Wildlife need habitat! Speak out to stop federal agencies from changing the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act
April 30, 2025
The San Joaquin kit fox was one of the first species listed under the ESA and has suffered significant habitat loss from oil and gas drilling and agriculture. (Photo: Heather Bell/USFWS)
With the Trump Administration on a rampage against civil rights and the rule of law, it was only a matter of time before it took aim at the Endangered Species Act (ESA). One of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws, the ESA requires that actions impacting species listed as threatened or endangered must be reviewed and potentially prohibited if they would kill or injure those species.
But now the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) want to redefine what “harm” means in the ESA to exclude the degradation and destruction of habitat. Their proposal is like allowing someone who destroys a farm family’s crops, equipment, and house to claim innocence because they did not kill the farmers themselves.
By removing habitat considerations from the definition of harm, the agencies in charge of administering the ESA would have a clear path to approving more drilling, mining, logging, and other industrial and development projects.
Please speak out on behalf of wild places and wildlife. You have until May 19 to submit comments, and every one counts. Together, we can show the agencies that the places fish and wildlife call home have the right to protection under the law.
The full proposal is available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/17/2025-06746/rescinding-the-definition-of-harm-under-the-endangered-species-act
Follow the directions below to submit your comments.
- Go to regulations.gov
- Search for docket number: FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001
- Click on the “Comment” button in the upper left corner
- Make your voice heard by May 19, 2025
Feel free to use the following information, but please personalize your comment for greater impact!
- The protection of wild places like forests and rivers is essential to the survival of humans and non-humans alike. The current proposal would give drilling, mining, logging, and other companies a green light to destroy vital natural systems with impunity.
- Species cannot be managed or protected separately from their habitats. All animals are inextricably connected to the “homes” that provide the shelter, food, water, and mates necessary for survival.
- Extensive scientific evidence shows that habitat loss is the leading cause of biodiversity decline and species extinction. Even FWS has acknowledged this when administering the ESA.
- The current proposal contradicts the intent of Congress and the rule of law. Congress explicitly included “habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife” in the definition of “harm” when it enacted the ESA over 50 years ago. This definition has also been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Nadia Steinzor is an environmental consultant with 25 years of experience in policy analysis, research, writing, and communications. She has developed and managed projects to investigate the oil and gas industry’s impact on the climate and communities, secure governmental protections for air, water, land, and wildlife, and engage the public in advocacy efforts. Nadia worked with the Rewilding Institute to ensure that wolves and other carnivores thrive and roam in the Northeast and beyond, and is now Carnivore Conservation Director for Project Coyote. Nadia holds an M.S. in environmental policy from the Bard College Center for Environmental Policy.
