Changes to ESA rules

[TOGIE]

Concern without merit - as in examples or evidence - is what exactly?

without merit in your opinion. you simultaneously can't prove to me that this change won't ever produce harm. so your lack of concern is based on....? seems to me it's likely a tribalistic or maybe simply a "not their take" take, at this point.

all i have to go on are the words of the administration. those words don't jive with what little i know about wildlife biology, so i'm gonna remained concerned about the rule change. if i'm truly misconstruing those words i'll revisit my take.

i think we'll all find this moot as it realistically might not be able to muster itself past legal challenges.

 

[Forkyfinder]

without merit in your opinion. you simultaneously can't prove to me that this change won't ever produce harm. so your lack of concern is based on....?

Its strange you invoke tribalism - when i asked for data to change my mind?

I havent endorsed the change, or said i outright supported it once in the thread, because i dont. I am skeptical of the alleged certain negative impacts - especially with the landscape and critters i know. Id rate it as slightly better than neutral for them, only in terms of impact. Not wording or taking this to definitionally mean caring "less" about habitat.

Again - thats why i specifically wanted to see examples of where this is overtly going to cause damage or where it has historically prevented damage.

 

[TOGIE]

Its strange you invoke tribalism - when i asked for data to change my mind?

I havent endorsed the change, or said i outright supported it once in the thread, because i dont. I am skeptical of the alleged certain negative impacts - especially with the landscape and critters i know. Id rate it as slightly better than neutral for them, only in terms of impact. Not wording or taking this to definitionally mean caring "less" about habitat.

Again - thats why i specifically wanted to see examples of where this is overtly going to cause damage or where it has historically prevented damage.

i think the comments about screeching and tribalism started with you?

just returning the favor.

the words on their face in the rule seem like something that could absolutely be applied in an ways that are negative to wildlife. i personally think it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. so i find the rule concerning.

it's fine to disagree. not that we necessarily do?

i think many are well founded in their extreme skepticism of this administration on matters of wildlife and public lands. it's not humble or mature discourse to auto reduce those concerns to tribalism every time.

 

[sapperJ24]

I havent endorsed the change, or said i outright supported it once in the thread, because i dont. I am skeptical of the alleged certain negative impacts - especially with the landscape and critters i know. Id rate it as slightly better than neutral for them, only in terms of impact. Not wording or taking this to definitionally mean caring "less" about habitat.

Again - thats why i specifically wanted to see examples of where this is overtly going to cause damage or where it has historically prevented damage.

I've been trying to follow the discussion on this thread, but I might be missing some of the back and forth.

Going back to the original DOI press release, I interpret "Actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited. [...] What ends today is a system that repeatedly punished people for indirect or speculative impacts never contemplated by Congress" as the plain English that it is. Harm will be defined as injury or death and indirect or speculative impacts are not to be considered.

What I find interesting from the DOI release is the final paragraph, "The final rule will reduce unnecessary permitting, cut compliance costs, and eliminate confusion for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments." And what is interesting to me is what is not included in that list, federal government. Presumably this will also eventually apply to the Federal Government, but there are other laws in place that will likely limit the impact until a court ruling. And I expect this will be litigated (see NPR article), especially since SCOTUS already ruled on that "'harm' that included significant habitat modification when it actually kills or injures protected wildlife." The below NPR article expands on this, "'significant habitat modification or degradation' that might impact a species' ability to feed, reproduce or seek shelter."

Ultimately, I see this rule change as a substantial weakening of the ESA as many species are listed due to threats to habitat. Hard to make a living without a home.

There's a decent article here from FoxNews that highlights some species (dunes sagebrush lizard, lesser prairie-chicken) that have been burdensome for industry. Maybe those are some examples of where 'damage' has been prevented. But I think a core component of the issue is many people have different definitions of harm, or damage, and differing acceptance of trade offs.

Trump admin scraps ‘weaponized’ wildlife rule that became 'burden' on American families and businesses: Burgum

The Trump administration is rescinding a decades-old Endangered Species Act rule it says expanded federal authority to restrict energy production, infrastructure projects and private land use.

www.foxnews.com

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/14/nx-s1-5891858/trump-esa-harm-endangered-species-act-threatened-lawsuit

 

[Forkyfinder]

it's not humble or mature discourse to auto reduce those concerns to tribalism every time.

Its not tribalism to demand examples before you feel a concern is validated.

It is alarmism though, to say a thing is a "certain problem" without a single even speculative relevant example.

 

[TOGIE]

Its not tribalism to demand examples before you feel a concern is validated.

It is alarmism though, to say a thing is a "certain problem" without a single even speculative relevant example.

sheesh, data data data. demanding the data? no that's not tribalism. your tribalism is reducing everyone's "screeching" (not to mention that i really haven't seen any screeching?) to "tribalism" and "alarmism"

folks are allowed to have concerns and you're obsession with proving peoples concerns as unfounded and simply "alarmism" kinda reeks of tribalism if you ask me. we clearly just have different ways measure what we would interpret as a concern. so be it. shows that the discourse is clearly proving to be a bit pointless.

 

[Chama Grande]

Once again, the administration brings an absolute dogsh*t solution to an actual real issue

 

[Forkyfinder]

I've been trying to follow the discussion on this thread, but I might be missing some of the back and forth.

Going back to the original DOI press release, I interpret "Actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited. [...] What ends today is a system that repeatedly punished people for indirect or speculative impacts never contemplated by Congress" as the plain English that it is. Harm will be defined as injury or death and indirect or speculative impacts are not to be considered.

What I find interesting from the DOI release is the final paragraph, "The final rule will reduce unnecessary permitting, cut compliance costs, and eliminate confusion for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments." And what is interesting to me is what is not included in that list, federal government. Presumably this will also eventually apply to the Federal Government, but there are other laws in place that will likely limit the impact until a court ruling. And I expect this will be litigated (see NPR article), especially since SCOTUS already ruled on that "'harm' that included significant habitat modification when it actually kills or injures protected wildlife." The below NPR article expands on this, "'significant habitat modification or degradation' that might impact a species' ability to feed, reproduce or seek shelter."

Ultimately, I see this rule change as a substantial weakening of the ESA as many species are listed due to threats to habitat. Hard to make a living without a home.

There's a decent article here from FoxNews that highlights some species (dunes sagebrush lizard, lesser prairie-chicken) that have been burdensome for industry. Maybe those are some examples of where 'damage' has been prevented. But I think a core component of the issue is many people have different definitions of harm, or damage, and differing acceptance of trade offs.

Trump admin scraps ‘weaponized’ wildlife rule that became 'burden' on American families and businesses: Burgum

The Trump administration is rescinding a decades-old Endangered Species Act rule it says expanded federal authority to restrict energy production, infrastructure projects and private land use.

www.foxnews.com

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/14/nx-s1-5891858/trump-esa-harm-endangered-species-act-threatened-lawsuit

Thanks for providing a relevant example.