Personal tools
You are here: Home » Blog » UPDATE: Kent says no to caribou protection, again
Document Actions
  • Print this Print this
  • Send this Send this

UPDATE: Kent says no to caribou protection, again

Posted by Kimberly Shearon at Jan 26, 2012 11:20 AM |

"Nationally, the species does not face an imminent threat to survival at this time," Kent tells media.

The plight of Alberta's northeastern caribou herds do not warrant emergency protection measures, Environment Minister Peter Kent has decided, Ecojustice learned late Wednesday afternoon.

Kent was under orders from the Federal Court to reconsider his original decision not to issue a recommendation for emergency protection of the herds, which are in serious decline due in large part to oilsands development in the habitat they need to survive.

"I have reconsidered and I have determined that nationally, the species does not face an imminent threat to survival at this time," Kent said in an interview with The Canadian Press. The Minister's formal reasons for his decision have not yet been posted.

Six months ago, the Court called Minister Kent’s original decision not to recommend emergency protection for woodland caribou “out of the blue,” and ruled that it ignored scientific evidence and must be set aside

The Minister's decision was reportedly made two weeks ago, although we did not learn of it until Wednesday, after filing a special application to expedite a response from Minister Kent on the issue.

It's a disappointing turn of events. Ecojustice is now consulting with our clients, Alberta Wilderness Association and the Pembina Institute, about possible next steps.

 

 

Related content

woodland caribou

Posted by cheryl huxted at May 22, 2012 03:04 PM
without going into the details of why the recovery plan is flawed, one thing that is blaringly wrong with it is the action to harvest other species in order to protect the caribou. This is an "old school" method of wildlife conservation. we have come along way since the days of thinking that killing one species to protect another is a means of "conservation". There may not be any legal basis to get them to take this action off the plate, but hopefully, there are groups out there that have recognized this is a hazardous action and can convince the government that it needs to be removed from the plan.
 
Copyright Ecojustice, 1998 - 2010 | Website by Groundwire | Powered by Plone