The proposed redefinition of…

The proposed redefinition of “habitat” is absurd and inappropriate. This is by far the worst part of this proposal. Animals need more than just a den or nest, or hibernation site. These areas may be very small, and separated by considerable distance. Animals need habitat in which to forage, thermoregulate, and carry on all of their normal behaviours and life processes. Connections between critical areas must be maintained. For plants, the critical root zone around an individual plant is no way to protect a species. This would allow no chance for reproduction, and long term recovery of the species. The habitat a species occupies right now is not the habitat that species will need in ten years. A wetland may disappear due to a beaver dam failure, and then reappear three years later following the rebuilding of the dam. Species that need this habitat need the ability to move between multiple locations, over time. This is especially true for long-lived species such as turtles. My long term turtle research confirms this, with some individuals moving 30 kilometres over four years. Small, fragmented protected locations will not work to maintain populations of these species. Species do not just need “core protections,” they need sufficient habitat for their populations to exist, and to recover in accordance with the goals of this legislation. The proposed redefinitions will not achieve this.

The existing definition of habitat is actually quite clear. For example, for Blanding’s turtles, it covers the wetlands within a 2 kilometre radius and a terrestrial buffer around those wetlands. While this does not cover all areas a population of Blanding’s turtles would use as they can move more than 2 kilometres, it does include a high proportion of the habitat area that they would routinely use. Activities occurring in these areas that may harm Blanding’s turtles or this habitat must then include steps to avoid or reduce such harm. This approach is far more effective than simply dens and nests, while still allowing activities to occur with suitable mitigation methods included.

At a minimum, if the proposed redefinition of habitat is employed, then the area of such sites needs to be defined as the entire suitable habitat feature that is relevant. For example, if a species uses a wetland for breeding and hibernating, then the entire wetland must be protected. Trying to determine which exact spot will be used for these purposes would be absurd, and it may shift from year to year.

Although shifting to a registry first approach may improve timelines, it removes oversight prior to an activity beginning and assumes an activity should take place. There is no option to prevent an activity from occurring. The registry is appropriate only for some activities. Activities that will harm individuals and destroy habitat should maintain a permitting approach. It is impossible to actually determine the potential harms or benefits of this system since it would depend entirely on regulations that have not been developed nor communicated. In general, the existing registry system is fine but this should not be expanded to include all harmful activities. I recognize that the existing system has been frustrating and has often caused unreasonably delays. I have personally experienced this. The answer is not to eliminate the protections, but to improve the processes of the system. As an example, in some years, the granting of permits was delayed by the need for the Minister to personally sign the permits. This would be an easy thing to change (and it was). Senior staff should be able to sign permits. Inadequate staffing is another issue. I agree that reviews need to happen faster. Understaffing ensures delays. Providing for a reasonable number of staff to review things is critical if timely processing is a goal. I’m not confident that has been the case.

Regarding the listing process, government discretion related to species listing allows politics to supersede science. This should not happen. If the existing proposal moves forward, this needs to be defined as something that happens only in the most significant cases.

While reducing duplication is useful, the federal Species at Risk Act is notoriously weak with respect to non-federal lands. Further, the situation for some species in Ontario is much different than in other provinces. Some species are doing better here than elsewhere, and vice versa. Provincial legislation should provide no less protection than what it does currently. Stream-lining the processes would be welcome. Reducing protection is not.

Increasing provincial funding for species protection and recovery activities would be welcome. Such funding has been frozen for a decade despite costs dramatically rising. The proposed $20 million per year, while an improvement, will still be inadequate to actually recover most species. Most species recovery efforts have simply been holding actions that slow declines or stabilize populations. While these actions have been critically necessary for some species, true recovery is rare so far, and may be impossible in some cases.

It is sad but not surprising that the existing SCAA has not yet provided any funds for conservation despite being established four years ago. Only the government could mismanage such an endeavour so badly, presumably because actually supporting the conservation of species at risk is a very low priority.

In summary, this proposal needs a serious rework, at minimum, or it should be withdrawn.