If anyone is struggling with the slightly inaccessible language used here but wants to comment in a way that is informed by what the proposed rule is saying:
In the Endangered Species Act, there is a definition of the word 'take': "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct".
Notably, none of those words mention anything about habitats directly. So, in follow-up regulation, the definition of one word within that definition — 'harm' — was expanded to include "significant habitat modification or degradation" that hurts wildlife. This updated regulation has been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995, 6-3.
The reason they're stating to get rid of this? Because it doesn't align exactly with other definitions of 'harm' or 'take' (generally used to discuss a direct action that immediately, physically hurts an animal). And also, of course, later on it has a little mention that it will "bring economic relief" because of the costs that...well...protecting wildlife habitats incurs.
There's no mention of adding on anything else about habitat protections, only removing it from the definition. It's giving them legal space to do whatever the hell they want to habitats.
I see a lot of notes explaining the importance of habitat protection in protecting wildlife, which is absolutely great, but also bear in mind that the argument they're making is, first and foremost, "but that's not what I'd use the word 'harm' for :(", and secondly "protecting wildlife in general is bad for the economy (aka Me, a Rich Person) actually".
prguitarman
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
origamiaround
titsay
snowghoul
theartofmadeline
