By Alex Brown, Stateline.org (TNS)

For years, outdoors enthusiasts in New Mexico have pushed to overhaul the state Department of Game & Fish — an agency plagued by leadership turnover, funding woes and the scorn of hunters and tree-huggers alike.

Now, state lawmakers have given the agency a new name, a new mission, new leadership and a boost in funding to expand its role. The sweeping law enacted in March puts New Mexico at the forefront of a growing movement to rethink states’ traditional model of wildlife management.

“We came from a place of extreme dysfunction,” said Jesse Deubel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, an environmental nonprofit that advocated for the new law. “Now, I truly do believe that we’re going to be a gold standard for wildlife management. Over the next few years. you’re going to see an unbelievable shift.”

New Mexico’s new approach expands the agency’s focus beyond hunting and fishing to protect more species and brings in new funding to reduce its reliance on license sales. Other states are watching closely. Lawmakers across the country have introduced bills to change their wildlife agencies, and many have cited the New Mexico measure as an example of what’s possible.

“That’s the biggest game changer,” said Michelle Lute, executive director of Wildlife for All, a national nonprofit focused on overhauling states’ wildlife governance. “That’s the legislation we’ll be pointing to as a model in future years.”

From Oregon to Utah to Florida, legislators have introduced bills that would overhaul their wildlife agencies’ funding, mission and governance.

While the proposals have had varying levels of success, New Mexico leaders say it took years of coalition-building to get their bill across the finish line. Wildlife advocates expect the issue to earn more legislative attention nationwide in the years to come.

Under the traditional model, state wildlife agencies have largely been funded by the license fees paid by hunters and anglers, plus federal excise taxes on equipment such as guns and fishing tackle. The agencies have focused most of their work on species like deer and trout, prized by the sporting groups that provide their revenue.

In New Mexico, as in most states, the commissions that govern these departments have been appointed by governors. They’re often filled by hunting and fishing guides, ranchers and political donors. Critics say this model results in panels that set policy to protect their economic interests.

Today, many wildlife agencies are struggling to stay afloat as fewer and fewer residents hunt and fish. At the same time, plummeting wildlife populations are compelling agencies to expand their work beyond traditional “game” species. And some wildlife advocates are demanding a new governance model that puts more scientists in charge.

This year, state lawmakers across the country have passed or considered a host of major wildlife management overhauls. Some would expand their agencies’ mission to focus on non-game species. Others would provide new funding streams to take on that additional work. And some would change the makeup of the commissions that dictate wildlife policy.

In New Mexico, lawmakers did all three at once.

The state’s agency had faced numerous problems over the years. Hunters and bird-watchers alike were frustrated with the agency’s leadership. In recent years, several commissioners have resigned or been forced out by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. At times, the panel has lacked enough members to form a quorum.

The agency’s budget was in trouble as well. The state had not raised license fees in nearly 20 years, keeping revenue flat even as inflation made the cost of its work more and more expensive.

“We were having to repurpose money from on-the-ground conservation just to make salary adjustments,” said Stewart Liley, wildlife division chief with the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish. “We were getting to a precarious spot.”

In 2023, lawmakers passed a bill to restructure the agency’s commission, which would have taken some power away from the governor. Lujan Grisham declined to sign the bill, killing the effort with a pocket veto.

This year, lawmakers took a bigger swing. The package passed this session renames the Department of Game & Fish to the Department of Wildlife. It expands the agency’s authority to protect non-game species in need of conservation help.

“We wanted to make it clear that this is our state wildlife agency, and it’s the only one we’ve got,” said Deubel, of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. “They’ve got a responsibility to work on any species in the state that has conservation need.”

Related Articles

Liberty Classical Academy, May Township resolve federal lawsuit

15 states, including Minnesota, sue over Trump’s move to fast-track oil and gas projects via his ‘energy emergency’ order

Record-breaking amounts of seaweed drifting toward Florida, experts say

Energy Star, efficiency program that has steered consumer choice, targeted in cuts

Deadly April rainfall in US South and Midwest was intensified by climate change, scientists say

Agency leaders say they were already conducting research and conservation work for non-game species. They viewed that aspect of the bill as a largely symbolic measure that “shined a light” on the need for more restoration work, Liley said. However, the law did provide more explicit authority for the agency to manage insects and regulate the direct “take,” or killing, of certain animals.

