多选题 The 1973 Endangered Species Act made into legal policy the concept that endangered species of wildlife are precious as part of a natural ecosystem. The nearly unanimous passage of this act in the United States Congress, reflecting the rising national popularity of environmentalism, masked a bitter debate. Affected industries clung to the former wildlife policy of valuing individual species according to their economic usefulness. {{U}}They fought to minimize the law's impact by limiting definitions of key terms,{{/U}} but they lost on nearly every issue. The act defined "wildlife" as almost all kinds of animals—from large mammals to invertebrates—and plants. "Taking" wildlife was defined broadly as any action that threatened an endangered species; areas vital to a species' survival could be federally protected as "critical habitats". Though these definitions legislated strong environmentalist goals, political compromises made in the enforcement of the act were to determine just what economic interests would be set aside for the sake of ecological stabilization.
It can be inferred from the passage that if business interests had won the debate on provisions of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which of the following would have resulted?

• A. Environmentalist concepts would not have become widely popular.
• B. The definitions of key terms of the act would have been more restricted.
• C. Enforcement of the act would have been more difficult.
• D. The act would have had stronger support from Congressional leaders;
• E. The public would have boycotted the industries that had the greatest impact in defining the act.