direction. This is where our work on fossils from a Late Cretaceous body of rock in northern Alaska called the Prince Creek Formation comes in.

At the beginning of the 1993 movie Jurassic Park, a team of paleontologists gently brushes away sand to reveal an intact dinosaur skeleton in the badlands of Montana. Although fossil fieldwork is never as simple as removing loose sediment with a paintbrush (sorry, Steven Spielberg), Arctic fieldwork is in a league of its own. Winter brings temperatures as low as –50 degrees Fahrenheit, tons of snow and limited hours of daylight. The summer isn’t a walk in the park, either: giant mosquitoes are out in force, it’s almost always rainy and cold, and there is So. Much. Mud. Moreover, large mammals are out and about, making potentially dangerous wildlife encounters a concern.

In August of 2022 one of us (Wilson) was on her second trip to the Arctic. It was about five in the morning when she awoke in her tent along the Colville River near the Prince Creek Formation. The sun had already been up for hours. With a couple more hours before she needed to be up, she was frustrated that she had to climb out of her warm sleeping bag to pee. She begrudgingly put on a hat and coat and unzipped her tent, still half asleep. Then her heart stopped. About 20 yards away, right near one of her crewmates’ tents, was a giant, fuzzy brown blob. She tried frantically to remember her bear training: Should she call out and try to wake everyone else up? Grab her bear spray? Try to scare it out of the camp? Only after putting herself through this roller coaster of emotions did she finally realize that the “bear” had a large set of horns on its head. Thankfully, the camp visitor was just a musk ox.

Cladogram shows Ornithothoraces, including the subgroups Eurnithes, Ornithurae, Neornithes and Neognathae. Key features that define branches are illustrated with icons, including formation of a triosseal canal, open nests, loss of gastrulia, loss of teeth, etc. All branches are illustrated with a representative species illustration. Three from ornithurine clades Ichthyornithes, Hesperornithes, and possibly Galloanserae are highlighted as the only bird fossils found in the Cretaceous Prince Creek Formation.

Brittany Cheung (feature icons) and Rebecca Gelernter (bird illustrations)

One may wonder why we bother with such extreme fieldwork. Wilson has often found herself wondering the same thing while working in –30-degree-F weather. But for the same reason the fieldwork is challenging, the fossil discoveries in the Arctic are some of the most exciting in the world. The Prince Creek Formation is located at a modern-day latitude of 70 degrees north and preserves fossils of animals that lived an estimated 72.8 million years ago. Plate tectonic activity has shifted Alaska south since that time. During the Late Cretaceous, these species would have been living at an even higher paleolatitude of 80 to 85 degrees north, practically at the North Pole. Summers would have brought plentiful light and warmth, but year-round occupants of the ecosystem had to endure winters with freezing temperatures, snowfall and about four months of continuous darkness.

Paleontologists have known about dinosaurs from the Prince Creek Formation since 1983, but it’s only in the past couple of decades that work led by Patrick Druckenmiller of the University of Alaska Museum of the North and Gregory Erickson of Florida State University has begun to change our perception of Arctic life in the Cretaceous. Their team’s discovery of baby dinosaur fossils helped to demonstrate that dinosaurs were year-round inhabitants of the ecosystem because the baby dinosaurs would have been too young to migrate before the onset of winter. More recently, smaller bones found alongside the dinosaur fossils have led to another exciting discovery: the oldest evidence of polar bird reproduction.

To date, we have identified more than 50 three-dimensionally preserved bird bones, along with dozens of teeth, from the site. The fossils are so tiny that they could all fit together in a single jam jar. Nevertheless, they represent one of the best collections of Late Cretaceous North American bird fossils and document the presence of at least three types of birds that lived alongside nonbird dinosaurs in Arctic Alaska. Not only that, but many of the fossils belong to baby birds and represent the earliest known growth stages of these groups of birds. Together these fossils demonstrate that birds have been nesting in the Arctic for at least 73 million years, nearly half the time they have existed on Earth.

