Biases in legal listing under canadian endangered species legislation

Conservation Biology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 572-575

  Mooers, A O ^a,b   Prugh, L R ^c   Festa Bianchet, M ^d   Hutchings, J A ^e  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^e DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENDANGERED SPECIES; LEGISLATION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CANADA; CLASSIFICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; LEGAL ASPECT; PLANT; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SPECIES EXTINCTION;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CANADA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; EXTINCTION, BIOLOGICAL; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; PLANTS; PREJUDICE;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 34249083412     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00689.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Balmford, A. et al. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297 : 950 953.
2. Bourdages, H., V. Lesage, M. O. Hammill, and B. de March. 2002. Impact of harvesting on population trends of beluga in eastern Hudson Bay. Research document 2002/036. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Ottawa.
3. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992. The convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the CBD, U. N. Environment Programme, Montreal. Available from http://www.biodiv.org/convention/convention.shtml (accessed July 2006)
4. CEC (Commission For Environmental Cooperation). 2001. The North American mosaic: a state of the environment report. CEC, Montreal.
5. COSEWIC (Commitee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada). 2004a. COSEWIC's assessment process and criteria. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. Available from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/ assessment_process_e.pdf (accessed Jaunuary 2007).
6. COSEWIC (Commitee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada). 2004b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.
7. COSEWIC (Commitee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada). 2004c. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the porbegale shark Lamna nasus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.
8. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 2006. Potential socio-economic implications of adding porbeagle shark to the list of wildlife species at risk in the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Policy and Economics Branch, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, Canada. Available from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/porbeagle/index_e.htm (accessed June 2006).
9. EARG (Evaluation, Audit and Review Group). 1997. Regulatory reform through regulatory impact analysis: the Canadian experience. Managing better, number 14. Evaluation, Audit and Review Group, Public Affairs Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Ottawa. Available from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ pubs_pol/dcgpubs/manbetseries/VOL14-1_e.asp (accessed July 2006).
10. ESA (Endangered Species Act of 1973). 2004. U.S. Code16, chap. 35. Available from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.html (accessed July 2006).
11. Froese, R., and D. Pauly, editors, 2006. FishBase. Version 05/2006. Available from http://www.fishbase.org (accessed May 2006).
12. Government of Canada. 2003. Species At Risk Act, a guide. Government of Canada, Ottawa. Available from http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/the_act/ SARA_guide_oct03_e.pdf (accessed January 2007).
13. Government of Canada. 2006. Order amending schedules 1 to 3 to the Species At Risk Act. Canada Gazette 140 (18). Available from http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2006/20060906/html/sor189-e.html (accessed September 2006).
14. Hutchings, J. A., and J. D. Reynolds. 2004. Marine fish population collapses: consequences for recovery and extinction risk. BioScience 54 : 297 309.
15. Male, T. D., and M. J. Bean. 2005. Measuring progress in U.S. endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8 : 986 992.
16. PCO (Privy Council Office). 1999. Government of Canada regulatory policy. Available from http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/raoics-srdc/default.asp?Language= E&Page=Publications&Sub=GovernmentofCanadaRegula (accessed September 2006).
17. Reynolds, J. D., N. K. Dulvy, N. B. Goodwin, and J. A. Hutchings. 2005. Biology of extinction risk in marine fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B) 272 : 2337 2344.
18. SARA (Species At Risk Act). 2002. Bill C-5, An act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Available from http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-5/C-54/ C-5TOCE.html (accessed January 2007).
19. Tisdell, C., C. Wilson, and H. S. Nantha. 2005. Policies for saving a rare Australian glider: economics and ecology. Biological Conservation 123 : 237 248.
20. VanderZwaag, D. L., and J. A. Hutchings. 2005. Canada's marine species at risk: science and law at the helm, but a sea of uncertainty. Ocean Development and International Law 36 : 219 259.
21. Woinarski, J. C. Z., and A. Fisher. 1999. The Australian Endangered Species Protection Act 1992. Conservation Biology 13 : 959 962.