Critics Vigorously Oppose Suggested Revision of ESA "Harm Criterion"
The Defenders of Wildlife organization has lodged formal comments against the Trump administration's proposed rule to scrap the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This proposed rule could potentially weaken safeguards for imperiled species habitats.
Critics argue that the administration's move disregards significant scientific evidence linking habitat loss to extinction. Eroding habitat protections could push 90% of listed species, currently threatened by habitat loss, closer to extinction. This could prove disastrous for both the survival of wildlife species and the preservation of our planet's biodiversity.
The ESA, which was unanimously passed by Congress in 1973 with a clear mandate for habitat conservation, currently deems significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species as "harm." The proposed rule, however, seeks to narrow this definition to exclude habitat destruction unless it physically harms individual animals. This change is expected to substantially weaken protections for endangered species, as habitat loss is a primary cause of species decline and extinction.
Sierra Weaver, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife, stated, "The ESA has a 99% success rate in saving imperiled species primarily due to the consideration of habitat loss as 'harm.' Removing it from the definition would jeopardize their survival."
The administration's proposal is seen as disregarding the intent of Congress and a Supreme Court ruling (Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter), which previously upheld the broader definition of "harm." By excluding habitat modification or degradation from the definition of "harm," the administration could potentially accelerate the rate of extinction for the very species the law is intended to protect.
Without these crucial habitat protections, industries such as logging, mining, and real estate could more easily modify or destroy critical habitats. This could lead to broader ecological collapse, negatively impacting both wildlife and human well-being.
The Defenders of Wildlife, a leading advocate for environmental conservation, voiced their opposition to the proposal, joining an array of environmental groups and scientists who argue that habitat protection is essential for species recovery. It is hoped that the administration will reconsider its stance on this critical issue.
The administration's proposal to change the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is criticized for disregarding significant environmental-science evidence that links habitat loss to extinction, potentially pushing 90% of listed species closer to extinction. This change in policy-and-legislation could lead to the acceleration of species extinction and negatively affect general-news related to wildlife conservation and planetary biodiversity.
