This is exactly why I wrote about Wallace Stegner’s Wilderness Letter yesterday!
Now one of the most famous conservation texts in U.S. history, that letter was actually nothing more than Stegner’s own comment letter, in which he advocated for permanent wilderness protections of public lands.
It’s an amazing example of what you said here. He left a “comment,” although a rather elaborate 2,500-word one, on December 3, 1960, and it’s still read, quoted, used, and relevant 65 years later.
Here is my comment (honestly, it is the least vitriolic thing I have written all day):
I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the Services’ proposal to roll back critical portions of the 2024 Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations and revert to the less protective 2019 framework.
The ESA is one of the most successful conservation laws in history precisely because Congress designed it to rely on scientific judgment, precaution, and a clear legislative mandate to conserve ecosystems and prevent extinction. Nothing in the statute authorizes weakening protections to satisfy the deregulatory impulses of Executive Orders focused on short-term energy expansion or administrative convenience. The ESA’s text is explicit: listing, delisting, and critical habitat decisions must prioritize the best available scientific and commercial data. They are not economic balancing tests, nor are they meant to bend to non-scientific policy goals.
This proposed rule does three especially damaging things:
1. It narrows the definition of “foreseeable future,” inviting underestimation of climate-driven threats that are, by their nature, probabilistic yet well-supported by peer-reviewed science.
2. It reinstates constraints on designating unoccupied critical habitat, precisely at the moment when species require adaptive range expansion to survive accelerating habitat loss, drought, wildfire, invasive species, and warming.
3. It broadens the circumstances for “not prudent” habitat designations, which risks transforming what Congress intended as a rare exception into a discretionary loophole.
Each of these changes reduces the government’s ability to protect species under real ecological conditions. Climate disruption does not wait for “reasonable certainty.” Species on the brink cannot survive habitat definitions that ignore future viability. And the ESA cannot function when its mandatory duties are carved into discretionary options.
The Services cite recent litigation and Executive Orders as justification. But neither litigation nor executive preference overrides statutory purpose. The ESA’s directive is unambiguous: Federal agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species. That means the precautionary principle must govern, not political expediency or narrow readings that discount emerging science.
I urge the Services to withdraw this proposal and preserve the 2024 regulations, which more faithfully reflect congressional intent, current ecological realities, and the plain meaning of the Act. We do not get a second chance with extinction. Regulatory frameworks must reflect that irreversible fact.
Trump rolls back Biden-era fuel economy standards, paving way for more gas-powered cars
Just what we need, more gas guzzlers. I always wanted to have to buy gas more frequently. That money was just sitting around being wasted on things like food. This is great because it allows both carmakers and fossil fuel companies to make more money at our expense.
If it involves polluters and big business, then Trump is all for it, just recently under his EPA, undid Bidens EPA mpg standards for all new cars of 50-53 mpg, guts incentives for renewables, also he demands and dictates to California, to allow his oil buddies to drill off the their coasts, can we say, oil, oil🛢️ everywhere and kill everything, kill nature
Trumps EPA, gutting NEPA, Trumps EPA gutting the Endangered Species Act.
It should not cease to amaze me just how far Trump will go, to sell out humanity, sell out peoples health and the well being of nature, so billionaires can make more money
OMG 😲 I can't believe the extent these evil leaders will go. We have to surely be able to stop this. The Supreme Court is not doing its job. They're furthering their own and Trump's agenda.
This is exactly why I wrote about Wallace Stegner’s Wilderness Letter yesterday!
Now one of the most famous conservation texts in U.S. history, that letter was actually nothing more than Stegner’s own comment letter, in which he advocated for permanent wilderness protections of public lands.
It’s an amazing example of what you said here. He left a “comment,” although a rather elaborate 2,500-word one, on December 3, 1960, and it’s still read, quoted, used, and relevant 65 years later.
Indeed, perhaps more relevant now than ever! If only we had more Stegners in our midst.
Absolutely criminal!
