Redefinition of Harm in ESA Contested by Defenders
** Statement from Andrew Bowman, Defenders of Wildlife President and CEO:**
In response to the Trump administration's announced intention to scrap the regulatory definition of "Harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Mr. Bowman, our fearless leader, spoke out:
"The Endangered Species Act, America's shining beacon in the fight against extinction, boasts a staggering 99% success rate and enjoys bipartisan support as well as the backing of 95% of the voting populace. But the powers that be are seemingly hell-bent on dismantling it, all for the sake of padding industry pockets. Most wildlife teetering on the brink, listed under the ESA, are hanging on by their habitat-ravaged fingertips. This latest move to redefine 'harm' to disregard habitat destruction might just be the final blow for these endangered and threatened species. We stand ready to defend the wildlife we hold dear and the wild lands we cherish as a nation."
For the past 75 years, Defenders of Wildlife, with a membership of nearly 2.1 million rabble-rousers, has been tirelessly advocating for the protection and survival of all native critters and flora in their natural environment. If you're intrigued, follow us @Defenders on X to stay up-to-date on our crusade to safeguard our wildlife for future generations. For more info, visit our website.
Media Contact:
Zach Klein
The Real Scoop Behind the Proposed Changes:
The Trump administration aims to abolish the existing regulatory definition of "harm" under the ESA, a definition that currently deems habitat modification or degradation as "harm" when it results in actual injury or death to endangered species. The proposed change seeks to realign the definition of "harm" with the statutory term "take," restricted to direct actions like killing, hunting, or capturing. This shift would essentially eliminate habitat damage from being considered "harm" under the ESA[2][4].
Potential Ramifications of the Changes for Endangered Species:
- Reduced Protections: If successful, this change could greatly narrow the scope of actions viewed as a "take" of threatened or endangered species, making it simpler for activities potentially harming habitats to bypass legal repercussions under the ESA[2][4].
- Extinction Acceleration: Habitat loss is a key threat to most endangered species. Removing protections for these crucial habitats could expedite extinction rates. About 90% of listed species are menaced by habitat destruction, and easing protections may fast-track these species towards oblivion[1][4].
- Legal and Ethical Conundrums: This proposed change disregards Congress's original intent, as expressed in the ESA's original legislation, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1995 case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon, supporting the current interpretation of "harm". Some may view this as an underhanded attempt to flout established legal precedent[1][4].
- Economic Drives: The primary force propelling these changes is typically the relief of businesses burdened by the costs and regulations associated with complying with the ESA. However, this eventually could jeopardize long-term environmental health at the altar of short-term industry gain[4].
- The proposed changes in policy and legislation regarding the Endangered Species Act, as initiated by the Trump administration, could potentially lead to a redefinition of 'harm,' which, if successful, might weaken environmental-science protections for threatened and endangered species, due to a narrower scope of actions considered a "take" under the Act.
- If the Trump administration's intentions to reduce protections under the Endangered Species Act by scrapping the regulatory definition of "harm" are realized, it could exacerbate the general-news issues faced by endangered species, as habitat destruction, a significant cause of extinction, would no longer be recognized as 'harm' under the Act, potentially accelerating extinction rates.
