|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (109K) Printer
Friendly |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MINUTES: MEETING NO. 18
12-14 MAY 1998 BROUGHTON ISLAND, NT
Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Welcome by Community Representatives
Executive Committee Report and Recommendations Chairman, Staff, and Members' Reports
Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting Environment Canada (CWS) Presentations/Decisions
Meetings, Workshops and Other Pertinent Events Executive Committee Report and Recommendations Date and Location of Next Meeting
Several other presenters and members of the public at large Tuesday, 12 May 1998
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
The Chairperson Ben Kovic convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. in the Community Hall in Broughton Island. He welcomed the Members to Broughton Island, and asked all persons present to introduce themselves.
Ben gave a brief overview of the agenda for the week. He noted that the Board meeting would be open to the public, and indicated that there would probably be a meeting with the community in the course of the week.
Welcome by Community Representatives
Gamailee Nookiguak, as Deputy Mayor, welcomed the NWMB Members to Broughton Island on behalf of the Hamlet Council and the residents of the community. He noted that the Mayor was out of town and unavailable to attend. He stated that Broughton Island was proud to be hosting this NWMB meeting. He invited the Board to take advantage of amenities available in the Hamlet office. Gamailee conveyed a request from the Mayor for the support of the NWMB in the community’s efforts to procure a wharf for the benefit of the developing fisheries.
Johnny Poisey, Chairperson of the Nativak Hunters and Trappers Association at Broughton Island, also welcomed the NWMB to the community. He invited members to visit around the community during their stay.
Members reviewed the agenda for this the 18 th regular Meeting of the NWMB. The agenda was accepted with a few minor additions and deletions. (Resolution 99-001)
3. Minutes: Review and Adoption
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 17, held on 10 - 12 February 1998, were adopted with two minor amendments. (Resolution 99-002)
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 36, conducted on 16 February 1998, were adopted with one minor amendment. (Resolution 99-003)
4. Financial and Administrative Business
4.A Financial Report to 31 March 1998
Jim Noble gave an overview of the NWMB financial situation as at 31 March. He noted that the interim 1997/98 year-end financial statement was prepared with the assistance of the Auditors. Jim reviewed the major variances with the Board. He advised that the Auditors have declared that capital assets have to be depreciated annually; this change contributed substantially to the under-expenditure of $238,381 that appears on the statement for the year. The Harvest Study shows an accumulated surplus that should have been re-profiled into the forthcoming year (1998/99). Meeka Mike noted that some of the approved donations (February or March) are missing from the variance reports. Gordon Koshinsky observed that the prolonged vacancy in the Director of Finance and Administration position seems to have had a negative effect on budgetary forecasting. Gordon stressed the importance of getting the Funding Agreement with DIAND revised to formally eliminate the necessity to return year-end surpluses. Jim Noble noted that the Auditors were very complimentary about the actual record keeping by staff. The Board accepted the interim year-end financial report as presented. (Resolution 99-004)
4.B DIAND Funding Arrangement: Update
Jim Noble reviewed the background to the problems being experienced with the Contribution Agreement with DIAND and the efforts that have been made to have this agreement modified to better meet the requirements of the NWMB under the NLCA. Jim advised that DIAND officials report that the Department recently forwarded an amended funding agreement to the Treasury Board for TB consideration. In a recent letter to the NWMB, the Minister indicated that it may not be appropriate for IPG contribution agreements to have terms and conditions such as a termination-of-funding clause and a requirement to return year-end unexpended funds to the Crown. Michael d'Eça advised that in their last correspondence DIAND indicated that they would have a draft prepared by April or May. Michael suggested that a reminder be sent to DIAND about this commitment. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the wording of the letter that is sent should reflect the fact that the Board has already made its concerns known to DIAND. Gordon also noted that it would have been preferable for the Board to have seen a draft of DIAND's submission before it went to the Treasury Board.
4.C TAL Investment (NWRT): Update
Jim Noble referred the Members to the 31 March Financial Statement from TAL that was included in the information binders. The revised direction that was established for the Trust appears to be achieving positive results. Gordon Koshinsky cautioned that although the new results are gratifying, TAL has in fact under-performed the Board’s benchmark indicators for Canadian investments over the past twelve months.
5. Executive Committee Report and Recommendations
Gordon Koshinsky outlined how the Executive Committee is pursuing its business. In keeping with this outline, this item was deferred until after the Executive Committee had opportunity to meet. The item was revisited late on Thursday May 14 (see below), following meetings of the Executive Committee on Tuesday evening and on Thursday afternoon. At that time (Thursday afternoon), Gordon presented the recommendations of the Committee pertaining to performance bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments for staff, and several other matters.
6. Chairman, Staff, and Members' Reports
Ben Kovic referred to the reports by NWMB senior staff members and Advisors provided in the briefing material for the information of the Board.
Ben reiterated his usual modus operandi , that unless Board Members had specific questions, he would not review his report or associated materials in the course of the meeting. Ben referred in particular to the briefing notes in the binder pertaining to the various meetings that he attended. Ben advised that the presentation to the DFO Standing Committee on Fisheries had gone well; the Committee praised the NWMB for the quality of its presentation. Ben indicated that the same reporting procedure would apply in respect to the staff members and Advisors, unless any of them had any particular highlights or concerns they wanted to emphasize.
6.B Executive Director's Report
Jim Noble referred the Members to his meeting reports in the information binder. Jim drew attention to the status report of the Baker Lake HTA, noting that the HTA is in very poor financial condition and that NWMB staff are working to provide the necessary assistance to remedy the matter. 6.C Wildlife Management Director’s Report
Dan Pike referred Members to his briefing note in the information binder.
6.D Finance and Administration Director’s Report
No report was available, due to the vacancy of the position.
Michael d’Eça referred to his briefing note, and observed that all of his major items also appeared independently on the agenda. Michael agreed to re-draft for the Procedures Manual the material that he had earlier prepared pertaining to the independence of Members. Gordon Koshinsky requested that Michael provide assistance to Jim Noble in developing a comprehensive working binder for the benefit of the Trustees regarding the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust.
6.F Fisheries Advisor's Report
Jim Noble noted that Ray Andrews’ activity report was contained in his memo of April 18. Ray is advocating that he and Ben Kovic attend the NAFO AGM in Portugal in September. Gordon Koshinsky reminded the Members of Ray’s recommendation that a fall workshop be organized for all parties with a developmental interest in the eastern Arctic fisheries. Gordon supported such a workshop and urged that it be structured to identify and assign ways of pursuing specific goals. Jim Noble reminded Members of an earlier decision to hold a workshop to conduct a review of NWMB operations, and suggested that the two workshops could be conducted together.
6.G Members’ Reports and Concerns
No reports or concerns were presented by any of the Members, other than with respect to items that were already on the agenda.
7. Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Jim Noble reported verbally on this matter. He used the same reverse-reporting procedure that was adopted previously; bringing attention only to items for which progress was slower than expected or which were stymied for whatever reason.
7.A Resolutions from NWMB Meeting No. 17
None of the items identified under the criteria for attention elicited any new decisions or any new actions by the Board.
It was noted that the Nunavut Implementation Panel has not yet been advised of the NWMB decision to defer establishing basic needs levels for beluga, narwhal and walrus. Gordon Koshinsky and Ben Kovic identified the need for a more regular and timely process of monitoring uncompleted assignments among NWMB staff. It was suggested that the task list should be a regular item of agenda for NWMB staff meetings.
8. Environment Canada (CWS) Presentations/Decisions 8.A The Canada Endangered Species Protection Act (CESPA): Update
Vicky Johnston advised that this legislation is not expected to be re-introduced to Parliament before the fall of 1998. There will be efforts during the summer to discuss with co-managementboards the protection of species at risk on lands governed by land claims agreements.
8.B Snow Goose Over-Population Issue
Vicky Johnston reported that consultations are underway with interested parties to determine the most appropriate way to reduce snow goose populations. The consensus is that the Central Arctic snow goose population needs to be reduced by about 65% to protect its breeding habitat. It was noted that the Arviat HTA has some ideas and proposals for working toward this objective
8.C Migratory Birds Convention Amending Process
Vicky Johnston advised that CWS has started to review its own legislation and regulations pursuant to the anticipated amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention. Vicky confirmed that legislative changes would require extensive consultations, including with the NWMB.
