1.
Thesis
What
Factors
Influence
Listing
Delays
Under
Canada’s
Species
at
Risk
Act?
Honours
Research
Project
EVS4009
Supervisor:
Dr.
Scott
Findlay
By:
Sebastian
Orue
(5795311)
University
of
Ottawa
April
2nd,
2014

2. Abstract
The
Species
at
Risk
Act
came
into
force
in
2003.
Since
then
a
major
flaw
in
the
system
has
been
identified,
which
allows
for
species
to
be
waiting
in
the
consultation
process
indefinitely
without
protection.
In
this
study
we
adjusted
a
linear
model,
which
allowed
us
to
identify
the
variables
that
influence
the
time
species
spend
in
consultation.
It
was
found
that
the
Minister
is
who
exerts
most
control
over
how
long
the
consultation
processes
will
last.
However,
the
predicted
timelines
in
the
case
of
the
3-­‐month
and
9-­‐month
pathways
are
generally
not
met,
and
species
wait
on
average
twice
as
long
as
they
were
supposed
to.
Northern
species
wait
in
consultation
longer
than
southern
species,
we
believe
this
is
because
there
is
a
need
to
consult
with
Wildlife
Management
Boards,
as
identified
by
Mooers
et
al
(2007).
Like
Findlay
et
al.
(2009)
we
found
that
species
having
DFO
as
their
RA
had
longer
consultation
processes.
We
believe
this
is
due
to
the
cost-­‐benefit
and
socioeconomic
analyses
conducted
by
the
DFO,
which
are
not
conducted
by
EC.
We
also
found
a
strong
interaction
between
RA
and
DFO.
When
DFO
was
the
RA,
the
consultation
time
of
southern
species
was
longer
than
for
northern
species.
However,
when
DFO
was
not
the
RA,
northern
species
waited
in
consultation
significantly
longer
than
southern
species.
It
was
also
found
that
Endangered
and
Threatened
species
wait
longer
that
Special
Concern
species,
we
believe
this
is
due
to
the
prevalence
of
Habitat
loss
and
Overexploitation
as
threats
in
species
at
a
higher
risk
of
extinction.
Of
all
threats,
only
pollution
was
a
significant
predictor
of
listing
delay.
Like
Findlay
et
al.
we
recommend
that
only
summary
socio-­‐economic
analyses
be
done
during
the
consultation
process,
and
a
more
complete
analysis
be

3. done
if
the
GIC
decides
not
to
list
a
species.
We
also
strongly
believe
that
the
Minister
of
the
Environment
needs
to
set
new
fixed
timelines
and
follow
them,
if
the
consultation
process
is
to
be
taken
seriously.
Keywords
Consultation
process,
endangered
species,
listing
delay,
Species
at
Risk
Act,
species
listing
Introduction
Legal
listing
of
species
is
used
globally
as
a
tool
for
protecting
endangered
wildlife.
All
existing
endangered
species
legislations,
including
the
Canadian
Species
at
Risk
Act
(SARA),
require
species
to
be
listed
first
in
order
that
protection
provisions
apply.
Nonetheless,
listing
can
be
highly
controversial
and
can
be
subject
to
a
number
of
influences,
where
sometimes,
political
interests
override
scientific
recommendations.
A
number
of
researchers
have
investigated
the
issue
of
what
factors
appear
to
be
associated
with
listing
decisions
under
endangered
species
legislation.
Under
the
U.S.
Endangered
Species
Act
(ESA
1973),
Metrick
and
Weitzman
(1996)
showed
that
the
non-­‐scientific,
political
profile
of
a
species
seemed
to
influence
listing
decisions,
such
that
species
were
more
likely
to
be
listed
if
they
were
larger
animals
or
considered
higher
forms
of
life
(mammals
and
birds).
Harllee
et
al.
(2009)
found
that
the
environmental
attitude
of
legislators
on
relevant
committees
appears
to
significantly
affect
listing
decisions.
Under
SARA,
Mooers
et
al.
(2007)
showed
strong
taxonomic
and
geographical
biases
in
listing,
with
marine

4. fish
and
terrestrial
mammals,
northern
species,
and
harvested
species
much
less
likely
to
be
listed.
More
recently
Findlay
et
al.
(2009)
extended
the
analysis
of
Mooers
et
al.
and
found
a
reduced
likelihood
of
listing
for
species
that
were
harvested;
had
DFO
as
Responsible
Authority;
had
a
northern
distribution;
and
were
endemic
to
Canada.
The
Government
of
Canada
proclaimed
SARA
on
June
5,
2003
as
part
of
its
strategy
for
the
protection
of
wildlife
species
at
risk.
Species
listing
under
SARA
is
a
two-­‐step
process.
After
the
Committee
on
the
Status
of
Endangered
Wildlife
in
Canada
(COSEWIC)
assigns
a
conservation
status
to
a
wildlife
species,
the
Minister
of
the
Environment
has
90
days
to
explain
how
he
or
she
intends
to
respond
to
COSEWIC’s
recommendation.
The
Minister
can
either
forward
the
COSEWIC
assessment
to
the
federal
Governor
in
Council
(GIC)
or
send
it
for
a
consultation
through
which
stakeholders
and
the
public
in
general
are
invited
to
comment
on
how
the
proposed
listing
would
affect
them.
If
the
Minister
elects
to
send
the
species
for
consultation,
he/she
is
required
to
specify
(in
his/her
response)
the
expected
duration
of
the
consultation
process.
This
expectation
is
expressed
as
a
time
frame1:
(a)
≤
3
months;
(b)
9
months;
or
(c)
indefinite
(extended
consultation),
for
which
once
the
GIC
receives
the
COSEWIC
assessment
via
the
responsible
Minister,
it
has
9
months
to
respond
by:
(a)
deciding
not
to
list
the
species;
(b)
listing
the
species;
or
(c)
returning
the
species
to
COSEWIC
for
further
analysis.
The
problem
with
the
listing
process
arises
at
the
consultation
stage.
Section
25(3)
of
SARA
states
that
the
Minister
has
90
days
to
publish
his/her
response
1
Response
Statements:
www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/listing/response_e.cfm

