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.

 

[El Jason]

If anyone thinks this rule change will reduce litigation and speed things up, they need their head examined.

 

[sapperJ24]

The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register the other day. There's additional context there for those interested.

Reading (skimming) the comments reinforced that this does not alter Section 7.

"The rescission of the definition of “harm” does not alter the statutory requirement that Federal agencies ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or “result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a) (emphasis added)). “Destruction or adverse modification” is a separate regulatory consideration from “take.” Thus, not only is the statutory prohibition in section 7 against habitat modification not affected at all by the deletion of the definition of “harm” (which itself defines, in part, “take”), but the presence of this separate and distinct provision in the statutory text regarding habitat modification reinforces the Services' conclusion that habitat modification is not properly part of the definition of “take,” as such a construction would violate the canon against surplusage. The Services emphasize that section 7 remains fully applicable to Federal actions that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat. This rulemaking also does not change any species classifications or critical habitat designations."

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

A few other endangered species likely to receive renewed pressure include the desert tortoise, golden-cheeked warbler, and the delta smelt.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Before the rule change, proposed actions that would adversly affect listed species, Fish and Wildlife service would propose measures to minimize effects and preferably result in no direct or indirect take. If take is unavoidable, but the service determines that there is an acceptable level of take that can be permitted, they issue an incidental take permit that usually has requirements for mitigation to offset the effects of the take.

After the rule change, not considering indirect effects as take would not only remove the service's ability to limit indirect take, but the increased effect from that would also be compounded by removing the mitigation that would have been required for the indirect effects.

So increase in indirect take (some of which would result in degredation of habitat quality and suitablility, but not all, depending on the actions and affected species), and decrease in mitigation. Mitigation is on-site where possible, but can also be offsite, and can provide a lot of benefits to other species including game species.

Here's a link to FWS biological opinions for section 7 projects, for those interested in real life examples.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/adhocCreator?catalogId=species&reportId=bo&columns=%2Fbo@activity_codes,final_date,activity_titles,lead_agencies&sort=%2Fbo@final_date%20asc

 

[SAJ-99]

Thanks for providing a relevant example.

Maybe this one below fits your description? I try to find something people can relate to from their area and bull trout came to mind. Some states, like Washington, have a version of their own ESA that might mitigate the impact of the federal change. I don’t believe Idaho has one. This project is quite controversial due to its impact on spawning habitat. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to see how this could impact that Bull trout habitat. I have read the same concern exists for various rare salmon runs in WA. Like I said before, I think the biggest concern will be in lakes and oceans. Meat eater has done various podcasts on the problems these salmon face and anything that degrades habitat makes recovery harder.

Idaho Club ordered to halt Trestle Creek development following lawsuit

SANDPOINT, Idaho – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has ordered the Idaho Club to stop construction on a marina and lakeside housing development at Trestle Creek on Lake

www.khq.com

 

[Forkyfinder]

Maybe this one below fits your description? I try to find something people can relate to from their area and bull trout came to mind. Some states, like Washington, have a version of their own ESA that might mitigate the impact of the federal change. I don’t believe Idaho has one. This project is quite controversial due to its impact on spawning habitat. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to see how this could impact that Bull trout habitat. I have read the same concern exists for various rare salmon runs in WA. Like I said before, I think the biggest concern will be in lakes and oceans. Meat eater has done various podcasts on the problems these salmon face and anything that degrades habitat makes recovery harder.

Idaho Club ordered to halt Trestle Creek development following lawsuit

SANDPOINT, Idaho – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has ordered the Idaho Club to stop construction on a marina and lakeside housing development at Trestle Creek on Lake

www.khq.com

Thanks - this has also stopped good projects (logging and controlled burn), that im not so sure make habitat worse (for both species) in the long term.

Earthjustice got their lawyers full pockets and forest service employee time wasted. What the public and wildlife get?

USFS approves Bitterroot Front Project

After seven years of consideration, the Bitterroot National Forest has approved a logging and burning project along the western slope of the Bitterroot Valley.

missoulacurrent.com

Judge rules Bitterroot National Forest road-building plan violates Endangered Species Act

Conservation groups said that the amendment eliminated road density restrictions without fully considering ramifications for other species, including grizzly bears and bull trout.

www.kpax.com

 

[Bonasababy]

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes Rescinding Definition of “Harm” Under ESA – National Agricultural Law Center

nationalaglawcenter.org

For better or worse, it will greatly diminish the consideration of habitat impacts on ESA populations. As an example, a listed wild steelhead population may not be considered in a proposed project that alters fish habitat, unless the burden of proof shows it will directly result in “take”.

Likewise, a travel plan proposal that allows motorized travel in a core habitat area for animals such as lynx, woodland caribou, or grizzly bears likely will not be subject to challenges based on the impact the proposal will have on ESA species. The caveat is now the allegation of harm has the burden of proof to show it will directly result in the death of ESA animals.

And perhaps the clearest threat...doing harm to the habitat ESA species need is no longer going to be considered a take.

 

[Treeshark]

Some states, like Washington, have a version of their own ESA that might mitigate the impact of the federal change.

Good point here. Wildlife is really supposed to be managed by the states anyway.

 

[SAJ-99]

Earthjustice got their lawyers full pockets and forest service employee time wasted. What the public and wildlife get?

You asked for an example and I tried to provide one for you. We can’t litigate the impact of every case. And you are back to arguing against the EAJA which is not the point of the thread. But to answer your question, a project can be good for elk and bad for bull trout spawning grounds. Both things can be true.

Good point here. Wildlife is really supposed to be managed by the states anyway.

and what happens in oceans, or rivers that are state lines? Or if wildlife crosses state lines. You oversimplify everything with that sentence in every thread you post it in.

 

[Bonasababy]

If anyone thinks this rule change will reduce litigation and speed things up, they need their head examined.

Environmental law is sure shaping up to be a busy field to work in!

 

[Bonasababy]

Good point here. Wildlife is really supposed to be managed by the states anyway.

Yes and no. Part of the rationale for the ESA is that species cross boundaries, and population recovery requires consideration across their current and potential range.

 

[Treeshark]

Part of the rationale for the ESA is that species cross boundaries, and population recovery requires consideration across their current and potential range.

Many game species do that too though, and states have figured out how to work together and manage them pretty well.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Environmental law is sure shaping up to be a busy field to work in!

Has been for decades. This changes little other than who they file against.