Close study of these delicate fossils has allowed us to reconstruct the birds of the Prince Creek Formation and their role in the ecosystem. Picture the Arctic in early summer 73 million years ago. The coastal floodplain that was desolate throughout the long winter is now lush with plant life and buzzing with insects. It’s the perfect setting for a newly hatched chick to grow up in. A head pops up from a bowl-shaped nest. It belongs to a baby ornithurine, a close relative of modern birds. He is still covered in downy feathers and scrambles about on skinny legs, not yet ready to take flight. While learning his way around the world, he takes special care to stick close to his parents. Unlike many other Late Cretaceous birds, he and his relatives have a toothless beak that serves as a precise tool for picking off creeping insects under their watchful eyes. This chick hatched a month ago and is already off to a strong start thanks to a new evolutionary innovation: the larger egg laid by advanced ornithurine birds.

The coastal floodplain offers premium real estate for nesting. Dinosaurs of all kinds are preparing for the arrival of their young, and last year’s young are still recovering from their first Arctic winter. The ornithurine chick and his family aren’t the only types of birds here to call this landscape home. Kick-diving hesperornithines are hunting in the river waters, and ternlike ichthyornithines are wheeling overhead. And they’re all here for the same reason birds still nest in the Arctic today: lots and lots of sunshine.

The Prince Creek birds provide definitive evidence that birds bred in the Arctic during the Cretaceous. Whether they migrated there from elsewhere to reproduce is tougher to establish. We can get at this question from a few angles, however. Let’s start by considering whether these birds had the ability to make such a journey in the first place. We know that any birds from the preceding Jurassic period are unlikely to have flown very far. Such early birds had not yet evolved many of the features that help modern birds fly skillfully and efficiently. For example, the iconic Archaeopteryx was capable of flight, but it appears to have had relatively low endurance and couldn’t perform complex maneuvers. The keeled sternum, or breastbone, that anchors the pectoral muscles in modern birds was either absent or at most a flat cartilaginous plate in Archaeopteryx. Clawed fingers interrupted the leading edge of its wing, and compared with birds of today, its feathers appear to have been less flexible and thus less adept at forming a coherent airfoil. Even its tail seems like an archaic reminder of Archaeopteryx’s grounded ancestry. Whereas modern birds have a short tail with a special plough-shaped bone called the pygostyle that lets them spread their tail feathers into a fan, Archaeopteryx retained a long and aerodynamically unwieldy tail similar to that of its theropod dinosaur ancestors.

Researchers excavate a fossil site along the Colville River in northern Alaska

Researchers excavate a fossil site along the Colville River in northern Alaska.

Over time birds evolved a panoply of skeletal and soft-tissue features that improved their flight capabilities. The bony tail became shorter, and the fingertips diminished from large claws to tiny bones hidden under the feathers. Advanced Cretaceous birds in the group Ornithothoraces, which includes the Prince Creek specimens, are in many ways the first birds with an unquestionably proficient flight apparatus. In these birds, the sternum bears a keel that provides additional attachment for the muscles that power the flight stroke. The shoulder joint is oriented higher on the back, allowing for better positioning of the wings. The first finger also anchors an alula, a cluster of small feathers that acts as a mini airfoil, helping in fine maneuvers. Thanks to these anatomical innovations, the Prince Creek birds (apart from the flightless hesperornithines) would have been capable of flying great distances to the Arctic to breed.

A closer look at where these birds fit in the avian family tree provides more clues to how they came to reproduce in the far north. Ornithothoraces is divided into two groups: the enantiornithines and the ornithurines. Enantiornithines were the dominant birds for most of the Cretaceous period. These toothed birds ranged from sparrow- to turkey-size and showed a great diversity of forms, from Longirostravis, with its slender bill, to the blunt-toothed Bohaiornis, to the toucan-beaked Falcatakely. They lived almost everywhere.