Thanks for your leadership on this! Article has been restacked and I've submitted my comments.
Thanks Pam!
Ditto
Here is my comment (honestly, it is the least vitriolic thing I have written all day):
I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the Services’ proposal to roll back critical portions of the 2024 Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations and revert to the less protective 2019 framework.
The ESA is one of the most successful conservation laws in history precisely because Congress designed it to rely on scientific judgment, precaution, and a clear legislative mandate to conserve ecosystems and prevent extinction. Nothing in the statute authorizes weakening protections to satisfy the deregulatory impulses of Executive Orders focused on short-term energy expansion or administrative convenience. The ESA’s text is explicit: listing, delisting, and critical habitat decisions must prioritize the best available scientific and commercial data. They are not economic balancing tests, nor are they meant to bend to non-scientific policy goals.
This proposed rule does three especially damaging things:
1. It narrows the definition of “foreseeable future,” inviting underestimation of climate-driven threats that are, by their nature, probabilistic yet well-supported by peer-reviewed science.
2. It reinstates constraints on designating unoccupied critical habitat, precisely at the moment when species require adaptive range expansion to survive accelerating habitat loss, drought, wildfire, invasive species, and warming.
3. It broadens the circumstances for “not prudent” habitat designations, which risks transforming what Congress intended as a rare exception into a discretionary loophole.
Each of these changes reduces the government’s ability to protect species under real ecological conditions. Climate disruption does not wait for “reasonable certainty.” Species on the brink cannot survive habitat definitions that ignore future viability. And the ESA cannot function when its mandatory duties are carved into discretionary options.
The Services cite recent litigation and Executive Orders as justification. But neither litigation nor executive preference overrides statutory purpose. The ESA’s directive is unambiguous: Federal agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species. That means the precautionary principle must govern, not political expediency or narrow readings that discount emerging science.
I urge the Services to withdraw this proposal and preserve the 2024 regulations, which more faithfully reflect congressional intent, current ecological realities, and the plain meaning of the Act. We do not get a second chance with extinction. Regulatory frameworks must reflect that irreversible fact.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Trump rolls back Biden-era fuel economy standards, paving way for more gas-powered cars
Just what we need, more gas guzzlers. I always wanted to have to buy gas more frequently. That money was just sitting around being wasted on things like food. This is great because it allows both carmakers and fossil fuel companies to make more money at our expense.
If it involves polluters and big business, then Trump is all for it, just recently under his EPA, undid Bidens EPA mpg standards for all new cars of 50-53 mpg, guts incentives for renewables, also he demands and dictates to California, to allow his oil buddies to drill off the their coasts, can we say, oil, oil🛢️ everywhere and kill everything, kill nature
Trumps EPA, gutting NEPA, Trumps EPA gutting the Endangered Species Act.
It should not cease to amaze me just how far Trump will go, to sell out humanity, sell out peoples health and the well being of nature, so billionaires can make more money
Thank you! I posted comments based on your recs. Going to share. So important to fight this. Utterly Demonic.
You said it!
Man, you are so valuable at a time like this. Never think otherwise.
Thanks a lot. I appreciate it!
Thank you for your advocacy and for sharing the comments for folks to use to go on record opposing the Trump administrations illegal actions.
Thanks Sheila! We’ll keep fighting.
Also restacked and submitted all 4 comments.
Your regular updates are so appreciated. Thanks for explaining why it's important to comment. Post restacked.
Glad to hear it and thanks for keeping up the fight!
Thanks, fighting on
All we can do Marianne. Thanks for slugging this out with us!
Comment submitted. Restacked. Thank you for caring.
thank you! comments submited
Did it! Thank you for this hard work.
Thank you again for all your hard work.
Thanks Jayne!
Comment submitted. Thank you!
Comment submitted! Thank you 🙏
OMG 😲 I can't believe the extent these evil leaders will go. We have to surely be able to stop this. The Supreme Court is not doing its job. They're furthering their own and Trump's agenda.