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.

In 1909, Theodore Roosevelt Embarked on an Ambitious Expedition to East Africa. Here’s Why His Trip Still Matters Today

News Feed
Tuesday, September 23, 2025

In 1909, Theodore Roosevelt Embarked on an Ambitious Expedition to East Africa. Here’s Why His Trip Still Matters Today The 26th U.S. president is both lauded as a conservationist and condemned as a big-game hunter. A new book recounts the historic journey on which he helped form a significant collection of animals at the National Museum of Natural History Roosevelt stands between the Sister of Rev. W.F. Bumsted, at that time mother superior of the convent, and the young King Daudi of Uganda, and is surrounded by members of the king's court at St. Mary's Convent, near Kampala, December 22, 1909 Unidentified photographer / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University On a frigid day in March 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt rode slowly through the streets of Washington, D.C., his horse-drawn carriage navigating nearly a foot of snow and slush on the way to the inauguration of his successor, William Howard Taft. The short trip marked Roosevelt’s exit from the White House, but his thoughts were already on the next great journey of his life. Before the month was over, Roosevelt again found himself surrounded by cheering throngs at another historic departure. This time, in New York, Roosevelt was boarding the Hamburg to embark on an adventure that captivated people all over the world: the Smithsonian expedition to British East Africa. Eager to escape the responsibilities of the presidency and give Taft space to govern, Roosevelt longed to get away, enjoy camp life and take to the field with his gun. Roosevelt and his son Kermit would bag elephants, rhinoceroses and lions—but theirs was no simple big-game safari. The 1909-1910 expedition, through parts of what is now Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya, included leading scientists. It produced a written and photographic record of an Africa that few in the West had seen, and it diligently described and preserved hundreds of African animals that became a foundational collection for the newly minted National Museum of Natural History. In a new title from Smithsonian Books, Theodore Roosevelt and the Smithsonian Expedition to British East Africa, 1909-1910, readers can experience the expedition in Roosevelt’s own words, written during evenings in his camp tent. The book features 28 excerpts from his chronicle of the trip, African Game Trails: An Account of the African Wanderings of an American Hunter-Naturalist. It’s illustrated with more than 100 fascinating expedition photographs, many taken by Kermit Roosevelt, that capture East Africa’s landscapes, fauna and people. Author Frank H. Goodyear III provides thoughtful historical context and commentary on the expedition’s enduring scientific significance, while exploring how the endeavor reflects the era’s colonial imperialist attitudes toward Africa and its people. “He saw a long tradition of exploration and seeking out new knowledge, and trying to connect worlds together,” Goodyear says. “Of course, exploration is also part of empire building, so that’s a part of the legacy here as well. But I think he very much saw himself as participating in this history of Western exploration.” Accompany Theodore Roosevelt on his Smithsonian safari to East Africa with new context and perspectives. Key takeaways: Theodore Roosevelt's trip to East Africa In 1909, just after his presidency ended, Roosevelt and his son Kermit journeyed to East Africa to collect specimens for the Smithsonian's new National Museum of Natural History. The museum opened to the public in 1910, and the many animal and plant species that Roosevelt and fellow naturalists brought back from the trip helped form a significant collection for the museum of today. It was a crucial time for such a trip. Roosevelt saw how railroads and settlers had forever altered the wild landscape of the American West. In Africa, such change was happening quickly. Roosevelt knew it, as did many others who were scrambling to collect and document African species and ecosystems that were on the brink of radical transformation or extinction. “It’s a real transitional moment in the history of East Africa,” Goodyear says. “Colonization is really beginning to take hold. You have the construction of the Uganda Railroad that literally opens up the territory; you have the beginnings of large-scale ranching and farming; you have colonial settlements being established throughout the land. So it was clear that the impact on indigenous ecosystems was going to be profound.” Roosevelt presents Kermit to King Daudi of Uganda, December 21, 1909 Charles W. Hattersley / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University Roosevelt’s environmental legacy remains complex. He’s been celebrated as a conservationist and criticized for being a big-game hunter, especially by those who had recently witnessed the destruction of the buffalo and the native ecosystems of the American West. “It was controversial in its own day, and it remains controversial. What some perceived as the wanton destruction of wildlife offended many people,” Goodyear says. But Roosevelt was aware of this criticism and determined that this trip would not be an exercise in “game butchery.” “I would a great deal rather have this a scientific trip, which would give it a purpose and character, than simply a prolonged holiday of mine,” he explained in a letter to his friend Henry Cabot Lodge. Roosevelt’s passion for the natural sciences was real and lifelong, notes Darrin Lunde, mammals collections manager at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. “Yes, he liked big-game hunting,” Lunde says. “But he was so much more than a hunter. It genuinely was a scientific expedition led by a former president who himself could hold his own as an ornithologist and a mammalogist.” He was an eternal naturalist who collected specimens and started his own museum as a child. “He was one of those guys who liked to get out with his gun, collect things, do taxidermy, describe new species,” Lunde says, noting that Roosevelt originally went to Harvard University to be a naturalist, a part of him that always remained. He kept correspondence with leading naturalists and curators throughout his life. For Roosevelt, this trip “started out as a hunt and very quickly became a museum expedition,” Lunde says. “Because this was a chance to live that boyhood dream of being this great, classical kind of museum naturalist.” Roosevelt on his favorite horse, Tranquillity, in Nairobi, Kenya, July 26, 1909 Paul Thompson / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University Planning the trip in the White House, Roosevelt proposed an intriguing partnership to Secretary of the Smithsonian Charles Doolittle Walcott. If Walcott would provide naturalists who could identify, describe and catalog the species of Africa, and prepare specimens for transport, Roosevelt would donate them as a collection for the new National Museum of Natural History. “Now, it seems to me that this [trip] opens the best chance for the National Museum to get a fine collection not only of the big-game beasts, but of the smaller mammals and birds of Africa; and looking at it dispassionately, it seems to me that the chance ought not to be neglected,” Roosevelt