Don’t let habitat for imperiled animals be destroyed: Sign a comment opposing the redefinition of “harm” under the ESA!

The federal wildlife agencies’ longstanding definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act could soon be removed – this is the Trump administration’s latest attempt to gut protections for imperiled animals already in jeopardy.

The vast majority of animals listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA are in peril because of the loss of habitat. The forests, wetlands, streams and other places they call home are disappearing at an alarming rate, mostly due to human actions.

The ESA clearly counts habitat destruction as a cause of harm to imperiled species. But the Trump administration has proposed deleting the definition of “harm” in an attempt to rewrite the ESA to eliminate protection from habitat destruction.

The Department of the Interior is apparently looking to make it easier to cut down, strip mine, pollute and otherwise destroy the homes of countless animals already struggling to survive!

Act Now: Send your comment to the Department of the Interior saying you OPPOSE wrecking wildlife habitat and changing the ESA’s redefinition of “harm”!

Message

FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001

Rescinding the Definit...

Dear Ms. Shultz,

As an American who cares deeply about protecting our wildlife, I urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) to maintain the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and continue to consider habitat modification that actually kills or injures listed species as “take.” The Services have not only proposed to rescind the regulatory definition but have also made clear their intent to fundamentally change their interpretation and implementation of the ESA.

If the agencies move forward with these changes, biodiversity across this country would be negatively impacted, including iconic species dependent on habitat protections, from the Florida manatee to the North American wolverine and whooping crane. Additionally, the waterways, forests, prairies and marshes that are home to these animals and many others could face severe destruction.

The ESA is America’s single greatest tool to prevent species extinction. It has a 99% success rate and has saved some of America’s most iconic species, including the bald eagle.  Regulations implementing the ESA were created by the Services decades ago, including the definition of “harm.” But removing these regulations does not change the fact that Congress included “harm” as a prohibition when it enacted the ESA.

More troubling than the proposal to rescind the regulatory definition of harm is the Services’ statements about their policy shift away from considering habitat impacts as part of the Act’s protections. Habitat destruction is one of the leading threats to ESA-listed species, making the conservation of these habitats especially important. In fact, 90% of the species listed under the ESA are at risk of extinction because of habitat loss and degradation. If the Services are successful in removing these protections, there will be nothing standing in the way of those habitats being destroyed in the name of profit.

Defining harm to include habitat destruction and modification has been instrumental in stopping habitat destruction throughout the history of the ESA. In the late 1980s, the U.S. Forest Service allowed timber companies to clearcut pine forests red cockaded woodpecker depend upon as habitat. Unsurprisingly, the indiscriminate removal of these trees caused and accelerated the decline in the red cockaded woodpecker population, so a court used the ESA to stop the plan and require the Forest Service to adopt more responsible policies—and the red cockaded woodpecker has since made steps toward recovery.

Protections against harm are just as important today for ensuring the continued survival of protected species. Just last month, a court in Florida found that excessive wastewater discharges that wiped out seagrass beds Florida manatees rely on to feed them through the winter violated the ESA. To continue to protect manatees and other species heavily impacted by habitat destruction, this type of harm must be considered a “take” in violation of the ESA.

Again, I strongly urge you to maintain the existing definition of harm and your longstanding policy of considering habitat destruction as vital to the conservation and recovery of our country’s most imperiled species, as Congress intended the ESA to do.

Thank you,
{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Last Name}

Contact Information

Title

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

Please send me wildlife updates and calls to action from Defenders. Privacy Policy

Mobile Phone

By checking this box you consent to receive SMS/MMS alerts from Defenders. Message frequency varies, Msg & Data rates may apply. Reply STOP to unsubscribe, HELP for more info. Privacy Policy & Terms

Street

Address 2

Country

Postcode

City

State