The measure raises license fees — a provision supported by many hunting and fishing groups — and allows for inflation-based adjustments in future years. Meanwhile, lawmakers included another $10.5 million from the state budget, spread over three years, to help the agency take on more non-game conservation.

“It seemed only fair that if we were going to ask the department to take on a broader role that they not finance that just through hunting and fishing,” said Democratic state Rep. Matthew McQueen, who was among the key sponsors.

Liley, the agency official, said the new money, along with a separate conservation fund established in 2023, will more than double the state’s investment in helping threatened species. The agency expects to hire up to eight new biologists who will conduct research, determine which species need aid and lead restoration efforts.

“This will help us get a better grasp of where we are with different species across the state,” he said. “There are absolutely projects we have not undertaken because of lack of capacity. This will allow us to do more surveys, to radio-mark birds, to [use that research] and say, ‘Let’s do forest restoration this way for pinyon jays.’”

The package will also change the agency’s governance. The current commission has seven seats, all appointed by the governor. Lujan Grisham’s appointees have included a car dealer, an Exxon Mobil lobbyist and a former lawmaker who owns an oil and gas business.

Under the new model, a bipartisan legislative committee will nominate three candidates for every seat, each of whom must be vetted to demonstrate their knowledge of wildlife. The governor must choose from among those three. One of the seats will be reserved for a wildlife scientist, one for a conservationist, one for a hunter and angler and one for a rancher or farmer.

“These changes add expertise and really important perspectives to the commission,” said Chris Smith, wildlife program director with WildEarth Guardians, an environmental nonprofit. “Our [current] commission was having structural problems and light scandal almost consistently.”

Backers’ one disappointment is that Lujan Grisham used a partial veto to strike a provision that would have protected commission members from dismissal by the governor. She argued that the proposed change relied too heavily on the slow-moving court system to remove commissioners, making it difficult to hold problematic members accountable.

Lawmakers say they’re still intent on protecting agency leaders from the governor’s whims, but pleased the rest of the package has gone into effect. While the measure passed with bipartisan majorities, some lawmakers objected to the idea of expanding the agency’s mission to protect species beyond those that can be hunted.

“With all due respect, I don’t want to pay for a butterfly,” said Republican state Rep. Harlan Vincent, according to KUNM. “I’m just being honest with you.”

And some groups are skeptical that the extra funding from the state budget will be enough to cover the agency’s growing conservation role.

“If New Mexico wants to expand the mission of the department, New Mexico needs to pay for it,” Tom Paterson, president-elect of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, said during a Senate committee hearing. “The necessary funds should not come on the back of the license fees that hunters and anglers pay.”

While the agency’s new funding and mission are now in place, its name change to the Department of Wildlife won’t take effect until next year. And its current commission will remain in office until Jan. 1, 2027. Lujan Grisham’s successor will then appoint new commissioners under the revised model.

The advocates who backed the New Mexico overhaul say it will take time and investment to make the new model work. They know other states will be watching closely.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

By Paula Span, KFF Health News

A prime example of elderspeak: Cindy Smith was visiting her father in his assisted living apartment in Roseville, California. An aide who was trying to induce him to do something —  Smith no longer remembers exactly what — said, “Let me help you, sweetheart.”

Related Articles

Boy with autism’s equine experience leads Stillwater mom to offer free horse visits

New test approved for newborns in Minnesota

These researchers are trying to diagnose CTE during life. They’re recruiting former football players

First at-home test kit for cervical cancer approved by the FDA, company says

FDA will allow three new color additives made from minerals, algae and flower petals

“He just gave her The Look — under his bushy eyebrows — and said, ‘What, are we getting married?’” recalled Smith, who had a good laugh, she said. Her father was then 92, a retired county planner and a World War II veteran; macular degeneration had reduced the quality of his vision, and he used a walker to get around, but he remained cognitively sharp.

“He wouldn’t normally get too frosty with people,” Smith said. “But he did have the sense that he was a grown-up and he wasn’t always treated like one.”

People understand almost intuitively what “elderspeak” means. “It’s communication to older adults that sounds like baby talk,” said Clarissa Shaw, a dementia care researcher at the University of Iowa College of Nursing and a co-author of a recent article that helps researchers document its use.

“It arises from an ageist assumption of frailty, incompetence, and dependence.”

