Canadian species at risk (2006–2008), with particular emphasis on fishes

2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (NA) ◽  
pp. 53-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Hutchings ◽  
Marco Festa-Bianchet
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Marine Fish ◽  
Spatiotemporal Analysis ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Diadromous Species

In accordance with the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is nationally responsible for assessing wildlife species considered to be at risk of extinction. A parliamentary review of SARA provides impetus for an up-to-date summary of recent assessments (2006–2008) and a spatiotemporal analysis of the status of Canada's largest vertebrate group of species at risk, fishes. From April 1978 through December 2008, COSEWIC had assessed 13 wildlife species as extinct and 564 at some level of risk (extirpated, endangered, threatened, special concern). Among these 577 assessments, 112 are for fishes (76% freshwater and diadromous; 24% marine). Slightly more than one-quarter (27%) of Canada's 205 freshwater and diadromous species of fishes, many of which are in southwestern Ontario and southeastern Quebec, have been assessed as being at risk throughout all or parts of their ranges. The percentage of Canadian freshwater and diadromous fish species assessed by COSEWIC as endangered or threatened (16%) is similar to the percentage of freshwater and diadromous fishes in the US that have been listed under the Endangered Species Act (12%). The proportion of wholly freshwater fishes assessed by COSEWIC that have been added to SARA's legal schedule is somewhat lower than that of other taxa. However, whereas the US listed its first marine fish in 2005, the Canadian government has to date not accepted COSEWIC's advice to list an endangered or threatened marine fish since the proclamation of SARA in 2003.

scholarly journals Conservation status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada: Protections under the species at risk act, 2002-2014

Rangifer ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justina C. Ray ◽  
Deborah B. Cichowski ◽  
Martin-Hugues St-Laurent ◽  
Chris J. Johnson ◽  
Stephen D. Petersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Captive Breeding ◽  
Conservation Status ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Predator Control ◽  
Conservation Units ◽  
Preventative Measures ◽  
The Status ◽  
Species At Risk Act

In April 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) reviewed the status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada, in keeping with the ten-year reassessment mandate under the Species at Risk Act. Assessed as two ‘nationally significant’ populations in 2002, COSEWIC revised the conservation units for all caribou in Canada, recognising eleven extant Designatable Units (DUs), three of which -- Northern Mountain, Central Mountain, and Southern Mountain -- are found only in western Canada. The 2014 assessment concluded that the condition of many subpopulations in all three DUs had deteriorated. As a result of small and declining population sizes, the Central Mountain and Southern Mountain DUs are now recognised as endangered. Recent declines in a number of Northern Mountain DU subpopulations did not meet thresholds for endangered or threatened, and were assessed as of special concern. Since the passage of the federal Species at Risk Act in 2002, considerable areas of habitat were managed or conserved for caribou, although disturbance from cumulative human development activities has increased during the same period. Government agencies and local First Nations are attempting to arrest the steep decline of some subpopulations by using predator control, maternal penning, population augmentation, and captive breeding. Based on declines, future developments and current recovery effects, we offer the following recommendations: 1) where recovery actions are necessary, commit to simultaneously reducing human intrusion into caribou ranges, restoring habitat over the long term, and conducting short-term predator control, 2) carefully consider COSEWIC’s new DU structure for management and recovery actions, especially regarding translocations, 3) carry out regular surveys to monitor the condition of Northern Mountain caribou subpopulations and immediately implement preventative measures where necessary, and 4) undertake a proactive, planned approach coordinated across jurisdictions to conserve landscape processes important to caribou conservation.

Missing the safety net: evidence for inconsistent and insufficient management of at-risk marine fishes in Canada

2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 1596-1608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Marie McDevitt-Irwin ◽  
Susanna Drake Fuller ◽  
Catharine Grant ◽  
Julia Kathleen Baum
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Marine Fish ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Marine Conservation ◽  
Marine Fishes ◽  
Additional Protection ◽  
The Status ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Fisheries Act

Marine conservation is often perceived as being in conflict with fisheries management. In Canada, at-risk marine fishes denied listing under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) are meant to receive comparable measures under the Fisheries Act. We assess the effectiveness of these Acts by examining (i) how long it takes a marine fish assessed as being at risk to move through the process and receive conservation measures, (ii) whether there are biases against marine fishes in the SARA process additional to the known listing bias, and (iii) when denied listing, to what extent these species are protected by the Fisheries Act. Overall, at-risk marine fishes typically spend 3.25 years under consideration for SARA, during which time they receive no additional protection. Endangered and Threatened marine fishes (i.e., those most at risk) face the greatest bias and receive the least protection; their SARA decisions are typically delayed, with almost 5 years usually passing between their COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) assessment and listing decision; most (70.6%) are then denied listing, after which the Fisheries Act provides few of the SARA-required measures. For SARA-listed marine fishes, recovery strategies are usually late and to date no action plans have been produced. Marine fish conservation is hindered by SARA’s slow pace, incomplete recovery measures, and inadequate implementation of the Fisheries Act. We provide recommendations for improving conservation of at-risk marine fishes in Canada.

