Creative and Critical Studies, Faculty of (Okanagan)
English and Cultural Studies, Department of (Okanagan)
DSpace
Humanities 13 (1): 38 (2024)
Raymond, Sarah
Perkins, Sarah E.
Garrard, Greg
This paper is a collaborative interdisciplinary examination of the scientific, political, and cultural determinants of the conservation status of mammal species that occur in both Canada and the USA. We read Canada’s Species at Risk Act as a document of bio-cultural nationalism circumscribed by the weak federalism and Crown–Indigenous relations of the nation’s constitution. We also provide a numerical comparison of at-risk species listings either side of the US–Canada border and examples of provincial/state listings in comparison with those at a federal level. We find 17 mammal species listed as at-risk in Canada as distinct from the USA, and only 6 transboundary species that have comparable levels of protection in both countries, and we consider several explanations for this asymmetry. We evaluate the concept of ‘jurisdictional rarity’, in which species are endangered only because a geopolitical boundary isolates a small population. The paper begins and ends with reflections on interdisciplinary collaboration, and our findings highlight the importance of considering and explicitly acknowledging political influences on science and conservation-decision making, including in the context of at-risk-species protection.
Citation: Raymond, Sarah, Sarah E.Perkins, and Greg Garrard. 2024. TheSpecies at Risk Act (2002) andTransboundary Species Listings alongthe US–Canada Border. Humanities 13:38. https://doi.org/10.3390/h13010038Received: 18 December 2023Revised: 1 February 2024Accepted: 8 February 2024Published: 14 February 2024Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).humanitiesArticleThe Species at Risk Act (2002) and Transboundary SpeciesListings along the US–Canada BorderSarah Raymond 1 , Sarah E. Perkins 1 and Greg Garrard 2,*1 School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Sir Martin Evans Building, Cardiff CF10 3AX, UK;raymondsc@cardiff.ac.uk (S.R.); perkinss@cardiff.ac.uk (S.E.P.)2 Department of English and Cultural Studies, The University of British Columbia,Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada* Correspondence: greg.garrard@ubc.caAbstract: This paper is a collaborative interdisciplinary examination of the scientific, political, andcultural determinants of the conservation status of mammal species that occur in both Canada and theUSA. We read Canada’s Species at Risk Act as a document of bio-cultural nationalism circumscribedby the weak federalism and Crown–Indigenous relations of the nation’s constitution. We also providea numerical comparison of at-risk species listings either side of the US–Canada border and examples ofprovincial/state listings in comparison with those at a federal level. We find 17 mammal species listedas at-risk in Canada as distinct from the USA, and only 6 transboundary species that have comparablelevels of protection in both countries, and we consider several explanations for this asymmetry.We evaluate the concept of ‘jurisdictional rarity’, in which species are endangered only becausea geopolitical boundary isolates a small population. The paper begins and ends with reflectionson interdisciplinary collaboration, and our findings highlight the importance of considering andexplicitly acknowledging political influences on science and conservation-decision making, includingin the context of at-risk-species protection.Keywords: conservation legislation; Canada; USA; environmental humanities; jurisdictional rarity;science and technology studies1. IntroductionEnvironmental scientists and humanists1 share the desire to understand and alleviatehuman impacts on the environment. We differ in our methods, in the kinds of questionswe tend to ask, and in the ways that knowledge is produced and validated within ourdisciplines. Raymond and Perkins, for example, co-authored a paper titled ‘Temporalpatterns of roadkill in the UK’ (Raymond et al. 2021), that quantified seasonal variationsin wildlife–vehicle collisions for 19 commonly-reported taxa of mammals and birds. Thepaper delivers useable knowledge: increased risk of wildlife mortality is seasonally linkedto a given species biology, for example, increased foraging or natal dispersal. Such inferencemay ultimately provide anthropocentric insights to road safety with road accidents linkedto drivers trying to avoid killing the animals. It argues that ‘By quantifying seasonalpatterns in roadkill, we highlight a significant anthropogenic impact on wild species, whichis important in relation to conservation, animal welfare, and human safety.’ For eachtaxon (e.g., gulls, hares), the annual reported roadkill are modelled across six years ofdata. Statistical analysis is used to test the correlation of modelled variation with seasonalvariations in mean temperature and mean monthly rainfall.Raymond et al. (2021) conforms to the ‘epistemic culture’ (Knorr-Cetina 1999) ofwildlife ecology and its methods seek to minimize ‘bias’ by ensuring statistical validity. Itsfindings are presented in a paper with five listed co-authors, and is written in an impersonalidiom with a standardised structure (methods, data, results, discussion) and supportinggraphs. The paper is an approved (i.e. peer-reviewed, published) output of a process byHumanities 2024, 13, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/h13010038 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/humanitiesHumanities 2024, 13, 38 2 of 18which ‘what counts as knowledge and technology is accomplished in designated settingsthrough specific strategies that generate, validate, and communicate scientific accomplish-ments’ (Knorr-Cetina and Reichmann 2015). Garrard’s publications, by contrast, are almostall single-authored critical and reflective discussions of topics in ecocriticism, devoid of dataand infographics but otherwise heterogenous in presentation and organisation (Garrard2020, 2023). Their validity depends on the persuasive interpretation of statistically insignifi-cant numbers of mainly literary texts. Pedagogical papers aside, Garrard’s publicationshave no practical implication beyond suggesting which books a prospective reader mightconsider worthwhile. The present paper represents an interdisciplinary integration of thesedistinct epistemic cultures, drawing also on social science sources, that explains how andwhy transboundary mammal species are differently classified as ‘endangered’ within theregimes of environmental governance in the USA and Canada.Integration, though, must proceed from an honest appraisal of the prevalent epistemichierarchy that values quantitative knowledge above qualitative (i.e. social science), andempirical knowledge in general above the hermeneutic, or interpretive, claims of human-istic scholarship. Scientific knowledges are sought and valued across many spheres ofenvironmental governance from pollution detection and regulation through biodiversityprotection to climate change. Though scientific knowledges are more politically persuasivethan humanistic ones, they are not decisive, as we have seen in the cases of climate scienceand wildfire ecology. Nevertheless, the contribution of environmental humanities to, inthis case, wildlife conservation is far from obvious, and has to be justified.The meaning of the term ‘endangered species’ seems self-evident: it is a biological typerepresented by so few individuals it is at risk of extinction. The globalisation of environmentalNGOs, such as the WWF and Greenpeace, and the wide influence of wildlife documentaries,reinforce the idea that there just are endangered species, and that this is a sad fact. As UrsulaHeise (2016a) points out, conservation campaigns frame dwindling numbers of, say, mountaingorillas, Gorilla beringei beringei, or right whales, Eubalaena sp., within:. . . a similar story template: the idea that modern society has degraded a naturalworld that used to be beautiful, harmonious, and self-sustaining and that might disappearcompletely if modern humans do not change their way of life.In literary history, the ‘elegy’ is a genre, usually of poetry, that mourns the loss ofbeloved people, animals, and places. Heise therefore calls the prevalent story template ofconservation ‘elegiac’.The concept of endangered species and the elegiac template are so familiar it can bedifficult to see them as culturally contingent, rather than ‘how things really are’. Luckily,it is the role of the environmental humanities to raise awkward questions. The acceptedlanguage of endangerment is shaped, above all, by the International Union for the Conser-vation of Nature’s (IUCN) trademarked ‘Red List of Threatened Species’, which categorizesall biological species for which data exist into seven hierarchical categories from ‘extinct’ to‘least concern’. While the IUCN endeavours to use an objective (i.e., quantitative) methodol-ogy for its listing, Heise (2016c) points out that ‘a narrative of risk and of value attributionis hardwired into these very categories, where extinction and endangerment are definedpositively, whereas species that thrive are tagged by means of negation or approximation:“near threatened” and “least concern”—as opposed to, say, labels such as “safe,” “stable,”or “increasing.”’ The elegiac template is implicit, in other words, even within the univer-salizing context of the IUCN database. Recognising this, the IUCN has been developinga ‘Green List’ since 2018 that would recognise effective conservation and recovery of RedListed species (Hockings et al. 2019).The globalised rhetoric of endangered species wrongly implies that both the objectof concern—the species—and its objective—to relieve endangerment—are truly universal.Yet Heise’s comparative analysis of biodiversity legislation from Germany, the USA, theEuropean Union, and Bolivia shows that, while international treaties impose globalisingframeworks, ‘biodiversity laws . . . differ from one another in surprising ways, and they arepassed and adjusted at particular historical moments for quite divergent reasons’ (HeiseHumanities 2024, 13, 38 3 of 182016b). In this paper, we undertake a cultural analysis of Canada’s Species at Risk Act(SARA 2002) to show how this pivotal text is shaped by two tensions: first, between federaland other jurisdictions, and second, between liberal internationalism and deference toAmerican exceptionalism. Next, we present a comparative examination of USA/Canadatransboundary mammalian species classifications that reveals how and why Canada isdisproportionately engaged in conserving species that are rare on its side of the border, butglobally secure.2. Reading the Species at Risk ActThe Canadian federal government came rather late to comprehensive nationwideconservation legislation. As Heise’s discussion points out, Germany’s first nature protectionact was passed by the National Socialist (AKA ‘Nazi’) government in 1935; the AmericanEndangered Species Act (ESA) passed in December 1973; and the first of many EuropeanUnion Habitats Directives was issued in 1992. The Canada Wildlife Act (CWA), passed inJuly 1973, provided for national wildlife areas (NWA), but otherwise mandated the federalgovernment merely to fund research into non-domestic terrestrial animals, and to coaxand coordinate other jurisdictions. Section 8 of the CWA made it possible for the federalgovernment to protect wildlife by regulation in concert with the provinces:The Minister may, in cooperation with one or more provincial governments having aninterest therein, take such measures as the Minister deems necessary for the protection ofany species of wildlife in danger of extinction.In 1994, the CWA was amended to apply to ‘any animal, plant or other organismbelonging to a species that is wild by nature . . . and to the habitat of any such animal, plant orother organism’ (Donihee 2000). Still, the federal government had to defer to the provinces.John Donihee notes that, while the Canadian ‘Constitution Act, 1867’ includes no men-tion of terrestrial wildlife, conservation is a provincial jurisdiction by default: ‘Provincialauthorities over wildlife are based on ownership of Crown lands in the province . . . and onlegislative authorities granted by subsections 92(5) “the management and sale of publiclands belonging to the province . . .”, 92(13) “property and civil rights in the province” and92(16) “generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in a province”.’ The federalgovernment is entitled to override provincial jurisdiction in order to fulfil internationaltreaties it has signed, such as those concerning migratory birds, the 1973 Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the 1992United Nations Convention on Conservation of Biological Diversity (UNCCBD). Even thefulfilment of treaty obligations has, Donihee (2000) argues, required ‘cooperative federal-ism’ because Canada gained control of its foreign affairs in 1926. The Committee on theStatus of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is an example of such cooperation.It was founded following a conference of federal–provincial–territorial conservation bu-reaucrats in 1976 to provide scientific evidence of the status of species at risk, and waslater incorporated on a statutory, albeit advisory, basis into the Canadian Species at RiskAct (SARA).Canadian ‘Crown land’ (i.e., public land) is divided between the federal and territorialor provincial governments; the Yukon, Northwest and Nunavut territories are almost en-tirely federal Crown land, whereas the federal government controls between 0.2% (Quebec)and 10.6% (Alberta) of the ten provinces’ land areas (Neimanis 2011) in the form of NationalParks, Indian Reserves and Canadian Forces bases. The provinces derive a great deal oftheir revenue from the sale of Crown land for development, and from the licensing ofcommercial activities, such as mining and forestry, on it. Canada contrasts in this regardwith the USA, where the high proportion of federally-administered land in western states(80.1% in Nevada) is an ongoing cause of conflict (Vincent et al. 2020).Following the 1992 Rio Summit, and Canada’s ratification of the Convention onBiological Diversity, the federal Liberal government, led by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien,introduced a series of bills designed to protect species at risk (Hoffman 2018). Bill C-65(1996–7) was a radical legislative proposal that would have empowered COSEWIC itself toHumanities 2024, 13, 38 4 of 18list species for protection, and authorised citizens to compel governments to protect speciesby bringing lawsuits. The draft bill made federal listing binding on provinces with respectto aquatic species and migratory birds (so-called ‘federal species’), and a later amendmentasserted Ottawa’s jurisdiction over all ‘transboundary’ species (Illical and Harrison 2007).The bill met with ‘immediate rejection by industry’ (Olive 2014b) and the provinces, andthen ‘died in 1997 when a federal election was called’.The Liberal’s third attempt, Bill C-5, was passed as the ‘Species At Risk Act’ on12 December 2002. Mary Illical and Kathryn Harrison’s comparison of the legislativeprocess and outcome of the ESA and the SARA explains that ‘the more discretionaryapproach taken in the SARA flows from the fusion of legislative and executive functions inCanada’s parliamentary government, in contrast to the institutionalized distrust within theAmerican separation of powers’ (Illical and Harrison 2007). The authors’ interviews withkey Canadian players also reveal that the ESA ‘was in fact an important source of negativelessons for Canadian business and, in turn, Canadian legislators, who consciously sought toavoid the economic consequences and litigiousness that flowed from the nondiscretionaryapproach of the US ESA’. For example, Bill C-65’s provision for ‘citizen [law] suits’, whichwas modelled on the ESA, was deleted; the SARA 2002 merely allows citizens to requestinvestigation of potential species at risk. Although federal jurisdiction over endangeredspecies was greatly extended in the SARA, as we shall see, the Act frames this safety net interms that ensure it will hardly ever be used.Heise (2016b) argues that:Legal texts allow us to trace why and how . . . communities see the fate of nonhu-man species as part of their own identity and history, and—given the institutionalpower of legal texts to shape and enforce social practices . . .—how they envisionthe best possible relation between humans and nonhumans now and in the future.Reading the SARA (2002) from this perspective, we notice that the eighteen-partPreamble acknowledges a wide variety of motivations for the Act, including protection of‘natural heritage’ [‘le patrimoine naturel’]; the ‘value’ that wildlife has ‘in and of itself’; aswell as its value to ‘Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational, educational,historical, economic, medical, ecological and scientific reasons’. Beyond their value to thenation, ‘Canadian wildlife species and ecosystems are also part of the world’s heritage’[patrimoine mondial]’, as the Government of Canada recognizes through its ratification ofthe UNCCBD. The federal government is therefore ‘committed to conserving biologicaldiversity’ as a nation-building project and as a token of Canada’s commitment to liberalinternationalism—so long, that is, as conservation measures are ‘cost-effective’. The Act’sadvocacy of ‘national standards of environmental conservation’, ‘national leadership’ fromthe new Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC), and the ‘vital’contribution of ‘Canada’s protected areas, especially national parks’, exist in tension withthe ‘essential’ role of the ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada’ and the constitutional reality that‘responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among the governmentsof this country’. Perhaps because the SARA is so recent, relative to similar laws elsewhere,its Preamble encompasses all of the following extant rationales for conservation: intrinsicand instrumental value, individual species and ‘biodiversity’, national and international‘heritage’, and indigenous ethics and governance.Whilst the Preamble provides the expansive mood music, the text of the Act itselfpartially retreats from its implications. Section 3 is a non-derogation statement that, ‘Forgreater certainty’, aboriginal or treaty rights affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act,1982, will always prevail. The ‘constitutional paramountcy of aboriginal rights’ (Donihee2000), which distinguishes Canadian from US law, is further affirmed in repeated statementsthroughout the text of the government’s duty to consult with First Nations and WildlifeManagement Boards established as part of aboriginal land claims processes.The legal definition of a wildlife species (espèce sauvage) in Section 2 ‘Interpretation:Definitions’ is capacious:Humanities 2024, 13, 38 5 of 18wildlife species means a species, subspecies, variety or geographically or geneticallydistinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, thatis wild by nature and(a) is native to Canada; or(b) has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has beenpresent in Canada for at least 50 years.In keeping with its reputation for welcoming migrants, Canada’s SARA provides forwildlife species to ‘naturalise’, to use a term from immigration law, although the stipulatedperiod is far longer than the three years humans must reside in the country as permanentresidents prior to applying for citizenship. We are unaware of any naturalised species inthe present SARA list, although if the European starling, Sturnus vulgaris, ever suffered asevere population decline, it would presumably qualify.2Moreover, the definition ventures much further down the taxonomic levels of biologythan the name of the Act—species at risk—might suggest. Calla Raymond and colleaguescomment