|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (74K) Printer Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING No.9 14 - 16 NOVEMBER 1995 RANKIN INLET , NT Agenda Call To Order And Opening Prayer Greetings From Community Representatives
Date And Place Of Next Meeting
14 November 1995 1. Call To Order And Opening Prayer The Chairman convened the meeting at 9:00 A.M. Joannie Ikkidluak led the opening prayer. The Chairman welcomed the Board members and guests to the meeting. A (self) introduction of Board members, staff and guests was conducted.
2. Greetings From Community Representatives Levina Brown, Deputy Mayor of Rankin Inlet, welcomed the Board to Rankin Inlet. She acknowledged the work of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and recognized that much work is still facing the Board in the future. Raymond Ningeocheak, 2nd Vice-President of NTI, spoke next. He mentioned that NTI is managing the Hunter Support Program and is not directly involved in managing wildlife. He noted that bowhead whaling is of interest to NTI. (Ben Kovic mentioned that a three-day meeting will be held in Iqaluit in early January 1996.) Raymond noted that wildlife moves between areas/regions and that there is a need to take this into account in management. The need for identification cards for beneficiaries was mentioned. David Aglukark stressed the need for a system of beneficiary identification, to take the place of General Hunting Licences currently being used. David suggested that this issue be discussed by NTI during their December meeting. Raymond noted that ITC is looking into identification and NTI may follow their initiative.
The agenda was approved with the following amendments:
4.1 Minutes of October 3 and 5, 1995 - Ottawa , were approved with noted corrections. (Motion 96-051)
5.1 September 30, 1995 Financial Statement Jim Noble reviewed the September financial statement provided to the Board. Jim noted that the bank charges of $13,937 represented service charges for the Research Trust Fund and might more reasonably be debited to the Trust Fund. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the TAL service charges not be moved out of operating funds for the present. Kevin McCormick agreed that this debit should not be transferred until the Trust Deed is formalized. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that this will not be an isolated item: Board expenses for future trust meetings will also be an issue. Gordon noted that TAL costs are apparently going to be close to $36,000 per annum, and suggested that the Director of Finance and Administration investigate if value-for-money is being received. Kevin McCormick requested that the summary statement and balance sheet be more directly comparable in the future. The financial statement was approved as presented. (Motion 96-052)
5.2 TAL Investments / Investment Policy a) Jim Noble noted that there was no new investment statement available for the meeting. b) Jim Noble advised that Michael d’Eça had requested direction on how to proceed with development of the investment policy. It was decided that Michael be requested to prepare a draft “Investment Policy and Guidelines” in consultation with the Director of Finance and Administration and other outside expertise as may be required. The policy and guidelines should reflect the size of the trust fund. (Motion 96-053)
5.3 Wildlife Research Trust Deed Jim Noble informed the Board that the Wildlife Research Trust Deed was completed and available for signature. Ben Kovic noted that he had not expected to be a full/ordinary member of the trust. Kevin McCormick requested clarification on how the Board would formally recognize the addition of new members and who would sign on behalf of the Board as the “Settlor.” The Board requested that Michael d’Eça be contacted for clarification.
Kevin McCormick requested that outgoing mail be cross referenced to incoming mail in future logs.
Ben Kovic noted that a considerable amount of work was completed since the Ottawa meeting. The Ottawa meeting assisted in clearing up some of the workload. The matter of developing Basic Needs Levels for Beluga, Narwhal and Walrus is still outstanding. The Implementation Panel has been requested to clarify the intent of this obligation.
a) Ben Kovic advised that he did not attend the ITC meeting in Cambridge Bay as he was ill at the time. b) Dan Pike and Carol Churchward attended the Kitikmeot Regional HTA meeting and also a Keewatin Wildlife Federation meeting in Repulse Bay . Jim Noble also attended the KWF meeting. c) Dan Pike attended two meetings in Yellowknife ; the Caribou Protection Areas Workshop and a Polar Bear Management Plan Workshop. d) Ben Kovic attended a Nunavut Science Institute (NSI) Workshop on Research Licencing (handout provided). NSI is proposing certain changes to the administration of research permits within Nunavut . A response is expected from the NWMB by the end of December. Ben noted that they discussed a Code of Conduct for researchers and compensation for wildlife killed in defense. Funding for Search and Rescue (Ben Kovic suggested a application fee for research projects) was discussed. Ben advised that the next step in this process was the need to get reaction of scientists. NSI is planning to hold a meeting in southern Canada to review this proposal with the research community.
