Critics of the Endangered Species Act are right about what it does. But they miss the point.

Much ink has been spilled in the past few weeks — and rightly so — about the imminent threats to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) posed by the Trump administration and its allies in Congress. Critics of recently proposed policy changes — reducing protections for species deemed “threatened,” making it easier to consider economic factors in the decision to list species as endangered and generally clearing the way for faster approval of energy projects — regard them as thinly veiled giveaways to industry lobbyists and interests, rolling back regulations to favor resource extraction and risking extinction of some species.The lobbyists pushing these policies have based their critique o f the ESA on how it attempts to control land use rather than species conservation. After all, they argue, it’s not the endangered land act. And this critique spotlights the core debate over the ESA’s implementation dating back to Day One: Is it about controlling lands or species?While the ESA’s ostensible focus is on the latter, scientists have long argued that the former is essential — and not just to preserve species. For decades, the ESA been a critical signal — and legal recognition — of the many diverse values offered by nature, not merely its economic value as “natural resources.” To roll back this landmark act would be to surrender land and wildlife to relentless cost/benefit analysis and commodification. Far from a perversion of its original intent, as the ESA’s critics maintain, its focus on land use has been intrinsic from the beginning. As enacted in 1973 (and subsequently amended), Section Four requires the interior secretary to “designate critical habitat” for endangered species, Section Five provides for land acquisition for conservation, and Section Nine prohibits “taking” endangered species — a broad, and contentious, prohibition on harming wildlife on state and private lands.