Chapter 15 Review Questions

F (see “Valuing Biodiversity”)

T (see “Economic Values”)

T (see “Ethical Values”)

T (see “Habitat Change”)

F (see “Ethical Values”)

F (see “Protected Areas”)

F (see “Protected Areas: A Canadian Perspective”)

T (see “Main Pressures Causing Extinction”)

T (see “Overharvesting”)

F (see “Protected Areas: A Global Perspective”)

Humans derive extrinsic values from other species, values that come from human use. These values can be consumptive (i.e., the organism is harvested) or non-consumptive (i.e., the organism is not harvested or the resource is not destroyed). While important, the extrinsic reasons for species protection should not dominate our thinking. Such thinking could lead to the protection of a selection of species believed to be of higher value, while species with less use value are afforded little or no protection. Thus, arguments for biological conservation focus on the intrinsic value of nature—nature has value in and of itself, apart from its value to humanity.
(see “Valuing Biodiversity”)

Ecological values:

• Scientists in different parts of the world have very recently discovered massive reductions in the numbers of forest insects compared with populations 30–40 years ago. As insect numbers collapse, the entire food chain is affected.
• All species in a community combine to maintain the vital ecosystem processes that make human life possible on this planet—oxygen to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat. Humans are part of this web of life, but if we continue to eliminate components of the web, its strength will be compromised, with a significant impact on the ability of humans to survive.
• In addition to the value of species in ecosystem functioning, species should be protected for their evolutionary value, their value to future generations. Species evolve and as more species become extinct, there is a reduction in genetic variation in the ecosphere. Fewer species means a more impoverished biosphere on which to base evolutionary adaptability for future generations.

Economic values:

• Countless products used in agriculture and industry originate in the natural world. Naturally occurring plants in the tropics are the source of 90 per cent of the world’s food supply.
• Over 99.8 per cent of the world’s plants have not been tested for human food potential. Some may become important food staples in the future, so preserving their habitat is important.
• Wild animals still provide a food source for millions of people worldwide, particularly Indigenous people.
• Many plant and animal products are used in various industries – For example, rubber is an important commodity in the automotive sector.
• Many other chemicals produced by plants are used in the pharmaceutical industry
• Ecosystems provide humans with a wide array of economic services. Natural pollinators, for example, provide an essential service to commercial crops.
• Natural predator–prey relationships also aid in food production.
  (see “Pest control”)

Other extrinsic values:

• Wildlife contributes to the joy of life, but this joy often translates into a contribution to the economic values attached to wildlife.
• The economic value attached to nature-based tourism can provide a significant impetus to conservation when managed to enhance biodiversity and educational values.

Ethical values:

• Ethical arguments can be made for preserving all species, regardless of their use value to humans.
• Humans have a moral responsibility to protect species from going extinct due to our activities. This philosophy reflects an ecocentric view—humans are part of the larger biotic community in which we respect all species’ rights to exist.
  (see “Ecological values” to “Ethical values”)

See Figure 15.2: Extinction vortex. (Main Pressures Causing Extinction)

Tropical systems are biodiversity hotspots and are experiencing many pressures responsible for increasing rates of extinction. Of the 10–15 million terrestrial species thought to be on Earth, up to 90 per cent are estimated to exist in the tropics, particularly in tropical rain forests. Thus, destruction of tropical areas has greater potential for extinction. Tropical ecosystems are being degraded and destroyed at alarming rates

(see “Main Pressures Causing Extinction”)

Causes of tropical deforestation include:

• Rapidly growing population levels. More people often equals less biological diversity, since people use natural resources to survive.
• Over-consumption of resources. The rise of industrial capitalism and materialistic modern societies has greatly accelerated demands for natural resources, particularly in developing countries.
• Inequality in the distribution of wealth. Poor rural people with no land or resources of their own destroy biological communities and hunt endangered species just to stay alive.
  (see “Main Pressures Causing Extinction”)

Predators that compete with humans for consumption of the same resource often become subject to extensive hunting to eliminate competition. This contributes to extinction of the targeted species, but also has an impact on the food chain that can put other species at risk. For example, the drastic decline in prairie dogs led to collapse of their main predator, the black-footed ferret, for which prairie dogs made up more than 90 per cent of their diet.