Ben Kovic noted that DFO tabled the draft Oceans Act with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans without proper consultation with NTI, NWMB or any of the Nunavut communities. A planned conference call to discuss the Act never came through. NTI legal advisor, Laurie Pelly pointed out (at the Standing Committee) that the proposed Act negated NWMB authority within the 12-mile limit and regarding the land-fast ice area. This caused much consternation, and led to a promise for DFO to consult/negotiate with Nunavut (NTI/NWMB/etc.). It was noted that the Board was going to Inuvik precisely when needed to make representation in consultation with the Standing Committee. A meeting with the Standing Committee is currently scheduled for November 21. David Aglukark suggested that Malachi Arreak might attend. Jim Noble noted that Malachi would not be available as he is involved in IIBA negotiations. The Board decided that Jim Noble would talk to Michael d’Eça to explore if/how the NWMB can be represented (or deferred). Jim Noble to distribute Laurie Pelly’s paper on the proposed Act. (It was subsequently determined that Michael d’Eça will prepare a presentation.)
8. Executive Director’s Report a) It was noted that the Finance and Administration Director, Pierre Chartrand, has been hired and is presently on strength. Chartered Accountants from MacKay Landau are working him through the accounting system. b) Staff trip reports are in the Committee binder, but are not translated yet.
David Aglukark noted (re item 6 of Ottawa minutes) that regional communication is a real/valid concern and questioned whether anything has been done to correct the matter. Ben Kovic suggested that it is still not clear who has the onus for travel costs; NWMB or DIOs? KIA has declared they will not pay for David Igutsaq to travel to communities. The NWMB has not established a budget(s) for this, at least not yet. David Aglukark suggested that at least the NWMB could send out minutes (regularly). David Igutsaq noted that communities in his region would like to have him visit periodically to consult. Kevin McCormick noted that the NWMB gives money to the RWOs to address added obligations under the NFA. He questioned whether this is a reasonable source of funds for travel of members to RIA meetings. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that this problem needs to be resolved in a total communications context; minutes, brochures, meetings etc. Ben Kovic suggested that the NWMB might try inviting DIOs to board meetings. Gordon Koshinsky offered that the NWMB/DIOs might consider sharing costs of NWMB representatives attending their meetings, by invitation. Ben Kovic suggested that there is a need to resolve this issue in the context of the mandates of the NWMB and of the RWOs etc. Joannie Ikkidluak noted that this is a long-standing issue. He also noted that he can’t realistically visit all Baffin communities. He usually meets with HTA chairmen at least once per year (at AGM); those chairmen then report back to their communities. Jim Noble mentioned that the problem of inadequate communication is coming up from all government departments. Kevin McCormick suggested that Departments should be dealing with the NWMB office, not with individual Board members. He also suggested that the Internet could be used as an automatic mailing list. Gordon Koshinsky reiterated that there is a need for an overall communications plan. Ben Kovic and David Igutsaq suggested that a budget for 2 or 3 trips per year by members be considered starting in 1996/97. Joannie Ikkidluak advised that there was a special meeting of Baffin Region HTAs on October 25-27. They discussed assignment of hunting rights and a committee was struck to draft a proposal. Ben Kovic noted that Inuit people are demanding action on assigning (hunting) rights. The Board has been working on this issue, but it is not an easy topic. Ben asked NTI if assignment would be for one year but they haven’t responded. David Igutsaq mentioned that the Kitikmeot Regional HTA had discussed this also and a letter was to be drafted to the NWMB.
