Trump overhauls endangered species protections

Trump overhauls endangered species protections
In this July 8, 2019 file photo President Donald Trump listens as Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt speaks during an event on the environment in the East Room of the White House in Washington. The Trump administration has finalized changes to enforcement of the landmark Endangered Species Act, a move it says will improve transparency and effectiveness but critics say will drive more creatures to extinction. Bernhardt unveiled the changes Monday. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

The Trump administration on Monday rolled out some of the broadest changes in decades to enforcement of the landmark Endangered Species Act, allowing the government to put an economic cost on saving a species and other changes critics contend could speed extinction for some struggling plants and animals.

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and other administration officials contend the changes improve efficiency of oversight , while protecting rare species.

"The best way to uphold the Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains effective in achieving its ultimate goal—recovery of our rarest species," he said in a statement. "An effectively administered Act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation."

Democratic lawmakers, several state attorneys generals and conservation groups said the overhaul would hamper protections for endangered and threatened species.

The Endangered Species Act is credited with helping save the bald eagle, California condor and scores of other animals and plants from extinction since President Richard Nixon signed it into law in 1973. The Endangered Species Act currently protects more than 1,600 species in the United States and its territories.

The changes included allowing economic cost to taken into account as the federal government weighs protecting a struggling species, although Congress has stipulated that economic costs not be a factor in deciding whether to protect an animal. That prohibition was meant to ensure that the logging industry, for example, would not be able to push to block protections for a forest-dwelling animal on economic grounds.

Gary Frazer, an assistant director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told reporters that the government would adhere to that by disclosing the costs to the public, without being a factor for the officials considering the protections.

But Brett Hartl, a government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity conservation group, contended any such price tag would be inflated, and "an invitation for political interference" in the federal government's decision whether to save a species.

"You have to be really naive and cynical and disingenuous to pretend" otherwise, Hartl said. "That's the reason that Congress way back...prohibited the Service from doing that," Hartl said. "It's a science question: Is a species going extinct, yes or no?"

Other changes include ending blanket protections for species newly listed as threatened and a revision that conservation groups say could block officials from considering the impact on wildlife from climate change, a major and growing threat to many species.

"Nothing in here in my view is a radical change for how we have been consulting and listing species for the last decade or so," Frazer said. Instead, he said, it brings "more transparency and certainty to the public about the way we'll carry out our job."

While the nearly half-century old act has been overwhelmingly successful in saving animals and plants that are listed as endangered, battles over some of the listings have been years-long and legend, pitting northern spotted owls, snail darters and other creatures and their protectors in court and political fights with industries , local opponents and others. Republican lawmakers have pushed for years to change the Endangered Species Act itself, in Congress.

Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who leads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Monday's changes in enforcement to the act were "a good start," but said he would continue working to change the act itself.

Democrats blasted the changes, and conservationists promised a court fight.

The regulations" take a wrecking ball to one of our oldest and most effective environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act," Sen. Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, said in a statement. "As we have seen time and time again, no environmental protection—no matter how effective or popular—is safe from this administration."

At least 10 attorneys general joined conservation groups in protesting an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction.

"This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal. We'll see the Trump administration in court about it," Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation for the conservation advocacy group Earthjustice.

A United Nations report warned in May that more than 1 million plants and animals globally face extinction, some within decades, owning to human development, climate change and other threats. The report called the rate of species loss a record.

In Washington state, Ray Entz, wildlife director for the Kalispel tribe, spoke of losing the struggle to save the last wild mountain caribou in the lower 48 states, despite the creature's three decades on the Endangered Species List. With logging and other human activities and predators driving down the numbers of the south Selkirk caribou, Canadian officials captured and penned the last surviving members of the species over the winter and pinned them up for their protection.

"There were some tears shed," Entz said, of the moment when tribal officials realized the animal had dwindled in the wild past the point of saving. "It was a tough pill to swallow."

Despite the disappearance of the protected caribou species from the contiguous United States, Entz said, "We don't want to see a weakening of the law."

"There's times where hope is something you don't even want to talk about," he said. But, "having the Endangered Species Act gives us the opportunity to participate in that recovery."


Explore further

Trump aims to end automatic protections for some species

© 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Trump overhauls endangered species protections (2019, August 12) retrieved 23 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-trump-overhauls-endangered-species.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
59 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 13, 2019
Cue the environmentalist nutters in three, two, one...

This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal.

Contrast that with the grownups in the room:

The best way to uphold the Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains effective in achieving its ultimate goal—recovery of our rarest species. An effectively administered Act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation.


Have a look for yourself to see that the environmentalist nutters are lying. Or hysterical, which is essentially the same.

https://www.fws.g...ons.html


Aug 13, 2019
@assdad hates species.

Aug 13, 2019
The changes included allowing economic cost to taken into account as the federal government weighs protecting a struggling species, although Congress has stipulated that economic costs not be a factor in deciding whether to protect an animal.
This above statement seems to me to clearly completely contradict itself because it looks to me its implying BOTH that the economic cost may be taken into account when deciding whether action should be taken to pretect a species (as implied by the first half of that above sentence) AND that the economic cost will NOT be taken into account when deciding whether action should be taken to pretect a species (as implied by the second half of that above sentence). Well, I am glad that's all cleared up! Perhaps they are trying to hide or obscure or encrypt what they are proposing or planning because they are privately ashamed of it?

Aug 13, 2019
Hello, endangered species! Hint: Canada is that way ^^^^^^ Might be safer.

Aug 13, 2019
@aksdad.
Cue the environmentalist nutters in three, two, one...
Are these the same "environmentalist nutters" who over decades have saved you and your family from air/land/water pollution?...you know, the same ones who campaigned: to remove Lead Additive in petrol; to control factory/farm waste disposal; to save the worlds major fisheries from collapsing like those in the North Sea did; etc, etc. :)

So, @aksdad, your unthinking drivel posted over the last few days across the environment/AGW threads comes across as the kind of nasty anti-social/anti-science 'spiels' given to the 'weaponised stupids and bots' employed by GOP/Russian troll-factory agents who won't stop at destroying everything good and sustainable (including the environment that sustains us) in order to gain power/profit. Shame on you. Pity.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more