Animals facing loss of habitat are already endangered by other human threats
"But ivory poaching isn't the only threat facing our iconic wildlife. In fact, in July 2015, the DSWT / Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) Anti-Poaching Teams arrested loggers, bush meat poachers, livestock owners and charcoal burners"
Regularly found in trees frequented for food by giraffes, or close by paths regularly used by other animals, snares are made of metal wires, nylon line or vegetable fibers and act as a deadly noose around a wild animal's leg or neck. They come in all sizes and account for the destruction of anything moving in the bush from birds to baby elephants. The destructive power of snares can be seen when we treated an infant elephant in February 2015 for an injury caused by snare wound which had become tightly wound around its leg.
In the last 25 years, the world lost a forested area the size of South Africa and elephants, especially, have lost key habitats and migratory corridors to development. Considering elephants can roam up to 80 kilometers (approx. 50 miles) a day, the impact is huge. From charcoal burning, which involves cutting down and burning mature trees, to increased traffic in wildlife areas, the impact can be destructive; in fact, already this year, along the Mombasa-Nairobi transport at least seven elephants have lost their lives due to accidents on the road and railway, including two young bull elephants which were struck by a train near Mtito Andei.
Today, thankfully, many citizens across the world know about the plight facing elephants at the hands of ivory poaching. But every year, elephants die from simple tragedies — hit by a train or caught up in a dispute over land.
https://archive.is/W9nGh
If not the amendments, then what?
So if the changes to the Fisheries Act only account for just over half of the reduction in DFO authorizations, what is responsible for the rest? Prof. Olszynski argues that much of the loss of habitat protection since 2012 can be attributed to regulatory “slippage” (non-compliance) and DFO’s use of a risk-based approach to habitat protection.
The paper describes a consistent decline in how often proponents even refer their projects to DFO since 2001/02, with a sharp drop between 2012-2014. One likely reason for this decline is DFO’s pre-2012 policy of using a risk-based approach, wherein it assumed that low-risk disruptions and harmful alterations to fish habitat would not contravene section 35(1) so long as proponents followed mitigation measures set out in Letters of Advice and Operational Statements. In other words, DFO did in policy what the Minister is now allowed to do in regulation: blanket-exempt certain works and activities from the requirement to obtain authorization to harm fish habitat.
https://archive.is/6P3QS