Comment
I am against this fund, because its long term negative effects far outweigh the short term positive ones.
Developers will be allowed to pay away the harm they do to the environment. This encourages a broader use of risky offsets for threatened and endangered species.
More than that, the money they do pay into the Species At Risk Conservation Fund has no requirements for where it goes. At the very least, this fund should he required to compensate for the negative impacts on watersheds, municipalities, etc.
There are so many more issues, and quite frankly I'm keeping this short because I have no faith that anyone will be listening to my concerns.
If whoever is reading this takes away one thing, let it be this: By allowing developers to further damage and degrade our environment, and harm species at risk, we are not doing anything to save ourselves. We are simply adding to the debt that we must pay for destroying our natural ecosystems. It will come back to haunt us in real, measurable ways - flooding, ecosystem destruction, and loss of critical native species (to name a few)
Submitted December 17, 2020 7:55 PM
Comment on
A proposal under the Endangered Species Act to enable use of the Species at Risk Conservation Fund and to streamline authorizations for certain activities that impact species at risk, while maintaining protections for species at risk
ERO number
019-2636
Comment ID
50364
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status