Protect the Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is moving to weaken rules under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—a law with a proven track record of success in protecting and recovering our most vulnerable birds. It continues to directly benefit nearly 100 of the country's endangered and threatened bird species, including the Whooping Crane, California Condor, and Piping Plover. With so many species struggling from growing threats, the last thing they need is a less effective ESA.

Sign our petition to urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reject proposals that weaken the Endangered Species Act rules. The deadline to submit your comment is December 22.

Note:  Audubon will submit a letter on your behalf to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and it will become part of the official public record.

Whooping Crane. Photo: Heather Roskelley/Audubon Photography Awards.

-----------------------------------------------------------

To the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

I strongly urge you to not finalize proposed rules under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will reduce the ability to conserve and recover vulnerable birds and other wildlife, and increase uncertainty for the public.  

The ESA is a successful tool to save and recover the most imperiled birds. It has helped recover iconic species such as the Bald Eagle, and prevented the extinction of 99% of listed species. While there are opportunities to simplify practices for better and faster conservation outcomes, many of the proposed changes would only make it more difficult to recover wildlife. I am particularly concerned about proposals that would no longer ensure protections for threatened species, allow  economic considerations in the listing process, and make changes to designating critical habitat, including currently unoccupied habitat.  

First, removing the blanket 4(d) rule risks leaving threatened species without protections, without any timelines or requirements for putting them in place, and it will likely increase conflicts while reducing conservation incentives. Second, allowing economic considerations during the listing process conflicts with the ESA's science-based decision-making requirements, and adds unnecessary burdens that redirects limited agency resources. Third, changes to critical habitat designations, such as those around unoccupied habitat, will keep wildlife experts from addressing the needs and threats impacting species. 

Again, I urge you to reject these proposals that would weaken the implementation of the ESA and its ability to serve as a vital tool to recover our country's imperiled birds.