A proposed rule change by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is stirring controversy as it seeks to narrow the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—a move that could significantly weaken protections for threatened wildlife, including many species found across Florida.
The federal government aims to overturn a 1981 regulation that interpreted “harm” to endangered species not only as direct injury or death but also as indirect harm caused by habitat destruction. Under the proposed rollback, habitat loss would no longer automatically be considered harmful unless it directly injures or kills a listed species.
Species like the gopher tortoise, Florida panther, and manatee rely heavily on intact, protected habitats to survive. Gopher tortoises, as keystone species, provide shelter for hundreds of other animals within their burrows, so habitat loss is especially devastating. Florida panthers, with an estimated 120 to 230 adults left in the wild, continue to face threats from urban development, and current ESA protections have played a critical role in safeguarding their shrinking range. Similarly, manatees depend on healthy seagrass beds and warm-water refuges—resources that would be at greater risk if habitat degradation is no longer considered a form of “harm” under the law. Conservationists argue that eliminating habitat-based protections could reverse decades of progress, pushing these species even closer to extinction.
Currently, the ESA defines “harm” to include significant habitat modification, meaning activities that degrade or destroy the natural environments of protected species can be legally challenged—even if the animals are not directly killed. This rule has been instrumental in protecting Florida’s most vulnerable wildlife. For example, developers are required to take precautions when building near gopher tortoise burrows or Florida panther territories, and restrictions can be placed on boat traffic or water pollution near manatee habitats to protect essential resources. By recognizing habitat destruction as harm, the rule has helped limit unchecked development and land-use changes that would otherwise threaten the ecosystems these species rely on.
The proposal has garnered over a hundred thousand public comments, with environmental advocates warning that such a change could pave the way for increased development, particularly in fast-growing states like Florida, where shrinking wild spaces are already putting pressure on fragile ecosystems.
Conversely, supporters of the rollback argue that the change would eliminate confusion and reduce legal and regulatory barriers for landowners, farmers, and developers. They contend that habitat-related impacts should be judged on a case-by-case basis in court, rather than being automatically regulated by the agency.
The proposal is part of a broader federal effort to streamline and clarify environmental regulations. However, critics warn that the consequences could be long-lasting and irreversible for some of the nation’s most vulnerable species.
The FWS is still accepting public comments on the proposed change until May 19. If finalized, the rule would shift how environmental agencies evaluate harm, leaving more interpretation up to federal courts.
