Advertisement

EcoHealth

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 4–7 | Cite as

Using a Harm Reduction Approach in an Environmental Case Study of Fish and Wildlife Health

  • Craig Stephen
  • Julie Wittrock
  • Joy Wade
Forum

Current unprecedented threats to health and sustainability are inspiring conversations on the need to change the way we address environmental harms. To harm something or someone means to damage them or make them less effective or successful than they were. Sources of potential harm (varyingly called hazards or threats) like climate change, persistent pollutants, and emerging pathogens are making it increasingly difficult to sustain healthy populations successfully and effectively. This paper explores if harm reduction concepts can be transferred from public health to managing environmental harms. We use fish and wildlife health (hereafter referred to as wildlife health) to explore the potential utility of this concept.

Wildlife health is the outcome of nonlinear, dynamic interactions between individual animals, and their social, biotic, and abiotic environments and is more than the absence of disease (Stephen 2014). Poor wildlife health can have negative effects across a variety of...

References

  1. British Columbia Ministry of Health (BCMOH) (no date) Harm reduction: a British Columbia community guide. British Columbia Ministry of Health. http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2005/hrcommunityguide.pdf Accessed July 21, 2017
  2. Cohen BI (2010) Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River (Canada) Fraser River sockeye salmon: past declines. future sustainability?: interim report. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/bcp-pco/CP32-93-1-2010-eng.pdf Accessed July 21, 2017
  3. Cohen BI (2012) Recommendations, summary, process. The Uncertain Future of Fraser River Sockeye. Vol. 3. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Publishing and Depository Services, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A 0S5. p 215Google Scholar
  4. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (2002) Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal, and Marine Environments in Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E6. ISBN 0-662-32449-8. p 43Google Scholar
  5. Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) (2005) Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 401 Burrard St. Vancouver, BC, V6C, 3S4. ISBN 0-662-40538-2. p 49Google Scholar
  6. Hunt N, Ashton M, Lenton S, Mitcheson L, Nelles B, Stimson G (2003) A review of the evidence-base for harm reduction approaches to drug use. London: Forward Thinking on Drugs. http://www.forward-thinking-on-drugs.org/review2-print.html. Last accessed 21 July 2017
  7. Lin AC (2006) Unifying role of harm in environmental law. The Wisconsin Law Review 3:897Google Scholar
  8. Marlatt GA (1996) Harm reduction: Come as you are. Addictive Behaviors 21(6):779–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Noakes DJ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2003) An examination of the salmon aquaculture conflict in British Columbia using the graph model for conflict resolution. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10(3):123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Stephen C (2014) Toward a modernized definition of wildlife health. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 50(3):427–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EcoHealth Alliance 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Canadian Wildlife Health CooperativeUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Fundy Aqua ServiceNanoose BayCanada

Personalised recommendations