Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 3 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1061
News
US habitat rule threatens species
Conservationists call for change to Bush-era definition of 'endangered'.
Conservation researchers in America are urging President Barack Obama's administration to rescind a legal ruling on endangered species, as a scientific analysis reveals the impact of the rule.
At issue is a 2007 memorandum from the US Department of the Interior's solicitor regarding the meaning of the words "significant portion of its range" in the country's Endangered Species Act.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
How is the Rockhopper penguin population in NZ affected by US policy? Surely the Endangered Species Act doesn't apply outside US territory.
Good question about the penguin — and I hope this can be cleared up quickly. I don't want any trouble between the US and New Zealand.
Part of the problem is the general geographic illiteracy of most Americans, including politicians. E.g.: using "largest" (as in a military base, per the Ft. Hood massacre) as a synonym for "most populous" rather than the main meaning of areal extent. But the main reason anti-conservationists want to base rulings on "current range" is that they want to be able to destroy more and more of a species' range, and have it accepted when the rules kick in; and to have their destructive slaughter of the past be accepted, rather than remedied. They want to erase history.