This proposal to limit the…

This proposal to limit the scope of and reduce the efficacy of the Species at Risk Act is utterly moronic and completely at odds with science. No biologist worth their salt would have signed off on it - I should know, being one.

I am particularly troubled by the removal of "harass" from species protections and the redefinition of "habitat" to include only those resources immediate to a species' presence. This is completely ignorant and again, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of basic ecological principles. I could go into detail about how it does that, but I will instead invite you to consult a first-year ecology textbook, which will outline it better than I could and are widely available at the libraries of many post-secondary institutions. I'll show some charity in simply specifying that resources immediate to a species' presence are not all that is required for its survival, and that large swaths of CONTIGUOUS, unfragmented, undisturbed habitat are needed to maintain our biodiversity.

This proposal should be rejected in its entirety. It is, again, completely ignorant, highly shortsighted, and potentially disastrous for many at-risk species.