{"id":566,"date":"2026-07-12T04:41:33","date_gmt":"2026-07-12T04:41:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prorelocationteam.com\/?p=566"},"modified":"2026-07-12T04:41:33","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T04:41:33","slug":"how-redefining-one-word-strips-the-endangered-species-acts-ability-to-protect-vital-habitat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prorelocationteam.com\/?p=566","title":{"rendered":"How redefining one word strips the Endangered Species Act\u2019s ability to protect vital\u00a0habitat"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

It wouldn\u2019t make much sense to prohibit people from shooting a threatened woodpecker while allowing its forest to be cut down, or to bar killing endangered salmon while allowing a dam to dry out their habitat.<\/p>\n

Read more How a 22\u2011year\u2011old George Washington learned how to lead, from a series of mistakes in the Pennsylvania wilderness<\/a><\/p>\n

But that\u2019s what the Trump administration is doing by changing how one word in the Endangered Species Act is interpreted: harm. <\/p>\n

For 50 years, the U.S. government has interpreted the Endangered Species Act as protecting threatened and endangered species from actions that either directly kill them or eliminate their habitat. A , keeps the first part \u2013 protecting against the direct killing of the species \u2013 but removes habitat destruction. <\/p>\n

That matters, because most species on the brink of extinction are on the Endangered Species list because there is almost no place left for them to live. Their habitats have been paved over, burned or transformed. Habitat protection is essential for their survival.<\/p>\n

As an ecologist and a law professor, we have spent our entire careers working to understand the law and science of helping imperiled species thrive. We recognize that the rule change could green-light the destruction of protected species\u2019 habitats, making it nearly impossible to protect those endangered species.<\/p>\n

The legal gambit<\/h2>\n

The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, bans the \u201ctake\u201d of \u201cany endangered species of fish or wildlife,\u201d which includes harming protected species. <\/p>\n

Since 1975, regulations have defined \u201charm\u201d to include habitat destruction that kills or injures wildlife. Developers and logging interests challenged that definition in 1995 in a Supreme Court case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. However, the court ruled that the definition was reasonable and allowed federal agencies to continue using it.<\/p>\n

In short, the law says \u201ctake\u201d includes harm, and under the regulatory definition at the time, harm included indirect harm through habitat destruction.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration has now of \u201charm\u201d in a way that leaves out habitat modification.<\/p>\n

This narrowed definition unravels the most significant protections granted by the Endangered Species Act.<\/p>\n

Why habitat protection matters<\/h2>\n

Habitat protection is the single most important factor in the recovery of endangered species in the United States \u2013 far more consequential than curbing direct killing alone.<\/p>\n

A 2019 study examining the reasons species were listed as endangered between 1975 and 2017 found that only 17% were primarily threatened by direct killing, such as hunting or poaching. That 17% includes iconic species such as the red wolf, American crocodile, Florida panther and grizzly bear.<\/p>\n

Read more Teachers are worried about students cheating with AI, but my survey suggests the deeper issue is\u00a0learning<\/a><\/p>\n

In contrast, a staggering 81% were listed because of habitat loss and degradation. The Chinook salmon, island fox, southwestern willow flycatcher, desert tortoise and likely extinct ivory-billed woodpecker are just a few examples. Globally, a 2022 study found that habitat loss threatened more species than all other causes combined.<\/p>\n