Hello, welcome and good day!
Probably one of the most current hot and pressing topics around saving the buddies is the upcoming potential gutting of the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). It’s one of the strongest environmental protection laws in the United States for our endangered buddies. The big dream has been to prevent extinction of plants and animals, protect and restore habitats essential to their survival, mandate federal action and cooperation with states and tribes to protect listed species. Good deal, right?
Get this, the ESA has been a whopping over 99% effective at preventing extinction of species listed as endangered! It’s contributed
to increasing population numbers of some species and others have even been
delisted as endangered (i.e. bald eagle, humpback whale, gray wolf). That said,
the ESA obviously can’t guarantee full recovery, but it tosses a lifeline to
our buddies. For many species, it’s the reason why some are still here today.
What’s the problem?
Politics, again.
Why’s this delightful contribution to our planet so hot and pressing now? Why not let the ESA continue flourishing and be over 99% effective? Thank you for wondering. Allow me to share what I’ve been uncovering. The current bugaboo is that the ESA has become a politicized nightmare and is now on the Trump administration slaughtering block. I do not like that it has become political, but the reality is that it has become exactly that.
Let me stop myself right there. Isn’t there a post in the world where you don’t have to get politics schmeared in your face for once? In the spirit of the ESA, that was my original dream for my entire blog vibe. Bipartisan, tripartisan, polypartisan, whatever color anyone sports. Right, left, up, down, triangle, circle all around. I want anyone who breathes air to put their hands in that air and care. Also, I wanted to avoid politics because 1) they’re very boring and 2) I’m sick of being schmeared on and I certainly do not want to do any schmearing. Spoiler: I dropped that ball because unfortunately, the central plotline at this time for our little and very large buddies is a political debacle. There is no other angle. It would be a giant disservice to our buddies not to call out the biggest stinker in the room.
At first, I thought it would be easy breezy to avoid political nonsense since the Endangered Species Act isn’t supposed to be political. It was created in 1973 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Nixon, a Republican. At the time, it was seen as a common-sense safeguard to protect life on Earth— a shared heritage – from irreversible loss. Its mission is to prevent extinction and protect ecosystems that species depend on. That includes the human species. Us. You and me. If you are reading this, you are likely a human species.
The ESA is based on science, biodiversity, and long-term ecological health, not ideology. It’s grounded in biological research, population data, and conservation science. Decisions about protecting a species are made based on whether populations are declining or habitats are disappearing. It is not based on who is in office or whatever party is in power, swinging around their tiny pretzel sticks.
Turning the ESA into a political pawn risks replacing expert judgement with partisan agendas. It means sidelining or ignoring scientists and conservation experts, which sets a dangerous precedent of ignoring facts when it’s convenient for profit or ideology. A collapsing ecosystem affects everyone: farmers, hunters, politicians, lumber barons, oil barons, real estate developers, you and me. If you vote, you breathe. If you breathe, you need an ecosystem that has air to breathe. Capiche?
Yeah, yeah. What do politics have to do with it? The ESA has been noticed by the Trump admin and the Trump admin aims to pillage it. Why would anyone want to pillage our beloved Mother Earth? For one, the ESA impacts land use and industry. Protecting species can restrict logging, mining, oiling, drilling, farming, grazing, irrigating, housing, and road development. When a lot of us come from a people with foundational perspectives built upon Manifest Destiny, the original I take what I want ideology, it can get very difficult for us when what we want to take starts to dry up and kill us off. Some of us withering away at a slower pace than others.
The ESA is also tangled up with economic and political decisions that affect jobs, rural communities, and private property rights. All
laws — including conservation laws — are shaped by what a society chooses to
value. I don’t love that, but that’s the dirty reality. If voters or lawmakers
prioritize economic growth over environmental protection (or vice versa), the
ESA can become part of that debate. And it is right now. Politics are how we
decide how much protection, funding, or enforcement something gets. The ESA
can’t function without resources. Budgeting is political, and lawmakers decide
how much to fund habitat restoration, wildlife services, research, and
enforcement.
Politics: A Tale of Nonsense
The freshest baked political dookie is Project 2025. It intends to dismantle or severely weaken environmental protections such as the Endangered Species Act. If plans advance, changes could accelerate in the next 1-3 years. Dookie 2025 proposes removing ESA authority over protections of species like gray wolves, grizzly bears, and wilderness areas. Why do supporters want such a steamy turd? Project 2025 aims to deregulate industries, under the argument that environmental protections stifle business and innovation. Backers claim that drilling, mining, and pipeline expansion help the U.S. be self-reliant and protect jobs. It aims to gut these regulations and speed up permits for pipelines, drilling, mining, and deforestation. Critics argue that without regulation on industries, businesses will have the ability to exploit natural resources and cause harm without accountability. This prioritizes short-term gain over long-term planetary health.
