​

​

​

​

​

​

No matter how sound a peice of legislation may seem, it is bound to have some flaws. One of the main flaws with SARA is that it does not always follow scientific recommendation by COSEWIC. Sometimes, if an animal is of economic, social or political importance, it can be refused protection on the grounds that it could affect it’s primary industry. An example of this is in the case of the porbeagle shark. Upon recommendation by COSEWIC, it was denied protection (despite a recent 90% population decline) based on the fact that it’s protection might have impacted the fishing industry. Regarding economics more highly than species protection weakens the act, as this view only regards species protection in the short term. Yes, the protection of porbeagle sharks may result in some reduced income now, but if they are protected and populations recover enough to be taken off the list, they can live on to be fished (sustainably) another day. If the government continues to put economic priority over the wellbeing of this species, then the population could go extinct, thus it will permanently affect the fishing industry. In the year of SARA’s 5-year anniversary, only 445 out of 551 species recommended for listing by COSEWIC have been protected under SARA [6].

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​Another flaw in the Species at Risk Act is that it only applies to federal land. Public and Crown land is under provincial jurisdiction. Also, SARA does not apply to private land. In order to protect species in dire situations in provincial areas, SARA developed the Safety Net provision. The "safety net" allows the federal government to provide protection to species that are not on federal land. This Safety Net has never been used, despite the dire circumstances of the Northern Spotted Owl [6].​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​Plant and Invertebrate species are currently lacking assessment as can be seen in Table 1 (below). These species are in great need of data collection to promote protection in order to understand their conservation needs and which species are vulnerable, threatened or endangered [16].

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​"Data Deficient" species applies to a species which the available information is insufficient (a) to
resolve a wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species' risk of extinction, according to COSEWIC 2012. SARA will refuse to conduct further research on the species and will delay reassessment. With no listing available even species at the risk of extinction will not be protected under SARA [2].
​
Click here for the entire 2013 COSEWIC Status Report (including data deficient species!)
 

​

The number of species listed and the Recovery Strategies, Recovery Plans and Determined Critical Habitats associated with these species are indicated in Figure 1. The total number of listed species greatly exceeds the number of recovery efforts in affect [17]. 

Once a species is listed, SARA requires that the Recovery Strategy identify the species habitat to be maintained, protected or restored as adequate habitat cannot be maintained (Section 41). However, the majority of recovery strategies released to date do not identify critical habitats, despite the requirements to do so [18].



    ​

​

 

 

​

​

​​​​​​​​​​​​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​​​Furthermore, Figure 2 indicates the proportion of taxa with completed assessments by COSEWIC that are not listed under SARA [9]. Clearly marine fish have been given no level of significance and are not listed, another flaw that SARA currently exhibits. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​Weak legislation  -  Loopholes  -  Lack of Funding  -  Poor Habitat Protection  -   Political Interference  -  Poor Implementation
These are the reasons WHY Canada's rich wildlife  is left

with poor protection.

​

​

​

​