I see two fundamental flaws…

I see two fundamental flaws with these changes:

1. if the government has the ability to add or remove species from protected designation at their "discretion" then the process is no longer scientific, it is political. I do not understand or agree with the movement away from fact based decision making towards belief based decision making that seems prevalent these days.

2. if general habitat is not available to animals/plants then there is no point in protecting denning sites/rooted sites. it's like telling a person you can have your house but we are taking away all of your grocery stores and social gathering places, and your ability to move around to find them. If animals can't eat or find mates there will be no denning, and if plants don't have suitable habitat then there will be no seeding success and future generations.

I do see that environmental protection processes may need to be more efficient, but to me these changes say that the government considers environmental concerns to be irrelevant.