Its elements include inappropriate endearments. “Elderspeak can be controlling, kind of bossy, so to soften that message there’s ‘honey,’ ‘dearie,’ ‘sweetie,’” said Kristine Williams, a nurse gerontologist at the University of Kansas School of Nursing and another co-author of the article.

“We have negative stereotypes of older adults, so we change the way we talk.”

Or caregivers may resort to plural pronouns: Are we ready to take our bath? There, the implication “is that the person’s not able to act as an individual,” Williams said. “Hopefully, I’m not taking the bath with you.”

Sometimes, elderspeakers employ a louder volume, shorter sentences, or simple words intoned slowly. Or they may adopt an exaggerated, singsong vocal quality more suited to preschoolers, along with words like “potty” or “jammies.”

With what are known as tag questions — It’s time for you to eat lunch now, right? — “You’re asking them a question but you’re not letting them respond,” Williams explained. “You’re telling them how to respond.”

Studies in nursing homes show how commonplace such speech is. When Williams, Shaw, and their team analyzed video recordings of 80 interactions between staff and residents with dementia, they found that 84% involved some form of elderspeak.

“Most of elderspeak is well intended. People are trying to show they care,” Williams said. “They don’t realize the negative messages that come through.”

For example, among nursing home residents with dementia, studies have found a relationship between exposure to elderspeak and behaviors collectively known as resistance to care.

“People can turn away or cry or say no,” Williams explained. “They may clench their mouths shut when you’re trying to feed them.” Sometimes, they push caregivers away or strike them.

She and her team developed a training program called CHAT, for Changing Talk: three hourlong sessions that include videos of communication between staff members and patients, intended to reduce elderspeak.

It worked. Before the training, in 13 nursing homes in Kansas and Missouri, almost 35% of the time spent in interactions consisted of elderspeak; that share dropped to about 20% afterward.

Furthermore, resistant behaviors accounted for almost 36% of the time spent in encounters; after training, that proportion fell to about 20%.

A study conducted in a Midwestern hospital, again among patients with dementia, found the same sort of decline in resistance behavior.

What’s more, CHAT training in nursing homes was associated with lower use of antipsychotic drugs. Though the results did not reach statistical significance, due in part to the small sample size, the research team deemed them “clinically significant.”

“Many of these medications have a black box warning from the FDA,” Williams said of the drugs. “It’s risky to use them in frail, older adults” because of their side effects.

Now, Williams, Shaw, and their colleagues have streamlined the CHAT training and adapted it for online use. They are examining its effects in about 200 nursing homes nationwide.

Even without formal training programs, individuals and institutions can combat elderspeak. Kathleen Carmody, owner of Senior Matters Home Health Care and Consulting in Columbus, Ohio, cautions her aides to address clients as Mr. or Mrs. or Ms., “unless or until they say, ‘Please call me Betty.’”

In long-term care, however, families and residents may worry that correcting the way staff members speak could create antagonism.

A few years ago, Carol Fahy was fuming about the way aides at an assisted living facility in suburban Cleveland treated her mother, who was blind and had become increasingly dependent in her 80s.

Calling her “sweetie” and “honey babe,” the staff “would hover and coo, and they put her hair up in two pigtails on top of her head, like you would with a toddler,” said Fahy, a psychologist in Kaneohe, Hawaii.

Although she recognized the aides’ agreeable intentions, “there’s a falseness about it,” she said. “It doesn’t make someone feel good. It’s actually alienating.”

Fahy considered discussing her objections with the aides, but “I didn’t want them to retaliate.” Eventually, for several reasons, she moved her mother to another facility.

Yet objecting to elderspeak need not become adversarial, Shaw said. Residents and patients — and people who encounter elderspeak elsewhere, because it’s hardly limited to health care settings — can politely explain how they prefer to be spoken to and what they want to be called.

Cultural differences also come into play. Felipe Agudelo, who teaches health communications at Boston University, pointed out that in certain contexts a diminutive or term of endearment “doesn’t come from underestimating your intellectual ability. It’s a term of affection.”

He emigrated from Colombia, where his 80-year-old mother takes no offense when a doctor or health care worker asks her to “tómese la pastillita” (take this little pill) or “mueva la manito” (move the little hand).

That’s customary, and “she feels she’s talking to someone who cares,” Agudelo said.

“Come to a place of negotiation,” he advised. “It doesn’t have to be challenging. The patient has the right to say, ‘I don’t like your talking to me that way.’”

