|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (115K) Printer
Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MINUTES: MEETING No. 15
9-15 AUGUST 1997 IQALUIT, NT
Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Executive Committee Report and Recommendations
Monday, August 11 and Tuesday, August 12
Special Presentation on Peary Caribou: Dr. Anne Gunn
Saturday, 9 August 1997
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
The Chairperson Ben Kovic convened the meeting at 9:35 a.m. David Aglukark led the opening prayer. Ben welcomed Members to Iqaluit. He noted the very large Agenda, due in part to the cancellation of the May meeting.
2. Agenda: Review and Approval
Members reviewed and approved the agenda with no specific changes. A need was identified to deal with the turbot allocation issue expeditiously, in view of the response deadline from the DFO Minister. (Resolution 98-016)
3. Minutes: Review and Approval
3.A Regular Meeting No. 14, Pangnirtung, 21-27 February 1997
3.B Conference Call No. 28, Conducted 24 March 1997
3.C Conference Call No. 29, Conducted 04 April 1997
3.D Conference Call No. 30, Conducted 07 April 1997
3.E Conference Call No. 31, Conducted 08 May 1997
3.F Conference Call No. 32, Conducted 29 May 1997
3.G Conference Call No. 33, Conducted 08 July 1997
3.H Implementation of Resolutions: Progress Report
Jim Noble reported verbally with respect to progress on implementing Resolutions 97-135 through 98-015, developed at or subsequent to the last Board meeting.
Progress on implementing Resolutions and/or on subsequent action or response was deemed appropriate, acceptable, and/or as expected, with four exceptions requiring additional follow up as identified below. In a few cases (not all noted here) events overtook some of the Resolutions which accordingly were not or could not be actioned precisely as was initially intended.
• 97-143: Challenge to DIAND on 1994/95 operating surplus taking new form • 97-144: Declaration on lead sinkers and jigs awaiting firm indication from DOE • 97-145: Standardized presentation for use in public meetings: not yet actioned • 97-156: Nunavut Sivuniksavut TFN Training Program report: not yet received.
Malachi Arreak advised that Executive Committee had reviewed the Audit Report and would be advising the Board on this matter later in the Agenda. Jim Noble noted that the auditors had indicated a job well done, and the Board offered its congratulations to Pierre and Isabel.
4.B Interim Financial Statement
The Financial Report to June 30 was accepted as presented. (Resolution 98-024)
4.C TAL Investments Report (NWRT)
Pierre Chartrand referred to his briefing note of July 22. He confirmed that the funds earmarked for the Research Trust had been transferred out of the NWMB accounts. Pierre noted that the market dropped by 5% just after TAL executed the new Investment Policy, but has more than recovered since. He advised that TAL planned to send a representative to the November Trust Meeting.
Gordon Koshinsky observed that the total of funds identified in the briefing note for transfer from the Trust Fund to pay for 1997/98 research by agencies exceeded the amount that the Board had approved at the Pangnirtung meeting. Pierre agreed to investigate and report. Gordon asked if a separate account had been established to enable transferred Trust funds to be administered separately from Board funds; Pierre replied that this had been done.
Sunday, 10 August 1997
The Chairperson reconvened the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
5. Executive Committee Report and Recommendations
Malachi Arreak, Chairperson of Executive Committee, reported by way of tabling and reviewing the Minutes of EC Teleconference No. 2 (28 July).
On the matter of entrenching a process for annual staff salary adjustments, Harry Flaherty asked what would be the consequence if the FIDDIPI were ever to decrease due to deflation. Malachi agreed to take the question under advisement to Executive Committee.
After some additional discussion the Board passed the following Motions:
• Approving the 1996/97 Audited Financial Statement (Resolution 98-025) • Adopting a system of annual staff salary adjustments (Resolution 98-026) • Approving advisory letters to staff on employment status (Resolution 98-027)
Ben Kovic reviewed his activity highlights since his last report. He referred Members to his reports on meetings attended, provided in the briefing materials.
With respect to executing his office as a Commissioner with the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission for the Management of Narwhal and Beluga, Ben noted that the other Canadian Commissioner was not as communicative or helpful as was her predecessor.
