The word “harm” once protected America's rarest wildlife. Now it’s been erased. Here’s how the court fight will play out and what you can do to help save the law.
Thank you for taking the time to draft this sample letter. I would not have the resources and time, let alone the knowledge to draft anything as clear and to the point.
I have found it difficult to focus on crucial environmental issues during this time of socio political chaos, I find taking targeted constructive action helps relieve some of the angst Im experiencing on a daily basis.
Again thank you for this, you are helping in ways you may not be aware of.
Thanks a lot Ellie. I'm glad I could be of help. This is what I live and breathe so you can imagine it's been really hard to watch the executive orders roll in these past 100 days, attempting to erase generations of environmental and conservation law. I'll keep on reporting on this and trying to offer constructive ways to help wherever I can.
I just visited Congaree NP this week and the story of that park is like so many, highlighting the need to protect our lands and habitat for future generations. We all need to make our voices heard. The opposition of this proposed rule change is one that I will add my voice to. Thank you for making all of us aware of this. Keep on keeping us informed Brothers!
You have not only outlined, in breathtaking detail, the criminal activities of an administration which is committed to destroying our public lands and obliterating the important species which inhabit them, you have also given us a playbook to oppose their malicious policies. While others wring their hands (e.g., most Democrats in Congress), More Than Just Parks would take the battle to the most corrupt administration in American history. Of course it’s now up to us, all of us, to make our voices heard. Metaphorically speaking, it’s time to shout from the treetops in the best tradition of the film, “Network,” and let our elected representatives know that “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”
Just FYI, for those of you who are having trouble submitting a comment on regulations.gov, after I copy/pasted the sample letter, I had to go through and replace all of the special characters (I just plain removed some of them), because the error kept saying there was an unacceptable character. After doing that and removing some of the wording to get the word count down, I was able to submit! :-)
Thanks Tori! I've updated the sample comment to ensure it's within the character limit and doesn't have special characters. I tested it and it works now.
Comment submitted. Thank you for the information and the template. Both were extremely helpful. FWIW, at the time I submitted, a total of 125,283 comments had been received. I hope the the majority recognize the devastating consequences if the proposal goes through.
Yep. We've never needed good lawyers on our side more. And at the same time this administration is threatening law firms that argue against them or for their perceived enemies.
Thank you for this important information. I just tried to upload my comment, which met the stated requirements, but it was rejected with the message "error true". Has anyone else had that problem?
And here it is. We all knew that AnusMouthPantLoad would continue to do the very worst shit possible. Now he is not only ignoring and exacerbating climate change, he seeks to murder Mother Nature.
Hit the streets people! Nobody is coming to save us. It is up to us to remove the fascists from power by any means necessary.
I was not able to submit the letter as written because there is a character limit on the comment website.
Here is ChatGPT's condensed version:
To Whom It May Concern:
I strongly oppose the proposed rule to rescind the current regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed rescission is legally unsupported, scientifically unjustified, and inconsistent with the ESA’s core purpose of preventing species extinction. I urge the agencies to withdraw this rule in its entirety.
1. The Current Definition Is Legally Sound and Aligned with the ESA
The ESA includes “harm” in its definition of “take” [16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)]. In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the existing interpretation of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that injures or kills protected wildlife. This interpretation was based on the statute’s plain meaning and conservation purpose—not merely agency deference. Even under the “best reading” standard set forth in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the current rule remains the most faithful to the ESA.
2. The Proposed Rule Repeats Arguments Already Rejected by the Court
The proposal leans on arguments advanced in Justice Scalia’s Sweet Home dissent, which the Court explicitly rejected. Attempting to narrow “harm” to only direct actions like hunting or trapping ignores precedent and misinterprets the ESA’s intent to broadly prevent extinction.
3. Habitat Loss Is the Leading Threat to Endangered Species
Scientific consensus shows that habitat destruction is the primary driver of species extinction worldwide. Removing habitat modification from the definition of “harm” would eliminate protection from the most significant threat to listed species. This change is not a technical fix—it would eviscerate the ESA’s ability to safeguard imperiled wildlife.
4. The Proposed Rule Contradicts the ESA’s Conservation Mandate
The ESA’s purpose is not only to protect species but to conserve the ecosystems they depend on [16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)]. By excluding habitat destruction from “harm,” the agencies would allow avoidable losses while claiming compliance with the law—an outcome Congress clearly did not intend.
5. The Rule Fails to Consider Reliance Interests
The current definition has been in place for nearly 30 years, shaping critical habitat protection efforts by federal, state, tribal, and private actors. As established in DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), agencies must assess these reliance interests before changing policy. This proposal fails to do so, rendering it arbitrary and capricious.
Conclusion
The proposed rescission disregards law, science, and decades of conservation practice. It undermines the ESA’s foundational protections and threatens to accelerate species decline. I respectfully urge the agencies to retain the current definition of “harm” and withdraw the proposed rule.
Thank you for taking the time to draft this sample letter. I would not have the resources and time, let alone the knowledge to draft anything as clear and to the point.
I have found it difficult to focus on crucial environmental issues during this time of socio political chaos, I find taking targeted constructive action helps relieve some of the angst Im experiencing on a daily basis.
Again thank you for this, you are helping in ways you may not be aware of.
Thanks a lot Ellie. I'm glad I could be of help. This is what I live and breathe so you can imagine it's been really hard to watch the executive orders roll in these past 100 days, attempting to erase generations of environmental and conservation law. I'll keep on reporting on this and trying to offer constructive ways to help wherever I can.
Thank you
I just visited Congaree NP this week and the story of that park is like so many, highlighting the need to protect our lands and habitat for future generations. We all need to make our voices heard. The opposition of this proposed rule change is one that I will add my voice to. Thank you for making all of us aware of this. Keep on keeping us informed Brothers!
Thanks Gwen! How were the bugs in Congaree? Was the mosquito meter at war zone yet?
I must of missed the meter, but enjoyed no bugs at all on the boardwalk trail!
Wow! That's great. Love those cypress trees. Beautiful park!
You have not only outlined, in breathtaking detail, the criminal activities of an administration which is committed to destroying our public lands and obliterating the important species which inhabit them, you have also given us a playbook to oppose their malicious policies. While others wring their hands (e.g., most Democrats in Congress), More Than Just Parks would take the battle to the most corrupt administration in American history. Of course it’s now up to us, all of us, to make our voices heard. Metaphorically speaking, it’s time to shout from the treetops in the best tradition of the film, “Network,” and let our elected representatives know that “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”
Just FYI, for those of you who are having trouble submitting a comment on regulations.gov, after I copy/pasted the sample letter, I had to go through and replace all of the special characters (I just plain removed some of them), because the error kept saying there was an unacceptable character. After doing that and removing some of the wording to get the word count down, I was able to submit! :-)
Thanks Tori! I've updated the sample comment to ensure it's within the character limit and doesn't have special characters. I tested it and it works now.
The current administration is all about destruction.
Excellent analysis. Sending this to BlueSky
Thanks Michael. I appreciate you sharing it.
Holy cow! They are really going scorched earth policy.
Comment submitted. Thank you for the information and the template. Both were extremely helpful. FWIW, at the time I submitted, a total of 125,283 comments had been received. I hope the the majority recognize the devastating consequences if the proposal goes through.
Thanks Bryna!!
thank you. I was able to submit the 'shorter' comment just now
done - watch for the 500 word limit.
Thanks for the heads up Joanna! I've updated the sample comment to ensure it's within the character limit now.
right on. Thanks for all of this. Makes me want to get my JD - for the future fights that will inevitably come because of this change.
Yep. We've never needed good lawyers on our side more. And at the same time this administration is threatening law firms that argue against them or for their perceived enemies.
Thank you so much for this. I cannot submit electronically yet, I keep getting a message that that system is unavailable, try later. Suspicious
Thank you. I sent my letter. Just a heads up. I had to cut the letter back over 900 characters. I tried to do it smart.
Thank you for this important information. I just tried to upload my comment, which met the stated requirements, but it was rejected with the message "error true". Has anyone else had that problem?
My understanding is they’re doing “site maintenance” during the most important (and shortened) public comment periods ever…
And here it is. We all knew that AnusMouthPantLoad would continue to do the very worst shit possible. Now he is not only ignoring and exacerbating climate change, he seeks to murder Mother Nature.
Hit the streets people! Nobody is coming to save us. It is up to us to remove the fascists from power by any means necessary.
thank you for this article and direction!
I was not able to submit the letter as written because there is a character limit on the comment website.
Here is ChatGPT's condensed version:
To Whom It May Concern:
I strongly oppose the proposed rule to rescind the current regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed rescission is legally unsupported, scientifically unjustified, and inconsistent with the ESA’s core purpose of preventing species extinction. I urge the agencies to withdraw this rule in its entirety.
1. The Current Definition Is Legally Sound and Aligned with the ESA
The ESA includes “harm” in its definition of “take” [16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)]. In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the existing interpretation of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that injures or kills protected wildlife. This interpretation was based on the statute’s plain meaning and conservation purpose—not merely agency deference. Even under the “best reading” standard set forth in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the current rule remains the most faithful to the ESA.
2. The Proposed Rule Repeats Arguments Already Rejected by the Court
The proposal leans on arguments advanced in Justice Scalia’s Sweet Home dissent, which the Court explicitly rejected. Attempting to narrow “harm” to only direct actions like hunting or trapping ignores precedent and misinterprets the ESA’s intent to broadly prevent extinction.
3. Habitat Loss Is the Leading Threat to Endangered Species
Scientific consensus shows that habitat destruction is the primary driver of species extinction worldwide. Removing habitat modification from the definition of “harm” would eliminate protection from the most significant threat to listed species. This change is not a technical fix—it would eviscerate the ESA’s ability to safeguard imperiled wildlife.
4. The Proposed Rule Contradicts the ESA’s Conservation Mandate
The ESA’s purpose is not only to protect species but to conserve the ecosystems they depend on [16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)]. By excluding habitat destruction from “harm,” the agencies would allow avoidable losses while claiming compliance with the law—an outcome Congress clearly did not intend.
5. The Rule Fails to Consider Reliance Interests
The current definition has been in place for nearly 30 years, shaping critical habitat protection efforts by federal, state, tribal, and private actors. As established in DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), agencies must assess these reliance interests before changing policy. This proposal fails to do so, rendering it arbitrary and capricious.
Conclusion
The proposed rescission disregards law, science, and decades of conservation practice. It undermines the ESA’s foundational protections and threatens to accelerate species decline. I respectfully urge the agencies to retain the current definition of “harm” and withdraw the proposed rule.
Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Optional: Title/Organization]
[Optional: City, State]
"regulation.gov is not available" Why am I not surprised?
Yep. Down for “maintenance” during one of the most controversial rulemakings in history.