Endangered Species

126 petitions

Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Priscilla Trace

Critically Endangered Plants Destroyed Daily in Florida

Currently, there are no protections for endangered plant species, on private land in Florida - unless you want to sell them. You can confirm this yourself by contacting "Fresh From Florida" AKA, Florida USDA, currently directed by Commissioner Fried. You can also confirm this with the Manatee County Building department. The following is a plan to change this - or at least to offer some hope for our most critically endangered plants. If you like the idea - please contact your district comissioner. You can find a list of contacts (for Manatee County) here: The idea has been presented to Commissioner Trace, so please CC her on your email, or contact her directly. We need your voices to let her, (them), know this plan is worth the effort. What Does it CostI've found that most folks are interested in saving plants, as long as it doesn't slow development growth or cost them money. This idea does neither. No impact to land owners, no impact to developers. No increase in taxes. It won't even slow down a project. Environmental ReviewCurrently, Manatee county and FL state require what they call "Environmental Reviews" for every development over 10 acres. These reviews offer ZERO protections for plants. This means when the bulldozers and backhoes come in, even the most critically endangered of our species are destroyed, legally. Existing "Environmental Reviews" don't even require data collection for critically endangered species! What they DO provide, is a vehicle to attach our plan to - saving time and money. Since these reviews already require land access for the reviewing agencies (private, for profit companies), they could be modified to allow access to others. The Big Idea1. When a development project requiring land clearing is approved, a group of fully vetted, not for profit, plant organizations (societies, clubs, etc.) like the Florida Native Plant Society (already onboard with the idea and ready to start collecting!), would be notified. 2. Access to a development property would be granted to these groups under the existing Environmental Review process, for a limited period of time. Two weeks is what we have been suggesting. This time period would coincide with other trade access - so no project slow down. 3. These groups would work among themselves to evaluate a property, and if it fits their criteria, they would assign a team to search the property for endangered plants and other plant species of interest. 4. When a plant is found, all necessary data is collected on site in real time. GPS coordinates, species, quantity, growing habits, etc. This should give Florida a better picture of our plant resources, as the current system does not look at plants on private lands. 5. A publicly accessible, simple to use, database of plants found would be created using data collected. 6. Harvested plants can be propagated and studied by the collecting groups and universities. They can be distributed to the public to raise awareness - and to put plants back into our environments. The only goal of this whole idea is to give these plants a chance to survive and be around for generations to come. Note - collecting agencies are responsible for their members and will be required to have their own liability insurance and waivers. No risk or cost to the land owners. That's it. The whole plan boils down to getting access to properties slated for clearing. If you think that's worth while - please let your representatives know.        

Jordan Brant
151 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Donald Trump

Don't Let Politics Delist the Gray Wolf!

We are writing to you today to express our serious concerns about the legislation that has been introduced over the past few years to delist the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in either all or part of its listed range in the United States. We acknowledge that the Gray Wolf has made a significant recovery in the Western Great Lakes and the Northern Rocky Mountains. However, it must be understood that there is much scientific debate on whether the species has recovered enough to be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and some scientists have expressed serious concerns over delisting at this time (ASM 2012; “Open Letter from Scientists” 2015).  The Endangered Species Act (ESA) demands that all decisions regarding protected species must be based “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data” (Congress 1973). The wolf delisting legislation would make a permanent decision on a species whose recovery status is scientifically debatable. In fact, a group of 50 biologists wrote a letter in February 2015 urging Congress to oppose any legislation that would strip Gray Wolves of their ESA protections (“An Open Letter to Members of Congress” 2015). Since they does not represent the best available science, the wolf delisting legislation are a violation of the ESA. While it can be argued that the wolf delisting legislation are securing the usage of the best available science by restoring decisions made by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), it must be mentioned that the agency has not always used the best science in regards to decisions about the Gray Wolf (Bergstrom et al. 2009; NCEAS 2014). In 2014 the Federal Court found that the USFWS violated the ESA when it delisted Gray Wolf populations in Wyoming (Wheeler 2014) and the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (Kearn 2014). Congress already interfered with the protected status of the Gray Wolf when it stripped the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment of its ESA protections with a rider in the 2011 budget bill (Congress 2011). Instead of continuing to politically intervene with the protected status of the Gray Wolf, politicians should allow scientists (both governmental and non-governmental) to decide on whether the species is fully recovered and no longer in need of ESA protections. Therefore, we ask that you please veto any anti-wolf legislation that makes its way through Congress. Thank you. References: American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2012. ASM position letter on Wyoming gray wolf delisting. <>. An open letter to members of Congress from scientists on federal wolf delisting. 2015. <>. Bergstrom, Bradley J., Sacha Vignieri, Steven R. Sheffield, Wes Sechrest, and Anne A. Carlson. 2009. The northern rocky mountain gray wolf Is not yet recovered. BioScience 59(11): 991 - 999. Kearn, Rebekah. 2014. Big win for Great Lakes' gray wolves." Courthouse News Service. <>. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). 2014. "Review of proposed rule regarding status of the wolf under the Endangered Species Act. <>. Open letter from scientists and scholars on wolf recovery in the Great Lakes region and beyond. 2015. <>. US Congress. 1973. "Endangered Species Act of 1973." <>. US Congress. 2011. H.R.1473 - Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. 112th Congress (2011-2012). Wheeler, Ted. 2014. "Wyoming loses bid to manage its gray wolves." Courthouse News Service. <>.

