Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973.

Historians attribute this new-found concern for imperiled plants to ongoing global treaty negotiations (especially in 1972 and 1973) toward what would eventually be adopted in 1975[44] under the title, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Section 7 required federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorized, funded, or carried out would not result in "the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical.

[72] A foundation associated with the Western Caucus of U.S. senators and representatives issued a 116-page report in 2023 titled "The Endangered Species Act at 50", with a subtitle expressing its primary criticism that "a record of falsified recoveries underscores a lack of scientific integrity in the federal program.

[74] Among the faculty expressing 50th-anniversary views in a University of Pennsylvania report, one drew attention to an underlying shift in national worldviews during the past half-century: The Act "reflects the confidence of mid-20th century liberal politics that any problem can be fixed with legislation based on scientific data," yet pragmatic solutions that require flexibility have been hindered and polarization has become intense.

As well, only California and Oregon authorize citizens to petition for state-level listings, and distinctions prevail in matters concerning critical habitat designations and the degree to which species protections can impinge on land use choices by private owners.

This government-led project was unusual for an at-risk species in that it was launched with the expressed intent to promote the long-term sustainability of ranching operations while improving the population and occupied territory of the lesser prairie-chicken.

[87] In sum, from 1998 through 2023, two executive agencies of the federal government, a judicial action, and one attempt by Congress to overturn a listing decision all played a role in how the Endangered Species Act would be applied to the conservation of the Lesser prairie-chicken.

Time and again, CBD and other similar groups have undermined the goal of the ESA by litigating, obstructing, and frustrating the FWS while racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded attorney fees that continue to feed their litigious strategies to the detriment of species and people.

[93] Arguments in favor of retaining citizen rights to petition for new listings include: "In many cases, outside groups could serve as the only impetus for protection of biologically threatened taxa that would otherwise be ignored because they conflict with development projects and related political pressures or because they are low-profile subspecies.

"[88] As well, thoroughly researched and data-rich petitions can actually assist agency staff in finding, evaluating, and including in the written decision "the best available science": "Citizen actors—including numerous scientists—have specialized knowledge about biological taxa and geographic locales.

"[88]From a practical standpoint, citizen suits are unlikely to be launched frivolously because of the costs of attorney time, coupled with the need to obtain a win in order to benefit from court-ordered reimbursement of legal expenses.

The Congressional Research Service, in a report titled "The Endangered Species Act: Overview and Implementation," surveys the language and history of this elevation of biocentrism in federal law: The ESA expressly requires the Services to make listing determinations “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Congress added the word solely in the 1982 amendments to the ESA to clarify that the determination of endangered or threatened status was intended to be made without reference to its potential economic impacts.

[130] Some have argued that the recovery of imperiled flesh-eating birds (notably, the bald eagle, brown pelican, and peregrine falcon) should be attributed to the 1972 ban of the pesticide DDT by the EPA, rather than the Endangered Species Act.

Endangered Species Act," the authors determined that "the SSA results in a scientific report distinct from policy application, which contributes to streamlined, transparent, and consistent decision-making and allows for greater technical participation by experts outside of the USFWS, for example, by state natural resource agencies.

Such a plan is a required part of an application for an Incidental Take Permit, issued under the Act to private and other nonfederal entities undertaking projects that might result in harm to a listed species.

Counting only the domestic (not the foreign) species on the list, there are: 5 amphibians, 3 birds, 13 freshwater clams, 3 crustaceans (crayfish), 8 fishes, 3 flowering plants, 7 insects, 2 mammals (1 rat and 1 bat), 12 reptiles, and 2 snails.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of court orders invalidated the Reagan regulations and forced the FWS and NMFS to designate several hundred critical habitats, especially in Hawaii, California, and other western states.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the critical habitat designation of a segment of private timberlands in Louisiana was invalid because the endangered dusky gopher frog had been extirpated from that state for half a century.

Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would "revise section 10(j) regulations under the ESA to better facilitate recovery by allowing for the introduction of listed species to suitable habitats outside of their historical ranges.

[224] Six months after this climate adaptation regulation for listed species was published, the National Park Service issued a 154-page report on recommendations for halting the decline of the endangered Karner blue butterfly in its small and scattered populations across the northeastern states.

"[233] The advocacy group later posted a history of the status and protection of the gray wolf in the lower 48 states, beginning with its endangered listing in 1978, followed by the first reintroduction of the species into Yellowstone National Park in 1993.

The agency once again went to work on creating a formal listing and a plan, which culminated in its posting in November 2023 in the Federal Register a rulemaking titled "Reinstatement of Endangered Species Act Protections for the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) in Compliance with Court Order.

"[245][246][247][50] Some critics, including the Sierra Club, pointed out that these changes came just months after the IPBES released its Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which found that human activity had pushed a million species of flora and fauna to the brink of extinction, and would only serve to exacerbate the crisis.

Several, however, pressed for the outgoing administration to formally list the species as threatened, thereby invoking more environmentally stringent decision-making on resource development proposals on federal lands, especially those administered by the U.S. Department of Interior.

[263] A 2009 law review paper attributed increasing polarization in the "reauthorization debates" partly to the news media having incentives to attract readership by featuring the most dramatic quotations from "divergent narratives" that magnify the divide.

[27] The Fish & Wildlife Service has developed a four-factor prioritization system for analyzing tradeoffs in distributing funds among the listed species: degree of threat, potential for recovery, taxonomic uniqueness, and conflict with human activities.

The listing was controversial because climate change was invoked as a primary cause of the "rising temperatures and declining snowpack" making successful snow cave denning difficult for the remaining populations in the Cascade Range and Rocky Mountains.

In the past ten years, FWS has made jeopardy determinations in three cases (delta smelt, aquatic species in Idaho, and South Florida water management), each of which has included reasonable and prudent alternatives.

[citation needed] A reward will be paid to any person who furnishes information which leads to an arrest, conviction, or revocation of a license, so long as they are not a local, state, or federal employee in the performance of official duties.