Ornithurines, which include modern birds and their close relatives, were rarer in Cretaceous ecosystems. Like enantiornithines, most Cretaceous ornithurines still had teeth. But advanced members of the group differed from enantiornithines in having fewer teeth; no gastralia, or belly ribs; and separated pubis bones, which allowed them to lay larger eggs. In contrast to the enantiornithines, which seem to have thrived in forested environments, ornithurines appear to have stuck largely to aquatic habitats during the Cretaceous.

Intriguingly, the Prince Creek bird fossils all come from ornithurine birds. We have identified bones and teeth of three types so far: ternlike ichthyornithines; hesperornithines, which used their feet to propel themselves through water; and some nearly modern close relatives of living birds. Notably absent from our assemblage are any enantiornithines. If all Ornithothoraces were capable of long-distance flight, why are the otherwise ubiquitous enantiornithines missing from Alaska?

Researchers excavate a fossil site along the Colville River in northern Alaska.

To recover small bones and teeth, the team washes fossil-bearing sediments through screens and takes the resulting concentrate back to the laboratory for examination under a microscope.

We suspect one answer lies in the egg. Anyone who regularly cooks eggs has probably noticed a little white blob, which for many people spoils the otherwise appetizing appearance of the yolk. This blob is the chalazae, a pair of protein-rich “tethers” that attach the yolk to the shell. Chalazae protect the embryo when birds rotate their eggs in the nest to ensure that the embryos get thoroughly bathed in nutrients during incubation. Reptiles, which lack chalazae, do not practice egg rotation. In fact, rotating a crocodile egg can disrupt development of and kill the embryo.

So far paleontologists haven’t found any fossil chalazae that might allow them to trace the origin of this structure. But we have a hunch that it evolved in ornithurines because crocodilians, nonavian dinosaurs and enantiornithines all buried their eggs at least partially in the ground. Fossil clutches of enantiornithines demonstrate that they placed their eggs vertically in sediment or soil, leaving only the tops exposed. This arrangement would have stabilized the eggs, keeping the embryo safely attached to the yolk, but it was much less efficient for incubation. At best, brooding enantiornithines would have been able to make only partial contact with their eggs, resulting in poorer heat transfer and slower development of the embryo. In fact, some paleontologists speculate that they could not incubate via body contact at all, because the eggs were too small to support that parent’s weight.

Perhaps the lack of this tiny embryo “seat belt” explains the absence of enantiornithines in the Arctic. Most modern birds that breed in northern Alaska nest from late May through June. For birds that can nest in vegetation, this is a lovely time of year. Yet even at the start of June, snow may still persist in patches, and the soil may remain chilly or even frozen. Temperatures were warmer in the Cretaceous, but the Arctic winter was still dark and cold, and spring would have taken longer to arrive than at more southern latitudes. For ground-nesting enantiornithines, cold soil would have been highly unwelcoming for nests.

Why not just wait until later in the summer to nest? There may simply not have been enough time. Because enantiornithines could not provide full-contact incubation, their eggs probably took substantially longer to hatch than those of birds that can sit on their eggs in nests built in vegetation. The inexorable march of the seasons would have left almost no time for fledging for birds that hatched in late summer.

White bird flying with its wings open

The Arctic Tern migrates tens of thousands of miles every year between its breeding grounds in the Arctic and its wintering grounds in Antarctica.

Mark Boulton/Science Source

Still, although enantiornithines took several years to grow to full size, they appear to have been highly precocial as hatchlings. In fact, there is some evidence they could fly within a day of hatching. That might seem to make up for the longer incubation time in the race against winter. But another aspect of enantiornithine biology might have thrown up a roadblock to Arctic breeding.

Recently discovered fossils preserved in amber reveal that enantiornithines molted their body feathers all at once. This style of molting allowed them to trade their juvenile plumage for adult plumage rapidly when the time came. Yet it would have been a big liability in colder climates. If an early cold snap occurred during a molting interval, being caught half naked could have been deadly to small-bodied birds that had to generate their own body heat, as opposed to obtaining it from external sources such as the sun. By eliminating the possibility of nesting in the summer and overwintering, this molting pattern might have served as a barrier to those birds inhabiting Arctic environments year-round.

