The Recovery Illusion: What Is Delaying the Rescue of Imperiled Species?

Ferreira, Catarina; Hossie, Thomas J.; Jenkins, Deborah A.; Wehtje, Morgan; Austin, Cayla; Boudreau, Melanie R.; Chan, K. Y.; Clement, A. C.; Hrynyk, Morgan; Longhi, Jessica N.; MacFarlane, Shawn; Majchrzak, Yasmine N.; Otis, Josée-Anne; Peers, Michael J. L.; Rae, Jason; Seguin, Jacob L.; Walker, Spencer; Watt, Cristen; Murray, Dennis L.

doi:10.1093/biosci/biz113

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the legal imperative to identify critical habitat for SAR, only 44% of species listed under the ESA, <12% of species listed as threatened, endangered or extirpated under SARA and <1% of species listed under the EPBCA had fully identified critical habitat as of 2015 (Bird & Hodges, 2017;Martin et al, 2016). Many issues plague critical habitat identification, including bias across taxon, habitat type and lead agency (Favaro et al, 2014;Schwartz, 2008;Taylor & Pinkus, 2013), a lack of legal timelines (Mooers et al, 2010), delays in recovery planning (Ferreira et al, 2019), insufficient scientific information, expertise, and funding (Bird & Hodges, 2017;Camaclang, Maron, Martin, & Possingham, 2015;Martin et al, 2016), and judicial and political intervention (Hagen & Hodges, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The long road to protecting critical habitat for species at risk: The case of southern mountain woodland caribou

Palm

Fluker

Nesbitt

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying habitat that is essential to the recovery of species at risk, known as critical habitat, is a major focus of species at risk legislation, yet there has been little research on the degree to which these areas are protected. Here, we first review the provisions for protecting critical habitat on non-federal lands within Canada's Species at Risk Act (SARA). Next, we use the declining southern mountain population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada as a case study to show that identification of critical habitat does not guarantee its protection on non-federal lands. Our analyses show that 909 km 2 of critical habitat identified on provincial lands were logged in 5 years after it was legally identified under SARA. Existing provincial legislation and policies have provided incomplete protection of caribou critical habitat, and Canada's federal government has yet to exercise authority under SARA that could protect these areas. In the absence of nondiscretionary protection under provincial legislation, a combination of alternative mechanisms, involving all levels of government, Indigenous people, and industry, will be essential to protect critical habitat and help recover species at risk.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The long road to protecting critical habitat for species at risk: The case of southern mountain woodland caribou

Palm

Fluker

Nesbitt

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are multiple reasons for delaying or simply not acting to save endangered species (McDevitt-Irwin et al, 2015;Ferreira et al, 2019), but in the case of caribou that long list does not include ignorance. Considerable research and monitoring have clearly documented both the short-and long-term declines of the subspecies (Courtois et al, 2003;Hervieux et al, 2013;Johnson et al, 2015;Santomauro et al, 2012;Schaefer, 2003;Seip, 1992).…”

Section: Complex Reality Of Predator Management As a Conservation Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is broad appreciation that at risk species become more endangered with delay and the eventual responses have less certainty of success and greater costs to governments and society (Ferreira et al, 2019; Frank & Wilcove, 2019). Seldom discussed is the relationship between delay and the increase in the magnitude or number of ethical considerations that accompany evermore desperate recovery actions.…”

Section: Complex Reality Of Predator Management As a Conservation Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and ethics of intensive predator management to save endangered caribou

Johnson

Ray

St‐Laurent

2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lethal population control has a history of application to wildlife management and conservation. There is debate about the efficacy of the practice, but more controversial is the ethical justification and methods of killing one species in favor of another. This is the situation facing the conservation of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Across multiple jurisdictions, large numbers of wolves (Canis lupus), and to a lesser extent bears (Ursus americanus) and coyotes (C. latrans), are killed through trapping, poisoning or aerial shooting to halt or reverse continued declines of woodland caribou. While there is evidence to support the effectiveness of predator management as a stop‐gap solution, questions remain about the extent to which this activity can make a meaningful contribution to long‐term recovery. Also, there are myriad ethical objections to the lethal removal of predators, even if that activity is in the name of conservation. Debates about predator management, just one of numerous invasive actions for maintaining caribou, are made even more complex by the conflation of ethics and efficacy. Ultimately, long‐term solutions for the recovery of caribou require governments to stop delaying difficult decisions that address the real causes of population decline, habitat change.

show abstract

“…Recovery plans have been used for decades (e.g., Ferreira et al, 2019; Malcom & Li, 2018; Pierson et al, 2016) to help threatened species recover and aim to prevent extinctions (Hoekstra et al, 2002). These plans are not always successful (Wistbacka et al, 2018), yet they remain essential for species recovery efforts (Malcom & Li, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond the pathology of policies pushing species toward extinction: The case of spectacled flying foxes in Australia

Preece,

McGrath,

Kerr

2024

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rate of extinction is increasing with little reversal of negative trends, prompting a need for conservation scientists and practitioners to rethink approaches to aid the recovery of threatened species. Many extinctions could be prevented if impediments to protecting these species were addressed effectively. This article considers how current policies and practices are failing an endangered species and how biodiversity conservation is fraught with barriers such as rhetorical adoption, policy dismantling, circumvention of legislative obligations, and the deliberate disregard of scientific evidence. These issues became evident while researching the endangered Spectacled Flying‐fox (Pteropus conspicillatus Gould 1850), which, despite over a decade of recognized decline, received little attention from authorities who could have acted to stabilize or recover its populations. Recovery plans are often the primary means used by many countries to help threatened species recover and typically fall under government responsibility for implementation. For these plans to be effective, they should be mandatory, well‐funded, and subject to stringent monitoring and reporting requirements. However, the implementation of such plans is often inconsistent, with many not meeting these criteria. The scientific basis for recovery actions is usually well‐researched, although uncertainties around outcomes remain since these actions are experimental and success is not guaranteed. The failure to implement recovery plans can be highly frustrating for conservation scientists and practitioners, often stemming from policy failures. For those involved in conservation research and practice, learning how to identify and overcome policy impediments would help to ensure the successful implementation of recovery plans. Vigilance is required to ensure that recovery teams function effectively, that recovery actions are executed, that decision‐makers are held accountable for endangering species, and that legislation includes merits review provisions to challenge poor decision‐making. Conservation scientists who monitor species of concern are often best placed to track the progress of recovery actions. When they detect insufficient action, they have a responsibility to intervene or to notify the responsible authorities. Ultimately, government policies should prioritize the protection of threatened species over economic and political interests, recognizing that extinction is irreversible and the stakes are high for biodiversity conservation.

show abstract

The Recovery Illusion: What Is Delaying the Rescue of Imperiled Species?

Cited by 5 publications

References 36 publications

The long road to protecting critical habitat for species at risk: The case of southern mountain woodland caribou

The long road to protecting critical habitat for species at risk: The case of southern mountain woodland caribou

Efficacy and ethics of intensive predator management to save endangered caribou

Moving beyond the pathology of policies pushing species toward extinction: The case of spectacled flying foxes in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About