Latest news with #EndangeredSpeciesActof1973
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Rare Nevada fish 'staring down the barrel of extinction' could earn endangered species protections
An olive-colored minnow only found in southwestern Nevada is one step closer to life-saving federal protection after years of advocacy. The Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub, which gets its name from its threatened habitat in Esmeralda County, Nevada, is an olive-brass fish only found in a single spring and a pond outside its native range, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) says the fish species' historic range included other bodies of water near Dyer, Nevada, but other populations have all expired. Changes in the Earth's climate dried up the Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub's larger habitat more than 500,000 years ago, isolating them to a small spring on the valley floor. Cut The Head Off This Invasive Python-looking Fish If You See It, Conservationists Say On Wednesday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a petition to list the fish as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This milestone is years in the making. In March 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the fish as an endangered species. A 2022 study by the USFWS found the petition warranted further action. According to the USFWS petition, experts have determined that the small fish is threatened by agricultural production and land management practices, the effects of climate change on its habitat, and competition with invasive species. Great Basin Director for the Center for Biological Diversity Patrick Donnelly said in a statement that the rare fish could become extinct because of groundwater pumping for agriculture, including alfalfa for livestock. Arctic Sets Record For Smallest Winter Ice Coverage "The Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub is staring down the barrel of extinction, and only the Endangered Species Act can save it now," Donnelly said. "We're going to keep fighting to save it and the remarkable biodiversity of Fish Lake Valley." The Center for Biological Diversity said impending mining and energy projects in the area will only worsen matters. The center filed a lawsuit to stop the Rhyolite Ridge lithium mine from moving forward because of its threats to biodiversity. "The Fish Lake Valley Tui Chub is barely clinging to existence. I'm thrilled these fish are poised to get the life-saving protections they urgently need," said Donnelly. "Nevada has already lost so many native fish species. We can't afford any more extinction."The petition from the USFWS opens a 60-day comment period before further article source: Rare Nevada fish 'staring down the barrel of extinction' could earn endangered species protections
Gulf Today
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Endangered Species Act faces its own existential threat
We are on the cusp of losing the integrity of one of the most significant environmental acts ever enacted in the United States. Why should this matter? As the Pulitzer Prize-winning evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson put it: 'We should preserve every scrap of biodiversity as priceless while we learn to use it and come to understand what it means to humanity.' Wilson considered the Endangered Species Act of 1973 the most important piece of conservation legislation in our nation's history. I know what that means. I know because I lived it. Fifty years ago, when I began studying peregrine falcons in Colorado, there seemed little hope the species would escape extinction. I was well aware of the shocking statistics: From a historical population of 8,773 pairs in North America, only 500 pairs were known to remain on the continent in 1975. In the Rockies, only 14 birds were surviving. The Endangered Species Act arrived in the nick of time. It had been passed by a near-unanimous bipartisan vote in Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. The act did several things immediately. Each step was critical. It mandated the formation and funding of 'recovery plans' for endangered species, bringing together teams of the best scientific minds to design strategies for averting extinction. It also called for protecting critical habitat — the natural landscape surrounding the breeding, feeding and resting sites of endangered species. And it did something more. The law required federal agencies to work to ensure that any actions they might fund did not indirectly threaten, or 'harm,' the existence of an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act worked. Thanks to the legislation and the way it has been enforced, today we have the opportunity to watch soaring bald eagles in the lower 48, see gray whales migrate along the California coast and appreciate the grace and speed of the species that I researched, the American peregrine falcon. At present, the act has protected more than 2,000 species. There are now more than 3,000 pairs of peregrine falcons in North America — a number unthinkable to me in 1975, when so few individuals remained. Today we can still witness the inspirational spectacles of peregrines slicing the air, hurtling in a 200-mile-per-hour dive to the earth. The odds for such success in the future suddenly don't look good. After 52 years of bipartisan efforts working to save species, the Trump administration is pushing mightily to undo the Endangered Species Act, claiming the law is in need of updating. This is the wrong term for what is being proposed, according to biologists — 'unraveling' is more like it. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to remove the regulatory definition of 'harm' from the act, and rely instead on the definition of 'take.' 'Take' in this instance means actions that harass or kill species directly. 