
This week's comic was was also posted (along with the thoughts written below) as a comment on proposed definition changes to the Endangered Species Act:
I will say in a nutshell that it is very worth revisiting the origins of the ESA and the even slightly earlier start of said programs and protections under the Nixon administration. The bald eagle, a symbol of our nation and a representative icon of both our truest freedoms and strengths, was at one time suffering greatly from a proliferation of DDT in our pesticides and fertilizers. Egg shell were too thin and mortality rates were high. This vaunted species, native to America, was being killed off and "harmed" in irreparable ways that were not intended nor intentionally targeted. Via this proposed new kind of wordsmithing RE the "best meaning" of the language with respect to "take" vs "harm," such a change would argue that we should have just let that eagle die. This is clearly NOT what happened, and in fact the adjustment to our use of certain chemicals (again not obviously meant to target the eagle) did in fact save that animal and result in its removal from the endangered species list. When the research shows that certain species are suffering and struggling to survive as a result of human impacts... then ignoring such research amounts to an intentional "take." If you don't change what you do in order to mitigate the documented "harm," then intention and a willful ignorance of consequence is equated to "taking" and/or targeting the life and viability of that species. Harming a species home or its food source or its ability to move or adapt to change is tantamount to targeting. The two words are inseparable and the retention of both adds deeper meaning and important nuance to the act.
If you would like to make your own voice(s) heard, comments on the proposed rule must be submitted by Monday, May 19, via (Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0034) or by mail to the address listed in the Federal Register notice.