David Alagalak and Brian Threadkell introduced themselves to the NWMB. David Alagalak advised the Board that a number of Canadian investors are attempting to open a rocket launching station in Churchill , Manitoba during the summer of 1997. David noted that they feel it is necessary to keep local hunters and trappers associations advised on the project. Brian Threadkell continued with specifics of the project. He advised that this group was formed as a private company. Investors include some major companies in Winnipeg and some individuals in Churchill. Brian noted three aspects of the project that have Nunavut implications:
10.B.1 Endangered Species Legislation Gerald McKeating provided an overview of the Endangered Species Legislation. This was a follow-up to an earlier federal presentation to the Board (February 1995 “Blue document”). Minister Copps wishes to proceed with the legislation and a white paper is circulating (document to be translated). Mr. McKeating suggested there may be no real problems in the north, but there are problems in the south. The proposed legislation could be in Cabinet in December, the Department of Justice would then draft legislation by April, with Royal Assent (proclamation) expected by June. Mr. McKeating suggested that there would be three opportunities enroute to influence the legislation. He suggested the best time would be right now. Possible issues for the NWMB:
Kevin McCormick raised concern that the NWMB will not have adequate time to provide input, particularly if the legislation is fast-tracked through the House. Mr. McKeating urged the NWMB to get comments to the Minister as soon as possible.
10.B.2 Report On Arctic Goose Joint Venture (AGJV): Eastern Arctic Dale Caswell made a presentation on a number of the projects and issues being addressed by the AGJV. Dale noted that leg bands give one opportunity for recovery. Collar bands provide a multiple-return opportunity. Brant geese cannot be neck-banded, because a neck-band would cover a white spot on the neck which affects behavior. Hunters only return about one-fifth the leg bands they harvest. It was suggested that it would take a $200 reward to get all tags returned. Collar bands are returned oftener (~3/5), because they are more of a novelty. Ben Kovic noted that Inuit were often afraid to return bands taken in spring. Dale Caswell suggested a similar situation occurs in the southern USA : fear that turning in too many bands will suggest too great a harvest. Also, some hunters like to collect bands, not realizing they just need to call in the numbers. Gordon Koshinsky questioned the probability of catastrophic crashes of bird populations. Gordon further questioned whether birds would move to better adjoining habitat. Dale responded by saying that birds can/do move some, but considerable “homing” occurs. “Stubborn” birds (not prone to moving) have smaller young (poorer habitat) and are more disease-prone. Once a few birds become diseased, they could affect others.
10.C Department Of Fisheries and Oceans
10.C.1 Bowhead Scientific Report (Note: Moved to 10.F.1a)
10.C.2.a) Scientific Status Report Robert Moshenko provided a status report on Atlantic Walrus (summary handout tabled). The report is based on the best available scientific information. DFO scientists identified four main stocks, however more research and traditional ecological knowledge information is required.
10.C.2.b) Igloolik Sport Hunt (1995) A number of short reports from various principals to the hunt were tabled. Further requests for sport hunts can be anticipated. There is need to complete a summary report, based on lessons learned, and to complete a Management and Hunting Plan for 1996.
10.C.2.c) Walrus Co-management Plan Robert Moshenko noted that the scientific status report (10.C.2.a) is one component of the management plan. The report identifies research that needs to be conducted. DFO also needs to know the NWMB’s plans and aspirations for next year: Robert suggested that DFO should officially be advised, of what the NWMB may require from DFO as soon as possible. Roger Peet noted that some persons (i.e. outfitters) from Nunavik have also identified a desire to sport-hunt walrus. Sanikiluaq people have also voiced concern about the use of walrus by Nunavik residents in their area. DFO Economics people have recently done an analysis of domestic walrus hunting in the Foxe Basin area up to 1994. Ben Kovic suggested that the NWMB has not had an opportunity to digest the available reports/material. Gordon Koshinsky noted that the Board needs to give consideration to other communities that have formulated requests earlier, but were put on hold pending the 1995 Igloolik pilot hunt. It was agreed that Dan Pike and DFO should go through all the information and prepare detailed recommendation to answer the following questions:
10.C.3.a) Nunavut Fishery Events 1.) Roger Peet referred to the Nunavut Science Institute had held a meeting to discuss research permitting (see also item 7d). NSI would receive all applications and direct consultation between the parties. 2.) Quebec DFO has just signed a Five Year Beluga Management Plan with the Inuit of Northern Quebec. This new plan may have implications for Sanikiluaq which already has a quota for beluga assigned by Nunavut regulations. DFO scientists are conducting a review of new beluga genetic material. Sanikiluaq may be using two different stocks of beluga (spring vs autumn). A compounding issue is the recent kill of 40+ beluga in Northern Quebec . 3.) Roger Peet announced that $40K was recently approved to assist with development of commercial sealing in Nunavut . These funds will be used in conjunction with the GNWT Seal Strategy funding. Roger also noted that a reputable Chinese company is interested in importing 4 container loads of whole seal butchered to particular specifications. The NWT Development Corporation is pursuing this prospect. This seal meat would have to processed through a registered meat plant, such as the one in Rankin Inlet. Ben Kovic asked about the recent announcement by Health Canada on contaminants in seal fat. Roger Peet replied that he was not sure if this is a real concern. 4.) Roger Peet announced that imput for the 1996 Groundfish Management Plan would be required very soon. Consultations are scheduled for December 1995 for completion of plan by January 1996. 5.) Roger noted that the Isabella Bay Bowhead Management Agreement was still pending. 6.) A recent bowhead workshop held in Winnipeg was attended by Dan Pike and Malachi Arreak. Malachi gave a very good presentation on the Inuit perspective.