6.B Executive Director’s Report
Jim Noble presented his activity report. There were no significant reactions.
6.C Wildlife Management Director’s Report
Dan Pike presented his report and invited questions.
Kevin McCormick noted that he had earlier proposed that a stock data base inventory be prepared, and had provided a possible outline. He asked whether such an inventory might be ready for the next workshop on research priorities. Dan replied that the inventory could not be completed that soon.
Malachi Arreak referred to Dan’s participation in a research project to radio-tag char at Nettilling Lake. He questioned if radio-tagging could be successful in view of short battery life. Dan advised that the batteries now in use are guaranteed to last a full year and usually last a little longer. In a preliminary phase of the Nettilling Lake study, 18 of 21 radio-tagged char were subsequently located. It has also been learned that the fish apparently do not go to the same locations every year. Discussion ensued on the size of the radio tags being used. Dan cited his (and others’) operational “rule of thumb”, that such tags not exceed 5% of the fish body weight. Malachi accepted the utility of such studies, but advised that some still view tagging as harassment. Harry Flaherty supported the work.
Harry Flaherty asked if there had been progress on developing a polar bear management agreement with Greenland. Dan acknowledged that he had been assigned to this task along with Helen Klengenberg; however she had since taken a new position. Dan noted that he subsequently began discussions with Ian Sterling of CWS; they are trying to find someone from Greenland to work with them on this matter.
Gordon Koshinsky asked if any of the Land Use Permit applications that were reviewed warranted the attention of the Board. Dan replied that few if any of the applications reviewed were of a crucial nature. Dan advised that he will be developing criteria to decide on which applications the NWMB should intervene.
6.D Finance and Administration Director’s Report
Pierre Chartrand tabled his report and invited questions.
Michael d’Eça asked if it would be useful and appropriate for the 1996/97 NWMB Annual Report to contain a “legal” section. It was agreed that staff will keep this or alternative provisions in mind when making final adjustments to the Report.
Michael d’Eça presented his activity report for the period March 1 – July 18.
With respect to the proposed formation of a Nunavut Marine Council, Kevin McCormick suggested that, on the face of it, there seems to be considerable potential for overlap, particularly with the mandate of the NWMB. Perhaps some less formal course of action could capture the positives while avoiding the negatives. Michael suggested that the momentum and expectations of the other IPGs on formation of a formal Council will be difficult for the NWMB to counter or ignore. Malachi Arreak explained that the Nunavut Marine Council was negotiated into the NLCA to provide a means of access to marine issues which were only just emerging or contemplated at that time, and which therefore could not realistically be negotiated explicitly into the NLCA. The Council was viewed as a kind of fall-back jurisdictional vehicle, which would be stronger than any individual IPG could hope to be on still undefined jurisdictional issues. Albeit advisory only, the Council would be better than nothing.
The Board decided that the Executive Director should advise the NPC’s Legal Advisor that the NWMB will not be able to respond on the matter of formation of a Nunavut Marine Council by the requested deadline. Kevin requested that, in the meantime, Michael research and define, for NWMB consideration, the value-that-would-be-added from formation of the Council.
6.F Fisheries Advisor’s Report
Jim Noble referred the Board to Ray Andrews’ activity report for April 15 – July 15
Gordon Koshinsky asked if anyone could offer an interpretation of next-quarter item B in Ray’s report. Michael d’Eça suggested that Ray might be urging the NWMB to consolidate its gains from the recent Federal Court decision on turbot allocations, by bringing the NWMB’s relationship with DFO better in line with the NLCA, and (perhaps) by urging government to establish the “structure or structures” to promote coordinated management of migratory marine species as per NLCA 15.3.1. It is realistic to read “DFO” for “Government” in this Article.
Monday, August 11 and Tuesday, August 12
Wednesday, 13 August 1997
7. Member’s Reports and Concerns
David asked if any progress had been made on reviewing remuneration for conference calls. Malachi Arreak acknowleged that this issue had been referred to Executive Committee but that no decision had been made to date.
