A Heartbreaking Change To The Endangered Species Act – Wildlife Now In More Danger Of Threats To Their Existence

Submit a Comment For a Change to Law Enactment!

Historically, the term “take” in the Endangered Species Act,

has included actions such as killing, trapping, or significantly disturbing wildlife, while “harm” has covered indirect damage like destroying a species’ critical habitat.

The USFWS’s attempt to narrow these definitions threatens to undermine decades of conservation progress. If “harm” is reinterpreted to exclude habitat degradation, developers could bulldoze forests, drain wetlands, or pollute rivers without consequence—so long as no animal is directly injured. Such regulatory rollback would strip vital protections from countless species, particularly those already endangered due to habitat loss and climate stressors. The ESA has long been a bipartisan success story; changing its core definitions now not only weakens the law but signals that environmental protections are negotiable.

📢 My Take on “Take”

After I was informed of this potential reversal of species and habitat protection, I immediately wanted to make it known that this choice would not be progressive. In fact, it would undermine the efforts that conservationists set forth. That is why I submitted my public comment to regulations.gov and it is currently pending review.

You can read my comment below.

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which currently includes habitat modification. This issue is personal to me. From middle school, to graduate school, then the continuation into my career in government agencies, I have participated and worked in the environmental, wildlife, and conservation fields. I moved from Arizona to Buffalo and have traveled around the world where I was exposed to various climates during my travels. Growing up, I lived near a nature preserve, where I spent countless hours hiking through forests and observing wildlife with my family. I remember first learning about the habitat loss of monarch butterflies and owls. The frequent exposure to nature sparked my lifelong passion for conservation. Since then, I’ve volunteered with local wildlife rehabilitation centers in New York State and Florida and participated in habitat restoration projects aimed at supporting native species and returning wildlife to their habitats.

As an environmental scientist, I’ve seen firsthand how fragile ecosystems are and how even small changes in habitat—like the removal of nesting trees or disruption of a water source—can make the difference between life and death for certain species. Removing habitat protections under the guise of redefining “harm” would not only undo decades of progress but would also break the moral commitment we've made to protect vulnerable wildlife for future generations.

Background
This proposed regulation seeks to rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” under the ESA, which rightly includes significant habitat modification that leads to injury or death of protected species. This definition, affirmed in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (515 U.S. 687, 1995), has been foundational in ensuring that federal agencies consider both direct and indirect impacts on endangered species. The regulation in question aims to eliminate the existing definition of “harm,” which includes habitat modification that can injure or kill protected species. This interpretation has been a critical tool in ensuring that threats to endangered species include not only direct harm, such as poaching but also indirect harm, such as destruction of the habitat they need to survive and reproduce. The Services claim that this definition runs counter to the “best meaning” of the statutory term “take,” yet this narrow interpretation disregards decades of legal precedent, ecological research, and common-sense understanding of how species are actually threatened in the real world.

Analysis
The argument that habitat loss is not “harm” defies both scientific understanding and common sense. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), habitat loss is one of the primary drivers of species endangerment in the United States, second only to invasive species (USGS, 2022). Moreover, over 85% of species listed under the ESA are threatened primarily due to habitat degradation or destruction (Wilcove et al., 1998). Habitat destruction is one of the leading causes of species extinction globally. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), habitat loss due to human activities has put more than 1 million species at risk of extinction (IPBES, 2019). Rescinding the definition of "harm" to exclude habitat modification ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus that habitat and species survival are inextricably linked.

Habitat isn't just where animals "live"—it's where they eat, breed, migrate, and take shelter. Species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida panther, and various salmon populations rely on particular conditions for survival. If those habitats are disturbed, even without a single animal being physically harmed, the entire population can decline rapidly.

My local area once had a thriving population of Western monarch butterflies. Over the past decade, I’ve watched their numbers plummet, due largely to habitat loss. Milkweed and nectar plants have been stripped away by development, and overwintering sites have been disturbed by logging. Under the proposed revision, such habitat modifications might not be considered “harm”—despite directly contributing to the species’ collapse.

The Services also appear to overlook the cascading ecological impacts of degraded habitats. Removing protections will not only harm listed species but also entire ecosystems that depend on biodiversity to function—impacting services like water purification, pollination, and carbon sequestration, which are essential to human well-being (IPBES, 2019).

I will provide recommendations that could deliver a change of heart to this potential rescission in light of the ecological evidence and public interest in maintaining strong conservation protections. Instead of rescinding the definition, I respectfully urge the Services to:
1. Maintain the current definition of “harm” that includes habitat modification, as affirmed by decades of ecological research and judicial precedent.
2. Incorporate scientific consultation from independent ecologists and conservation biologists in the rulemaking process.
3. Consider community-level impacts on Indigenous, rural, and conservation-based economies that depend on healthy, intact ecosystems.
4. Extend the public comment period to allow for broader input from scientists, landowners, and community stakeholders who may be disproportionately affected by this change or expand public engagement and education to ensure that all stakeholders understand the importance of habitat in species recovery and survival.
5. Venture into a local state park or scenic area and experience its beauty yourself without disturbing it. Simply appreciate its existence.

In conclusion, rescinding the definition of “harm” would represent a dangerous step backward in our efforts to conserve endangered species and the habitats they rely upon. The ESA was crafted to be forward-looking, and weakening its scope will inevitably lead to more extinctions—not fewer.

I strongly urge the Services to uphold the current, scientifically sound definition of “harm,” which protects not just individual animals, but the environments that sustain them.

In any situation that calls for attention to an important issue, a call to action must be initiated. Thankfully, the government is open for public comments to any new or pending regulation changes. Now, whether they actually review it and are genuine about hearing comments, we can confirm this firsthand once I submit a comment. Then we can revisit the post and see if it was posted to the public government comments page. I urge anyone to visit regulations.gov, explore the regulation changes and submit comments and provide suggestions for anything that is important to you. If you were impacted by an existing rule or regulation, you may find it meaningful to share your ideas for deregulation by completing the form.

📣 Call to Action: Make Your Voice Heard!

Comments must be received by May 19, 2025.

Wildlife can’t speak for themselves—but you can speak for them. This redefinition threatens the very tools we use to protect endangered species and fight back against ecological collapse. Submit a public comment to the Official Government Website directly and tell them that weakening the definitions of “take” and “harm” is unacceptable.

The USFWS MAY NOW Allow Harm to Species’ Habitats – But Your Voice Can Be Heard!