8.D Goose Down Harvesting Proposals
Vicky Johnston drew the attention of the Board to two proposals from the Aiviq HTA at Cape Dorset pertaining to the actual or potential exploitation of the locally and regionally abundant snow goose populations for purposes of obtaining down for local use. These concepts stem in part from the decreasing availability of eider down in the area and in part from the burgeoning numbers of snow geese. Both requests were sent to the CWS with the aim of obtaining the requisite permits and/or endorsements. The CWS will not take supportive action on these matters without the concurrence of the NWMB. 8.D.1 Proposal to Harvest Lesser Snow Geese to Recover Down
This proposal is to harvest up to 1,000 greater and lesser snow geese from a number of staging areas around Cape Dorset and in the Andrew Gordon Bay area historically used by these birds on their spring migration. The feathers and down will be made available to the Natsiq Sewing Group while the carcasses will be made available to the community at no charge. The Aiviq HTA will cover the costs of harvesting and processing and is prepared to take measurements or record other observations that would be of use to the management agencies.
Gordon Koshinsky asked if CWS saw any possible conservation issue. Vicky replied that they did not. The Board decided to endorse the proposal, and to encourage the HTA and the CWS to work together to take advantage of the opportunity to obtain population data. (Resolution 99-005)
8.D.2 Proposal to Assess the Feasibility of Harvesting Down from Nests
This proposal is to conduct a walking survey of a 30-to-40 square kilometer area around Bowman Bay in the Dewey Soper Bird Sanctuary, to determine the number and density of nests. From that information it is proposed to estimate the availability of down and to assess the potential and feasibility of developing a down harvest. Participating personnel will be trained in census methodology appropriate to the project. Timing and execution of the survey will be geared so as to cause minimum disturbance to the birds. The specific requirement is for a permit to access the Sanctuary.
Gordon Koshinsky noted that the survey plan contains a number of elements that would embody substantial costs. He asked what plans were in place to cover these costs. Vicky replied that besides its own contributions, the HTA hoped to obtain funding support from the GNWT. The Board decided to endorse the proposal, and to encourage the HTO and the CWS to work together to ensure a functional survey design. (Resolution 99-006)
The Board decided to go in-camera to consider a number of matters of a confidential nature pertaining to the management of staff and the accountability of RWOs and HTOs. No decisions were made in-camera that required subsequent referral to the open Board Meeting.
Resolutions passed in connection with this in-camera session were as follows:
Wednesday, 13 May 1998
9. Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Presentations/Decisions
Gary Weber advised that no written briefing material was made available ahead of time because the deadline for translations had been missed.
9.A Walrus Management System: Regulatory Considerations
Gary Weber advised that DFO has started a review of its various regulations with the aim of confirming or achieving conformity with the provisions of the NLCA. This exercise is going ahead prior to clarification on whether a new Fisheries Act will be introduced. Development of regulatory amendments pertaining to walrus is envisaged as part of this overall exercise. Preliminary draft regulations for walrus management in this context could be expected for the November meeting of the Board, and a "significant draft" should be ready by May 1999. Gordon Koshinsky urged that DFO make provision for early and continuous participation by the NWMB in its process of regulatory review and amendment.
Dan Pike suggested that the walrus management issue requires attention of a nature that could not be expected to flow from any generalized regulatory review. What the Board is contemplating is a complete overhaul of the walrus management system. This goes far beyond and is in fact unrelated to the process of ensuring that the present walrus management system is in conformity with the NLCA. Dan interpreted the DFO exercise as it was outlined today to have no prospect of delivering what the Board has requested or what the Board requires and expects.
9.B Walrus Management Plan: Update
Gary Weber tabled a letter from Patt Hall, DFO Fishery Management Coordinator in Winnipeg, which contained predictions for having a draft Walrus Management Plan for NWMB consideration by early June.
Dan Pike noted that walrus sport hunting in the NSA could no longer be considered as an experimental or pilot venture. He recalled that the Board’s request to DFO for development of a walrus management plan is of very long standing, and that the request for regulatory options to govern walrus sport hunting was communicated to DFO last July. Without these materials the NWMB is forced to respond to escalating requests from individual communities for authorization to sport-hunt walrus on an uninformed and piecemeal basis.
9.C Beluga Live Capture: Marine Land Proposal
Gary Weber advised that DFO reviewed a proposal from Marineland of Niagara Falls, Ontario, to conduct a beluga live capture in the NSA. Deficiencies in the proposal were identified to the proponent but no further response was received. The file is considered closed, at least for 1998.
9.D Walrus Sport Hunting: Requests for Approval
Note: The two Alternate Board Members for Makivik, Johnny Peters and Henry Alayco, replaced Regular Members Joan Scottie and Makabe Nartok at the Board table for this agenda item.
