The ESA when first…

The ESA when first introduced was considered landmark legislation when it came to the protection of rare and threatened species from harmful industrial activities. Ford has systemically chipped away at ESA provisions that has resulted in a significant weakening of this law. Most egregiously, he thinks that a species recovery fund is to compensate for the destruction of wildlife habitat is a viable solution for achieving a balance between industrial development and environmental protection. Ecosystems are complex, dynamic living systems that have evolved over millennia and harbour a variety of habitats that simply can't be restored or created in other areas on a human time-scale no matter how much money is allocated to do so. Based on this rationale I'm vehemently opposed to the proposed ESA amendments that include the following:
1. reducing the amount of habitat protected for the endangered fish, redside dace; 
2. allowing activities to proceed that will harm the endangered butternut tree species and its habitat;  
3. subjecting all newly listed at-risk species to the harmful impacts of activities authorized through exemptions; and 
4. expanding exemptions for early mineral exploration, despite the ministry’s failure to inspect or enforce compliance with current exemptions and the lack of any system to track cumulative impacts.