Roger Peet noted that the Canadian Prawn Producers Association had requested permission from the NWMB to fish within the 12 mile limit this past summer. Gordon Koshinsky questioned the implications of the inshore ( Resolution Island ) shrimp fishery on predator marine mammals. Gordon suggested that the NWMB should consider reserving the inshore as a basis for a genuine Nunavut shrimp fishery, rather than using it as a safety valve for southern fishermen.
A review of the various turbot quotas was conducted. Roger Peet noted that Jerry Ell had mentioned reports of “ghost fishing.” Many of these (very long) nets may not be recovered. The possibility of recommending gillnets not be allowed in this area was discussed. This problem is most prevalent in the Competitive Fishery. Gordon Koshinsky questioned the reports of many “extra” vessels fishing the area. Roger Peet replied that legitimate vessel operators would report to DFO. Illegitimate operators (if any) presumably would not.
10.D Department Of Renewable Resources Ron Graf announced that he had been formally appointed to replace Derek Melton. Ron apologized for the lack of written presentation material.
a) The Polar Bear Program transfer to Iqaluit is underway. b) Transfer of RWO/HTO programs/funds is being addressed and a letter will be forthcoming.
10.D.2 Polar Bear Management Agreements a) US Marine Mammal Regulations regarding entry of hides were in process of finalization at the time of the Pond Inlet meeting. US Fish and Wildlife officials have developed preliminary conclusions on whether specific polar bear populations are being managed adequately to permit import of hides. Potential problem areas:
b) Management Agreements have been changed back to the 1-tag system, with hunters urged to “please” try to harvest the sex ratio “as though there were a 2-tag system.” In the event that females might be over-harvested, some sort of adjustment would apply to next year, with concurrent consideration of what has happened in adjacent communities harvesting the same population, and (if possible) indicators from the population itself. Local consultations are still underway, however the costs of this consultation are of concern. The Department of Renewable Resources can cover its own staff but not the RWO/HTO representatives. Ben Kovic suggested that the NWMB needs to reconsider the earlier refusal to fund meetings for polar bear management agreements. Officers in the communities need to get more widely involved. David Igutsaq suggested there is a need to be careful not to over-harvest the polar bears. Ron Graf suggested that there is a need for community input prior to the next Polar Bear Technical Committee meeting. Kevin McCormick questioned whether work on the Parry Channel population had been completed. Ron advised that the collars have been removed from the bears, but population estimates will not be ready for another couple of years.
