The Trump Administration proposed a rule change to the definition of the word “harm” within the Endangered Species Act on April 16. Only actions that directly hurt or kill animals would be considered harm; changing the habitats of the animals would no longer be considered harm.
“Habitat loss is the biggest single cause of extinction and endangered species — it makes sense to address it,” said Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Any conservation gains species were making will be reversed — we’re going to see losses again.”
The Endangered Species Act states that it is prohibited to “take” an endangered species, meaning one cannot take any actions that harass, harm or kill protected species. Modification or degradation to habitats has been considered “doing harm” for decades by federal agencies because doing so limits the ability of animals to find food, take shelter or breed.
Since the implementation of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, over 1,700 species’ extinctions have been prevented. It aided the preservation of spawning grounds for the Atlantic sturgeon, allowing their population to stabilize. It has also protected old-growth forests when timber companies tried to harvest the wood, saving northern spotted owls from extinction.
Changing the Endangered Species Act’s wording will make it easier to log, mine and build on lands that endangered species need to survive. This movement in in alignment with Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” philosophy on environmental protections; he intends to boost fossil fuel extraction and the reversal of climate policies and regulations.
Indirectly harming an endangered species may not hurt any animals at first, but the result will be the same. “If you’re a prairie chicken in the Southwest, and there’s an oil and gas developer and they want to destroy your prime breeding display grounds, the bird can’t mate,” said Hartl.
The rule change will allow 30 days for public comment and will also most likely be challenged in court.