1. United States
2. Nev.
3. Letter

As your constituent, I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to oppose the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and replace it with a narrower interpretation of “take.” This proposed change would have devastating consequences for wildlife protections and is a direct assault on the integrity and effectiveness of the ESA. Under current law, the ESA rightly defines “harm” to include habitat destruction that significantly impairs species’ ability to survive and recover. This definition reflects decades of ecological science and legal precedent. Eliminating it would effectively render habitat destruction legally permissible, so long as the species is not physically removed from the area. Such a change would expose already imperiled species to unchecked degradation of their ecosystems—death by a thousand cuts. This is not a technical tweak; it is a profound and dangerous rollback. It invites reckless development, pollution, and resource extraction with little regard for the collateral damage to biodiversity. It ignores the scientific reality that most endangered species are threatened primarily by habitat loss. And it undermines the legislative intent of the ESA, which is not merely to prevent extinction, but to promote recovery. I ask you to do everything in your power to oppose this proposal, including: • Speaking out publicly against the redefinition of “harm”; • Calling for oversight hearings to investigate this regulatory rollback; • Supporting or introducing legislation to preserve the ESA’s full protections; • Urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw the proposal. As a constituent deeply concerned about environmental protection, wildlife conservation, and the legacy we leave for future generations, I ask you to stand firm in defending the Endangered Species Act. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to your leadership on this issue.