If passed, the new proposed NDP bill would significantly improve upon existing laws by adding legal protection to the habitats of species at risk, requiring scientific assessment of at-risk species and developing new recovery strategies to promote survival of threatened species. The bill also includes an element which encourages voluntary environmental stewardship.

BC has an estimated 1900 species which are at risk or in decline throughout the province. Species as diverse as burrowing owls and grizzly bears are threatened from habitat loss, climate change and a growing human population. As Dr. Faisal Moola, Director of Science at the David Suzuki Foundation points out, “Over four dozen plants and animals have already been driven to extinction in B.C., such as the Vancouver Island wolverine and Viceroy butterfly.” Without a dedicated plan in place for the protection of currently endangered and at-risk species, their future remains uncertain.

At the moment, British Columbia relies on the Wildlife Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act to protect the province’s wildlife. In Canada, only BC and Alberta remain without stand-alone laws for endangered species protection. The current BC laws are considered outdated and ineffective by many as they do not specifically deal with endangered species, making the new proposed bill even more important.

Rob Fleming represents the riding of Victoria-Swan Lake and currently acts as the NDP’s environment critic. He has attempted to introduce other private member’s bills in the past, including one which would have restricted the use or sale of cosmetic pesticides.

“We are very hopeful that the majority of these candidates will make it across the finish line to endangered species listed status,” Nicole Rosmarino, Wildlife Program Director of WildEarth Guardians, told me.

All the plant and animal candidates still need to go through a process in which the government decides whether or not to propose them. This is followed by an official public comment period where anyone including scientists can send in information regarding the status and the threat to the species. After that, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will make the final determination on whether or not to add the species to the threatened or endangered list. “So there’s still a process to go through but this agreement ensures that the process will happen in a timely manner,” Nicole explained. “Within the next 5 ½ years we will get a more definitive answer for each of these 251 species and whether or not to process each one.”

When I asked about the current state of some of the species, Nicole mentioned a Top 40 List, some of which have already been listed. “Some of those species have not been seen for years so they desperately need this decision and the government needs to get on with the business of searching for them and protecting them when they find them. The wait can mean extinction and that’s why it’s so important that we get past this hump where the species can languish without that definitive answer.”

The Agreement is likely to fix some current listing problems. An example is the Canada Lynx in New Mexico. “In other areas in the lower 48 the Canada Lynx is listed, but it’s not listed in New Mexico,” Nicole continued. In 2007 WildEarth Guardians and several other groups submitted a lengthy petition advocating that the Canadian Lynx be protected in New Mexico. “There were Lynx’s coming down from Colorado into New Mexico but as soon as they crossed the state line they had no endangered species legislation. So under the Agreement we’re going to get a final answer for Lynx in New Mexico by the end of fiscal year 2013 – September 20, 2013.”

Once listed, species get special status. “The Endangered Species Act is incredibly important for ensuring that species don’t go extinct,” Nicole concluded. “Over 99% of the plants and animals that are listed under it haven’t gone extinct.”

If you’d like more information, check out the related page on WildEarth Guardians’ website.

On Endangered Species Day, May 21st this year, the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research celebrated by launching its new initiative, “10 Reasons for Hope.”

The 10 Reasons for Hope are success stories, worth celebrating as they brighten the landscape for endangered animals.  Both wild and captive populations have benefitted from the Zoo’s efforts, from Kangaroo Rats and California Condors in the Zoo’s backyard to the Ebo Forest in Central Africa.

Kangaroo Rats, reputed to have such efficient kidneys that they never have to drink, are enjoying their sixth generation managed by the Zoo.  They live in the native bunch grass and chaparral habitat the animals need for food and cover, in southern California.  Diminutive may be a good description for them, however they play an important role in their ecosystem by helping to distribute seeds.

The San Diego Zoo’s Wild Animal Park produced the first condor chick from among the 22 birds that the population had been reduced to 20 years ago.  Today there are 180 condors in the wild and 169 in breeding centers.

San Diego Zoo’s Native Seed Bank has collected and stored almost 23% of the area’s native plant species, which will help preserve the area’s 1,500 native plant species, the most endangered of any county in the continental United States.

Internationally, the Zoo is successfully managing projects that are helping to research endangered primates and upgrade the Ebo Forest in northern central Africa to a national park.

They are also helping restore Giant Panda, frog, and elephant populations.  As well, they are helping to connect American children to nature, rather than letting the trend continue unabated of children spending most of their time inertly parked in front of an indoor computer.

Great photos and details of the 10 Reasons for Hope are on the San Diego Zoo’s website.

