Talk:Endangered Species Act of 1973

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nenenie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DIVISION CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Initial comments
Matt,

I did two searches on Google, one with God Squad and Endangered Species the second with God Committee.

Both terms were used for what is officially (by law) called the Endangered Species Committee.

I wrote a master's thesis on the Tellico Dam and never came across "Squad" though apparently it is also used in reference to this committee.

It would be great to get more information on what other species have been brought up in front of that committee, a topic I know little about even though I know the committe was initially established as advised the by the courts (including the Supreme Court) as a remedy to the case of the snail darter, in favor of the dam.

Even though the court voted in favor of the snail darter, most of the justices (Burger at least who wrote the opinion) were not happy about it. Burger wrote that the intent of Congress was clear and as such the court had to support the snail darter.

Regards,

Jim (also a newcomer)

PS--Did you read my edit of the snail darter page? While that too could be cleaned up a bit, you would probably find it interesting. Among other things I wasn't sure how to handle long quotes.

>>>>>>>

Jim -- I figured out how to do this! Anyway -- you're right, the God Squad is a colloquial name for the 7- member committee that reviews possible ESA exemptions. I saw the name in 'Environmental Law and Policy' by Salzman and Thompson -- an excellent book by the way. I have also seen the God Squad refered to in law journals, so this colloquialism seems to be at least somewhat widespread. (do a google search of 'God Squad' and 'endangered species act' if you're not convinced) I'm certainly open to debate as to how prominent of a place the name should have in the article -- it might be a good idea to begin a whole new article and look at cases where the Committee has ruled for exemptions -- this will get into spotted owl territory and get quite controversial.

Anway -- what do you say that we continue this on the discussion page of the article? -- that way we may get more folks involved. Just a thought, I'm a newcomer here.

Matt

NESARC and other groups
A recent anonymous editor has made numerous edits, but also attempted to suppress the paragraph on NESARC, with the following: "Deleted NESARC paragraph. There are dozens of groups working to either save or undermine the ESA. It is innapropriate to single one out in this review of the ESA. Fairness dictates all or none." Have logged-in Wikipedians vetted these changes? Let us take up the challenge and add paragraphs on all the major lobbying groups attempting to undercut the Act. --Wetman 05:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The "God Squad"
This journalese invention is intended as a sarcastic pejorative. The article uses the phrase as if it were the normal expression: is this indicative? --Wetman 01:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Arithmetic
Since 1973, only 33 species have been delisted, seven because they went extinct and 12 more because they should not have been listed in the first place. Six more may be cases of data error, which is certainly the case with the gray whale and American alligator. The brown pelican’s and Arctic peregrine falcon’s recoveries have far more to do with the ban on the insecticide DDT than with the Endangered Species Act. 17 extinct 12 should not have been listed +6 data error =35, not 33. Is this a typo? arithmetic error? what?

Recheck your math, 7-delisted for extinctiom (not 17, like you stated in your math), 12 for mislisted, 6 for data error, and 2 for the ban of DDT. 7+12+6+2=27, which leaves 6 that have been removed from the list because they have succesfully been rehabilitated.


 * We now can see at least one person watched Penn & Teller's Bulls**t. I was wondering if they got their facts correct or not. 68.55.6.178 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Success or failure
Is it me, or is the whole section on whether or not the ESA has been a success or a failure overly one-sided? I don't necessarily agree that the act has not been a success. While very few species have been delisted, it is also true that very few species have gone extinct, and I believe more listed have shown recovery than have shown decline. If the ESA's purpose is to work promptly, then it may be considered a failure. However, recovery of an endangered or rare species can be a slow process. If the ESA's purpose is to prevent species from going extinct and to promote eventual recovery, then it has been, by and large, a success. --Gradient 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This sort of undocumented rant does not belong here. --Logicalhippo

I agree completely. The success or failure section is not balanced and should be reduced to facts and peer reviewed sources. The one reference in this section is to a document from The National Center for Public Policy Research, which is an advocacy think tank with a stated free-market anti-regulation perspective. No surprise that they don't like the ESA. Some of what they say does reflect the majority opinion of environmental and resource economists, but it is overstated and only one perspective.

I'm not an expert in Wikipedia protocol and etiquitte. Can someone suggest what should be done? 17:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've addded NPOV and expert attention tags. See WP:NPOV for Wikipedia policies regarding this kind of contribution.

