Oops, thanks Frank. My classifications were in no way based in law, just
trying to give a general idea of how categories relate to each other. Every
state and the feds all have their own classification system which roughly
follows these classifications, but they mostly use different terms,
especially for the low end of classifictaion (conservation dependant/least
concern/threatened, etc). My actual terms used probably most closely
follows the QLD state laws but are not verbatim. And I left off extinct in
the wild/extinct by accident, but really what can you do once they reach
that point?
Regards,
Chris
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:05 PM, <> wrote:
> They must be classifications under one of the State laws, Chris? Under the
> Federal EPBC Act, the categories of threatened species are:
> extinct;
> extinct in the wild;
> critically endangered;
> endangered;
> vulnerable;
> conservation dependent.
>
> Also, Carl Clifford mentioned the definition of vulnerable under the
> Federal Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 but this legislation no
> longer exists - it was superseded by the EPBC Act.
>
> Info on the status of Superb Parrot may be found here:
>
> http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=738
>
> Regards
> Frank Antram
>
> -Original message-----
> From: Chris Sanderson
> Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:19:39 +1000
> To: Peter Shute
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Superb Parrot in the news - Conservation Status
>
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > The order of "seriousness" of classifications is:
> >
> > No concern
> > Least threatened
> > Vulnerable
> > Endangered
> > Critcally Endangered
> >
> > I believe vulnerable is something along the lines of "likely to go
> extinct
> > without active protection of populations and habitat". Higher
> > classifications are more likely to require direct intervention such as
> > habitat restoration or captive breeding to avoid extinction.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> >
> > > So is "vulnerable" better or worse than "endangered"? I was assuming
> it
> > > was better, in which case I would have said it was "facing a high risk
> of
> > > becoming endangered" rather than "extinct". Their wording makes me
> think Im
> > > wrong, and that it's worse than "endangered".
> > >
> > > Peter Shute
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [mailto:
> > > On Behalf Of
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2009 12:50 PM
> > > To: michael norris; Birding-Aus
> > > Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Superb Parrot in the news - Conservation
> Status
> > >
> > > The definition of 'vulnerable' under the EPBC Act is in Sub-section 179
> (5)
> > > A native species is eligible to be included in the vulnerable
> > > category at a particular time if, at that time:
> > > (a) it is not critically endangered or endangered; and
> > > (b) it is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in
> the
> > > medium term future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed
> > > criteria.
> > >
> > > The prescribed criteria are in Regulation 7.01. Links to the Act and
> the
> > > Regulations may be found here
> > > http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Frank Antram
> > >
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: "michael norris"
> > > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:17:58 +1000
> > > To: "Birding-Aus"
> > > Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Superb Parrot in the news - Conservation
> Status
> > >
> > > > What does 'Vulnerable' mean these days?
> > > >
> > > > Please, someone, give us the precise definitions of the status of
> > > > threatened species in the EPBC Act or the URL for the orders which
> > > > contain the criteria.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes
> > > >
> > > > Michael Norris
> > > >
> > > > 37° 59' S 145° 0' E
> > > >
|
