Protection for Canada’s wildlife has been a long time coming. A committee known as the COSEWIC, made up of officials from conservation organisations and federal, provincial and territorial governments, lists 263 plants and animals as being at risk. But there is no federal law to protect them. Only four of Canada’s 12 provinces and territories have their own laws, and they are regarded as largely ineffective.

Yet since the proposed federal law was tabled in August it has been roundly condemned. Its most vocal critic is the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition, but many scientists also believe it has severe shortcomings. Dan Schoen, a biologist at McGill University in Montreal, wrote the letter and, with help from David Schindler of the University of Alberta, assembled a list of signatories which reads like a Who’s Who of Canada’s natural scientists.

The letter was read simultaneously at eight news conferences across the country. In Ottawa, Digby McLaren, a past president of the Royal Society of Canada said: “The legislation as currently proposed puts at risk Canada’s rich biological heritage.”

There is no provision in the draft law for protecting habitats, say the scientists, and yet habitat loss is recognised as the leading cause of extinction. Another major objection is that the act would apply only to the 4 or 5 per cent of Canada’s land and water that is federally controlled. None of the country’s vast freshwater ecosystems or land north of 60° would benefit because they are controlled by provincial or territorial governments.

Another complaint is that although the COSEWIC lists three categories of at-risk species – vulnerable, threatened and endangered – the draft law advocates action only once a species is endangered. By this time recovery is likely to be more difficult and any intervention more expensive. While the law would require federal agencies to make a decision on whether to intervene, it does not set them any deadline. “Species are likely to become extinct as politicians argue over the details of each case,” write the scientists.

David Brackett, director-general of the Canadian Wildlife Service, says that while he recognises the scientists’ concerns, the federal government cannot meddle in provincial matters. He hopes that the provinces will write their own legislation according to the general principles laid down by the draft law.

The seals commute not once but twice a year between the beaches of California’s Channel Islands and far-flung feeding areas in the Pacific. After they leave the Californian coast, the bulls head for the Gulf of Alaska or the eastern Aleutian Islands while the cows take a more southerly route which leads them into the central north Pacific (see Map). No one knows why the sexes separate.

The findings come from a tracking study carried out by researchers at the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute in San Diego and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Laboratory in Seattle. In a report in the current issue of the Journal of Mammalogy, the team claims that this is the first double migration yet recorded for any animal.

Brent Stewart in San Diego and Robert DeLong in Seattle attached tracking devices to 65 sedated seals on California’s San Miguel Island and later recovered 39 records of migrations. Their records show that northern elephant seals make one long foraging trip from San Miguel when the winter breeding season is over and another after their summer moult. Bulls spend about 250 days at sea each year and cover at least 21 000 kilometres. Cows spend longer at sea but cover slightly shorter distances. No one knows why the seals return all the way to San Miguel to moult when there are plenty of suitable beaches much nearer to their migration routes.