5. statement
as
to
how
he/she
will
proceed.
There
is
also
an
explicit
time
frame
within
which
the
GIC
must
respond
once
it
receives
the
recommendation
from
the
Minister.
However,
there
is
no
provision
in
SARA
that
constrains
the
time
available
for
consultation.
The
result
is
that
files
can
sit
indefinitely
in
“listing
limbo”
(Otto
et
al.,
2013);
during
this
time,
they
are
not
listed,
and
therefore
do
not
receive
the
protection
provisions
SARA
confers.
Previous
studies
(e.g.
Mooers
et
al.,
2007;
Findlay
et
al.
2009;
Mooers
et
al.
2010)
have
investigated
factors
that
appear
to
be
associated
with
the
decision
by
the
GIC
to
list
species
under
SARA
once
a
recommendation
has
been
received
from
the
responsible
Minister.
In
this
paper,
we
investigate
factors
that
are
associated
with
how
long
it
takes
for
a
Ministerial
recommendation
to
come
forward
to
the
GIC,
that
is
the
duration
of
the
interval
between
the
date
at
which
the
Minister
of
the
Environment
responds
to
COSEWIC’s
decision
and
when
the
GIC
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
Ministerial
recommendation.
Our
objectives
were
to
better
understand
the
flaws
in
the
consultation
process
of
SARA,
and,
based
on
our
findings,
recommend
revisions
to
the
act
that
could
address
these
problems.
We
sought
to
answer
four
questions:
What
is
the
accuracy
of
the
Ministerial
expectation?
What
are
the
factors
that
influence
consultation
time?
And
what
could
be
done
to
prevent
species
from
lingering
in
consultation
indefinitely?
Methods
Over
the
past
10
years,
an
extensive
database
on
Canadian
Species
at
Risk
Canada
has
been
developed
and
maintained
at
the
Institute
of
the
Environment
(IE)

6. at
the
University
of
Ottawa.
As
part
of
an
ongoing
evaluation
of
SARA’s
effectiveness,
a
set
of
measurable
performance
indicators
were
developed
that
relate
directly
to
one
or
more
SARA
benchmarks
using
goals
and
expected
outcomes
derived
from
SARA
itself,
background
legislative
documents,
witness
testimony
delivered
during
SARA
review
hearings,
policy
statements
and
departmental
information.
Relevant
data
were
extracted
from
published
documents
(e.g.
recovery
strategies,
COSEWIC
status
reports)
that
were
accessed
from
the
Species
at
Risk
public
registry2.
Documents
that
were
not
online
(e.g.
older
status
reports)
were
obtained
directly
from
COSEWIC.
The
database
is
populated
using
a
validated
set
of
protocols
that
allow
undergraduate
student
volunteers
to
harvest
data
from
specific
documents.
Each
volunteer
was
given
a
training
session
in
which
the
study
objectives,
metadata
and
data
extraction
protocols
were
described.
Following
training,
each
volunteer
was
provided
with
a
small
set
of
documents,
with
documents
being
independently
assessed
by
two
evaluators.
Using
the
provided
metadata
and
protocols,
students
extracted
information
from
the
documents
assigned
to
them,
entered
these
data
into
a
personal
copy
of
the
database,
and
submitted
the
completed
file
to
the
database
manager.
For
each
document,
the
multiple
data
submissions
from
independent
evaluators
were
then
compared,
and
any
discrepancies
resolved
by
the
manager
through
direct
reference
to
the
document
in
question.
The
current
analysis
is
restricted
to
the
set
of
181
species
that:
(a)
Went
through
the
consultation
process
(had
an
time
interval
between
the
date
at
which
2See
www.sararegistry.gc.ca.

7. the
Minister
responds
to
COSEWIC’s
decision
and
when
the
GIC
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
Ministerial
recommendation
of
more
than
0
days;
this
excludes
species
that
were
automatically
listed,
species
having
their
status
being
confirmed,
and
species
that
were
immediately
sent
to
the
GIC
by
the
minister)
at
least
once;
(b)
Had
completed
the
consultation
process
as
of
March
2014
(were
not
currently
in
consultation);
(c)
had
their
relevant
documents
available
in
the
registry
(i.e.
consultation
time
of
the
Physa
snail
could
not
be
calculated
because
it
was
no
longer
found
in
the
registry).
The
response
variable
“Consultation
Time”
was
calculated
as
the
number
of
days
between
the
date
at
which
the
Minister
of
the
Environment
responds
to
COSEWIC’s
recommendation
and
when
the
GIC
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
Minister’s
recommendation.
In
this
analysis
we
consider
the
following
explanatory
variables:
Predicted
consultation
timeline:
Consultation
time
(≤
3
Months;
9
Months;
or
indefinite
(extended
consultation)
predicted
by
the
minister.
Since
the
minister
is
the
highest
authority
responsible
for
driving
the
listing
process,
we
expected
to
find
a
strong
positive
relationship
between
the
predicted
time
and
the
absolute
time.
This
variable
was
added
to
the
database.
COSEWIC
status:
The
status
(Endangered,
Threatened,
Special
Concern)
assigned
by
COSEWIC
and
forwarded
to
the
Minister,
preceding
the
consultation
process
being
considered.
As
COSEWIC
status
is
a
composite
characterization
of
extinction
vulnerability
(COSEWIC,
2011),
one
would
hope
that
the
higher
the
status,
the
more
quickly
consultations
would
proceed
(Rapid
consultations
would
–

8. in
principle
at
least
–allow
for
more
rapid
listing
decisions).
However,
since
species
at
a
higher
risk
of
extinction
are
subject
to
more
restrictive
protection
standards,
many
economic
activities
might
be
compromised
by
listing,
which
would
require
more
extensive
consultations.
Responsible
Authority:
Relevant
minister(s)
or
agencies
responsible
for
the
listing
decision
(Binary
variable
indicating
the
involvement
or
absence
of
the
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans
[DFO]).
Since
DFO
sends
species
for
extended
consultation
much
more
often
than
Environment
Canada
(EC)
to
undertakes
socioeconomic
and
cost-­‐benefit
analyses
(Findlay
et
al.,
2009),
we
predict
that
the
delay
will
be
longer
for
species
that
have
the
DFO
as
their
RA.
Geographical
distribution:
Binary
variable
indicating
whether
a
species
occurred
in
one
or
more
of
the
northern
territories
(Yukon,
Nunavut
or
Northwest
Territories)
or
in
southern
Canada.
As
listing
decisions
for
northern
species
require
consultations
with
northern
Wildlife
Management
Boards
(Government
of
Canada,
2006),
consultation
delays
were
expected
to
increase
for
species
occurring
in
the
north.
The
second
set
of
variables
consisted
of
eleven
threats
to
species
as
identified
in
their
respective
COSEWIC
status
report.
All
threats
were
binary
variables
(Only
threats
that
were
explicitly
mentioned
in
the
reports
were
given
a
non-­‐zero
value)
and
were
available
from
a
threat
database
also
provided
by
the
IE
of
the
University
of
Ottawa.
The
database
contained
fifteen
threats,
but
four
of
them
were
not
considered
because
there
was
not
substantial
variation
in
the
sample
(i.e.
one
of
the
binary
levels
had
less
than
10%
of
total
observations).
Missing
threat
data

