ACTION NEEDED BY MAY 17TH
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to weaken the regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in a way that would open the door to the destruction of habitat for endangered and threatened wildlife.
Since 1973, the ESA has stood as one of America’s most successful conservation laws, preventing the extinction of 99% of the species under its protection—from yellow-billed cuckoos to Mexican gray wolves to Rio Grande silvery minnows. The ESA prohibits the “take” of endangered species. “Take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
For more than 40 years, the word “harm” has been defined to include habitat destruction as an illegal activity under the ESA. This definition has been instrumental to the success of the ESA because habitat loss can harm a species just as much as a direct injury. In fact, habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction globally. Species cannot be managed or protected separately from their habitats.
Now, federal officials have proposed to get rid of this definition of “harm.” This change is inconsistent with the law, science, and purpose of the ESA. Unraveling this key protection strikes at the heart of wildlife conservation.
You can help us oppose this dangerous change. The newly proposed rule, called “Rescinding the Definition of ‘Harm’ Under the Endangered Species Act,” is open for public comment.
Sample Comment:
I strongly oppose the proposed rule to remove habitat destruction from the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This proposed rule is legally flawed, scientifically indefensible, and directly contravenes the statutory purpose of the ESA.
This change could severely weaken habitat protections, allowing critical ecosystems to be degraded or destroyed without accountability. Habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction. Protecting habitat is vital to preserving biodiversity, safeguarding clean air and water, and maintaining resilient landscapes across New Mexico.
The existing definition of harm reflects the best reading of the ESA and is consistent with the law’s plain language, structure, and purpose. I urge you to use your authority to reject this harmful rule change and uphold the full protections of the ESA, one of America’s bedrock environmental laws.
Thank you for your urgent attention to this crucial matter.