Needing a longer runway to make it from the egg to migration-ready seems to have left enantiornithines unable to establish themselves in the Arctic. Ornithurines, in contrast, were able to exploit the Arctic at least seasonally thanks to evolutionary innovations in reproduction and development that occurred in their lineage.


Our work on the Prince Creek birds is not over yet. We currently have only circumstantial evidence that they were migrating to the Arctic to breed rather than living there year-round. But we may be able to build our case with a technique called stable isotope analysis, which lets us use comparisons of the ratios of different forms, or isotopes, of the same element in an animal’s teeth or bones to infer its diet, reconstruct its environmental conditions, and even trace its movements over its lifetime.

We know that dinosaurs were overwintering in the Arctic because their young would not have been ready to migrate anywhere the first winter after hatching. Perhaps comparisons of the isotopic compositions of bird and dinosaur teeth could inform us about the habits of the Prince Creek birds. Many biological factors, such as diet and metabolism, influence isotopic compositions, though. We still have a lot of groundwork to do to understand these factors before we apply stable isotope techniques to our fossil birds.

Meanwhile let’s check in on our hatchling. The Late Cretaceous world is harsh for an ornithurine chick still learning the ropes. At just a month old, he is still very vulnerable and depends on his parents for comfort and safety. If he strays too far, he risks becoming dinner for one of the many dromaeosaurs who are also trying to provide for their young. Because of these predators, many of his siblings won’t survive to the end of the summer, and some just might end up as fossils in the long run. If he can make it a few months, perhaps he will fly south with his kin to somewhere sunny for the winter. He’d be one of the lucky ones. This scenario is the harsh reality of life at the top of the world. But in the remarkable adaptations and behaviors of birds lies hope for survival.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Contributor: 'Save the whales' worked for decades, but now gray whales are starving

The once-booming population that passed California twice a year has cratered because of retreating sea ice. A new kind of intervention is needed.

Recently, while sailing with friends on San Francisco Bay, I enjoyed the sight of harbor porpoises, cormorants, pelicans, seals and sea lions — and then the spouting plume and glistening back of a gray whale that gave me pause. Too many have been seen inside the bay recently.California’s gray whales have been considered an environmental success story since the passage of the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act and 1986’s global ban on commercial whaling. They’re also a major tourist attraction during their annual 12,000-mile round-trip migration between the Arctic and their breeding lagoons in Baja California. In late winter and early spring — when they head back north and are closest to the shoreline, with the moms protecting the calves — they can be viewed not only from whale-watching boats but also from promontories along the California coast including Point Loma in San Diego, Point Lobos in Monterey and Bodega Head and Shelter Cove in Northern California.In 1972, there were some 10,000 gray whales in the population on the eastern side of the Pacific. Generations of whaling all but eliminated the western population — leaving only about 150 alive today off of East Asia and Russia. Over the four decades following passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the eastern whale numbers grew steadily to 27,000 by 2016, a hopeful story of protection leading to restoration. Then, unexpectedly over the last nine years, the eastern gray whale population has crashed, plummeting by more than half to 12,950, according to a recent report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the lowest numbers since the 1970s.Today’s changing ocean and Arctic ice conditions linked to fossil-fuel-fired climate change are putting this species again at risk of extinction.While there has been some historical variation in their population, gray whales — magnificent animals that can grow up to 50 feet long and weigh as much as 80,000 pounds — are now regularly starving to death as their main food sources disappear. This includes tiny shrimp-like amphipods in the whales’ summer feeding grounds in the Arctic. It’s there that the baleen filter feeders spend the summer gorging on tiny crustaceans from the muddy bottom of the Bering, Chuckchi and Beaufort seas, creating shallow pits or potholes in the process. But, with retreating sea ice, there is less under-ice algae to feed the amphipods that in turn feed the whales. Malnourished and starving whales are also producing fewer offspring.As a result of more whales washing up dead, NOAA declared an “unusual mortality event” in California in 2019. Between 2019 and 2025, at least 1,235 gray whales were stranded dead along the West Coast. That’s eight times greater than any previous 10-year average.While there seemed to be some recovery in 2024, 2025 brought back the high casualty rates. The hungry whales now come into crowded estuaries like San Francisco Bay to feed, making them vulnerable to ship traffic. Nine in the bay were killed by ship strikes last year while another 12 appear to have died of starvation.Michael Stocker, executive director of the acoustics group Ocean Conservation Research, has been leading whale-viewing trips to the gray whales’ breeding ground at San Ignacio Lagoon in Baja California since 2006. “When we started going, there would be 400 adult whales in the lagoon, including 100 moms and their babies,” he told me. “This year we saw about 100 adult whales, only five of which were in momma-baby pairs.” Where once the predators would not have dared to hunt, he said that more recently, “orcas came into the lagoon and ate a couple of the babies because there were not enough adult whales to fend them off.”Southern California’s Gray Whale Census & Behavior Project reported record-low calf counts last year.The loss of Arctic sea ice and refusal of the world’s nations recently gathered at the COP30 Climate Summit in Brazil to meet previous commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions suggest that the prospects for gray whales and other wildlife in our warming seas, including key food species for humans such as salmon, cod and herring, look grim.California shut down the nation’s last whaling station in 1971. And yet now whales that were once hunted for their oil are falling victim to the effects of the petroleum or “rock oil” that replaced their melted blubber as a source of light and lubrication. That’s because the burning of oil, coal and gas are now overheating our blue planet. While humans have gone from hunting to admiring whales as sentient beings in recent decades, our own intelligence comes into question when we fail to meet commitments to a clean carbon-free energy future. That could be the gray whales’ last best hope, if there is any.David Helvarg is the executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group, and co-host of “Rising Tide: The Ocean Podcast.” He is the author of the forthcoming “Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp.”

Pills that communicate from the stomach could improve medication adherence

MIT engineers designed capsules with biodegradable radio frequency antennas that can reveal when the pill has been swallowed.

In an advance that could help ensure people are taking their medication on schedule, MIT engineers have designed a pill that can report when it has been swallowed.The new reporting system, which can be incorporated into existing pill capsules, contains a biodegradable radio frequency antenna. After it sends out the signal that the pill has been consumed, most components break down in the stomach while a tiny RF chip passes out of the body through the digestive tract.This type of system could be useful for monitoring transplant patients who need to take immunosuppressive drugs, or people with infections such as HIV or TB, who need treatment for an extended period of time, the researchers say.“The goal is to make sure that this helps people receive the therapy they need to help maximize their health,” says Giovanni Traverso, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and an associate member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.Traverso is the senior author of the new study, which appears today in Nature Communications. Mehmet Girayhan Say, an MIT research scientist, and Sean You, a former MIT postdoc, are the lead authors of the paper.A pill that communicatesPatients’ failure to take their medicine as prescribed is a major challenge that contributes to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths and billions of dollars in health care costs annually.To make it easier for people to take their medication, Traverso’s lab has worked on delivery capsules that can remain in the digestive tract for days or weeks, releasing doses at predetermined times. However, this approach may not be compatible with all drugs.“We’ve developed systems that can stay in the body for a long time, and we know that those systems can improve adherence, but we also recognize that for certain medications, we can’t change the pill,” Traverso says. “The question becomes: What else can we do to help the person and help their health care providers ensure that they’re receiving the medication?”In their new study, the researchers focused on a strategy that would allow doctors to more closely monitor whether patients are taking their medication. Using radio frequency — a type of signal that can be easily detected from outside the body and is safe for humans — they designed a capsule that can communicate after the patient has swallowed it.There have been previous efforts to develop RF-based signaling devices for medication capsules, but those were all made from components that don’t break down easily in the body and would need to travel through the digestive system.To minimize the potential risk of any blockage of the GI tract, the MIT team decided to create an RF-based system that would be bioresorbable, meaning that it can be broken down and absorbed by the body. The antenna that sends out the RF signal is made from zinc, and it is embedded into a cellulose particle.“We chose these materials recognizing their very favorable safety profiles and also environmental compatibility,” Traverso says.The zinc-cellulose antenna is rolled up and placed inside a capsule along with the drug to be delivered. The outer layer of the capsule is made from gelatin coated with a layer of cellulose and either molybdenum or tungsten, which blocks any RF signal from being emitted.Once the capsule is swallowed, the coating breaks down, releasing the drug along with the RF antenna. The antenna can then pick up an RF signal sent from an external receiver and, working with a small RF chip, sends back a signal to confirm that the capsule was swallowed. This communication happens within 10 minutes of the pill being swallowed.The RF chip, which is about 400 by 400 micrometers, is an off-the-shelf chip that is not biodegradable and would need to be excreted through the digestive tract. All of the other components would break down in the stomach within a week.