wrote, asking to except only “a very few personal trophies of little scientific value which for some reason I might like to keep.” The deal also had a financial angle. Roosevelt was adamant about paying for his own expenses, but the extensive scientific aspects of the expedition needed funding. Walcott, thrilled at the prospect of securing a landmark collection for the museum and publicizing it by partnering with a former president, was willing to help. The Smithsonian pledged $30,000, all raised by private subscription, avoiding the need to ask Congress for funds, which Roosevelt found ethically and politically distasteful. The museum got more than its money’s worth. Three naturalists—Edgar Mearns, co-founder of the American Ornithologists’ Union and a former military surgeon; Edmund Heller, an expert in large mammals and African game; and J. Alden Loring, a small mammal specialist with experience on Smithsonian scientific expeditions—worked tirelessly collecting mice, bats, birds and shrews, as well as pressing plants and stockpiling interesting insects. Roosevelt’s Life-Histories of African Game Animals chronicled the collection—which includes thousands of mammal, bird and plant specimens. Each one was measured, cataloged and painstakingly preserved for travel. Many were photographed, and expedition members recorded the time and place of collection habitats, the subjects’ behavior in the field, and other details. The effort produced a collection of enduring value. “All of those Roosevelt specimens, for the most part, are still here,” Lunde says. “We have the best collection of East African mammals anywhere, in large part because of the contributions of the Roosevelt expedition.” The collection is irreplaceable, he notes, because it occurred at a time when scientists could get not just the little mammals still collected today, but the elephants, rhinos and other megafauna still prevalent at the time. Even now, Lunde notes, scientists study the collection: “It’s all represented here, and people are coming in all the time and using those specimens, to this day, and publishing on it.” Mammals Exhibits, Natural History Building, Square-Lipped Rhinoceros Group, 1913 Unidentified photographer / Smithsonian Institution Archives Because Roosevelt was one of the world’s most famous people, countless reporters hoped to accompany the expedition and scoop its stories of African adventure. He rejected them all, preferring to control the narrative and tell the story himself—while earning cash to help fund his personal expenses. Scribner’s paid $50,000 for Roosevelt to write 12 articles from the field, set to appear in Scribner’s Monthly, and the publishing house also agreed to print African Game Trails, which would bring the series together in one volume. Kermit, who had trained as the expedition’s primary photographer, and others supplemented this with an incredible array of pictures. These had scientific value; showing African fauna in their native habitats gave a fuller picture of Africa’s ecosystems. They also helped to promote the trip abroad and enhance Roosevelt’s hale and hardy image. “The photography is what first drew me into this project,” says Goodyear, a former curator of photography at the National Portrait Gallery. “They are absolutely extraordinary: extraordinary in the story they tell and extraordinary in their depth. There are more than 1,000 of these photos, and they comprise an incredible record of the people, places and fauna of East Africa.” (Though not part of the expedition, British photographer and filmmaker Cherry Kearton was also in Africa at the time and crossed paths with Roosevelt at several points, shooting footage that would become the 1910 film Roosevelt in Africa.) A herd of elephants in an open forest, 1909 Kermit Roosevelt / Smithsonian Institution Archives Kenyan entomologist Dino Martins has written a valuable afterword to Goodyear’s book. In it, he stresses that, like other African expeditions and collecting trips, Roosevelt’s group depended on support and knowledge from a wide range of individuals and communities, including traders, local leaders, porters and guides who knew how to travel and survive in a challenging landscape. “Though often unacknowledged, that local knowledge and support made it possible for Western explorers to undertake these journeys, for without them their expeditions would certainly have failed,” Martins writes. Despite their importance to the journey, African people are largely absent from Roosevelt’s narrative in African Game Trails. “Outside of himself, Kermit and a few heads of game, nearly all other figures in the book are shadowy, and even Africa itself does not stand out very clearly. The book is avowedly Rooseveltian,” a reviewer from the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote of Roosevelt’s work in 1910. Although the critic dubbed this trait the “greatest charm” of African Game Trails, today, this narrow focus seems like a lost opportunity. “Some of the Kikuyu assistants and guides did become really close to Roosevelt,” Goodyear says. “But you can only kind of tease out the nature of these relationships by a few passing comments.” Tohan with a Marabou stork, 1909 Kermit Roosevelt / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University The expedition has also contributed a lasting scientific legacy in Africa; it was one of the first to extensively collect and document animals and plants beyond the classic big-game species. In 2015, a “Roosevelt Resurvey” expedition included Kenyan scientists and naturalists co-leading fieldwork and research programs that retraced the footsteps of the Roosevelt expedition. It found a rodent species on Mount Kenya that had been described by the Smithsonian naturalists during the original expedition, then “lost” for more than a century afterward. “Two data points on this little rat, over a century apart: a lesson on how much we still need to learn about the world around us,” writes Martins. And while the Roosevelt expedition literally put a site called Rhino Camp on the map by shooting white rhinos there, its work studying the many smaller species and their interactions has since proved very valuable. “They documented the fauna of that region when it was intact, when it still had white rhino roaming around, so we have an accurate picture before it was perturbed in any serious way,” Lunde explains. More than a century later, that landscape has changed dramatically, with rhinos and other animals wiped out and people moved in. But the Uganda Wildlife Authority is working at the Ajai Reserve to restore the ecosystem and its megafauna, including the iconic white rhino. Doing so successfully is a complicated endeavor, but it’s being informed by the time-machine-like snapshot gathered by the early 20th-century expedition. “Without it, efforts to create these parks would just be guesswork,” says Lunde, whose team at the museum is aiding the effort by surveying existing species to contrast with the past. “Now, the Ugandans are actually doing it, and thanks to the Roosevelt-Smithsonian expedition they are able to refer to a record of what these habitats were like in their natural state.” From left to right: Theodore Roosevelt, R.J. Cuninghame and Edgar A. Mearns, on the way to Kijabe, Kenya, June 3, 1909 Unidentified photographer / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University Get the latest on what's happening At the Smithsonian in your inbox.

