Protecting Endangered Species in Canada

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

The debate about protecting endangered species in Canada has focused on federal legislation and regulation. Before endorsing this approach to the conservation of species, however, Canadians should consider the counter-arguments. While environmentalists talk about the number of endangered species in Canada as if it had reached crisis proportions, this position, as we saw above, is difficult to justify.

Given the relatively small number of species at risk in Canada, is seems that 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.

Moreover, even if the number of endangered species in Canada could be labeled a serious problem, it is unlikely that federal legislation would be the most effective way to address it. Local decentralized agencies, both public and private, are in a much better position to direct resources effectively and efficiently. Finally, the experience in the United States, which will be discussed more fully in the next section, indicates that the unintended consequences of federal endangered-species legislation could be disastrous for Canada's wildlife.

Habitat

According to many environmentalists, the biggest threat to wildlife is human encroachment on habitat. By that measure, Canada's small population relative to its landmass affords most of its species a high level of natural protection. With a population of just over 30 million people (0.5 percent of the world's population) and a surface area that is the one of the largest in the world (7 percent of the global land mass), Canada's average population density is just 3 people per kilometre (Environment Canada 1996b:10-1). The "footprint" of Canada's population is even smaller as 80 percent of Canadians live in urban areas covering only 0.2 percent of the total land area (Environment Canada 1996b:10-1). Canada's yearbook describes the country:

Most of Canada's 10 million square kilometres are uninhabited. Indeed, about three in four Canadians live in a widely-spaced string of cities close to the border with the United States. To travel north from these cities is to enter uninhabited forests or plains; wilderness remains always at the back door. (Canada Year Book 1997: 3)

Figure 8 shows land cover in Canada. Less than 1 percent of Canada is urban, 6 percent is crop land, 2 percent is range land, while 45 percent is forest. The United States, by comparison, is almost 5 percent developed area, 20 percent rangeland, 20 percent crop land and only 20 percent forest land. Even resource industries such as forestry, which take place outside of urban areas, disturb only a small fraction of the Canada's land base. According to Environment Canada, in 1992 roughly 9,332 square kilometers were logged in Canada, roughly 0.09 percent of the total land base (Environment Canada 1996b: 10-58).

Although most of Canada is wilderness, it still has a substantial network of national, provincial, and territorial parks, as well as national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries, and lands protected through private initiatives. Since the creation of Banff National Park in 1885, the amount of protected area in Canada has grown to almost 800,000 square kilometres, or about 8 percent of the country (Environment Canada 1996b: 14-20).

The amount of natural protection that Canada's wildlife enjoy does not, however, mean that Canadians are complacent about finding further ways to protect species, particularly those most directly threatened by human activities. There are hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals working hard to protect species and their habitat in Canada. According to one estimate by Environment Canada, as of 1991 there were over 120 government and private organizations addressing wildlife issues in Canada (Environment Canada 1991: 20-3). Given that the number of organizations has likely increased since 1991, there are probably more organizations operating to help wildlife in this country than there are endangered species.

Initiatives to protect wildlife in Canada

There are too many initiatives to protect Canada's wildlife to describe in full in this report. In order to give a general impression of their scope of activities, however, some examples of efforts by individuals, conservation groups, corporations, and governments are given below.

Non-profit conservation groups

Table 4 shows the amount of land protected by some of the larger conservation organizations in this country. The amount of land protected by these groups alone is now close to 2 million hectares. Perhaps even more impressive than the total amount of land protected by these organizations is the increase of 90 percent in the amount of land protected over just four years earlier. These groups directly protect wildlife through their programs of buying or leasing land and working with private landowners. Ironically, precisely because they are more concerned with direct conservation than with lobbying governments and alarming the public, their important contribution towards preserving Canada's wildlife often goes unrecognized. Highlighting the success of private conservation efforts is simply not in the interests of the many environmentalists, bureaucrats, and politicians who favour a legislative approach to protecting wildlife. The following summaries of the activities of just a few conservation organizations working in Canada provide some sense of the scope of innovative work carried out by these groups.