“The components are designed to break down over days using materials with well-established safety profiles, such as zinc and cellulose, which are already widely used in medicine,” Say says. “Our goal is to avoid long-term accumulation while enabling reliable confirmation that a pill was taken, and longer-term safety will continue to be evaluated as the technology moves toward clinical use.”Promoting adherenceTests in an animal model showed that the RF signal was successfully transmitted from inside the stomach and could be read by an external receiver at a distance up to 2 feet away. If developed for use in humans, the researchers envision designing a wearable device that could receive the signal and then transmit it to the patient’s health care team.The researchers now plan to do further preclinical studies and hope to soon test the system in humans. One patient population that could benefit greatly from this type of monitoring is people who have recently had organ transplants and need to take immunosuppressant drugs to make sure their body doesn’t reject the new organ.“We want to prioritize medications that, when non-adherence is present, could have a really detrimental effect for the individual,” Traverso says.Other populations that could benefit include people who have recently had a stent inserted and need to take medication to help prevent blockage of the stent, people with chronic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, and people with neuropsychiatric disorders whose conditions may impair their ability to take their medication.The research was funded by Novo Nordisk, MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, the Division of Gastroenterology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), which notes that the views and conclusions contained in this article are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the United States Government.

Costa Rica Rescues Orphaned Manatee Calf in Tortuguero

A young female manatee washed up alone on a beach in Tortuguero National Park early on January 5, sparking a coordinated effort by local authorities to save the animal. The calf, identified as a Caribbean manatee, appeared separated from its mother, with no immediate signs of her in the area. Park rangers received the first […] The post Costa Rica Rescues Orphaned Manatee Calf in Tortuguero appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

A young female manatee washed up alone on a beach in Tortuguero National Park early on January 5, sparking a coordinated effort by local authorities to save the animal. The calf, identified as a Caribbean manatee, appeared separated from its mother, with no immediate signs of her in the area. Park rangers received the first alert around 8 a.m. from visitors who spotted the stranded calf. Staff from the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) quickly arrived on site. They secured the animal to prevent further harm and began searching nearby waters and canals for the mother. Despite hours of monitoring, officials found no evidence of her presence. “The calf showed no visible injuries but needed prompt attention due to its age and vulnerability,” said a SINAC official involved in the operation. Without a parent nearby, the young manatee faced risks from dehydration and predators in the open beach environment. As the day progressed, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) joined the response. They decided to relocate the calf for specialized care. In a first for such rescues in the region, teams arranged an aerial transport to move the animal safely to a rehabilitation facility. This step aimed to give the manatee the best chance at survival while experts assess its health. Once at the center, the calf received immediate feeding and medical checks. During one session, it dozed off mid-meal, a sign that it felt secure in the hands of caretakers. Biologists now monitor the animal closely, hoping to release it back into the wild if conditions allow. Manatees, known locally as manatíes, inhabit the coastal waters and rivers of Costa Rica’s Caribbean side. They often face threats from boat strikes, habitat loss, and pollution. Tortuguero, with its network of canals and protected areas, serves as a key habitat for the species. Recent laws have strengthened protections, naming the manatee a national marine symbol to raise awareness. This incident highlights the ongoing challenges for wildlife in the area. Local communities and tourists play a key role in reporting sightings, which can lead to timely interventions. Authorities encourage anyone spotting distressed animals to contact SINAC without delay. The rescue team expressed gratitude to those who reported the stranding. Their quick action likely saved the calf’s life. As investigations continue, officials will determine if environmental factors contributed to the separation. For now, the young manatee rests under professional care, a small win for conservation efforts in Limón. The post Costa Rica Rescues Orphaned Manatee Calf in Tortuguero appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

