With Republicans holding solid majorities in both houses, the next session of Congress may see the strongest push in decades to amend the Endangered Species Act.

Utahns are reacting to that possibility with frowns or smiles, depending on which side of the environmental divide they inhabit.

A Sierra Club official says amending would be a dangerous move, while a Utah State University professor who is a leading advocate for change says the law should become more friendly to landowners.

The act, passed in 1973, is intended to preserve life forms that are in danger of extinction. Under its provisions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of 306 animal species and 326 plants that are endangered, plus 112 animals and 78 plants that are threatened (under a little less pressure).

"Species include birds, insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, flowers, grasses, and trees," explains the Environmental Protection Agency at its Web site, www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/esa.htm.

"The law prohibits any action, administrative or real, that results in a 'taking' of a listed species, or adversely affects habitat. Likewise, import, export, interstate and foreign commerce of listed species are all prohibited."

Protection of species' critical habitat and the banning of some pesticides have resulted from these rules.

For Utah, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists 23 animals and 24 plants as threatened or endangered. Animals include the bald eagle, humpback chub, Utah prairie dog and desert tortoise. Among the plants are the San Rafael cactus, autumn buttercup and Maguire primrose.

A discussion about amending the act is first on the agenda of the Western Governors' Association executive summit, scheduled for Dec. 3-4 in San Diego.

The group is hosting a panel discussion with Randy T. Simmons, professor and head of the Political Science Department at Utah State University, Logan, and David Hayes, former deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior.

"There are changes that I would suggest," Simmons said in a telephone interview Wednesday. His primary aim is "making it (the act) more friendly to landowners."

If an endangered species is found on private property, he added, "you immediately lose several of the uses of your property." An example may be that prairie dogs that can cause "a lot of restrictions on what you can do," he said.

A large portion of the economic value of that land could be lost because of the restrictions, he believes. The law expects that landowners will provide habitat for these species, "and we make them pay for it," he said.