This section is a rant by ESA opponents. Its statements are alternatively uncited, poorly cited, provably incorrect, or unverifiable opinion. I considered deleting the entire section, but the proper response is probably to edit it into better shape since the topic (Is the ESA Successful) has merit. Luckily, there have been a number of scientific articles and at least one GAO report in the past few years that have addressed the issue head on. I will try to find time to summarize them. 69.19.14.36 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC) KS


 * I agree this section smells of Save Our Species Alliance. I've added a number of counter-examples but haven't removed the propaganda as of yet. Tomtefarbror 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a nice addition, but how about adding some citations. Also, please look again at your final remark that no species have gone extinct.  I was looking yesterday at FWS list of species that had several listed species that had gone extinct.  Perhaps these were already gone or going before the ESA, but that needs clarification RichWoodward 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks RichWoodward. The information I've added is taken from the Center for Biological Diversity recovery trends page I've linked in the external links section. Tomtefarbror 11:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're getting closer. A footnote to this source should be provided at the top of the section. Further, your statement that no species have gone extinct contradicts statements earlier in the article and the data at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/DelistingReport.do.  Can you add the correct citation?  I would make the change myself, but I haven't learned how to to put in citations correctly. RichWoodward 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

endangered species act (General comments)
you should tell more about what is happening today and before. people will get more info and will be more interested in helping and volonteering in activities to help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.138.100.252 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

If any experts out there intend to re-tool the ESA page, I believe it would benefit from a more in-depth explanation of the ESA process. Namely, I'd appreciate an explanation of section 7 consultation and the issuance of biological opinions. Example:



Thanks. --Greensheep (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Consequences to violation?
What happens if a coroporation or individual violates the ESA? What are the penalties? Is it a felony? --zandperl 13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Government Attempts to Undermine
The Executive branch has successfully intervened to undermine the Endangered Species Act. Federal biologists determined that at the Klamath region in Oregon, the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: water could not be cut off from the river because the survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake. In 2001, the vice president's office intervened on the behalf of farmers needing the irrigation water, and, according to aides, Dick Cheney set in motion a process to challenge the scientific conclusions reached by the federal scientists. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River. Wow, that's some great NPOV (sarcasm) --MKFreeberg 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not very NPOV, but you can NPOV-ly demonstrate that the most recent administration has been undermining the ESA. Just off the top of my head, their Secretary of the Interior believes it's unconstitutional. Someone should write about it with the ol' NPOV because it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.227.113 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot-

I am only interested in the latest,action  up to March 18, 2011, about Congress  having the power to remove an endangered specie from the LIST. Congress' efforts to pass budget legislation that would strip wolves of their federal protections have forced the environmental community into a corner.

If the legislation passes, it would mark the first time a species was delisted from the Endangered Species Act by an act of Congress. That would set a truly terrible precedent with grave implications for other imperiled species like the polar bear, salmon, and grizzly bear. Can someone inform me. Nancy Weir March 19, 2011 at 5:00

Criterea to list animals
I may have missed this in the section titled :Listing" but what are the criterea to put an animal of plant on the Endangered Species List? Is it by total number of species per square mile? Or total in the world? Or a whim of law makers? Is it divided by sub species or just the species in general? If an animal, say a lizard, is rare in an area or country, but found very plentifully in another place, is it still endangered? What is there is a mistaken listing, such as the species is thought to be only in one habitat, but it found that it lives in all or any habitats and, in fact is more plentiful in the other habitats, but was listed because nobody though to look in the other place? 68.55.6.178 (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I can answer most of the above questions and am volunteering to do so in the article, as I have, in my hot little hands, the 6th edition of CNPS' Inventory of Rare Plants in California, which gives a detailed description of the listing criteria, procedures and everything else relevant to federal listing, or basically who, what, how and why. An expansion of that section of the article is painfully needed. Comments? Marcia Wright (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative unintended consequences
I disagree with this edit by Loonymonkey in the "Negative unintended consequences" section. The editor erased almost the entire section, writing "OR" and "POV" in the comment section. Those comments are mistaken. There is no original research, as everything is properly cited and accurate. It's no more or less POV than the section titled "Positive effects." Taken together, these two sections bring wonderful balance to the article. To have one without the other does not give the reader a full picture of the subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states, "Opponents of the Endangered Species Act argue that it may encourage preemptive habitat destruction." That use of the word "may" is inaccurate. Before you changed it, it gave multiple real world examples. These examples definitely happened - there is no "may" about it. Also, quoting The New York Times is not "OR" or "POV." Grundle2600 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stating "POV" in the comment section is not a justifiable reason for removing relevant, well sourced content. Neutral point of view states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors... The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly... all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions... Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides... All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence... Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion..." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Shortened Footnotes-a suggestion
I tend to add copious amounts of intext citations, so the Footnotes section of the article is cumbersome-looking now. The "shortened footnote" alternative accepted by Wikipedia may improve this, with a new section "References" for the full book titles, etc. I'd be interested in other editor's thoughts on this suggestion. Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whooping Crane?
Under the "Endangered Species Act" section, there is was a paragraph about the whooping crane and its status as an endangered species. Kinda funny, removed. -- FUNK A MATIC    ~talk   20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FAIL.
Is anything mentioned about how the E.S.A. is harming California's residents to protect a few FISH. (?) Or any criticism at all for that matter... Rswimmerfreak94 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Links
Hi wiki readers. I'm the publisher of ESA blawg, the law blog discussing the Endangered Species Act. It is my independent, non-profit, educational effort. I am an authority on the topic, with numerous published law reviews, conference appearances, experience as a Justice Department attorney, and service on a relevant federal advisory board. Every week, I track ESA announcements in the Federal Register, ESA caselaw, and ESA articles in the news, and offer links, excerpts and commentary. I make ZERO money on this effort, and have ZERO advertising. But I do have a collection of all the essential ESA related links on my page. I endeavor to keep my content useful, tasteful, informative, factual and accessible. I do not use copyrighted material without permission (and rely almost entirely on public domain government entity photos with attribution). I do not wish to be viewed as a spam link, and I believe I meet the notability guidelines, with significant and reliable coverage, including links to all sources, and fully independent. I also have contributed to the content on this Endangered Species Act page in the past. Please visit my site. Indeed, many past wikipedia readers have visited my site to learn more about the ESA. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. http://esablawg.com Keith Esablawg (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard matey! I checked out your website and agree that is passes as an external link. Especially as you say, there is no commercial gain here. I am the unfortunate editor that greatly expanded this article (see history) using the Stanford book and others. If there is a factual error that you find please correct it. I am of course not neutral on this subject, personally, so it is very hard to write neutral voice regarding endangered species. I am about to read a book that is anti-ESA, recommended by the above poster("FAIL")-wish me luck :) Marcia Wright (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Marcia and other wiki readers. Not sure why someone keeps deleting ESA blawg from the External Links. It is an educuational, non-profit web page, complies with copyright law, not an advocacy group, open to commentary from all sides, with a wide range of links and resources, all exclusively on the subject of this Wikipedia page: the Endangered Species Act. Indeed, it seems that a link to the Center for Biological Diversity - while certainly relevant, and absolutely worthy of leaving right where it is - should raise more concerns with Wikipedia's external link policy than a link to ESA blawg. Thanks for your insights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esablawg (talk • contribs) 20:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a close call, I immediately removed the link as you have a strong conflict of interest, I was going to reinstate it, but having checked WP:ELNO I decided not to. ELNO number 11 says we should avoid "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Because you do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO your link is not worthy of inclusion. As the writer, number 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website. See external link spamming." also applies. Sorry, your link cannot be included. Smartse (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

what does it do?
I've read the entire article, and so far as I can tell, the basic proceedure goes something like this:
 * nomination for being put on the list
 * consideration is taken, especially regards the land on which the species lives
 * if the proceedure is successful, the animal is added to the list

is that it? being on the list doesn't actually do anything?

the article would lead one to believe that the act is purely informative, and that I can feel free to go out hunting for whatever animals I find on the list .. using the list as a "todo" list if I were so inclined. This article needs to answer the question: What specifically are all the legally prescribed consequences of a species being listed? --173.66.61.78 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Esa
Why is this Act important?
 * Because it gives students like you exciting topics to write research papers about! ;)  AgnosticAphid  talk 01:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate USC reference
The first sentence references 7 U.S.C. § 136, but this appears to have no relationship to the ESA. 16 USC 1531 is the correct reference for the ESA. Is there a reason that the 7 USC reference is in here? 64.9.62.197 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Safe Harbor: benefits to landowner
I don't know for sure, but I think the following statement is incorrect (in the "Safe Habor" section of the article):

"The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit or even attract a listed or proposed species in exchange for assurances that the FWS will permit future 'takes' above a pre-determined level."

Suggested correction:

"The landowner agrees to alter the property to benefit a listed species on the following conditions: 1) that the FWS authorizes incidental take of species that may result from actions undertaken by the landowner under the Safe Harbor Agreement, and 2) that the FWS will not require any additional or different management activities without the landowner's consent."