New Records Reveal the Mess RFK Jr. Left When He Dumped a Dead Bear in Central Park

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he left a bear cub's corpse in Central Park in 2014 to "be fun." Records newly obtained by WIRED show what he left New York civil servants to clean up.

This story contains graphic imagery.On August 4, 2024, when now-US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was still a presidential candidate, he posted a video on X in which he admitted to dumping a dead bear cub near an old bicycle in Central Park 10 years prior, in a mystifying attempt to make the young bear’s premature death look like a cyclist’s hit and run.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. At the time, Kennedy said he was trying to get ahead of a story The New Yorker was about to publish that mentioned the incident. But in coming clean, Kennedy solved a decade-old New York City mystery: How and why had a young black bear—a wild animal native to the state, but not to modern-era Manhattan—been found dead under a bush near West 69th Street in Central Park?WIRED has obtained documents that shed new light on the incident from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation via a public records request. The documents—which include previously unseen photos of the bear cub—resurface questions about the bizarre choices Kennedy says he made, which left city employees dealing with the aftermath and lamenting the cub’s short life and grim fate.A representative for Kennedy did not respond for comment. The New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Parks Department referred WIRED to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). NYDEC spokesperson Jeff Wernick tells WIRED that its investigation into the death of the bear cub was closed in late 2014 “due to a lack of sufficient evidence” to determine if state law was violated. They added that New York’s environmental conservation law forbids “illegal possession of a bear without a tag or permit and illegal disposal of a bear,” and that “the statute of limitations for these offenses is one year.”The first of a number of emails between local officials coordinating the handling of the baby bear’s remains was sent at 10:16 a.m. on October 6, 2014. Bonnie McGuire, then-deputy director at Urban Park Rangers (UPR), told two colleagues that UPR sergeant Eric Handy had recently called her about a “dead black bear” found in Central Park.“NYPD told him they will treat it like a crime scene so he can’t get too close,” McGuire wrote. “I’ve asked him to take pictures and send them over and to keep us posted.”“Poor little guy!” McGuire wrote in a separate email later that morning.According to emails obtained by WIRED, Handy updated several colleagues throughout the day, noting that the NYDEC had arrived on scene, and that the agency was planning to coordinate with the NYPD to transfer the body to the Bronx Zoo, where it would be inspected by the NYPD’s animal cruelty unit and the ASPCA. (This didn’t end up happening, as the NYDEC took the bear to a state lab near Albany.)Imagery of the bear has been public before—local news footage from October 2014 appears to show it from a distance. However, the documents WIRED obtained show previously unpublished images that investigators took of the bear on the scene, which Handy sent as attachments in emails to McGuire. The bear is seen laying on its side in an unnatural position. Its head protrudes from under a bush and rests next to a small patch of grass. Bits of flesh are visible through the bear’s black fur, which was covered in a few brown leaves.Courtesy of NYC Parks

U.S. Military Ends Practice of Shooting Live Animals to Train Medics to Treat Battlefield Wounds

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act bans the use of live animals in live fire training exercises and prohibits "painful" research on domestic cats and dogs

