By Kristoffer Whitney Much ink has been spilled in the past few weeks - and rightly so - about the imminent threats to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) posed by the Trump administration and its allies in Congress. Kristoffer Whitney (Washington Post photo) Critics of recently proposed policy changes - reducing protections for species deemed "threatened," making it easier to consider economic factors in the decision to list species as endangered and generally clearing the way for faster approval of energy projects - regard them as thinly veiled giveaways to industry lobbyists and interests, rolling back regulations to favor resource extraction and risking extinction of some species. The lobbyists pushing these policies have based their critique of the ESA on how it attempts to control land use rather than species conservation. After all, they argue, it's not the endangered land act. And this critique spotlights the core debate over the ESA's implementation dating back to Day One: Is it about controlling lands or species? While the ESA's ostensible focus is on the latter, scientists have long argued that the former is essential - and not just to preserve species. For decades, the ESA been a critical signal - and legal recognition - of the many diverse values offered by nature, not merely its economic value as "natural resources." To roll back this landmark act would be to surrender land and wildlife to relentless cost/benefit analysis and commodification. Far from a perversion of its original intent, as the ESA's critics maintain, its focus on land use has been intrinsic from the beginning. As enacted in 1973 (and subsequently amended), Section Four requires the interior secretary to "designate critical habitat" for endangered species, Section Five provides for land acquisition for conservation, and Section Nine prohibits "taking" endangered species - a broad, and contentious, prohibition on harming wildlife on state and private lands. By the end of 1975, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had created regulations that specified the meaning of "take." It clarified the term to also include "environmental modification or degradation" that had the potential to "harm" wildlife (and therefore posed a threat to protected species). This was not just wordsmithing. Rather, these were new restrictions that had huge ramifications. Combined with a series of court cases, legislative amendments and administrative decisions, the ESA and federal agencies began to focus on protecting habitats as the means to preserve species, with serious consequences for everything from property rights to public works projects. The first such consequence, prompting major changes to the ESA, came in the wake of a 1978 Supreme Court decision. The court allowed a small fish to hold up the construction of a Tennessee Valley Authority damming project. The court pointed out that, as written, the ESA clearly prohibited the endangerment of the listed species, regardless of how much money had been spent on the dam. And so, to prevent future investments from being stalled by creatures like the snail darter, Congress amended the ESA to make it more complicated to add species to the endangered list. In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan all but halted species listing by restricting funding and signing an executive order calling for economic review of all federal government actions. But this didn't spell the beginning of an inexorable hollowing out of the ESA. In response, Congress again amended the ESA in 1982 to reaffirm the original intent to make listing decisions solely on the basis of scientific data, excluding economic analysis, and setting firm time limits within which to do so. But this Congress also sought to achieve a balancing act. Much to the chagrin of environmental activists, it also created an "incidental take" permit system that allowed federal or federally permitted activities to harm endangered species if the agency could show that, among other things, "the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild." It was these issues - bureaucratic authority, economic considerations and which actions constituted "taking" endangered wildlife - that came to a head in the 1995 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Supreme Court case. In that case, debate over the Northern spotted owl took center stage. A group of logging interests claimed that including owl habitat degradation in the definition of "harm" exceeded the authority and intent of the original legislation. After all, the owls' habitat infringed on their business. Distinguished biologists from across the country fought back. They argued that the owl was threatened because of human actions like those of the loggers. By destroying the habitat, loggers were putting the owl on the path to extinction. These scientists wrote a court brief explaining that species depend on the larger ecosystems of which they are a part, and therefore "harm" to habitat constituted harm to the species themselves. Furthermore, because ecosystems did not follow legal property lines, "attempting to divide ecosystems, for purposes of habitat conservation measures, between federal and nonfederal land is sheer folly." They concluded with a fierce defense of the ESA and the need to focus on habitat: "There is no other law like the ESA. No law so boldly states the commitment to respect all forms of life, and strives to understand the human role in evolution. If the ESA does not protect habitat, wherever it be found, then it does not protect species, and it cannot succeed." The biologists won. Critically, the court accepted the notion that if the government couldn't protect the land that was so critical to the existence of species, it couldn't protect the species. Still, government officials sought to achieve a middle ground: The ruling coincided with a push from Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to initiate a series of internal reforms that encouraged public-private agreements to balance economic development and wildlife conservation before listing even became necessary. By and large, this state of affairs has persisted to the present: avoiding listing species as "threatened" or "endangered" if possible, listing them (if necessary) based on scientific assessment instead of economic concerns and - most important - keeping "critical habitat" front and center. But critics have never accepted these ideas.