The 26th U.S. president is both lauded as a conservationist and condemned as a big-game hunter. A new book recounts the historic journey on which he helped form a significant collection of animals at the National Museum of Natural History

In 1909, Theodore Roosevelt Embarked on an Ambitious Expedition to East Africa. Here’s Why His Trip Still Matters Today

The 26th U.S. president is both lauded as a conservationist and condemned as a big-game hunter. A new book recounts the historic journey on which he helped form a significant collection of animals at the National Museum of Natural History

Roosevelt with king and his court in Uganda
Roosevelt stands between the Sister of Rev. W.F. Bumsted, at that time mother superior of the convent, and the young King Daudi of Uganda, and is surrounded by members of the king's court at St. Mary's Convent, near Kampala, December 22, 1909 Unidentified photographer / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University

On a frigid day in March 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt rode slowly through the streets of Washington, D.C., his horse-drawn carriage navigating nearly a foot of snow and slush on the way to the inauguration of his successor, William Howard Taft. The short trip marked Roosevelt’s exit from the White House, but his thoughts were already on the next great journey of his life.

Before the month was over, Roosevelt again found himself surrounded by cheering throngs at another historic departure. This time, in New York, Roosevelt was boarding the Hamburg to embark on an adventure that captivated people all over the world: the Smithsonian expedition to British East Africa.

Eager to escape the responsibilities of the presidency and give Taft space to govern, Roosevelt longed to get away, enjoy camp life and take to the field with his gun. Roosevelt and his son Kermit would bag elephants, rhinoceroses and lions—but theirs was no simple big-game safari. The 1909-1910 expedition, through parts of what is now Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya, included leading scientists. It produced a written and photographic record of an Africa that few in the West had seen, and it diligently described and preserved hundreds of African animals that became a foundational collection for the newly minted National Museum of Natural History.

In a new title from Smithsonian Books, Theodore Roosevelt and the Smithsonian Expedition to British East Africa, 1909-1910, readers can experience the expedition in Roosevelt’s own words, written during evenings in his camp tent. The book features 28 excerpts from his chronicle of the trip, African Game Trails: An Account of the African Wanderings of an American Hunter-Naturalist. It’s illustrated with more than 100 fascinating expedition photographs, many taken by Kermit Roosevelt, that capture East Africa’s landscapes, fauna and people. Author Frank H. Goodyear III provides thoughtful historical context and commentary on the expedition’s enduring scientific significance, while exploring how the endeavor reflects the era’s colonial imperialist attitudes toward Africa and its people.

“He saw a long tradition of exploration and seeking out new knowledge, and trying to connect worlds together,” Goodyear says. “Of course, exploration is also part of empire building, so that’s a part of the legacy here as well. But I think he very much saw himself as participating in this history of Western exploration.”

Accompany Theodore Roosevelt on his Smithsonian safari to East Africa with new context and perspectives.

Key takeaways: Theodore Roosevelt's trip to East Africa

  • In 1909, just after his presidency ended, Roosevelt and his son Kermit journeyed to East Africa to collect specimens for the Smithsonian's new National Museum of Natural History.
  • The museum opened to the public in 1910, and the many animal and plant species that Roosevelt and fellow naturalists brought back from the trip helped form a significant collection for the museum of today.

It was a crucial time for such a trip. Roosevelt saw how railroads and settlers had forever altered the wild landscape of the American West. In Africa, such change was happening quickly. Roosevelt knew it, as did many others who were scrambling to collect and document African species and ecosystems that were on the brink of radical transformation or extinction.

“It’s a real transitional moment in the history of East Africa,” Goodyear says. “Colonization is really beginning to take hold. You have the construction of the Uganda Railroad that literally opens up the territory; you have the beginnings of large-scale ranching and farming; you have colonial settlements being established throughout the land. So it was clear that the impact on indigenous ecosystems was going to be profound.”

Roosevelt presents Kermit to King Daudi of Uganda, December 21, 1909
Roosevelt presents Kermit to King Daudi of Uganda, December 21, 1909 Charles W. Hattersley / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University

Roosevelt’s environmental legacy remains complex. He’s been celebrated as a conservationist and criticized for being a big-game hunter, especially by those who had recently witnessed the destruction of the buffalo and the native ecosystems of the American West. “It was controversial in its own day, and it remains controversial. What some perceived as the wanton destruction of wildlife offended many people,” Goodyear says. But Roosevelt was aware of this criticism and determined that this trip would not be an exercise in “game butchery.”

“I would a great deal rather have this a scientific trip, which would give it a purpose and character, than simply a prolonged holiday of mine,” he explained in a letter to his friend Henry Cabot Lodge.

Roosevelt’s passion for the natural sciences was real and lifelong, notes Darrin Lunde, mammals collections manager at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. “Yes, he liked big-game hunting,” Lunde says. “But he was so much more than a hunter. It genuinely was a scientific expedition led by a former president who himself could hold his own as an ornithologist and a mammalogist.”

He was an eternal naturalist who collected specimens and started his own museum as a child. “He was one of those guys who liked to get out with his gun, collect things, do taxidermy, describe new species,” Lunde says, noting that Roosevelt originally went to Harvard University to be a naturalist, a part of him that always remained. He kept correspondence with leading naturalists and curators throughout his life.

For Roosevelt, this trip “started out as a hunt and very quickly became a museum expedition,” Lunde says. “Because this was a chance to live that boyhood dream of being this great, classical kind of museum naturalist.”

Roosevelt on his favorite horse, Tranquillity, in Nairobi, July 26, 1909
Roosevelt on his favorite horse, Tranquillity, in Nairobi, Kenya, July 26, 1909 Paul Thompson / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University

Planning the trip in the White House, Roosevelt proposed an intriguing partnership to Secretary of the Smithsonian Charles Doolittle Walcott. If Walcott would provide naturalists who could identify, describe and catalog the species of Africa, and prepare specimens for transport, Roosevelt would donate them as a collection for the new National Museum of Natural History.

