I am against this suggested…

I am against this suggested change. Narrowing the definition of "habitat" to only mean nesting areas is likely to result in a reduction of critical habitat, including migration routes and feeding grounds. Many bird species rely on a network of areas for resting during migration and gathering food. Limiting the definition could lead to significant habitat loss and, consequently, population declines.

Furthermore, allowing development activities to begin before a permit is approved seems counterintuitive. If a permit is ultimately denied, the damage may already be done. This could create pressure on the approving authority to grant the permit retroactively, simply to avoid economic loss for the developer. In such cases, would the developer be required to restore the destroyed habitat? This needs to be clearly addressed.