Search

SHOULD CONSERVATION TARGETS, such as the proportion of a region to be placed in protected areas, be socially acceptable from the start? Or should they be based unapologetically on the best available science and expert opinion, then address issues of practicality later? Such questions strike to the philosophical core of conservation. Ambitious targets are often considered radical and value laden, whereas modest targets are ostensibly more objective and reasonable. The personal values of experts are impossible to escape in either case. Conservation professionals of a biocentric bent might indeed err on the side of protecting too much. Anthropocentric bias, however, more commonly affects target setting. The pro-growth norms of global society foster timidity among conservation professionals, steering them toward conformity with the global economic agenda and away from acknowledging what is ultimately needed to sustain life on Earth.

The law governing large carnivores in the western U.S. and western Canada abounds in jurisdictional complexity. In the U.S., different federal and state laws govern large carnivore conservation efforts; species listed under the Endangered Species Act are generally protected, whereas those subject to state regulation can be hunted, trapped, or otherwise taken. Neither federal nor state environmental or land management laws specifically protect large carnivores, though these laws can be used to protect habitat. A similar situation prevails in Canada. Canadian federal law does not address large carnivore conservation, although the national parks provide some secure habitat. Provincial laws vary widely; none of these laws specifically protect large carnivores, but some provisions can be invoked to protect habitat. Although the two nations have not entered any bilateral treaties to protect large carnivores, several species receive limited protection under multilateral treaty obligations. Despite these jurisdictional complexities, the existing legal framework can be built upon to promote large carnivore conservation efforts, primarily through a legally protected reserve system. Whether the political will exists to utilize fully the available legal authorities remains to be seen. La ley que gobierna los carnivoros mayores en el oeste de los Estados Unidos y Canada es compleja. En los E.U. diferentes leyes federales y estatales gobiernan los esfuerzos de conservacion de los carnivoros mayores; las especies listadas bajo el Acta de Especies Amenazadas son generalmente protegidas, mientras que aquellas sujetas a regulacion estatal pueden ser cazadas, atrapadas o en otros casos tomadas. Ni las leyes federales ni las estatales referentes a la proteccion ambiental y ai manejo de tierras protegen especificamente a los carnivoros mayores, sin embargo estas leyes protegen sus habitats. Una situacion similar prevalece en Canada. La legislacion federal canadiense no aborda la proteccion de los carivoros mayores, aunque los parques nacionales proveen cierto hatbitat seguro. Las leyes de las provincias varian ampliamente; ninguna de ellas protege especificamente a los carnivoros mayores, pero algunas clausulas pueden ser citadas para proteger el habitat. Aunque las dos naciones no han iniciado tratados bilaterales para proteger a los carnivoros mayores, varias especies reciben proteccion limitada bajo tratados de proteccion multilaterales. A pesar de las complejidades jurisdiccionales, el marco legal existente puede ser usado para promover los esfuerzos de conservacion de carnivoros mayores, principalmente a traves de un sistema de reserva protegida. El hecho de que la politica existira utilizar completamente las autoridades legales viables aun esta por verse.