“Now, it seems to me that this [trip] opens the best chance for the National Museum to get a fine collection not only of the big-game beasts, but of the smaller mammals and birds of Africa; and looking at it dispassionately, it seems to me that the chance ought not to be neglected,” Roosevelt wrote, asking to except only “a very few personal trophies of little scientific value which for some reason I might like to keep.”

The deal also had a financial angle. Roosevelt was adamant about paying for his own expenses, but the extensive scientific aspects of the expedition needed funding. Walcott, thrilled at the prospect of securing a landmark collection for the museum and publicizing it by partnering with a former president, was willing to help. The Smithsonian pledged $30,000, all raised by private subscription, avoiding the need to ask Congress for funds, which Roosevelt found ethically and politically distasteful. The museum got more than its money’s worth.

Three naturalists—Edgar Mearns, co-founder of the American Ornithologists’ Union and a former military surgeon; Edmund Heller, an expert in large mammals and African game; and J. Alden Loring, a small mammal specialist with experience on Smithsonian scientific expeditions—worked tirelessly collecting mice, bats, birds and shrews, as well as pressing plants and stockpiling interesting insects. Roosevelt’s Life-Histories of African Game Animals chronicled the collection—which includes thousands of mammal, bird and plant specimens. Each one was measured, cataloged and painstakingly preserved for travel. Many were photographed, and expedition members recorded the time and place of collection habitats, the subjects’ behavior in the field, and other details.

The effort produced a collection of enduring value.

“All of those Roosevelt specimens, for the most part, are still here,” Lunde says. “We have the best collection of East African mammals anywhere, in large part because of the contributions of the Roosevelt expedition.” The collection is irreplaceable, he notes, because it occurred at a time when scientists could get not just the little mammals still collected today, but the elephants, rhinos and other megafauna still prevalent at the time. Even now, Lunde notes, scientists study the collection: “It’s all represented here, and people are coming in all the time and using those specimens, to this day, and publishing on it.”

Mammals Exhibits, Natural History Building, Square-Lipped Rhinoceros Group, 1913
Mammals Exhibits, Natural History Building, Square-Lipped Rhinoceros Group, 1913 Unidentified photographer / Smithsonian Institution Archives

Because Roosevelt was one of the world’s most famous people, countless reporters hoped to accompany the expedition and scoop its stories of African adventure. He rejected them all, preferring to control the narrative and tell the story himself—while earning cash to help fund his personal expenses.

Scribner’s paid $50,000 for Roosevelt to write 12 articles from the field, set to appear in Scribner’s Monthly, and the publishing house also agreed to print African Game Trails, which would bring the series together in one volume.

Kermit, who had trained as the expedition’s primary photographer, and others supplemented this with an incredible array of pictures. These had scientific value; showing African fauna in their native habitats gave a fuller picture of Africa’s ecosystems. They also helped to promote the trip abroad and enhance Roosevelt’s hale and hardy image.

“The photography is what first drew me into this project,” says Goodyear, a former curator of photography at the National Portrait Gallery. “They are absolutely extraordinary: extraordinary in the story they tell and extraordinary in their depth. There are more than 1,000 of these photos, and they comprise an incredible record of the people, places and fauna of East Africa.”

(Though not part of the expedition, British photographer and filmmaker Cherry Kearton was also in Africa at the time and crossed paths with Roosevelt at several points, shooting footage that would become the 1910 film Roosevelt in Africa.)

A herd of elephants in an open forest, 1909
A herd of elephants in an open forest, 1909 Kermit Roosevelt / Smithsonian Institution Archives

Kenyan entomologist Dino Martins has written a valuable afterword to Goodyear’s book. In it, he stresses that, like other African expeditions and collecting trips, Roosevelt’s group depended on support and knowledge from a wide range of individuals and communities, including traders, local leaders, porters and guides who knew how to travel and survive in a challenging landscape.

“Though often unacknowledged, that local knowledge and support made it possible for Western explorers to undertake these journeys, for without them their expeditions would certainly have failed,” Martins writes.

Despite their importance to the journey, African people are largely absent from Roosevelt’s narrative in African Game Trails.

“Outside of himself, Kermit and a few heads of game, nearly all other figures in the book are shadowy, and even Africa itself does not stand out very clearly. The book is avowedly Rooseveltian,” a reviewer from the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote of Roosevelt’s work in 1910. Although the critic dubbed this trait the “greatest charm” of African Game Trails, today, this narrow focus seems like a lost opportunity.

“Some of the Kikuyu assistants and guides did become really close to Roosevelt,” Goodyear says. “But you can only kind of tease out the nature of these relationships by a few passing comments.”

Tohan, a guide, and a Marabou stork, 1909
Tohan with a Marabou stork, 1909 Kermit Roosevelt / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University

The expedition has also contributed a lasting scientific legacy in Africa; it was one of the first to extensively collect and document animals and plants beyond the classic big-game species.

In 2015, a “Roosevelt Resurvey” expedition included Kenyan scientists and naturalists co-leading fieldwork and research programs that retraced the footsteps of the Roosevelt expedition. It found a rodent species on Mount Kenya that had been described by the Smithsonian naturalists during the original expedition, then “lost” for more than a century afterward. “Two data points on this little rat, over a century apart: a lesson on how much we still need to learn about the world around us,” writes Martins.

And while the Roosevelt expedition literally put a site called Rhino Camp on the map by shooting white rhinos there, its work studying the many smaller species and their interactions has since proved very valuable. “They documented the fauna of that region when it was intact, when it still had white rhino roaming around, so we have an accurate picture before it was perturbed in any serious way,” Lunde explains.

