I cannot state strongly…

I cannot state strongly enough how much I am against these changes. Species at risk need MORE protections, not less. Narrowing the scope of habitat makes no sense at all - animals need more than just the immediate area around a den / nesting site to survive. It's like telling a person they need to stay in their house and the property immediately around their house AND be able to produce all their own food AND process their own waste in that tiny area. Ridiculous. Giving "government discretion" to overrule the scientific committee's decisions on what species need to be protected is giving the kill switch to those who are vastly more motivated by socioeconomic factors than environmental / species needs (as has been proven by the current administration repeatedly). This is not something that can be screwed up and then corrected later when they realize it was a mistake - once those habitats and species are gone they are gone. Preservation of biodiversity is an nearly insurmountable struggle as it is, and this is a huge step backward. Human, animal and environmental health are all intimately connected in ways most people can't (or refuse) to see, and allowing more rapid decisions for building permits etc. without fully weighing the potential consequences is appallingly short sighted. We cannot keep running roughshod over the plants, animals and habitats that ultimately keep the planet and people alive just because they seem to present a short-term inconvenience.