number 025-0380 I would like…

number 025-0380

I would like to state my objection to the proposed amendments in the strongest terms possible. You can find lots of highly qualified individuals who can tell you in detail why this is a very bad idea. You only have to listen. I will offer three very general observations, the first being that these amendments, even one's that might seem superficially sensible like the proposed redefinition of habitat, do not have the interests of the species or their extended ecosystems at heart. All animals and plants are vitally dependent on a far larger area than the new regulation allows for, and exceedingly sensitive to disruptions in the broader area. The regulations as written in 2007 went some small way to acknowledging this and allowing essential buffer room. This alone should invalidate the new proposal. Again you will not need to look far to find any number of experts who can explain in detail why this is. It's pretty obvious.

Secondly, the prior 2007 version is not that old, and would in its time have struggled to achieve, as an uphill battle, any reasonable protections to species at risk. Eroding any component of it, and let us be clear that this is an erosion not a tweeking or clarification, erodes a modicum of progress rather than improving anything. Regulations proposing to advocate for a vulnerable group should demonstrate clear improvement for that vulnerable group. This should not be an improve -development-bill. There are lots of other forums for improving development.

Thirdly, if a section were to be appended, describing the real life outcomes on indigenous relations and future environmental incursions, when this is implemented, it would be difficult indeed to justify these measures under the rubric of environmental protection.