scholarly journals Odonata of Canada

ZooKeys ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 819 ◽  
pp. 227-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Cannings
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Conservation Status ◽  
Molecular Barcoding ◽  
Sound Classification ◽  
The Status ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Morphological Species ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Almost All

Since Corbet’s thorough 1979 overview of Canadian Odonata, hundreds of regional works on taxonomy, faunistics, distribution, life history, ecology and behaviour have been written. Canada records 214 species of Odonata, an increase of 20 since the 1979 assessment. Estimates of unrecorded species are small; this reflects the well-known nature of the fauna. A major impetus for surveys and analyses of the status of species is the work of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada which provides a scientifically sound classification of wildlife species potentially at risk. As of 2017, six species have been designated “Endangered” and two “Special Concern” (only five of which are officially listed under the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA)). The Order provides a good example of molecular barcoding effort in insects, as many well-accepted morphological species in Canada have been barcoded to some degree. However, more barcoding of accurately identified specimens of many species is still required, especially in most of the larger families, which have less than 70% of their species barcoded. Corbet noted that the larvae of 15 Canadian species were unknown, but almost all larvae are now well, or cursorily, described. Extensive surveys have greatly improved our understanding of species’ geographical distributions, habitat requirements and conservation status but more research is required to better define occurrence, abundance and biological details for almost all species.

Protecting Endangered Species in the US and Canada: The Role of Negative Lesson Drawing

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Illical ◽  
Kathryn Harrison
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Public Expenditures ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Endangered Species Act ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Lesson Drawing

Abstract. Although the US and Canada share ecosystems, with many species ranging freely across the border, the two countries have taken very different approaches to protecting endangered species. The US Endangered Species Act, adopted in 1973, relies primarily on regulation, thus imposing the costs of protecting biodiversity on the private sector. In contrast, Canada's Species at Risk Act, adopted in 2002, relies primarily on public expenditures to support stewardship programs. We argue that this difference is best explained by negative lesson drawing from the US experience. In particular, awareness of the costs of species protection in the US led Canadian business to present stronger opposition to regulation than had their American counterparts decades earlier. We use the case of the Canadian Species at Risk Act to theorize about conditions under which negative lesson drawing is likely to be most influential.Résumé. Bien que les États-Unis et le Canada partagent les mêmes écosystèmes, les deux pays ont adopté des approches très différentes en matière de protection des espèces en péril. La Loi américaine sur les espèces en péril (US Endangered Species Act), adoptée en 1973, porte essentiellement sur la régulation, et de ce fait impose les coûts de la protection de la biodiversité au secteur privé. En revanche, la Loi canadienne sur les espèces en péril, adoptée en 2002, fait principalement retomber les coûts des programmes de gestion au secteur public. Nous démontrons que cette différence s'explique principalement par le rôle des leçons négatives apprises de l'expérience des États-Unis. La prise de conscience des coûts liés à la protection des espèces en péril aux États-Unis a notamment amené les milieux d'affaires canadiens à présenter une plus forte opposition à la régulation que leurs homologues américains l'avaient fait des années plus tôt. En s'appuyant sur le cas de la Loi canadienne sur les espèces en péril, nous visons à théoriser les conditions selon lesquelles l'acquisition de connaissance par leçons négatives (“ negative lesson drawing ”) est susceptible d'être le plus concluant.

“What Does the Fox Say” – A Review of the Grey Fox in Canada and its Current Status as a Threatened Species

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Deere
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Road Mortality ◽  
The Us ◽  
Species At Risk Act

In Canada, the grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) is found with certainty in Ontario and Manitoba, but has also been sighted in other provinces. Interestingly, there is little Canadian research on the grey fox, despite its status as “threatened” on both the Ontario Species at Risk list and on the Canadian Species at Risk Act. Possible reasons that the grey fox has not received as much attention as other at-risk species in Canada include its lack of economic value and its high abundance in the United States (US). It is believed that the grey fox was once as widespread as the red fox (Vulpes Vulpes) in Southern Ontario, but today that is no longer the case. It is currently believed that less than 250 individuals are found in Canada and the fate of their population is unknown. This change in population abundance shows the importance of gaining more information on the grey fox’s current distribution in Canada. Within the US, the primary threat to this species is excessive hunting; while in Canada, by-catch, deforestation, and road mortality represent greater dangers. The focus of this presentation will be to summarize current knowledge on Canadian populations of the grey fox with some reference to populations in the US in order to highlight the importance of this trans-boundary species within Canadian ecosystems. I will provide recommendations to both the Federal Government of Ontario and the Municipality of Peelee Island, while outlining possible conservation solutions for the population decline of the grey fox in Canada.

scholarly journals First records of two freshwater mussel Species at Risk, Mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula) and Lilliput (Toxolasma parvum), in the Canard River, Ontario, with implications for freshwater mussel recovery in the Detroit River

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-188
Author(s):  
Todd J. Morris ◽  
Margaret N. Sheldon ◽  
Kelly A. McNichols-O'Rourke
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Freshwater Mussel ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Great Lakes Basin ◽  
Detroit River ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Status ◽  
Special Concern ◽  
Riverine Habitats ◽  
Search Approach

Freshwater mussels of the family Unionidae are among the world’s most imperilled animals. A third of Canadian species have been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, with losses attributed to natural system modifications such as damming, pollution, exploitation for buttons and pearls, urbanization, and the introduction and subsequent effects of aquatic invasive species. In the Great Lakes basin, the introduction of dreissenid mussels in the 1980s caused catastrophic declines, with remnant populations restricted to lotic riverine habitats. In southwestern Ontario, the Canard River is the largest remaining direct tributary of the Detroit River that could provide a source of mussels to aid natural recovery. In 2019, nine sites in the Canard River were sampled using a timed-search approach (4.5 person-hours/site) with a combination of tactile searching by hand and mussel scoops (7-mm mesh) or underwater viewers. The search yielded 362 individuals of eight species, including two Species at Risk, Mapleleaf (Quadrula quadrula) and Lilliput (Toxolasma parvum), which had never been previously recorded in the Canard River.

Species at risk: a guide for Canadian entomologists

2019 ◽  
Vol 151 (04) ◽  
pp. 411-422
Author(s):  
Laura L. Timms ◽  
Rachel R. Rix
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Life History ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Case Histories ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
Species At Risk Act

AbstractThe collection and preservation of insect specimens supply valuable information to entomologists. Collections are foundational to natural history, and paramount to the study of life history, systematics, and evolution. Rising concern over anthropogenic loss of biodiversity, including insect losses, has led to policies, strategies, and procedures being put in place in Canada to ensure the protection of wildlife species at risk. This document outlines necessary information to help researchers ensure that they are in compliance with Canadian legislation when carrying out research involving the collection of insects. We include an overview of the federal Species at Risk Act, and provincial and territorial legislation protecting at-risk wildlife, and how wildlife species in Canada ranked and are assessed as being at risk. We also discuss prohibitions outlined in the federal Species at Risk Act and penalties for violating these prohibitions; providing examples from case histories on convictions under the act.

Species Listing under Canada's Species at Risk Act

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1609-1617 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. SCOTT FINDLAY ◽  
STEWART ELGIE ◽  
BRIAN GILES ◽  
LINDA BURR
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk Act

The effects of lead agency, nongovernmental organizations, and recovery team membership on the identification of critical habitat for species at risk: insights from the Canadian experience

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric B. Taylor ◽  
Susan Pinkus
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Nongovernmental Organizations ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Critical Habitat ◽  
Lead Agency ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Recovery Planning ◽  
Recovery Strategies ◽  
Species At Risk Act

Evaluation of legislation and procedures in place to help recover species at risk of extinction is an important component of conservation efforts. Despite its biological importance and key role in species protection and recovery legislation, identification of critical habitat is inconsistently applied. We analyzed data from 126 recovery strategies implemented under Canada’s nascent (2002) Species at Risk Act (SARA) to determine how lead agency, Federal Court rulings, and the proportion of independent team members influenced identification of critical habitat. Only 17% of strategies led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans included critical habitat, compared with 63% of strategies led by Environment Canada, indicating that aquatic species at risk are much less likely to have critical habitat identified. A 50% increase in recovery strategies that identified critical habitat following precedent-setting court judgments suggests that legal action by nongovernmental organizations played a key role in the evolution of recovery policy for species at risk in Canada. The proportion of independent scientists on a recovery team was statistically unrelated to identification of critical habitat at a national scale, but case studies indicate that independent team members may play an important role in ensuring compliance and transparency during recovery planning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document