Recovery strategies for species at risk have been criticized for a lack of specificity (i.e. measurable and quantifiable criteria) as well as for taxonomic biases, both of which may ultimately affect species’ recovery. However, it is unknown whether the clarity and specificity of written statements within recovery strategies can also influence recovery efforts for certain species at risk. To assess this we examined the variation in semantic uncertainty in the target statements of recovery strategies for Canadian species at risk at the federal and provincial levels. We quantified the lexical density and readability of recovery target statements and examined them for differences according to taxonomic grouping, jurisdiction and degree of endangerment. Recovery statements for the category threatened species had greater semantic uncertainty than those for higher (endangered) and lower (special concern) categories, which is likely to be a function of the fact that threatened species are less abundant than special concern species but are subject to greater errors in population estimates than endangered species. We also found that recovery statements for non-charismatic species (e.g. plants and invertebrates) had greater semantic uncertainty than those for other taxa, which may be related to the resources available for studying and conserving them. Our results suggest a need for greater specificity in recovery targets for threatened and non-charismatic species, and that more focused data collection on these species’ populations is warranted.