a) Prince of Wales and Somerset Islands Caribou/Muskox Survey: Ron Graf noted that only 7 caribou were found on Prince of Wales and Somerset Islands (1995). This was down from the 5100 caribou reported in the 1980 survey. Ron noted that more animals were located on Boothia Peninsula , possibly having migrated from the other islands. Muskox counts on Somerset Island showed an increase from 20 (1980) to several hundred (1995). Prince of Wales Island muskox showed a substantial increase from approximately 1000 (1980) to 5000 (1995). Gordon Koshinsky cautioned against presenting numbers indicating marked population changes without concurrent disclaimers, if appropriate. b) Survey work NE of Baker Lake: Anne Gunn and John Nishi conducted a survey of the area in May 1995 (three aircraft). Counts indicate a decline from approximately 120,000 caribou (1983) to 72,000 (1995). These animals are separate from the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq herds. The area does not sustain heavy harvest due to inaccessibility. c) Grizzly Bear Study: The field study (partially funded by NWMB) has been completed and the report is being finalized. d) Wolverine Study: This study has not yet started. The Department is testing response of wolverines to satellite collars at Al Omming’s Game Farm. e) Victoria Island Harvest Study: Harvest Study field workers have been hired and calendars distributed. Study (partially funded by NWMB) is continuing, and is to be linked to NWMB Harvest Study. f) Calving Ground Protection Areas Workshop ( Yellowknife ): This meeting, jointly sponsored by DRR and NWMB, was conducted last week. KWF representatives were not able to attend: unfortunate since caribou are so important to the Keewatin . The workshop was held in anticipation of problems with Bathhurst, Bluenose and Porcupine herds following upon resource development. Enough concerns were identified to warrant more attention to this matter. A package is being developed for review in January. The first focus will be with the Bathurst herd: A large herd, used by many people, from different claimant groups, with heavy development imminent or underway. It was noted that there is no perfect legislation to satisfy all the parties.
10.D.4 Legislation Review Process The review process is underway. Larry Hagen is coordinating the process. A discussion paper is coming out which will identify the process, including consultation aspects, and will require input. Ron noted that it may not be practicable to finalize this review prior to division of the territories.
Ron Graf suggested that the NWMB might like to consider a workshop similar to the DFO/NWMB Workshop held earlier. Ron noted that Marius Tungilik had deemed the DFO Workshop highly successful. Jim Noble advised the Board that a conference call for the Slave Study was upcoming and that NWMB participation had been requested. NWMB participation in the new board was discussed. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the NWMB is a wildlife management board, not a environmental impact board. It was decided that Keith Hay would participate in the conference call, as an observer. Any information Keith gathered would be used in a review of the Board’s participation in the new Slave Board.
10.E.1 Walrus Sport Hunt - Deferred
10.E.2. Test Fishery - Mansel Island - Deferred. Henry Alayco faxed the Board advising he was unable to attend. 15 November 1995
10.F.1. Bowhead Knowledge Study Report Keith Hay provided an overview of his Interim Report (based on 25% of interviews). Most respondents reported increasing numbers of bowhead near their communities over their lifetime. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that observers might have more mobility today than they did in earlier times, and might thus encounter more bowhead. Joannie Ikkidluak suggested that movement of Inuit is not a factor. He felt people traveled more in earlier years, and had a greater opportunity to observe wildlife. Ben Kovic suggested there was validity in both observations. Keith informed the Board that he received no information on specific numbers, either present or past. Some authors have attempted to reconstruct pre-whaling numbers from whaling records. Kevin McCormick noted that the regional situation seems to be rather dynamic in that whales are migrating in certain areas at the same time that they are concentrating in other areas. If this is the case, it will be difficult to establish realistic population estimates. David Aglukark stated he was more concerned about whether stocks have increased or decreased and by how much, rather than about migration. Stuart Innes observed that available records do not indicate commercial whaling near Hall Beach or Igloolik. Map 4 in the report indicates that there may have been commercial whaling. Keith Hay noted that no information was forthcoming on increase or decrease in calves per se, although he had not asked that question specifically. Keith noted that there was many references to craving/yearning for muktuk by elders today. Also the need to continue/renew Inuit traditions respecting bowhead.
10.F.1.a) Bowhead Scientific Report (AFSAC) The Arctic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee (AFSAC) is an internal DFO committee which gives advice on information as interpreted by science. The advice changes as the scientific information changes. AFSAC reviewed bowhead in 1989 and again in 1995. In 1989, information in the NSA was very sparse. Since 1989, a bowhead book has been published. Scientific information agrees there has been an increase in whales since the 1920s, despite a small continuing harvest by Inuit since the 1920s. It is not clear, however, how fast the population is increasing. Most scientific knowledge of bowhead is from the Beaufort Sea stock:
It is suggested that the population will double in 25 years if there is a 3% annual increase. AFSAC is not concerned about permitting a small periodic harvest despite the COSEWIC endangered status, because the population is increasing. Ideal candidates for harvest would be juvenile males. David Aglukark suggested that one whale could be harvested ever year, rather than in intervals as suggested by DFO. David also suggested that selection of a juvenile may not be necessary. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the positive concurrences in the two approaches rather than minor disagreements, should be emphasized. Kevin McCormick questioned whether struck-and-lost are included in removal. Stuart Innes suggested that struck-and-lost would not be included. He noted that the harvest method would influence the significance of struck-and-lost (i.e. no impact in a harpoon and float method, significant if using rifles.) Ben Kovic mentioned again that he is aiming for a major bowhead planning workshop, to be held in Iqaluit in January.
