To Whom it may concern, I…

To Whom it may concern,

I disagree with these proposed changes.

Although I can see the benefit of introducing ways to improve and streamline these processes, redefining habitats and allowing for work without permits raises some concerns for me.

First, by redefining habitats, you could destroy more land that these species were previously using for hunting or food or shelter. It reminds me of the way we may attempt to build highways or infrastructure through neighborhoods by buying out the people who live there. However, no matter how much money you offer, there will be a couple households that choose to remain and have their front yard turned into a high way. Although the family is able to live within their home, the surrounding area becomes much more dangerous. Furthermore, noise and other forms of pollution increase within the domicile. Yes, the family can live, but with a dramatically reduced quality of life. But, that is a choice that they can make, and a choice they can change later on. There is no way to explain or bribe an endangered species from leaving its habitat. The only thing that will happen from the perspective of the animal is the destruction of what they once thought to be their habitat. This may cause them to attempt to leave, but that puts them in more danger as there may be nowhere for them to go since this ammendment allowed for the destruction of habitats closer to their burrows. If they chose to stay, their quality of life will be dramatically reduced as well. This isn't about keeping endangered species alive, but allowing them to thrive as that is the only way they will stop being endangered. Furthermore, I noticed that this ammendment excludes migratory birds, and my only analogy for this is, how would you feel if you log cabin that you take trips too was suddenly destroyed because you weren't there all year round. Now imagine that this was your one hope of shelter after traveling a very long distance, and your one hope of continueing your species. This may introduce more endangered species, or cause the relocation of precious birds to Canada, such as the Canadian Goose. Not very Canadian if they need to move.

Second, construction only requiring registration, not permits. I do not fully understand the registration process, and if 95% of the processes occur this way already, then this could go either way for me. However, when you make the process easier for people to achieve, you make the process easier to abuse as well. My issue with this point is how do you plan to enforce the regulations when the damage could already be done?

Overall, I see the need for certain things to be streamlined when it comes to habitat definition and regulations, but the reconsideration for what a habitat is is not the approach for this, as I believe this will only help endangered species stay endangered.