Predator control is usually about killing animals that prey upon livestock, but some of the most controversial cases in Canada involve cases where predators, such as wolves, are being killed to try to boost the numbers of another, usually endangered, species. The wolf was vilified as a rapacious killer and enemy of humans for centuries. It was shot, poisoned, and extirpated throughout large areas of its range, particularly in parts of the United States, where it became an endangered species.

(see “Predator Control”)

Physical changes such as deforestation remove important habitat components, while chemical pollution may not only kill animals directly but also degrade habitats to the point that they can no longer support wildlife even if the physical structure of the habitat remains.

• Physical changes
  • Large areas of forests have been cleared to make way for agriculture. Species dependent on these forests, suffered accordingly.
  • Prairie grasslands have been converted to agricultural lands - bison and antelope have been replaced by cattle.
  • Thousands of hectares of wetlands have been drained to create more agricultural land.
  • Over the past few decades, significant population declines have occurred for species that spend most of the year in tropical habitats but migrate to Canada to breed. These declines probably involve several factors, including loss of winter range through tropical deforestation and increased fragmentation within their northern breeding habitat.
  • Global climate change will likely have a dramatic effect: biomes migrating northward, high-profile species threatened, mismatch between food supply and brood arrival in birds, large-scale reduction in snow and ice cover.

• Chemical changes
  • As the number of chemicals introduced into the environment continues to increase, concern over chemical degradation of habitats intensifies. Pollution is the second-most important cause of endangerment for freshwater species in Canada.
  • The effects of chemical pollution are often more difficult to assess, manage, and control than those of physical destruction.
  • Bald eagles in the Great Lakes region are dying at half their natural lifespan, often with high levels of lead and mercury in their systems as result of the persistence of these pollutants in the environment
  • There are also links between contaminant pollution and climate change. For example, due to declining sea ice, polar bears are feeding more on fish-eating, open-water seals rather than on invertebrate-eating ice seals. Fish-eating seals have larger concentrations of contaminants, resulting in larger concentrations in polar bears.
    (see “Habitat Change”, “Physical Changes”, “Chemical Changes”)

Invasive alien species are responsible for about 40 per cent of animal extinctions for which the cause is known, and globally these species are second only to habitat destruction as a main cause of endangerment. Introduced species have a significant impact by out-competing native species for necessary resources or by direct predation on native species. However, in contrast to the US, Venter et al. (2006) found that, currently, alien species are the least influential causes of endangerment in Canada. This is likely to change as warming climates make for a more hospitable environment for many more potential invaders.

(see “Alien Species”)

Species with one or more of the following characteristics are more vulnerable to extinction:

• Specialized habitats for feeding or breeding. Once a habitat is altered, the environment may no longer be suitable for specialized species.
• Migratory patterns. Species that migrate seasonally depend on two or more distinct habitat types, and if either one of these habitats is damaged, the species may be unable to persist.
• Insular and local distributions. Dawson’s caribou, endemic to the Haida Gwaii archipelago, became extinct because of the ease with which it could be hunted in such a restricted habitat, with no hope of an emigrating population for replacement.
• High economic value. Many organisms are overharvested to the point of extinction because of their high economic value.
• Animals with large body size. Large animals tend to have large home ranges, require more food, and are more easily hunted by humans. Hunting is the largest source of mortality for large vertebrates. Top carnivores depend on abundance of many different species lower in the food chain. If the numbers of prey species are disrupted, the impacts are felt at the top of the food chain. Furthermore, animals higher up the food chain are more vulnerable to the concentration of toxic materials.
• Need for a large home range. Species that need to forage over a wide area are prone to extinction when part of their range is damaged or fragmented.
• Only one or a few populations and/or small population size. Any one population may “blink out” as a result of chance factors (e.g., earthquakes, fire, disease), increasing the species’ vulnerability to extinction. Small populations are also more likely to become extinct locally because of their greater vulnerability to demographic and environmental variation.
• Not effective dispersers. Species unable to adapt to changing environments must migrate to a more suitable habitat or face extinction. Species that cannot migrate quickly have a greater chance of extinction. This factor will become much more important as the impact of climate change increases.
• Behavioural traits or feeding needs causing susceptibility. Some species have behavioural traits that make them particularly vulnerable to clashes with human activities. Other species, although not attracted by human activities, may be too slow to get out of the way. Others are caught incidentally when feeding near human harvesting activities, often the case with fisheries bycatch.
  (see “Vulnerability to Extinction”)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) establishes a list of species for which international trade must be monitored or controlled. Individual countries are required to pass laws to enforce this treaty, and vote on species to be protected by it. The Convention on Biological Diversity requires signatories to develop biodiversity strategies, identify and monitor important components of biodiversity, develop endangered species legislation and protected areas systems, and promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas.