9. was
pulled
for
138
species.
The
eleven
threats
were:
Habitat
loss
or
modification;
predation;
decreased
genetic
variability;
direct
over-­‐exploitation
(legal
commercial,
recreational
or
subsistence
take);
indirect
over-­‐exploitation
(bycatch);
human
disturbance;
competition
with
native
species;
competition
with
exotic
species;
climate
change;
pollution;
and
successional
change.
A
full
description
of
each
threat
can
be
found
in
Annex
I.
We
also
considered
the
total
number
of
threats
as
a
separate
variable.
Threats
are
usually
a
result
of
human
activity
and
hence,
economic
interest:
forestry,
oil
and
gas,
residential
land
development,
hydroelectric
development,
mining,
etc.
During
consultations,
these
interests
will
almost
certainly
be
consulted,
and
if
economic
interests
are
perceived
as
being
compromised
by
listing
(e.g.
no
commercial
harvest;
no
forestry
on
identified
critical
habitat,
etc.),
then
resistance
against
listing
might
be
expected.
Some
interests
may
be
particularly
resistant
(e.g.
oil
and
gas).
If
so,
then
species
threatened
by
particular
types
of
threats
might
be
expected
to
take
longer
in
consultation.
Moreover,
the
more
threats
a
species
faces,
the
more
interests
are
likely
to
be
consulted
and
the
longer
the
resulting
consultation.
Statistical
Analysis
The
data
analysis
for
this
paper
was
generated
using
R
software,
Version
3.0.1
(R
Core
Team,
2013).
We
used
forward
and
backward
stepwise
logistic
regression,
and
manual
selection
to
fit
linear
models
using
consultation
time
as
the
response
variable
and
predicted
consultation
timeline,
COSEWIC
status,
responsible

10. authority,
geographical
distribution,
and
all
threats
as
candidate
explanatory
variables.
Potential
models
were
compared
using
the
Akaike
information
criterion
(AIC)
as
a
measure
of
goodness
of
fit.
Estimated
model
coefficients
were
based
on
1000
bootstrapped
trials.
Results
Accuracy
of
Ministerial
Expectation
One
hundred
and
eighty
one
species
satisfied
my
inclusion
criteria
(see
Methods).
Of
these,
125
were
expected
by
the
Minister
to
spend
less
than
3
months
in
consultation,
30
less
than
9
months,
and
26
indefinitely.
Actual
consultation
time
varied
considerably
among
these
three
classes
(F
=
187.5,
df
=
178,
p
=
<2e-­‐16;
R2
=
0.68;
Fig.
1)
with
average
consultation
times
±
SD
of
226
±
109,
618
±
435,
and
1021
±
530
days
respectively,
and
was
substantially
longer
than
the
predicted
consultation
time
(Fig.
1).
For
species
undergoing
extended
consultations,
stakeholders
are
Figure
1.
Average
log
number
of
days
that
species
spent
in
consultation
for
each
of
the
predicted
consultation
timelines.
(n=181).
95%
CIs
presented.
Multiple
R-­‐squared:
0.68.
p-­‐
values:
9
Months
<2e-­‐16;
Extended
<2e-­‐16.
Expected
consultation
times
were
1.95,
2.43
and
~2.57
days
for
each
of
the
pathways
respectively.
2.42.62.83.0
Predicted Consultation Timeline
LogConsultationTime(days)
< 3 Months 9 Months Indefinite

11. usually
asked
to
submit
their
comments
to
Environment
Canada
within
10
to
15
months
(Government
of
Canada,
2006-­‐2012).
Factors
Associated
with
Consultation
Times
In
our
best
model,
four
variables
had
detectable
associations
with
consultation
time
(Table
1).
Responsible
Authority
(RA)
showed
a
strong
relationship
(η2
partial
(partial
eta2)
=
0.41;
p
<
2e-­‐16;
df
=
1;
Fig.
2)
with
species
for
whom
the
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans
was
the
RA,
having
on
average
consultation
times
more
than
two
times
longer
than
non-­‐DFO
species
(Fig.
2),
consistent
with
the
greater
proportion
of
DFO
species
(25
%
versus
8%
for
non-­‐
DFO
species)
undergoing
extended
consultation.
Independently
of
the
RA
effect,
northern
species
showed,
on
average,
a
longer
consultation
period
than
southern
species
(550
days
versus
282
days;
η2
partial
=
0.23;
p
=
1e-­‐11;
df
=
1;
Fig.
3),
consistent
with
a
larger
proportion
of
northern
species
(88%
versus
25%)
having
expected
consultation
times
of
9
months
or
being
sent
to
extended
consultation.
There
was
also
an
independent
effect
of
Figure
2.
Partial
residual
plot
of
the
log
number
of
days
in
consultation
as
a
function
of
RA.
(n=181).
95%
CIs
presented.
η2
partial=
0.41.
p
<
2e-­‐16.
2.42.52.62.7
Responsible Authority
Residuals(LogDaysinConsultation)+Mean
Not DFO DFO

12. COSEWIC
listing
status
(η2
partial
=
0.04;
df=1;
Fig.
4),
with
endangered
(356±196)
and
threatened
(383±267)
species
having
longer
average
(±SD)
days
in
consultation
than
special
concern
species
(303±166).
Figure
3.
Partial
residual
plot
of
the
log
number
of
days
in
consultation
as
a
function
of
geographical
distribution.
(n=181).
95%
CIs
presented.
η2
partial=
0.23.
p
=
1e-­‐11.
Figure
4.
Partial
residual
plot
of
the
log
number
of
days
in
consultation
as
a
function
of
COSEWIC
status.
(n=181).
95%
CIs
presented.
η2
partial=
0.04.
pthreatened
=
0.037;
pendangered
=
0.017.
2.52.62.72.82.9
Geograpghical Distribution
Residuals(LogDaysinConsultation)+Mean
Southern Northern
2.352.402.452.502.55
COSEWIC status
Residuals(LogDaysinConsultation)+Mean
Special Concern Threatened Endangered