More than a century later, that landscape has changed dramatically, with rhinos and other animals wiped out and people moved in. But the Uganda Wildlife Authority is working at the Ajai Reserve to restore the ecosystem and its megafauna, including the iconic white rhino. Doing so successfully is a complicated endeavor, but it’s being informed by the time-machine-like snapshot gathered by the early 20th-century expedition.

“Without it, efforts to create these parks would just be guesswork,” says Lunde, whose team at the museum is aiding the effort by surveying existing species to contrast with the past. “Now, the Ugandans are actually doing it, and thanks to the Roosevelt-Smithsonian expedition they are able to refer to a record of what these habitats were like in their natural state.”

Theodore Roosevelt, R.J. Cuninghame and Edgar A. Mearns, on the way to Kijabe, Kenya, June 3, 1909
From left to right: Theodore Roosevelt, R.J. Cuninghame and Edgar A. Mearns, on the way to Kijabe, Kenya, June 3, 1909 Unidentified photographer / Theodore Roosevelt Collection, Houghton Library, Harvard University

Get the latest on what's happening At the Smithsonian in your inbox.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Montana Judge Allows 2025-26 Wolf Hunting and Trapping Regulations to Stand While Lawsuit Proceeds

A Montana judge is allowing the wolf hunting and trapping regulations the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted earlier this year to stand, saying it's doubtful hunters and trappers will meet the record-high quota of 458 wolves this season

A Helena judge has allowed the wolf hunting and trapping regulations the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted earlier this year to stand, despite flagging “serious concerns” about the state’s ability to accurately estimate Montana’s wolf population.In a 43-page opinion, District Court Judge Christopher Abbott wrote that leaving the 2025-2026 hunting and trapping regulations in place while he considers an underlying lawsuit will not “push wolf populations to an unsustainable level.”In its lawsuit, first filed in 2022, WildEarth Guardians, Project Coyote, Footloose Montana and Gallatin Wildlife Association challenged four laws adopted by the 2021 Montana Legislature aimed at driving wolf numbers down. Earlier this year, the environmental groups added new claims to their lawsuit and asked the court to stop the 2025-2026 regulations from taking effect. The groups argued that a record-high wolf hunting and trapping quota of 458 wolves, paired with the potential for another 100 wolves to be killed for preying on livestock or otherwise getting into conflict with humans, would push the state’s wolf population “toward long-term decline and irreparable harm.” According to the state’s population estimates — figures that the environmental groups dispute — there are approximately 1,100 wolves across the state.In a Dec. 19 press release about the decision, Connie Poten with Footloose Montana described the ruling as a “severe setback,” but argued that the “resulting slaughter will only strengthen our ongoing case for the protection of this vital species.”“The fight for wolves is deep and broad, based in science, connection, humaneness and necessity. Wolves will not die in vain,” Poten said.Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks declined to comment on the order, citing the ongoing litigation. Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and the Outdoor Heritage Coalition, nonprofit groups that backed the state’s position in the litigation, could not be reached for comment on the order by publication time Monday afternoon.The order comes more than a month after a two-hour hearing on the request for an injunction, and about three weeks after the trapping season opened across the majority of the state. The trapping season is set to close no later than March 15, 2026.During the Nov. 14 hearing at the Lewis and Clark County courthouse, Alexander Scolavino argued on behalf of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission that hunters, trappers and wildlife managers won’t come close to killing 558 wolves this season. Scolavino added that the highest number shot or trapped in a single season was 350 wolves in 2020 — well shy of the 458-wolf quota the commission, the governor-appointed board that sets hunting seasons for game species and furbearers, adopted in August.Abbott agreed with Scolavino’s argument, writing in his order that it’s unlikely that hunters and trappers will “achieve anything near the quota established by the commission.” To reinforce his claim, he noted that hunters and trappers have not killed 334 wolves — the quota commissioners adopted for the 2024-2025 season — in any of the past five seasons. “In short, nothing suggests that the 2025/2026 season is likely to push wolf populations to an unsustainable level or cause them irreparable injury,” he concluded.Abbott seemed to suggest that livestock-oriented conflicts are waning and that it’s unlikely that the state will authorize the killing of 100 “conflict” wolves. He noted that livestock depredations dropped from “a high of 233 in 2009 to 100 per year or less today.” On other issues — namely the Constitutional environmental rights asserted by the plaintiffs and the reliability of the state’s wolf population-estimation model — Abbott appeared to side with the plaintiffs. Those issues remain unresolved in the ongoing litigation before the court.Abbott wrote that the plaintiffs “are likely to show that a sustainable wolf population in Montana forms part of the ‘environmental life support system’ of the state.” The environmental groups had argued in their filings that the existing wolf-management framework “will deplete and degrade Montana’s wolf population,” running afoul of the state’s duty to “preserve the right to a clean and healthful environment.”In his order, Abbott incorporated material from the plaintiffs’ filings regarding the economic and ecological benefits of wolves, including “the suppression of overabundant elk, deer and coyote populations,” “restoring vegetation that aids water quality, songbirds and insect pollinators,” and “generating income and jobs” by contributing to the wildlife-watching economy anchored by Yellowstone National Park.Abbott also expressed “serious concerns” about the way the state estimates wolf numbers — a model that relies, among other things, on wolf sightings reported by elk hunters — but ultimately concluded that the court is currently “unequipped” to referee “the palace intrigues of academia” in the wildlife population-modeling arena. In the press release about the decision, the environmental groups described these pieces of Abbott’s order as “serious and valid questions” that the court must still address.Another lawsuit relating to the 2025-2026 wolf regulations is ongoing. On Sept. 30, Rep. Paul Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, and Sen. Shannon Maness, R-Dillon, joined an outfitter from Gallatin County and the Outdoor Heritage Coalition (which intervened in the environmental groups’ litigation) to push the state to loosen regulations by, for example, lengthening the trapping season and expanding the tools hunters or trappers can use to pursue and kill wolves. The plaintiffs in that lawsuit argue that liberalizing the hunting and trapping season would reaffirm the “opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals enshrined in the Montana Constitution,” and bring the state into alignment with a 2021 law directing the commission to adopt regulations with an “intent to reduce the wolf population.”According to the state’s wolf management dashboard, 83 wolves have been shot or trapped as of Dec. 22. The department closed the two wolf management units closest to Yellowstone National Park to further hunting and trapping earlier this year after three wolves were killed in each of those units. This story was originally published by Montana Free Press and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Pink platypus spotted in Gippsland is cute – but don’t get too excited

