Will AI replace Fish and Game Wardens?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 24 official task statements scored for Fish and Game Wardens (United States, SOC 33-3031), 3% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 15 out of 100 (range 10–21, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Fish and Game Wardens” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Issue licenses, permits, or other documentation” (66/100, high); “Recommend revisions in hunting and trapping regulations or in animal management programs so that wildlife balances or habitats can be maintained” (50/100, partial); “Document the extent of crop, property, or habitat damage and make financial loss estimates or compensation recommendations” (49/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Fish and Game Wardens” stay human?

About 91% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Participate in firefighting efforts” (0/100, minimal); “Seize equipment used in fish and game law violations” (0/100, minimal); “Participate in search-and-rescue operations” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Fish and Game Wardens” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 3% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 91% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Fish and Game Wardens calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 24 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

US dataswitch to UK

Fish and Game Wardens

patrolling assigned areas, participating in search-and-rescue operations and arranging for disposition of fish or game illegally taken. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: patrolling assigned areas is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 3%
changing shape: 7%
staying human: 91%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 15 out of 100 (10–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 24 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for fish and game wardens is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

What shifts is issuing licenses, permits or other documentation: the paper around the work, not the work.

Your week, as this page understands it

Patrol assigned area to prevent fish and game law violations. Investigate reports of damage to crops or property by wildlife. Compile biological data. The job title says “fish” or “game wardens”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: patrolling assigned areas. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But fish and game wardens is not one task. It is 24 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is patrolling assigned areas, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 3%
changing shape: 7%
staying human: 91%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

1 task

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Issuing licenses, permits or other documentation
This is reading one thing and writing another: licenses, permits or other documentation in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Issue licenses, permits, or other documentation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Issuing licences and permits is rules-based desk work that online systems already handle.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

2 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Recommending revisions in hunting and trapping regulations or in animal management programs so that wildlife balances or habitats
The software now makes the first pass at revisions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Recommend revisions in hunting and trapping regulations or in animal management programs so that wildlife balances or habitats can be maintained.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: This is analysis and writing built on survey data, though local knowledge of herds and habitats still shapes the advice.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting the extent of crop
The software now makes the first pass at the extent of crop, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Document the extent of crop, property, or habitat damage and make financial loss estimates or compensation recommendations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Once the damage is seen, writing it up and costing the loss is standard paperwork software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

21 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Patrolling assigned areas
This work happens in the physical world: assigned areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Patrol assigned areas by car, boat, airplane, horse, or on foot to enforce game, fish, or boating laws or to manage wildlife programs, lakes, or land.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Patrolling lakes, trails and back roads in person is the whole job here, and software cannot be out there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Compiling and presenting evidence for court actions
This work happens in the physical world: evidence, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Compile and present evidence for court actions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Assembling the case file can be drafted by software, but a sworn officer still has to stand up in court.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Protecting and preserving native wildlife
This work happens in the physical world: native wildlife, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Protect and preserve native wildlife, plants, or ecosystems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Protecting habitats and wildlife happens outdoors on the ground, not at a desk.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Issuing warnings or citations and filing reports
This work happens in the physical world: warnings, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Issue warnings or citations and file reports as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The report writing is easy to automate, but only a sworn warden can lawfully hand someone a citation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating hunting accidents or reports of fish or game law violations
This work happens in the physical world: accidents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · Core
Source: “Investigate hunting accidents or reports of fish or game law violations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Working out what happened means walking the scene, handling evidence and questioning people in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Serving warrants and making arrests
This work happens in the physical world: warrants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Serve warrants and make arrests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Serving warrants and arresting people are physical acts reserved to warranted officers.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing assistance to other local law enforcement agencies
This work happens in the physical world: assistance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide assistance to other local law enforcement agencies as required.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Backing up other agencies means turning up in person, often at short notice.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