13. We
also
identified
a
strong
interaction
between
geographical
distribution
and
RA
(-­‐0.6
±
0.12;
η2
partial
=
0.13;
p=1e-­‐06;
Fig.
5;
Table
1).
When
DFO
was
the
RA,
southern
species
had
significantly
longer
consultation
times
than
northern
species.
However,
when
DFO
was
not
the
RA,
consultation
times
for
northern
species
was
substantially
longer
than
southern
species.
Because
of
the
large
number
of
threats,
they
were
examined
in
two
separate
steps.
First
we
looked
at
the
effects
of
threats
without
the
other
variables.
Only
habitat,
direct
exploitation
and
pollution
were
substantial
predictors
of
consultation
time.
Then
we
included
them
in
the
model
with
the
first
set
of
significant
effects
to
see
if
there
was
any
significant
contribution,
and
only
pollution
showed
to
have
a
significant
relationship
with
consultation
time
(η2
partial
=
0.03;
p
=
0.032;
df
=
1;
Fig.
6).
The
number
of
threats
seemed
to
be
an
important
independent
predictor
only
when
COSEWIC
status
was
excluded
from
the
model
(Table
2).
2.0
2.4
2.8
South:NotDFO South:DFO North:NotDFO North:DFO
GeographicalDistribution:RA Interaction
Residuals(LogDaysinConsultation)+Mean
Figure
5.
Partial
residual
plot
of
the
effect
of
the
interaction
between
RA
and
geographical
range
on
consultation
time.
(n=181).
η2
partial=
0.13.
p
=
1e-­‐06

14.
Table
1.
Summary
statistics
of
the
final
selected
model
from
the
bootstrap
analysis.
The
response
variable
is
Log
Days
in
Consultation.
(n=181).
Factor1
PRC2
Standard
Error
DF3
p-­‐value
Northern
0.535;
[0.293,
0.719]
0.107
1
1e-­‐11
DFO
0.399;
[0.326,
0.492]
0.041
1
<
2e-­‐16
COSEWIC.status2
0.095;
[0.002,
0.197]
0.050
1
0.037
COSEWIC.status3
0.094;
[0.017,
0.170]
0.040
1
0.017
Pollution
0.073;
[0.011,
0.145]
0.035
1
0.032
Northern:DFO
-­‐0.579;
[-­‐0.804,
-­‐0.339]
0.116
1
1e-­‐06
Full
Model
Multiple
R-­‐squared
RSE4
DF
p-­‐value
0.489
0.217
174
<
2.2e-­‐16
1Model
variables:
DFO,
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans;
Northern,
species
with
a
northern
range;
COSEWIC
status
categories
presented
are
Threatened
(2)
and
Endangered
(3).
2PRC
=
BCa
Estimated
partial
regression
coefficients;
upper
and
lower
95%
Bias-­‐Corrected
accelerated
(BCa)
CIs
for
coefficients
(in
brackets).
3DF
=
Degrees
of
Freedom.
4RSE
=
Residual
Standard
Error.
2.452.502.55
Pollution
Residuals(LogDaysinConsultation)+Mean
Not a Threat Threat
Figure
6.
Partial
residual
plot
of
the
log
number
of
days
in
consultation
as
a
function
of
pollution.
(n=181).
95%
CIs
presented.
η2
partial=
0.03.
p
=
0.032.

15. Table
2.
Fitted
linear
regression
models,
including
Akaike
information
criterion
(AIC)
and
associated
change
relative
to
the
best
model
(Δi).
Responsea
Multiple
R-­‐squared
Modelb
AIC
Δi
Log
Consultation
Time
0.489
DFO,
N,
DFO:N,
S,
P
-­‐29.9
0
0.475
DFO,
N,
DFO:N,
S
-­‐27.1
2.8
0.469
DFO,
N,
DFO:N,
P
-­‐26.8
3.1
aThe
response
variable
log
consultation
time
is
measured
in
days.
bModel
variables:
DFO,
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans;
N,
species
with
a
northern
range;
DFO:N,
interaction
between
DFO
and
N;
S,
COSEWIC
status;
P,
pollution.
Discussion
Absolute
consultation
time
had
a
strong
relationship
with
predicted
time,
and
for
all
consultation
paths,
the
minister
was
underestimating
the
time
of
consultation
by
more
than
half.
It
was
identified
that
northern
species
and
species
having
the
DFO
as
their
RA
spent
more
time
in
consultation.
We
also
found
that
endangered
and
threatened
species
had
longer
consultation
times
than
special
concern
species,
and
that
species
being
threatened
by
pollution
had
longer
waiting
times.
We
also
identified
a
strong
interaction
between
geographical
distribution
and
RA.
Ministerial
Assessment
We
found
that
indeed,
there
is
a
strong
relationship
between
predicted
time
and
actual
consultation
time.
It
seems
like
the
minister
is
who
exerts
most
control
over
how
long
the
consultation
processes
will
last
and
not
just
random
factors.
Nonetheless,
he
or
she
clearly
underestimates
the
absolute
time
insofar
as
species
spend
on
average
more
than
twice
as
long
as
he
or
she
said
it
was
going
to
take.

16. Consultation
processes
start
in
April
or
between
late
October
and
early
January
(Figure
7).
And
species
are
sent
to
the
GIC
between
late
April
and
mid-­‐July,
or
between
late
September
and
mid-­‐November.
Figure
7.
Number
of
species
being
processed
at
the
start
(minister
writes
response
statement)
and
at
the
end
(GIC
acknowledges
receipt
of
the
species)
of
the
consultation
process,
per
month
from
2004
to
2012.
nresponse=613.
nreceipt=351.
Since
the
enactment
of
SARA,
species
have
been
sent
to
the
GIC
in
batches
and
never
individually
(Figure
8).
This
structure
in
the
listing
process
might
help
explain
the
problem
with
the
time
inflation
of
the
3-­‐month
pathway:
(1)
when
a
response
statement
has
been
written
in
late
April,
3
months
would
be
over
in
late
July,
but
files
wouldn’t
be
sent
to
the
GIC
before
6
months
have
passed,
in
October.
For
responses
written
in
the
second
period
(Oct.
to
Jan.),
the
earliest
species
could
be
sent
to
the
GIC
would
be
late
April;
(2)
when
the
consultation
process
of
a
species
0
80
160
240
Number
of
Species
Processed
Month
Response
Statement
Receipt
by
GIC

17. has
ended,
it
would
still
have
to
wait
for
other
species
to
complete
consultations
so
that
they
can
be
sent
as
a
group
to
the
GIC.
Knowing
this,
it
isn’t
hard
to
see
that
a
3-­‐
month
consultation
process
is
very
unlikely
to
occur.
We
believe
that
the
minister
could
take
these
facts
into
consideration
to
ensure
the
transparency
of
the
process.
A
possible
solution
would
be
to
change
the
dates
of
start
and
end
of
the
consultation
process
to
allow
for
a
3-­‐month
consultation
to
occur.
Species
have
been
sent
to
the
GIC
in
groups
of
as
small
as
10
individuals
(Figure
8).
Sending
species
in
small
batches
could
help
prevent
some
species
from
waiting
unnecessarily
for
other
species
to
complete
their
consultations.
Figure
8.
Number
of
species
that
the
GIC
acknowledged
to
have
received
at
specific
dates
since
SARA
came
into
force
in
2003.
n=351.
0
20
40
60
80
Number
of
Species
Processed
Date
GIC
Acknowledged
Receipt
of
Species

