It would be a retrogressive…

It would be a retrogressive step to diminish the protection of any species facing threatening population losses. As a civilized governing body we must respect the presence of the species we live with for reasons, so well documented, I will not reiterate them here. The species at risk are at our mercy. We cannot jeopardize their continued presence for the sake of short term greed by a minority of individuals who do not understand the complexity and interdependence of all life on our rapidly developing planet.
We all appreciate the emotional thrill of interacting with wildlife. We all breath the same air and need clean water. How long will it take for people to realize that environmentalists are not out looking for themselves but for the heath of all life on earth?
Once we lose one of our fellow denizens it is gone forever; we lose a thread in the fabric of life.
I have long been involved with the Species at Risk Act and feel it is fine as is and has been respected and recognized internationally as a good piece of planning legislation.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments