Grand Teton National Park | Photo credit: Michael Gäbler
At Revive & Restore, we are deeply concerned about proposed changes to the U.S. Endangered Species Act that would narrowly redefine “harm” to exclude habitat protection.
We are equally concerned that biotechnology is being used as an excuse to roll back these protections. It’s difficult to imagine how anyone would think it was easier to bring back an animal from extinction than to protect and preserve it today.
As we advance biotechnology solutions to help solve the greatest conservation challenges, we must emphasize these critical realities:
Habitat protection is non-negotiable for conservation success. The proposal to limit ESA protections to direct harm of individual animals ignores the scientific consensus that habitat loss is the primary driver of extinction. The critical work done by Revive & Restore and the entire conservation biotechnology community work cannot succeed without protected habitats where species can thrive.
Biotechnology is not a substitute for legal protections. Even as we develop innovative conservation tools, these technologies depend on the foundation of habitat preservation that the ESA has provided for nearly 50 years. Rolling back habitat protections would undermine both traditional conservation and our biotechnology approaches.
Science must guide policy decisions. The Supreme Court previously upheld the broader interpretation of “harm” under the ESA, recognizing that protecting breeding grounds, feeding areas, and shelter is essential for species survival. This scientific understanding remains true today.