Dan Pike reviewed the history of walrus sport hunting in Nunavut. He noted that the Board has controlled these hunts in three different ways, with the consistent objective to not increase the overall harvest. Dan observed that local interest in walrus sport hunting continues to grow since it is economically attractive. Two of the four applications currently before the Board pertain or could pertain to the Area of Equal Use and Occupancy. A fifth application, from Hall Beach, was addressed by the Board at its last meeting.
Dan reviewed the requests that were before the Board, as follows:
Members reviewed these four applications and the other information that was provided. There was considerable discussion about the difficulties in trying to accommodate the growing interest in walrus sport hunting while at the same time ensuring walrus conservation, all this in the context of an inconsistent management history and without benefit of a rational regulatory regime or management plan. Johnny Peters acknowledged that this was his first encounter with the system of permitting the harvest of four walrus per hunter in a community, and he saw it as a formula for eventual disaster.
In addition, the Board’s Legal Advisor cautioned that the NWMB has no authority to restrict the right of Inuit to assign harvesting rights. Consequently, it is not reasonable for the Board to attempt to regulate sport hunting by limiting assignments.
The Board approved walrus sport-hunting quotas for each community for 1998 as follows:
Note: Regular Board Members Joan Scottie and Makabe Nartok rejoined the Board table at this point in the proceedings.
9.E Bowhead Whale Management and Conservation 9.E.1 Bowhead Hunt Planning for 1998
Ben Kovic noted that some members of the Pangnirtung HTA had made representation to defer the hunt from 1998 to 1999. Dan Pike suggested there should be no problem getting a quick response from the Minister on a request for deferral, since there would be no new issue of conservation subsequent to the NWMB having established the initial TAH of one bowhead whale. Ben suggested that it would be appropriate and prudent for the community to continue making preparations for a 1998 hunt in any regard.
Johnny Peters reported witnessing the 1996 hunt at Repulse Bay, and suggested that too many hunt captains from too many areas were involved. It was in fact a dangerous situation in terms of human safety. In Johnny’s view, hunt planners and participants from the local community should have the paramount roles in any future bowhead hunt.
Jim Noble, on behalf of the Bowhead Hunt Planning Committee, tabled the Qikiqtaaluk Bowhead Hunt Plan that the Committee had produced. Pauloosie Keyootak, from his vantage point as the NWMB Member on the Committee, advised that the Committee was concerned about the process whereby the media might film the forthcoming hunt. The Committee perceived that filming of the 1996 hunt interfered with the actual hunting operation. Pauloosie asked if and how filming could be restricted. Ben Kovic replied that the NWMB would not have authority to ban the media, although restrictions could be imposed for legitimate reasons such as public safety.
Michael d’Eça recommended that he and NWMB staff be given opportunity to examine the Hunt Plan document before it receives the approval of the Board. Pauloosie Keyootak advised that the Planning Committee will meet again in June, and could deal then with any concerns about the Hunt Plan that might be identified by the NWMB. On this understanding, the Board agreed to approve the 1998 Qikiqtaaluk Bowhead Hunt Plan in principle. (Resolution 99-013)
9.E.2 Non-Quota Limitations on Bowhead Harvest
Dan Pike reminded the Members that the 1996 bowhead hunt resulted in considerable criticism and negative publicity for the way in which the whale was killed, primarily by rifle fire. Johnny Peters agreed that the 1996 hunt was embarrassing, and that it conveyed the impression that Inuit hunt for fun. Dan stated that while the use of a bomb-type of weapon, as per the Alaskan experience, does not always result in a rapid and humane kill, it surely does improve the prospects of that happening. All parties to the 1998 hunt-planning process have agreed, as per the Hunt Plan already approved by the Board in principle, that the use of a darting gun or shoulder gun should be a requirement of the licence. Ben Kovic noted that the Pangnirtung hunters were initially inclined to use just rifles; however he recommended that they plan to use an exploding/bomb type of weapon instead. They came to realize that a bad hunt might have negative repercussions on their fishing or other resource-harvesting operations. Dan recommended that the NWMB make a non-quota limitation, to require that bowhead hunters in future use an exploding or bomb-type weapon and that rifles not be permitted. The Board agreed to establish such a non-quota limitation. (Resolution 99-014)
Dan Pike stated that the hunters at Repulse Bay in 1996 apparently did not consider themselves adequately trained to use the shoulder gun that was available to them. Such equipment would have to be obtained and appropriate training would have to be provided to facilitate the 1998 hunt. Ben Kovic advised that the (five) Board Members he was able to contact (by telephone) had endorsed his proposal to approach the Inuvialuit to explore borrowing or renting appropriate hunting equipment and obtaining training assistance from them. Gordon Koshinsky noted that there is still considerable time before the 1998 hunt, and suggested that the Hunt Planning Committee be encouraged in the first instance to obtain the necessary equipment themselves. Meeka Mike noted that the hunt planners experienced difficulty obtaining proper equipment in 1996. The Board eventually agreed that NWMB staff should assist in efforts to locate appropriate hunting equipment and training, and that the Board would be prepared to assist with training costs.
