I am writing in opposition…

I am writing in opposition to the changes proposed to the Endangered Species Act.

Habitat definition should be broad - limiting a plant to just a root zone is absurd. By that definition you could place a roof over its head and deprive it of sunlight, or build it into a courtyard and deprive it of natural seed dispersal.

The proposed habitat definition for animal species is equally as broad, as it doesn't define the "area immediately surrounding the dwelling place". Is immediately 1 km? 1 m?
Many Migratory bird species leave every winter and return in spring, meaning that as long as someone develops over their habitat in winter they won't have a problem because the animal is not there. This would impact the endangered Piping Plover, as its sandy beach habitat is highly in demand for peoples second properties.

I do not want any scenario where development is placed before endangered species protection. There is more then enough spaces within cities for infill and densification without decimating what little natural spaces we have left. The government should protect all species for the benefit of future generations.