18. Responsible
Authority
as
a
Predictor
of
Consultation
Time
Our
finding
of
the
RA
effect
is
consistent
with
previous
findings.
Findlay
et
al
(2009),
based
on
listing
decisions
taken
between
2004
and
2009,
found
that
extended
consultation
was
much
more
prevalent
among
species
for
which
DFO
is
the
Responsible
Authority.
According
to
Stratos
(2006)
the
increased
length
in
consultations
managed
by
DFO
seems
to
arise
from
the
fact
that
DFO
undertakes
socio-­‐economic
and
cost-­‐benefit
analyses
to
support
its
listing
decisions,
whereas
for
Environment
Canada
and
the
Parks
Canada
Agency,
listing
decisions
are
based
almost
exclusively
on
biological
considerations
(Stratos,
2006).
These
analyses
estimate
the
social
and
economic
consequences
of
a
decision,
and
are
not
only
conducted
for
SARA
listing
decisions,
but
also
for
a
vast
number
of
different
projects,
such
as
a
species
recovery
planning,
the
development
of
Marine
Protected
Areas,
and
study
of
economic
impacts
of
marine
related
sectors
(DFO,
2013).
According
to
the
DFO
(2013)
these
analyses
help
decision
makers
recognize
the
implications
of
resource
management
decisions,
and
do
not
only
seek
to
promote
economic
prosperity,
but
also
to
sustain
fisheries
and
ocean
resources.
This
ideal
of
sustainability,
however,
is
threatened
by
the
inability
to
protect
a
species
in
the
required
time
intervals,
and
it
is
hard
to
achieve
when
species
have
no
protection
or
recovery
actions
under
SARA.
Economic
prosperity
and
viable
ocean
resources
are
incompatible
with
uncontrolled
exploitation.
Findlay
et
al.
(2009)
and
Mooers
et
al
(2010)
suggest
that
cost-­‐benefit
analyses
before
listing
cannot
be
conducted
properly
because
not
enough
information
is
available
at
that
stage.
They
agued
that
a
proper
socio-­‐economic
analysis
would
involve
the
knowledge
of
the
requirements

19. for
recovering
a
species,
which
is
made
available
when
the
recovery
strategies
have
been
written.
However,
recovery
strategies
are
only
written
once
a
species
has
been
listed
under
SARA.
In
contrast
to
SARA,
the
US
Endangered
Species
Act
was
amended
in
1982
to
ensure
that
listing
decisions
were
based
only
on
the
best
scientific
and
commercial
information,
without
consideration
of
socioeconomic
factors
(Ferraro
et
al.,
2007;
Waples
et
al.,
2013).
Geographical
Range
as
a
predictor
of
Consultation
Time
Moores
et
al.
(2007)
and
Findlay
et
al.
(2009)
showed
that
northern
species
were
less
likely
to
be
listed
under
SARA.,
suggesting
that
this
geographic
bias
was
due
to
requirements
for
consultation
with
Wildlife
Management
Boards
(WMB)
in
Nunavut,
the
Yukon
and
the
Northwest
Territories.
WMBs
are
the
Aboriginal
Authorities
recognized
by
SARA,
and
SARA
stipulates
that
responsible
authorities
must
consult
with
the
WMB
prior
to
listing
(SARA,
clause
35(4)b).
Such
consultations
will
almost
certainly
extend
consultation
times,
as
observed
here.
Indeed,
the
Government
of
Canada
has
stated
the
need
for
further
consultations
with
WMBs
as
a
reason
for
not
immediately
listing
northern
species
(Government
of
Canada,
2006)
The
issue
here
is
not
whether
consultation
with
aboriginal
organizations
such
as
WMBs
should
occur.
As
Stratos
(2006)
indicated,
there
is
both
a
legal
and
fiduciary
responsibility
for
the
federal
government
to
undertake
such
consultations,
and
aboriginal
knowledge
is
demonstrably
important
in
both
listing
decisions
and
recovery
planning
(SARA,
preamble;
AFN,
2009).
The
issue
here
is
a
reasonable

20. time-­‐line
for
such
consultations.
Insofar
as
delays
in
listing
and
recovery
planning
have
been
identified
as
risk
factors
for
population
decline
in
other
jurisdictions
(Wilcove
et
al.,
1993;
Ando,
1999),
the
question
is
the
appropriate
balance
between
the
need
(and
benefits)
of
consultation,
versus
the
risks
of
further
decline
associated
with
prolonged
delays.
Delays
reduce
the
benefits
of
listing
(Ando,
1999),
and
therefore
we
recommend
that
they
are
avoided
to
prevent
the
risk
of
extinction
of
already
vulnerable
species.
This
can
be
achieved
by
setting
reasonable
time
limits
on
the
consultations
with
the
WMBs.
Interaction
between
RA
and
Geographical
range
We
also
found
a
strong
interaction
between
responsible
authority
and
geographical
distribution.
A
possible
explanation
is
that
when
DFO
is
the
RA,
socioeconomic
analysis
in
the
south
will
involve
several
groups
(e.g.
recreational
fishers,
private
land
owners,
Industries),
whereas
in
the
north
it
will
be
mostly
about
impacts
on
aboriginal
communities.
Because
there
are
more
groups
to
consult
in
the
south,
the
consultations
time
will
be
substantially
longer
there.
By
contrast,
for
non-­‐DFO
species,
the
consultation
in
the
north
will
involve
a
large
range
of
issues
(beyond
socioeconomic
analyses)
for
aboriginal
communities;
whereas
in
the
south
(where
there
are
comparatively
fewer
things
like
land
claims
agreements),
the
range
of
concerns
and
the
set
of
stakeholders
consulted
in
much
more
limited,
resulting
in
shorter
consultations
times.