The Alberta Fish and Game Association, established in 1908, is Alberta's oldest and largest conservation group and has the support of 15,000 members and 120 clubs. Their mission is to promote the conservation and utilization of fish and wildlife and to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat (www.afga.org/ 2/24/98). Operation Burrowing Owl, one of the Association's programs, provides an example of how co-operation with private landowners can help protect species at risk. Under the program, which has been in place for ten years, landowners sign voluntary five-year habitat protection agreements to conserve habitat around owl nests. In return, landowners are given a lapel pin and a gate sign indicating that they are part of the program. The program started with 50 landowners and now includes over 200 landowners, who own 23,000 hectares of land in southern Alberta (personal communication with Julie Spicer, AFGA, February 1999). Operation Burrowing Owl has been so successful that a new program of the same type, Operation Grassland Community, which takes a multi-species approach towards conservation, was initiated by the Alberta Fish and Game Association in 1994, and Saskatchewan has since opened a chapter of Operation Burrowing Owl. The Alberta Fish and Game Association operates many other wildlife related programs, such as a Wildlife Trust Fund where people are encouraged to donate money and land to be set aside for wildlife habitat.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada is another non-profit organization that is "dedicated to preserving ecologically significant natural areas, places of special beauty and educational interest, through outright purchase, land donation and conservation agreement" (Nature Conservancy of Canada 1997: 1). The Nature Conservancy's work is supported by individuals, corporations, and governments. In their 1997 annual report, they record the protection of 546,327 hectares of land at 700 properties. These diverse properties include a large portion on the Minesing Swamp in Ontario, home to many species at risk including the Prairie Fringed Orchid, Loggerhead Shrike, and Spotted Turtle, and the Manitoba Tall Grass Prairie preserve in southeastern Manitoba.

In one recent interesting project, a donation to the Nature Conservancy by Shell Canada Limited, Chevron Canada Resources, Petro-Canada, Mobil Oil Canada, and Ranger Oil Limited helped establish the first national marine conservation area of 118,057 hectares off the west coast of Canada. The Nature Conservancy plans to transfer these rights to the Government of Canada to establish the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve. The reserve will help protect an area in the Queen Charlotte Islands where more than 293 marine species have been documented (Nature Conservancy of Canada 1997: 4).

Non-profit conservation activities also include events specifically aimed at funding conservation. The Baillie Birdathon is a 24-hour count of birds conducted in May across the country. Participants are sponsored on a per-species basis or with a flat amount. The Baillie Birdathon is Canada's largest annual fundraiser for the conservation of wild birds and their habitats: since it began in 1976, the event has raised over $1.4 million for bird research and conservation with over 100 different organizations across the country. Funds raised through the birdathon go to support conservation organizations and projects ranging from bird-related research to protecting Piping plover habitat in Prince Edward Island to surveying Marbled murrelets in British Columbia (Gallant 1999).

The Delta Waterfowl Foundation, which was formerly known as the North American Wildlife Foundation, was founded in 1911 by sportsmen and conservationists to protect waterfowl. It runs the "Adopt-a-Pothole" program, which compensates farmers for protecting nesting areas in water-filled depressions known as potholes in Manitoba, North Dakota, and Minnesota. Donors to the program contribute from $125 to $500 and receive a certificate, a photo mosaic of the potholes typically adopted, the name and address of the landowner who owns the pothole, a window decal, and Delta's Waterfowl reports. Landowners involved with the program typically sign a 10-year contract to grow habitat suitable for the nesting of ducks. Landowners agree not to clear, drain, burn, break, spray, graze, fill, hay, or cultivate the areas within their contract (Delta Waterfowl Foundation 1999). The amount of land protected in Manitoba under this program has increased more than four-fold in the last 7 years, from 811 acres in 1991 to 4,110 acres in 1998.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists is a membership-based, not-for-profit organization founded in 1931 that works to protect Ontario's natural heritage through education, scientific research, public policy, and nature protection. The Federation represents 15,000 individual members and a network of 89 local naturalists' clubs. It operates the largest non-governmental nature reserve system in Ontario, with a total of 16 properties covering 2,900 acres. Properties including Heronry Island in Georgian Bay, the Crossley Nature Reserve in Muskoka, and the G.G. Newton Nature Reserve near Goderich have been donated. Other properties, including the 330 acre Dorcas Bay Nature Reserve, were purchased. The volunteer committee that runs the system prides itself on seeking out lands that would otherwise not be protected (Federation of Ontario Naturalists 1999).

The Wildlife Rescue Association of British Columbia is a small, non-profit society supported by its members and donors. They work to ensure that injured wildlife has a place to be treated. For example, when a small oil spill occurred in Burrard Inlet in 1998, the Association helped treat 214 birds, 126 of which were successfully released. Since 1979 they have treated 170 different species and have seen over 35,000 cases (Wildlife Rescue News Spring 1998).