ScottS (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists of affected species
There is a list of mammals and birds affected by the act, and a list of arthropods affected by the act, but not a list of PLANTS affected by the act. Shall I remedy this issue, or is it not of major importance to list these plants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granstund (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New info edit
Hi everyone, I'm a senior wildlife biology student and I was assigned to edit an article. I have taken a wildlife policy class and have have added the information and reference about CITES to the first paragraph. I thought is was important to show why the ESA came to be and link this articles with the CITES article. I hope that I did this correctly as I'm a new editor and didn't step on any toes. Tperkins2 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Endangered Species Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100326130813/http://www.fws.gov:80/Endangered/factsheets/delisting.pdf to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/delisting.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100406020407/http://www.fws.gov:80/endangered/hcp/ to http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/hcp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Delisted species
I was hoping to find somewhere on Wikipedia a list of species that have been delisted from the ESA. Several are mentioned in this article, but not all of them. I mostly wanted to see the delistings due to recovery, but delistings due to extinction are interesting as well. Current count seems to be 34 recovered, 10 extinct, 19 delisted due to errors in listing (see here); this article claims 28 recovered which is now out of date. I'm not sure if a list of ESA delisted species should be incorporated into this article or created as a stand-alone list. If a stand-alone list is warranted, would List of species delisted under the Endangered Species Act be an appropriate title? It does seem a little strange to have a list of things no longer on a list. Plantdrew (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Endangered Species Act of 1973. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203080442/http://www.epa.gov/history/admin/agency/train.htm to http://www.epa.gov/history/admin/agency/train.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041108000216/http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSBoxscore to http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSBoxscore
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828182220/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=186cb0f38a1b1b6770e432a7eba20553&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50%3A2.0.1.1.1.2.1.1&idno=50 to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50%3A2.0.1.1.1.2.1.1&idno=50

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Endangered Species Act of 1973. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728035106/http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/DelistingReport.do to http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/DelistingReport.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014231847/http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/listedAnimals.jsp to http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/listedAnimals.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207152748/http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/species/endangered_species/state_federal_list.htm to http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/species/endangered_species/state_federal_list.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828182220/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=186cb0f38a1b1b6770e432a7eba20553&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50%3A2.0.1.1.1.2.1.1&idno=50 to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50%3A2.0.1.1.1.2.1.1&idno=50

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible merge?
I notice that there is a redirect here from Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. I am wondering if Endangered Species Act of 1969 should also be a merge candidate? I started doing some cleanup work on it and then began to wonder if it would be better to redirect it here. There is a lot of duplication and not a lot of citation over there. Thoughts? If it doesn't make sense to merge them, what could be done to improve the other page? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Move Protection Request
This page should get move protected as it has no reason to be moved. Any move of this page would be disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinecraftPlayer2 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not preemptively protect articles because someone might do something in the future. We protect articles where there is a history of disruptive activity.  ~ GB fan 20:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration
This article needs to be updated to reflect attempted changes by the Trump administration. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

POV edits
This edit by Wing gundam purported to "fix non-NPOV, update" in the edit summary, but it is problematic for several reasons. The materials deleted were from reliable sources, one an article from the the peer-reviewed journal Nature, which included a quote from Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity. I fail to see why this is somehow undue or POV. If it is good enough for a peer-reviewed journal, it should be good enough for this article. The other material that was removed was from an article in The Huntington Post which noted that these highly controversial changes to the ESA came just months after the IPBES report on the extinction crisis. What is the issue with noting this? How is this undue POV? Other sources have also pointed this out, including Vox, the aforementioned Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club, which referred to the changes as "Trump's Extinction Plan." Now I'm not going to add the latter part of course because that would be blatant POV, but it shows that more than a few sources have pointed this out. And speaking of NPOV, Wing gundam's edits did not adhere to this standard, in particular this addition which says

"'at the urging of civil liberties groups, the USFWS and the NMFS under President Donald Trump changed the §4(d) rule to treat 'threatened' and 'critically endangered' species differently, legalizing private recovery initiatives and habitats for species that are merely 'threatened.' (emphasis mine)"

Civil liberties groups? Hardly. The Property & Environmental Research Center (PERC) describes itself as a "champion of free market environmentalism," but critics claim it "aggressively advocates privatizing the federal lands for the bizarre and absurd reason that they 'lose money.'" Sounds more like a market fundamentalist think tank than a "civil liberties group" to me. Right here we not only have issues with WP:NPOV, but also WP:OR in Wikipedia's voice. Not only that, but this source was published in 2018, long before the changes to the ESA. The other "civil liberties group" cited above is the Pacific Legal Foundation, a "libertarian public interest law firm in the United States" according to its Wikipedia page. "fix non-NPOV", indeed!

