Biologist warns proposed provincial changes will erode conservation efforts
For the first time in likely a century, the endangered spiny softshell turtle population increased in 2024 along the Thames River, largely due to the efforts of conservationists like Scott Gillingwater.
Gillingwater, species at risk biologist for the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), told the Times that last year the Southern Ontario at Risk Reptiles (SOARR) program hatched and released more than 10,000 native turtles into the region. To put that number into context, it's estimated that there are between 2,000 and 2,500 adults in Canada. Although that is a huge amount released locally, Gillingwater clarified that only 0.1 to five per cent will survive to maturity.
The program also located, assessed, and protected dozens of endangered turtles and snakes, built new nesting, basking, foraging, and cover habitats, and installed roadside fencing to reduce reptile mortality, among other conservation efforts.
Gillingwater said that the population has not reached the same level that it was at when he started at the UTRCA 32 years ago and there is much more still to do; however, recent provincial legislative changes has him worried about the prospects of native turtles and all native animals at large.
On April 17, the Province of Ontario introduced the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, legislation that would 'cut the red tape and duplicative processes that have held back major infrastructure, mining and resource development projects,' according to a news release.
'The days of making proponents wait years for approvals and permits are over,' Todd McCarthy, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, said in that same release. 'We can and will build the Ontario of tomorrow in a way that protects the environment and protects jobs.'
While the legislation focuses on energy and mine development, it would also make amendments to the Endangered Species Act (once touted as the 'gold standard' of conservation legislation) and eventually would repeal and replace it altogether with the Species Conservation Act. In its proposal, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks said that the Endangered Species Act makes the permit process 'slow and complex, causing unnecessary delays and costs for housing, transit, and critical infrastructure.'
Chiefly, the new legislation to replace it would give the government the ability to use its own discretion to add endangered and threatened species to the protected list (and could also remove species from the list) and it would redefine protections and the habitats of animal species.
No longer would the avenues species use to migrate, look for food, and winter be protected under the new act, rather only their den would be protected.
'That makes it very difficult for protection of areas where these animals are traveling to move between summer and winter sites where they're feeding,' Gillingwater said. 'And also, we are still studying these species to fully understand them, and this habitat will be lost before we can say where these animals are, where these animals need to be in five years, 10 years, 100 years, due to changes in the environment. … There're so many concerns about how this act is being currently set out.
'We once had the gold standard for species protection in Ontario and that legislation has continuously been amended and weakened and had the teeth taken out of it,' Gillingwater went on to say. '… What we need now – under the current state of our affairs, with our world, with our climate – is better species protection. And that goes for not only species at risk, but all of our wildlife and wild spaces in general. And it's quite surprising that in this day and age that we are taking steps back. We are losing decades of progress by weakening these types of legislation.'
The Species Conservation Act would also create a new program to support voluntary activities that will assist in conservation and would increase investment into conservation, up to $20 million a year. As Gillingwater said, he does not believe that is commiserate to the erosion of species protections.
'We need more protection for these species, not less, not weakening of legislation, and we need more funding to do this work,' Gillingwater said. 'So that amount of funding should have been put forward without reducing protections to species at risk. Sure, additional funding is great, but if you're reducing protections you're going to need far more, tenfold more, than what is being presented.'
When asked if he has hope for 2025 and beyond, Gillingwater said he has been working in the region for 32 years, since the mid-90s, and he's seen it all. Throughout that time, he has identified as either an optimistic pessimist or a pessimistic optimist.
'I will say that the pessimism it starting to creep up a little higher than my optimism,' Gillingwater said. 'I still have hope.'