David reiterated his concern about ravens possibly contaminating the Taloyoak water supply, and repeated his request for clarification of authorization to cull. Michael d’Eça suggested that culling could not be separated from harvesting, which would make this a matter for NWMB jurisdiction under NLCA 5.6.4. Kevin McCormick suggested that dealing with a nuisance problem was indeed distinct from harvesting and repeated his earlier contention that dealing with nuisance ravens would need to be worked out with DRWED. The Board directed staff to research the matter and develop an advisory for DRWED on appropriate protocols and procedures.
David requested advice and clarification on the appropriateness of husband and wife serving together on the Board of an HTO. This has emerged as an issue in his home community.
David reminded the Board about the ongoing request from communities in his Region for more narwhal tags.
David reported on his exploratory fishing effort for turbot last winter. All the uncharted ice-covered waters examined proved to be too shallow for turbot.
Malachi suggested that compensation to Members should be adjusted in the event of meeting at night and in other overtime situations.
From his High Arctic vantage, Malachi felt marginalized by DRWED in the current debate about rescue action for Peary caribou.
Harry identified, by way of briefing notes to the Board, three items of ongoing concern and attention by him:
8.A Canadian Wildlife Service (DOE)
8.A.1 Snow Goose Population Concerns
Kevin McCormick provided an oral update on the perceived need to reduce populations of lesser snow goose, and especially the population summering in the Central Arctic, by up to two-thirds. Management of public opinion will pose a major challenge. Key opinion-makers are (this week) being exposed to this issue, by way of an on-the-ground tour of summer habitat near Churchill, Manitoba. Kevin gave assurance that there is no intention to usurp or end-run any of the NWMB’s management jurisdiction.
A similar planning exercise is underway with respect to greater snow geese in the High Arctic; a report is expected by early winter and NWMB will be consulted on the basis of that report. Malachi Arreak asked if greater snow geese in such locations as Bylot Island are actually damaging their habitat. Kevin indicated that while there is no firm evidence of such damage in the High Arctic, the goose population is trending notably upward. There is clear habitat impact along the St. Lawrence River. Michael d’Eça asked if Inuit are being consulted about potential goose management measures in the Arctic, which would eventually have to come to the NWMB for decision. Kevin replied that such consultation has not occurred since there is no real basis yet on which it could be based. Meeka Mike called for the development of plans that are more concrete than what has been communicated to date by Kevin.
David Aglukark noted that he, and his parents and grandparents before him, once lived under constant threat of prosecution with respect to harvesting geese “out of season”. People often went hungry, amidst an abundance of geese. We seem to have come full circle and it will be difficult for people to make the adjustment from an attitude of full protection to an attitude of culling.
Harry Flaherty asked if the 1997 Arviat goose hunt had taken place. Kevin McCormick advised that he presumed that it had occurred or was about to, although no report has yet been received from the Arviat HTO. Kevin noted that DRWED did not come to the NWMB about this matter this year. The request went to DOE, in expectation of obtaining a Ministerial permit. Legal advice was that such a permit could not be issued. The best and simplest course in the circumstances was deemed to be for the 1997 hunt to carry on without a permit. In future, however, NWMB endorsement would greatly assist DOE in this and related endeavours pertinent to the Migratory Birds Convention. Michael d’Eça suggested that DOE advise DRWED of the process that will be required in future.
8.A.2 Cape Dorset Bird Sanctuary De-Listing Update
Kevin McCormick reminded Members that the Board approved de-listing of this sanctuary in 1995. This recommendation has not been actioned to date. Kevin suggested that it might be useful for the Board to remind DOE of its decision.
Kevin McCormick explained that the new Endangered Species legislation died on the Order Paper with the recent Federal election. DOE plans to revive this legislation even though it encountered considerable resistance which was not completely erased by the numerous last-minute changes that were made.
8.A.4 Migratory Birds Convention
Kevin McCormick advised that amendments have been negotiated and agreed to by the Americans. The legislation is, or very soon will be, before the US Congress. Progress has been complicated by parallel initiatives with Mexico. Michael d,Eca stated that the amendments, once passed, would permit aboriginal people to hunt birds or take eggs anytime, but birds or eggs so taken would only be able to be offered for trade or sale within or between aboriginal communities as provided for in relevant land claims agreements. Kevin explained that amendments to the MBC will first need to be reflected in Canadian legislation before there will be any tangible benefits.
