Less Protection of Endangered Species: The Endless Cycle of Extinction and De-Extinction

By: Alexandria Chen-Fraser, Associate Editor 2026-2027        |        October 30, 2026

What is Extinction?

Extinction is usually declared when an animal has no other viable individuals in its population; in other words, when the last of its species has died. Fortunately, most DNA from extinct animals is preserved, which could be useful whether or not de-extinction is used as a conservation effort. Sadly, this is not our first interaction with extinction, as we are currently living in a “sixth extinction,” which scientists describe as the sixth time in history when animals have “disappeared at a rapid pace." [1]

There is an ongoing debate over whether bringing these animals back into the ecosystem makes sense if their habitat is lost. If their habitat is lost because regulations provide less protection, then these animals will not be able to thrive through conservation efforts such as de-extinction or reintroduction. Instead, we may have an endless cycle where the animals that were just extinct are now extinct once again. These animals may go extinct either because of our unintentional killing or because the “new” species, through de-extinction or reintroduction, can no longer live in the same ecosystem.  

The Why Behind: Why Humans Should Care

Animals provide a sustainable environment for humans to thrive, directly affecting agriculture, health, wildlife activities, and land use. [2]. Without animal protections, contaminated water and food would increase, resources for medicines would be depleted, wildlife activities would decline, and property rights would be lost. Many pleasures and necessities come from the environment sustained by our animals; thus, failing to protect both the environment and the habitats that our animals live in only hurts us in the long term.

The Act that Species are Living For: The Impact of the Endangered Species Act 

In 1973, the United States enacted the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) to strengthen protections for endangered and threatened species. [3] Human activities, such as hunting and killing, continue to threaten animal species. With a new system to track endangered species, the United States is being more proactive about preserving them for their benefit and ours. 

The Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) oversees the listing of eligible species as endangered or threatened under the ESA based on the scientific data brought to the Secretary from the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”). [4]

The Endangered Species Act defines endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and threatened species as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” [5] 

This list of endangered and threatened species in the Code of Federal Regulations establishes which animals need more protection to prevent extinction. [4] However, this system is far from perfect, as it leaves many animals behind, including hybrids and several species on the brink of extinction. Hybrids are the genetic product of two different species, adding complexity to this issue. [4] Hybrids are not classified if one of the species that makes up the hybrid is not already listed as endangered or threatened. [4]. For other animals in danger of extinction, the Secretary determines, based on scientific data, whether the animal will still be classified as endangered or threatened. [6] In Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, gray wolves were at issue because it could not be properly determined if the gray wolves were endangered or threatened because of the lack of reliable methods to collect data on the wolves. [6] Researchers tracked these wolves in several states. [6] The results varied by state and data-collection method, either overestimating or underestimating the population size. [6]

Accurate scientific data is critical. Inaccurate data can have disastrous effects. Providing data that overestimates or underestimates the population to the Secretary can cause an animal to be delisted because it will no longer be considered endangered or threatened. Once the Secretary delists an animal, it receives less structured supervision and monitoring. This raises concerns because it may lead to the unintentional extinction of this species again. Although delisting an animal does not eliminate monitoring, it can be a serious problem if an animal needs more diligent monitoring than the data suggests. When a species is delisted, it is monitored for 5 years. These post-delisting monitoring services are still being improved to more accurately show any positive or negative changes in a species. [7] Important data such as response to threats or effectiveness of conservation measures are still being improved, which means that this data is still unclear and thus will not be as useful to determine if an animal should be listed as endangered or threatened again. [7] The Winkler Cactus has been delisted since 1998; however, the 2019 data show that at least 58% of the values were “unknown,” which aligns with the 5-year review finding a “lack of knowledge about long-term population trends and recruitment rates.” [7] Many species are still declining after being delisted because, without a recovery plan, these animals are not getting the needed support.

New Framework Affecting The Harm Rule

The longstanding doctrine of Chevron Deference allowed federal courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute. [3] In turn, their expertise would clarify ambiguities in their specialty.  Courts deferred to agencies in determining whether a statutory ambiguity was reasonable. [3] Under Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, deference to the agencies to provide guidance on the best actions for our endangered species is no longer the standard, as the courts can use their own judgment without regard to an agency’s expertise. [3]

Unsurprisingly, protections for endangered species have been further diminished in recent news. The harm rule, which once protected animals from further habitat loss, is now rescinded. This rule is now less broad than Congress intended for this Act to be to protect threatened or endangered species. [8] The word “harm” was once included in the definition of “take,” alongside “harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, and collect,” to protect species. However, the word "harm" no longer includes habitat modification in this definition. The harm rule included habitat modification to further explain the meaning of “take.” As a result, it is difficult to classify an animal's critical habitat to prevent its extinction. [9] The ESA defines critical habitat as any “specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species” or “specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time” that are “essential for the conservation of the species” upon determination by the Secretary. [4]

