I have read the proposed…

I have read the proposed revision to the Endangered Species act. I am outraged.

The most alarming part of the proposal is that “proponents will be able to begin activity immediately after registering”. The issue I have with this, is that the fines and penalties can never mitigate the loss of the species at-risk, nor the ecosystem that supported this species at-risk, such as a wetland, a meadow, a woodland that took hundreds if not thousands of years to grow. Regulation by threat of big fines is not a deterrent, as developers have deep pockets and such threats would soon become the cost of doing business.

I am alarmed at the proposal that the “government would also have discretion to remove species from the list”. By what process? My experience in dealing with government officials is that their understanding of the intricacies of a healthy ecosystem and the requirements to maintain a dwindling population, is insufficient.

The reframing of the definition of Habitat is simply inconsistent with knowledge about how diverse ecosystems thrive. The definition is far too narrow, and incongruent with what everyone is taught in grade school and higher-level education. Anyone who has walked with nature knows the proposed definition is not to protect, but rather to exploit.

The proposed description of how you will protect species at risk is uneducated, insufficient, and will accelerate the demise of vulnerable species. It sounds like protection of these species is basically putting them a reproductive zoo, where wildlife is restricted into distinct spaces, less diverse than what is needed to maintain a healthy population. Please use a team educated in biology, ecosystem management, and habitat maintenance to write your plan.

Your plan to simply protect nest and den sites is so very ridiculous, that I nearly choked when I read the description of your plans. Surely you know that your plan is totally insufficient and will cause the demise of the at-risk and endangered species.

Your plan to protect vascular plants, is laughable. How do you quantify “immediately surrounding”? Doesn’t the government know that protecting the “critical root zone” is not enough to protect a species at risk? Plants coexist with other plants in specific soils, with specific ambient conditions. They need specific elements that would not be protected by simply protecting a root zone. A glaring example occurs when developers dig around the drip line of trees that are marked for “protection”. In the old Whitby Shores Sanatorium grounds, huge century old sycamores died because of this move to just protect the root ball. Anyone who has tried to grow trilliums in a suburban garden knows that the canopy over the trilliums, the humus layer, and companion plants are needed to keep the plants alive for more than a season or two. Please consult a botanist, an ecologist, or an environmentalist before writing these changes.

I do not support removing the concept of “harass”. Your plan seems to suggest that harassing vulnerable species is acceptable. Harassing will cause wildlife to move, which is why people move quietly through areas inhabited by wildlife. People know instinctively to “shush” when they want to observe wildlife. Human activity does harass, so I think what is needed is sufficient buffer zones around places where vulnerable species live- either habitually or seasonally.

I think it is important to retain the requirements to develop recovery strategies and plans, government response statements, and progress reviews. Accountability needs to be retained.

I think your plan to increase funding for voluntary activities to assist and protect species, on the surface, seems like a noble gesture. However, once a habitat is destroyed, no amount of volunteer activity will bring back the substrate that used to support vulnerable species. I trust getting that funding into the right hands will be easier than the effort required to prepare lands for development.

I think the government should be protecting our vulnerable species and the lands they occupy from developers. My sense is that your driver is first and foremost to develop lands- regardless of their worth to the functioning of natural ecosystems.

Please stop paving over Ontario. Do not relax protections for vulnerable species. Do not make it easier for developers to destroy precious ecosystems.

Although Conservatives won the majority of seats, the majority of Ontarians did not vote for the Conservative party, and those that did would not likely support these changes. Revise this proposal so that it provides MORE protection than the current ESA.