Taxonomic Biases Persist from Listing to Management for Canadian Species at Risk

Management planning for Canadian species at risk of extinction begins with recommendation for legal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and ends with Action Plans that guide management implementation. Roughly five years after the enactment of SARA in 2002, multiple studies identified ta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Écoscience (Sainte-Foy) 2019-10, Vol.26 (4), p.315-321
Main Authors: Creighton, Maria J.A., Bennett, Joseph R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
biais taxonomique
Brackish
Canada
Ecosystem management
endangered species
Environmental management
espèces en voie de disparition
espèces menacées
Freshwater
Identification keys
Legislation
Loi sur les espèces en péril
management planning
Marine
planification de gestion
Planning
Policies
Rare species
Resource management
Species at Risk Act
Species identification
Stewardship
taxonomic bias
Taxonomy
Threatened species
Vulnerable species
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Management planning for Canadian species at risk of extinction begins with recommendation for legal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and ends with Action Plans that guide management implementation. Roughly five years after the enactment of SARA in 2002, multiple studies identified taxonomic biases associated with the SARA listing process. Here, we provide a comprehensive test of whether taxonomic biases remain over a decade later. We also test whether biases in listing are propagated through to management implementation. We find that birds, reptiles and plants are more likely to be legally protected than other species. Arthropods and fishes are less likely to be protected, with unlisted fish species being twice as likely to be threatened by resource use than other unlisted species. We also find that arthropods and amphibians are less likely to have Action Plans than other species. In addition, we find no evidence that biases in listing or management have improved over time. Canadian species at risk recovery programs appear to be biased both in legal protection and management, disfavouring arthropods, amphibians and harvested fishes. If SARA is to fulfil its stated purpose, such biases must be directly addressed, through a transparent and formalised prioritisation system.
ISSN:1195-6860
2376-7626
DOI:10.1080/11956860.2019.1613752