Does Canada Have an Endangered Species Crisis?

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

Concern about preserving global biodiversity is growing among environmentalists, governments, and the public. This concern, however, has led to confusion about the status of wildlife and plants within Canada's borders. Often no clear distinction is made between the number of endangered species in Canada and anxieties about global biodiversity. For example, the introduction and conclusion to the chapter on biodiversity in Environment Canada's influential publication, The State of Canada's Environment, contain alarming statements about an international biodiversity crisis. At the beginning of the chapter, the reader is told: "Worldwide, wild ecosystems are undergoing unprecedented degradation, and species are becoming extinct at an alarmingly high rate" (Environment Canada 1996b: 14-1). The chapter concludes that there is a "crisis posed to the ecosphere by the human species" (Environment Canada 1996b: 14-29). Further:

The nature of the crisis is demonstrated by the fact that, at the present rate of extinction, it is conceivable that the majority of the species now on Earth may disappear before their existence and value are even known. Forestalling this potential catastrophe will require a strong political will to direct public policy in a number of directions. (Environment Canada 1996b: 14-29)

References to a worldwide "crisis" cloud the reader's impression of the state of Canada's wildlife. Furthermore, it is faulty logic to presume that a biodiversity crisis existing in other parts of the world, where different geography, cultural attitudes, income levels, politics, and climate prevail, means that there is a similar crisis in Canada. The state of wildlife in the rest of the world is important in its own right and should be discussed. But, when considering the state of wildlife within Canadian borders and asking whether or not Canada needs federal legislation in order to protect that wildlife, questions about areas outside Canada and the adjacent American states are not relevant. When asking whether Canada faces a "crisis," the pertinent question is: How many of our plants and animals are at risk of extinction? Once this is established, the next logical question is: Why are these species at risk? An understanding of why is critical in determining the most effective way to protect species.

Overview of species designated
at risk in Canada

In order to assess the state of Canada's wildlife, Environment Canada established the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 1978. The committee comprises representatives from government wildlife agencies in each province and territory as well as representatives from the Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, and World Wildlife Fund Canada. Each year, COSEWIC publishes Canadian Species at Risk, which lists species that fall within one of the following five categories: extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, and vulnerable 4 (see table 1 for definitions of these terms). COSEWIC's list is a critical starting point for an overview of endangered species in Canada because it is considered the definitive list of species that need protecting--government policy is based on it and reporters and environmentalists refer to it in their stories and comments about the value of endangered species legislation.5

When COSEWIC's list was first constructed, 17 species were considered to be in one of the five "at risk" categories. This number has since increased 20-fold and today stands at 339 species including 52 birds, 33 mammals, 22 marine mammals, 72 species of fish, 111 plants, and 31 reptiles and amphibians (see figure 1). The growth in the number of species on COSEWIC's list appears to indicate a serious environmental problem. A close look at the list, however, reveals that things are not as dire as they seem at first glance. Almost half of the species on their list are in the least serious category, "vulnerable," while an additional 22 percent fall in the next least serious category, "threatened" (see figure 2). Species considered "vulnerable" are not endangered or threatened but are considered particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. Only 12 of the 339 species on the list represent actual extinctions (since 1844) and only two of these are mammals--the Sea Mink and the Queen Charlotte Island Woodland Caribou, which is not a species but a geographically defined (i.e. limited) population of a species.

To gain some perspective on the number of species at risk, it is useful to compare it to the total number of recorded plant and animal species in Canada--around 72,000 (see table 2).6 There may also be as many as 54,000, mostly insects, yet to be discovered (Bourdages 1996: 7). Using COSEWIC's estimates, roughly 0.5 percent of the total recorded species in Canada are considered "at risk" (figure 3).7

While this gives a general impression about how many of Canada's species need protection, it cannot be considered a completely reliable measure of the proportion of species at risk for two reasons. First, the known species list is continuously changing as is the list of species designated "at risk" by COSEWIC. For example, according to Environment Canada, COSEWIC's list is almost exhaustive for mammals, birds, and fish as most of the animals in these categories whose status might be in doubt have been considered at least once by the committee. However, the list is less complete for plants, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and other invertebrates as fewer resources have been devoted to their study. The second problem is that COSEWIC's list overstates the number of species that need protection in Canada, at least in the most fully studied categories such as birds and mammals.