In my view, the previous version should be restored for these reasons, and perhaps updated to reflect legislation being considered by House Democrats to undo the changes to the ESA.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "edits did not adhere to this standard" — Yes, it did.
 * "Civil liberties groups? Hardly." — They style themselves as such, and their case record appears so. But if you, in your wisdom, reject their categorization, then "property rights groups" suffices.
 * "but critics claim" — you cite an opinion paper for a conference from a partisan, which is fair criticism, but POV.
 * "Not only that, but this source was published in 2018, long before the changes to the ESA." — Hence "at the urging of" rather than "to the praise of", although both are true.
 * "The materials deleted were from reliable sources, one an article from the the peer-reviewed journal Nature… I fail to see why this is somehow undue or POV. If it is good enough for a peer-reviewed journal, it should be good enough for this article." — No, it was a non-peer-reviewed column. Non-peer-reviewed columns and letters are not equal to peer-reviewed articles. But I'd thought it was a duplicate citation of the quote.
 * "What is the issue with noting this? How is this undue POV?" — Because it presents one POV without opposition. Don't misunderstand me: I share your POV.  But that doesn't make it any less a POV.  Saying "the rollback of these protections comes ~just months~ after the IPBES report" connotes that it "flew in the face of" the report and risks bringing about or worsening its warnings, whereas advocates of the §4(d) changes would argue these will help prevent them.— wing   gundam  23:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Yes, it did." No, it did not. You arbitrarily remove materials which you consider POV and add sources which push their own POV, without proper attribution I might add.
 * "then "property rights groups" suffices." Not quite. This clearly constitutes WP:OR so I am naming the organizations.
 * "No, it was a non-peer-reviewed column." I'm aware of this. The point is that a prestigious academic journal would not likely publish such an article if it was merely a rubbish opinion piece with little of substance to back it up, or if the material included was irrelevant.
 * "Saying "the rollback of these protections comes ~just months~ after the IPBES report" connotes that it "flew in the face of" the report and risks bringing about or worsening its warnings, whereas advocates of the §4(d) changes would argue these will help prevent them." Okay then, I will restore the IPBES material but add that opponents of the changes pointed this out and argue it will worsen the crisis, and add sources present above. I think this is a reasonable compromise here, with proper attribution. This is WP:DUE material by my estimation.
 * Any other editors here wish to add their input on this dispute?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Formatting Errors
There seems to be some formatting messiness under the heading "Endangered Species Act." I'm fairly new and not entirely sure how best to clean this up, otherwise I would do it myself. It's still fairly legible, but still not perfect if someone were inclined to polish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquonkHerder (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science
— Assignment last updated by Blainethesquirrel (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Positive Effects Section is way out of date and has defunct link
I just sent this REQUEST TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE via their online contact form. Perhaps somebody watching this TALK page will also try to get numbers of species data current to July 2023:

"I am a wikipedia editor who has authorization to edit pages about "climate adaptation." I also edit conservation pages. The WIKIPEDIA PAGE titled "Endangered Species Act of 1973" has a "Positive Effects" subsection that is way out of date (2019) and has a "dead link" in the first para. I tried using the ECOS website and began with numbers of species listed — but then I saw chimpanzees were included on the list. Please either do it yourself or send me (1) the actual numbers of currently listed species but only IN THE USA that are Endangered (E), and separately (2) those currently listed as Threatened (T) in the USA. Also send me from the  history of the ESA since 1973 how many  species total have (3) been delisted because they went "extinct", (4) been delisted because they "recovered". Then, using the same number of currently listed USA species, how many  (5) have improved over the course of their history from initial listing as E to now T, and (6) how many have worsened since their initial listing from T to E.  Also, a number for any that cannot clearly be distinguished into any of those categories. THIS REQUEST IS OF HIGHEST IMPORTANCE. Thank you." Cbarlow (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Critically Important to improve this page re 50th anniversary of ESA Dec 2023
See that I am the one who posted the previous Talk topic July 2023. I just did a little editing to help improve the flow of a section. (I am a retired freelance editor for science trade books, Columbia University Press.) But I can't improve sections where I am not already an expert on aspects of the ESA (several I am on). The beginning sections are great and read professionally. But I encounter places that use modifiers like "all" and "very" and some of those have references that don't help me ascertain if such black or white statements are factual. Below I will list some sections and items where at least a few of the 167 people I see are watching this page ought to put their best effort into helping journalists be able to rely on it — for at least getting to good, neutral references. Here they are:

Section: "Endangered Species Act of 1973"
Besides the basic facts that begin this short section, the only text that explains how this Act differed from the 1969 Act is the long para about plants that I added. This is an area in which I am expert, and I used good references. But I do not know anything else about how this act "strengthened" or in any way added to or modified what the 1969 Act already did. Please, somebody contribute basic facts and references on what else Congress felt was lacking in the 1969 act that they needed to pass a whole new Act in order to correct. Thus THE SECTION TITLE should also be changed into something like: "How the 1973 Act improved or broadened previous legislation".

