We have a big jeer for U.S. FWS who—after years of foot-dragging—has proposed to list declining numbers of monarch butterflies as “threatened” rather than “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. We are not jumping on the “victory” bandwagon. In our comments to FWS, we will demand the listing of monarchs as endangered, the only action that does enough to protect them from extinction.

Since the 1980s, the eastern population (which overwinters in Mexico) has declined by 80%, while the western population (which overwinters in California) has declined by 95%–experts believe that the western population has a greater than 99% chance of facing extinction by 2080.

That’s why in 2014, after years of advocacy from groups like FoA to list the butterfly as endangered, FWS launched a review of the monarch’s status.

Unsurprisingly, in the decade since, FWS has done very little to actually protect monarchs. The agency’s review concluded after six years when in 2020 (under the Trump Administration) it was determined that “the listing was warranted but other species took priority.”

FWS then faced a suit which they’ve since lost, essentially forcing the agency to list the stunning monarch as “threatened.”

When a species is listed as endangered, there’s a blanket of prohibitions that protect it. Prohibitions include the importation/ exportation of the given species, killing of the species, and the possession, selling, or transportation of the species.

Unlike an endangered listing, though, when a species is listed as threatened “exceptions” are made, meaning that the species isn’t covered by these same prohibitions.

While an endangered listing could make it difficult for one to mettle with the at-risk species, you could drive a truck through a threatened listing.

That’s because threats like pesticide use and habitat destruction—the very things driving them to extinction—could still be allowed.