<doc-sep>The Endangered Species Act is itself now endangered. There are currently several legislative and executive branch proposals to roll back the protections in the ESA, which for more than 45 years has safeguarded vulnerable species by restricting development that would disrupt their habitats, breeding, and existence. ADVERTISEMENT Given that scientists now say we are facing a sixth mass extinction, with up to half of all species heading toward oblivion by the year 2050, animals need robust protections now more than ever. That’s what makes these current plans to weaken this cornerstone of conservation policy so alarming. Even in today's politicized environment, the protection of our animal species should be an ideal that unites Americans across the political spectrum. A national poll conducted by the Center for Biology Diversity finds that two-thirds of respondents want the ESA strengthened or left alone. Those who care about protecting our diverse wildlife must make their voices heard to defend this landmark legislation. Proposed revisions to the ESA from the Interior and Commerce Departments would make it easier for development projects that threaten wildlife to gain approval as economic factors would be considered for the first time since the act was passed. While we must always value, nurture, and protect our own human species, we can’t — and shouldn’t — put a monetary value on the survival of the remarkable creatures with whom we share the Earth. What price would we set, for instance, on the noble Humpback Whale, the mischievous Southern Sea Otter, or the Bald Eagle — a living symbol of our country — which the ESA and American Humane helped save from the brink of extinction? For what do we profit if we gain the whole world and yet lose our nation’s wild legacy and soul? That doesn’t mean that certain pieces of the law cannot be carefully updated or even improved through rational review and reasonable reassessments that take into consideration new science and evolving impacts on both animals and people. While we do this, we should remember that the ESA’s key elements have been successful at protecting some of our most cherished and most iconic American treasures, keeping 99 percent of listed species from going extinct. Scientists estimate that absent this vital act, at least 227 species would have likely disappeared. A 2012 study from the Center for Biological Diversity documented 110 species that have seen rapid recovery because of the ESA. We supported the ESA's original passage in 1973, and support it again now, along with efforts to protect and preserve species in responsible zoological institutions that are serving as arks of hope for many of the world’s remarkable and endangered creatures. More than 1,600 threatened and endangered species now depend on the ESA for protection. Many will simply go extinct if we do not preserve the key elements of this vital legislation. Humans, who are responsible for putting animals in this precarious state, must now band together to save them by saving the crucial protections in the Endangered Species Act. Robin Ganzert, Ph.D., is president and CEO of American Humane, the country’s first national humane organization.<doc-sep>(CNN) Since it was passed 45 years ago, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has protected thousands of plants and animals that humans have pushed from their habitats and driven close to extinction. But last week, President Trump's Interior Department proposed big changes to the ESA , part of the administration's sweeping rollback of what some view as burdensome regulatory red tape. The changes could end the practice of automatically providing future "threatened" species with the same protections endangered species receive, with new protections for threatened plants and animals instead determined by "the species' individual conservation needs." And if implemented, the proposed changes would also allow officials to consider the economic impact of protecting a species when enforcing the ESA. But in the four decades-plus since it was enacted, the law has kept dozens of iconic species from being wiped off the face of the Earth. Here's a look at 10 animals that might not be here today without the Endangered Species Act. Bald eagle Current status: Removed from the threatened and endangered species list in 2007 Found in: The lower 48 states, Alaska and Canada The bald eagle has been the US' national symbol since 1782, but only an estimated 480 nesting pairs remained in the 1960s, decimated by illegal hunting and poisoning from the insecticide DDT. In 1978, bald eagles were classified as endangered throughout their range. But thanks to the banning of DDT and the birds' protected status, there are now an estimated 70,000 bald eagles in North America. American alligator Estimated population: 5 million Found in: Coastal areas of the southeastern US These close relatives of the dinosaurs were nearly hunted to extinction before they received protection in 1967 under the precursor to the ESA. This, combined with broad trade regulations placed on alligator products, allowed populations to rebound, and in 1979 they were downgraded from "endangered" to "threatened." Grizzly bear Found in: Isolated parts of