VANCOUVER - Furry mammals and tasty fish are getting the sharp end of the stick when it comes to endangered-species protection, according to a new Simon Fraser University study.

SFU Biologist Arne Mooers and his colleagues at the Vancouver based university looked at 30 species rejected for endangered-species protection by the federal government from 2003-2006, and compared them to 156 species listed as endangered.

"Listings under the current law seem to discriminate against the fuzzier, tastier endangered species," Mooers said. "The decisions make it look as if Canadians value milk snakes and dromedary jumping slugs more than they value polar bears, beluga whales and coho salmon. That's hard to believe."

While all 12 endangered birds and all 26 at-risk reptiles and amphibians received protection under the Species at Risk Act, only one of 11 imperiled marine fish and 12 of 30 mammals were listed, the scientists said.

The mammals include the polar bear, wolverine, grizzly, and several populations of beluga whales.

The reason for the "bias" against mammals and marine fish comes down to human use, said Mooers' colleague, University of B.C. biologist Laura Prugh.

"What I saw as the most striking difference between the protected and unprotected species was whether or not they're harvested," Prugh said. "Economic reasons are often cited."

Protection of harvested species would require restrictions on hunting and fishing, she noted.

Federal authorities appeared keen to grant protection to species already protected by provincial authorities, Prugh said.

"It seems as though if listing the species was going to require new effort to actually protect them, it would be denied," Prugh said.

The biologists want the federal government to give more weight to the benefits of protecting a species. Providing protection can help an animal population to recover, which may pay off in future harvesting, Prugh said.

The federal government did not list the northern cod, despite a 99 per cent population decline, or the porbeagle shark, which has suffered a 90 per cent decline, Mooers and his colleagues wrote in the international journal Conservation Biology. Listing the shark may have led to the loss of eight jobs, the article said. Keeping it off the endangered list, according to Mooers and the other scientists, reflects "an implicit policy not to list any marine fish perceived to be of economic value, no matter how small."

The porbeagle, as well as the grizzly, are examples of animals still going through regulatory processes, said Michele Brenning, director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service.

"There's more than one tool that the federal government can use to achieve its objectives with regards to conservation and protection of species," Brenning said.

For instance, federal authorities decided to use the Fisheries Act, rather than the Species at Risk Act, to protect the northern cod, Brenning said.

A cost-benefit analysis is conducted for each species considered for protection, Brenning said.

Vancouver Province

ebaron@png.canwest.com