"Harm" in the Endangered Species Act

[shelby147]

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is attempting to change the definition of harm in the Endangered Species Act in a way that will gut protections for endangered species. Essentially, directly killing ESA-listed species remains illegal but destroying their habitat would not be illegal, and NEPA review would not need to be done. I think many of us care deeply about wildlife and would be saddened to see species go extinct for a quick buck.

The public comment period closes this Monday, May 19 at 11:59 pm eastern. I know drafting public comments are the last thing most of us feel like doing on the weekend, but this feels like an instance where, even if it may change nothing, many of us would regret not speaking up.

To make things easier for anyone looking to submit a comment, here is the link to the comment form:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FW ... 0034-0001

For anyone looking for a faster way to write their comment, I recommend using ChatGPT and summitting a prompt along the lines of,
Help me draft a public comment in response to the US Fish and Wildlife Service rescinding the definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act. These are the points I want to emphasize:
- [insert your points here]
- [Examples: habitat destruction is the leading cause of extinction worldwide. Extinction is irreversible. The National Environmental Policy Act does have an environmental impact and NEPA reviews should be conducted. American taxpayers are left holding the bag when industries extract resources in pursuit of short-term profits from a site then abandon it - this is why NEPA is important before a project starts. Talk about a species on the endangered species list you really like. ]
- [you can also review other public comments posted for ideas]

[Jim]

If 'harm' is removed from the ESA and the ESA does not sufficiently protect the habitat of an endangered species, this reduces the ability of the act to conserve species which are endangered. Without habitat, there is no need to keep from directly killing a given species, a species won't exist after a period of time. Why now, after decades is this being done? Why is this being done outside of the legislative process? Leave the current language in place or prove that changing the language of the act will not cause future harm to habitat for endangered species.

If someone is so inclined to leave a comment in opposition and wishes to copy and past, this can also be used.



This is part of the problem of using words and terms that have legal definition which are different from common usage. I guess harm isn't actually being removed from the act, but whatever there is over 150,000 comments. Tides come and tides go.

Without spending a career getting into the laws and regulations around the ESA, this looks like it might simply be a reversal of the Biden Administration's regulations. I'm sure that will polarize more than a few. However, context matters.


AI told me this:

The USFWS, along with NMFS, is proposing to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which currently includes habitat modification. This proposed change, published in the Federal Register, would eliminate habitat modification as a basis for regulating impacts on endangered and threatened species. The proposal is part of broader efforts to revise the ESA regulations, following a direction by the Secretary of the Interior to suspend, revise, or rescind some of the Biden Administration's 2024 ESA rules.

Okay, so why now, then?

Well, AI also said this:

Executive Order 14154:
The changes are being driven by Executive Order 14154, "Unleashing American Energy," which directed the agency to take actions to suspend, revise, or rescind some of the Biden Administration's 2024 ESA rules.

Of course, AI says all kinds of things. But, assuming it is accurate in this case, that at least sheds some light on it.