The shift is part of a broader strategy to facilitate increased development projects across the United States, including drilling and logging, by relaxing existing regulations. Administration officials argue that the current definitions are overly expansive, imposing undue burdens on businesses. They suggest that endangered species should only be shielded from deliberate acts of harm, thus excluding incidental losses related to habitat destruction.
Environmental groups are vehemently opposed to the proposal, stating that the majority of endangered species are affected by habitat loss, which is the leading cause of extinction. Andrew Bowman, President of Defenders of Wildlife, has characterized this proposal as potentially the most significant erosion of the Endangered Species Act since its passage in 1973. Critics warn that the new interpretation could render the protection of vital habitats, such as forests and grasslands, virtually impossible, thereby endangering the ecosystems that various species depend upon for survival.
Overall, the potential redefinition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act raises serious concerns about the safeguarding of wildlife amid increasing human development and environmental challenges.
Environmental groups are vehemently opposed to the proposal, stating that the majority of endangered species are affected by habitat loss, which is the leading cause of extinction. Andrew Bowman, President of Defenders of Wildlife, has characterized this proposal as potentially the most significant erosion of the Endangered Species Act since its passage in 1973. Critics warn that the new interpretation could render the protection of vital habitats, such as forests and grasslands, virtually impossible, thereby endangering the ecosystems that various species depend upon for survival.
Overall, the potential redefinition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act raises serious concerns about the safeguarding of wildlife amid increasing human development and environmental challenges.
