Skip to main content

The Endangered Species Act and the Trump Administration



The Endangered Species Act of 1973 has been one of the most controversial environmental topics. Michael J. Bean, discusses the Act’s history as well as going into greater detail on how it works in the world of policy in his journal article, “The Endangered Species Act Science, Policy, and Politics.”  This article discusses how the Endangered Species Act works and how animals and plants are selected for listing on the endangered species list. The Endangered Species Act is a Federal law and the Federal Government is responsible for funding states that are capable of providing the protection for the animals and plants on the list. The act is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Act was signed on December 28, 1973, by then President Richard Nixon.
In order for animals and plants to be placed on the list  they must fall into these specific categories; over utilization for commercial, scientific, or educational purposes, possible diseases, the destruction of its habitat, or other man made factors as well as natural causes affecting its existence. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as well as the Endangered Species Act decide specifically what vertebrate and invertebrate species is currently and will be on the list. Once on the list the species must be listed as either endangered or threatened. “Endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction where “Threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered.   

The job of the States and the Federal Government is to protect these endangered or threatened species by keeping them alive but also to attempt to recover the species so that they do not need to be protected by the Act.
On August 13, 2019, the United States Trump Administration stated that they will be reconstructing the Endangered Species Act of 1973. These changes included were viewed as  not automatically giving new endangered species full protection under the act, as well as interjecting political, economic, consideration for the listing of species, that should really only be a science based decision.
The United States Congress introduced legislation to block the Trump administration's changes to the Act. H.R. 4348 The PAW and FIN Act of 2019 (Protect America's Wildlife and Fish in Need of protection), and is being led by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and two other Democratic Representatives;  Beyer,and Dingell. This Act would rescind the rules the Trump administration used to reduce protections under the Endangered Species Act.

Representative Grijalva said in a statement. “If we don’t stop the Trump administration’s short-sighted rollbacks, more wildlife habitats will be sacrificed to oil and gas development.”  However, Gary Frazer, assistant director for endangered species at U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the agency responsible for approving listings under the Endangered Species Act stated, “
“We just took advantage of this administration to do a more comprehensive review of our regulations than we have done in the past. But it’s an ongoing job to keep this act and our implementing regulations current and reflective of the needs that species have and the public expects.”  
H.R. 4348 was introduced to House of Representatives September 17, 2019 where it was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on  Water, Oceans and Wildlife. As of September 24, 2019, it is subcommittee hearings were being held in regards to H.R. 4348 and no further action on the bill has been listed.







 Sources: 
Grijalva, and Raul M. “Actions - H.R.4348 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): PAW and FIN Conservation Act of 2019.” Congress.gov, 24 Sept. 2019, www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4348/all-actions?actionsSearchResultViewType=compact&overview=closed.
Fears, Darryl. “Endangered Species Act Stripped of Key Provisions in Trump Administration Proposal.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Apr. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/07/19/endangered-species-act-stripped-of-key-provisions-in-trump-administration-proposal/.
Rice, Doyle. “Trump Administration Overhauls Endangered Species Act as Critics Fear Animal Extinction.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 13 Aug. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/12/donald-trump-administration-weaken-endangered-species-act/1985543001/.
Blakemore, Erin. “How We Decide Which Animals Become Endangered.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 14 Oct. 2015, www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-we-decide-which-animals-become-endangered-180956923/.
“House and Senate Introduce Bills Blocking Trump's Endangered Species Act Reg Rollbacks.” Earthjustice, 17 Sept. 2019, earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/endangered-species-act-house-and-senate-bill-to-block-trump-rollbacks.
Resnick, Brian. “How the Trump Administration Wants to Weaken the Endangered Species Act.” Vox, Vox, 23 July 2018, www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/17594908/endangered-species-act-trump-proposal-change-weaken.





Comments

  1. Kaylin BrooksOctober 21, 2019 at 10:21 PM

    Thanks for sharing this legislative news! I had no idea that this was a proposed bill and as someone who cares about the environment, I am really intrigued! My concern with this bill is that it may not make it any further through the process, due to extreme polarization sadly. Since Trump has already tried to cut down the grasp of the ESA, I wonder if his fellow Republicans will also take that stance and not support this new proposed? However, maybe it will end up having bipartisan support in congress, like the legislation discussed in the Dirt Bag Diaries podcast.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LauraOctober 22, 2019 at 5:56 PM

    Rylie, your post has informed me a lot about what is going on with the Endangered Species Act. It is unfortunate that this has not been covered much by the media. I agree with your point on how such bill needs scientific reasoning behind it and not political reasoning. It is also unfortunate that we have become so polarized and may not agree on how to address this issue anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more