Don't quit. @pshalliwell - Tumblr Blog

anexperimentallife

labelleizzy

Everyone reblog this. Mandatory.

pinktuals

i wanna know what she thinks about the new pope

nudityandnerdery

mythicalogicall

saw this today

pilgrimattinkercreek1974

Oh ok so it turns out ive been borrowing grief from the future ! it turns out ive been preparing to lose the things i love rather than basking in the light of them while they last. Maybe i should nt do that

depsidase

politijohn

Source

thememedaddy

theunfairfolk

the spirit is unwilling and the flesh it feels not so good also

specimentality

On April 16th 2025 the US federal government has proposed to change the interpretation of the endangered species act so that it no longer protects habitat.

This is open for public comment until the end of May 19th. Please comment and make your voice heard.

Wildlife need their habitat. If the ESA redefines harm so that habitat is no longer protected, the implications for wildlife would be catastrophic.

coriakin-wandering

Public Comment on the Proposal to Rescind the Regulatory Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act

Docket ID: FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001

I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposal to rescind the current regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As someone with a deep concern for biodiversity, I believe that removing habitat modification from the definition of harm would critically undermine the Act’s purpose—to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

The ESA was designed not only to prevent the outright killing of endangered and threatened species but to ensure their long-term survival. Scientific consensus shows that habitat loss and degradation are among the leading drivers of species decline and extinction. For many species, “harm” occurs not only through direct injury but when key behaviors like breeding, nesting, or migration are disrupted by human alteration of their environment. Without intact, functional ecosystems, species cannot survive—let alone recover.

The current definition rightly includes significant habitat modifications that “actually kill or injure wildlife” by impairing essential behavior patterns. This is supported by decades of ecological research showing that species rely on specific habitat structures and timing cues for survival. For example, wetland drainage may not immediately injure a frog population, but if it eliminates their breeding grounds, it leads to population collapse. Removing this protection under a narrow interpretation of ‘harm’ ignores the scientific understanding of how ecosystems function and how animals experience injury.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo emphasized statutory clarity, but the ESA clearly states its purpose is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” This language shows Congress intended to protect more than just individual animals—it intended to protect the habitats they need to live.

I urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to retain the existing definition of “harm” to preserve the integrity and purpose of the ESA. Rolling back this definition would render the statute reactive rather than proactive, forcing action only after species have already been pushed to the brink.

Thank you for considering this comment. Please preserve the full scope of protection the ESA has long provided, grounded in ecological science and consistent with the law’s original intent.

Sincerely,

Name

maxknightley

they call me the nuance lover because I love nuance

maxknightley

but only sometimes, of course. it's not always appropriate.

mosfetransgender-deactivated202

NEVER LET YOURSELF BE STOPPED BY WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE IF YOU STARTED EARLIER!!!!! THE ONLY TIME WE HAVE IS NOW

innerchildabortionclinic

the libertarian fantasy of safety regulations existing due to sadistic enjoyment of government officials oppressing the innocent small business is kind of hilarious the more you think about it. I hope there is actually a guy out there who just fucking LOVES recalling unsafe food in a sicko sort of way. i'd respect him.