 |
| Protection of northern spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest under the Endangered Species Act led to the end of logging in their habitat. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo by Tom Kogut) |
On July 10, the administration finalized regulations redefinng the word "harm" in the Endangered Species Act, to make it cover only cases where endangered animals are directly harmed. That ruled out such actvities as "logging projects that would cut old-growth trees where owls build their nests, and agriculture operations that diverted water from streams where salmon return to spawn," Brown explains.
A 2019 study of animals added to the Endangered Species List from 1975 to 2017 "found that only 17 percent of them faced threats from direct killing, while 81 percent faced habitat loss," Brown reports. The change means “You can destroy the resources a species requires as long as you don’t do it when the species is at home,” Karrigan Börk, a law professor and director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California Davis Institute of the Environment, told Brown.
"In public comments after the rule was initially proposed, wildlife agency leaders from both liberal and conservative states said the change would be a blow to their conservation efforts," Brown reports. "Wildlife officials in Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, New Jersey, Vermont and Wyoming also expressed concern about the loss of habitat protections, as did the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, a nonprofit that represents state wildlife managers. Of the public comments reviewed by Stateline, only Alaska’s wildlife agency leader offered wholehearted support for the change. . . . Even if states were to pass laws and invest in programs to protect wildlife habitat, they would be unable to enforce those measures on federal land."
Federal officials said the change would let states "manage wildlife without burdensome federal regulations," Brown writes. "But legal experts and wildlife veterans say that almost no states have endangered-species laws on the books that allow state officials to prevent habitat destruction in the name of saving wildlife. . . . Many wildlife experts also noted that state wildlife agencies are already underfunded as it is. Taking on the massive regulatory system that prevents developers and extractive industries from destroying critical habitat would require far more resources than those agencies have available. A coalition of environmental groups and tribal nations have filed lawsuits challenging the federal rollback."
from The Rural Blog https://ift.tt/oF5AN8P 'Harm' under Endangared Species Act now means direct harm, not indirect, such as habitat loss; many states object - Entrepreneur Generations
0 Response to "'Harm' under Endangared Species Act now means direct harm, not indirect, such as habitat loss; many states object - Entrepreneur Generations"
Post a Comment