I am against this fund,…

I am against this fund, because its long term negative effects far outweigh the short term positive ones.

Developers will be allowed to pay away the harm they do to the environment. This encourages a broader use of risky offsets for threatened and endangered species.

More than that, the money they do pay into the Species At Risk Conservation Fund has no requirements for where it goes. At the very least, this fund should he required to compensate for the negative impacts on watersheds, municipalities, etc.

There are so many more issues, and quite frankly I'm keeping this short because I have no faith that anyone will be listening to my concerns.

If whoever is reading this takes away one thing, let it be this: By allowing developers to further damage and degrade our environment, and harm species at risk, we are not doing anything to save ourselves. We are simply adding to the debt that we must pay for destroying our natural ecosystems. It will come back to haunt us in real, measurable ways - flooding, ecosystem destruction, and loss of critical native species (to name a few)