U.S. Military Ends Practice of Shooting Live Animals to Train Medics to Treat Battlefield Wounds The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act bans the use of live animals in live fire training exercises and prohibits “painful” research on domestic cats and dogs Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent January 5, 2026 12:00 p.m. The U.S. military will no longer shoot live goats and pigs to help combat medics learn to treat battlefield injuries. Pexels The United States military is no longer shooting live animals as part of its trauma training exercises for combat medics. The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which was enacted on December 18, bans the use of live animals—including dogs, cats, nonhuman primates and marine mammals—in any live fire trauma training conducted by the Department of Defense. It directs military leaders to instead use advanced simulators, mannequins, cadavers or actors. According to the Associated Press’ Ben Finley, the bill ends the military’s practice of shooting live goats and pigs to help combat medics learn to treat battlefield injuries. However, the military is allowed to continue other practices involving animals, including stabbing, burning and testing weapons on them. In those scenarios, the animals are supposed to be anesthetized, per the AP. “With today’s advanced simulation technology, we can prepare our medics for the battlefield while reducing harm to animals,” says Florida Representative Vern Buchanan, who advocated for the change, in a statement shared with the AP. He described the military’s practices as “outdated and inhumane” and called the move a “major step forward in reducing unnecessary suffering.” Quick fact: What is the National Defense Authorization Act? The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, is a law passed each year that authorizes the Department of Defense’s appropriated funds, greenlights the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons programs and sets defense policies and restrictions, among other activities, for the upcoming fiscal year. Organizations have opposed the military’s use of live animals in trauma training, too, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA, a nonprofit animal advocacy group, described the legislation as a “major victory for animals” that will “save countless animals from heinous cruelty” in a statement. The legislation also prohibits “painful research” on domestic cats and dogs, though exceptions can be made under certain circumstances, such as interests of national security. “Painful” research includes any training, experiments or tests that fall into specific pain categories outlined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For example, military cats and dogs can no longer be exposed to extreme environmental conditions or noxious stimuli they cannot escape, nor can they be forced to exercise to the point of distress or exhaustion. The bill comes amid a broader push to end the use of live animals in federal tests, studies and training, reports Linda F. Hersey for Stars and Stripes. After temporarily suspending live tissue training with animals in 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard made the ban permanent in 2018. In 2024, U.S. lawmakers directed the Department of Veterans Affairs to end its experiments on cats, dogs and primates. And in May 2025, the U.S. Navy announced it would no longer conduct research testing on cats and dogs. As the Washington Post’s Ernesto Londoño reported in 2013, the U.S. military has used animals for medical training since at least the Vietnam War. However, the practice largely went unnoticed until 1983, when the U.S. Army planned to anesthetize dogs, hang them from nylon mesh slings and shoot them at an indoor firing range in Maryland. When activists and lawmakers learned of the proposal, they decried the practice and convinced then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to ban the shooting of dogs. However, in 1984, the AP reported the U.S. military would continue shooting live goats and pigs for wound treatment training, with a military medical study group arguing “there is no substitute for the live animals as a study object for hands-on training.” In the modern era, it’s not clear how often and to what extent the military uses animals, per the AP. And despite the Department of Defense’s past efforts to minimize the use of animals for trauma training, a 2022 report from the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog agency charged with providing fact-based, nonpartisan information to Congress, determined that the agency was “unable to fully demonstrate the extent to which it has made progress.” The Defense Health Agency, the U.S. government entity responsible for the military’s medical training, says in a statement shared with the AP that it “remains committed to replacement of animal models without compromising the quality of medical training,” including the use of “realistic training scenarios to ensure medical providers are well-prepared to care for the combat-wounded.” Animal activists say technology has come a long way in recent decades so, beyond the animal welfare concerns, the military simply no longer needs to use live animals for training. Instead, military medics can simulate treating battlefield injuries using “cut suits,” or realistic suits with skin, blood and organs that are worn by a live person to mimic traumatic injuries. However, not everyone agrees. Michael Bailey, an Army combat medic who served two tours in Iraq, told the Washington Post in 2013 that his training with a sedated goat was invaluable. “You don’t get that [sense of urgency] from a mannequin,” he told the publication. “You don’t get that feeling of this mannequin is going to die. When you’re talking about keeping someone alive when physics and the enemy have done their best to do the opposite, it’s the kind of training that you want to have in your back pocket.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.