that, while COSEWIC’s determination of the appropriate ‘Designatable Unit’(DU) of conservation may be ecologically valid, its guidelines are ‘subjective’, thus ‘subjectto uncertainty and debate’ (Raymond et al. 2018). In a later section, we ask if the geopoliticalboundary influences, in subtle ways, COSEWIC’s decisions about Dus, over and aboveecological considerations. Finally, we might also note that the definition excludes feralspecies by invoking a questionable conception of being ‘wild by nature’ that receives nofurther definition in the Act.By contrast with the Preamble, the statutory definition of the ‘Purposes’ (Section 6) ofthe Act is restrictive:The purposes of this Act are to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated orbecoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated,endangered or threatened as a result of human activity and to manage species ofspecial concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.Following Heise (2016a), we would say that the SARA closely follows the US Endan-gered Species Act (ESA) in putting conservation of individual species at its centre, ratherthan objectives such as biodiversity, German Landschaft (‘landscape’), or the rights of LaMadre Tierra (‘Mother Earth’), as in Bolivia. Whereas the EU’s Natura 2000 scheme aims topreserve habitats, and the species that live in them as a consequence, the ESA added pro-tection of a listed species’ ‘critical habitat’ as a later amendment, while the SARA includeddesignation of critical habitat in the law from the outset as part of a ‘recovery action plan’(Sec.49, 58) (Heise 2016b). However, as Andrea Olive shows in a helpful comparison ofthe two laws in relation to key issues, the ESA mandates the US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) to designate habitat at the same time a species is listed, whereas the SARA assignscritical habitat listing to the later ‘recovery strategy’ phase (Olive 2014b). Moreover, theSARA’s categories of endangerment and assessment methodology map onto those of theIUCN Red List, as we discuss below, whereas the ESA employs its own categories.The perennial tension between federal and provincial jurisdictions is clearest whenthe Act sets out ‘Measures to Protect Listed Wildlife Species’. Section 32 states that ‘Noperson shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that islisted as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species.’ However,because federal law only applies to federal species, or on federal land within provinces,Section 34 immediately withdraws the application of Section 32—unless ‘the Minister isof the opinion that laws of the province do not effectively protect the species...’ (Section34.3), in which case they ‘must recommend’ (Section 34.3) to the Governor in Council (i.e.,the Crown’s representative in Canada, the Governor-General) that a protection order beissued, thereby overriding provincial jurisdiction. As if to cool the impact of this incendiaryprovision, Section 36 commits the government to automatic protection on federal landof any non-SARA-listed species that a territorial or provincial minister designates. This,somewhat comical, to and fro amounts to the federal government warning the provincesthat they could pull rank . . . but they won’t . . . but they might. As a matter of fact, theHumanities 2024, 13, 38 6 of 18SARA’s power to impose an emergency order (Section 80) has been invoked twice: in 2013,to protect remnant populations of the Greater Sage-Grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, inAlberta and Saskatchewan (ECCC 2013), and in 2016, to protect a subpopulation of theWestern Chorus Frog, Pseudacris triseriata (ECCC 2016), an aquatic species. The latter isalso the only example of critical habitat designation extending to private land. At thetime of writing, the federal government has decided, against the advice of the Minister ofEnergy, Environment and Climate Change, Stephen Guilbeault, not to issue an emergencyorder that would overrule the provincial government and designate 120,000 hectares ofadditional critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, of whichjust one individual survives in the wild in Canada (Cox 2023).The provinces and territories have exercised their legislative authority In widely differ-ing ways. A comprehensive survey of ‘federal, provincial, and territorial laws’ pertainingto biodiversity identified no fewer than 201 pieces of legislation (Ray et al. 2021). BritishColumbia, for instance, has nine major statutes affecting species at risk, yet, in common withAlberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and Prince Edward Island, it has no standalone species-at-risk law. The list of 85 BC species protected under the province’s Forest and RangePractices Act has not been updated since 2006 (Ministry of Environment 2006). WhilstQuébec has enacted provincial legislation, separatist sentiment deters its governments fromparticipating in federally coordinated initiatives such as the 1996 National Accord for theProtection of Species at Risk. Biologists had previously considered Ontario’s 2007 Endan-gered Species Act (OESA) ‘the best of its kind in Canada’ (Bergman et al. 2020) becauselisted species received automatic legal protection, and then the Progressive Conservativeprovincial government elected in 2018 ‘reformed’ the ESA to lessen its powers. BritishColumbia’s left-wing New Democratic Party government pledged, in 2018, to replacethe province’s ‘inadequate patchwork of legislation’ (Westwood et al. 2019) with a singlelaw, but the ‘consultation’ is still ongoing. In the meantime, the BC Wildlife Act (1982),the Land Act (1979), the BC Forest and Range Practices Act (2002), together with a 2005federal–provincial agreement, govern conservation in the province (Cruickshank 2022).This example underscores that ‘Biodiversity [in Canada] is formally protected and managedthrough a bewildering array of policy instruments administered by different levels . . . orscales of government’ (Ray et al. 2021).Having provided a textual analysis of the SARA, we now quantify the differencesbetween its Schedule One list of at-risk mammalian dUs (i.e., species, subspecies or popula-tions), the global IUCN Red List, and the species protected by America’s ESA. This granularanalysis complements the overview of Raymond et al. (2018), which scores all 729 dUs inSchedule One (as of 2017) in relation to their ‘IUCN threat category’ only, and Thorntonet al. (2018), which quantifies ‘asymmetric protection’ of ‘peripheral transboundary species(PTS)’ in three taxa across the US–Canada and US–Mexico borders. Our study is limitedto and focused on mammals (including marine) because of their high mobility, over othertaxa. We acknowledge that this in itself is a form of taxonomic bias, as is often reflected inconservation or in scientific studies. Still, we consider mammals sufficiently representativebecause they are mobile animals that can move across the 49th parallel (marking most ofthe terrestrial border) with relative ease. Considering the two nations’ vast size and conti-guity, and the conspicuous arbitrariness of the geopolitical boundary at the 49th parallelof latitude, we might expect a great deal of overlap between the SARA, the ESA and theIUCN Red List, when, in reality, discontinuity prevails.Humanities 2024, 13, 38 7 of 183. MethodsTo investigate the current status of species with transboundary distributions acrossthe US–Canada border, lists of species-at-risk were obtained from the Canadian SpeciesAt Risk Act (SARA 2002) and the USA’s Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1973) andNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for aquatic species (NOAA 2023).Initially, a count of all listed species was obtained for comparison, and then specifically formammal species, subspecies and populations—specific populations (designatable units(DUs) in Canada and distinct population segments (DPS) in the USA) are sometimeslisted as opposed to the whole species at a country-wide level. We extracted the nameand status of each mammal species or subspecies (e.g., endangered or threatened; seeSupplementary Table S1 for all potential statuses) for each country. Additionally, weobtained the relevant IUCN classification for each of these species for comparison (IUCN2023). We used NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe 2023) to check whether species andsubspecies distributions were transboundary or only found on one side of the US–Canadaborder. We identified those species and subspecies with transboundary distributions whichwere either (a) listed as a species-at-risk on both sides of the border or (b) only listed onone side of the border.The epistemic culture of biology expects statistical tests to be applied wherever possi-ble. Thus, to test whether the USA and Canada share similar overall numbers of endangeredand threatened mammal species with country-wide listings (i.e., excluding those only listedfor a specific population), we used a chi-squared test for independence on the count ofspecies in each category using R v4.3.0 (R Core Team 2022).In addition, to provide a regional example of how federal species-at-risk listing alignswith provincial or state assessments, we extracted a count and details of the mammalspecies listed in the British Columbia (Canada) Red, Blue and Yellow lists (CDC 2023), andthe Washington (USA) State-Listed Species (WDFW 2023). These are both provincial/state-level lists of species and subspecies at particular risk in those regions. We first comparedwhether the species listed at a federal level (SARA or ESA/NOAA) were also listed on aregional level, and then identified any species that are listed at a regional level but not in theSARA or ESA lists. Regional listings, we must recall, have different political significance oneither side of the border. Under the ESA, the Secretary for the Interior is allowed to delegateauthority to a state government, ‘but only if states