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.
What can we do?
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.
Photo by Yulia Z on Unsplash
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.
