My comment is in response to…

My comment is in response to two discussion questions from the discussion paper under “Area of Focus 2 – Listing and Protections for Species at Risk"

• Should there be a different approach or alternative to automatic species and habitat protections? (e.g., longer transition periods or ministerial discretion on whether to apply, remove or temporarily delay protections for a threatened or endangered species, or its habitat.)

No, it is important that species and habitat protections be enacted as quickly as possible. The postponement of protections yields no benefit to wildlife.

• In what circumstances would a different approach to automatic species and habitat protections be appropriate? (e.g., there is significant intersection between a species or its habitat and human activities, complexity in addressing species threats, or where a species’ habitat is not limiting.)

Automatic protections are always the appropriate action. It is better to protect first, then evaluate the situation and make changes carefully. If there is a “significant intersection between a species or its habitat and human activities” there is more reason to have the protections come into effect quickly. It is easier to prevent ecological damage than it is to repair it.