first demonstrate that their programsmeet federal standards’, whereas the SARA effectively requires the federal government to‘justify its involvement’ (Illical and Harrison 2007).4. ResultsThere were 62 mammal listings in the SARA (including species, subspecies and specificpopulations), and 98 under the ESA (including species, subspecies and distinct populationsegments (DPS)). Of those mammals listed in the SARA, just over half (n = 34) were listedat a country-wide level i.e., having the same level of risk across the whole of Canada; onlysix of these species were also listed at a country-wide level under the ESA (Figure 1). Thecount of endangered and threatened species listed in each country at a country-wide levelwas statistically similar (χ2 = 1.2, df = 1, p = 0.274). In addition, two species were listed at acountry-wide level in Canada but only for a specific subspecies in the USA (Table 1): seaotter, Enydra lutris (keyoni and nereis ssp.), and mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa (nigra ssp.).The Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, was listed at a species level in Canada but only for aspecific population (western DPS) in the USA (Supplementary Table S2). Five species werelisted at a country-wide level in the USA but only at the population level in Canada, whilefive species were listed at the population-level in both countries (Supplementary Table S2).Humanities 2024, 13, 38 8 of 18iti , , x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19 Figure 1. The number of animal and mammal species listed under the SARA (in Canada) and ESA (in the USA) are outlined, as well as the number of mammal species with both transboundary dis-tributions and country-wide listings in Canada and the USA. Only six mammal species meet these criteria i.e., the whole species is listed across the entirety of the country, not just a specific popula-tion. Specific listings for each of these six species under the SARA and ESA are indicated, as well as their corresponding IUCN classification (if applicable). Overall, there were 20 transboundary mammal species that were only listed in one country (17 listed under SARA, 3 under the ESA; Table 1). Additionally, five species had one or more DPS listed under the ESA where the species’ range extends into Canada, but the species was not listed under SARA: Gray wolf, Canis lupus, Northern sea otter, Enhydra lutris kenyoni; Fisher, Pekania pennanti; Bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus; and Ringed seal, Pusa hispida. The majority (63%) of endangered species and species of special concern in Canada were not listed in the USA, and of these 53% were assessed as of least concern or not listed under the IUCN Red List (Table 1; Figure 2). There were clear disparities and misalignment in designation at every level under the SARA and ESA, with none of the designations showing complete uniformity across the border (i.e., each category branched at least once (Figure 2). Figure 1. The number of animal and mammal species listed under the SARA (in Canada) andESA (in the USA) are outlined, as well as the number of mammal species with both transboundarydistributions and country-wide listings in Canada and the USA. Only six mammal species meet thesecriteria i.e., the whole species is listed across the entirety of the country, not just a specific population.Specific listings for each of these six species under the SARA and ESA are indicated, as well as theircorresponding IUCN classification (if applicable).Overall, there were 20 transboundary mammal species that were only listed in onecountry (17 listed under SARA, 3 under the ESA; Table 1). Additionally, five species hadone or more DPS listed under the ESA where the species’ range extends into Canada, butthe species was not listed under SARA: Gray wolf, Canis lupus, Northern sea otter, Enhydralutris kenyoni; Fisher, Pekania pennanti; Bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus; and Ringed seal,Pusa hispida. The majority (63%) of endangered species and species of special concern inCanada were not listed in the USA, and of these 53% were assessed as of least concern ornot listed under the IUCN Red List (Table 1; Figure 2). There were clear disparities andmisalignment in designation at every level under the SARA and ESA, with none of thedesignations showing complete uniformity across the border (i.e., each category branchedat least once (Figure 2).Humanities 2024, 13, 38 9 of 18Table 1. The status of mammal species with distributions in both Canada and the USA and which arelisted in at least one country (either under the SARA or ESA). Corresponding IUCN classificationsare also shown at a species level. Only country-wide species or subspecies listings are included (i.e.,instances where a specific localised population is listed are excluded). Listings in italics indicatewhere a species or subspecies is listed under both the SARA and ESA. ‘*’ indicates where a specific,named subspecies is listed in one country rather than the species.Species SARA ESA IUCNPallid bat Antrozous pallidus Threatened Not listed Least ConcernBlack-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Threatened Not listed Least ConcernOrd’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii Endangered Not listed Least ConcernSpotted bat Euderma maculatum Special Concern Not listed Least ConcernWolverine Gulo gulo Special Concern Not listed Least ConcernSowerby’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bidens Special Concern Not listed Least ConcernWoodland vole Microtus pinetorum Special Concern Not listed Least ConcernHaida ermine Mustela haidarum Threatened Not listed Not listedLittle brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Endangered Not listed EndangeredCollared pika Ochotona collaris Special Concern Not listed Least ConcernTri-coloured bat Perimyotis subflavus Endangered Not listed VulnerableWestern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis (dychei) Endangered * Not listed Not listedEastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Special Concern Not listed Least ConcernTownsend’s mole Scapanus townsendii Endangered Not listed Least ConcernPacific water shrew Sorex bendirii Endangered Not listed Least ConcernGrey fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Threatened Not listed Least ConcernSwift fox Vulpes velox Threatened Not listed Least ConcernCanada lynx Lynx canadensis Not listed Threatened Least ConcernPacific marten Martes caurina Not listed Threatened Least ConcernSperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Not listed Endangered VulnerableMountain beaver Aplodontia rufa (nigra) Special Concern Endangered * Least ConcernSea otter Enhydra lutris (kenyoni) Special Concern Threatened * EndangeredSea otter Enhydra lutris (nereis) Special Concern Threatened * EndangeredPolar bear Ursus maritimus Special Concern Threatened VulnerableWood bison Bison bison athabascae Threatened Threatened Not listedNorthern myotis Myotis septentrionalis Endangered Endangered Near ThreatenedBlack-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Extirpated Endangered EndangeredNorth Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered Endangered Critically EndangeredNorth Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica Endangered Endangered EndangeredHumanities 2024, 13, 38 10 of 18Humanities 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19 North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered Endangered Critically Endangered North Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica Endangered Endangered Endangered Figure 2. The relationship between the at-risk status of mammal species in Canada (‘SARA’), the US (‘ESA’) and globally according to the IUCN. Only mammal species and subspecies which are listed as at-risk on at least one side of the US–Canada border are included, and only if they are listed at a species or subspecies level (not for a specific population or DPS). All IUCN classifications are at a species level. ‘Not listed’ means that the species or subspecies occurs in that country but is not con-sidered as at-risk, or, if written above ‘IUCN’ on the x-axis, it means that the species does not have an IUCN classification. Colours are used to aid with interpretation and to follow connections be-tween the different listings and levels of protection. Branching indicates discrepancies between spe-cies-at-risk classifications across the three lists: SARA, ESA and IUCN. Provincial‐Scale Of the 34 mammal species listed country-wide in SARA, there were only 2 subspecies that were found in BC but did not have a provincial classification in BC: the Western harvest mouse, megalotis, of subspecies Reithrodontomys megalotis megalotis, and Nuttall’s cottontail, nuttallii, of subspecies Sylvilagus nuttalli nuttalli. Both subspecies were listed as of special concern under the SARA but were not featured at a subspecies level on any BC species lists (Supplementary Table S3). The remaining 32 species either had BC classifications or do not currently have distributions in BC, so were not listed. Interestingly, there were also 16 mammal species, subspecies or distinct populations with designations on the BC Red List that were not listed at a country-wide scale in the SARA (Supplementary Table S3). Similarly, there were 20 mammal species or subspecies on the BC Blue List that are not listed in SARA. The lack of alignment between provincial and federal listings in Canada is not replicated in the USA. All ESA-listed mammal species whose distributions extend into the i r . The relations i bet ee the at-risk stat s of a al species in Canada (‘S R ’), t(‘ESA’) and globally according to the IUCN. Only mammal species and subspecies which are listedas at-risk on at least one side of the US–Canada border are included, and only if they are listed ata species or subspecies level (not for a specific population or DPS). All IUCN classifications are ata species level. ‘Not listed’ means that the