There’s also the argument that power should be decentralized—states and local communities should make their own decisions without federal interference. Cutting back environmental regulations is framed as a way to reduce the size, influence, and stop "overreach" by federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The goal is to remove vital scientific and regulatory infrastructure that underpins environmental decision-making. It recommends undoing protections for areas under the Antiquities Act and rolling back policies restricting fossil fuel development, including in wildlife refuges and critical habitats. Project 2025 supports gutting processes like National Environmental Policy Act (the bedrock environmental-impact law), which ensure public and scientific review before destructive projects proceed. Project 2025 critics counter that species and ecosystems cross state lines and federal oversight provides cohesive protections.
Project 2025 backers argue that federal agencies have grown too large, unelected, and unaccountable. They see Project 2025 as a way to return decision-making power to states, local communities, or private citizens. It proposes that future presidents and their political appointees should have more control over federal agencies, which they believe would lead to more efficient government aligned with elected leaders’ goals. The project is rooted in a belief in free markets, national sovereignty, traditional values, and a limited federal role in climate or environmental regulation.
In March of 2025, independent trackers indicated that 42%
of Project 2025 measurable goals have already been implemented with recent
executive orders, budget cuts, and agency restructuring that align with
priorities. By the end of 2025, the project aims to knock out 70% of its goals.
It’s no longer a hypothetical fear of policies that could affect climate,
science and wildlife protection. It’s happening. And it’s an absolute disgrace.
How does this juicy rotting egg benefit anyone? The primary beneficiaries of Project 2025 are groups and industries that profit from weakened federal oversight, deregulation, and a consolidation of executive power. One of the main beneficiaries are extractive industries: oil & gas, mining, logging, industrial agriculture, and real estate development. Environmental regulations like the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Clean Air/Water Acts slow or block many development projects. Chemical, manufacturing, factory farming, and waste management sectors reap fat benefits. Especially in their wallets. With less environmental oversight, they get lower compliance costs (e.g. for waste disposal, emissions standards). In the name of “less red tape,” there's often less accountability for pollution or habitat destruction.
Political leaders and appointees hungry for power benefit
big time. Project 2025 gives the gift of more direct control to the executive
branch over federal agencies. It dismantles the current “independent” structure
of science- and law-based agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. Project 2025’s structural changes make it easier to defund or
dismantle climate science. The Heritage Foundation, American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), and other right-leaning institutions, wealthy donors
& Political Action Committees (PACs) are benefitting. States with strong
ties to resource-based economies (e.g., Texas, Alaska, Wyoming) gain more local
control over land and wildlife. Many see the ESA as a barrier to economic
opportunity. Even if these protections serve long-term ecological goals, they
are often experienced in these communities as the government caring more about
animals than their job or land. So, restrictions are seen as a limitation on
their land, livelihood, and local autonomy.
Project 2025 is a way to push back on cultural and political priorities of the “other side.” Let’s take a moment to be honest. It’s tribal. People see their team as winning as these environmental restrictions get massacred by their team’s Project 2025 agendas and other various slaughtering instruments.
In reality though, many supporters of Project 2025 and
the Trump admin deeply value clean air and water, outdoor recreation (hunting,
fishing, hiking), and local wildlife. The ESA actually helps protect those very
things most of us value at our core. Gutting the ESA may feel like a win for
Project 2025 supporters, but it actually could result in more pollution, weaker
local ecosystems, fewer species, and less natural beauty for future
generations.
The ESA is a ripe battleground for clashes between values. Another major way the ESA has become politicized is through the conflicting values around economic freedom vs. environmental protections. The economic freedom perspective values using property, investing, and building businesses as they see fit. This means industries like oiling and gassing, logging, real estate often considers the ESA as a barrier to profit because it blocks development in critical habitats. Landowners can also perceive the ESA as a barrier to their hopes and dreams of building a house or irrigation system on a critical habitat of a listed endangered species living on their private land. Property owners are legally restricted on development of private property if the activity causes harm to the species or the critical habitat.
Another major value conflict is local control vs. federal oversight. The local control values decisions made by local communities, counties, or states. And the Federal oversight values a national law, such as the Endangered Species Act, which is enforced on private and state land. Locals may feel powerless or resentful when someone who doesn’t live in their community are impacting their economy, when they feel they know what is best. Whereas the those who value federal oversight believe that some protections need to be nationwide since species don’t give a hoot about political boundaries and live on the land they’ve been inhabiting long before some of us Manifest Destinied this beautiful land we decided to turn into a complicated nation.