the American West, Alaska and Canada Grizzly bears were first classified as "threatened" in 1975, when just 800 to 1,000 were thought to be left in the lower 48 states in a few isolated territories. Since then, the grizzly population has rebounded to an estimated 1,800 bears, in addition to the thousands that roam Alaska and parts of Canada. In 2017, the US Fish and Wildlife Service made the controversial decision to delist grizzlies living in Yellowstone National Park , where the bear population has grown from just 136 animals in 1975 to an estimated 700 today. American peregrine falcon Current status: Removed from the threatened and endangered species list in 1999 Estimated population: 2,000 to 3,000 breeding pairs in the US, Canada and Mexico Found in: Primarily mountains, river valleys and coastlines across the US Like the bald eagle, the American peregrine falcon was nearly wiped out by DDT exposure until the insecticide was banned in 1972. In 1975, only 324 nesting pairs remained One of the fastest birds on Earth -- capable of reaching speeds of near 200 miles per hour -- American peregrine falcons have made an equally amazing comeback, with the birds now found across huge swaths of the US. Southern sea otter Current status: Threatened Estimated population: 2,800 Found in: Coastal areas of southern and central California Hunted for their pelts, southern sea otters were nearly driven to extinction in the early 20th century, when only around 50 sea otters remained Though the otter population has rebounded since then, human activity -- from oil spills to fishing nets -- still poses a major threat. Humpback whale Current status: Endangered in certain parts of their range Found in: Nearly all oceans Decades of commercial whaling decimated humpback populations around the globe, driving the population in the North Pacific from a high of 125,000 to just 1,200 in the 1960s. Humpbacks were first classified as endangered in the 1970s and still carry those protections today, despite making a remarkable resurgence. Despite their comeback, the outlook for humpbacks remains cloudy as climate change takes a toll on their primary food source -- the tiny, shrimp-like creatures known as krill. Green sea turtle Current status: Endangered or threatened in all parts of their range Found in: Tropical and subtropical oceans around the world Green sea turtle populations have plummeted approximately 90% in the past half century , but protection under the ESA and other international laws have helped some nesting populations in Hawaii, Florida and elsewhere rebound. The survival of sea turtles worldwide remains uncertain due to a host of threats from humans -- from light pollution in nesting zones that confuses hatchlings, to climate change and habitat loss Gray wolf Current status: Endangered in most of the US Found in: Alaska, the Great Lakes, the northern Rockies, the Pacific Northwest and Canada They once prowled a northern range from coast to coast, but gray wolves were nearly driven to extinction in the lower 48 states due to declines in their prey populations and frequent conflict with farmers and ranchers, whose livestock are an easy target for hungry wolves. Florida manatee Current status: Threatened Estimated population: 6,300 in Florida, plus small populations elsewhere in the Southeast US Found in: Florida and parts of the Southeast US These beloved, slow-moving "sea cows" stick close to coastlines and the mouths of rivers, which resulted in many deaths from contact with boats and other human activities. In a move that angered many environmental groups , manatees were downgraded from "endangered" to "threatened" just last year. California condor Estimated population: 276 in the wild Found in: Southern and central California; small pockets of Utah, Arizona and Baja, Mexico There were only 22 California condors remaining in 1982 when the US Fish and Wildlife Service began an urgent (and controversial) captive breeding program. Later, as their numbers in the wild shrank to just nine -- making the California condor one of the rarest birds on Earth -- the agency decided to bring all remaining condors into captivity. It took time, but the breeding program gradually grew the condor population, and in 1992, the first captive bred condors were released back into the skies of California.<doc-sep>Editor’s Note: Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in New York and Nairobi, Kenya, and the author of the book “The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.” Follow her on Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN. (CNN) — The Trump administration has set its crosshairs on new targets: Endangered species. Courtesy of Jill Filipovic Jill Filipovic In a giveaway to big commercial interests who want the immediate satisfaction of a massive executive payday, Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department is planning to ravage irreplaceable American lands and throw open the door to the decimation of rare wildlife. The Endangered Species Act, which in 1973 enjoyed strong bipartisan support, is now on the government chopping block. That means the financial interests of mining, gas, ranching and logging executives may soon outweigh the necessity of protecting the land we all share and the wild creatures that live on it. If you think this is a bad idea, now would be a good time to let Republican lawmakers and their corporate enablers know about it. Republicans have indeed been building to this for a long time. They’ve spent decades on campaigns intended to undermine a basic belief in science among their voters, and they’ve largely succeeded. Among our economic peers around the globe, even most social conservatives agree that climate change is real and we have to protect the environment for future generations. Not so in America, where half the country seems to