Nope, do not agree. Too many…

Nope, do not agree. Too many red flags and loopholes. Opens the possibility of the government deciding to deregister an endangered species because a developer wants to do something with land that contains the species' habitat. Decisions on what is an endangered species should not be subject to political opinion. Allows projects to break ground without having any previous oversight and by the time someone does look at it, the damage to species or habitat could be irreversible. Allows work on an area that may be critical to an endangered species as long as they don't touch the species itself or its nest, which may result in the species losing necessary resources or leaving because of noise and harassment. Does not take into account that the habitat required by any species may include multiple facets of an ecosystem which would not be protected under these changes. Makes recovery programs voluntary, and a profit-driven developer won't do any more than they are legally required to do, and not even that if they figure a fine is cheaper. Basically the changes come down to 'we're going to give lip service to the idea of protecting endangered species, but we're going to make it a lot easier for anyone who wants to harm them'.