Hello, I'm a consultant…

Hello,

I'm a consultant biologist who works with endangered species legislation all the time. I understand where these changes are coming from, and I agree that change is sorely needed to expedite infrastructure and housing development in Ontario. However, I think this proposed legislation represents a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

Species at risk in Ontario broadly fall into two categories. The first are species that are genuinely rare and have a very restricted range in the province, and where a small number of cases of destruction of their habitat (under the broader definition of "habitat" under the existing legislation), or the death of a relatively small number of individuals, could truly threaten the species' survival in the province. Some examples of such species would be Wood Turtle, Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid, Barn Owl, or Dense Blazing-star.

The second category are species that are widespread, and in some cases actually common, in Ontario, but which are showing steep population declines to the point where long-term survival of the species seems at risk. The loss of a single piece of habitat for these species, or the death of a small number of individuals, does not pose any threat to the species' survival. Some examples of these species would be Red-headed Woodpecker, Bobolink, Butternut, or Little Brown Myotis. In many cases, habitat loss is not a primary reason the species is declining, and as such protecting the habitat of the species seems silly.

Of course these are not firm categories, but the general trend is clear. I suspect 90%+ of the delays/extra costs associated with the existing ESA are in relation to species in the second category.

I hope that the government will consider a tiered system of some kind. Reasonably objective standards could be written to assess factors like:
- What is the total population of the species?
- How many different locations is it found?
- What is the likely impact on a population from the loss of one piece or kind of habitat?
- Are the observed declines the result of habitat loss and, if so, is there existing suitable habitat that the species would be likely to colonize if other habitat is lost?

With these standards, you would be able to determine that, for example, something like the current ESA is required to protect Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid, whereas *even the weaker protections you've proposed* are unnecessary for protecting endangered bats away from their hibernacula sites.

I hope this government will recognise that the problem with the ESA is not that the protections are too strict, but that they've been applied with a "one size fits all" approach. I think properly written legislation would mean that most development does not have any interaction with the legislation, while still providing protection for endangered species. But I don't think you could describe these proposed changes that way.