Another major area where values are concerned is around short-term profit vs. long-term planetary health. Those valuing short-term profit want immediate economic proceeds often through development, resource extraction (like logging, mining, drilling), and large-scale agriculture. People who value this want fewer restrictions to maximize returns. This value also recognizes local job creation and revenue, especially in rural or resource-dependent communities.
Important, right? Absolutely. Who doesn’t want a job? But,
where this gets jammed up is that it dips into trouble around irreversible
damage to ecosystems, species loss, and long-term instability (e.g., degraded
fisheries, droughts from deforestation). The values around long-term planetary
health focus on sustainability, ensuring ecosystems can support life—including
human life—well into the future. This value is about recognizing the interconnectedness.
That the health of species, habitats, and humans are deeply linked. Stewardship
of the Earth is seen as a moral responsibility. The fantasy is to maintain
clean water, air, pollination, prevent extinctions and protect the resilience
of our biosphere. To not decimate the beautiful land we fell in love with and
hopefully are still in love with. This value fosters economic stability over
time, especially for communities reliant on healthy natural systems (e.g.,
fisheries, tourism, agriculture). The pickle with this value is that
conservation policies sometimes and a lot of the time restrict industries like
logging, fishing, or mining, leading to unemployment in affected regions.
Proposed ESA changes
One major change to the ESA would be removing the word “harm” from ESA protections, which has treated habitat degradation as harm. This means indirect actions like logging, mining, dam-building, commercial agriculture and pollution would no longer count as “taking” a species. This frees us up to legally bulldoze or pollute a critical habitat as long as we don’t directly kill or touch the animal. The conundrum is that species don’t survive without habitat, whether or not the bulldozer directly smashes the endangered animal into tiny pieces. Changing the interpretation would drastically reduce protections. It makes it harder to list species as endangered, limits critical habitat designations, and reduces funding for enforcement, which ultimately leads to faster species decline.
Another damaging impact to ESA protections is that there’s been pressure to open protected areas for activities like oiling and gassing, or to reopen protected timber and grazing lands. This reflects administration priority to promote extractive industries, even if it means undercutting key environmental safeguards. Another proposed change is relaxing rules on environmental regulations like pollution, habitat protections, making it easier for industries like mining, logging, drilling, and development to damage critical ecosystems. If I ever had famous words they would be: that sickens me.
How is it a problem?
If I haven’t already spoiled the ending about ways in which it would be terribly ugly to smash the Endangered Species Act into tiny pieces or just a few wee pieces, please, let me elaborate. The ESA is a safety net for ecosystems that support human economies, health, and well-being. While weakening the ESA may reduce regulatory hurdles temporarily, environmental degradation is almost 100% likely to be more expensive in the long run with land becoming less fertile, fisheries collapsing, tourism declining, the list of dystopias is very long. Massacring the ESA might seem like a victory for certain groups and their wallets in the short haul, over time (not that much time, really), it could be deeply harmful to livelihoods, communities and nature. Without ESA protections, developers, corporations, and industries could be given the green light to destroy critical habitats. This would mean more extinctions and disruption of ecosystems humans rely on for food, clean air, and water. Supporting the ESA is not just about saving wildlife. It’s about protecting the natural systems that are protecting us. Every single one of us benefit from clean air, pollination, and climate regulation provided by thriving ecosystems, which the ESA helps protect. Once habitats are destroyed or species numbers fall too low, recovery becomes much harder or impossible. Unfortunately, the trouble doesn’t end there.
Healthy ecosystems filter water, clean air, and regulate climate. When habitats are destroyed there are more safety risks with what we eat, drink, and breathe. Pesticide use can increase because nature’s pest controllers (i.e. birds, frogs) disappear. Cue the entrance of increased cancer rates, lower sperm counts and infertility, neurodevelopmental effects, weakened immune function, the list goes on, but let’s not. When wetlands or forests are removed, our water systems become polluted. Air quality drops as ecosystems that store carbon and filter air are wiped out. Wetlands, forests, coral reefs, and prairies provide natural protections against floods, fires, droughts, and diseases. Natural disasters are worsened and already cost billions annually. There’s an increased risk of zoonotic diseases (hi, COVID, Ebola, and SARS) because ecological disruption can lead to pandemics. And pandemics aren’t cheap either as we all found out.
