Banff’s Mountain Caribou versus Spring Snails

[GoatGuy]

Banff’s Mountain Caribou versus Spring Snails

Conservation Biology
Volume 24, No. 2, 2010

Hebblewhite et al. (2010) recently revisited Berger’s
(2003) question of whether it is acceptable for a species
in a national park to be allowed to go extinct.On the same
day the Banff National Park (BNP), Alberta, Canada, population
of threatened mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) was extirpated in an avalanche in April
2009, they state that environmental groups (Ecojustice
2009) touted the Banff Springs snail (Physella johnsoni)
as the only Canadian species to have full protection under
the Species at Risk Act (SARA; Government of Canada
2002). Hebblewhite et al. suggest inertia was a major factor
in the jurisdictional authority (Environment Canada)
not following the provisions of SARA. They also present
ideas on how to prevent other species from following
the same road to oblivion. Finally, they ask, “. . . why
the Banff Springs snail (for which Parks Canada was the
designated federal agency under SARA), and not caribou,
received sufficient recovery dollars.” Although it could
be argued strenuously that “sufficient recovery dollars”
have never been available for the snail, other factors contributed
to the contrast between the two species’ roads to
recovery.
First, the Banff Springs snail is an endangered, endemic
species confined to a handful of thermal springs
within BNP (COSEWIC 2008). The total habitat occupied
by the species is only 595.4 m2 (COSEWIC 2008).
This small area has been designated critical habitat by
Parks Canada Agency (2008) under SARA. Although we
do not believe the area of occupancy was calculated for
the wide-ranging mountain caribou population of Banff,
it probably was a few orders of magnitude larger.
Second, as Hebblewhite et al. noted, the Parks Canada
Agency was the sole jurisdictional authority to ensure
the continued existence of the snail. In anticipation of
the passage of SARA in 2002, a resource management
plan for recovery of the species (Lepitzki et al. 2002) was
approved by Parks Canada. Once SARA passed, the Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) assessed endangered snail was listed automatically
under SARA, as were other species on the
COSEWIC list at that time. Finalization of the recovery
strategy and action plan (Lepitzki & Pacas 2007) continued
under the direction of a recovery team. This team was

[GoatGuy]

and is composed of fewer than a dozen people. From the
very beginning, we have been instrumental in ensuring
the snail continues to survive in the face of continuing
and increasing threats to it and its habitat (Lepitzki &
Pacas 2007), including the cutting of research budgets,
which currently permit not much beyond monitoring.
Even this miserly budget (about the value of a few GPS
collars) is in danger of being cut.
In contrast, Parks Canada Agency, under the direction
of theMinister of the Environment, is but a single member
of the group that has jurisdiction over the caribou. Inertia
and too many cooks could definitely be a reason why the
road to recovery of Banff’s caribou was different from the
road for the snail.
Third, the snail became known locally, nationally, and
internationally because of actions of the recovery team.
A search on the internet yielded over 47,700 hits for
“Banff Springs snail” but only one hit for “Banff mountain
caribou”; however, without quotes Banff mountain
caribou results in over 135,000 hits, mostly tourism
sites. Having four of the seven subpopulations (COSEWIC
2008) of the snail (seven includes the two reestablished
populations) in an area of high visitor use that is the birthplace
of Canada’s national park system (Cave and Basin
National Historic Site) increases the public profile of the
diminutive snail. Concurrently, the over 100,000 visitors
a year to the Cave and Basin also increases the snail’s exposure
to inadvertent or advertent disturbance of critical
habitat. Where else can one get within centimeters of an
endangered species?
We propose the following answer to Berger’s (2003)
question: Whether a species should be allowed to become
extinct in a national park also depends on societal
values, the characteristics of the species, and whether
someone or a few are willing to advocate for it. If the
species is small and occupies an extremely small area, it
may be a lot easier to prevent its extinction. The Banff
caribou-snail situation also begs another question: If humans
cannot find the resources, both financial and personnel,
to prevent the extinction of a species confined to
a national park and living in an area just under the size of
the penalty box of a soccer pitch, what chance is there
of saving other, wider-ranging species, such as grizzly
bears (Ursus arctos), mountain caribou, and wolverines
(Gulo gulo) (all assessed as at risk by COSEWIC), living
in Canadian national parks?
Dwayne A.W. Lepitzki∗ and Charlie Pacas†
∗Wildlife Systems Research, P.O. Box 1311, Banff, Alberta T1L 1K2
Canada, email lepitzki@telusplanet.net
†Banff Springs Snail Recovery Team, Banff National Park, P.O. Box 900,
Banff, Alberta T1L 1K2 Canada
Literature Cited
Berger, J. 2003. Is it acceptable to let a species go extinct in a national
park? Conservation Biology 17: 1451–1454.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada).
2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on Banff
Springs snail Physella johnsoni in Canada. COSEWIC, Ottawa. Available
from http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status_e.cfm (accessedDecember
2009).
Ecojustice. 2009. Canada’s Species at Risk Act: implementation at a
snail’s pace. Ecojustice, Vancouver. Available from http://www.
ecojustice.ca/publications/reports/canadas-species-at-risk-actimplementation-
at-a-snails-pace (accessed December 2009).
Government of Canada. 2002. Chapter 29, Bill C-5, an Act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Bill C-5 assented to
12 December 2002. Public Works and Government Services Canada
– Publishing, Ottawa.
Hebblewhite, M., C. White, and M. Musiani. 2010. Revisiting extinction
in national parks: mountain caribou in Banff. Conservation Biology
24: 341–344.
Lepitzki, D. A. W., and C. Pacas. 2007. Recovery strategy and action
plan for the Banff Springs snail (Physella johnsoni) in Canada.
Species at risk recovery strategy series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa.
Available from http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/ (accessed December
2009).
Lepitzki, D. A. W., C. Pacas, and M. Dalman. 2002. Resource management
plan for the recovery of the Banff Springs snail (Physella johnsoni)
in Banff National Park, Alberta. Parks Canada, Banff National
Park, Banff.
Parks Canada Agency. 2008. Description of critical habitat of the Banff
Springs snail in Banff National Park. Available from http://www.
sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1584 (accessed
December 2009).
Conservation

[aggiehunter]

sure???????