Development of a draft policy was assigned to Malachi Arreak and Marius Tungilik. As neither were in attendance, this item was deferred to the next meeting.
10.F.3 Harvest Study Steering Committee Gordon Koshinsky noted that the Harvest Study Steering Committee is/was technically oriented and possibly there is a need for a Board committee to be formed. Gordon pointed out that there are policy issues related to the Study that the technical committee cannot address. Kevin McCormick suggested that this is perhaps a role for the Board’s Policy and Program Committee.
10.F.4 Southeast Baffin Beluga Committee Joannie Ikkidluak noted that the present agreement has four years to run, but it is important to get started working on this item now. Terms of reference for the committee as drafted previously were adopted with minor amendments (omit item 5). DFO agreed to appoint a member to the committee immediately. (Motion 96-054)
10.G.1 Department of Renewable Resources Ron Graf noted that he had reviewed the status of three projects funded by the NWMB in his DRR Updates. The last item was a status report on the polar bear work which had also been partially funded by the NWMB. Ron advised that 254 bears had been captured in NE Baffin , of which 27% were previously marked. More males were encountered than expected. Mitch Taylor is concerned that sampling might be biased because of the large number of males encountered. A report will be prepared for the next NWMB meeting and Polar Bear Technical Committee meeting to be held in January.
10.G.2 Department of Fisheries and Oceans
10.G.2.a Beluga Tagging Project - Devon Island Roger Peet noted that the Beluga Tagging Project went ahead in North Baffin this past autumn. No tagged whales have yet appeared in Greenland . Only one tag was left transmitting at the time of this meeting. This may be as a result of collars falling off or weak batteries. Stuart Innes mentioned that he wishes to consult with several communities, in anticipation of a larger scale study which they hope will be funded next year.
10.G.2.b Keewatin Coastal Fisheries Roger Peet advised that this project is proceeding with no problems
10.G.2.c Baffin Charr Fisheries No problem noted.
10.G.2.d Bowhead Whale Project Sue Cosen’s Bowhead Whale Project encountered difficulties when whales were not encountered in Northern Foxe Basin as in prior years. The early ice break-up in the region may have been a factor.
10.G.2.e Beluga Whale Genetics and Stock Delineation Joannie Ikkidluak requested a status report on the results to date on the beluga genetics work in respect to Southeast Baffin beluga. Stuart Innes replied that the newest available techniques have not yet been applied. Stuart noted that the information for SEBB has not changed much since the last report.
10.G.2.f Arctic Charr Stock Delineation No problems noted
10.G.2.g Charr Stocks (Identification - Taloyoak; size - Coppermine ) Roger Peet noted that the Taloyoak sub-project was not undertaken.
10.G.3 Canadian Wildlife Service
10.G.3 a Status Of Polar Bear Populations Western Hudson Bay Kevin McCormick reported that the study area had been extended to include the Nelson River area. During the survey 177 bears were captured, 26 being females. The estimate of the population is approximately 1200 animals. There is a shared quota between the NWT and Manitoba of 55 bears.
