Fraser Institute Says Canada Doesn't Need Federal Legislation to Protect its Wildlife
Contact:
Laura Jones, Director of Environmental Studies
The Fraser Institute, (604) 714-4547 Email: lauraj@fraserinstitute.caRelease Date: 17 November 1999
VANCOUVER, BC>>> Environmentalists both at home and abroad have accused the federal government of not adequately protecting Canada's wildlife. The government, widely thought to be anxious to improve its environmental image, has responded by suggesting that they will introduce federal endangered species legislation. Crying Wolf? Public Policy on Endangered Species in Canada, a study released today by The Fraser Institute, challenges the idea that Canada needs this legislation.
The number of endangered species in Canada does not constitute a crisis. Even if you accept the estimates the government uses from the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), only about 0.5 percent of the total recorded species in Canada are considered "at risk. "At risk" includes the categories "extinct," "extirpated," "endangered," "threatened," and "vulnerable."
But COSEWIC's list of 339 species is inflated. Many of the species on COSEWIC's list are not actually endangered or threatened throughout their range, but are simply naturally scarce at the northern periphery. They may be locally rare in Canada, but globally plentiful. A conservative estimate suggests that no less than 71 of COSEWIC's listings are totally or partially attributable to species being at the northern periphery of their natural range.
In addition, COSEWIC's use of the term "species" does not correspond to the popularly understood biological definition of species that is based on common characteristics and reproductive behavior. They use a broader definition that includes subspecies and geographically defined populations.
In many cases this leads to double or triple listings for the same species. For example, the grizzly bear is listed twice, once in the extirpated category (this listing refers to the prairie population) and once in the vulnerable category (this listing refers to bears in British Columbia and Alberta).
A more accurate estimate indicates that COSEWIC's list should be reduced from 339 species to 91 species, or roughly 0.13 percent of the species known to exist in Canada.
"One means of assessing how successful we have been in our conservation efforts is to look at the record of extinctions over time," says Laura Jones, Director of Environmental Studies at The Fraser Institute and author of the study. "Many of the twelve extinctions on the Canadian list were the result of human activities-unregulated hunting, trapping, and commercial fishing. But, when considering whether these extinctions represent a trend that is likely to continue, it must be remembered that the problem of overhunting, with the exception of the fisheries, has been solved. In fact, the latest extinction of a mammal occurred 79 years ago, and the last extinction of a bird occurred 85 years ago."
According to groups concerned about the future of Canada's wildlife, the greatest new threat to wildlife is human encroachment on habitat. However, far from revealing a dramatic rise in the number of species becoming extinct in this country as the human population increases, there appears to be no correlation between the growth of the human population and animal extinctions.
"Given the relatively small number of species at risk in Canada, federal legislation and the bureaucracy that inevitably would be needed to maintain, monitor, and enforce the new rules is simply not justified. This is particularly true since there are already hundreds of initiatives for conserving wildlife in Canada," says Jones.
Existing initiatives include a number of federal statutes such as the Fisheries Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, Canada Wildlife Act, and the National Parks Act. It also includes provincial initiatives, park programs, local government programs, and non-profit organizations. The success of groups such as the Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited indicates that local decentralized agencies are in a much better position to direct resources effectively and efficiently.
Furthermore, the U.S. experience suggests that federal endangered species legislation could be disastrous for Canada's wildlife. U.S. endangered species legislation, enacted twenty-five years ago, has completely failed to protect species and is best known for creating a "shoot, shovel, and shut-up" incentive, where private landowners purposely make their property unattractive for endangered species in order to avoid regulatory takings.
A centralized approach may actually threaten the work of non-profit organizations working to preserve habitat and wildlife. First, because landowners may not want to cooperate with these groups for fear of losing the use of their land and, secondly, because, as the government devotes more resources towards conservation they may crowd-out private giving.
It is difficult to imagine that dollars spent on inventing new regulations to support the legislation, and on monitoring and enforcing those new regulations is the best way to spend resources to protect wildlife. "The plethora of private initiatives that exist should be taken as a reflection of the will of Canadians to protect their wildlife without a centralized government having to do it for them," concludes Jones.
Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy organization based in Vancouver.
For further information contact:
Suzanne Walters, Director of Communications,
The Fraser Institute, (604) 714-4582,
Email suzannew@fraserinstitute.ca
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.