Show the other 14 tasks

Providing advice or information to park or reserve visitors
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: advice, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Provide advice or information to park or reserve visitors.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Visitor questions are well covered by published information, but wardens answer them in person on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Addressing schools, civic groups, sporting clubs or the media to disseminate information concerning wildlife conservation and regulations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: schools, civic groups, sporting clubs or the media, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Address schools, civic groups, sporting clubs, or the media to disseminate information concerning wildlife conservation and regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Talks and press material can be written by software, but standing in front of a school class cannot.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Surveying areas and compiling figures of bag counts of hunters to determine the effectiveness of control measures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: areas, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Survey areas and compile figures of bag counts of hunters to determine the effectiveness of control measures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The counting sums and summaries are easy to automate, but someone has to be in the field meeting hunters.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing or implementing control measures to prevent or counteract damage caused by wildlife or people
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: control measures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Design or implement control measures to prevent or counteract damage caused by wildlife or people.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Designing a control plan can be drafted by software, but putting fences, traps or deterrents in place cannot.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Arranging for disposition of fish or game illegally taken
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: disposition of fish, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Arrange for disposition of fish or game illegally taken or possessed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Half of this is paperwork software handles well; the rest is physically moving seized fish or game.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Promoting or providing hunter or trapper safety training
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: hunter, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Promote or provide hunter or trapper safety training.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Course notes and materials can be drafted by software, but the safety training itself is taught face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collecting and reporting information on populations or conditions of fish and wildlife in their habitats
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: information, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Collect and report information on populations or conditions of fish and wildlife in their habitats, availability of game food or cover, or suspected pollution.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Writing up the findings is straightforward for software; gathering them means being out in the habitat.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising the activities of seasonal workers
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: the activities of seasonal workers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Supervise the activities of seasonal workers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting a day’s work out of a seasonal crew depends on being there with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Investigating crop, property or habitat damage or destruction or instances of water pollution to determine causes and to advise property owners of preventive measures
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: crop, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Investigate crop, property, or habitat damage or destruction or instances of water pollution to determine causes and to advise property owners of preventive measures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Judging what caused the damage means standing in the field looking at it with the landowner.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting commercial operations relating to fish or wildlife
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: commercial operations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Inspect commercial operations relating to fish or wildlife, recreation, or protected areas.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking a fish house or game farm means walking the premises and looking at the stock.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing facilities maintenance work, such as constructing or repairing structures or controlling weeds or pests
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: facilities maintenance work, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Perform facilities maintenance work, such as constructing or repairing structures or controlling weeds or pests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Mending fences, buildings and paths is hands-on work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Participating in search-and-rescue operations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: search-and-rescue operations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Participate in search-and-rescue operations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Search and rescue means being out there in a boat or aircraft with hands on the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Seizing equipment used in fish and game law violations
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Seize equipment used in fish and game law violations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Taking someone’s boat, net or rifle off them is a physical act by an officer with legal authority.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Participating in firefighting efforts
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: firefighting efforts, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Participate in firefighting efforts.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Fighting a wildfire is physical work on the fire line.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $74,060a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 5,770in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: licenses, permits or other documentation in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: issuing licenses, permits or other documentation and recommending revisions in hunting and trapping regulations or in animal management programs so that wildlife balances or habitats. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where assigned areas get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: patrolling assigned areas is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 3% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 7% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 91% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 24 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Issuing licenses, permits or other documentation is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to licenses, permits or other documentation, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether assigned areas are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near recommending revisions in hunting and trapping regulations or in animal management programs so that wildlife balances or habitats. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to fish and game wardens (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was police and sheriff's patrol officers: only about 4% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 15/100 here, with only 3% of the task list in the top band, and “patrol assigned areas by car, boat, airplane, horse, or on foot to…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already compile and present evidence for court actions, and their equivalent is to testify in court to present evidence or act as witness in traffic and…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide assistance to other local law enforcement agencies as required, and their equivalent is to cooperate with court personnel and officials from other law enforcement agencies and testify…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Fire Inspectors and Investigators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide assistance to other local law enforcement agencies as required, and their equivalent is to coordinate efforts with other organizations. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 3% of its task weight, across 24 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like patrolling assigned areas arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Police community support officers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Police community support officers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

Why there is no community here

Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for fish / game wardens launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for fish / game wardens yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for fish / game wardens existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for fish / game wardens launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Fish and Game Wardens?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 24 official task statements scored for Fish and Game Wardens (United States, SOC 33-3031), 3% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 15 out of 100 (range 10–21, band: minimal). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Fish and Game Wardens” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Issue licenses, permits, or other documentation” (66/100, high); “Recommend revisions in hunting and trapping regulations or in animal management programs so that wildlife balances or habitats can be maintained” (50/100, partial); “Document the extent of crop, property, or habitat damage and make financial loss estimates or compensation recommendations” (49/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Fish and Game Wardens” stay human?: About 91% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Participate in firefighting efforts” (0/100, minimal); “Seize equipment used in fish and game law violations” (0/100, minimal); “Participate in search-and-rescue operations” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Fish and Game Wardens” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 3% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 91% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Fish and Game Wardens calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 24 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

Worth knowing about these figures

The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.