10.G.4 Ikajutit Narwhal Photo Identification Project Stuart Innes offered to provide an update on this project. Arctic Bay HTA is requesting a budget change to allow their project coordinator, Salome Qaunaq to attend a Marine Mammal Conference in Orlando , Florida in December. Stuart noted that the study techniques used proved to be very successful. If ice conditions had been normal, there would have been enough information for a stock estimate. Stuart expects that the method, if applied, would permit estimating bowhead numbers also. Narwhal were not scared by the low/slow ultralight aircraft. A disappointing hunter catch sampling occurred this past summer. Board members questioned Stuart Innes on how sending the coordinator to the conference would benefit the NWMB and NSA. Stuart suggested that very few Inuit are pursuing professional biological careers. He suggested that Salome Qaunaq is very good in English, intelligent and capable and may be stimulated to further her education with a little encouragement. Ben Kovic felt that this is a worthwhile project. Stuart suggested that the Board should consider encouraging interested students to pursue graduate degrees under people such as himself. Roger Peet added that programs such as these are available through the Freshwater Institute and University of Manitoba . The Board unanimously supported this request. (Motion 96-055) 16 November 1995
Roger Peet advised the Board that a briefing note had been provided outlining:
Kevin McCormick noted that the presentation was oriented to what’s being done more than a clarification of DFO priorities. Kevin felt there was a need for DFO to identify important knowledge gaps.
Kevin McCormick presented specific (main) problems (research topics) by populations/stocks: Waterfowl and polar bears. David Aglukark suggested that he sees no eider population problems in his area. David noted that there are great numbers of eiders and the birds are not harvested. Kevin McCormick replied that there are probably four distinct eider populations in Nunavut . One of the populations is more or less resident (winters in) Hudson/James Bay. This population seems abundant as it is not harvested elsewhere. David Aglukark suggested the Hudson Bay coast eiders might be an economic development opportunity for eider down.
Ron Graf advised that no actual submission was made however consideration had been given to the request by NWMB for planning input. The Department is developing a knowledge-gaps catalogue, but has not been finalized. Ron noted that the Department spends 80% of their budget/resources in Nunavut on caribou and polar bear. The Department is also focusing on resource (economic) development. Canadian/World concerns need to be taken into account: biodiversity, animal welfare groups, endangered species. Ron concluded his presentation suggesting that the NWMB consider a workshop in Yellowknife sometime, to visit staff and facilities. Roger Peet suggested that if the research priorities listings of the various departments are not acceptable to the Board, it might consider posting broad criteria, and invite proposals thereon.
10.I Other NWMB Funded Projects
10.I.1 Spirit Of The Arctic Pavilion At CNE Ben Kovic noted that this project had been a success and that there was a letter of thanks from ITC.
10.I.2 Pauktuutit Workshop On Assignment Of Rights This workshop had not been held to date.
10.J NTI Proposal To Staff Wildlife Coordinator Position Ben Kovic advised the Board that NTI currently have an interim Wildlife Coordinator in Ottawa . NTI plans to change this to a permanent position in Cambridge Bay . Ben suggested that in reality the NWMB cannot do everything NTI is looking for in this position. Ben mentioned that NTI Officials met with him in Iqaluit to explain the new position. Joannie Ikkidluak voiced concern that such a person might go off independently. Kevin McCormick noted that the NWMB is an institution of public government, and that its mandate is not purely Inuit-oriented. Important issues that require Inuit input would include gun control, anti-fur legislation. David Aglukark voiced concern about overlapping, e.g. Laurie Pelly’s items 12 and 13. Jim Noble pointed out that good communication between the two groups will be critical. The Board decided that Michael d’Eça should be requested to sort out the overlaps with Laurie Pelly. Michael should point out any operational difficulties. The Board further decided to invite James Eetoolook et al. to meet with them at their next meeting in Cambridge Bay .
11.A Status Of Policy And Procedures Manual Kevin McCormick advised that he had sent a letter to various people in August requesting comments. Kevin noted that the current draft is in Word format, with a shortened version also. A number of items are outstanding and tasks have been assigned to various individuals who have not responded. The Board decided that the task of finalizing the manual would be assigned to the Director of Finance and Administration.
Jim Noble provided a brief status report on the Harvest Study. Jim noted that the request for extension to January 1996 had been approved by the I.P.. The three RWO designations to conduct the Study have also been approved. Contribution agreements have been drafted and staff have met with each of the three RWOs. The contribution agreements were based on the initial budget proposal e.g. $200 per month and $10. per household interview for field workers. The Kitikmeot felt that $200 was too little and requested $400. They also requested a 10% administration fee and funds for annual audits. Keewatin and Baffin both agreed to go ahead on a trial basis, with annual reviews.