8.A.5 Regulations to Ban Lead Shot
Kevin McCormick noted that DOE has encountered considerable provincial opposition. The regulations may be delayed for another year.
8.B Department of Fisheries and Oceans
8.B.1 Hudson Bay/Hudson Strait Walrus Management Plan
Johnny Peters joined the table at this point.
Robert Moshenko noted that Draft 1 of the Walrus Management Plan was distributed a year ago. Draft 2 was completed for the May NWMB meeting. The plan is being developed to accommodate all types of hunting, including sport. The aim is to have it completed, for NWMB consideration and approval, by spring. The plan at that point will actually be only a framework, to which community hunt plans can be appended as they are developed by HTOs and approved by NWMB and/or by Makivik. Community consultations will be integral to the development of the community hunt plans, which HTOs presumably and correctly interpret as the operational core of any management plan. It would be useful and appropriate to involve the RWOs in the development of the framework.
Michael d’Eça expressed concern that the protocol for developing management plans is evolving by default rather than in any consistent and orchestrated fashion. Kevin McCormick agreed that a consistent set of principles would be the minimum requirement.
Dan Pike noted that DFO had been asked to develop options for regularizing the management of walrus sport hunting. Gary Weber replied that it was the aim to make a presentation on this at the Board’s November meeting. Ben Kovic urged the Department to explore the subject with the two interested RWOs at their fall meetings.
Some Members voiced specific criticisms on the form and content of the Draft 2 plan which had been tabled. Malachi Arreak suggested that Inuit organizations would be more appropriate candidates than NWMB for completing item 3. Stas Olpinski noted a fundamental lack of any Makivik perspective. Kevin McCormick pointed out that if the NWMB becomes actively involved in developing or promoting the plan it will be in conflict when it comes to approving it. It was agreed that anyone having specific concerns will forward them to DFO by October 1. DFO will reconcile any conflicting advice or concerns it receives, and will have another draft of the Walrus Management Plan for the November meeting.
8.B.2 Proposal for Chesterfield Inlet Char Quota Revision (Fish Bay Area)
Gary Weber explained the nature of the request, which originated with the Aqigiq HTO in Chesterfield Inlet. The community proposes reduced quotas on some of its more distant char fisheries, and higher quotas on some of the closer ones.
Dan Pike observed that allowable harvests must ultimately be governed by considerations of resource productivity rather than harvester convenience. Results from tagging studies indicate that the char run at Saqvaqjuaq could be impacted by any substantial increase in harvest in the Fish Bay area. The Board decided to approve a modest increase, to 6000 kg annually, for the Fish Bay commercial char quota for the next three years (Resolution 98-028). The Board did not approve any change to quotas for adjacent areas. Gordon Koshinsky requested that the presenters be complemented on the quality of their document.
8.B.3 Request for Narwhal Quota Increase, Pond Inlet
Gary Weber explained that the Mitimatalik HTO at Pond Inlet had requested NWMB to allocate 50 additional narwhal tags to the community for 1997. The HTO proposed that the allocation take the form of a transfer of unused tags from neighbouring communities. NWMB had requested a recommendation and analysis from DFO.
Gary noted that numerous similar requests have been received in the past, and there have been some instances of narwhal quota transfers. However the Department has generally resisted the concept of quota transfers, in recognition of the possibility that the present narwhal quotas might only be sustainable due to the fact that not all communities take their full allotments every year. While the present total actual harvest probably is sustainable, transferring unused quotas would be sure to increase the total catch. The Canada-Greenland Joint Commission has urged that the total harvest not be increased. Michael d’Eça noted that the NLCA does contemplate regional TAHs, presumably to be accompanied by regional BNLs. Dan Pike advised that regional BNLs for narwhal will indeed be a product of the BNL-setting exercise now underway. However this process will not create any additional narwhal.
Malachi Arreak observed that narwhal do seem to be increasing, but so is the population of hunters. It would not be advisable to increase the total harvest without more information on productivity and better harvesting protocols. The loss of struck animals remains poorly quantified, and is a concern.