In return, the worker “should acknowledge that the recipient may not come from the same cultural background,” he said. That person can respond, “This is the way I usually talk, but I can change it.”

Lisa Greim, 65, a retired writer in Arvada, Colorado, pushed back against elderspeak recently when she enrolled in Medicare drug coverage.

Suddenly, she recounted in an email, a mail-order pharmacy began calling almost daily because she hadn’t filled a prescription as expected.

These “gently condescending” callers, apparently reading from a script, all said, “It’s hard to remember to take our meds, isn’t it?” — as if they were swallowing pills together with Greim.

Annoyed by their presumption, and their follow-up question about how frequently she forgot her medications, Greim informed them that having stocked up earlier, she had a sufficient supply, thanks. She would reorder when she needed more.

Then, “I asked them to stop calling,” she said. “And they did.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.

By Lane Gillespie, Bankrate.com

Spend any time on FinTok (the personal finance corner of TikTok) and you may have heard of a “no-buy” month, which is a budgeting challenge to not spend money on certain discretionary purchases for a month. Whether you eliminate one spending category in particular or cut discretionary spending altogether, the point of a no-buy challenge remains the same: less spending, more saving.

As Americans try to rework their budgets amid today’s economic challenges, such as inflation and stagnant wages, people are taking on variations of no-buy challenges to save more and change their spending habits. These challenges come in a broad spectrum: While some people are just cutting a few expenses to free up room in their budget or are simply trying to spend less, others are taking the more dramatic route by cutting nearly all spending for a year.

Kelci Crawford, a 35-year-old in Toledo, Ohio, is one such person. Crawford has sworn off spending throughout the entirety of 2025, except for bills (such as rent and utilities), groceries, replacements of needed items (such as shampoo) and a limited amount of mutual aid for friends and community members. They won’t be spending any additional money on discretionary purchases.

Crawford, a full-time freelance artist whose yearly income is below the federal poverty line, has a goal to reach their target $3,000 emergency savings fund this year and pay off a little less than $1,000 of business and personal debt. After looking at their budget last year, they realized they couldn’t afford to keep spending on discretionary purchases if they wanted to meet their goal.

“I caught myself (overspending), and I’m like, OK, I’ve got to do a hard reset. I’ve got to do a no-buy year,” Crawford says.

While cutting out all discretionary spending entirely for a whole year may guarantee you some extra savings by December, it’s not realistic for most people. Cutting out discretionary spending entirely is a major change, and cutting out toys, electronics and activities may be especially difficult for families with children. That’s why many people doing a no-buy challenge are adapting it to meet their own budgetary needs — choosing to cut out only some spending categories where they think they’re overspending, such as eating out, clothing or beauty items.

No-buy challenges are proving popular as many Americans say their savings need a reset. Nearly half (43 percent) of Americans would borrow money to pay for a major unexpected expense (such as $1,000 for an emergency room visit or car repair), according to Bankrate’s Emergency Savings Report. Without that sufficient savings cushion, a small emergency could lead to big consequences, such as being unable to pay your bills — which is also a concern for many people. About 1 in 3 (34 percent) workers are living paycheck to paycheck, meaning they have little to no money left for savings after covering monthly expenses, according to Bankrate’s Living Paycheck to Paycheck Survey.

While the no-buy challenge isn’t for everyone, as Americans report low savings and as the cost of living continues to increase, creative solutions like a no-buy challenge may be just what some people need to stay the course in today’s economy.

Americans are adapting the no-buy challenge to fit their needs

Iris Ayala, a 27-year-old content creator in Chicago, has adapted the no-buy trend to meet her own goals. To cut down on clutter and unnecessary spending, Ayala made a long list of items she won’t be buying in 2025, including makeup, athletic clothing, new technology, hair tools, hair care and reusable water bottles. So far, she estimates she’s saved about $5,000.

“I moved into a new place, and naturally, when you move you declutter things you don’t need anymore. I looked around and I just had a ton of junk,” Ayala says. “That’s what really inspired my no-buy year, because I’m looking at all these items I was buying just nonchalantly, and it’s all just money, in the end, that I threw away.”

A no-buy challenge may save you money, but there’s no guarantee that it will break an overspending habit in the long run. Without taking more steps towards a permanent mindset shift, it could be easy to fall back on old habits and revenge spend when the year’s up.