This is not a pipe nightmare. It’s not hypothetical,
misinformation or brainwashing by the 97% of scientists who are not hired by
oil barons. We are making the nonsense I just mentioned above happen. And that
nonsense could happen on a more regular basis if we keep pushing for it with
our continued insistence of our nonsensical actions. Recent examples, the nasty
taste of a pandemic. I did not like the taste COVID. Natural disasters have
been popping up more often. I did not like the taste of an ice storm that
knocked down a 100’ tree and smashed my house into tiny bits. If this trend
continues due to our continued behavior, we will be listening to more people
using the word “unprecedented” all over again.
Photo by Marcus Kauffman on Unsplash
While wrecking the ESA may feel like a fat win for landowners, industries, or people who feel constrained by regulation, it actually undermines many of the things people in these communities’ deeply care about. ESA protections help ensure species like elk, salmon, waterfowl, and pollinators have viable habitats. Knocking down safeguards from the ESA does not mean more freedom, it means ecosystems could easily unravel and with them the outdoor traditions that are core to many families, such as hunting and fishing. ESA listings for species like native bees, butterflies, and bats protect key players in our food system. Without pollinators, crop yields drop and our food prices rise — hurting both growers and consumers. If pollinators vanish, so does a trillion-dollar global crop industry. Gutting the ESA could damage agriculture far more than a temporary restriction ever would.
Weakening the ESA establishes a prescient that politics and profit override evidence and expertise. This is not good for democracy, medicine, education, and the air we breathe. Ignoring scientists who are warning us that a species is near extinction or that a habitat is critical sets a dangerous standard of ignoring facts when they’re inconvenient for profit or ideology. When we weaken the ESA, it means choosing money over life, exploitation over protection, politics over science, and greed over stewardship. It indicates we’re treating extinction as an acceptable cost and turning away from our responsibility to be responsible stewards of the planet.
Look, I get it. The ESA can be deeply felt by a lot of us as a restriction. Another burden. One more goddamn rule from people who live far away. And most of those people making the regulations, have probably never so much as had a milkshake from the land in which you live. But the freedom we want, whether it’s represented by having a wallet that’s fatter than a Rice’s whale or walking through a forest that still has trees or not having cancer suckling upon our bones, does not come from fewer protections. It comes from having something worth protecting. Having something worth loving. And that means having wildness, water, wonder and the species that hold it all together. I propose (and beg of everyone) that we protect the ESA. Not because we’re choosing animals over people. But because we understand that the fate of wild things is woven into our own. It’s about understanding how deeply interconnected our survival, traditions, and health are with the wildlife we protect and love.
When does Dumpster Fire Time happen?
As of mid-2025, there isn’t a scheduled day to destroy
the ESA. Changes happen through a combination of rulemaking, legislative
action, and administrative priorities. Rule changes typically follow a formal
notice-and-comment period—where the public and stakeholders can submit
feedback—lasting several months. After reviewing comments, agencies finalize
rules. This whole process can take 6 months to a year or more. Efforts like
Project 2025 may push for faster or broader rollbacks of environmental laws,
including the ESA. If such plans advance, changes could accelerate within the
next 1-3 years. Activism, public input, and political shifts all impact timing
and the final outcome.
1) Don’t panic. We have not turned into a complete dumpster fire just yet. I’m hopeful we can summon our inner Costa Rican and reverse the trend of deforestation and all of our other Mad Maxing activities. True story: Costa Rica was carrying out severe deforestation in the 1970s and 1980s. They were headed in the direction of El Salvador, a land with 2% primary jungle left. El Salvador is not a major destination for many or any to relax, unwind, and zipline. (No offense intended towards El Salvador; it’s far more complicated than I just described as the nation that erased its beloved jungle. RIP, jungle.) But in the mid-1990s Costa Rica enacted major conservation policies and reversed the trend of deforestation, including putting up a ban on illegal logging in 1996. Ecotourism replaced cattle ranching. National parks cover 25% of their land. Now it is a magical jungle land complete with rainbows, butterflies, and monkeys.
2) Both collective action and individual steps deeply matter
in defending and strengthening the ESA. The ESA may feel like an overwhelming
federal-level issue that brings out a sense of hopelessness, but its strength
is shaped by public pressure, awareness, and participation at every level. This
is a list aimed at inspiring one person (including myself) to fold one of these
activities into their rhythm. No pressure to do all the things, that would be
impossible and then we would never do any of it.
Individual Action Level
At the individual level, these are more personal, but
collectively help build a culture that values biodiversity and the ecosystems
ESA aims to protect.
·
Shift daily habits
o Drive
less, reuse more, waste less.
