The Conservation Column

by Pepper Trail

 

Dire Threats to the Endangered Species Act

Until recently, the Trump Administration’s attacks on endangered species protections – though far-reaching and devastating – had been largely indirect.  These had focused on prioritizing fossil fuel extraction over every other use of public lands, and gutting any federal action to limit (or even study) the effects of climate change.

Now, however, the direct assault has begun, with the release of a proposed federal “rule-making” entitled “Rescinding the Definition of “Harm” under the Endangered Species Act.”  Under the current ESA definition, “harm” includes actions leading to “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”  But under the proposed definition, “harm” would apply only to the direct killing or injury of endangered species.  There would be no protection from habitat destruction.

It is patently obvious that destroying an endangered species’ habitat constitutes harm.  This is true even if no individual animals are directly killed in the course of the habitat destruction.  A huge mining operation in grizzly bear habitat might not kill any bears, but would leave them with no place to live. Putting an oil drilling platform in the middle of a sage-grouse lek might not kill any of the birds, but would be a fatal blow to the reproduction – and thus survival – of the population.

Environmental groups have been quick to react to the proposal. “It upends how we’ve been protecting endangered species for the last 40 years,” said Noah Greenwald of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity. Earthjustice has promised to take legal action against the proposed rule, with senior attorney Kristen Boyles stating that the notion that habitat destruction is somehow not harmful is “nonsensical both legally and biologically.”

The proposed rule, and a link to submit comments, can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001

I will be preparing comments on behalf of RVAS.  The deadline for comments is May 19.

Another troubling development for endangered species might at first seem to be good news:  the  recent claim by a company called Colossal Biosciences to have produced three pups of the long-extinct dire wolf through genetic engineering. The company’s press release claimed the pups to be “the world’s first de-extinct animals … brought back from extinction using genetic edits derived from a complete dire wolf genome, meticulously reconstructed by Colossal from ancient DNA.”

This claim received huge media coverage – and immediate scientific pushback.  One leading expert in paleogenetics pointed out that only 14 genes, with 20 differences between living gray wolves and extinct dire wolves, were involved in the “edits.” He asked “would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human? … These individuals seem optimistically 1/100,000th dire wolf.”

Conservationists noted other concerns.  What is the plan for dire wolves and other “de-extinct” species?  Where is the habitat for an animal that was adapted for preying on now-extinct megafauna like ground sloths and giant bison?  How might dire wolves and gray wolves co-exist, and might they hybridize?  Would not Colossal’s enormous financial resources be better utilized in conserving existing species?  According the Washington Post, the company has been valued at $10.2 billion and has raised $435 million in funding; billionaire and conservative mega-donor Peter Thiel is an investor.

Despite all this, there is one place where the scientifically dubious and ethically problematic goal of “de-extinction” has been embraced without reservation: the Trump Administration.  In a post on X, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claimed that most species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have not recovered “because the status quo is focused on regulation more than innovation,” and went on to hail Colossal’s announcement: “The revival of the Dire Wolf heralds the advent of a thrilling new era of scientific wonder, showcasing how the concept of “de-extinction” can serve as a bedrock for modern species conservation.”  In a meeting with Interior Department employees, Burgum’s endorsement of Colossal went even further: “If we’re going to be in anguish about losing a species, now we have an opportunity to bring them back. Pick your favorite species, and call Colossal.”

In fact, the ESA has produced some spectacular recovery successes, including the Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and American Alligator. And the ESA has succeeded in preventing the extinction of over 99% of listed species. But Burgum is correct that most ESA-listed species have not recovered sufficiently to be “de-listed” – declared no longer at risk of extinction.  But the reason is not excessive regulation.

A peer-reviewed analysis of species listed on the ESA from 1992-2020 concluded that the reasons for the low rate of de-listing were “small population sizes at time of listing, coupled with delayed protection and insufficient funding.”  To this can be added the fact that by the time many species are listed, their suitable habitat has dwindled too much to support robust recovered populations.

The “innovation” needed to protect America’s biodiversity is not the high-tech resurrection of extinct species.  It is simply to list declining species earlier, when their populations are still large enough to benefit from the protections that the ESA provides.  And funding must be sufficient to support scientifically sound recovery plans.  The paper cited above found that spending per listed species declined by nearly 50% from 1985-2020.

Burgum’s statements ignore the most basic goal of conservation: not to preserve not individual animals, but rather self-sustaining populations existing in their native habitats, fulfilling their ecological roles and exhibiting the full range of their natural behaviors.  The idea that species can be conserved by picking up the phone to “call Colossal” and order up a few genetically engineered survivors is a delusional and disingenuous fantasy.

Obeying Trump’s priorities, Burgum has made clear that his management of the over 500 million acres of public land under his authority will be all about energy extraction.  On his first day in office, he released six Secretarial Orders, all of which were focused on increasing fossil fuel production.  None mentioned the words “wildlife” or “conservation” – much less endangered species.

Endangered species like sage-grouse, gray wolves, and grizzly bears are inconvenient obstacles to this Administration’s goal of unleashing fossil fuel extraction, mining, and logging everywhere across the public lands of the West. Allowing uncontrolled destruction of their critical habitat is a key strategy to removing this obstacle.  Another is the cynical ploy of using cute genetically engineered “dire wolf” pups to distract from the urgent needs of actual endangered species.

We can expect further attacks on endangered species – and all wildlife – from this Administration.  I’ll try to keep RVAS members informed, and I encourage you all to take whatever actions you can.  We need every last wildlife defender.  Thanks!