species or subspecies occurs in that country but is notconsidered as at-risk, or, if written above ‘IUCN’ on the x-axis, it means that the species does nothave an IUCN classification. Colours are used to aid with interpretation and to follow connectionsb tween the different listings and levels of protection. Branching indicates discrepancies betweenspecies-at-risk classifications across the three lists: SARA, ESA and IUCN.Provincial-ScaleOf the 34 mammal species listed country-wide in SARA, there were only 2 subspeciesthat were found in BC but did not have a provincial classification in BC: the Western harvestmouse, megalotis, of subspecies Reithrodontomys megalotis megalotis, and Nuttall’s cottontail,nuttallii, of subspecies Sylvilagus nuttalli nuttalli. Both subspecies were listed as of specialconcern under the SARA but were not featured at a subspecies level on any BC specieslists (Supplementary Table S3). The remaining 32 species either had BC classifications ordo not currently have distributions in BC, so were not listed. Interestingly, there were also16 mammal species, subspecies or distinct populations with designations on the BC RedList that were not listed at a country-wide scale in the SARA (Supplementary Table S3).Similarly, there were 20 mammal species or subspecies on the BC Blue List that are notlisted in SARA.The lack of alignment between provincial and federal listings in Canada is not repli-cated in the USA. All ESA-listed mammal species whose distributions extend into the stateof Washington were also listed in the Washington State Listed Species (n = 12; Supplemen-tary Table S4), and there were just two species and three subspecies listed in Washingtonthat were not listed in the ESA (Supplementary Table S4); for example, the Cascade red fox,Vulpes vulpes cascadensis, is endangered and endemic to Washington, whilst the WesternHumanities 2024, 13, 38 11 of 18gray squirrel, Sciurus griseus, is threatened in Washington but its distribution extends intoother US states too.5. DiscussionThe ESA and SARA have formed the basis of wildlife conservation and protectionon either side of the US–Canada border for the last 50 and 21 years, respectively. Bothpieces of legislation take a species-centred approach, prioritising the listing of speciesvulnerable to extinction and endangerment, in order to try and reduce human impactson these species and encourage conservation efforts to restore populations. Two previousstudies of transboundary species (Raymond et al. 2018; Thornton et al. 2018) identifydiscontinuity of conservation status across the US–Canada border, as we do, but derivequite different conclusions from the data, as discussed below. In this study, we reveal thatthe vast majority (69%) of listed mammal species with transboundary distributions areonly protected on one side of the border. Six species currently have listings on both sides,of which only four have equivalent statuses. We also highlight the discrepancy betweenfederal and provincial/state-protected mammal species listings in Washington and BC,which is much greater in Canada than in the USA. All but 2 species listed in the SARAand ESA are also included in these more localised lists; however, 5 additional species orsubspecies are listed locally in Washington, and 36 in BC, which are not listed federally.Here, we discuss two categories of explanation for the discrepancy: methodological andpolitical–institutional.5.1. Differences in Listing Methodology and TerminologyVariation amongst species listings seen in this study could be ascribed to distinctivedifferences in listing methodologies and terminology across country and state/provincialborders. For example, COSEWIC bases its recommendations for classification on the quan-titative criteria prescribed by the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2022; SARA 2002). In additionto providing transparency and facilitating comparisons across geopolitical boundaries,adoption of the IUCN criteria reflects Canada’s vocal commitment to liberal international-ism. However, there are differences: there is no equivalent to the IUCN’s ‘Least Concern’category, Schedule 1′s ‘Extirpated’ extends a term from island biogeography to the level ofthe nation-state, and the IUCN’s ‘Threatened’ and ‘Critically Endangered’ categories alignmost closely to ‘Special Concern’ and ‘Endangered’ in Canada (Dorey and Walker 2018;McCune et al. 2013; Turcotte et al. 2021).In contrast, the ESA only relatively recently (in 2016) adopted a Species Status As-sessment Framework (Smith et al. 2018), which prescribes a series of steps for assessinga candidate species’ ecology and life history, the current condition of a species’ habitatand distribution, and predictions into the future. Although the ESA’s framework has adefinite procedure, it does not share the same specific numeric criteria as the SARA andIUCN. Additionally, whereas Canada entrusts assessments to an independent expert body,COSEWIC, which is expected to incorporate ‘aboriginal traditional knowledge’ (Section15:2, 16: 2), a comparable organisation does not exist in the US (Waples et al. 2013). Instead,the status of species is assessed by employees of the USFWS and NOAA, or, in some cases,determined by lawsuits. On a more localised scale, the BC species-at-risk list uses differentcriteria to SARA, adopting the NatureServe methodologies and categories instead, whichmay contribute to the disparity between it and SARA’s Schedule 1. NatureServe, a NorthAmerican non-profit, has its own ‘Rank Calculator’ and uses different category names tothose used by the IUCN (and SARA); however, there is some overlap in its methods, with afocus on, for instance, ‘area of occupancy’ and ‘range extent’. Indeed, NatureServe ranksare often used to inform IUCN Red List assessment in relevant regions (Master et al. 2012).Terminological differences may also explain some of the variation in status for trans-boundary species between both the US and Canada and between federal and provincial orstate listings. For example, the definitions of ‘Endangered’ and ‘Threatened’ differ slightlybetween the SARA and ESA. An endangered species under the SARA is defined as ‘aHumanities 2024, 13, 38 12 of 18wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction’; whereas, under the ESA,an endangered species is classed as ‘a species in danger of extinction throughout all or asignificant portion of its range’. The use of the word ‘imminent’ in the SARA suggeststhat a species will only be classified as endangered if it is right on the brink of becominglocally or more widely extinct, rather than if it could be subject to a future, albeit real,threat. There is, however, no temporal element to the ESA definition. Similarly, specifyingthat ‘a significant portion’ of a species’ entire range, within and beyond the USA, must beimperilled for species under the ESA to be classified as endangered, leads to potentiallydiffering interpretations of what constitutes ‘significant’ (Waples et al. 2013). SARA’s mostidiosyncratic feature is its ‘Special Concern’ category, which identifies species considered‘sensitive to human activities or natural events’ without meeting the criteria for higherclassification. The ESA has no direct equivalent; its list of ‘Candidate species’ merelyincludes species awaiting assessment.American and Canadian endangered species laws emerge out of distinct politicalcultures, as Illical and Harrison (2007) show, and they are implemented by institutionalactors, such as the USFWS, within broader cultural contexts that strongly influence theirimpact. The enormous power of the US federal government to mandate conservation,buttressed by control of a vast land base, has been challenged repeatedly by the kinds ofrebellion that US culture mythologises, notably the ‘war in the woods’ during the 1980sand 90s over the listing of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, in the Pacific northwest.Canada, a settler-colonial nation founded on the basis of loyalty to the British Crown, isknown for having a less confrontational political culture, and a more deferential citizenry.Whereas the 1776 Declaration of Independence cites ‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit ofHappiness’ as ‘inalienable rights’, the 1867 British North America Act, the constitutionof the Dominion of Canada, empowers parliament to maintain ‘peace, order, and goodgovernment’. This collaborative political culture informs both the text of the SARA, as wehave seen, and the lack of controversy attending its implementation to date.Furthermore, classificatory terminology, along with the methods that determine itsapplication, may aim at universality, but they gain legitimacy and are operationalised inconservation thanks to what Sheila Jasanoff (2005) calls ‘civic epistemologies’, which shedefines as follows:the institutionalized practices by which members of a given society test and deployknowledge claims used as a basis for making collective choices. Just as any culture hasestablished folkways that give meaning to its social interactions, so I suggest that moderntechnoscientific cultures have developed tacit knowledge-ways through which they assessthe rationality and robustness of claims that seek to order their lives; demonstrations orarguments that fail to meet these tests may be dismissed as illegitimate or irrational.We are not in a position, here, to undertake a full comparative analysis of conservationscience and law in terms of the following six dimensions listed by Jasanoff (2005): (1) thedominant participatory styles of public knowledge-making, (2) the methods of ensuringaccountability, (3) the practices of public demonstration, (4) the preferred registers ofobjectivity, (5) the accepted bases of expertise, and (6) the visibility of expert bodies.It is arguable, though, that the over-powered sanctions built into the ESA, and thefierce resistance encountered on occasion by its enforcer, the USFWS, has engendereda relatively conservative approach to