Amidst plummeting biodiversity and wildlife abundance, why have a small number of species recovered, while others with comparable legal protections continue to flounder? Existing literature attributes successful recovery to species facing threats that are easier to manage, receiving more funding, and/or the completion of policy and management objectives. Continuing from where these explanations end, I identify species in the province of British Columbia (BC) that have recovered, then develop political economic explanations for their recovery. Consistent with the literature, the policy, management, and planning documents for the small number (four) of BC’s recovering species suggest that state-based recovery addresses certain forms of direct exploitation more effectively than other threats. The different ways species are oriented to capitalism provide a useful analytic for understanding why direct threats were addressable in these cases but not others. Furthermore, although these species have increased in abundance, the security of their recovery is precarious. The shortcomings of their recoveries illustrate the limits of state-based conservation efforts, even for these rare bright spots.