I am very concerned by this…

I am very concerned by this proposal. We are at a time when biodiversity loss is increasing, and threats to our ecosystems are continually increasing as well. We need to take action now to prevent further degradation and to actually start to recover from past uses. This is particularly true for species at risk. As we teach our children - extinction is forever. We have the social and moral and economic need to protect our species, particularly those affected by our actions. Yet this proposal weakens the current legislation, rather than increasing it and providing more protections.

I respect that some businesses may feel that environmental reviews cost them money and/or time, and I believe that businesses have the right to try and survive and grow, but this should not come at our environments cost. Indeed, if we destroy our environment businesses will suffer too.

We need to preserve our independent assessment of species health and population status. Having untrained individuals, like our minister, be able to have final decision power as to whether a species is in decline does not make sense, and does not favour the species recovery. This is particularly true when the politician wants to win "votes" and bows to political pressure. A business can pressure a decision change much better than a plant.

While regulations and reviews can be cumbersome, the solution is not to scrap them. While regulations may prohibit or inhibit some development, the solution is not to scrap them. There needs to be some give and take, a due process, and in some instances, yes, the survival of that frog or plant does need to take precedence. It's not all about maximizing extraction from an area. Yes, e.g. aggregates are needed, but lets try to limit the damage, and not increase it. So the recent changes to the bill that waived most of the ESA's protections/regulations in the case of e.g. mining and forestry, should be repealed. Exemptions do happen, and can happen, but it should be a rarity and not a common occurrence.

When development/impacts do take place, we need to increase our restoration activities, and make them count. Have them targeted for different species recovery when possible - maximize the work. Habitat regulations are there for a reason - you can't protect the species when it's habitat is at risk. You can't protect the species when something it feeds on, lives on, sleeps on, moves through, etc. disappears or is degraded either. Putting money into a big restoration money pot doesn't help species either - it needs to happen on the ground, in the same area, with linkages that make ecological sense.

Please, don't be short sighted. We need to protect and strengthen the ESA, not dismantle it.