Protecting the Endangered Species Act

Why Your Voice Matters Right Now

Photo courtesy of NOAA Fisheries

Every so often a policy moment arrives where the trajectory for endangered wildlife could shift dramatically and this is one of those times.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), enacted in 1973, has been the cornerstone of U.S. wildlife protection for more than fifty years. (source) It is widely recognized as one of the most effective conservation laws in the country, credited with enabling the recovery of species such as the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and gray whale.

One of the ESA’s key tools is the concept of critical habitat areas identified as essential for the survival and recovery of listed species. According to NOAA Fisheries:

“Critical habitat is habitat needed to support recovery of listed species.” NOAA Fisheries

What is at risk right now?

A new proposed federal rule would change the way “critical habitat” is decided under the Endangered Species Act. Right now, habitat decisions must prioritize the scientific needs of the species. Under the proposal, agencies would be required to give greater weight to economic considerations and other non-scientific factors when deciding whether habitat should be protected or excluded from protection altogether. (Source)

This would changes how the law is applied, making it easier for agencies to remove or avoid designating critical habitat. In practice, that could weaken the on-the-ground protections endangered species rely on to survive and recover.

Why this matters for species already under extreme pressure:

Take the Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) population as an example. These whales rely heavily on the Chinook salmon, which carry high fat content and are critical prey. Marine Mammal Commission When Chinook populations decline, the whales’ survival and reproduction suffer.

Now imagine if the habitat that supports those salmon, river systems, estuaries, nearshore waters, were subject to weaker protections. The chain reaction becomes clear: lesser habitat → fewer salmon → fewer orcas. Scientists confirm that this kind of habitat-prey relationship is central to the recovery of SRKWs. Raincoast

What you can do

Because this rule is still in the proposal stage, public input matters. Agencies must review comments before finalizing the regulation.

Here are ready-to-use templates, although we highly recommend making adjustments to make it your own voice.

Submit a Public Comment

• You can submit a comment for the proposed rule titled “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Designating Critical Habitat” via the Federal Register page: Submit Public Comment Federal Register

• Comments must be submitted electronically (or by mail, per the notice) by the date specified in the rule.

The Endangered Species Act is one of the most successful conservation tools in our nation’s history. Weakening it now, when so many species are on the brink, is simply unacceptable. Critical habitat is the lifeline for species like the Southern Resident orcas and endangered salmon who are keystone species. If we start removing protections, we will push these species to extinction.

This rule prioritizes short-term industry gains over long-term ecological stability, cultural values, and the health of communities that depend on thriving ecosystems. We cannot afford to lose salmon. We cannot afford to lose orcas or any other endangered animal. And we cannot afford to weaken the very protections meant to save them. Our environment is in crisis, the very home we all rely on.

Please reject this rule and uphold the ESA’s original promise to prevent extinction, and to recover endangered species, not sacrifice them.

The bottom line

When the rules that govern which places get protected and how strictly they’re protected shift, the consequences ripple outward. From salmon streams to open coastlines, from the food chain to the cultural heritage of coastal communities, this is about far more than abstract policy.

Your voice matters. If you act now, it can help ensure that the protections built over decades remain strong enough to see more species not just surviving, but recovering.