species listings. They have certainly spawned awealth of creative ways, including habitat conservation plans, safe harbour agreementsand candidate conservation agreements, to avoid punishing American landowners (Olive2014b). If the USFWS declines to act, as in the case of the spotted owl, American envi-ronmental organisations may take it to court to hash out competing knowledge claims.This transparent, pluralistic, adversarial style of knowledge production contrasts withCanada’s consensus-seeking approach, which values expert rationality (including aborigi-nal knowledge, at least in principle) and negotiations behind closed doors. While someCanadian scientists argue that effective conservation requires more technocratic, coercivelegislation (Westwood et al. 2019), it is possible that BC and COSEWIC scientists list farHumanities 2024, 13, 38 13 of 18more species than their colleagues down south precisely because their determinations makeless difference. Moreover, as we note above, determinations of designatable units (DUs),including distinctions between genotypes, are not wholly objective. In the absence ofmotivations not to define DUs that lie within the scientists’ geopolitical sphere of influence,it seems plausible that unconscious national or provincial bias influences their decisions.In a 2004 paper, the forest scientist Fred Bunnell argued that the NatureServe method-ology then used to develop the BC Red and Blue lists had a bias towards listing ‘peripheralspecies’, i.e., those existing at the edge of their range (Bunnell et al. 2004). He noted the‘plethora of peripherals’ in the provincial lists, which he attributed to the following twofactors: the mountainous topography of the province, which ‘encourages small extensionsof species that are more abundant elsewhere’ (Bunnell et al. 2004), and ‘unacknowledgedcorrelates among features producing the rankings’. As he observed, ‘Local rarity, lowviability, erratic trend, small population size, and small ranges are natural characteristicsof peripheral populations’, which may be misidentified as endangered. The NatureServemethodology was revised in 2012 to minimize this bias (Master et al. 2012)—and yet thepreponderance of peripheral species remains, as we have shown.Bunnell also criticized the conservation of peripheral species in the following, pun-gent, terms:Efforts to conserve species that are locally rare but globally common often simplyignore the ecologically marginal nature of habitat and population. They engage in a fightwith nature. As well as being wasteful, this fight confronts common sense. Consider thefact that, had the United States prevailed in the “fifty-four forty or fight” (54◦40′) argumentof 1846, Sage Thrashers (Oreoscoptes montanus Townsend) and White-headed Woodpeckers(Picoides albolarvatus Cassin) would not be “critically imperiled” in British Columbia, butPacific Tree Frogs (Pseudacris regilla Baird and Girard) and Brewer’s Blackbirds (Euphagmcyanocephalus Wagler) would be. That change of status would have occurred with no changein abundance or distribution of the species.Bunnell later coined the term ‘jurisdictional rarity’ to describe peripheral populationsmarooned on the wrong side of a geopolitical border, but abundant elsewhere (Bunnellet al. 2009). Whilst the 2009 Conservation Framework he developed for the BC governmentincludes, as Goal 3, the maintenance of ‘the full diversity of native species and ecosystems’,it is put in the balance with the province’s responsibility to protect globally endangeredand endemic species (Goal 1) and practice preventive conservation (Goal 2). Bunnell isclear that Goal 1 implies greater ‘stewardship responsibility’ than Goal 3.5.2. Cross-Border Conservation and Jurisdictional RarityBiologists argue that differences in conservation legislation and species’ listings be-tween countries, particularly those that exist on the same land mass without physicalborders, act as a hindrance to species protection and conservation goals (Dallimer andStrange 2015; Titley et al. 2021). Species may face persecution on one side of a politicalborder, but not the other, potentially coming into danger if they have shifting or migratorydistributions. This is particularly relevant in light of future uncertainties regarding theclimate crisis and predicted changes in species distributions as a result of warming temper-atures. Species are expected to shift poleward as a result of increasing global temperatures(Chen et al. 2011), potentially resulting in the crossing of international borders, and theestablishment of populations in previously unoccupied areas. As a result, the issue of trans-boundary conservation only becomes more complex, and differences in legislation couldhave an impact on whether a species is able to successfully establish in new environments(Pecl et al. 2017; Rüter et al. 2014; Thornton et al. 2018).Such flagship cross-border efforts as the Y2Y Yellowstone to Yukon ConservationInitiative (https://y2y.net/; accessed on 15 December 2023) show that collaboration ispossible, albeit hampered by the cultural, legal and political discontinuities discussedabove. More typical, perhaps, is the radio silence that Andrea Olive (2014c) found between,in this case, USFWS officials in Ohio and their counterparts in Ontario, both of whomHumanities 2024, 13, 38 14 of 18were trying to save the Lake Erie water snake (Nerodia sipedon insularum). The Americanpopulation of the water snake was listed under the ESA in 2003, regulations (includingon private property) were introduced, recovery goals were set and met—largely becausean invasive fish provided a new food source for the snake—and the snake was delisted in2011. On the Canadian side, COSEWIC listed the snake in 2006, and assembled a federalrecovery team, but ‘no recovery or action plan was ever created’ (Olive 2014c). Whilstthe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) also listed the snake under the OESA,imposing restrictions on dock building and the use of pesticides on the Pelee Islands inLake Erie, it also failed to publish a recovery plan. COSEWIC eventually delisted the watersnake in 2015. During her 2007 fieldwork, Olive found her American respondents werefamiliar with state and federal conservation officials, whereas the Canadians had seldomseen an OMNR officer. Both sides, though, said they had seen lots of water snakes, whichdrastically affected their sense of the legitimacy of conservation. Amazingly, there had been‘virtually no communication’ about the snake, even though the islands were just five milesapart. In addition to the limited capacity of Canadian authorities to undertake assessments,Olive wonders if the snake continued to be listed in Canada because of the geopoliticalboundary: ‘It is as though the border creates endangered species by limiting the species’habitat’ (Olive 2014a).Two recent studies of peripheral species underscore both the lack of transboundarycoordination and biologists’ conflicting assessments of jurisdictional rarity (Raymond et al.2018; Thornton et al. 2018). Reviewing 729 dUs (species, subspecies and populations) inSARA’s Schedule 1, Calla Raymond and colleagues cross-referenced those with ActionPlans—a proxy for conservation priority—with the IUCN Red List and ESA. They find that‘subspecies units and peripheral populations of globally secure species are being given highpriority, while endemic and globally endangered species are neglected’. The red mulberry,Morus rubra, for instance, is common throughout the USA, yet is listed as endangered inboth Schedule 1 of the SARA and the OESA because it survives in fragments of forest insouthern Ontario. While the authors acknowledge that there may be compelling reasons toconserve peripheral populations in some instances, they conclude that scarce conservationresources in Canada—starkly illustrated in the case of the water snake above—mandate that‘the full, endemic threatened species for which a jurisdiction bears the sole responsibilitymust be the highest priority, and that globally threatened species should also be given highpriority’ (Raymond et al. 2018).Daniel Thornton and colleagues use a different methodology to compare the federallegal conservation status of peripheral transboundary mammals, birds and herpetofauna(PTS) in Canada, Mexico and the USA (Thornton et al. 2018). They, too, find ‘asymmetricprotection’ where ‘Peripheral range segments were protected at a higher rate than corerange segments as a percentage of the total number of PTS (22% vs. 2% for US–CA . . .)’.However, their conclusion is quite different. They note approvingly that the listing biasfor Canadian PTS might protect species as they migrate northward in response to climatechange. They also observe that Mexico is more likely to list PTS, despite its southernlocation, and furthermore that climatically induced migration is not a criterion for listingin Canada. Thornton et al. (2018) take for granted the ‘high conservation importance’ ofperipheral populations, ignoring both the natural constraints highlighted by Bunnell andthe problem of jurisdictional rarity.6. ConclusionsWe have seen that, while the SARA conveys expansive motivations for conservation,in practice it adopts a species-centred approach modelled on the ESA. At the same time,the Canadian constitution, political culture, and paucity of resources relative to the nation’senormous land mass render the legislation relatively ineffective in its direct application.The apparent scale of the problem is exacerbated by the marked tendency for COSEWICand its provincial equivalents to list peripheral species that are, in many cases, globallysecure. Ecosystems such as the Okanagan shrub steppe and the Carolinian forest, whichHumanities 2024, 13, 38 15 of 18happen to lie within Canada’s borders, are typically identified as ‘biodiversity hotspots’where conservation is considered a priority rather than, as Bunnell might have it, ‘a fightwith nature’ (Bunnell et al. 2004). Oddly, while Canadian scholars seem repeatedly torediscover jurisdictional rarity—neither Thornton et al. (2018) nor Raymond et al. (2018)cite any of Bunnell’s publications—others ignore it entirely. For example, one of the changesmade to the OESA by the Progressive Conservatives in 2019 was a requirement for theCommittee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) to consider the risk to aspecies ‘across its entire geographic range, rather than focusing on its status within Ontario’(Bergman et al. 2020). Jordanna Bergman and colleagues criticise the change, citing theirCarleton University colleagues Calla Raymond et al. and observing that extirpation of aperipheral population ‘may... lead to the loss of unique traits that are potentially importantfor range expansion and adaptation to future conditions’. However, they do not mentionthat ‘peripheral populations can also be subject to gene swamping from core populations’(Bunnell et al. 2004; Raymond et al. 2018), and they leave out the source article’s critique ofjurisdictional rarity. They therefore push for COSSARO to go back to classifying species‘based solely on their status in Ontario, as was formerly done’. Likewise, Alana Westwoodand colleagues’ proposal for a BC Species at Risk Protection Act (BCSARPA) recommendsthe automatic listing of provincially at-risk species, and automatic protection on Crownlands (i.e., 94% of the province), including ‘B.C.