(see “The International Response”)

It took many years for the federal government to respond to the legislative challenge of protecting endangered species. The Species at Risk Act (SARA) was finally passed in 2002. The federal government had little choice; as a signatory to the CBD, it was required to enact such legislation. One reason the government was so reluctant to introduce and pass federal endangered species legislation is because much of Canada’s public lands, and their resources, are under provincial jurisdiction; federal legislation may not be easily enforced in Canada.

COSEWIC (the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) is responsible for making recommendations on which species to list under SARA; however, this does not guarantee that they will in fact be listed, as the final decision is up to the politicians in the CESCC (the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council), and for this reason SARA has been strongly criticized by many who feel that the process should be scientific, not political.

Many species assessed by COSEWIC, particularly marine species, have not been granted protection. Species in the North are also less likely to be listed than species in southern Canada due to a lack of capacity or willingness on the part of certain agencies and wildlife management boards in the North to accept the additional stewardship responsibilities required by SARA. Each suggested species undergoes a cost–benefit analysis in which very little attention is given to the benefits, both tangible and intangible, whereas the costs are studied in detail. Furthermore, these analyses are not open to peer review.

For species listed under SARA, recovery and management plans must be developed and implemented, unless the minister responsible feels that recovery is not “feasible,” a caveat that provides another political opportunity to block action. The Act has been further criticized because even when a species is listed, it receives automatic protection only on federal lands. Recovery plans that determine critical habitat must be established for listed species but in only two cases has SARA been used to protect habitat. It would appear that the government agencies charged with protecting endangered species in Canada are unwilling to comply with the legislation.

SARA lays out a framework for cooperation on the protection of endangered species and relies primarily on volunteerism. However, independent assessments of the Canadian process for endangered species protection and SARA strongly suggest that the approach is not working.

(see “The Canadian Response”)

You can discuss any three of the following:

• Art gallery: Many parks were designated for their scenic beauty, still a major reason why people visit parks.
• Zoo: As one component of the art gallery, parks are usually places to view wildlife easily in relatively natural surroundings. Because they are protected from hunting in most parks, the wildlife is not as shy.
• Playground: Parks provide excellent recreational settings for many outdoor pursuits.
• Movie theatre: Just like a movie, parks can lift us into a setting different from that of our everyday life.
• Place of worship: Many people derive spiritual fulfillment from communing with nature, just as others go to human-built places of worship.
• Factory: The first national parks in Canada were designated with the idea of generating income through tourism. Since these early beginnings, the livelihood-support role of parks has been recognized, although it is a controversial one because of potential conflict with most other roles.
• Museum: In the absence of development, parks serve as museums, reminding us of how landscapes might have looked to early settlers. These museums also perform a valuable ecological function, since they encompass important areas against which ecological change in the rest of the landscape can be measured.
• Bank: Parks are places in which we store and protect our ecological capital, including threatened and endangered species. We can use the “interest” from these “accounts” to repopulate areas with species that have disappeared.
• Hospital: Ecosystems are not static and isolated phenomena but are linked to support processes all over the planet. Protected areas constitute one of the few places where such processes still operate in a relatively natural manner. As such, they may be considered ecosystem “hospitals” where air is purified, carbon stored, oxygen produced, and ecosystems “recreated.” About 15 per cent of the carbon sequestered in North America is in protected areas.
• Laboratory: As relatively natural landscapes, parks represent outdoor laboratories for scientists to use in unravelling the mysteries of nature.
• Schoolroom: Parks can play a major role in education as outdoor classrooms.
  (see “Protected Areas”, Box 15.7)

