1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

I am writing to urge you to oppose the administration’s effort to weaken core protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to sponsor or support legislation restoring clear, durable standards for protecting endangered wildlife. The recent rule deleting the regulatory definition of “harm,” followed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) memo narrowing the meaning of “take,” would permit the foreseeable killing and injury of protected animals so long as no one intended to target them. That is not responsible conservation or sound law. It would undermine the permitting system Congress created, expose wildlife to preventable destruction, and replace a settled legal framework with uncertainty that will invite years of litigation. This issue should appeal across party lines. The Endangered Species Act is not a license for unchecked federal control. It is a framework for balancing conservation with responsible economic activity through predictable rules, permits, mitigation, and accountability. Weakening that framework does not provide certainty for farmers, builders, energy producers, or local governments. It risks replacing negotiated protections with confusion, inconsistent enforcement, and court orders. Please support legislation that expressly restores the meaning of “harm” by confirming that significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife constitutes harm. The legislation should clarify that “take” includes foreseeable incidental killing, injury, and other prohibited effects even when an actor did not intend to target a particular animal. It should preserve incidental-take permitting and require projects causing incidental deaths or injuries to obtain authorization and implement effective mitigation. The law should also reject the interpretation that an intentional purpose to kill or capture an animal is required. Finally, it should codify the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Babbitt v. Sweet Home, confirming that habitat modification can constitute 'harm' and 'take' under the ESA. Congress, not an FSW memo, should decide the meaning of the Endangered Species Act. Clear legislation would protect wildlife, respect private property and economic activity through an orderly permitting process, uphold congressional authority, and preserve America’s natural heritage for future generations. Please use your position to sponsor or support such legislation and to oppose efforts that would make endangered-species protections effectively unenforceable.