I oppose the proposed rule change issued April 17 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that would strike the word “harm” from the Endangered Species Act, which was signed in 1973 by President Richard Nixon.

The ESA prohibits actions that “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” endangered species.  All the words in that phrase except “harm” can be applied to individuals or members of species. The term “harm” has been interpreted and upheld in 1995 by the Supreme Court that “harm” was not just direct killing, but causing severe harm to a species environment.

A species cannot live independent of its ecosystem (excepting species protected in artificial environments like zoos). Like the clean air and water acts, the ESA must limit harm to ecosystems; especially the need for endangered species to live, breed, reproduce and hopefully thrive enough to remove their designation as endangered.

Living in Eastern Oregon I am aware of the trade offs needed between economic development and protecting ecosystems. Republicans 50 years ago were aware regulations are necessary to ensure we have healthy forests and waterways to pass on to future generations. We should act to protect our natural resources for long term gain versus short term profits. Let’s adopt conservation, reuse and reduce over consumption instead of taking more resources from future generations.

Ronald Fonger

Pendleton