21. COSEWIC
status
as
a
predictor
of
Consultation
Time
Endangered
and
Threatened
species
spent
more
time
in
consultation
than
Special
Concern
species.
We
expected
species
at
higher
risk
of
extinction
to
spend
more
time
in
consultation
due
to
their
historical
and
present
association
to
exploitation
and
economic
activities,
which
would
require
consultation
with
interested
parties.
This
is
something
that
should
be
avoided
at
all
costs,
since
it
puts
them
at
an
even
riskier
position.
COSEWIC
considers
the
threats
outlined
in
the
COSEWIC
status
reports
as
one
of
the
criteria
to
assign
conservation
statuses
to
species
(COSEWIC,
2011).
We
believe
that
most
of
the
COSEWIC
status
signal
comes
from
the
different
threats
affecting
species
at
risk.
A
study
conducted
by
Venter
et
al.
(2006)
showed
that
habitat
loss
is
the
primary
threat
to
species
at
risk
in
Canada
affecting
94%
of
terrestrial
species.
They
also
identified
overexploitation
as
the
second
most
important
threat
in
Canada,
but
the
most
common
among
marine
species.
Both
threats
are
primarily
related
to
human
activity.
The
most
important
causes
of
habitat
loss
are
agricultural
and
urban
land
conversion;
and
the
most
important
contributors
to
Overexploitation
are
direct
harvesting
and
bycatch,
bycatch
affecting
78%
of
endangered
marine
fish
(Venter
et
al.,
2006).
The
anthropogenic
nature
of
Habitat
loss
and
Overexploitation
means
that
the
listing
of
species
affected
by
these
threats
would
require
consultation
with
all
the
affected
parties.
For
species
affected
by
overexploitation,
it
would
require
consultations
with
the
hunting
and
the
fishing
industries.
In
the
case
of
species
affected
by
habitat
loss,
there
would
be
a
need
for
consultations
with
affected

22. jurisdictions,
farmers,
and
private
landowners.
Much
of
the
habitat
where
endangered
species
are
found
is
private
land
(Barla
et
al.
2000),
and
even
though
SARA
recognizes
that
landowners
would
be
compensated
for
promoting
the
existence
of
species
on
their
land
(SARA
2006,
clause
64),
they
would
still
want
to
comment
of
how
the
listing
of
a
species
would
affect
their
activities
on
their
properties.
Threats
When
examining
the
effect
of
threats
on
consultation
time,
Habitat,
Direct
Catch
and
Pollution
were
the
found
to
be
significant
predictors.
However
only
pollution
had
an
additional
detectable
effect
once
other
terms
were
included
in
the
final
model
(Table
1).
Habitat
and
direct
exploitation
seemed
to
lose
significance
after
the
addition
of
Responsible
Authority.
The
number
threats
became
a
significant
factor
in
the
final
model,
after
removing
COSEWIC
status;
Venter
et
al.
(2006)
also
used
COSEWIC
status
reports
as
their
source
of
information
on
threats
affecting
Canadian
species.
They
found
that
most
species
in
Canada
are
affected
by
more
than
one
threat,
and
that
the
conservation
level
of
species,
as
assigned
by
COSEWIC,
increased
with
increasing
number
of
threats.
We
believe
that
total
number
of
threats
gained
significance
due
to
a
partial
correlation
with
COSEWIC
status.

23. Implications
of
Delays
in
Consultation
Delays
associated
with
listing
and
recovery
planning
under
SARA
have
been
a
chronic
and
ongoing
issue
with
implications
not
only
to
species
recovery
but
also
to
fundamental
issues
of
transparency
and
accountability.
In
2007,
the
the
Standing
Joint
Committee
on
Scrutiny
of
Regulations
(SJCSR,
2007)
noted
that
Subsection
27(3)
of
SARA
requires
that
when
the
GIC
has
not
made
a
decision
on
a
species
within
the
mandated
9-­‐month
period,
the
species
would
be
automatically
added
to
the
list
(SARA,
2002).
Though
not
explicitly
identified,
the
JC
report
noted
that
it
was
Parliament’s
intention
that
decisions
would
be
made
within
9
months,
and
that
even
though
not
explicitly
precluded,
open-­‐ended
consultations
were
(a)
inconsistent
with
this
intent;
(b)
defeated
the
explicit
intent
of
subsection
27(3)
of
taking
action
within
a
fixed
period
of
time.
In
response,
the
Department
of
the
Environment
suggested
that
the
lack
of
an
explicit
time-­‐line
was
deliberate
so
as
to
allow
Ministerial
discretion
to
allow
enough
time
for
adequate
consultations
(SJCSR,
2007).
The
problem
of
delays
continues
today.
Recently
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
ruled
that
the
Minister
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans
and
the
Minister
of
the
Environment
failed
to
follow
the
required
timelines
under
SARA
for
the
preparation
and
publication
of
recovery
strategies
for
four
species
(WCWC
v.
MFO,
2014).
Otto
et
al.
(2013)
believe
that
leaving
species
in
consultation
indefinitely
“robs
Canadians
of
their
right
to
contribute
to
an
informed
decision
about
whether
and
how
to
protect
species
at
risk”.
In
a
recent
interview,
Stewart
Elgie,
a
professor
of
environmental
law
at
the
University
of
Ottawa
stated
that
long
delays
in
the
creation

24. of
recovery
strategies
“threatens
the
very
survival
of
some
Canadian
wildlife
species”
(Bruce
Cheadle,
2014).
Ando
(1999)
suggested
that
delays
at
the
early
stages
of
the
listing
process
under
the
US
ESA
could
have
the
potential
of
sending
a
species
back
in
the
process
rather
than
towards
a
listing
decision.
Findlay
et
al.
(2009)
noted
that
extended
consultation
under
SARA
is
a
significant
risk
factor
for
a
decision
not
to
list.
This
might
be
because
having
longer
time
periods
to
conduct
socio-­‐economic
analyses
during
the
consultation
process
could,
in
theory,
allow
for
identification
of
more
negative
factors
(costs)
of
listing
a
species.
It
has
previously
been
identified
that
“a
major
deficiency
of
the
cost-­‐benefit
analyses
is
that
relatively
little
effort
is
expended
in
estimating
benefits”
(Mooers
et
al,
2007).
If
this
is
the
case
then,
longer
consultation
periods
–
which
invariably
involve
stakeholders
whose
perception
is
of
a
negative
impact
of
listing
–
would
be
expected
to
increase
the
risk
of
non-­‐listing.
Findlay
et
al.
(2009)
suggested
that
only
a
summary
socio-­‐economic
analyses
be
done
at
the
listing
stage.
They
suggest
that
a
complete
cost-­‐benefit
analysis
requires
several
years,
while
an
analysis
at
the
listing
stage
does
not
involve
the
same
level
of
information,
analysis,
or
public
input;
and
if
at
the
end
of
the
listing
process
the
RA
proposes
not
to
list
a
species,
then
a
more
complete
analysis
can
be
performed.
Consultation
is
an
important
element
of
an
open
and
transparent
process.
However,
there
is
ample
evidence,
including
that
provided
here,
that
consultation
periods
are
excessively
long
and
not
in
keeping
with
the
spirit
of
the
legislation
itself.
Otto
et
al.
(2013)
suggested
that
if
the
Minister
of
the
Environment
believes
that
the
nine-­‐month
waiting
period
after
the
GIC
receives
the
case
is
too
short,
then