operate under the delusion that we can do whatever we want to our land, our plants and our animals and it will magically have no ill effects on us, our children or our grandchildren. The proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act fall in line with this anti-science sentiment: They drastically reduce the role scientists will have in identifying endangered and threatened species in the first place. The changes would let the views of lawmakers take precedence over the in-depth research and on-the-ground observation of scientific experts. They would also let politicians weigh financial interests against whether plants and animals ought to be allowed to survive – and also against the rights of the rest of us to enjoy the many benefits of balanced and diverse ecosystems. Rare plant species and gray wolves don’t have lobbyists; big oil does, and companies pay significant money to get politicians on their side so that they can plunder habitats to make more money. If it’s elected officials – whose coffers are filled by corporations – making decisions previously left to scientists and researchers, who do you think will benefit: animals and their environs, or the people holding out cash? What scientists know – and many politicians want to ignore – is that ecosystems are fragile, and they survive in precarious balance. Conservationists don’t do their work because they have a particular fetish for Oahu tree snails or Florida bristle ferns; they seek to conserve endangered species because those species are part of a broad biome whose inhabitants are interdependent – and which we as humans also depend on. We are part of it. When this system gets out of whack, or certain species disappear, that can have a domino effect that goes far down the line, wiping out or endangering other species as well, and even affecting our own food supply and security. That impact isn’t always immediately foreseeable. The kind of short-term thinking reflected in the administration’s proposals to gut the Endangered Species Act is fueled by insatiable avarice that doesn’t just affect Northern sea otters and prairie gophers. It sells out the future of our country – the very land you and I, people without a ton of money to throw at politicians, rely on. And it does this for the benefit of a very few. Short-sighted, heartbreaking – and exactly what we’ve come to expect from this administration. Speak up, and don’t let this happen.<doc-sep>
The Editorial Board, USA TODAY USA TODAY As the Endangered Species Act approaches its 45th anniversary, it remains one of the most popular and successful laws in modern history — even as lobbyists, lawmakers and the Trump administration target parts of it for extinction. Produced by a near-unanimous Congress (the votes were 92-0 in the Senate and 394-4 in the House) and signed by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1973, the act has saved 99 percent of more than 1,600 plants and species. Its catalog of success includes the American alligator, gray whale, grizzly bear and bald eagle, the USA's national symbol. Yet in addition to a slew of bills pending in Congress to roll back the act, federal agencies are proposing sweeping changes to how the law is implemented, steps that would fundamentally alter its character and meaning. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS:Upgrade the law For example, the economic costs of rescuing a species could be considered, rather than merely the dictates of science. This is kind of like asking the Food and Drug Administration to weigh the monetary pros and cons of a proposed drug, rather than just its safety and effectiveness in saving lives. The change would be a gift by the Trump administration to oil and gas interests eager to build roads and pipelines into protected habitats. And the proposed changes would also scale back safeguards for the "threatened" category of species that are one step removed from "endangered." Many Americans might never see these creatures. But somehow, when it comes to protecting them, that doesn't seem to matter. The renowned American biologist Edward O. Wilson, author of Pulitzer Prize-winning books on animal and human behavior, argues that people instinctively harbor an innate emotional connection with animals. Enduring support for the Endangered Species Act bears this out. Eight or nine in 10 Americans have always favored it. That's not to say the law is flawless or that its survival is guaranteed. It isn't helpful when not-in-my-backyard types suddenly begin searching for some tiny, endangered crustacean in their neighborhoods just so they can invoke the law to stop a public works project. That's exploiting the Endangered Species Act for selfish reasons, and it emboldens opponents to tear the law down. Moreover, there are ways to improve the act without gutting it. The great majority of endangered or threatened species exist on privately owned lands. The law could do a better job of enlisting these owners — many of whom already see themselves as good stewards of their property — as partners in conservation. Researchers have a produced a suite of recommended incentives, ranging from conservation easements to tax incentives to a recovery credit system, where the adverse economic impacts of protecting habitat are offset by preservation steps elsewhere. The Army employed the latter to safeguard an endangered bird in Texas. Defenders of the law have been resistant to any changes, contributing to the toxic level of attack. Even so, that's no reason to hollow it out. Americans have until Sept. 24 to voice opposition to the Trump administration's proposed rule changes. The Endangered Species Act has largely delivered on its promise for nearly half-a-century. Now is not the time to let the vultures in Washington prey upon it. If you can't see this reader poll, please refresh your page.