'Harm,' however, has been understood in much broader terms, as actions that may incidentally jeopardize a northern spotted owl, or a Palos Verdes blue butterfly, or various populations of wild salmon, and especially as actions that could degrade an endangered species' habitat. This simple distinction between direct and indirect threats is crucial. A species is its food, shelter and breeding grounds. From the Endangered Species Act's inception, the interpretation of 'harm' has recognized that. Without it the act's power to preserve critical habitats — and save or protect plants and animals — could be dissolved. There is something else missing from the current discussion of upending the act. The Endangered Species Act benefits people far more than most of us realise. Animals and plants we may consider inconsequential may yet hold promises for our future, in medicine, in agriculture, in our sharing of this Earth. Each living species is a holding tank, a treasure chest of unique genetic material that has evolved within its habitat for thousands of years. Even with a robust Endangered Species Act, scientists believe human activity is extinguishing species at a rate that far exceeds what's natural. Critics of the Endangered Species Act see it as keeping resources from people when it prevents a logging operation or the drilling of an oil well to protect a species. It's better understood as maintaining biodiversity for people, and for the health and safety of the planet. Removing the proper definition of 'harm' from the Endangered Species Act will mean removing habitat that is essential for a species' survival. The rule change will be decided soon. The public has until Monday to comment. I hope they will, on the side of this visionary law. The Center for Biological Diversity lists the monarch butterfly, the Florida panther, the desert tortoise and seven more at-risk species that right now need habitat protection. To end 50 years of common-sense interpretation of the Endangered Species Act — the pivotal law that brought the peregrine falcon, the fastest animal on Earth, back from extinction — would be a sad day for America.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: The Endangered Species Act faces its own existential threat
We are on the cusp of losing the integrity of one of the most significant environmental acts ever enacted in the United States. Why should this matter? As the Pulitzer Prize-winning evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson put it: 'We should preserve every scrap of biodiversity as priceless while we learn to use it and come to understand what it means to humanity.' Wilson considered the Endangered Species Act of 1973 the most important piece of conservation legislation in our nation's history. I know what that means. I know because I lived it. Fifty years ago, when I began studying peregrine falcons in Colorado, there seemed little hope the species would escape extinction. I was well aware of the shocking statistics: From a historical population of 8,773 pairs in North America, only 500 pairs were known to remain on the continent in 1975. In the Rockies, only 14 birds were surviving. Read more: How the EPA's environmental about-face could upend California's climate efforts The Endangered Species Act arrived in the nick of time. It had been passed by a near-unanimous bipartisan vote in Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. The act did several things immediately. Each step was critical. It mandated the formation and funding of 'recovery plans' for endangered species, bringing together teams of the best scientific minds to design strategies for averting extinction. It also called for protecting critical habitat — the natural landscape surrounding the breeding, feeding and resting sites of endangered species. And it did something more. The law required federal agencies to work to ensure that any actions they might fund did not indirectly threaten, or 'harm,' the existence of an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act worked. Thanks to the legislation and the way it has been enforced, today we have the opportunity to watch soaring bald eagles in the lower 48, see gray whales migrate along the California coast and appreciate the grace and speed of the species that I researched, the American peregrine falcon. At present, the act has protected more than 2,000 species. Read more: Contributor: DOGE and Trump quash a Klamath River basin comeback There are now more than 3,000 pairs of peregrine falcons in North America — a number unthinkable to me in 1975, when so few individuals remained. Today we can still witness the inspirational spectacles of peregrines slicing the air, hurtling in a 200-mile-per-hour dive to the earth. The odds for such success in the future suddenly don't look good. After 52 years of bipartisan efforts working to save species, the Trump administration is pushing mightily to undo the Endangered Species Act, claiming the law is in need of updating. This is the wrong term for what is being proposed, according to biologists — 'unraveling' is more like it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to remove the regulatory definition of 'harm' from the act, and rely instead on the definition of 'take.' Read more: 'Another broken promise': California environmental groups reel from EPA grant cancellations 'Take' in this instance means actions that harass or kill species directly. 'Harm,' however, has been understood in much broader terms, as actions that may incidentally jeopardize a northern spotted owl, or a Palos Verdes blue butterfly, or various populations of wild salmon, and especially as actions that could degrade an endangered species' habitat. This simple distinction between direct and indirect threats is crucial. A species is its food, shelter and breeding grounds. From the Endangered Species Act's inception, the interpretation of 'harm' has recognized that. Without it the act's power to preserve critical habitats — and save or protect plants and animals — could be dissolved. There is something else missing from the current discussion of upending the act. The Endangered Species Act benefits people far more than most of us realize. Read more: Most money for endangered species goes to a small number of creatures, leaving others in limbo Animals and plants we may consider inconsequential may yet hold promises for our future, in medicine, in agriculture, in our sharing of this Earth. Each living species is a holding tank, a treasure chest of unique genetic material that has evolved within its habitat for thousands of years. Even with a robust Endangered Species Act, scientists believe human activity is extinguishing species at rate that far exceeds what's natural. Critics of the Endangered Species Act see it as