The determination of which…

The determination of which species are endangered and/or needs to be protected should rest with the different experts from different but related fields, part of an expert committee, not the government. A habitat should be broadly defined and not narrowly defined as to where the nest is located only, because of the need for a species to find food or protect itself due to changing circumstances such as predators or weather may mean having to go far away from where it normally or usually is. These changing habitats need to be monitored and managed on a regular basis as part of a formal plan not informally or by volunteers.
A species may end up being eliminated due to small actions by several parties contributing to the destruction so there needs to be awareness of the need to stop multiple actions of the smaller parties. Need to stop harassment of species because it may not be known what the outcomes will be until much later when it is too late. The new registration (and continue) is not sufficient, a permit process should continue, as is done currently. Both federal and provincial legislation is needed as is done currently because there may be local situations that wouldn’t be taken into account or known by federal agencies that may have other priorities.
Protection, conservation and preservation is complicated and sometimes we don’t know how different wildlife species co-exist or interact or depend on and with each other until something happens and it is studied for a long time. Pushing ahead with the proposed changes and this legislation is not recommended until we understand what the impact will be on vulnerable wildlife populations because the results will be irreversible. We need to do more to understand and protect wildlife, waterways, ecosystems, forests, not endanger everything with economic exclusion zones that will have severe repercussions that will be potentially disastrous and irreversible.