Biologist says monotreme a Victorian fisher has nicknamed Pinky is ‘unusual but not exceptional’Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastCody Stylianou thought he saw a huge trout. But, skimming just below the surface, it was moving differently than a fish would.The creature surfaced and, amazed, the Victorian fisher reached for his phone. Swimming in front of him was a pink platypus. Continue reading...

Cody Stylianou thought he saw a huge trout. But, skimming just below the surface, it was moving differently than a fish would.The creature surfaced and, amazed, the Victorian fisher reached for his phone. Swimming in front of him was a pink platypus.Stylianou regularly fishes in the Gippsland spot, which he is keeping secret to protect the rare animal. He thinks it could be the same one he saw years ago, just older and bigger.“The bill and feet are super obviously pink,” he says. “When he did go a bit further into sunlit areas, he was easy to follow underwater, which is how I got so many videos of him surfacing.”Stylianou had been on his first trout fishing trip of the season in September when he saw the platypus, which he has nicknamed “Pinky”. He watched it feed at the top of the tannin-stained river for about 15 minutes.Sign up: AU Breaking News email“I’ve seen other platypus in the same river system, just regular coloured ones,” he says. “Probably about five to eight of them over the years, from memory. Normally, they just pop up at the top of the water and then disappear once they see me.”After Stylinaou shared footage of the monotreme, commenters online speculated that it could have been a rare albino platypus. But the biologist Jeff Williams says it is just lighter in colour than what most would expect.“Platypus do vary a lot in colour,” the director of the Australian Platypus Conservancy says. “And this one’s at the extreme end of the light ones. It’s not one that we consider should be added to the list of albino and leucistic ones.”Just as humans have different coloured hair or skin pigment, platypus also come in different variations, Williams says. He said the platypus captured on video was “unusual but not exceptional”.“What I’ve seen and what every other leading platypus person has looked at, it says, is that it’s well within the sort of variation in colour that one would expect,” he says.“Let’s put it this way, it’s cute, but it’s not a breakthrough … We think this is just one of the extreme ends. Every so often, you will get a genetic anomaly that just throws up things, just as it does with some humans, who have more freckles and so on.“It’s somewhat unusual, but it’s nothing to get particularly excited about, we’re afraid.”Sniffer dogs are being trained to track down threatened platypus populations – videoThe platypus is listed as near-threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature. There has also been a decline in Victorian populations, making them more vulnerable, Williams says.“Platypus were in significant decline up until about the 1990s when all the impact of European settlement on our waterways was becoming apparent,” he says.“We messed up pretty much the flow of every river we’ve got. We cleared native vegetation along most of our waterways, and, not surprisingly, that put a lot of pressure on the platypus population.”Replanting programs along the waterways, and consideration of environmental impacts near rivers, have started to help the population come back.“We’ve still got a way to go, and we can’t be complacent,” Williams says.“But the good news at the moment is most of the survey work that’s being done around the place is suggesting numbers that are coming back, certainly the number of sightings in some places where there was concern.”

A “scientific sandbox” lets researchers explore the evolution of vision systems

The AI-powered tool could inform the design of better sensors and cameras for robots or autonomous vehicles.