keeping resources from people when it prevents a logging operation or the drilling of an oil well to protect a species. It's better understood as maintaining biodiversity for people, and for the health and safety of the planet. Removing the proper definition of 'harm' from the Endangered Species Act will mean removing habitat that is essential for a species' survival. The rule change will be decided soon. The public has until Monday to comment. I hope they will, on the side of this visionary law. The Center for Biological Diversity lists the monarch butterfly, the Florida panther, the desert tortoise and seven more at-risk species that right now need habitat protection. To end 50 years of common-sense interpretation of the Endangered Species Act — the pivotal law that brought the peregrine falcon, the fastest animal on Earth, back from extinction — would be a sad day for America. Marcy Cottrell Houle is a wildlife biologist and author of many books including 'Wing for My Flight: The Peregrine Falcons of Chimney Rock.' If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
The Endangered Species Act faces its own existential threat
We are on the cusp of losing the integrity of one of the most significant environmental acts ever enacted in the United States. Why should this matter? As the Pulitzer Prize-winning evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson put it: 'We should preserve every scrap of biodiversity as priceless while we learn to use it and come to understand what it means to humanity.' Wilson considered the Endangered Species Act of 1973 the most important piece of conservation legislation in our nation's history. I know what that means. I know because I lived it. Fifty years ago, when I began studying peregrine falcons in Colorado, there seemed little hope the species would escape extinction. I was well aware of the shocking statistics: From a historical population of 8,773 pairs in North America, only 500 pairs were known to remain on the continent in 1975. In the Rockies, only 14 birds were surviving. The Endangered Species Act arrived in the nick of time. It had been passed by a near-unanimous bipartisan vote in Congress and signed into law by President Nixon. The act did several things immediately. Each step was critical. It mandated the formation and funding of 'recovery plans' for endangered species, bringing together teams of the best scientific minds to design strategies for averting extinction. It also called for protecting critical habitat — the natural landscape surrounding the breeding, feeding and resting sites of endangered species. And it did something more. The law required federal agencies to work to ensure that any actions they might fund did not indirectly threaten, or 'harm,' the existence of an endangered species. The Endangered Species Act worked. Thanks to the legislation and the way it has been enforced, today we have the opportunity to watch soaring bald eagles in the lower 48, see gray whales migrate along the California coast and appreciate the grace and speed of the species that I researched, the American peregrine falcon. At present, the act has protected more than 2,000 species. There are now more than 3,000 pairs of peregrine falcons in North America — a number unthinkable to me in 1975, when so few individuals remained. Today we can still witness the inspirational spectacles of peregrines slicing the air, hurtling in a 200-mile-per-hour dive to the earth. The odds for such success in the future suddenly don't look good. After 52 years of bipartisan efforts working to save species, the Trump administration is pushing mightily to undo the Endangered Species Act, claiming the law is in need of updating. This is the wrong term for what is being proposed, according to biologists — 'unraveling' is more like it. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking to remove the regulatory definition of 'harm' from the act, and rely instead on the definition of 'take.' 'Take' in this instance means actions that harass or kill species directly. 'Harm,' however, has been understood in much broader terms, as actions that may incidentally jeopardize a northern spotted owl, or a Palos Verdes blue butterfly, or various populations of wild salmon, and especially as actions that could degrade an endangered species' habitat. This simple distinction between direct and indirect threats is crucial. A species is its food, shelter and breeding grounds. From the Endangered Species Act's inception, the interpretation of 'harm' has recognized that. Without it the act's power to preserve critical habitats — and save or protect plants and animals — could be dissolved. There is something else missing from the current discussion of upending the act. The Endangered Species Act benefits people far more than most of us realize. Animals and plants we may consider inconsequential may yet hold promises for our future, in medicine, in agriculture, in our sharing of this Earth. Each living species is a holding tank, a treasure chest of unique genetic material that has evolved within its habitat for thousands of years. Even with a robust Endangered Species Act, scientists believe human activity is extinguishing species at rate that far exceeds what's natural. Critics of the Endangered Species Act see it as keeping resources from people when it prevents a logging operation or the drilling of an oil well to protect a species. It's better understood as maintaining biodiversity for people, and for the health and safety of the planet. Removing the proper definition of 'harm' from the Endangered Species Act will mean removing habitat that is essential for a species' survival. The rule change will be decided soon. The public has until Monday to comment. I hope they will, on the side of this visionary law. The Center for Biological Diversity lists the monarch butterfly, the Florida panther, the desert tortoise and seven more at-risk species that right now need habitat protection. To end 50 years of common-sense interpretation of the Endangered Species Act — the pivotal law that brought the peregrine falcon, the fastest animal on Earth, back from extinction — would be a sad day for America. Marcy Cottrell Houle is a wildlife biologist and author of many books including 'Wing for My Flight: The Peregrine Falcons of Chimney Rock.'