9.E.3 Bowhead Conservation/Recovery Plan: WWF
Dan Pike advised that a funding proposal from the World Wildlife Fund to develop a Conservation Plan for Eastern Arctic Bowhead Whales had been withdrawn and would be re-submitted at the Board’s August meeting.
9.F Narwhal Management Planning Initiative: Update
Dan Pike advised that a narwhal planning workshop is scheduled for later in May. DFO has prepared two discussion papers for this workshop. Dan stated his preference to have an independent chairperson for the workshop and suggested that Jerry Ell might be available. The Board decided to ask Harry Flaherty to attend the workshop on behalf of the Board. If Harry is not available, Ben Kovic will to attend. Ben offered to make an opening statement in any event.
9.G Litigation Proceedings regarding Turbot: Review and Update
Michael d’Eça advised that Makivik was successful in their application for permission to intervene in the appeal by DFO of the July 1997 decision of the Federal Court. Makivik recently filed their factum with the Federal Court of Appeal. NTI recently filed its own factum for the DFO appeal, with input from NWMB. NTI also plans to respond to the Makivik factum. Michael made four recommendations to the Board, which were accepted as follows:
10. GNWT Wildlife (RWED): Presentations/Decisions
Joe Tigullaraq advised that Stephen Atkinson was unable to attend and that he (Joe) and Stephen Pinksen would be making most of the RWED presentations.
10.A Peary Caribou Research and Management Planning: Update
Joe Tigullaraq reviewed the briefing note that was provided and advised that this was an update only. On an incidental matter, Joe noted that CBC in a recent media item suggested that wolves may have a serious impact on populations of High Arctic caribou. Joe advised that recent scientific findings indicate that arctic hares and lemmings constitute the main prey of wolves, with caribou meat making up only 5% of wolf diets.
10.B Effects of Capture and Handling on Polar Bears: Status Report
Joe Tigullaraq advised that the study on the effects of capture and handling on polar bears was contracted to Dr. François Messier at the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Messier will be examining existing information collected over the past eight years. Completion of the report is expected by the end of August. The report will be designed to help the NWMB decide if a more comprehensive review is needed. Some Members expressed concern that the input of hunters is not being sought or included in the study.
10.C Caribou Calving Grounds: Protection Measures
Joe Tigullaraq cited a need to provide land-use planners and managers with sound advice on the management and protection of caribou calving and post-calving areas. Joe reminded the Board of the initial workshop on this subject in 1996, and referred to the discussion paper that followed from it. A second workshop is planned for the fall of 1998, and the NWMB will probably be invited to participate and provide support.
Dan Pike interpreted that this is an initiative with little or no primary interest or pertinence to the Nunavut perspective. Inuit in general, and the Nunavut land-use-planning organizations in particular, appear very unenthusiastic about identifying large areas to accommodate such protection measures. Most consider that the NLCA provides an adequate framework for any protection measures that may be required for caribou habitat. Southern Indian Bands are much more enthusiastic about the concept of establishing large caribou protection parks in the Arctic. Another possible impetus for visible and concerted action is to provide a counter-force against any movement by the United States to open the Alaskan Slope to oil exploration.
10.D Organized Subsistence Goose Harvest: Arviat Proposal
Stephen Pinksen referred the Board to the proposal from the Arviat HTA to conduct an organized subsistence harvest of 1000 lesser snow geese in late May and early June. The proposed initiative is in partial response to efforts by various agencies to reduce this population. No funding support is being requested. The Canadian Wildlife Service has indicated that, as in previous years, a permit for this harvest will be issued only upon the approval of the NWMB. Management of hunts such as this will probably change after the Migratory Birds Convention is amended and the enabling laws are passed.