Ducks Unlimited Canada is another example of a private, non-profit organization that is dedicated to conservation. Specifically, Ducks Unlimited Canada along with Ducks Unlimited, Inc. in the United States and DUMAC in Mexico is dedicated to the conservation of wetlands to ensure the perpetuation of North America's waterfowl. Since 1938, the organization has had an impressive conservation record in Canada. It has invested over $800 million and influences 18 million acres of habitat through active management and agreements with governments (Ducks Unlimited Canada 1998: 2). Its habitat programs benefit over 600 wildlife species. Most of the fund-raising for Ducks Unlimited's conservation projects comes from a system of dinner auctions and events held across the country. A paragraph from the President's Message section of their 1998 annual report is indicative of the organization's commitment to using its resources efficiently:

We also want to invest every dollar as efficiently as we can. Existing and potential Ducks Unlimited supporters have a right to expect us to be good stewards for their contributions. We take this responsibility very seriously. With over 87 percent of the budget invested in support of its conservation programs, Ducks Unlimited Canada is determined to be the best managed non-profit organization in the world. (Ducks Unlimited Canada 1998: 2)

Ducks Unlimited Canada sees working with Canada's private landowners as a critical part of their success. Some of their innovative work with landowners is described in their 1998 annual report:

An exciting new initiative was the introduction of a full-scale test of flushing bars on haying equipment in Alberta. A flushing bar is a device attached to haying machinery that prevents birds and mammals from being harmed during the course of normal haying operations. Sixty landowners demonstrated enthusiasm for this conservation tool by signing 10-year agreements to equip their pull-type hay mowers with this inexpensive but effective device. (Ducks Unlimited Canada 1998: 5)

Non-profit conservation groups, of which the above are just a few examples, offer an alternative to the legislative approach and they offer a mechanism by which those willing to pay for habitat protection can do so.

The role of industry

Many corporations are also playing an important role in protecting species and their habitat in Canada. In some cases, resource companies have voluntarily relinquished oil, gas, mineral, or logging rights and donated land to protect habitat. For example, in 1992 Shell Oil donated a large holding in British Columbia to the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Forest companies have a long history of donating land. Cathedral Grove, one of the best-known old-growth forests in the country, was donated by MacMillan Bloedel in the 1940s, and wetlands have been periodically donated by Bowater-Mersey Forest Products Ltd. in New Brunswick. In some cases, donated land is returned to the government and, in other cases, it is managed for conservation purposes by non-governmental organizations (Environment Canada 1996b: 10-72). In addition to donating land, corporations support conservation associations through financial contributions. For example, Ducks Unlimited has over 300 corporations who support them with donations between $5,000 and $1,000,000 or more; many more corporations contribute smaller amounts. Donations to conservation activities come from a variety of different companies including banks, mining companies, chemical companies, energy companies, and forestry companies.

Many companies in the resource sector, who are most directly connected to land use, also have their own wildlife conservation initiatives in place. Canadian Forest Products, for example, has been actively involved in conservation efforts for 25 years. Their conservation initiatives take place mostly on Vancouver Island but also in other areas such as Prince George, the Lower Mainland, and Grande Prairie. They spent between $200,000 and $700,000 a year between 1992 and 1998 on activities including wildlife inventory and mapping (for bald eagles, marbled murrelets, mountain goats, and spotted owls), wildlife habitat research (for bats, small mammals, forest birds, black bears, and flying squirrels), and habitat enhancement (bat-roosting boxes, bird-nesting boxes, stream restoration) (personal communication with John Deal, Canfor, November 1998).

TimberWest Forest Corporation has been involved with conservation efforts for over 20 years. It employs a full-time biologist and two consultants to work specifically on wildlife conservation. Their operations budget for conservation is roughly $100,000 year. Most of their work involves habitat management and enhancement, including stream rehabilitation, but they also inventory fish and wildlife (personal communication with Dave Lindsay, November 19, 1998).

Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. is another example of a forest company actively involved in conservation for the last 20 years, primarily in the east Kootenay region of British Columbia. They spend $200,000 a year specifically on wildlife conservation, which includes hiring a wildlife consultant, wildlife mapping, and biodiversity assessments (personal communication with Daryll Hebert, November 29, 1998).

Repap Manitoba Inc. works with the provincial government in Manitoba to conduct winter surveys to determine the wintering areas of woodland caribou. Weyerhaeuser and Weldwood in Alberta are also involved in studies involving the woodland caribou (Martel and Nadeau 1997: 5).

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) recognize cattle producers who are voluntarily changing production practices to make their operations more environmentally sustainable through an annual National Environmental Stewardship Award.

The responsible action taken by the cattle industry in species preservation has for the most part gone unnoticed. Cattle producers have simply incorporated responsible environmental stewardship into their everyday management systems. Farmers and ranchers across Canada are taking part voluntarily in programs that are successfully ensuring the preservation of the environment. In many cases their actions are helping to increase numbers of species that are extirpated, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable. (Canadian Cattlemen's Association 1998).

Individuals

This brief description of projects initiated and supported by organizations and companies leaves untouched the actions of individual Canadians who own land and worry about preserving habitat on that land. Together, these efforts form an effective patchwork. Common sense should dictate that, more than regulation, it is these actions that will best protect our species. Ironically, because these groups are more interested in acting to protect species than publicizing their actions, they often get little recognition.

