Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak
As an example it wouldn't bother me one bit if Athabasca rainbows went extinct and were replaced with other species of rainbows, brookies, browns etc.
If conservation of a species is the only goal then they should choose 1 or 2 rivers/areas and conserve them in those areas. They don't need to shut down half the freaking province trying to maintain a species that is not an ideal fit for most of the waterbodies it was originally found in.
The reason cutties, athabasca rainbows, bulls and grayling were our native species is because that is what was naturally in the area... There is no other reason then that. The fact that they are natural does not mean that they were or are well suited to these waterbodies. An easy example being bull trout which are a cold water species that used to inhabit far more of this province due to the lack of predators and high populations. Now that there is more stuff affecting them they have retracted to the waterbodies/areas that they are more suited to living to.
|
You’re maybe not considering that the Species at Risk Act is federal. Canada can impose oversight on provinces and territories, and their criteria for definition of status is what counts. Occupied range is one important factor. Species don’t “retract” like it’s some kind of planned rearguard tactic. They are eliminated, first from the less suitable outer edges of their range, then the core. Range reduction is a bad thing. Alberta doesn’t have the autonomy to say that a species at risk will be sustained in one small area, so, Canada, don’t worry about all the other loss and leave us alone.