The Board decided to deny any request for a narwhal quota increase or transfer, pending the setting of BNLs and TAHs, along with development of a new and improved management system for this species. (Resolution 98-029)
8.B.4 Charr Stocking Proposal: Kugluktuk HTO
Gary Weber explained that the Kugluktuk Angoniatit Association (HTO) is seeking approval to stock charr fingerlings in a small local lake. The fingerlings, from the original Tree River stock, are the property of the community and the GNWT and are currently housed at the Icy Waters aquaculture facility in Whitehorse. It has come to light that the proposed recipient lake is not land-locked as was initially assumed, and on this basis the DFO-GNWT Aquaculture Review Committee has reversed its original decision to endorse the proposal.
Gordon Koshinsky asked how far the proposed lake is from the Tree River estuary. Gary estimated the distance at 90 miles, certainly close enough to ensure historical mixing of the respective gene pools. Dan Pike saw little or no risk of any kind in the venture, and wondered how anyone could have presumed that the lake was a closed system. Michael d’Eça indicated that NLCA 5.2.34(d) gave the Board authority to act in this matter. Jim Noble advised that the HTO recently became defunct financially, and would be unable to cover any costs.
The Board decided to approve the proposal (Resolution 98-030), subject to the following conditions:
This regular DFO contribution was received by the Board with appreciation but without comment.
8.B.6 Turbot Allocation Controversies
Brian Wong reviewed the chronology of recent events leading up to the judicial review and its aftermath to date. The Minister’s reply to the NWMB letter of August 11 is being finalized. An overriding consideration now, in view of the late date, is to get the fishery opened again.
Dan Pike suggested that everyone involved should consider if there might be an alternate approach that would be more productive and less adversarial than the current one. Michael d’Eça asked if DFO recognized that in fact there had to be a change in the system of allocating turbot in Davis Strait. The NTI/NWMB argument is supported in law and by common sense, yet apparently does not prevail with DFO. Brian acknowledged that political considerations often dominate a situation such as this in the short term, but if the NWMB feels secure in its arguments it should continue to advance them. For his part, he was coming away reassured and gratified that the NWMB continued to be dedicated to the concept and principles of co-management, including with DFO
8.B.7 Northern Quebec Beluga Whale Management Plan
The Board agreed to bring this item forward into the Fisheries and Oceans Agenda from its previous position as item 8.D.1.
Dan Pike reminded the Members that DFO presented its 5-year (1996-2000) management plan for northern Quebec beluga to the NWMB for approval last February. Numerous deficiencies have been identified in the plan from the perspective of the NWMB’s management authority, and the plan would impose what could be interpreted as unjustified hardship on beluga hunters at Sanikiluaq. The Department has conducted no evident meaningful consultation with that community in respect to development of this plan. Michael d’Eça observed that the present impasse underlines the need for a clear protocol for the development of management plans.
Dan advised that the focus of disagreement pertains to the extent, if any, to which Sanikiluaq hunters harvest beluga from the depleted Eastern Hudson Bay stock. The available evidence, albeit not complete, suggests (to him) that they harvest mainly and perhaps almost exclusively other whales. Officials from DFO Laurentian Region disagree, and the management plan is based on their premise.
Gilles Chantigny noted that all remaining stock identification samples from the Sanikiluaq hunt are now being analysed in Winnipeg, with completion expected by Christmas. He suggested that some fairly mild restrictions on the Sanikiluaq hunt, such as cessation of hunting during certain specified periods of the year, would probably suffice to protect the Eastern Hudson Bay stock. Johnny Peters disputed the interpretation that the Eastern Hudson Bay stock is depleted. In his view these whales have merely moved to different areas on account of noise pollution near shore and in the estuaries.
The Board agreed to respond to the Department’s request for approval of the management plan by identifying the deficiencies and disagreements that prevent such approval.
Insert
Local (Iqaluit) elder Celistine Erkidjuk requested and was granted permission to offer a few comments after attending most of the meeting to this point. Mr. Erkidjuk noted that:
Wednesday, 13 August, Evening
Special Presentation on Peary Caribou: Dr. Anne Gunn
Dr. Gunn gave an oral presentation in support of a written submission by DRWED to the Board on the status of the Peary caribou population in the western High Arctic Islands, as well as on current plans for assisted recovery. (See also Agenda item 8.C.5.)
