Trump admin proposes redefining 'harm' to endangered animals

Pantheraman

Pantheraman

Well-Known Member
"The Trump administration aims to remove degradation of habitat from its definition of "harm" to endangered species, proposing Wednesday a rule change that would open the door to human activity in ecologically sensitive environments.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act should exclude "actions that impair the habitat of protected species."

Trump admin proposes redefining 'harm' to endangered animals

Of course, destroy the habitat, no endangered species, which in turn, means no point in the Endangered Species Act which means one less pesky regulation for special interests to follow. And if an animal goes extinct, we can simply call up Colossal Biosciences to resurrect said species to get people to not take extinction seriously.

Seriously, though, notice how this happened after Colossal's "dire wolf" stunt?
 
This has been coming for a long time.

Donald Trump has always opposed green energy and always contrasted it with the fantastical idea that our natural protected lands represent vast natural resources that need to be "unleashed" for true "energy independence". This narrative codes this as something that will benefit the American people and provides a scapegoat -- the "libs" care more about protecting this fish than your family, and if you vote for me, I'll get them out of the way and bold innovators (industrialists) will be able to use these untapped natural resources for the good of our country! People assume "energy independence" means cheap gas prices. Candidate Trump mocked the endangered Delta smelt on the campaign trail and discussed this at length, blaming many of California's problems on protecting this "tiny fish", but the media of course wasn't interested in covering this too much compared to their usual pet issues and making him look not too good but better than his opponents. He referred to executive orders rolling back Biden era environmental protections as 'putting people over fish' to drive the point home.
 
From the Wildlife Conservation Society newsletter:

[The Administration is attempting to weaken the Endangered Species Act—again. This time, by erasing the critical link between habitat destruction and harm to wildlife.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), signed into law by President Nixon more than 50 years ago, remains one of the most effective conservation tools in the world. It has helped rescue the bald eagle, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and hundreds of other iconic species from extinction—and it remains a beacon of hope for wildlife facing a challenging world.

But right now, there is a proposal to remove the definition of “harm” under the ESA—a change that would make it much harder to protect wildlife from many of their biggest threats, including the loss of habitat.

We’re in a race against time, and only have until May 19th to have our voices heard. Please, join us in telling Secretary Burgum and Secretary Lutnick: Don’t weaken the ESA. Protect wildlife and the places they need to survive.]

I have kind of shut off my interest in zoos in America for a while and I'm rather ignorant on conservation laws and measures in the States, but this seems to be a rather important development, for the worse!!!

Any American members would like to enlighten less knowledgeable people such as myself on the matter?
 
Your friendly forum lawyer here for an explanation.

Yes, this really is that bad. Potentially, at least. Let me explain.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) prohibits federal agencies from harming listed endangered species, with a few narrow exceptions. At present harm is understood broadly. Obviously, they can’t shoot endangered crocodiles.

But harm applies to habitats as well. Granting a development permit is an action of the federal government. They can’t take that action if they know it would harm an endangered species. So if you want to bulldoze critical habitat, you have to go through a rather length process of proving it won’t harm the species. This is often impossible and always arduous.

In the past this has been used to prevent mines in the habitat of endangered animals, logging in the habitat of the spotted owl, dam construction in Tennessee, and even groundwater withdrawals in Nevada. This makes the ESA perhaps the most forceful piece of federal environmental law.

The proposed definition significantly weakens the federal government’s options or mandate by requiring them to prove that the actions they permit would directly kill or injure individual members of the species rather than just stopping their recovery. You still couldn’t cut down endangered trees or shoot an endangered animal, but building on critical habitat is probably fine.

Now, a lot of this depends on how this redefinition interacts with other elements of the Endangered Species Act, like critical habitat designations and recovery plans. A strong interpretation of those clauses could blunt a weak interpretation of “harm.” But I doubt the administration or the Supreme Court are particularly interested in robust interpretations of those clauses, either.

So… bad at best, an effective death knell for the law as we knew it at worst.
 
Persephone said:
Your friendly forum lawyer here for an explanation.

Yes, this really is that bad. Potentially, at least. Let me explain.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) prohibits federal agencies from harming listed endangered species, with a few narrow exceptions. At present harm is understood broadly. Obviously, they can’t shoot endangered crocodiles.

But harm applies to habitats as well. Granting a development permit is an action of the federal government. They can’t take that action if they know it would harm an endangered species. So if you want to bulldoze critical habitat, you have to go through a rather length process of proving it won’t harm the species. This is often impossible and always arduous.

In the past this has been used to prevent mines in the habitat of endangered animals, logging in the habitat of the spotted owl, dam construction in Tennessee, and even groundwater withdrawals in Nevada. This makes the ESA perhaps the most forceful piece of federal environmental law.

The proposed definition significantly weakens the federal government’s options or mandate by requiring them to prove that the actions they permit would directly kill or injure individual members of the species rather than just stopping their recovery. You still couldn’t cut down endangered trees or shoot an endangered animal, but building on critical habitat is probably fine.

Now, a lot of this depends on how this redefinition interacts with other elements of the Endangered Species Act, like critical habitat designations and recovery plans. A strong interpretation of those clauses could blunt a weak interpretation of “harm.” But I doubt the administration or the Supreme Court are particularly interested in robust interpretations of those clauses, either.

So… bad at best, an effective death knell for the law as we knew it at worst.
Click to expand...
The next thing I expect them to do is authorize hunting in zoos and fishing in aquariums.
 
Is anyone actually for this change? All I’ve seen is just political figures and their followers are recommending it.
Persephone said:
Your friendly forum lawyer here for an explanation.

Yes, this really is that bad. Potentially, at least. Let me explain.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) prohibits federal agencies from harming listed endangered species, with a few narrow exceptions. At present harm is understood broadly. Obviously, they can’t shoot endangered crocodiles.

But harm applies to habitats as well. Granting a development permit is an action of the federal government. They can’t take that action if they know it would harm an endangered species. So if you want to bulldoze critical habitat, you have to go through a rather length process of proving it won’t harm the species. This is often impossible and always arduous.

In the past this has been used to prevent mines in the habitat of endangered animals, logging in the habitat of the spotted owl, dam construction in Tennessee, and even groundwater withdrawals in Nevada. This makes the ESA perhaps the most forceful piece of federal environmental law.

The proposed definition significantly weakens the federal government’s options or mandate by requiring them to prove that the actions they permit would directly kill or injure individual members of the species rather than just stopping their recovery. You still couldn’t cut down endangered trees or shoot an endangered animal, but building on critical habitat is probably fine.

Now, a lot of this depends on how this redefinition interacts with other elements of the Endangered Species Act, like critical habitat designations and recovery plans. A strong interpretation of those clauses could blunt a weak interpretation of “harm.” But I doubt the administration or the Supreme Court are particularly interested in robust interpretations of those clauses, either.

So… bad at best, an effective death knell for the law as we knew it at worst.
Click to expand...
But, we aren’t really sure what this change could mean. It could just be a different way to interpret the act. But let’s face it, we all know that is not the case. It is meant for the big businesses and corporations to take out natural areas in favor to create “more economic stability”. This change will not end favorably for any zoo enthusiast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top