-specific assessment’ for ‘designatable unitsor sub-populations in B.C. that are more at risk than their federal status indicates (e.g., red-listed species that are endangered in B.C. but only listed as of special concern in Canada)’(Westwood et al. 2019). In other words, they advocate an even more parochial systemof listing and protection than presently exists. We agree with Thornton et al. about thedesirability of improved cross-border collaboration, though we would observe that betteralignment might come from the demotion or delisting of Canadian species, a possibilitythat they do not consider.It is understandable that biologists might wish to circumvent politics by reserving forthemselves the power to list endangered species and regulate activities that could harmthem. Such technocratic proposals, though, fail to consider the crucial role of legitimacy insuccessful conservation. Olive points out that coercive ‘command-and-control’ approachesto conservation are not only impossible to enforce, but liable to create perverse incentivesfor landowners to shoot, shovel, and shut-up before authorities can step in. On the otherhand, her research finds strong support for conservation across a wide range of constituen-cies in the USA and Canada so long as authorities adhere to ‘procedural justice’ in theirlisting and regulatory decisions (Olive 2014c). If Canadian or provincial authorities failto address jurisdictional rarity—which might include explaining why Canadian popula-tions of globally secure species should be protected—they risk provoking a legitimacycrisis. We recommend, therefore, that COSEWIC and its provincial equivalents incorporatejurisdictional rarity in their conservation categories according to agreed criteria, e.g., anendangered Canadian population that makes up <10% of the species’ total range would bedesignated ‘Endangered in Canada’, and so on.7. ReflectionsThis cross-disciplinary collaboration has enabled innovation in both results and presen-tation. Expert quantitative examination of mammals’ conservation status in three databasesconfirmed the findings of previous studies (e.g., Raymond et al. (2018); Thornton et al.(2018)) that species listings do not align across the US/Canada border. Infographic pre-sentation and tabulation has then made these findings immediately accessible (Table 1,Figure 2). Humanities methods are most conspicuous in the close reading of the SARA2002, and its broad contextualisation within Canadian political and constitutional history,but they have also informed the treatment of scientific research itself. Just as biologistsautomatically include both the common and Linnaean name of a species in their text, socialand natural scientists almost always cite sources as authorities, using parenthetical listsof publications in order to support a claim within their own argument. Literary scholars,Humanities 2024, 13, 38 16 of 18by contrast, consider all texts, including scholarly ones, as open to interpretation, hencerequiring quotations as evidence for discussion. To a literature scholar, in other words, anarticle is more than its abstract. Our analysis is also informed by science and technologystudies, a grouping of humanities and social science disciplines that treats science as asocial practice shaped by—though not reducible to—its contexts, primarily geopolitical inthis instance. STS scholarship suggests that humanists are often called upon to translatebetween, and attempt to integrate, the humanities with the natural and social sciences,as here.In the natural sciences, bias is seen as something we aim to avoid or, ideally, to eradi-cate, by employing standardised methods in experimental design or by applying statisticalmethods post-hoc that account for or reduce bias. Consciousness of bias, and the methodsthat flow from it, allows scientists to make robust inferences from a given experimentaldesign. Our analysis proposes a shift in thinking about bias, we have confirmed andextended Heise’s insight that every jurisdiction embeds its distinctive cultural interestsinto its conservation laws, thereby imparting a positive ‘bias’ to scientific research andpolicy implementation within its ambit. Hence, whilst scientists undertake studies in goodfaith to answer particular questions in conservation, they may be unaware of structuringbiases that skew or delimit their research ab initio. Humanities scholars, for their part,must be prepared to offer evidence that remains intelligible and compelling outside theirown discipline, and to make actionable recommendations rather than taking refuge inmere critique. In this article, we show that bias-limiting methods can be productivelycombined with contextual reasoning and evidence, or, to put it another way, that ‘political’considerations can enhance science, not just detract from it.Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/h13010038/s1, Table S1: Definitions and sources; Table S2: Population-levellistings; Table S3: Canadian federal vs. provincial listings; Table S4: American federal vs state listings.Department of Fish and Wildlife (2023), ECCC (2014), Harper et al. (1994), IUCN (2012), Office ofProtected Resources (2023), USFWS (2017) are cited in Supplementary Materials.Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, G.G., S.R. and S.E.P.; methodology G.G., S.R. and S.E.P.;formal analysis, S.R.; investigation, S.R. and G.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.R. and G.G.;writing—review and editing, G.G., S.R. and S.E.P.; visualisation, S.R.; supervision, G.G. and S.E.P.;project administration, S.R. and G.G.; funding acquisition, S.R., G.G. and S.E.P. All authors have readand agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: S.R. was supported by the UKRI-Mitacs Globalink Research Exchange programme[NE/X006344/1], whilst on placement during a Natural Environment Research Council GW4+Doctoral Training Partnership [NE/S007504/1]. G.G’s research was supported by a Social Sciencesand Humanities Research Council Insight grant [435-2020-1220].Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable. No new data were created or analysed inthis study. All information on species’ listings can be found under the relevant legislation (SARA,ESA, BC and Washington lists) or on the IUCN website. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Notes1 In this paper we use this term as shorthand for ‘humanities scholar’.2 COSEWIC’s definition of a ‘native wildlife species’ is more restrictive than the Act that the Committee implements: ‘A wildlifespecies that occurs in Canada naturally, or that has expanded its range into Canada without human intervention from a regionwhere it naturally occurred, has produced viable subpopulations, and has persisted in Canada for at least 50 years.’ So starlingsneed not apply.Humanities 2024, 13, 38 17 of 18ReferencesBergman, Jordanna N., Allison D. Binley, Rowan E. Murphy, Caitlyn A. Proctor, Thuong Tran Nguyen, Elise S. Urness, Michelle A. Vala,Jaimie G. Vincent, Lenore Fahrig, and Joseph R. Bennett. 2020. How to rescue Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: A biologist’sperspective. FACETS 5: 423–31. [CrossRef]Bunnell, Fred L., David F. Fraser, and Andrew P. Harcombe. 2009. Increasing Effectiveness of Conservation Decisions: A System and itsApplication. Natural Areas Journal 29: 79–90. [CrossRef]Bunnell, Fred L., R. Wayne Campbell, and Kelly Squires. 2004. Allocating Scarce Resources for Conservation in a Species-richEnvironment: Guidelines from History and Science. Paper presented at the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference,Victoria, BC, Canada, March 2–6.CDC. 2023. BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer. Available online: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed on 2 August 2023).Chen, I-Ching, Jane K. Hill, Ralf Ohlemüller, David B. Roy, and Chris D. Thomas. 2011. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated withHigh Levels of Climate Warming. Science 333: 1024–26. [CrossRef]Cox, Sarah. 2023. Investigation: B.C. to Feds: Don’t Issue Emergency Order to Save the Endangered Spotted Owl. Available online:https://thenarwhal.ca/spotted-owl-emergency-order-documents/ (accessed on 27 November 2023).Cruickshank, Ainslie. 2022. ‘Huge Legal Gaps’ Are Driving B.C. Species to Extinction, Conservation Groups Say. Available online:https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-species-at-risk-cop15/ (accessed on 27 November 2023).Dallimer, Martin, and Niels Strange. 