Dear Representative [Last Name],

I am writing to urge you to support the ESA Recovery Act, H.R. 1897.

The Endangered Species Act was created with an important mission: to protect imperiled species and recover them so federal protection is no longer needed. That mission still matters. But after more than 50 years, the current system is producing too few recoveries and too much process.

The ESA should be measured by recovery, not red tape. Too many species remain stuck in a cycle of listing, litigation, and federal control, while the people closest to the land — states, counties, Tribes, landowners, farmers, ranchers, and local stewards — have too little say in how recovery actually happens.

H.R. 1897 would help restore the ESA’s original purpose by focusing the law on measurable species recovery, practical stewardship, local and state partnership, transparency, and accountability. This is not about weakening species protection. It is about making the ESA work better for species, communities, landowners, and the public officials responsible for managing real-world land-use, infrastructure, and conservation challenges.

I especially urge you to support reforms built around four essential principles.

First, local and state control must be strengthened. You cannot recover species by ignoring the people who live with them. States, counties, Tribes, landowners, and local resource managers should have a meaningful role in decisions that affect their land, water, infrastructure, and communities.

Second, recovery planning should be more state-led. Federal listing should be the start of a practical recovery plan — not the start of permanent federal control. States are often best positioned to coordinate local governments, landowners, conservation districts, and habitat managers in ways that reflect real-world conditions.

Third, critical habitat decisions need oversight and accountability. Critical habitat can be an important tool, but large-scale habitat designations can affect property rights, agriculture, energy, housing, water systems, infrastructure, and local economies. Those decisions should be transparent, justified, and tied to actual recovery outcomes.

Fourth, ESA implementation should prioritize recovery over litigation. Litigation-driven policymaking too often redirects time, money, and attention away from practical recovery work. Reform should preserve legitimate accountability while discouraging legal strategies that perpetuate conflict instead of improving habitat and recovering species.

The public does not have to choose between helping species and respecting communities. Effective stewardship requires both.

The ESA Recovery Act is a recovery-first modernization of the Endangered Species Act. It protects the law’s core mission while fixing a system that too often rewards process, litigation, and permanent federal control instead of measurable species recovery.

I respectfully urge you to support H.R. 1897. True stewardship means healthier species and stronger habitat achieved through accountable decision-making, state and local leadership, property-rights protections, and communities treated as partners.

Thank you for your consideration.