As a supporter of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), I am writing to express my strong opposition to the rules proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service that would roll back many of the important protections provided by one of the world’s most successful environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

I am deeply concerned by the erosion of science-based decision-making reflected in these proposed rules. The ESA requires that listing decisions be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. Congress’s clear intent at the passage of the ESA was to ensure that decisions were made based on scientific necessity and safeguarded from political considerations that often arise when money is involved.

One rule proposed would allow economic information to be considered in the decision on whether to list or delist a species, a step that is clearly illegal under the ESA. Further, another proposal would make economic impacts a central factor in determining what critical habitat to set aside for species recovery. These proposed rules ignore the original intent of Congress and one of the key reasons the law has been successful—the reliance on science.

One proposed rule includes a rescission of FWS’s blanket 4(d) rule that immediately provides critical protections to species when they are listed as “threatened,” including immediate prohibitions on the killing of or trade in a species. Should this rule be adopted, future listings of species as “threatened” will no longer receive these protections—including protection from killing or trading—without another federal action specifically addressing it. This will significantly reduce the immediate benefits of listing a species as threatened. Eliminating the blanket 4(d) rule would create a substantial—and unnecessary—burden on FWS to promulgate a species-specific 4(d) rule for every species covered by the ESA under its jurisdiction that is listed as threatened or downlisted from endangered. Given the unprecedented departure of experienced FWS employees this year, the agency’s remaining staff would not have the capacity to prepare individual 4(d) rules each time a new species is listed, leaving dozens of threatened species without protections for potentially years.

For 50 years, the ESA has been one of the most effective tools in any country to protect and recover endangered and threatened species and has demonstrated the United States’ leadership in saving vulnerable species and habitats. As one of the most powerful wildlife laws in the world, the ESA serves as a model for other countries to conserve their species and in key wildlife habitats. I strongly urge the Services to withdraw these egregious proposals and to ensure that the ESA continues to serve its purpose of preventing the decline and extinction of species in need of protection and protecting their habitats which provide critical ecosystem services for all of us.

Thank you for your consideration.