Ben Kovic noted that on account of the MBC, the NWMB does not have the same jurisdiction over migratory birds as it does for other species. In this situation there is a question of what approval by the NWMB actually means. Michael d'Eça advised that the Board should make and word its decision in whatever way it feels comfortable. The Board decided to endorse (rather than approve) the harvest of up to 1,000 geese for the project. (Resolution 99-016)
Further to the matter of controlling bird populations, Johnny Peters asked if it was possible to obtain approval to control seagulls, since they often destroy eider duck nests. Ben Kovic advised Johnny to approach CWS for a permit to control nuisance birds.
10.E Brucellosis in Baffin Caribou: Update
Stephen Pinksen referred the Board to the briefing note that was provided on this subject, for information only. The item was developed in response to an earlier request from the Board.
10.F Wildlife Act Revisions: Update
Stephen Pinksen advised that the first phase of this project, embodying an overview of the NWT Wildlife Act and Regulations, was completed by the Canadian Institute of Resources Law in March. The second phase, which will include development of a comprehensive list of proposed changes, is now in progress. The Board will be asked to participate in this development and in planning for community consultations to be initiated in late autumn.
10.G Community Quota Reallocation Protocol; Example: Cape Dorset
Stephen Pinksen proposed a streamlined mechanism for changing regulations that pertain to straight-forward reallocations of community harvest quotas. In simple cases of this nature, with no conservation concerns or other controversies, RWED proposes to make the regulatory change, advise the NWMB concurrently, and obtain NWMB endorsement retroactively. There is provision for such a procedure in NLCA 5.3.24, “Where urgent and unusual circumstances require an immediate modification in harvesting activities”. Stephen tabled a reallocation request from the Cape Dorset HTA, both in its own right and as an example of a situation in which such a streamlined procedure might be applied. The request from Cape Dorset is for a reallocation of 28 of their commercial caribou tags for use in sport hunting. The total harvest will not increase, and there are no management concerns.
Meeka Mike interpreted the general issue to be a complicated one, not easily decided without extensive deliberation. Dan Pike suggested that obtaining the prior approval or the NWMB in such cases is not really the main cause of holdup. Getting a regulation changed within the Department probably takes longer, as a rule, than the process of obtaining NWMB approval. The real problem is that the regulatory framework is not in line with the NLCA. If it were in line, matters such as this would automatically be interpreted as local issues. Michael d'Eça cautioned that it would be an inappropriate precedent to categorize a matter such as this as an "urgent or unusual" circumstance. The Board decided to take this matter under consideration.
With respect to the specific request from Cape Dorset for a reallocation of the community’s caribou quota between use categories, it was noted that the RWED Biologist, in his supporting documentation, does identify what might be interpreted as conservation or management concerns. It is in fact not clear that a reallocation of quota would have no actual effect on the overall harvest level, e. g. whether the community is currently harvesting its full allotment. The Board decided to deny the request, pending a more consistent treatment of the available information by RWED, and especially more meaningful consultation with the HTA. (Resolution 99-017)
10.H Proposal for Shared Staff Position (RWED/NWMB)
Stephen Pinksen advised that the Department has completed a draft job description for a Conservation Education Officer position, possibly for shared staffing with the NWMB. The concept involves sharing the services of an individual to, inter alia:
Jim Noble advised that the Executive Committee has this matter, including the draft job description, under consideration.
10.I Suvaaq Char Proposal: Update
Joe Tigullaraq advised that the consulting firm Co-Pro Ltd. was contracted by RWED to review the Suvaaq proposal as it pertains to the NSA, and in particular to assess the concern expressed by the NWMB and others about potential negative impacts of char aquaculture on markets and prices for wild-caught fish. Based on this review and other considerations, RWED has decided to endorse the concept. Pauloosie Keyootak advised that there is still widespread concern among Inuit char fishermen about possible effects on their markets and prices.
Gordon Koshinsky suggested that if the marketing were managed in a coordinated way, the two char interests (wild-caught and farm-grown) should be able to complement each other to mutual advantage. It seems that this might be most easily achieved if Suvaaq were to accept a marketing role for wild-caught fish. Gordon noted that at this point Nunavut interests have secured no active role in this proposed venture, and up to now the NWMB has not been offering much encouragement. It is possible that an important economic opportunity will be missed. Johnny McPherson suggested that some of the business aspects of the proposal need to be further clarified or refined. One such aspect would be the perpetuation of ownership interests through successive generations of char hybrids.