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Wildlife are in crisis': Arkansas expert opines on proposed change to Endangered Species Act
The Ozark hellbender is one of 40 endangered species tracked by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission in the state. The hellbender is a large aquatic salamander found in cool, clear streams in northern Arkansas and southern Missouri. (Photo by Jill Utrup/ and Wildlife Service) A proposed change to the federal Endangered Species Act would send Arkansas preservation efforts backwards amid an ongoing crisis, one state wildlife expert said. Terri Lane, director of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, said a recently proposed rule from President Donald Trump's administration 'removes an important level of protections, paving the way for increased habitat destruction.' The rule, which is open for public comment through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service until May 19, would rescind the regulatory definition of 'harm' in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which has provided a framework to conserve and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats. The current definition of harm under the federal law includes habitat modification, and the proposed rule would remove that protection. According to information posted by the Federal Register, 'harm' runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term 'take.' Nationally, environmentalists have said the proposed rule would gut habitat protections under the Endangered Species Act. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission tracks the state's nearly 40 endangered species, including the hellbender — the largest salamander in North America — a number of fish, birds, bats and mollusks. An alligator and one beetle also make the list. AGFC's Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan, which is required of the state agency as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's State Wildlife Grant program, identifies nearly 380 species of greatest conservation need in Arkansas. The plan was last updated in 2015, and its nearly 1,700 pages provides extensive detail on the state's ecoregions, habitats, and the projected effects of climate change. Nick Goforth, wildlife diversity program coordinator for AGFC, said, regardless of any changes to the Endangered Species Act, 'we will continue to work collaboratively and consult with the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] to do what's best for Arkansas' wildlife and native habitats.' Goforth said the agency is aware of the proposed changes to the federal law, but officials are still assessing how it would affect Arkansas' endangered species and their role in implementing the Endangered Species Act. 'Wildlife are in crisis,' said Lane, who has led the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, a decades-old independent watchdog organization, for the last two years. 'They depend on a network of quality habitat to survive. In the short term, this rule change moves us backward in the fight to save already vulnerable species from further decline or extinction.' Lane emphasized the importance of biodiversity, and said that complex interactions keep ecosystems healthy. 'The ecosystems upon which all life depends, including our own,' she said. Looking further ahead, Lane said long-term effects would include a shift from collaborative efforts to solely the private sector. She predicted the rule change would increase the wildlife and biodiversity crisis, thus requiring more efforts, funding and regulatory protections in the future. 'Rule changes like this, particularly at a time when the agencies tasked with wildlife recovery are experiencing dramatic cuts to their budgets and workforce, mean that our grassroots efforts must increase,' Lane said. 'The private and nonprofit sector must step in and fill the gaps, working with broad coalitions, sounding the alarm and finding solutions where species are being impacted.' Trump, who recently celebrated the 100-day mark of his second term, has made scathing cuts to environmental programs nationwide. In Little Rock, AmeriCorps staff lost their funding; along the Buffalo National River, a visitor center closed in February after a wave of firings; and in Fayetteville, a major solar project at the University of Arkansas is stuck in limbo. Slashes to programs championed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are expected to have an adverse effect on Arkansas food banks and farmers alike as they lose a major funding source for protein. Currently, however, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund seems unaffected. AGFC has received a number of these grants over the years, specifically for habitat preservation for the state's endangered species. Last June, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awarded the state with a $2.2 million grant to protect the yellowcheek darter, a small freshwater fish, and other species. The AGFC and The Nature Conservancy — a national environmental group with offices in Little Rock and Fayetteville — provided matching funds and increased the total investment to nearly $3.1 million. In Arkansas, allocations from the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund have been used to purchase more than 10,000 acres for the conservation of a variety of species. In 2020, more than 1,100 acres at the Beryl Anthony Lower Ouachita Wildlife Management Area were purchased for conservation of the red-cockaded woodpecker. AGFC also offers conservation incentive programs to private landowners, but spokesperson Keith Stephens said they were more geared toward game animals than endangered species. In a statement, Goforth said the state agency supports federal changes that aim to streamline the process of protecting endangered species. 'While the AGFC values the [Endangered Species Act] and the protections and benefits it offers, we are in support of any favorable reforms that would aim to address the challenges in its implementation and would work to streamline consultations and other processes, while both ensuring that its goals and objectives can be met more efficiently and effectively and also maintaining the existing protections for those listed species and their habitats, which are essential to their continued existence and recovery,' Goforth said. Several organizations in Arkansas focus on the livelihood of the state's endangered species, including the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Data gathered during on-the-ground field surveys to locate and evaluate endangered species help identify ecologically significant land most in need of protection, according to its website. Spokesperson Danyelle McNeill deferred all questions about how the proposed rule may affect Arkansas animals to federal agencies. Answering for Director Jennifer Ballard, McNeill said the commission's scope of services has currently not changed. Taylor Pool, acting assistant regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's southwest regional office, did not reply to specific questions about the proposed rule change. 'At this time, we have nothing for you,' Pool said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