Problems with COSEWIC's list of species designated at risk

COSEWIC's report, Canadian Species at Risk, is riddled with problems. In some cases, a listed species is not a species at all but a subspecies or specific population of a species that is not as a whole at risk. In other cases, species that are plentiful in the United States appear on the Canadian list because only the very northernmost part of their range crosses into southern Canada.

Aside from concerns about which species appear on the list, the dearth of pertinent information included about each listing is also disturbing. Common species name, Latin species name, date of listing, and the province or provinces where the species are considered at risk are included but an explanation of why species are considered to be at risk is not. This poses a problem because it is often incorrectly assumed that most, if not all, of the species on the list are in jeopardy due to human activity--particularly competitive human uses and encroachment on habitat--but also overhunting, pollution, and the introduction of invasive foreign species.

Species at risk?

The title of the report in which the list of species designated in the five risk categories appears, Canadian Species at Risk, is inaccurate. COSEWIC's use of the term "species" does not correspond to the biological definition of species. A standard biological definition of species is based on common characteristics and reproductive behavior. A recently published dictionary of science, for example, defines a biological species as follows: "A category used in the classification of organisms that consists of a group of similar individuals that can usually breed among themselves and produce fertile off-spring." (Oxford Paperback Reference Concise Science Dictionary 1996: s.v. "species").8 Instead of accepting this definition, COSEWIC creates its own, much broader, definition: "Any indigenous species, subspecies, variety, or geographically defined population of wild fauna and flora" (COSEWIC 1998: iv).

Subspecies are a further division of species based upon variations in appearance and behavior such as darker feathers, more spots or different nesting behavior.9 Determining which distinctions within species should justify a subspecies categorization is far more subjective and open to human bias than categorizing species based on reproductive ability. A geographically defined (i.e. limited) population is an even more subjective category, which has no biological rationale and could, in the ridiculous extreme, be used to differentiate the grasshoppers in my backyard from those in yours.

This broad approach to listing species has been criticized by many experts commenting on similar problems in the United States:

The distinct population and subspecies groupings probably mislead our officials, media and the general public by giving a distorted perception of exactly how plant and animal populations as a whole are faring. For example, pronghorn antelope at the species level have enjoyed a remarkably positive population curve between 1910 and 1990. In stark contrast to antelope as a species, a struggling subgroup of antelope described as the subspecies Antelopicapra americanis sonorensis or the Sonoran antelope, has been on the endangered species list since 1967. (Simon 1994: 12)

Examples of subspecies and geographically defined species on the Canadian list abound.10 The Queen Charlotte Islands population of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus dawsoni), listed as one of two mammal extinctions in Canada, is not a species by the standard biological definition but a subspecies (dawsoni) of the plentiful species Rangifer tarandus. Further, this extinct subspecies is, in fact, a population of Rangifer tarandus geographically limited to the Queen Charlotte Islands.

A more egregious problem than counting subspecies is that of counting geographically defined populations. In many cases, this leads to listing species and subspecies more than once. For example, the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is listed as extirpated in Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan and listed as vulnerable in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon Territories. If grizzly bears are extirpated--no longer occurring in the wild--how can they also be vulnerable? The answer, it turns out, is that while there are plenty of healthy populations of grizzly bears in the wild in Canada, there are no longer any grizzly bears on the prairies. The extirpated grizzly bear listed by COSEWIC refers to the prairie population of grizzly bears, which they claim disappeared around 1880, while the vulnerable listing refers to a concern that the existing, healthy populations of grizzlies have characteristics that make them sensitive to human activities or natural events.

In another case, a sub-species of caribou, the Peary caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi), appears on COSEWIC's list three times. The Banks Island population and the High Arctic population in the Northwest Territories are both listed as endangered while the Low Arctic Peary Caribou in the Northwest Territories are considered threatened. Counting the Peary Caribou three times clearly leads to an overstatement of the number of species at risk: the species should appear on the list just once, with a note indicating the geographical areas of particular concern.11

In total, over 80 of the 339 "species" listed in Canadian Species at Risk are actually subspecies or geographically defined populations of species. Counting subspecies and geographically defined populations as separate species is misleading. The decline of a subspecies or particular population of caribou, while regrettable, is clearly not nearly as serious an issue as the entire species being at risk. Where the decline of subspecies and geographically defined species are of particular concern, they should appear on a separate list so that the Canadian Species at Risk report is not confused with what would be more accurately titled Canadian Species, Subspecies, and Geographically Defined Populations at Risk.