25. new
timelines
would
have
to
be
set
and
followed.
We
support
the
idea
of
creating
set
timelines
to
avoid
spending
indefinite
lengths
of
time
in
listing
limbo,
and
would
therefore
support
the
SJCSR
(2007)’s
suggestion
that
SARA
be
amended
to
ensure
that
Parliament’s
intent
of
fixed
timelines
in
the
listing
process
is
explicitly
reflected
in
the
Act.
Conclusions
The
findings
of
Findlay
et
al.
in
2009
on
the
increased
prevalence
of
extended
processes
lead
by
DFO,
prepared
the
way
for
this
study,
which
focused
specifically
in
the
consultation
process.
This
and
the
use
of
an
updated
database
allowed
to
expand
on
previous
findings.
We
were
able
to
detect
the
time
inflation
of
the
minister’s
predictions
and
to
quantify
the
predictive
value
of
the
different
variables.
In
general,
the
consultation
process
of
SARA
seems
to
be
efficiently
controlled
by
the
relevant
minister.
Even
though,
the
predicted
timelines
are
generally
not
met,
and
often
highly
inflated,
the
minister
has
most
control
of
the
consultation
process
length.
The
predictive
value
of
geographical
distribution,
seems
to
arise
from
the
need
to
consult
with
Wildlife
Management
Boards,
as
identified
by
Mooers
et
al.
It
was
found
that
species
having
DFO
as
their
RA
spent
more
time
in
consultation,
probably
because
of
the
cost-­‐benefit
and
socioeconomic
analyses
conducted
by
the
DFO
during
the
consultation
processes.
We
found
a
strong
interaction
between
RA
and
DFO.
Consultation
time
was
longer
for
Northern
species
when
the
DFO
was
not
the
RA;
and
shorter
when
the
DFO
was
the
RA.
The
COSEWIC
status
of
species
was
also
found
to
be
important
in
predicting
listing

26. delay,
we
believe
this
is
due
to
the
prevalence
of
Habitat
loss
and
Overexploitation
as
threats
in
species
at
a
higher
risk
of
extinction.
Finally,
pollution
was
the
only
threat
with
a
significant
predictive
value.
We
recommend
a
restructuring
of
the
act
to
conduct
the
long
socioeconomic
analyses
at
a
later
stage
in
the
listing
process,
and
that
the
Minister
sets
fixed
timelines
to
the
consultation
stage.
Acknowledgements
I
would
like
to
express
my
deepest
gratitude
to
my
supervisor,
Dr.
Scott
Findlay
for
his
guidance,
patience
and
support,
and
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
work
in
a
research
project
with
him.
I
thank
Sue
Mckee
for
her
help
concerning
the
use
of
the
database
and
recommendations
for
the
statistical
analysis.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
Institute
of
the
Environment
of
the
University
of
Ottawa
for
making
the
database
available
for
the
analysis
and
all
the
volunteers
who
continuously
update
it.
Recommendations
Other
potential
variables
Some
of
the
initially
selected
variables,
had
to
be
changed
due
to
lack
of
information.
The
name
of
the
groups
consulted
could
not
be
obtained
because
of
the
regulations
that
prevent
environment
Canada
from
releasing
confidential
information.
The
documents
containing
the
number
of
groups
consulted
are
not
published
until
the
consultation
process
is
over.
There
is
the
same
issue
with
the
Cost-­‐benefit
analysis
of
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
Statement
(RIAS),
which
is
first
presented
in
the

27. listing
Order,
right
after
the
consultation
process
has
been
closed,
this
makes
sense,
since
the
information
collected
from
the
consultations
is
used
to
conduct
the
Cost-­‐
benefit
analyses.
However,
these
privacy
policies
prevent
us
from
making
any
predictions
on
the
consultation
time
using
those
two
variables.
Since
it
was
found
that
Nunavut
had
the
most
important
effect
in
predicting
listing
decisions
(This
Nunavut
effect
was
attributed
to
a
Nunavut
Wildlife
Management
Board
Effect),
we
think
that
Nunavut
might
also
be
a
good
predictor
of
consultation
time.
We
couldn’t
test
for
this
due
to
the
small
sample
size
of
the
Nunavut
category.
It
would
be
interesting
to
consider
this
variable
in
future
studies
if
more
Nunavut
species
go
through
the
consultation
process.

28. References
AFN
(Assembly
of
First
Nations).
2009.
Species
at
Risk
Act
Survival
Guide.
Available
from
www.afn.ca/uploads/files/env/sara-­‐guide.pdf
(accessed
April
2014)
Ando,
A.W.
1999.
Delay
on
the
Path
to
the
Endangered
Species
List:
Do
Costs
and
Benefits
Matter?
Law
and
Economics.
42(1):
29-­‐60.
Barla,
P.,
Doucet,
J.A.,
&
Saphores
J.D.M.
2000.
Protecting
habitats
of
endangered
species
on
private
lands:
Analysis
of
the
instruments
and
Canadian
policy.
Canadian
Public
Policy.
26(1):
95–110.
Bruce
Cheadle.
(2014,
February
14).
Environment,
fisheries
ministers
failed
to
enforce
Species
at
Risk
Act,
court
rules.
The
Canadian
Press.
Available
from
www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/14/environment_fisheries_ministers
_failed_to_enforce_species_at_risk_act_court_rules.html
(accessed
April
2014)
COSEWIC
(Committee
on
the
Status
of
Endangered
Wildlife
in
Canada).
2011.
COSEWIC's
Assessment
Process
and
Criteria.
Available
from
www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/Assessment_process_and_criteria_e.pdf
(accessed
April
2014)
DFO
(Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans).
2013.
Economic
Analysis.
Available
from
www.dfo-­‐mpo.gc.ca/ea-­‐ae/economic-­‐analysis-­‐eng.htm
(accessed
April
2014).
Environment
Canada.
2005.
Species
at
Risk
Act:
report
to
parliament,
June
2003
to
December
2004.
Environment
Canada,
Ottawa,
Ontario.
Available
from
www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/reports/ar_SARA_AnnualReport_003
0_e.pdf
(accessed
February
2014).
ESA
(Endangered
Species
Act
of
1973).
2004.
U.S.
Code16,
chap.
35.
Available
from
www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-­‐policies/esa.html
(accessed
April
2014).
Ferraro,
P.
J.,
McIntosh,
C.,
&
Ospina,
M.
2007.
The
effectiveness
of
the
US
endangered
species
act:
An
econometric
analysis
using
matching
methods.
Journal
of
Environmental
Economics
and
Management.
54(3):
245-­‐261.
Findlay,
C.
S.,
Elgie,
S.,
Giles,
B.,
&
Burr,
L.
2009.
Species
Listing
under
Canada’s
Species
at
Risk
Act.
Conservation
Biology.
23(6),
1609-­‐1617.
Government
of
Canada.
2006-­‐2012.
Consultation
on
Amending
the
List
of
Species
under
the
Species
at
Risk
Act:
Terrestrial
Species.
Available
from
www.publications.gc.ca/site/eng/144785/issues.html