Dr. Gunn reviewed the history of studies on this issue, up to and including the July aerial surveys funded in part by NWMB. The Department estimates there are approximately 1,100 Peary caribou left in the western High Arctic Islands, and less than 2,000 in the total High Arctic. Severe winter conditions appear to have contributed to high mortality again in 1996/97, and there was virtually no calving this year in the area surveyed.
Dr. Gunn reminded Members that in an effort to mitigate against possible extinction of the species the Department sought support from NWMB (and others) last year to capture 25 caribou from Bathurst Island and transport them to Calgary Zoo for captive breeding and (hopefully) eventual return to the High Arctic. The NWMB (and others) provided conditional funding, but poor weather prevented the capture effort from taking place.
Dr. Gunn presented the Department’s most recent Peary caribou management and recovery plan, for which the approval of the Board is sought. The plan has four elements:
A long discussion ensued. David Aglukark was fundamentally offended by the concept of moving caribou out of the Arctic for reproduction, but recognized that it might become necessary to save the species. Malachi Arreak and other Members cited the strong migratory tendencies of caribou and suggested that a substantial number of animals may simply have relocated. Harry Flaherty reported that an influx of Peary caribou, in good condition, has recently appeared on Devon Island. David Igutsaq and other Members cited the fluctuating tendencies of caribou populations as substantiated by the long-term observations of elders who are aware that caribou cycles are synchronized with vegetation cycles. According to this view, the present Peary caribou decline may not be particularly unusual or threatening. Malachi asked if disease had been considered as a factor contributing to the present situation. Dr. Gunn replied that there are no disease incidence reports from hunters (the usual first source of such information) with respect to Peary caribou; however there has been very little recent hunting activity. It is perhaps instructive that muskox populations have also notably declined in the High Arctic without evidence of disease, suggesting common environmental factors.
Gordon Koshinsky asked about the significance of failed reproduction as an indicator of caribou habitat deterioration. Dr. Gunn replied that it was very significant: the experience has consistently been that no calves are born after a bad year. This is the second year on Bathurst Island with no calves. However if cows are able to put on enough fat in summer they will go back to having calves.
Dan Pike suggested that the underlying catastrophe may have happened 25 or 30 years ago, and that we may be looking at the inevitable last gasps of a relict population. Alternatively, if it is reasonable to interpret that High Arctic caribou have recently gone extinct in some parts of their range but not in others, perhaps this might constitute a parallel situation and ease the cause for concern. Dr. Gunn acknowledged that the winter of 1973/74 was particularly devastating for Peary caribou, but was not prepared to accept the broader argument(s).
Malachi Arreak proposed that the existence of Peary caribou in the High Arctic indicates that they have evolved to survive in very unique habitat conditions quite unlike those in southern Alberta. He suggested that Peary caribou would be unable to adapt to conditions in Calgary, and even if they did, might be “spoiled” as far as being suitable for transfer back. Meeka Mike noted that captive caribou she had seen (at Peterborough Zoo) had lost most of their hair and appeared far from normal. Dr. Gunn suggested it was equally possible that Peary caribou is a particularly resilient species that tolerates High Arctic conditions and hence one that might also adapt very well, in the absence of competition and predation, to conditions elsewhere. While Peary caribou have apparently never been held in captivity, other Arctic caribou have, successfully. None have ever been returned to the Arctic, but all were allowed to habituate to people. This would be carefully avoided at Calgary. Behaviour, such as to avoid predation, would be expected to remain inherent through many caribou generations.
David Igutsaq noted that on the warmest days Arctic caribou tend to stand on residual snow or seek out cool streams. He wondered how Peary caribou could possibly survive Calgary temperatures. Dr. Gunn referred to their probable resilience, and advised that shade and flowing water will be available.
