As an environmental…

As an environmental professional in the province who is a friend of our most vulnerable species, I have the responsibility to voice my concern for the proposed changes to the ESA and its replacement with the new "Species Conservation Act".

It is clear that the purpose of these changes are to prioritize development over the protection of endangered species in the province. Narrowing the definition of habitat to include only an animals dwelling or the root zone of a plant is a reckless decision that is anti-science. We know full well that removal of habitat around the dwelling of an endangered species will ultimately result in the dwelling not being suitable, forcing them to search for new habitat (that offen doesn't exist). Removing harassment from the act will subtely allow for the species to be driven off by any means nessasary so the remaining habitat can be leveled.

Increasing enforcement of the act will do nothing when billion dollar development companies pay their way out of trouble. We are already seeing "increased enforcement" being used a distraction from the atrocities of the new act and to suggest that the changes are beneficial to endangered species in the province. Once the damage is done, a fine will not bring the species or its habitat back. The slow turnaround on permitting can easily be solved by increased funding for ministry staff, but instead your solution is to get rid of it entirely.

Allowing the government to remove protected species from the act with no scientific basis is a slap in the face to ecologists in the province. Anyone with a working knowledge of species at risk conservation can see through the claims that this new act will be beneficial. I urge the provincial government to find alternative ways to improve the permitting process and strengthen rather than weaken protections for these vulnerable species.