“Redefining Protections: We…

“Redefining Protections:
We are making changes to focus on the core protections essential to the conservation of species. We are proposing to remove the concept of “harass” from species protections. Also, the definition of habitat is proposed to be reframed as follows:

for animal species:
a dwelling place, such as a den, nest, or similar place, occupied or habitually occupied by one or more members of a species for the purposes of breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, or hibernating
the area immediately surrounding a dwelling place described above that is essential for the purposes mentioned
for vascular plant species:
the critical root zone surrounding a member of the species
for all other species (for example, lichens): an area on which any member of the species directly depends to carry out its life processes
We are making these changes because the current definition of “habitat” creates uncertainty, includes broad areas beyond core species protections, and results in confusion when making decisions about what actions to take when carrying out required protections. The new habitat definition includes clear terms and parameters, focuses on preserving core elements of species’ habitat such as breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, and hibernation areas to provide greater clarity to proponents when taking required protection steps.”

I have recently completed a research project on Ontario’s, and specifically the region of the Grand River Watershed spanning Dundalk to Lake Erie. I am concerned about the reduction in the wording of your definition of habitat, and that habitat seems confusing to you. Habitat is not just the nest for breeding or hibernation. It is not just the immediate surroundings of it either. The organizations you have in place have pinpointed designated areas that support our endangered species and done extensive research into what hundred of species need to survive and thrive. The evidence is there. Also the word ‘harass’ should be left in. Taken out gives license to do just that. While I understand there is a need to cut red tape and build build build, I oppose these changes to the ESA. There are a horrifying number of species on the list.

Doug Ford had his eyes on the Greenbelt. He has developer friends. I voted for Carney, but I believe Ford is taking advantage of this green light to build in a destructive way when he starts dismantling the protections that have been put in place for the species we continue to lose. It is at our hand that these species were put on an endangered species list. We also have to continue to protect them.