Broader Interpretation Sought for Endangered Species Act

Scientists ask U.S. Interior Department to rescind Bush-era restrictions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Nearly 130 scientists today asked the Interior Department to change a policy set under the Bush administration guiding how agencies decide whether a species is endangered.

At issue is guidance issued in 2007 that redefined when the Fish and Wildlife Service would protect a species as "endangered" or "threatened." The Endangered Species Act requires protection of any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Then-Interior Solicitor David Bernhardt issued guidance that recommended agencies focus on plants and animals most at risk in their current locations, rather than throughout their historic range or in other locations where species may be healthy.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The scientists want Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to rescind that memorandum. They say it sharply limits the scope of the ESA by limiting analysis to species' current range and by specifying that species will be listed only in the portion of range considered significant.

"We are concerned that these interpretations will result in imperiled species not receiving protection and limit where species that are listed are ultimately recovered," they wrote. "We are also concerned that the memorandum will limit protection for endangered species to small portions of range where they may not be recoverable."

Duke University's Stuart Pimm, Michigan Tech University's John Vucetich and the Center for Biological Diversity's Noah Greenwald headed up the letter. They said the policy is limiting protections for species including the gray wolf and Colorado River cutthroat trout.

"Ignoring loss of range when determining whether species require protection as endangered species makes little sense," Pimm said in a statement. "Resetting the clock to the present day could result in many species that have lost significant portions of range being wrongfully denied protection."

An Interior spokeswoman said the department is reviewing the letter.

The Bush-era memorandum was written to respond to the department's losing record in court on its previous interpretation of species' range. A group of career Interior lawyers contributed to the guidance and all signed onto the document.

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe