scholarly journals The Basics of Species at Risk Legislation in Alberta

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaun Fluker ◽  
Jocelyn Stacey
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Federal Lands ◽  
Limited Application ◽  
Species At Risk Act

This article examines Alberta’s Wildlife Act and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) to assess the legal protection of endangered species in Alberta. Most of the discussion relates to provisions contained in SARA, as there is comparatively less to discuss under the Wildlife Act. The fact that legal protection for endangered species in Alberta consists primarily of federal statutory rules is unfortunate, as wildlife and its habitat are by and large property of the provincial Crown, and it is a general principle of constitutional law that the federal government cannot in substance legislate over provincial property under the guise of a regulatory scheme. The legal protections in SARA are, thus, for the most part restricted to species found on federal lands and to species that fall under federal legislative powers. This article demonstrates that the Alberta government has chosen to govern species at risk almost entirely by policy and discretionary power. The limited application of federal protections to provincial lands and the absence of meaningful protection in the Wildlife Act leads the authors to conclude that, despite a perception of legal protection for endangered species, such protection does not exist in Alberta.

scholarly journals Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing species at risk legislation

FACETS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alana R. Westwood ◽  
Sarah P. Otto ◽  
Arne Mooers ◽  
Chris Darimont ◽  
Karen E. Hodges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Endangered Species ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Provincial Government ◽  
Individual Species ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Species At Risk Act ◽  
Species Declines

British Columbia has the greatest biological diversity of any province or territory in Canada. Yet increasing numbers of species in British Columbia are threatened with extinction. The current patchwork of provincial laws and regulations has not effectively prevented species declines. Recently, the Provincial Government has committed to enacting an endangered species law. Drawing upon our scientific and legal expertise, we offer recommendations for key features of endangered species legislation that build upon strengths and avoid weaknesses observed elsewhere. We recommend striking an independent Oversight Committee to provide recommendations about listing species, organize Recovery Teams, and monitor the efficacy of actions taken. Recovery Teams would evaluate and prioritize potential actions for individual species or groups of species that face common threats or live in a common area, based on best available evidence (including natural and social science and Indigenous Knowledge). Our recommendations focus on implementing an adaptive approach, with ongoing and transparent monitoring and reporting, to reduce delays between determining when a species is at risk and taking effective actions to save it. We urge lawmakers to include this strong evidentiary basis for species recovery as they tackle the scientific and socioeconomic challenges of building an effective species at risk Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Canada's Species at Risk Act

Fisheries ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (12) ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Irvine ◽  
Mart R. Gross ◽  
Chris C. Wood ◽  
L. Blair Holtby ◽  
Neil D. Schubert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Species At Risk Act
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document