As an avid traveler and outdoor enthusiast, I have had the privilege to see some of the most iconic wildlife species, both at home in the U.S. and abroad, in their natural, wild habitats. Some of the most memorable species that I have seen are the ones that are, sadly, threatened or endangered. I have seen green sea turtles while vacationing in Hawaii; southern sea otters on the California coast; gray wolves in my home state of Michigan; manatees while kayaking off the Florida coast; and numerous African species while studying abroad in South Africa. Without the Endangered Species Act (ESA), I may never have witnessed these magnificent animals, whose ongoing survival is testament to the power and importance of this vital law.
The Endangered Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon 45 years ago today, on December 28, 1973, with the purpose of protecting America’s threatened and endangered wildlife, plants, and the ecosystems upon which those species depend. The ESA has proven to be one of our nation’s most effective and popular laws; it has saved 99 percent of listed species from extinction and enjoys the support of 90 percent of Americans. Yet, we celebrate the ESA’s many successes and mark the Act’s 45th anniversary in a climate of hostility toward the ESA and the species and wild places it protects.
“Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”
President Richard Nixon, who signed the ESA into law 45 years ago today, on December 28, 1973.
Over the past two years, there has been a battle raging between those members of Congress, members of the Trump Administration, and special interests who want to dismantle and weaken the ESA and those of us who defend the law and its unprecedented success. Some of these harmful anti-ESA proposals are:
► To change the analytical criteria for listing species from criteria based solely on science to criteria that would also include an economic analysis. Economic analyses can be misleading and uninformative because the potential monetary gain can range from zero to tens of millions of dollars, thereby clouding listing decisions.
► To reduce listing habitats as ‘critical habitat’ if the only threat to that habitat comes from climate change. This would be detrimental for species that are reliant on habitats that are solely under threat from the effects of climate change, such as melting glaciers, sea level rise, or reduced snow-pack. This habitat would then be deemed as “not prudent” and left unprotected.
► To change protections given to species listed under the ESA as threatened. Currently, under the blanket 4(d) rule, species listed as threatened automatically receive the same protections as those species listed as endangered, which prevents “take.” “Take” includes, but is not limited to, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting species. Changing this rule would strip these vital protections from threatened species until a 4(d) rule is issued in order to protect said species from “take.”
► To redefine the wording of “adverse modification” in Section 7 of the ESA to include the phrase “as a whole.” This would ignore impacts to a species’ critical habitat unless it affects the species’ entire habitat, thereby allowing actions to proceed even if they jeopardize a population unit of a species, so long as that one action would not affect the species “as a whole.” This would be detrimental because a running tally of “take” that is allowed for individual species is not kept on a nationwide basis, so population units that are left intact may only contain a few hundred individuals.
Sadly, these are but a few of the numerous changes proposed and pushed forward by critics of the ESA that we have countered over the past couple of years.
Born Free USA works to defend the ESA from these ongoing attacks, which, if allowed to proceed, would prove detrimental to the protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species. We work with members of Congress to oppose anti-ESA legislation; advocate to the public about the importance and effectiveness of this law; and we participate in important events with other pro-wildlife groups, such as meetings, hearings, and visibility events, to defend the ESA. With continued effort and hard work – and with your critical support – we can continue our work to defend the ESA into the new year and ensure that the Endangered Species Act stays strong for decades to come.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Julie Kluck