Alberta Tomorrow is an online simulator that lets you choose wildlife conservation, ecosystem services and resource development levels and see how that affects your conservation goals.  The final page will be filled with either happy or sad faces, depending on if the conditions you chose means you would reach your conservation goals or not.  When I entered today’s levels of resource development, I got a mixture of happy and sad faces which means we’ve got to change some of what is currently being done.

Entering the simulator, you have a choice of short videos about different resources and conservation subjects.  If you like information and facts, you will enjoy these videos.

The Best Practices video outlines the two strategies Alberta Tomorrow is based on.  The Protection Strategy protects 30% of all of Alberta’s forests and all the remaining native prairie from human disturbance.  The Low Impact strategy applies a number of practices to reduce ecosystem disturbance.  In a perfect world, both strategies would be used all around our world.

The first was from CNN online,  about Kenyan wildlife officials rounding up and moving thousands of zebras and wildebeest from a northern park to Amboseli National Park to feed starving lions and hyenas.  The lions and hyenas have started going after local livestock, because the drought that Kenya recently suffered from has killed many of their prey animals in the park.  This also impacts tourism – Amboseli is one of Kenya’s top parks, and most tourists go there to see the animals.

Then, halfway around the world, another item that has been in the news caught my attention.  Partly because it’s important, and partly because when combined with the above story all I could think at first was “hhmmm”.

As various news outlets have recently covered, animals and plants have been dying in Florida due to a bout of unusually cold weather.  Animals such as the endangered manatee was featured for several nights on evening broadcasts as they huddled in springs trying to stay warm.  The New York Times In Transit Blog mentions that thousands of “cold-stunned” sea turtles were rescued.  Sadly, animals died from the cold, including manatees, sea turtles and crocodiles.

What struck me is that both of these stories exist due to drastic weather changes, and yet stories appeared around the same time in other media outlets announcing that the number of people who “believe” in climate change has gone down since Copenhagen.  How can people not believe in climate change, or be concerned about what is happening in our world, when they learn stories like the above?

The other thing that struck me about the stories is what a strange world we’re living in now, and it’s likely to become even stranger.

What did the two news stories make you think?  Other than simply, “hhmmm”?

Legally, the decision of whether or not to add a threatened species to the Endangered Species Act list requires the use of “the best available science in a couple of key areas,” Jon Hunter, Policy Director of the Endangered Species Coalition, told me on Monday.  So the integrity of the science is very important. 

“The polar bear is a great example in the last couple of years, [–] the best science we have indicates that they are on a very bad path,” Jon explained.  The science that was needed pushed the boundaries of what has been traditionally considered good science.  “It looked further out and relies more on modeling and other predictions rather than a more traditional head count of how many exist and how many there were ten years ago.”

The US Geological Survey had to consider what the best climate models indicate will happen to the ice around the Arctic and Alaska.  The models told the USGS that “this is what will happen to the ice” and “from the ice, this is what will happen to the polar bears,” Jon explained.  “As a result, they could indicate that the polar bears were at serious risk, losing a lot of what they depend on for survival.”  This leads to the conclusion that there “clearly is a threat to the polar bear population being able to survive as a species.” 

“The definition of a threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future,” Jon continued.  “So they clearly said, ‘the best science we have, the models, indicate that there will be a risk at some point in the foreseeable future’.”  This is a fundamentally different use of science from the traditional approach which examines how “this species is being killed today by this cause.”  But Jon indicates that science is changing towards this model, and adds that “it’s important that we really look at science in this form to say ‘what can we expect with this species?’ ”  Good wildlife conservation considers the future of a species.

Sometimes politics enters into the field and politicians question scientific findings.  For this reason, agencies are doing more peer reviews.  That way, the science has a higher likelihood of standing up in court, which is where debates or challenges often go.  If the science is not solid, cases can be thrown out of court, which can sometimes allow threats to endangered species.  Most often, court cases examine “whether or not all of the science was used, if conclusions are actually founded in other determinations, and also how a decision or a delisting decision prescribes exactly as the law requires,” Jon explained. 

While not all endangered species decisions go through courts, there are a large number of challenges.  While details of challenges vary with species, the challenges are launched by members of two major groups.  “Oftentimes if a species isn’t listed, environmental groups look at it to closely to see if it would make a good court challenge.  If it does get listed, opponents to endangered species protection may challenge it,” such as a logging or a mining company.  And regardless of what side the court challenge comes from, the integrity and quality of the science used to make the decision can make a large difference for or against a threatened species.