Malachi Arreak and Harry Flaherty stated that a High Arctic refugium would be far more palatable, and probably more successful, than a transfer to Calgary. Dan Pike asked if this was out of the question for 1997. Dr. Gunn replied that the more cautionary approach was considered to be to make use of the very large body of expertise at the Calgary Zoo. A facility in the Arctic would surely be very expensive to build and operate, but consideration would be given to moving some of the captive animals back to such a facility in the Arctic quite soon.
Meeka Mike asked if the intention was to ensure that intact groups of animals would be transferred, complete with leaders. Dr. Gunn replied that it was considered more important to leave the group leaders in the field, to assist survival of the residual animals. Group leadership should not be so important an issue in the protected confines of Calgary Zoo.
Kevin McCormick noted that the Department had earlier identified a population estimate of 400 animals as the threshold for mounting a captive-breeding program. He asked why the threshold concept had apparently been abandoned in the light of a current population estimate somewhat higher than 400. Dr. Gunn replied that more recent thinking was that at the low population levels which prevail, the rate of decline is more important than any artificial threshold as a trigger for action. She interpreted the rate of decline as very alarming.
Malachi Arreak asked about the significance of 25 animals as the target number for transfer. Dr. Gunn explained that a rule of thumb in genetic science is that 20 unrelated animals will account for 75% of the variation that defines the species. This is a common target for such ventures. The extra five animals would be just for insurance.
A big concern voiced by several Members with the captive-breeding proposal is the possibility of transmitting disease. Dr. Gunn advised that extreme precautions have been carefully planned.
Dan Pike questioned the philosophy of the proposed project: was it considered to be a last resort or a form of insurance against a last resort? Dr. Gunn suggested that it was impossible to place a precise line between the two. She suggested that when such rescue operations failed in the past the most common reason was that people waited too long. Habitat conditions this coming winter can only be discussed in terms of very imprecise probabilities.
Kevin McCormick asked what criteria would trigger re-introductions. Dr. Gunn was unwilling to speculate about such criteria at this stage of planning. Gordon Koshinsky noted that other captive-breeding programs, for purposes of re-introduction, have generally stemmed from decline of the species through such tangibles as over-hunting or habitat destruction. In the present case, which presumably stems from a more insidious form of habitat degradation, it would be very difficult if not impossible to determine if/when the habitat had recovered. If climate change is at the root of the problem, as seems likely, it is also very difficult to imagine that the problem will be rectified within any reasonable time frame. In most situations the ecological matrix would be too complex to have much hope of recovery from such a broad-based insult. The High Arctic ecosystem may be simple enough to give hope that this could happen, and thus would be a uniquely useful situation for experimentation. At minimum, the project would provide opportunity to observe Peary caribou under new conditions and thereby learn more about their adaptive make up.
Michael d’Eça enquired about ownership of the transported animals. Dr. Gunn replied that the hope was to set up a partnership agreement between the zoo, the Resolute HTO, and the GNWT, to run initially to 1999. It had not been planned to make reference to ownership in the agreement.
Michael d’Eça indicated that the transfer would be a harvest that would need to be explicitly decided by the NWMB under the NLCA. Stephen Atkinson challenged the basic interpretation, since the aim would be to take the animals back. Michael was not persuaded, since animals would be captured.
Ben Kovic asked who was expected to pay the costs of the project. Dr. Gunn replied that the Department will cover the costs of the capture. It is hoped to develop partnerships with NGOs to cover incremental operating costs at Calgary, estimated at about $25,000 per year. The Arctic islands will continue to be monitored as part of the Department’s ongoing program, with assistance anticipated from NWMB and other agencies for such high-cost components as periodic aerial surveys.
Thursday, 14 August 1997
8.C Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development
8.C.1 Polar Bear Management Agreements
Stephen Atkinson advised that the Western Hudson Bay MOU is the most recent of these Management Agreements to be completed, with two yet remaining. In accordance with previous procedures, the Agreement requires the approval of the NWMB before the regulatory changes can be enacted or given effect. An important unique element of this Agreement is that it makes provision (albeit unlikely to be exercised) by another jurisdiction: Manitoba.
