ESA protections are something that changed how we as a people interacted with the natural order. Things like the Condor and Bald Eagle come to mind up front as real success stories. What most miss is the vast majority of the rules utilized are administrative decisions on how and what ESA requires. Fish have been one of the most difficult as the difference stream to stream are genetic differences. In other words each stream by DNA vs by a region. That the determination of endangered be for stream X vs a region such as PS as PS has healthy ( sorta ) Steelhead populations but some streams not so much.

Think of it this way. If you did DNA for every rabbit from BC to Mexico what would you find? Many species to be sure such as pigmy rabbits and others. I think you would also find that many sub sets exist in regions that are driven by environmental factors. In other words is a ordinary rabbit in the Olympics genetically the same as one in Pacific county? Cowlitz County? I imagine natural selection driven by environmental conditions would create variations not visible as a rabbit looks like a rabbit but local DNA variations are present.

So that has been the question where is the line to be ? Every sub set of a species ( for fish stream by stream lake by lake ) or the full range of the species ? The rub is with ESA both have huge social & economic impacts but managing for a genetic sub set of a fish species cost are massively greater.

The easy fixes have been used in changing logging, farming, water quality and many things. Now you are left with actions that will not just alter rural & water things but have a huge impact on urban areas and harvesters. It is easy to be a environmentalist when someone else foots the bill not so much when a citizen is told they must drastically alter how they live for a creature most have never seen.