Management planning for Canadian species at risk of extinction begins with recommendation for legal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and ends with Action Plans that guide management implementation. Roughly five years after the enactment of SARA in 2002, multiple studies identified taxonomic biases associated with the SARA listing process. Here, we provide a comprehensive test of whether taxonomic biases remain over a decade later. We also test whether biases in listing are propagated through to management implementation. We find that birds, reptiles and plants are more likely to be legally protected than other species. Arthropods and fishes are less likely to be protected, with unlisted fish species being twice as likely to be threatened by resource use than other unlisted species. We also find that arthropods and amphibians are less likely to have Action Plans than other species. In addition, we find no evidence that biases in listing or management have improved over time. Canadian species at risk recovery programs appear to be biased both in legal protection and management, disfavouring arthropods, amphibians and harvested fishes. If SARA is to fulfil its stated purpose, such biases must be directly addressed, through a transparent and formalised prioritisation system.

针对濒临灭绝的加拿大物种的管理规划始于根据《濒危物种法》（SARA）提出的法律保护建议，最后以指导管理实施的行动计划结束。在2002年SARA颁布大约五年后，多项研究确定了与SARA上市过程相关的分类学偏见。在这里，我们提供了关于十年后是否仍存在分类学偏见的全面测试。我们还测试了上市中的偏差是否会传播到管理层。我们发现，鸟类，爬行动物和植物比其他物种更有可能受到法律保护。节肢动物和鱼类受到保护的可能性较小，未列出鱼类受到资源利用威胁的可能性是其他未列出物种的两倍。我们还发现，节肢动物和两栖动物比其他物种更不可能制定行动计划。此外，我们发现没有证据表明上市或管理方面的偏见随时间而改善。处于风险恢复计划中的加拿大物种似乎在法律保护和管理上都存在偏见，不利于节肢动物，两栖动物和鱼类。如果SARA要实现其既定目的，则必须通过透明和正式的优先排序系统直接解决这种偏见。