Why did humans evolve the eyes we have today?While scientists can’t go back in time to study the environmental pressures that shaped the evolution of the diverse vision systems that exist in nature, a new computational framework developed by MIT researchers allows them to explore this evolution in artificial intelligence agents.The framework they developed, in which embodied AI agents evolve eyes and learn to see over many generations, is like a “scientific sandbox” that allows researchers to recreate different evolutionary trees. The user does this by changing the structure of the world and the tasks AI agents complete, such as finding food or telling objects apart.This allows them to study why one animal may have evolved simple, light-sensitive patches as eyes, while another has complex, camera-type eyes.The researchers’ experiments with this framework showcase how tasks drove eye evolution in the agents. For instance, they found that navigation tasks often led to the evolution of compound eyes with many individual units, like the eyes of insects and crustaceans.On the other hand, if agents focused on object discrimination, they were more likely to evolve camera-type eyes with irises and retinas.This framework could enable scientists to probe “what-if” questions about vision systems that are difficult to study experimentally. It could also guide the design of novel sensors and cameras for robots, drones, and wearable devices that balance performance with real-world constraints like energy efficiency and manufacturability.“While we can never go back and figure out every detail of how evolution took place, in this work we’ve created an environment where we can, in a sense, recreate evolution and probe the environment in all these different ways. This method of doing science opens to the door to a lot of possibilities,” says Kushagra Tiwary, a graduate student at the MIT Media Lab and co-lead author of a paper on this research.He is joined on the paper by co-lead author and fellow graduate student Aaron Young; graduate student Tzofi Klinghoffer; former postdoc Akshat Dave, who is now an assistant professor at Stony Brook University; Tomaso Poggio, the Eugene McDermott Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, an investigator in the McGovern Institute, and co-director of the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines; co-senior authors Brian Cheung, a postdoc in the  Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines and an incoming assistant professor at the University of California San Francisco; and Ramesh Raskar, associate professor of media arts and sciences and leader of the Camera Culture Group at MIT; as well as others at Rice University and Lund University. The research appears today in Science Advances.Building a scientific sandboxThe paper began as a conversation among the researchers about discovering new vision systems that could be useful in different fields, like robotics. To test their “what-if” questions, the researchers decided to use AI to explore the many evolutionary possibilities.“What-if questions inspired me when I was growing up to study science. With AI, we have a unique opportunity to create these embodied agents that allow us to ask the kinds of questions that would usually be impossible to answer,” Tiwary says.To build this evolutionary sandbox, the researchers took all the elements of a camera, like the sensors, lenses, apertures, and processors, and converted them into parameters that an embodied AI agent could learn.They used those building blocks as the starting point for an algorithmic learning mechanism an agent would use as it evolved eyes over time.“We couldn’t simulate the entire universe atom-by-atom. It was challenging to determine which ingredients we needed, which ingredients we didn’t need, and how to allocate resources over those different elements,” Cheung says.In their framework, this evolutionary algorithm can choose which elements to evolve based on the constraints of the environment and the task of the agent.Each environment has a single task, such as navigation, food identification, or prey tracking, designed to mimic real visual tasks animals must overcome to survive. The agents start with a single photoreceptor that looks out at the world and an associated neural network model that processes visual information.Then, over each agent’s lifetime, it is trained using reinforcement learning, a trial-and-error technique where the agent is rewarded for accomplishing the goal of its task. The environment also incorporates constraints, like a certain number of pixels for an agent’s visual sensors.“These constraints drive the design process, the same way we have physical constraints in our world, like the physics of light, that have driven the design of our own eyes,” Tiwary says.Over many generations, agents evolve different elements of vision systems that maximize rewards.Their framework uses a genetic encoding mechanism to computationally mimic evolution, where individual genes mutate to control an agent’s development.For instance, morphological genes capture how the agent views the environment and control eye placement; optical genes determine how the eye interacts with light and dictate the number of photoreceptors; and neural genes control the learning capacity of the agents.Testing hypothesesWhen the researchers set up experiments in this framework, they found that tasks had a major influence on the vision systems the agents evolved.For instance, agents that were focused on navigation tasks developed eyes designed to maximize spatial awareness through low-resolution sensing, while agents tasked with detecting objects developed eyes focused more on frontal acuity, rather than peripheral vision.Another experiment indicated that a bigger brain isn’t always better when it comes to processing visual information. Only so much visual information can go into the system at a time, based on physical constraints like the number of photoreceptors in the eyes.“At some point a bigger brain doesn’t help the agents at all, and in nature that would be a waste of resources,” Cheung says.In the future, the researchers want to use this simulator to explore the best vision systems for specific applications, which could help scientists develop task-specific sensors and cameras. They also want to integrate LLMs into their framework to make it easier for users to ask “what-if” questions and study additional possibilities.“There’s a real benefit that comes from asking questions in a more imaginative way. I hope this inspires others to create larger frameworks, where instead of focusing on narrow questions that cover a specific area, they are looking to answer questions with a much wider scope,” Cheung says.This work was supported, in part, by the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Mathematics for the Discovery of Algorithms and Architectures (DIAL) program.

Common household rat poisons found to pose unacceptable risk to wildlife as animal advocates push for ban

Environmentalists say proposed temporary suspension of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides ‘doesn’t go far enough’Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastCommonly available rat poisons pose unacceptable risks to native wildlife, according to a government review that has stopped short of recommending a blanket ban on the products, to the consternation of animal advocates.The long-awaited review of first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides – FGARs and SGARs – has recommended the cancellation of some products, but a large array of waxes, pellets and blocks could continue to be sold to consumers subject to stricter labelling and conditions of use. Continue reading...

Commonly available rat poisons pose unacceptable risks to native wildlife, according to a government review that has stopped short of recommending a blanket ban on the products, to the consternation of animal advocates.The long-awaited review of first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides – FGARs and SGARs – has recommended the cancellation of some products, but a large array of waxes, pellets and blocks could continue to be sold to consumers subject to stricter labelling and conditions of use.Baits containing anticoagulant rodenticides are widely available in supermarkets and garden stores such as Bunnings, Coles and Woolworths.The baits have come under scrutiny because they have been found in dead native animals such as tawny frogmouths, powerful owls and quolls that had eaten poisoned rats and mice.The second-generation products are more toxic and are banned from public sale in the United States and parts of Canada and highly restricted in the European Union.Commercially available rat poisons have been found in dead native animals. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The GuardianConsumers can identify SGARs in Australia by checking whether they contain one of the following active ingredients: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, difenacoum and flocoumafen. There are three FGAR active ingredients registered for use in Australia: warfarin, coumatetralyl and diphacinone.The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), in response to the review which was published Tuesday, has proposed a temporary suspension of SGARs while public consultation about the recommendations is under way. If the suspension goes ahead the APVMA said the affected products could still be used, but only in accordance with the proposed stricter conditions.“If suspended, the importation or manufacture of SGARs would be illegal. They could only be sold if they meet the new strict conditions around pack size and use,” a spokesperson said.Holly Parsons, of BirdLife Australia, said the review “doesn’t go far enough and crucially, fails to address secondary poisoning that is killing owls and birds of prey” such as when, for example, a native bird ate a poisoned rat.“Despite overwhelming evidence provided in support of the complete removal of SGARs from public sale, we’re yet to see proposed restrictions that come close to achieving this,” Parsons said.She said consumers should be able to “walk into stores under the assumption that the products available to them aren’t going to inadvertently kill native animals” but the APVMA has put “the responsibility on to the consumer with an expectation that labels are fully read and followed – and we know that won’t be the case”.The review also recommended cancelling the registration of anticoagulant rodenticides baits that come in powder and liquid form or which do not contain dyes or bittering agents, finding they do not meet safety criteria.But it found other baits sold as waxes, pellets and blocks could continue to be sold to consumers with some changes to labelling and conditions of use.Sign up: AU Breaking News emailThe APVMA found that under “current instructions” it could not be satisfied that these types of products would not have unintended, harmful effects on non-target animals, including native wildlife, nor that they would not pose undue safety risks to people who handled them including vulnerable people such as children.But it found the conditions of product registration and other “relevant particulars” could be varied in such a way as to allow the authority “to be satisfied that products will meet the safety criteria”.Some of the proposed new instructions would include limiting mice baits to indoor use only when in tamper-resistant bait stations; placing outdoor rat baits in tamper-proof stations within two metres of outside a building; changes to pack sizes; and tighter directions for the clean-up and disposal of carcasses and uneaten baits.The recommendations are subject to three months of public consultation before the authority makes a final decision.John White is an associate professor of wildlife and conservation biology at Deakin University. In 2023 he worked with a team of researchers that studied rat poison in dead tawny frogmouths and owls, who found 95% of frogmouths had rodenticides in their livers and 68% of frogmouths tested had liver rodenticide levels consistent with causing death or significant toxicological impacts.He said the authority’s proposed changes failed to properly tackle the problem that SGARS, from an environmental perspective, were “just too toxic”.White said even if the authority tightened the conditions of use and labelling rules there was no guarantee that consumers would follow new instructions. “We should be completely banning these things, not tinkering at the edges,” he said.A spokesperson for Woolworths said the supermarket would await the APVMA’s final recommendations “to inform a responsible approach to these products, together with the suppliers of them”.They said the chain stocked “a small range of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides for customers who might have a problem with rats or mice in their home, workplace, and especially in rural areas where it’s important for customers to have access to these products” while also selling “a number of alternative options”.Bunnings and Coles declined to comment.

