Ontario currently has strong…

Ontario currently has strong protections for endangered species - something that we should be both proud of and uphold to ensure future generations are still able to experience biodiversity as we do.

There are so many issues currently affecting our planet, from climate change, to pollution, to overdevelopment of vulnerable spaces; each of these greatly affects the ability of flora and fauna to thrive. The proposed changes to the ESA will only make this more difficult.

As someone who works in the wildlife rehabilitation field, I see the impacts of human activity on wildlife on a daily basis. We continue to build in ways that is devastating wildlife - for both common and endangered species. From migratory birds (many of which are endangered) colliding with windows, to threatened turtles being hit by cars (all 8 of Ontario's turtle species are on the Species at Risk list), to a family of baby mallards falling into a sewer drain with no way to escape, to goslings jumping from the 10th floor terrace of a building built near water, to a hibernaculum of hundreds of threatened milk snakes being dug up for new development; every day wildlife have to try to survive despite human infrastructure that doesn't take wildlife into account when it's built.

Your government is proposing making development even easier, even when it could threaten the very existence of particular species. While changes to the ESA have been craftily worded, it is clear that wildlife is no longer the priority and that your government is willing to sacrifice Ontario's beloved wildlife to help developers. I do not support this.

While I do not agree with any changes to the ESA, I am deeply concerned about broadening COSSARO membership to those without specific scientific knowledge of wildlife conservation. Deciding how to protect endangered species cannot be based on opinion, the needs of business, or gaining political support; this is not an issue that can include the voice of every sector, especially sectors (e.g. development) that will reap financial gain from destroying the habitat of vulnerable species. Developers should also not be allowed to pay a fee to destroy habitat and endangered species. No amount of money will bring a species back from extinction, and, while I understand the government intends to put this money toward the protection of other vulnerable species, you cannot expunge one to save another - it makes no sense.

Further, appointing the Minister with additional powers to change species listings based on science, as well as suspend species and habitat protections for up to three years based on social or economic considerations could be the death knell for many species - 3 years is an incredibly long time not to act in the interest of a wild species when their very existence is threatened. And politicians should not be in the business of deciding which species are important to save and which are not. Additionally, removing the requirement for government to consult with scientific experts in the field when changing regulations that could potentially affect a species is reckless. It is important to know what we don't know in life, and I can assume that most politicians know very little about the challenges facing wildlife and vast number of plant species, and how to protect them; it's therefore bewildering why this important part of the ESA would be changed; once again, it seems it is only to benefit developers with deep pockets.

I urge you to reconsider the proposed changes to the ESA and leave it intact, or even strengthen it further. I would like my 5-year-old son to grow up in a province that protects wild animals and plants so that he too may enjoy them into the future. There is nothing inspiring about the removal of forests, farmslands, grasslands, waterways and other habitat only to be replaced by poorly planned subdivisions , plazas and other abysmal development in it's place.

I don't vote Conservative and I likely never will. So I'm not asking you to uphold the ESA to get my vote. I'm asking you to do it because it's the right thing to do to protect the vulnerable flora and fauna that will be deeply at risk if these changes go through. We can't go back. Please do the right thing now.