The Trump administration plans to eliminate the protection of habitats for endangered and endangered species in movement, which environmentalists claim to lead to the disappearance of critically endangered species due to logging, extraction, development and other activities.
A long -standing definition of “harm” in the Law on endangered species is disputed, which involves the change or destruction of the places that live these species. Habitat destruction is the biggest reason for disappearance, said Noah Greenwald, director of endangered species at the Center for Biodiversity.
The Fish and Wildlife Service in the US and the National Sea Fisheries Service have stated in a proposed rule on Wednesday that the habitat modification should not be considered harm, since it is not the same as deliberately focused on a species called “take”. However, environmentalists claim that the definition of “claim” has always included actions that harm the species, and the order of “harm” is supported by the Supreme Court.
The proposed rule “cuts the heart from the Law on endangered species,” says Greenwald. “If you (you) say that the harm does not mean a significant breakdown or modification of habitats, then it really leaves endangered species of cold.”
For example, he said Spotted Owls and Florida Panthers are protected as this rule prohibits the destruction of habitats. But if the new rule is accepted, someone who registers in a forest or developing development would be unobstructed, as long as he can say that he does not intend to harm an endangered look, he said.
The proposed rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, launching a 30-day public commentary period.
A spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in the United States directed the Associated Press at the Ministry of the Interior, which declined to comment.
Environmental groups will challenge the rule in court if it is accepted, said Drew Caputo, Earthjustice’s lawyer.
He said the proposal “threatened half a century to progress in the protection and restoration of endangered species”, including bald eagles, gray wolves, masters in Florida and humpback whales. He said this is because this rule “acknowledges the concept of common sense that the destruction of a forest, beach, river or wet area, on which a kind relies on survival, represents the harm of this species.”
The question is whether the Trump administration has the right to annul a rule that has been confirmed specifically by the Supreme Court and is therefore subject to a precedent, said Patrick Parento, a professor of Emerit in the Law of Vermont and Higher School who deals with endangered cases.
Due to the current definition of the harm, “many, many millions of acres of land are reserved” to help maintain the species of alive, he said.
The issue is of particular importance for Hawaii, which has more endangered species than any other state – 40% of the threatened and endangered species – although there are less than 1% of the land, according to the National Foundation for Fish and Wildlife.
Birds are among the most vulnerable. Since the arrival of humans, 71 birds have disappeared, according to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thirty-one of the 42 remaining endemic birds have been listed in accordance with the US Act, the US Department, and ten of them have not been observed for decades.
___
Associated Press Audrey McAvoy reporter in Hawaii contributed to this report.
___
The climate and environmental coverage of the Associated Press receive financial support from numerous private foundations. AP is only responsible for all content. Find AP standards to work with philanthropy, a list of supporters and funded areas to cover Ap.org.