But four months in, Ayala feels that the challenge has permanently changed the way she approaches spending. Before, she felt she was buying too many unnecessary items based on online trends or because she saw them advertised on social media, not because she actually needed them. Now, thanks to the challenge, before buying something, she’s more mindful about whether she’s going to use the entire product and if she’s going to get her money’s worth.

“I’ve found a lot of benefits that aren’t just financial,” Ayala says. “My wallet is feeling a difference, for sure. I didn’t realize how much unnecessary spending I was doing, now that I’m a no-buyer. But I noticed just having less clutter has been good for my mental health.”

Money tip: If you’re curious about doing a “no-buy” challenge, try cutting discretionary spending for one week per month, or one month per year. But take the time to examine your spending habits and understand why you’re spending the way you are, so you can avoid “revenge spending” as soon as the no-buy is up.

The economy is incentivizing some to cut spending

Many Americans are doing a no-buy challenge now because of macroeconomic concerns. High inflation, high credit card interest rates, stagnant wages, new tariff policies and widespread federal layoffs in 2025 have made it more appealing to focus on saving over spending.

Peter Cohan, an associate professor of practice in management at Babson College, breaks the appeal of the no-buy trend into two categories: economic and psychological. From an economic perspective, many Americans are worried about how the state of the economy will impact their finances. Economists say there’s a 36 percent chance the U.S. will enter a recession by March 2026, according to Bankrate’s Economic Indicator Survey. Between a possible upcoming recession and the high prices Americans are facing today, some people feel it may be smart — or even necessary — to dramatically pull back spending.

Related Articles

Your Money: Breaking barriers — a woman’s guide to building wealth

What your net worth statement is telling you

The new rules of airline loyalty programs

Should you handle debt or build an emergency fund first?

How to recession-proof your grocery budget: do’s and don’ts

Meanwhile, psychologically, when someone has no control over trade policy or inflation, choosing to spend less may also give them a sense of control over their finances, according to Cohan.

“From my perspective, (there are) a lot more people feeling a great loss of control of their lives since the beginning of the year,” Cohan says. “One thing they certainly still control is how they spend whatever money they have.”

Ayala, for one, is going to put that extra money she saved towards her emergency savings fund. Currently, she has about six months of expenses saved, but she says due to today’s economic uncertainty, she wants to increase that by at least a couple of months.

“I feel like we’re uncertain about things, even grocery prices,” Ayala says. “Everything at the moment is just up in the air with the political and economic landscape at the moment. Having that (cushion) gives you a little more peace of mind and alleviates some stress.”

Meanwhile, Crawford is concerned the Trump administration’s tariffs will affect their small business. A major portion of Crawford’s yearly income comes from selling art prints, books and merchandise at fan conventions, but the paper they use is imported from Canada and the acrylic goods they use are imported from China. If those items are affected by tariffs, it could affect the supply and cause prices to skyrocket, which could affect Crawford’s bottom line, they say.

“I’m not sure how (the Trump administration) is going to affect me in the future,” Crawford says, “so I’m just trying to hedge my bets and stick with the stuff that works.”

No-buy 101: How to take control of your spending

If you’re interested in doing a no-buy year or just interested in cutting back on spending over a certain time period, these tips can help you get started.

1. Consider if a no-buy challenge is right for you

No-buys will definitely save you money, but putting restrictions on your spending overnight is a significant challenge. A no-buy challenge might be best for you if you’re on a tight budget and are looking for creative ways to save money. Or, if you’re concerned about your spending and are looking for a way to change your financial habits, a no-buy can buy you some time to consider the reasons behind your spending and change your mindset. You can start over with a clean slate when the no-buy is over.

If you’re just looking to free up a bit of room in your budget, but aren’t interested in making a major lifestyle change, consider other ways of cutting basic costs, like unsubscribing from unused subscriptions, shopping for groceries using coupons and price-matching or cutting spending on brand-name goods.

2. Identify your goals

If you’re looking to save money this year, it might help to set a specific savings goal. Doing so would focus your efforts around a tangible benefit and motivate you to keep going.

“Change is hard, and saying no to certain habits is difficult,” Melinda Opperman, chief external affairs officer at Credit.org, a nonprofit credit counseling organization, says.

Common goals that she sees in her work are:

paying down debt, such as $5,000 in credit card debt or $10,000 in student loans.
saving for a $30,000 down payment on a home.
increasing your employer’s 401(k) match to the $23,500 yearly maximum.
saving for a $15,000 new car.