This unfortunate change in the interpretation of the word “take” not only pushes species further toward extinction, but it also provides less incentive to take care of our animals that help us. Without an incidental take statement and incidental take permit creating a sense of necessity to protect an animal’s life, there may be less motivation to prevent unintentional killings when modifying a habitat that may be essential for species. This significantly impacts humans because we may take so much of their habitat that they can no longer exist. Although the courts say the harm rule is not within the statute's original intent, it still affects animals and the environment because it reduces regard for their habitats, which, as stated before, can lead to our demise in the long term.

Why are People Against the ESA?

Opponents, such as private landowners and developers, want to rescind the ESA's “harm” definition so habitat modification is no longer included. Opponents argue that habitat loss doesn't occur if the animal isn't there because no “actual” injury is present.[8] Justice Scalia’s dissent in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon argues in favor of the opponents, stating that there is no actual injury to the animal through habitat modification if the extent of the harm is not direct. Many opponents want to rescind this definition in order to promote new development and wildlife activities such as hunting. However, we cannot develop new lands without the sustainable environment animals provide. Losing more habitats will drive the extinction of animals we have fought to save.

Originally, the definition of harm was a proposed rule under the ESA. [8] The final rule that removed the “harm” interpretation from the statute now allows more opponents to turn habitatable land for animals into more land for humans and no longer requires an incidental take statement and incidental take permits to show that the land will not harm any animals. [10] However, this runs counter to Congress’s purpose for this Act. In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, the majority ruled against the respondents in favor of limiting the “harm” definition because it was Congress’s intent to expand the definition of harm to protect species. [11] Under this Court, the word “take” was interpreted to include habitat modification as a form of taking an animal. [7] Justice O’Connor stated in her concurring opinion in Babbitt that habitat modification will be a direct injury because it will prevent breeding, feeding, and sheltering and thus injure the animal by making it obsolete. [7] Justice O’Connor’s concurrence also references Palsgraf and connects proximate causation to actual harm to support her view. [11] Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon and Forest Conservation Council delve deeper into the opponent’s views not covered in this blog. [12]

What is De-extinction? 

De-extinction is the ecological process of cloning extinct or extact (non-extinct) endangered species and placing them into the ecosystem to promote biodiversity and bioabundance in ecosystems through creating proxies, hybrids, and more. [13] Proxies are clones that are “replicas” of the extinct species; however, it’s arguable whether these species are new species because they are different from the extinct species. [14] 

This approach has sustained popularity for better or worse. In theory, de-extinction should give animals a chance to live in their habitat again and return them to their historical range. At first glance, de-extinction seems useful because it could help the ecosystem by bringing the animal back into its environment, which can in turn bolster the other organisms living there. However, these animals are not replicas of the extinct animal because their DNA, and potentially their behaviors, will differ, which could lead to failed reintroduction if they are heavily preyed upon because their behaviors and instincts are no longer the same. Predation mortality was a major concern in reintroduction. [14]

How Do We Use Reintroduction? 

Reintroduction is the productive effort by conservationists to reunite an animal with the habitat it originally thrived in before extinction. [15] Several conservation programs, including de-extinction, face habitat loss; as a result, animals have difficulty being reintroduced without risking extinction again. Many reintroduction studies cited in a 2007 article failed to establish viable populations. [14] Several reintroduction efforts have failed because there is not enough information, and support for these pertinent issues is lacking, which affects humans as well. [14]

Many animals, such as beavers, are ecosystem engineers who transform the environment for the species that live there. In particular, beavers were non-existent in Great Britain for almost 400 years before their reintroduction. [14] This is different from a global extinction where the species does not live anywhere on the planet. Thankfully, the species still survived in other areas of the world, but this should not make it any less serious. This is tragic for any society because beavers help create sustainable environments for animals, such as wetlands, which in turn help us. [14]

Conclusion

Our society is heading towards being pro-extinction because we are allowing the habitats of our animals to be lost by providing less protection despite their impact on our lives. Our society should not have to rely so heavily on conservation efforts because we fail to protect our animals to the fullest extent through reasonable efforts. Our legislation does not give animals the right to sue because the law considers animals property; however, the law has always been intended to protect humans from harm, and this is harm to something we need and love. Thus, less protection for our animals ultimately harms us. [2]