Trail Cameras in Vermont Captured Something Strange: Moths Sipping a Moose's Tears

Tear-drinking, known as lachryphagy, has mostly been observed in the tropics, so scientists were somewhat surprised to find the unusual behavior so far north

Trail Cameras in Vermont Captured Something Strange: Moths Sipping a Moose’s Tears Tear-drinking, known as lachryphagy, has mostly been observed in the tropics, so scientists were somewhat surprised to find the unusual behavior so far north Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent December 16, 2025 8:49 a.m. A trail camera in Vermont captured 80 photos of moths fluttering around a moose's head, likely slurping up its tears. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Laurence Clarfeld was sifting through images captured by a trail camera in Vermont when he came across a photo that stopped him in his tracks. Clarfeld, an environmental scientist at the University of Vermont, knew he was looking at a moose. But, beyond that, he was totally perplexed. “It almost looked like the moose had two [additional] eyes,” he tells Scientific American’s Gennaro Tomma. When he flipped through more photos in the sequence, Clarfeld finally understood what he was seeing: Moths were sipping tears straight from the ungulate’s eyes. Scientists have observed this unusual phenomenon, known as lachryphagy, among other types of animals. But, as far as anyone knows, the photos represent the first documented evidence of moths drinking moose tears. Clarfeld and his colleagues describe the encounter in a new paper published November 20 in the journal Ecosphere.  Moths seen drinking moose tears for first time ever The photos were captured in the early morning hours of June 19, 2024, in the Green Mountain National Forest, a large swath of protected woodlands in southern Vermont. Researchers had deployed them as part of an ongoing wildlife survey by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. In total, the camera captured 80 snapshots of the moths fluttering around a moose’s head. The photos don’t specifically show the moths’ proboscises, the long, slender, straw-like mouthparts they use to suck nectar from flowers. But lachryphagy is the “most plausible explanation,” the researchers write in the paper. Roughly a year later, a colleague captured video footage that appeared to show the same thing—moths hovering around a moose’s eyes, per Scientific American. Scientists have previously observed moths, bees and butterflies feeding on the tears of other animals. They’ve documented solitary bees drinking the tears of yellow-spotted river turtles in Ecuador, stingless bees harvesting human tears in Thailand, erebid moths feasting on the tears of ringed kingfishers in Colombia and erebid moths slurping up the tears of sleeping black-chinned antbirds in Brazil. But most of these instances have occurred in subtropical and tropical regions. Only one known case of lachryphagy has been documented outside the tropics, according to the researchers: a moth eating the tears of a horse in Arkansas. At first, researcher Laurence Clarfeld didn't know what he was seeing when he spotted moths hovering around a moose's eyes. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department It may be that lachryphagy is simply more common in the tropics. But it’s also possible that “not a lot of scientists are looking in [other] places,” Akito Kawahara, an entomologist at the Florida Museum of Natural History who was not involved with the research, tells Scientific American. Why do moths and other insects feed on tears? It’s not entirely clear, but scientists suspect they may be seeking out certain essential nutrients, like sodium, during periods when those substances may be harder to find elsewhere. They may also be looking for protein boost. Insects typically get protein from plant nectar, but tears may be a handy backup. “Vertebrate fluids are the main alternative source for obtaining proteins,” Leandro Moraes, a biologist at the University of São Paulo who observed tear-feeding moths in Brazil, told National Geographic’s Sandrine Ceurstemont in 2018. Did you know? Resourceful insects Aside from tears, butterflies and moths have been known to take advantage of whatever resources are available, gathering up nutrient-rich liquids in and around soil, feces and carrion, including sweat and blood. Scientists call this feeding behavior “puddling.” Though lachryphagy appears to be relatively rare in nature, researchers still want to learn more about this unusual behavior. The tear drinker obviously benefits, but what about the tear supplier? For now, the relationship appears to be fairly one-sided—and might even be harmful to the host. In moose, for instance, eye-visiting moths could be transmitting pathogens that cause keratoconjunctivitis, which can lead to eye lesions and “significant health impacts,” the researchers write in the paper. For now, though, that’s just a hypothesis. Now that tear-drinking has been observed outside its typical range, the researchers are curious to know where else this behavior might be taking place, and among which other species. They’re encouraging wildlife scientists to keep an eye out because lachryphagy might ultimately be “more widespread than the lack of past records would suggest,” they write. 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.