As I read downward on this wikipedia page, it looks like the first para in the "Critical Habitat" section says that this piece was also a unique addition in the 1973 Act. If that is the case, then move all that basic stuff up into this early section — and, again, the emphasis in this section is just on WHAT IS NEW about the 1973 legislation that compelled Congress to take action and the press to speak so highly about its significance.

Section: "Continuing Need"
Let's ELIMINATE THIS SECTION. It is one short para. Its references are 2019 (so way out of date). And the final 2 sentences make broad statements, yet have no references.

Section: "Endangered Species Act"
This is a very poor title. I suggest it be RETITLED as "Key individuals associated with writing the 1973 Act". Then, let's do 4 things: (1) Eliminate the image. (2) Use only the content of what is now the first long para (but break it into at least 2 or 3 paras). (3) Eliminate this short para:

The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." California historian Kevin Starr was more emphatic when he said: "The Endangered Species Act of 1972 is the Magna Carta of the environmental movement."[30]

If it is true that the 1973 Act uniquely protects "the ecoystems upon which they depend" then that point should be moved up into the previous section about what was unique about this act. The quote about the Magna Carta is not trackable in the references and having one person be "more emphatic" than what was stated in the act is not wikipedia style.

(4) Let's move the entire rest of this section downward into a NEW MAJOR SECTION TITLE something like "Controversies about the 1973 Act" — and then we can do it as a fully CHRONOLOGICAL piece, using section titles that are topical and with the years highlighted. This means we would grab text from all the remaining sections that pertain to controversies and put them into this single place. (Some might be important to also keep in their existing sections, but all should be at least listed chronologically in one long main section with CONTROVERSIES in the title.

OVERALL: One more thing: I was a senior in college with the 1973 Act passed. I loved it! But I have had experiences since that time that have me see the validity of both polarized sides of many (maybe all) of the controversies. Using government edicts in a two-party democracy in order to prevent species extinctions is a "predicament" to be managed as best possible. It is not a "problem" that ever has a solution — much less a final solution. I think wikipedia editors for this page should keep this in mind. We need to adequately present and reference the controversies. Keep them simple and basically stated. We don't need to quote anybody on either side. What stimulated me to think this way was an excellent journalistic piece I read today that spelled out the controversies, referencing other journalistic sources for each topical point. That article is: "Has America’s 50-year fight to protect endangered species been successful?" and it is Yahoo News here: https://news.yahoo.com/has-americas-50-year-fight-to-protect-endangered-species-been-successful-174158115.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGCUihihk02B3M-gx1O-ogiKRJF-YJ0vNzBfuuoj8N55zIsiwgPRZNzl8xzD8ewdGGUTXTQHPxkb7c8czpbxSdbZ7lLHDyGsBZHX39wa79pXvaPIE-tQSWeM3y2Ei-w1urWvr5F3t9qLCjsMbFO1vphirRjI-Gp31Vz5qsYVMwDG

Cbarlow (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I REORGANIZED THE WHOLE PAGE into just 4 high-level section titles
The four main sections are now: History • New Features of the 1973 Act • Challenges and Controversies • Section-by-Section Summaries of the 1973 Act.