To some, this analysis may seem uncaring. However, it is important to remember that resources for addressing the problem of endangered species are limited. Spending time, energy, and money to protect plants and animals that are not unique comes at the expense of those species that are truly in need of conservation. The process of generating American lists of endangered species is a path that Canadians would do well to avoid:

The ranks of the federal endangered species program continue to swell with slight variants of otherwise abundant species well beyond the ability of any agency to effectively manage them. And those who would invoke the Act for other than its ostensible purpose are afforded a convenient tool in that the subjectivity of determining subspecies and distinct populations allows one to find some plant or animal with which to oppose virtually anything. This type of abuse will certainly hurt true conservation efforts in the long run as the public becomes more skeptical about the crisis species of the day and no conservation program will succeed without the support of the public. (Simon 1994: 13)

Canadians truly concerned about the fate of endangered species must guard against "crying wolf" too often.

Endangered or Northernmost Range?

Many of the species on the "at risk" list are not actually endangered or threatened throughout their range but simply at the northern periphery of their natural range. They may be locally rare in Canada but globally plentiful. For some species, arguably including humans, the area along the border between Canada and United States represents the northernmost part of their range. That these species are rare within Canada is simply a reflection of the fact that at the limits of a species' natural range its population decreases and can be far more variable than in the central parts of its range.

Consider, for example, the Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), a bird listed as "endangered" by COSEWIC. According to the COSEWIC status report on the Sage thrasher, it "breeds from extreme southern British Columbia, central Idaho and south-central Montana south through the Great Basin to northeastern Arizona, west-central and northern New Mexico, northern Texas, and western Oklahoma" and winters from "central California, southern Nevada, northern Arizona, central New Mexico and central Texas south to central Mexico" (see figure 9). The report goes on to state that the population of Sage Thrashers in Canada may only ever have been as high as 30 pairs, and today it is suspected there are between 5 and 10 pairs (Cannings 1992: 1). The Sage thrasher is naturally rare in Canada but, nevertheless, it is included on the "at risk" list with no explanation.

The White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) appears on COSEWIC's "at risk" list in the "threatened" category. Since the population is estimated at less than 100 birds, this may seem like a reasonable designation. But, when you consider that the only Canadian breeding grounds for the bird are in the south Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, it is clearly not defensible to include the bird on the list without explaining that they are naturally rare in Canada. According to the status report: "The White-headed woodpecker is considered rare throughout the northern part of its range" (Cannings 1992b: 4).

The Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is listed as "endangered" in Canada even though its range has never extended more than a few kilometres into Saskatchewan and it is plentiful in Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming. In the plant category, the Pink milkwort (Polygala incarnata) is listed as endangered because its Canadian distribution is limited to the Walpole Island Indian Reserve on the border. The plant is common in the dry prairies of the eastern and central United States (Shank 1996: 7). Blanchard's Cricket frog (Acris crepitans) is widely distributed in the southern and central United States but considered endangered in Canada, where it was known historically only from Point Pelee and Pelee Island in southern Ontario (Canadian Wildlife Service 1997: 4)

Incredibly, some of the species that appear on the list have expanded their range to include Canada as a result of human activity. For example, it is believed that Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii ), categorized by COSEWIC as "endangered," expanded its range into Ontario during the early 1900s following the clearing of forests (Austen and Cadman 1993: 1). Most of its breeding range is in the United States. The Nature Conservancy gives it a rank of G4, which indicates that the species is "apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery" (Austen and Cadman, 1993: 7).

A conservative estimate suggests that no less than 70 of COSEWIC's listings (20 percent) are totally or partially attributable to species being at the northern periphery of their natural range. According to one government wildlife biologist: "Perhaps as many as 40 per cent of bird species and 33 percent of terrestrial mammals on the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) list might be considered as `peripheral', depending on one's definition of the term" (Shank 1996: 7). Cases such as the Henslow's sparrow and the Sage thrasher may very well be of concern to Canadians, but to include them on the list species at risk without an explanation of why they are on the list is misleading when that list is being used as a basis for legislation that will curtail human activity in order to protect species.