29. Harllee,
B.,
Kim,
M.,
&
Nieswiadomy,
M.
2009.
Political
Influence
on
Historical
ESA
Listings
by
State:
A
Count
Data
Analysis.
Public
Choice.
140(1):
21-­‐42.
Metrick,
A.
&
Weitzman,
M.L.
1996.
Patterns
of
Behavior
in
Endangered
Species
Preservation.
Land
Economics.
72(1):
1-­‐16.
Mooers,
A.
O.,
Prugh,
L.
R.,
Festa-­‐Bianchet,
M.,
&
Hutchings,
J.
A.
2007.
Biases
in
legal
listing
under
Canadian
endangered
species
legislation.
Conservation
Biology.
21(3):
572-­‐575.
Mooers,
A.
O.,
Doak,
D.
F.,
Findlay,
C.
S.,
Green,
D.
M.,
Grouios,
C.,
Manne,
L.
L.,
.
.
.
Whitton,
J.
2010.
Science,
Policy,
and
Species
at
Risk
in
Canada.
Bioscience.
60(10):
843-­‐849.
Otto,
S.,
Mckee,
S.
&
Whitton,
J.
2013.
Saving
species
at
risk
starts
at
the
top.
Where
is
our
Environment
Minister?
The
Globe
and
Mail.
Available
from
www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-­‐debate/saving-­‐species-­‐at-­‐risk-­‐starts-­‐at-­‐the-­‐
top-­‐where-­‐is-­‐our-­‐environment-­‐minister/article13754921/
(accessed
April
2014).
R
Core
Team
(2013).
R:
A
language
and
environment
for
statistical
computing,
reference
index
version
3.0.1.
R
Foundation
for
Statistical
Computing,
Vienna,
Austria.
Available
from
www.R-­‐project.org/.
SARA
(Species
at
Risk
Act).
2002.
Bill
C-­‐5.
The
Species
at
Risk
Act.
Available
from
www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&l
s=C5&Parl=37&Ses=2&source=Bills_House_Government#clauses24tx
(accessed
February
2014).
SJCSR
(Standing
Joint
Committee
on
Scrutiny
of
Regulations).
2007.
Third
Report.
Report
No.
81
–
Species
at
Risk
Act.
Available
from
www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3502486&Languag
e=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2
(accessed
April
2014).
1Species
at
Risk
Public
Registry.
Response
Statements.
Available
from
www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/listing/response_e.cfm
(accessed
February
2014).
Stratos.
2006.
Formative
evaluation
of
federal
species
at
risk
programs.
Final
report.
Stratos,
Ottawa,
Ontario.
Available
from
www.ec.gc.ca/ae-­‐
ve/default.asp?lang=En&n=53869FF3-­‐1&printfullpage=true
(accessed
April
2014)
Venter,
O.,
N.
N.
Brodeur,
L.
Nemiroff,
B.
Belland,
I.
J.
Dolinsek,
&
J.
W.
A.
Grant.
2006.
Threats
to
endangered
species
in
Canada.
BioScience
56:903–910.

30. Waples,
R.
S.,
Nammack,
M.,
Cochrane,
J.
F.,
&
Hutchings,
J.
A.
2013.
A
Tale
of
Two
Acts:
Endangered
Species
Listing
Practices
in
Canada
and
the
United
States.
Bioscience.
63(9):
723-­‐734.
WCWC
(Western
Canada
Wilderness
Committee)
v.
MFO
(Minister
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans),
2014
FC
148,
at
para.
2,
Mactavish
J.
Wilcove,
D.
S.,
McMillan,
M.,
&
Winston,
K.
C.
(1993).
What
exactly
is
an
endangered
species?
an
analysis
of
the
US
Endangered
Species
List
-­‐
1985-­‐1991.
Conservation
Biology,
7(1),
87-­‐93.

31. ANNEX
I
The
11
threats
used
in
the
analysis
were:
Habit
(Habitat):
habitat
loss,
destruction
or
modification.
Pre
(Predation):
predation
as
a
threat
Genvar
(Genetic
Variability):
decreased
genetic
variability.
Also
identified
as
“critically
small
population”,
below
an
“effective
population
size”
or
through
mention
of
inbreeding
depression.
ExpDir
(Legal,
Direct
over-­‐exploitation):
over-­‐exploitation
either
for
commercial,
recreational
or
subsistence
uses.
ExInd
(Indirect
Over-­‐Exploitation):
over-­‐exploitation
as
bycatch.
Catching
species
in
traps
meant
for
another
species.
Does
not
include
road-­‐kill;
road
kill
goes
under
“human
disturbance”.
Hum
(Human
Disturbance):
the
mere
presence
of
humans
being
disruptive
to
species.
For
instance,
human
approach
to
nests
causing
abandonment;
air
traffic
resulting
in
decreased
reproductive
success;
winter
hikers
interrupting
hibernation
and
bats
freeze
to
death
as
a
result,
etc.
Comp
(Competition
by
Native
Species):
Competition
with
a
native
species
being
a
threat
to
the
survival
of
the
species.
CompEx
(Competition
by
exotic
species):
Competition
with
an
exotic
species
being
a
threat
to
the
survival
of
the
species.
Nest
parasitism
by
brown-­‐headed
cowbirds
was
considered
as
competition
(i.e.
they
destroy
eggs
and
lay
their
own
eggs
in
the
nest,
forcing
the
other
birds
to
raise
cowbird
young;
so
they’re
not
actually
a
“disease”,
just
a
competitor).
Clim
(Climate
change):
Climate
change
threatening
the
survival
of
a
species.
Poll
(Pollution):
Pollution
as
a
threat
to
the
species,
including
pesticides.
Succ
(Successional
change):
vegetation
succession
changes,
such
as
forest
cover
succession
covering
over
former
grasslands.