Michael d’Eça acknowledged that these MOUs have emerged as a generally satisfactory procedure, but noted a few minor technical errors in the current document. Michael also reminded the Board that the procedure was developed in considerable haste in an effort to satisfy an American demand for evidence of effective management. It might be prudent now to revisit the whole protocol, especially since it is starting to be used as a model for other initiatives such as a polar bear co-management agreement with Greenland. Dan Pike referred to articles in the Agreement(s) which call on NWMB to do certain things, not all of which may still be appropriate, relevant or feasible. Stephen offered that the HTOs and individual hunters are becoming more and more favourable to these Agreements, and further that the American administrators of polar bear import regulations are starting to be favourably influenced by them as well.
The Board decided to approve the Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Management MOU, with certain minor wording changes to be communicated by staff. (Resolution 98-031) Staff were also directed to revisit the protocol as set out in these MOUs and report back to the Board for any recommended actions.
8.C.2 Polar Bear Quota Changes for 1997/98
Stephen Atkinson advised that the first season under the flexible quota system of polar bear management was finished last spring. To complete the process of implementation it will be necessary to reduce 1997/98 quotas for those communities that exceeded their 1996/97 quotas or reported excess females in their kill ratio, combined with having inadequate access to offsetting credits. In the final analysis no population (except Kane Basin) was harvested beyond the sustainable yield level, although some communities did over-harvest females.
According to the formulas that are incorporated in the MOUs, reduced quotas are in store for several communities for 1997/98. In the case of the Kane Basin population (Grise Fiord) the Department is recommending departure from the MOU to the point of nil harvest next year, on account of a serious over-hunting situation perpetrated by Greenland. Communities have been informed of the results and calculations, and there have been no negative responses to date. The Department does not claim to have consulted intensively, certainly not to the point of having the concurrence of the actual hunters. However the MOUs would lose much of their relevance if the formulas were not implemented, and in that case efforts to increase the export of polar bear trophies into the United States could be seriously undermined.
The Board agreed to assign staff to review this matter, including the calculations, and to prepare a detailed recommendation for the Board by early September. Ben Kovic undertook to contact some of the key or most-affected communities to obtain local reactions. Gordon Koshinsky cautioned Ben to avoid giving the impression that the Board was assuming a formal consultative or advocacy role in the matter. It must remain the responsibility of the proponent agencies to conduct the formal consultations in specific management issues and to provide assurance of having done so to the Board. To that end, the Board urged further directed consultative effort by the Department in this matter.
8.C.3 Aquaculture Development Proposal, Arctic Charr: Suvaaq Inc.
Gary Weber introduced Tim Fleming, President of Icy Waters International Inc. Mr. Fleming introduced company Chairman Paul Motz, along with his son Cameron Fleming.
Mr. Fleming announced that Suvaaq has been incorporated with the intention of enlarging it into a partnership made up of Icy Waters, the University of Guelph, and various Inuit groups, for the purposes of developing a superior hybrid strain of arctic charr, culturing and maintaining a brood stock from that strain, and exclusively marketing the progeny as sterile eggs in the aquaculture trade. Opinions were cited that arctic charr is probably the best freshwater fish for cold-water aquaculture, and further that the Canadian gene pool of arctic charr contains many uniquely superior attributes.
A unique aspect of the proposal is the offer of a defined equity position in the new company for communities (HTOs) that agree to provide a small amount of charr genetic material, to be derived from six fish per local population. It is envisaged that material for cross-breeding will include (possibly among others) the Nauyuk Lake stock (now owned by Icy Waters), the Tree River strain (now owned by the Kugluktuk Angoniati Association), fish from the Holman region in the Inuvialuit Settlement Area, and, it is hoped, fish from at least three locations in the NSA. The donor communities will retain individual ownership of the original pure stocks, but Suvaaq Inc. will own the hybrid stock.
The Holman HTC, the Resolute HTO, and the Kugluktuk Angioniatit Association have given their approval and support and the relevant government agencies have provided their endorsements. Guelph University has received NSERC funding for development of the hybrid strain and for adaptation of a triploiding process to enhance the growth performance of the fish.
David Aglukark declared that he was solidly opposed to the farming of arctic charr. His perception is that competition from cultured charr will, and indeed already did, severely impact the indigenous charr fisheries. Mr. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