Extinction of species in Canada

The category of ultimate concern to policy makers is "extinct," the most serious of the "at risk" categories. According to Environment Canada, the extinction of species is something that should continue to concern Canadians as at least eight distinct animal species and one population of caribou have become extinct since the arrival of the Europeans (Canadian Wildlife Service 1999: 2). While these extinctions, which include three species of birds, six species of fish, and one species of mollusc, are unfortunate, there has been no recent, alarming growth in this most serious category of the list. In fact, the latest extinction of a mammal, the Woodland Caribou on the Queen Charlotte Islands (as we saw above, a geographically limited population of a species still considered plentiful elsewhere), occurred 78 years ago and the last extinction of a bird, the passenger pigeon, occurred 84 years ago.

Table 3 lists the species that have become extinct in Canada as well as the date and probable cause of the extinctions. When considering whether Canada needs more legislation and regulation to protect endangered species, there are two relevant questions to ask regarding these extinctions. First, why did the extinctions occur? Second, is this a trend that we expect will continue?

While it is important to remember that extinctions have occurred throughout history as part of natural dynamics--and, indeed, as an integral part of the evolutionary process since the appearance of biological life on earth12--most of the extinctions on the Canadian list were a result of human activities--unregulated hunting, trapping, and commercial fishing. The Woodland caribou, the great Auk, the Labrador duck and the Passenger pigeon became extinct due to overhunting. The Sea mink was probably never naturally very abundant and pressure from trapping contributed to its demise. Three of the four fish species on the list became extinct primarily as a result of overfishing. These extinctions are grievous because these species may well have survived if it were not for their over-exploitation. 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. According to Environment Canada, "extinctions and extirpations from harvesting of wildlife have declined because of improved knowledge of the threats to species and because of changing policies and legislation, combined with better management and enforcement" (Environment Canada 1996b: 14-12). If overhunting is no longer a serious threat to wildlife, why are agencies like Environment Canada insisting that the extinction of species is something for Canadians to continue worrying about?

According to groups concerned about the future of wildlife in Canada, the greatest new threat to wildlife is human encroachment on habitat.

The greatest threat to biodiversity in Canada is the extensive alteration by people of a number of economical regions, largely because of competing land uses such as agriculture and urbanization . . . The prairies and southern Ontario have been greatly transformed. (Canadian Wildlife Service 1995: 3)

This is the threat that legislation is supposed to address. The evidence, however, does not support the idea that Canada's wildlife is facing an increasing threat of extinctions.

If, in recent history, we faced a serious problem protecting wildlife in Canada due to an increase in human encroachment on habitat, one might expect to see a dramatic increase in the number of species that have become extinct as human population expanded. In other words, population expansion would be a good proxy for human encroachment on wildlife habitat. However, far from revealing a dramatic rise in the number of species becoming extinct in this country as human population increased, there appears to be no correlation between the growth of the human population and animal extinctions. Figure 4, which shows human population on the same graph as animal extinctions, illustrates that species extinction has been spread fairly evenly across time since1840, despite rapid population growth.

How many species are really at risk?

One of the difficulties with trying to describe the state of Canada's wildlife is that everyone has a different view of what constitutes a problem. To some, that any species is at risk of extinction is a sufficient reason to declare a national emergency. To others, that there are only 339 species designated "at risk" by COSEWIC, less than one percent of the species known to exist in Canada, is reassuring. But to make those assessments, however different they may be, an accurate list of species at risk is needed.

Earlier discussion suggests that subspecies, distinct populations, multiple-listings, and species at risk primarily because southern Canada is the northernmost part of their range should be taken off the list. As well, extinctions should be removed because they are no longer "at risk." 13 It is also reasonable to exclude vulnerable species because they are not actually at risk, but just of special concern.14 Indeed, this category is particularly subjective. In a dynamic system that is constantly changing, species are in some sense always vulnerable to various kinds of natural and human influences.

When these adjustments are made, the list published by COSEWIC is dramatically reduced from 339 species to 91 species (figure 5) or 0.16 percent of the species known to exist in Canada (figure 6). Figure 7 shows that most of the remaining species are either plants or fish. Does this mean that Canada has an endangered-species crisis? That, of course, is a subjective question. But it is clear that the endangered species problem in Canada has been overstated.

If the list of species at risk has been inflated so that Canadians will be more concerned about endangered species and thus more likely to support more intervention by the federal government, this strategy may backfire. Exaggerating the seriousness of problems could jeopardize the public's faith in COSEWIC's supposedly scientific evaluations. When people begin to lose faith in the credibility of the scientific evidence that governments use to support their claims that more legislation and regulation are needed, it is effective and efficient public policy-making that is placed "at risk."

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Sunday, September 26, 1999.