The consultation period for the proposed Species Conservation Act, where residents can submit a comment to the province, ends on May 17. Residents can find more information here:
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0380
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump v Musk: 10 ways they can further hurt each other
The falling-out between the world's richest person and the president of the world's largest economy will have consequences – for both of them. Elon Musk, as the boss of multiple companies including Tesla, and Donald Trump, who has benefited from Musk's support in his journey to the White House, have had a mutually beneficial relationship up until now. Here are 10 ways in which Musk and Trump could hurt each other if they fail to broker a peace deal. Cancel government contracts related to Musk's businesses Responding to Musk's criticism of his tax and spending bill, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that cancelling the billionaire's government contracts would be a straightforward way to save money. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said. In 2024, the New York Times reported that Musk's companies – which include electric vehicle maker Tesla and rocket company SpaceX – have over the past year been promised $3bn across nearly 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies. Investigate Musk's alleged drug use The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have made allegations of heavy drug use by Musk, raising questions about Nasa requirements for its contractors – including SpaceX – to maintain a drug-free workforce. The Times alleged that Musk has received advanced warning of the tests. SpaceX has been contacted for comment. Responding to the Times allegations on X last month, Musk wrote: 'to be clear, I am NOT taking drugs!' In 2024 he said he sometimes used ketamine on a doctor's prescription. Challenge Musk's immigration status Steve Bannon, a Trump ally and influential 'alt-right' figure, told the Times on Thursday that Musk's immigration status should be investigated. 'They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,' Bannon said of South Africa-born Musk, who is a US citizen. Use general presidential powers against Musk When Trump was elected, observers pointed to the myriad ways in which a Musk-friendly White House administration could benefit the financial interests of the world's richest person. That benign environment, which includes awarding of government contracts and directing federal agencies giving Musk's businesses an easier ride, could of course be turned hostile. Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in government regulation, told the Guardian at the time: 'All federal regulators and prosecutors work for the president. He can tell them to do something or not to do something with the understanding that he will fire them if they disobey.' Ostracise Musk from the Maga movement Trump, as the leader of the 'Make America great again' vanguard, can close doors on Musk. The Republican congressman Troy Nehls excoriated the billionaire on Thursday, telling him: ''You've lost your damn mind.' He added: 'Enough is enough.' Musk can handle such opprobrium and, given his considerable wealth, he is an important source of funding for Republican politicians. Turn X against the White House Musk used his X platform, and his more than 220 million followers on it, to rally support for Trump's victory in the 2024. It also provided a platform for rightwing views that helped publicise the Maga agenda. Theoretically, Musk could at least use his own X account to criticise Trump with as much regularity as he pumped the president's policies (the Tesla chief executive is a prolific user of his own platform). However, this also depends on Musk's influence with the US electorate. Five out of 10 US adults say they have an unfavourable view of Musk, according to the Pew Research Center. But it should be noted that seven out of 10 Republicans or Republican-leaning adults hold a favourable view – he's not going to sway many Democrats who dislike Trump anyway. Form a new political movement Musk, who is worth more than $300bn (£220bn), could divert his considerable financial resources away from the Republican party and start a new political entity. Musk spent $250m on getting Trump elected in 2024, signalling his willingness to invest heavily in politics. On Thursday he posted a poll on X and asked: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' More than 80% of the 4.8 million respondents voted 'yes'. Create geopolitical problems with his businesses The Starlink satellite broadband platform, owned by Musk's SpaceX, is playing a key rule in Ukraine's fight against a Russian invasion, while China is an important manufacturing and consumer base for Tesla. Through his businesses, Musk also has political contacts around the world and is regularly photographed in the company of global leaders. However, any damage Musk causes to Trump's international standing or interests will have to be balanced with any knock-on effect on his own businesses. Create problems for Nasa Nasa has a close relationship with Musk's SpaceX, with the company's Dragon spacecraft being used to transport the agency's astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Musk immediately pledged to decommission Dragon in the wake of the Trump spat on Thursday – before quickly signalling an about-face. Nonetheless, SpaceX is a crucial part of Nasa's ISS operations. Tell-all on Trump Musk has been a fixture of Trump's inner circle for a considerable period of time and, as the contents of his X account show, he is capable of taking multiple damaging swipes at people. However, members of Trump's inner circle will have had the same access to Musk, whose personal life is becoming a media staple.