Heather L.
1,990 supporters
Started 3 weeks ago

Petition to U.S Navy, Jolie Harrison, Marine Fisheries Servises, oceana, Jay Inslee

Stop the Navy from "Taking" 295,715 Marine Mammals in the PNW

The U.S. Navy recently applied for exemption under the Marine Mammal Protection Act for the "incidental take" of marine mammals, in order to carry out training and testing activities in the Pacific Northwest. If approved, such activities would directly impact the endangered Southern Resident killer whales while traveling through or foraging in the Navy’s area of operations. It would also impact thousands of other marine mammals that live in the Salish Sea and surrounding areas.  Incidental take. Never have two such small, casual words held so much meaning. Let’s first be clear on the meaning of take.  It does have a broader meaning under the law, “to [or attempt to] harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal,” and also includes, “the doing of any negligent or intentional act which results in disturbing or molesting a marine mammal feeding.” However, it’s highly reasonable to assume that take can result in the loss of an animal, even if not on the day of an event. Incidental is somewhat synonymous with accidental but is deemed foreseeable. But despite being foreseeable—and therefore preventable— it is still allowed by law under certain circumstances. If ever there came an abysmal time to add a source of potential harm to this population, it would be now. 2020 has been another record-breaking year of near non-attendance by these whales in the Salish Sea, legally designated as their “core critical habitat.” Not at all surprising, given that the spring return to the Fraser River of their favored prey—Chinook salmon—is at an all-time low. The proposal allows for various cetacean species to be impacted by testing and training practices. These testing include, Torpedo Exercise—Submarine (TORPEX—Sub), Tracking Exercise—Submarine (TRACKEX—Sub), Mine Neutralization—Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Civilian Port Defense—Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Exercises, Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (BOMBEX [A-S]), Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Surface)—Ship (GUNEX [S-S]—Ship), Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (MISSILEX [A-S]), Submarine Sonar Maintenance, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Training, and a lot more. The Navy also acknowledges that "acoustic and explosives stressors are most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment, and NMFS concurs with this determination". Yet they still plan on going through with the proposal.  We cannot allow this. The Salish Sea is a precious habitat for the Southern Residents and countless other marine animals. The Southern Residents cannot afford an impact on even a single individual. But yet the Navy is seeking authority to take up to 51 whales. That’s right. 51 out of an Endangered population that stands today at 72 animals. This is deemed negligible? Negligent, neglectful certainly, but NOT negligible. Sign and help us stop this! We need to use our voices to stop this. We can prevent the extinction of this species and keep thousands of other animals safe. Sign. Please.  Thank you to Wild Orca & their volunteers who wrote most of this! They are doing incredible work & first notified us about this issue. Please go and support them

Kendra Nelson
53,112 supporters
This petition won 4 years ago

Petition to Rafael Pacchiano Alamán, Enrique Peña Nieto, Rafael Pacchiano Alamán, Mario A. Aguilar Sánchez, José Eduardo Calzada Rovirosa, Dr. Pablo Arenas Fuentes

Make the Gillnet Ban Permanent to Save the Vaquita!

The critically endangered Vaquita porpoise is the rarest marine mammal species on the planet. Between 50 and 100 remain, and all of them live in a tiny region in the northern Gulf of California, Mexico. Their only threat is accidental entanglement in fishing nets called gillnets, which are illegally set for the also-endangered Totoaba fish. There is a lucrative black market trade in Asia for the swim bladders of the Totoaba, fueling this highly destructive fishery. The Vaquita is simply an accidental victim in this situation, but nevertheless, it is on the absolute brink of extinction. 2016 is a "make or break" year for the Vaquita. In 2015 we convinced the Mexican government to ban all gillnet fishing in the Vaquita's range, which is amazing news! Now this year, we are going to have to make sure they flawlessly enforce the ban as well as make it permanent with the aid of Vaquita-safe fishing gear. 2016 has to be the Year of the Vaquita, or else it will be too late to save this magnificent animal. Thank you for signing this petition and speaking on behalf of the voiceless! Please visit the websites below to learn more about the Vaquita and how you can help!

VIVA Vaquita Coalition
95,338 supporters