Then I took all the tangle of text and section heads and reworked them into this new, simple set of categories. I did little of no editing on all those items I needed to move around — so please, somebody come in now and work carefully through each section. They need to be professionalized before the 50th Anniversary of the Act in December. And they need to have good references and have those references be up to date. PLEASE HELP WITH THIS! Cbarlow (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Review!
I think we need to review the article, I notice some info are in the wrong sections like critical habitat in Challenges and Controversies section, it should be on Section 4! I think the one of the editors made a mistake. Song4Life (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add a short, legal description of critical habitat in section 4, but the way it already appears in the NEW FEATURES OF THE 1973 ACT section is where this version should stay. Critical habitat was not only a new feature for the 1973 act, but as I just fleshed out this morning, it was the key controversy in the Dusky Gopher Frog case of 2018 and in the 2022 buckwheat v. lithium mine controversy. So it is important to have it already described before the controversy section. Cbarlow (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Chronological List of Controversies" is now species-specific
Go to that section and see that I added more species-specific controversies, in chronological order, and with good references. So that is why I feel justified in having altered the section title to "Chronological List of Species Controversies". I WILL WAIT 2 DAYS AND THEN I WILL DELETE THE ENTIRE RES OF THE SECTION. The rest of the section was not written by me, and it is poorly referenced and entails political struggles between different presidencies, and is thus already out of date. Wikipedia readers are best served by showing the controversies as they appear for particular species — and each of those species already has a wikipedia page where readers can go to begin to learn more. So if any of the page watchers really cares about that section, then go in and bring it up to wikipedia standards over the next two days — or post here asking for a delay. Otherwise I will make the deletion. Cbarlow (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Much of the material you deleted is long-standing and as such you should find consensus before mass deleting it. I'm going to restore parts of the section that are not too out of date (2019).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Letting Others Do Their Work Too
Cbarlow, I know you want to help us improving this topic, but I think you should let others do their parts as well. Your not the only editor who works in this place. I see others do their parts as well, but I notices that your overshadowing the numbers. We need to work together as a team and accepts suggestions from them. They may have the right information too. Sorry, If I sound rude, but I'm just want others to to their parts as well. We are all equals here in Wikipedia. Song4Life (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Since November 2023 when I posted a long comment on this Talk page, you are the only contributor whose comment here or direct edit on the article I did not take action on. Please see my 9 January 2023 post above that I was inviting other editors for 2 days before I posted what I said I would post. Nobody commented, except C.J. Griffen directly above. While I didn't respond to Griffen on the Talk page, on January 11, I did reinstate on the article page what I had deleted and said in my comment there:
 * 15:23, 11 January 2024‎ Cbarlow talk contribs‎ 118,660 bytes +57‎  →‎Chronological List of Species Controversies: I created a new section head "Reversals in policy track presidential elections" just above this one and moved that whole long paragraph you restored into it. As I said on the Talk page, this section is now limited to controversies attached to species names. Those are the longest lasting kind that do not shift with the flip-flops as to who is in the White House.
 * Now to the point of our dispute:
 * Because I am a retired science writer (4 science books), I've been a a volunteer for an endangered plant for 2 decades, and because I can see merit in both sides of almost every controversy about the Endangered Species Act, I wanted this page to be up to what it should be for the 50th anniversary of the Act. Fortunately, google alerts through mid January continued to bring me important news on the Dec 28 anniversary of the Act, so I had a lot of good and up-to-date references. There is still a lot on this page that is not up to wiki standards. Frankly, I would expect to be thanked by wikipedia volunteers and employees for how much I have improved the page and ensured neutrality and balance where necessary.
 * Therefore, please let me know who else besides you is objecting to anything I am doing here. You said in the comment to me: "you should let others do their parts as well." I am not seeing others trying to do anything. I wish they were! I even called the Fish and Wildlife Service pleading for some help in getting this page up to date and to wikipedia standards before the 50th anniversary.
 * Bottom line: Is there anyone besides you who feels that I have intruded on their own voluntary ability to come in here and help improve the page? You made the allegation politely, but I see no basis for what you charged. Remember, I am a volunteer very experienced editor. I looked at your SongforLife bio page. It is short, and it looks like you are a paid employee of wikipedia. Especially if the latter is the case, please be careful about criticizing, without giving evidence, a valued volunteer contributor. I am looking forward to your response on this Talk page. Let's settle this dispute here between us before it needs to go to a higher level. Cbarlow (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my rudeness, it's just I was used to the previous informations. These times is where I was familered with the info. Forgive me. Change is really hard. Song4Life (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I reason I don't edit it is because I'm afraid I may spread misinformation to make it inaccurate. Song4Life (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dispute settled. Thank you for promptly handling this.Cbarlow (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Major Reorganization of "Critical Habitat" subsection
This is within the "Challenges and Controversies" main section. I spent a lot of time on this today, and here is what I wrote in the "History" tab:

I did a major reorganization of this section, as so many authors have contributed material that it had lost a sense of logical flow and was sometimes repetitive. I believe I have retained all existing references, and also put references for two long existing passages that had no reference at the end. FEEL FREE TO RESPONSIBLY EDIT and thereby improve this section! I believe it currently is balanced in describing controversies.Cbarlow (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Final copyedit done on all but the last of 4 main sections
It you look up this Talk page to about July 2023, you will see that I started doing a lot of edits and text contributions about that time, escalating in November to a complete reorganization into 4 main section heads. This was all because I felt this wikipedia page deserved coming up to wikipedia standards before the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (December 28, 2023) would garner more views. Well, nobody stepped in to help make improvements. The only interventions were small helpful ones, plus the usual stopping me from deleting something, and one that advised me to stop editing so much, but was then retracted. So today marked the end of my feeling the need, and having the motivation, to do any more edits. In the 90s, while I was writing science books, I also did freelance copyediting for Columbia University Press, so I know how important copyediting is. That's what I finished today.

