An internal memo from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has instructed staff to reinterpret the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to a report by The New York Times. The memo, dated September 14, tells FWS employees to avoid taking action when private interests cause preventable deaths of vulnerable animals. Under this new interpretation, the ESA will no longer prohibit actions that unintentionally harm animals, such as habitat modifications or accidental deaths. Instead, the law will only prohibit actions "specifically intending to target an animal," according to FWS Director Brian Nesvik. For example, the memo states that "a vessel that inadvertently strikes a whale has not taken it because the vessel’s course was not set against the whale" and that "felling a tree is not a take of the bats roosting in it unless the tree is felled for the purpose of killing or capturing them." The FWS did not respond to a request for clarification from Ars Technica regarding whether this rule change has already taken effect. Environmental advocates are concerned, as this follows a rule change earlier this year that removed the destruction of habitat from the ESA’s definition of harm. At that time, the administration claimed the goal was to prevent unnecessary costs to landowners when animals were not in immediate danger. However, the more recent rule change allows for the killing of animals as long as it is not the landowners' primary motivation for taking an action. Ben Levitan, a senior attorney for the legal conservation nonprofit Earthjustice, told Stateline that environmental advocates felt falsely reassured when the definition of harm was changed, believing the administration would not use that change to justify ignoring preventable deaths. Levitan described the move as "an incredibly sneaky and disingenuous way of going about things." According to The New York Times, incidental takings—unintentional deaths—are the most common way that endangered animals die. Advocates fear that this reinterpretation of the ESA largely weakens the law’s ability to protect vulnerable species. Previously, businesses were required to conduct environmental reviews to identify critical habitats and either take steps to preserve them or obtain permits to offset any accidental harm. This often involved donating to conservation funds elsewhere. With the new interpretation, these requirements may be lessened, potentially reducing the protections afforded to endangered species under the ESA.