May 15, 2025
Two threats that need your immediate help: fight increased ATV weight limits, and protect the Endangered Species Act.
The Forests and Wildlife Stewards team has been busy this tough legislative session – writing testimony, letters, petitions, making calls, visiting lawmakers - to support our pollinators, wildlife, and public lands.
- Oppose The ATV Weight Limit Increase To 1.5 Tons.
This was just amended into the Transportation Omnibus Bill, allowing ATVs the weight of a Toyota Corolla on our trails, with even enclosed cabs and heating/AC. But time is of the essence; comments should be in by Sunday, May 18th. Here’s how to support our efforts and do your part, protecting our Public Lands.
Call your legislators. Find out who represents you here: https://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/iMaps/districts/
Use the following text (or your own) to send them a quick email:
Subject: Oppose The Atv Weight Increase To 1 1/2 Tons - Put Public Lands First
Dear Senators and Representatives,
Please oppose the language for the ATV weight increase limit to 1.5 tons, in the Transportation Omnibus bill, article 3, section 5.
This added 1,000 pounds would increase safety risks for other users, and increase trail maintenance costs.
Our fine textured soils rut easily, and considerable sediment and erosion is inevitable, leading to the disruption of our ecosystems, wetlands and stream habitats. Our public lands are some of our last refuges for wildlife – including species of special concern, and those listed as threatened and endangered. Sensitive, cold-water species such as our state fish, the walleye, and brook trout need cold, clear waters for survival.
Our trail systems have not had the proper environmental review to assess the increased weight and torque load of these heavier vehicles. I respectfully ask that you vote against the weight increase and oppose funding for more ATV trails.
Sincerely,
(Your name and city; phone number optional)
- The Endangered Species Act is Under Attack - comments due May 19
The Trump administration has taken unprecedented measures to limit or bypass the Endangered Species Act, despite the fact that it is one of the most popular environmental laws in America. The Act has protected imperiled wildlife and habitat from activities like industrial development for over half a century. Science demonstrates that habitat loss is the primary driver of species extinction. The United States alone loses a football field’s worth of natural space to development every 30 seconds.
Comments are needed now. There is a move to effectively eliminate a crucial protection in the Act by redefining a single word: harm. This is part of a plan by President Trump to increase drilling, logging and development in the United States, and to eliminate regulations that slow the issuance of permits.
A proposed rule, open for public comment until May 19 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would repeal a longstanding interpretation of what it means to harm imperiled plants and animals. This new definition would exclude the destruction of habitat. Instructions for submitting comments can be found at the link (bottom of page 1 and top of page 2).
Some points you can make in your comments:- As an American who cares deeply about protecting our wildlife, I urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) to maintain the longstanding regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to continue to consider habitat modification that actually kills or injures listed species as “take.” The ESA is America’s single greatest tool to prevent species extinction. It has a 99% success rate and has saved some of America’s most iconic species, including the bald eagle.
- I oppose shifting the policy away from considering habitat impacts as part of the Act’s protections. Habitat destruction is one of the leading threats to ESA-listed species, making the conservation of these habitats especially important. In fact, 90% of the species listed under the ESA are at risk of extinction because of habitat loss and degradation.
- Defining harm to include habitat destruction and modification has been instrumental in stopping habitat destruction throughout the history of the ESA.
- I strongly urge you to maintain the existing definition of harm and your longstanding policy of considering habitat destruction as vital to the conservation and recovery of our country’s most imperiled species, as Congress intended the ESA to do.