Opperman also suggests announcing your goal and intention to save more money publicly, so your friends and family can help keep you accountable. That extra (positive) peer pressure can be the push you need to get you over the hump and meet your goals.

3. Avoid temptations

Social media is a great tool to stay connected with your friends, family and favorite online creators, but it’s also a great way to be bombarded with ads encouraging you to spend. Help keep spending to a minimum by decluttering your phone and making it harder to spend money online. You can do that by:

deleting the apps to your favorite stores.
unsubscribing from store texts and emails.
considering the 48-hour rule. After putting an item in your online cart, wait 48 hours before hitting “Buy.” That gives you time to decide if you really want to buy the item, or if you’re just impulse shopping.
using social media app settings to control what accounts show up on your feed.
curating your social media feeds to only show you people you’re following — not suggested content.

4. Utilize your savings to the fullest extent

Once you’ve begun spending less, you’ll need somewhere to put those funds. Consider a high-yield savings account (HYSA) or certificate of deposit (CD), both of which can give you a higher rate of return on your savings than a typical savings account.

HYSA: HYSAs are similar to standard savings accounts, but pay a higher yield on your money — often four times as much. An HYSA can be a great way to keep your savings readily accessible, and it’s low risk if it’s kept in an FDIC-insured bank.
CDs: Unlike HYSAs, which you can access quickly, CDs lock your funds for a set period of time in exchange for a guaranteed annual percentage yield (APY). That APY is often much higher than a traditional savings account. A CD term can last anywhere from around a month to 10 years, though three months to five years is more common.

Key takeaways

As Americans reckon with high prices, “no-buy” challenges, which swear off most discretionary spending, have become popular online.
No-buy challenges are designed to help people re-examine their spending habits and save more money.
To optimize your own no-buy challenge, it’s important to identify why you want to do the challenge, eliminate spending temptations and pick a savings account with a high annual percentage yield (APY).

©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

(Courtesy of the University of Minnesota Press)

WILLA HAMMITT BROWN: Presents “Gentlemen of the Woods: Manhood, Myth, and the American Lumberjack.” 7 p.m. Monday, Magers & Quinn, 3038 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls.

RICKEY FAYNE: Tennessee-based writer discusses “The Devil Three Times,” about a Black family visited by the devil. In conversation with Lissa Jones, co-presented by Black Market Reads. 7 p.m. Wednesday, Magers & Quinn, 3038 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls.

HAWA HASSAN: Discusses “Setting a Place For Us: Recipes and Stories of Displacement, Resilience, and Community from Eight Countries Impacted by War.” 7 p.m. Thursday, Magers & Quinn, 3038 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls.

Katrina Monroe (Courtesy of the author)
Kathleen West (Courtesy photo)

MINNESOTA MYSTERY NIGHT: Two Minneapolis women who write mysteries that investigate relationships and delve into what it means to be a mother are in the spotlight at this monthly series. Katrina Monroe is a novelist, mom, private investigator and “snark-slinger extraordinaire.” Her most recent books — “They Drown Our Daughters,” “Graveyard of Lost Children,” and “Through the Midnight Door” — combine mystery, horror and suspense to overlay the fragilities of family relationships. Kathleen West is also the author of three previous books that deal with the intricacies of human relations. Her latest, “Making Friends Can Be Murder,” will be released in June. It’s about a woman who has the same name as another woman found dead. 7 p.m. May 19, Lucky’s 13 Pub, Mendota. $13 cover charge. Reservations can be made at buytickets.at/minnesotamysterynight/1544430/.

CHARLIE SELLARS: Discusses “What We Can Do: A Climate Optimist’s Guide to Sustainable Living.” 7 p.m. Tuesday, Magers & Quinn, 3038 Hennepin Ave. S., Mpls.

CHRISTOPHER VALEN: Launches “Shadow Falls,” 10th in his John Santana mystery series. Noon-2 p.m. Saturday, Once Upon a Crime, 604 W. 26th St., Mpls.

Related Articles

Readers and writers: Exploring up north, from flowers to lighthouses

Literary pick for week of May 11

Anonymous Washington County Library benefactor comes through again

Pen Pals literary series announces guests for next season

Novelist Percival Everett and playwright Branden Jacobs-Jenkins among Pulitzer winners in the arts