By Cole Gee | Staff Writer
In 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in order to slow down the extinction of America’s native plants and animals. Under the ESA, animals and plants were given qualifications to be protected from various forms of “harm.”
That word — “harm” — has been the backbone of the ESA’s effectiveness. However, the Trump Administration is proposing to change the wording, which could put thousands of America’s endangered plants and animals at risk.
Professor Julie King teaches environmental law at Baylor University. She says this change could open a Pandora’s box for the de-regulation of endangered species protection.
The ESA prohibits the “take” of an endangered species and actions that “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect,” meaning industries such as oil, mining and logging couldn’t operate normally if their work would impact an endangered species.
“Once a habitat is designated or really when a species is present in an area, that gives that species a lot of protections there, including with private property owners, which is really where the crux of this issue is,” King said. “Because of course, species don’t know the boundaries of, whether this is a national park or this is land belonging to an energy company.”
Originally, agencies interpreted it as acts meant to directly kill an endangered species or animal. However, after the landmark decision of Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, the broader interpretation used today was adopted.
This decision was supported by the Chevron Doctrine, which gives federal agencies the power of interpretation to ambiguous federal laws. However, the doctrine was overturned last year by the Supreme Court, and the new administration has taken advantage of that.
The ESA passed in 1973 with bipartisan support, King said, with both sides understanding the importance of protecting America’s native creatures. King also said “economics” or “money” was originally supposed to be a major factor in the bill’s authorization.
However, by potentially re-writing the definition of harm in the ESA, The Trump Administration is opening up numerous endangered species and habitats to pollution and destruction.
“We see that with the two-term presidents,” King said. “The second administration can be a bit more potent in terms of presidential power because they don’t have to worry about re-election. But this seems to be even more so that way because there’s been some time to think about what areas and what the agenda is. And there’s very little checks and balances in terms of the political power in Congress to check that.”
Many in the environmental science field have spoken up against this proposed change and continue to advocate for endangered species. Baylor’s Dr. Karine Gil has worked in the animal conservation field for decades. Her work has been with the endangered bird species, the whooping crane.
From her bird-themed office to her email signature, Gil proudly states how she “speaks for the wild whooping cranes.” Gil said she feels it would be easier to argue from the perspective of a whooping crane, species to species.
Nothing done in the environment happens in a vacuum. Even the smallest amount of change to a species’ habitat can drastically affect their rate of survival in the wild. Gil argues that the equivalent of a human uprooting trees or other vital areas for logging is virtually the same thing as someone destroying every grocery store or gas station in an area and still expecting residents to feed their children.
“Talking as an endangered species, the day that you will divert the river where I have all my food — where are the blue crabs that I will eat? I will not have enough food for my chicks, or I will not have enough food for my next reproduction,” Gil said. “You will not see me suffering because I don’t find blue crabs. You will not see me dying there. But you will see in the future that I cannot bring more chicks.”
Humans, Gil argues, are just like any other species. But compared to many other species on earth that have been alive for millions of years, modern humans are practically “a blink” in the long timeline of history.
“We could be in the future the next endangered species if we don’t pay attention to what we are doing,” Gil said. “It will break the balance and the equilibrium if we think that the habitat is not important, because we are just all connected.”
