America’s strongest and most important law for protecting wildlife, the Endangered Species Act, is under a coordinated assault. Since January, Audubon has tracked more than 30 bills and amendments that have been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate that would dismantle the Act, including eight extreme bills in the Senate that received a hearing last week.

Congressional efforts to roll back the Endangered Species Act come even as the Obama Administration appears to be making changes designed to respond to critics who have never liked what is widely considered to be the world's strongest environmental law. One change is to give states more of a role in the listing process, while another is to expand what is considered acceptable scientific input. Audubon has yet to take a position on these changes, but some environmental groups are already critical of these changes.

Tell your members of Congress that you oppose any effort to diminish the Endangered Species Act.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, has helped prevent the extinction of numerous species, including the Bald Eagle, Whooping Crane, Brown Pelican, Peregrine Falcon, and more. While many species are recovering thanks to the ESA, hundreds of species continue to be in dire need of its protections. The bills introduced in Congress, however, would only serve to accelerate extinction.

The bills range from a virtual repeal of the ESA, to a combination of attacks representing a back-door repeal. They include S. 855, sponsored by Senator Rand Paul, which would remove at least half of all species from the ESA by eliminating protections for species that exist in only one state, which applies to birds like the Golden-cheeked Warbler, and would automatically delist all species after five years.

The bills also include attacks on key facets of the ESA, including the fundamental provisions related to sound science and critical habitat. Science-based decision making is at the heart of the ESA. Legislation such as S. 736 could require the use of potentially inferior science, while S. 112 would inject more burdensome and unnecessary economic analyses into the process. Under current law, economic impacts are already taken into account, and there is ample flexibility currently to accommodate working lands.

(photo of the Threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher by Marci Koski/USFWS. This bird was recently proposed for delisting.)