·
Consume thoughtfully
o Choose
sustainable food, ethically sourced goods
o Avoid
exotic pets or souvenirs that may come from endangered species
§ Tortoise
Shell (Hawksbill Sea Turtle) used in jewelry, combs, sunglasses, guitar picks,
decorative trinkets
§ Ivory
(Elephant Tusks) Used in: carved figurines, jewelry, knife handles, piano keys
§ Crocodile
or Alligator Skin Used in: belts, boots, wallets, handbags
·
Support businesses that protect habitat
o Buy
from companies that avoid deforestation, overfishing, or polluting supply
chains.
o Use
certifications like Rainforest Alliance, MSC, or B Corp to guide your choices.
·
Reduce Plastic Use
o Especially
single-use plastic that harms marine animals (bags, balloons, wrappers).
o Use
bulk bins, reusable containers, and refill shops when possible.
·
Create Habitat at Home
o Planting
native species in a small yard or balcony.
o Bird-friendly,
pollinator-friendly, and pesticide-free choices make a real difference.
Public Pressure
·
Sign or Create Petitions
o Join
national or local petitions through groups like:
§ Center
for Biological Diversity
§ Defenders
of Wildlife
§ Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
o Or
use platforms like Change.org to start a local campaign
·
Fund the Fight
o Donate
to or volunteer with legal and advocacy groups that litigate and lobby for ESA
protections:
§ Earthjustice
§ WildEarth
Guardians
§ Environmental
Defense Fund
·
Contact Elected Officials
o Call
or email your senators and representatives asking them to protect the ESA and
oppose any weakening amendments.
·
Join or Organize a Public Demonstration
o Attend
rallies, town halls, or hearings related to environmental or ESA issues.
·
Pressure Corporate Actors
o Identify
companies involved in habitat destruction (e.g., logging, mining, large-scale
agriculture) and call on them to change practices.
o Examples:
§ Supporting
boycotts
§ Publicly
calling out brands on social media
§ Asking
them to commit to ESA-friendly policies (e.g., avoiding development in
protected habitats)
·
Write Letters to the Editor or Op-eds
o Publish
your views in local newspapers, magazines, or blogs to raise awareness.
o Personal
stories, such as visiting public lands or seeing species at risk, can make it
more compelling.
Collective Action Local Level
·
Protect local habitats
o Join
local efforts to restore wetlands, forests, or pollinator gardens.
o Volunteer
for wildlife monitoring or invasive species removal.
o Volunteer
or donate to local land trusts, native plant societies, watershed councils, or
wildlife rehab centers.
o Help
organize neighborhood habitat restoration days, native tree plantings, or creek
cleanups.
·
Plastic-Free July
o Millions
worldwide take a pledge each year to reduce single-use plastics for one month.
The ripple effect leads to lasting changes in shopping habits, corporate
policies, and waste reduction.
·
Advocate for Native Habitat Protection
o Encourage
your city or county to adopt a native plant ordinance or increase protected
green space.
o Push
for preservation of natural areas (wetlands, meadows, forests) when development
is proposed.
o Example:
Ask your parks department or city council to designate certain areas as
pollinator sanctuaries, bird habitat zones, or wildlife corridors.
·
Support Pesticide-Free Parks and Public Spaces
o Advocate
for a ban or reduction of harmful herbicides and pesticides (like glyphosate or
neonicotinoids) on city lands, playgrounds, and schools.
o This
supports bees, butterflies, amphibians, and birds, many of which are declining
even if they’re not federally listed.
·
Weigh in on Local Development Projects
o Attend
public meetings or comment on local zoning proposals.
o Coalition-building
with neighbors or local groups can turn the tide on small-scale battles that
protect habitat.
·
Support and amplify conservation campaigns
o Follow
trusted groups (e.g. Defenders of Wildlife, NRDC, Center for Biological
Diversity).
o Share their action alerts, petitions, and news updates with friends and networks.
Wrap it up already
I’m feeling optimistic that we aren’t completely at the
point of no return. Especially since learning about Costa Rica reversing
damage. Sure, they have 35 years on the rest of us, but still. I get the
conundrum of what can I do about it? The inertia, China, India, systems,
politics, habits, culture, don’t rock the boat, don’t be a squeaky wheel, etc.
etc. But just like a single carpenter ant can’t destroy a house, a whole colony
of carpenter ants can. If we can ban together like a full-on colony of
carpenter ants, I truly believe we can tear down the house of destroying the
planet. And in the process, save the buddies.
If Costa Rica can do it, we can do it. If ants can do it,
we can do it. A magical land complete with rainbows, butterflies, and monkeys or
gray wolves or bald eagles or rhinos or tigers or wombats or penguins is a land
worth protecting and loving. Let’s do this.