Jim Noble noted concerns with the status of RWOs. Financial difficulties were noted in the Kitikmeot and administrative difficulties in the Keewatin . Jim suggested that without stability of the three RWOs, it will be very difficult to proceed with the Harvest Study, and a further extension may be required. Jim suggested that one possible alternative may be to consider amalgamation the two proposed positions: a) Regional Harvest Study Coordinators b) Regional Resource Officers Jim Noble advised that the Implementation Panel had been asked about the possibility of re-profiling some of the NWMB surplus funds to cover the shortfall of the Harvest Study. Carol Churchward was considering trying to arrange a Steering Committee meeting. Ben Kovic suggested that this is why there is a need for a Board committee to oversee the Study. Jim Noble noted that during negotiations of the Claim, the budget for the harvest study was proposed at approximately $10 million and was finally settled at $6 million. Joannie Ikkidluak sees the Harvest Study as a very important function and has contacted all HTA Chairmen in the Baffin Region to that effect. Joannie suggested that the previous Renewable Resources Harvest Study was not very good due to inadequate funds. Joannie suggested that the Board should seriously consider allocating more funds to the current study. David Igutsaq suggested that the field workers should be helped by the HTA secretaries. Joannie Ikkidluak felt this was not the way to proceed. Discussion followed on the pros and cons of different options and rates for Field Worker pay. David Aglukark, Joannie Ikkidluak and David Igutsaq met separately to discuss this issue. After further discussion on the matter, the Board agreed to stay with the $1,376,000 shortfall scenario, thus increasing the total harvest study budget requirement to $7,136,000. Gordon Koshinsky noted that the Board should not expect this to be a final solution, but rather a means of getting the Study started. (Motion 96-056)
11.C BNL: Beluga, Narwhal and Walrus Ben Kovic advised that he was still waiting for a response to his letter of October 31/95 requesting direction from the Implementation Panel. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the Board may wish to start work on this issue in the event there is no direction from the Panel. The consensus of the Board was that they should wait for the response from the Implementation Panel. Ben Kovic referred to Robert Moshenko’s original draft for the NWMAB and suggested it might be a good blueprint.
11.D DFO/NWMB Workshop Followup Gordon Koshinsky noted that Sandy Lewis had provided recommendations from this workshop. Gordon advised that he would give Dan Pike a letter he had drafted from Ben Kovic to the Minister of DFO, expressing general satisfaction with the workshop. This letter will be finalized and sent. Gordon noted that Sandy Lewis would be interested in working on a continuing basis with the Board. Dan Pike has responded to Sandy Lewis’s paper in which several letters from Ben to the Minister have been proposed.
Dan Pike has suggested that this video production would need to include a TEK study component. This would bring the estimated cost of the video production to approximately $55K. This would not include getting TEK footage. Keith Hay noted that he has asked ICSL for a proposal to get this footage which would be approximately $22K, and would bring the project cost up to a total of approximately $77K. David Aglukark questioned whether the video is worth this expenditure and who would look at it. Kevin McCormick suggested that there are others who might cost share the project. Kevin suggested the NWMB contribution could be the $20K required for the TEK footage. Kevin further suggested that there may be a private producer who would be interested in making this a commercial product. Ben Kovic commented that he would like to see the whole process recorded on film, TEK Study through to the harvest/distribution. Gordon Koshinsky recommended that Keith Hay work with Ves Blough (DFO) to develop a comprehensive video proposal. Kevin McCormick requested that the proposal should make it clear how the NWMB is asked/expected to fit in.
13.B Renewable Resources Request For Funding Assistance - PBMA Ron Graf noted that there is still a shortfall of funds to conduct the polar bear management agreement workshops. Ben Kovic suggested that he is generally supportive but would like to defer final consideration by the Board until February.
13.C Kugluktuk Angoniatit Association - Request For Funds Item deferred to incamera session Incamera Sessions During and after the meeting, three separate incamera sessions were conducted. From these sessions the following motions were presented.
14. Date And Place Of Next Meeting It was agreed that the next meeting of the Board would be the week of February 19, 1996 in Cambridge Bay . (Motion 96-068)
Moved to adjourn the meeting ( Motion 96-069) Minutes Approved by: Chairperson Date:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||
|
|
|
|
| GUESTBOOK SITE MAP CAREERS COPYRIGHT MEMBERS |