Initiatives from the federal government

In addition to the large number of private and corporate initiatives in place to help wildlife, the federal government has a number of initiatives meant to protect Canada's flora and fauna. A number of federal statutes, including the Fisheries Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, Canada Wildlife Act, and the National Parks Act, provide protection for endangered species of plants and animals in Canada.

The Fisheries Act of 1868 gives the Governor in Council the power to regulate all matters relating to fishing, including the conservation and protection of fish. The Act is supposed to protect all species of fish, marine plants, and their habitat (Bourdages 1996: 13). This means that the 94 species, subspecies, and distinct populations of fish and marine mammals that constitute close to one-third of the total species on COSEWIC's list are already covered by federal legislation. The effectiveness of that protection, of course, is another matter. Some might even try to make the perverse argument that since the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a mixed record on conservation, more federal intervention is necessary. But why should Canadians have any confidence that a federal Minister of Environment would do a better job protecting fish under an endangered species act than the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has done under the Fisheries Act?

Birds also have specific protection under Canadian law. In 1916, Canada and the United States signed the Migratory Birds Convention, a treaty to ensure the protection of migratory birds, and the following year Parliament passed the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which gives the federal government responsibility for the management of certain migratory birds and "regulates hunting, deters trade and marketing, controls the use of migratory birds through permits and licences, and allows for the creation of sanctuaries to control and manage protected areas." The Act was revised in 1994 to include protection for sperm, embryos, and tissue cultures from migratory birds as well as the birds themselves and their eggs. Under the act, the federal government has established 98 migratory bird sanctuaries totaling approximately 11.3 million hectares. There are sanctuaries in all provinces and territories except Manitoba and the Yukon (www.ec.gc.ca/cws-scf/hww-fap/nwambs/nwambs.html 2/11/98).

The Canada Wildlife Act, passed in 1973, affords more general protection for species by allowing the federal authorities to undertake research on wildlife and work with the provinces to carry out conservation and recreational activities affecting wildlife and their habitats. According to this Act, the Minister of Environment has the authority to acquire and manage habitat for birds and, with the consent of the provinces, other wildlife. There are 48 National Wildlife Areas, where wildlife and habitat receive protection under the Act, covering approximately 489,330 hectares of habitat (www.ec.gc.ca/cws-scf/hww-fap/nwambs/nwambs.html 2/11/98).

The National Parks Act protects plants and animals in parks. According to the Act, the Governor in Council has the power

to make regulations concerning the preservation, control and management of parks; the protection of fauna, including the taking of specimens for scientific or propagation purposes; the destruction or removal of dangerous or superabundant species; and the management and regulation of fishing and the protection of fish, including the prevention and remedying of any obstruction or pollution of waterways. (Bourdages 1996: 14)

The Act also allows for heavy fines to be imposed on those caught poaching species that are protected or at risk in national parks.

In addition to the federal laws in place to protect species, there are two other important federal initiatives administered under the bureaucracies. The committee that lists species at risk, COSEWIC, as well as another committee to design and implement recovery plans, are both managed by the Canadian Wildlife Service, which is part of Environment Canada. Providing a list of species that are at risk in Canada is clearly a very important function and one that the federal government would seem to be in a good position to continue--if the list were based in sound science. To complement COSEWIC's work in listing species, the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) Committee was set up in 1988 to prepare recovery plans for listed species. The committee is made up of provincial and territorial wildlife directors and representatives from the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, and the World Wildlife Fund Canada. Currently its mandate includes birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Since it was founded in 1988, over 100 groups have contributed nearly $20 million to the recovery of terrestrial vertebrates on Canada's list of species at risk. These contributions come from a variety of sources including government agencies, companies, non-governmental organizations, private donors, and universities (Canadian Wildlife Service 1997: 16).

Initiatives from the provincial governments

In 1996 the Canadian Council of Wildlife Ministers (CCWM) agreed to the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. Under the Accord, the provinces committed to review their existing legislation and policies regarding endangered species and to develop complementary legislation and programs to protect species at risk in Canada, if necessary. The provinces with endangered species legislation now include New Brunswick (1974), Quebec (1989), Ontario (1971), Manitoba (1990), Nova Scotia (1996), Saskatchewan (1997), and Prince Edward Island (1998). Alberta and British Columbia have amended their Wildlife Acts since the Accord (Rounthwaite 1998: 3).

Most Canadians are unaware of the many programs that exist to protect species in this country: there are federal and provincial initiatives, park programs, local government programs, non-profit organizations, and private initiatives. What value, then, is added by federal endangered-species legislation that will surely generate more bureaucracy to maintain, monitor, and support its programs? Representatives of Environment Canada argue that it will provide an "umbrella" or "safety net" that will fill in the gaps between current protections. But, if we believe that there are not enough resources devoted to protecting species and that there are those significant "gaps," should we not consider that a better way to protect them would be to devote more resources to existing efforts?

[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.