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

As an ecologist and conservation biologist as well as one of your constituents, I’m reaching out to you about the proposed rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). I’m asking you to oppose the rule because it would significantly weaken one of our nation’s most effective conservation laws and jeopardize the survival of imperiled species by stripping away a critical mechanism for addressing habitat-based threats. This proposal dismisses decades of biological evidence and legal practice that demonstrate the vital importance of habitat protections for imperiled species across our Nation. If the proposed rule is finalized, the ESA will be less effective, less enforceable, and less protective of species that rely on fragile or already-reduced habitats. The current definition of "harm" is essential for addressing the root causes of species decline—not just the visible, immediate effects. Again, I am asking for you to oppose this rule and to continue to safeguard America’s wildlife. Thank you for your time.