Ia: Strict nature reserve

Ib: Wilderness area

II: National park

III: Natural monument or feature

IV: Habitat/species management area

V: Protected landscape or seascape

VI: Protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources

(see “Protected Areas: A Global Perspective”, Table 15.3)

As human populations grow, so do pressures for increased use of protected areas. Significant biophysical impacts may result just from the sheer numbers of people enjoying parks. In many tropical areas, conflicts arise as local people, often driven by poverty and land-use pressures, encroach on the parks in large numbers, hunting wild animals and cutting down trees to make way for agriculture, obtain firewood, and/or sell on international markets. In the past in Thailand, and in many similar countries, management activities focused on a preventive approach, with armed guards patrolling boundaries. Nevertheless, poaching continues in many areas, and shootouts between poachers and park guards are not an ideal management tool. Economic development programs initiated in some villages have triggered an increase in land prices, leading some villagers to sell their lands and encroach further into park lands. (see “Protected Areas: A Global Perspective”)

The Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE)’s 2018 report outlined three defining elements of Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs) for the Canadian context: they are Indigenous led, they represent a long-term commitment to conservation, and they elevate Indigenous rights and responsibilities.

Indigenous led means that Indigenous governments must have the primary role in determining the objectives, boundaries, management plans, and governance structures for IPCAs. This is very different from the traditional approach to Indigenous involvement in protected area planning and management, in which Indigenous peoples are consulted on these issues and their views are sometimes taken into account.

(see “Protected Areas: A Canadian Perspective”)

Some of the generic management challenges being faced by parks in Canada:

• Development within the Parks
  • First National Parks Act was passed in 1930.
  • Tourism and income generation were the main reasons behind the establishment of many parks, including Banff.
  • In 1988, the balance between development and protection was clarified in amendments to the National Parks Act. Protection of ecological integrity became the primary mandate. Despite this legislative mandate, development pressures continued.
  • Even in 2018, the minister in charge of national parks had to publicly reaffirm that ecological integrity was the first priority of the parks because, despite the legislative mandate, the tourism industry was pressing for more facilities in parks, such as the Skywalk and the resort expansion at Maligne Lake, both in Jasper National Park.

• External threats:
  • Parks do not exist in isolation—they are intimately linked to surrounding and global ecosystems. It is therefore necessary to be aware of any influences from outside park boundaries that may have a detrimental impact on ecological integrity within the park.
  • Some external threats can be readily identified and even managed (such as forestry activities along a park boundary) while in other instances the influences of external factors are too distant and diffuse for park managers to control (e.g. climate change).

• Fragmentation:
  • Parks are increasingly becoming islands of natural vegetation surrounded by human-modified landscapes. This situation creates several problems, since many animal species and some bird species cannot cross modified landscapes. As a result, they become an isolated breeding population, leading to genetic inbreeding and a higher susceptibility to extinction.
  • In general, (1) blocks of habitat close together are better than blocks far apart; (2) habitat in contiguous blocks is better than fragmented habitat; and (3) interconnected blocks of habitat are better than isolated blocks.
  • However, overall our parks are too small, too few, and too far apart to sustain populations of many species throughout the next century. Attention is being directed toward ways of linking the parks through corridors of natural habitat.

• Governance:
  • Traditionally park agencies made and implemented all the decisions. However, around the world it is now recognized that many stakeholders should be included in decision-making as they can help improve the process within the pathways laid out in legislation and policy. The most effective process is one in which a balance of power exists among groups.
    (see “Park Management Challenges”)

Scientists use population viability analysis (PVA) to quantify risk of extinction, elucidate factors contributing to numerical decline, and help in prioritizing conservation actions among endangered species and populations.

(see “Fragmentation”)

Stewardship refers to many different activities that can be undertaken to care for the Earth. In the context of protected areas, it generally means encouraging landowners to modify their activities to help protect ecosystems. In practice, stewardship takes many forms, including:

• landowners voluntarily restricting damaging use of land, planting native species rather than exotic ones, and placing protective covenants on their land;
• community members contributing to wildlife monitoring programs, providing passive education for tourists and visitors, and participating in collective restoration;
• park visitors voluntarily choosing to avoid hikes along sensitive trails or participating in park host programs; and
• corporations introducing sustainable land practices that reduce damage to wildlife habitat.
  (see “Fragmentation”)