mcall at SUPERAJE.COM
Tue Jul 29 19:20:14 CDT 1997
IUCN has recently revised the species at risk categories. They can be
through the IUCN home page. The Nature Conservancy also has a set of
species at risk categories. Both sides are widely used, e.g. IUCN Red
Books. So its not necessary to re-invent what is meant by rare. Adding
more definitions would just confuse the issue, especially when it has
already been dealt with in depth by conservation persons with
considerable experience. That isn't to say that bit by bit their
definitions shouldn't be refined, as they are. It's just we should work
from those points and not start all over again.
There will always be those who oppose definitions of rarity, or
classifying any species as rare or endangered. The Fraser Institute,
for example, recently tried to imply that the process was unreliable.
The same institute just carried out its own state of the environment
report for Canada and said everything is fine. Interestingly in their
evaluation of the performance of the Canadian government, there was no
'mark' for environmental performance. They seem to represent the more
Jurassic members of the corporate world.
Thomas G. Lammers wrote:
> At 09:19 AM 07-29-97 -0700, Dennis Paulson wrote:
> >How about an operational definition something like "present in such low
> >numbers that one could not be guaranteed of finding it on a visit to its
> >preferred habitat, using the best methods known to detect the species."
Don E. McAllister /& Canadian Centre for Biodiversity
Ocean Voice International /Canadian Museum of Nature
Box 37026, 3332 McCarthy Rd. /Box 3443, Station D
Ottawa, ON K1V 0W0, Canada /Ottawa, ON K1P 6P4
URL: http://www.ovi.ca E-mail: mcall at superaje.com
(or: ah194 at freenet.carleton.ca) Tel: (613) 264-8986, Fax: (613)
More information about the Taxacom