Thread by @PERCtweets

Earlier this week, a federal court in California threw out several #EndangeredSpeciesAct (ESA) rules adopted during the Trump administration in a blow to both conservation and the rule of law. 🧵

One of the rules required regulations to be tailored to the needs of threatened species, which face relatively remote risks, rather than subjecting them to the across-the-board regulations Congress designed for endangered species.

Under this rule, regulatory restrictions relax as species recover which encourages private landowners to conserve habitat and rewards successful recovery efforts.

“The threatened species rule promoted recovery by aligning the incentives of private landowners who provide habitat with the interests of rare species. By casting aside the rule, the Court restored an approach that has failed to recover species for nearly 50 years." @Jon_C_Wood

This decision will also have repercussions far beyond the ESA. The court asserted the power to strike down agency rules by mere fiat, without any need to consider whether rules are lawful or should be struck down.

“Rule changes should take place in the open, with opportunity for public comment. If this decision stands, future administrations will doubtlessly seek to sidestep the rulemaking process and void their predecessor’s rules through collusive litigation.” @Jon_C_Wood

When crafting rules on how to manage imperiled species, it’s important to consider that most endangered and threatened species rely on habitat found on private lands. Voiding the threatened species rule changes will make incentivizing habitat restoration even more challenging.

Less than 3% of listed species have recovered or been delisted under the #ESA.

If we want to improve this record, we must treat private landowners as partners in conservation and that means balancing the stick with the carrot.

perc.org/2022/07/06/fed…