TWO REQUESTS: I feel that all but 2 parts of this page are now up to wikipedia standards. So please, somebody else come in and handle whatever needs to be done to these subsections of the Level 1 section called "Challenges and Controversies":

• EFFECTIVENESS - That section had the original long bulleted list of species names and numbers that are surely way outdated now. I played it safe by not trying to delete it. But I sure wasn't going to spend my time trying to update it. Worse, there was already a CITATION TEMPLATE hidden there, because whoever put that list in didn't bother to put in a reference. I will not personally risk being "cancelled" by deleting it myself. But until somebody gives it a reference (and, ideally, updates the population numbers) it will stand in the way of this page being regarded as "good" by wikipedia standards.

• REVERSALS IN POLICY TRACK PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS - I tried to delete this entire short part that was original, as (a) it is now outdated, and (b) it unnecessarily provides details that are too politically oriented. Somebody cancelled me and reverted it back immediately. So the best I could do was give it this level-2 title and find a reasonable place to include it in this list. I agree now that the topic is important, but the level of detail should be trimmed way back — and updated to show that the Biden administration was able to fully restore the way the regulations had been before the Trump administration changed them. BTW: I disapprove of using stand-alone last names of presidents in wikipedia pages. Earlier, someone had used the term on this page "Reagan administration." This subsection should be amended to do as well. But again, I refuse to work on something that needs a lot of help to meet wikipedia standards, when it is so easy for someone to just come in and cancel me.

ONE DISCLAIMER: In my November 2023 provision of new section and subsection titles and reorganizing of this page, I left the last part untouched, which is Level 1 title: "Section-by-Section Summaries of the 1973 Act." A quick perusal showed it looked well-written and referenced. But because I deem it to be of interest mainly to lawyers or law students, I never did anything to it. I work on wikipedia pages to get the science up-to-date, well-referenced, and written in a popular science style that most viewers would find helpful and easy enough to read. So, if this page ever is recommended to be reviewed to garner "GOOD" status in wikipedia, somebody will need to at least do a copyedit through that final section-by-section part of the page.

Note: After a few days, I will alert my contact at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to finally take a read through it. If that happens, there may be more changes. But, as you can glean from the content of this page, the agency is already overwhelmed with too much to do, based on its staffing and funding at this time. So I doubt it will get a more professional read than what I myself have just done. Cbarlow (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Whitebark Pine
It's stated that the whitebark pine was listed on 2022. But when I checked, it was actually listed in 2023 not in 2022. I just wanted to point this out so I think it's need fixing. Here's the evidence https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1748 Song4Life (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I see a mid-January date on that ECOS page, showing you are correct in that. But I'd rather have people go to the actual Federal Register page which is dated as 15 December 2022. You can see that date and click on the document by going to the ECOS page and then scrolling down to the "Federal Register" documents part. Cbarlow (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Added another subsection: "Failure to implement recovery actions"
This new subheading, "Failure to implement recovery actions," comes right after the existing subsection in the Challenges and Controversies part that is titled "Delays in specifying recovery actions." The reason I am mentioning this on the TALK page is that this is the first time I have found anything to add to this overall depressing section that actually seems like a solution to a difficult problem. The "challenge" has indeed been "failure to implement recovery actions." But the bulk of the text I put into this new section is how in 2022 the Fish & Wildlife Service developed a new 3-part framework (no need to change anything in the official regulations) in order to keep in the "recovery plan" only the items required by law and regulation. Now they are spinning off the "background" part of a plan and the "implementation" part of the required actions list in order to make them fully updatable and flexible. The background is now called a Species Status Assessment (SSA) and the implementation part is called "Recovery Implementation Strategy" (RIS). I use references that go right to the new webpages on the FWS website that deal directly with these new items. Note: I just stumbled onto these crucial new pages when I was looking for info on what elements have to be in a recovery plan. And the reason I was doing that is because I have been personally working on the citizen-science and implementation actions of Florida torreya for 2 decades, ever since I founded Torreya Guardians. Comments for the 5-year update are due this August 5, and I was struggling with how to suggest easy updates and edits to go into the existing recovery plan — which is so convoluted and outdated I couldn't even begin to figure out how to suggest things for the staff to easily write into that document. Now I see that most of the items I want to have considered based on the data gathered and accomplishments of Torreya Guardians actually belong in the 2 parts outside of the official recovery plan. They belong in the SSA and the RIS — and those are things I can actually send directly to staff as they happen outside of the Federal Register process. (Here is a direct link to the new subsection: Endangered Species Act of 1973.) Cbarlow (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)