2015. Why socio-political borders and boundaries matter in conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 30:132–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. WAC 220-610-110: Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Wildlife Species Classification; Washington:Washington State Legislature, p. 110.Donihee, John. 2000. The Evolution of Wildlife Law in Canada. In Occasional Paper No. 9. Calgary: Canadian Institute of Resources Law.Dorey, Katherine, and Tony R. Walker. 2018. Limitations of threatened species lists in Canada: A federal and provincial perspective.Biological Conservation 217: 259–68. [CrossRef]ECCC. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse: Emergency Protection Order. Toronto: Environment and Climate Change Canada.ECCC. 2014. Categories of Species at Risk: Poster. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-education-centre/poster.html (accessed on 4 December 2023).ECCC. 2016. Emergency order for the protection of the Western chorus frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence—Canadian shield population).In SOR/2016-211. Toronto: Environment and Climate Change Canada.Garrard, Greg. 2020. Brexit ecocriticism. Green Letters 24: 110–24. [CrossRef]Garrard, Greg. 2023. Ecocriticism, 3rd ed. The New Critical Idiom. Oxfordshire: Routledge.Harper, Bill, Sydney Canngings, David Fraser, and William T. Munro. 1994. Provincial lists of species at risk. In Biodiversity in BritishColumbia. Edited by L. E. Harding and E. McCullum. Delta: Canadian Wildlife Service.Heise, Ursula K. 2016a. From Arks to ARKive.org: Database, Epic, and Biodiversity. In Imagining Extinction: The Culturual Meanings ofEndangered Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 55–86.Heise, Ursula K. 2016b. Imagining Extinction: The Cultural Meanings of Endangered Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Heise, Ursula K. 2016c. The Legal Lives of Endangered Species: Biodiversity Laws and Culture. In Imagining Extinction: The CulturalMeanings of Endangered Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–126.Hockings, Marc, James Hardcastle, Stephen Woodley, Trevor Sandwith, Joanne Wilson, Marnie Bammert, Sandra Valenzuela, BeatriceChataigner, Thierry Lefebvre, Fiona Leverington, and et al. 2019. The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: Settingthe standard for effective conservation. Parks 25.2: 57–66. [CrossRef]Hoffman, Nadine. 2018. Species at Risk Act a Comprehensive Inventory of Legislative Documents 1973–2017. Paper presented at theA Symposium on Environment in the Courtroom: Enforcement Issues in Canadian Wildlife Protection, Calgary, AB, Canada,March 2–3.Illical, Mary, and Kathryn Harrison. 2007. Protecting Endangered Species in the US and Canada: The Role of Negative Lesson Drawing.Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 40: 367–94. [CrossRef]IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List categories and criteria: Version 3.1, 2nd ed. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN, vol. iv.IUCN. 2022. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 15.1. IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcomittee.Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed on 2 August 2023).IUCN. 2023. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (accessed on 2 August 2023).Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Civic Epistemology. In Designs on Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 247–71.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin, and Werner Reichmann. 2015. Epistemic Cultures. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences(Second Edition), 873–880. [CrossRef]Master, Lawrence L., Don Faber-Langendoen, Roxanne Bittman, Geoffrey A. Hammerson, Bonnie Heidel, Leah Ramsay, Kristin Snow,Andy Teucher, and Adele Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and EcosystemRisk. Arlington: NatureServe.McCune, Jenny L., William L. Harrower, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Jason M. Brogan, Anna-Mária Csergo˝, Lindsay N. K. Davidson,Alice Garani, Luke R. Halpin, Linda P. J. Lipsen, Christopher Lee, and et al. 2013. Threats to Canadian species at risk: An analysisof finalized recovery strategies. Biological Conservation 166: 254–65. [CrossRef]Humanities 2024, 13, 38 18 of 18Ministry of Environment. 2006. Order—Category of Species at Risk; Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Environment.NatureServe. 2023. NatureServe Explorer. Available online: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Search (accessed on 2 August 2023).Neimanis, V. P. 2011. Crown Land. Available online: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/crown-land (accessed on20 November 2023).NOAA. 2023. Species Directory: ESA Threatened & Endangered. Available online: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/threatened-endangered (accessed on 2 August 2023).Office of Protected Resources. 2023. Candidate Species under the Endangered Species Act. Available online: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act (accessed on 4 December 2023).Olive, Andrea. 2014a. Canada’s strategy for species at risk. In Land, Stewardship, and Legitimacy: Endangered Species Policy in Canada andthe United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 49–73.Olive, Andrea. 2014b. Introduction. In Land, Stewardship, and Legitimacy: Endangered Species Policy in Canada and the United States.Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3–24.Olive, Andrea. 2014c. Lake Erie Islands Case Study. In Land, Stewardship, and Legitimacy: Endangered Species Policy in Canada and theUnited States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 144–70.Pecl, Gretta T., Miguel B. Araújo, Johann D. Bell, Julia Blanchard, Timothy C. Bonebrake, I-Ching Chen, Timothy D. Clark, RobertK. Colwell, Finn Danielsen, Birgitta Evengård, and et al. 2017. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts onecosystems and human well-being. Science 355: eaai9214. [CrossRef]Ray, Justina C., Jaime Grimm, and Andrea Olive. 2021. The biodiversity crisis in Canada: Failures and challenges of federal andsub-national strategic and legal frameworks. FACETS 6: 1044–68. [CrossRef]Raymond, Calla V., Lina Wen, Steven J. Cooke, and Joseph R. Bennett. 2018. National attention to endangered wildlife is not affectedby global endangerment: A case study of Canada’s species at risk program. Environmental Science & Policy 84: 74–79. [CrossRef]Raymond, Sarah, Amy L. W. Schwartz, Robert J. Thomas, Elizabeth Chadwick, and Sarah E. Perkins. 2021. Temporal patterns ofwildlife roadkill in the UK. PLoS ONE 16: e0258083. [CrossRef] [PubMed]R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Version 4.1.1. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Rüter, Stefan, Claire C. Vos, Michiel van Eupen, and Hilke Rühmkorf. 2014. Transboundary ecological networks as an adaptationstrategy to climate change: The example of the Dutch—German border. Basic and Applied Ecology 15: 639–50. [CrossRef]SARA. 2002. Species at Risk Act, S.C. c. 29. Available online: https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/ (accessed on 2 August 2023).Smith, David R., Nathan L. Allan, Conor P. McGowan, Jennifer A. Szymanski, Susan R. Oetker, and Heather M. Bell. 2018. Developmentof a Species Status Assessment Process for Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management9: 302–20. [CrossRef]Thornton, Daniel H., Aaron J. Wirsing, Carlos Lopez-Gonzalez, John R. Squires, Scott Fisher, Karl W. Larsen, Alan Peatt, Matt A.Scrafford, Ron A. Moen, Arthur E. Scully, and et al. 2018. Asymmetric cross-border protection of peripheral transboundaryspecies. Conservation Letters 11: e12430. [CrossRef]Titley, Mark A., Stuart H. M. Butchart, Victoria R. Jones, Mark J. Whittingham, and Stephen G. Willis. 2021. Global inequitiesand political borders challenge nature conservation under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118: e2011204118. [CrossRef]Turcotte, Audrey, Natalie Kermany, Sharla Foster, Caitlyn A. Proctor, Sydney M. Gilmour, Maria Doria, James Sebes, JeannetteWhitton, Steven J. Cooke, and Joseph R. Bennett. 2021. Fixing the Canadian Species at Risk Act: Identifying major issues andrecommendations for increasing accountability and efficiency. FACETS 6: 1474–94. [CrossRef]USFWS. 1973. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Amended through the 108th Congress. U.S Department of the Interior. Availableonline: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-act-accessible.pdf (accessed on 27 Novem-ber 2023).USFWS. 2017. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Candidate Species: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Candidate-Species.pdf (accessed on 2 August 2023).Vincent, C. H., L. A. Hanson, and L. F. Bermejo. 2020. Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data. Available online: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42346.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2023).Waples, Robin S., Marta Nammack, Jean Fitts Cochrane, and Jeffrey A. Hutchings. 2013. A Tale of Two Acts: Endangered SpeciesListing Practices in Canada and the United States. BioScience 63: 723–34. [CrossRef]WDFW. 2023. Washington State Listed Species. Available online: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/listed (accessed on 2August 2023).Westwood, Alana R., Sarah P. Otto, Arne Mooers, Chris Darimont, Karen E. Hodges, Chris Johnson, Brian M. Starzomski, Cole Burton,Kai M. A. Chan, Marco Festa-Bianchet, and et al. 2019. Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations fordeveloping species at risk legislation. FACETS 4: 136–60. [CrossRef]Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individualauthor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury topeople or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
conservation legislation
Canada
USA
environmental humanities
jurisdictional rarity
science and technology studies
The Species at Risk Act (2002) and Transboundary Species Listings along the US–Canada Border
Text