Jim Noble advised that the Kugluktuk HTA has asked the NWMB for approval to proceed to take a proprietary position in the venture by providing a small quantity of char gamete material. A similar request is expected very soon from the Resolute Bay HTA. Meeka Mike suggested that the NWMB could not stop anyone from participating in a private venture; however she would be pleased to see more communities involved, especially if a larger proprietary percentage could be negotiated than is indicated in the current proposal. Michael d'Eça advised that the NWMB has the authority to approve or deny the taking of char eggs for aquaculture purposes.
Joe advised that RWED is planning to hold a broadly-based workshop on the Suvaaq proposal. The Board endorsed the idea of such a workshop, and decided to defer any decision on the matter until after the workshop is held.
10.J Traditional Polar Bear Hunt Proposal: Coral Harbour
Ben Kovic advised the Board that he had solicited widely for opinions about the proposed hunt. KWF supported the proposal right from the start. The Aiviit HTA (Coral Harbour) endorses the hunt, as do the Igloolik and Baker Lake HTAs. Letters and/or resolutions of support from all these organizations are on file. The QWB and the KHTA have not responded formally to the request for their input. Ben also noted that he had viewed the "Toothwalker" film, but did not consider it to be a good parallel for the proposed polar bear hunt. Makabe Nartok advised that the Kitikmeot HTOs met via teleconference to discuss the proposal. Considerable opposition was expressed, mainly with respect to the filming aspect. Pauloosie Keyootak advised that he was not opposed to the traditional hunt per se, but he also had concerns about the filming. Pauloosie suggested that it might be acceptable if the content of the film could be controlled. Meeka Mike felt that it would be difficult to prevent the hunt and the filming; however the NWMB might provide guidelines for both aspects.
Michael d'Eça advised that he had reviewed the legal background and implications of the proposed hunt. He suggested that if the Board decided to permit the hunt, it might make a condition that any film about the hunt could not be released without HTA approval. Michael’s view, however, was that the NWMB would not be on very solid ground in attempting to impose this. Dan Pike suggested that consensus seemed to be emerging that the hunt should proceed with some conditions. Dan reminded the Board of the conditions he had recommended previously:
Joan Scottie stated her concurrence with these conditions. Dan noted that the film production company has already agreed to comply with its portion of such a set of conditions.
Ben Kovic asked if the Wildlife Act would have to be amended to permit such a hunt. Dan Pike noted that this would be a matter to be decided by RWED, but if the hunt were a one-time event the Department might consider authorizing it through a special permit.
Pauloosie Keyootak expressed concern about the liability aspect and asked to see documentation on this subject. Michael noted that as per NLCA 5.2.39 the NWMB cannot be held liable for decisions made in good faith. This is a powerful clause, but it does not provide an absolute guarantee. Michael advised that if the NWMB decides to approve the hunt it should underline that it is a policy decision and not an operational one. Making a policy decision further minimizes any vulnerability of the Board.
Makabe Nartok stated that he supported the concept of a traditional hunt, but that he continued to have reservations about this particular proposal. He suggested that the Board reserve its decision until all Members were present. Ben Kovic reminded everyone that the Board operates with a quorum and does not have to have all Members present to make a decision. David Tagoona asked to see the supporting resolution from the Aiviit HTA. Jim Noble advised that this document had been included in the information binder for the previous Board meeting. David also urged obtaining more input and confirmation from elders on whether the weapons and tools being proposed for the hunt were in fact used traditionally. If this is going to be documented as a traditional hunt, then it should conform to traditional methods.
The Board decided to approve the Coral Harbour traditional polar bear hunt, with conditions. (Resolution 99-018)
On a related matter stemming from this decision Meeka Mike noted that, according to the NLCA, decisions of the NWMB pertaining to the management and protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat are not to be made public until there is a response from the appropriate Minister. Michael confirmed this requirement, and suggested that it may represent an internal inconsistency in the Agreement. Michael recommended that the NWMB advise its co-management partners that the Board will not advertise its initial decisions in public, but that neither does the Board intend to make these decisions behind closed doors.
10.K Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary Management Planning
Dan Pike reviewed the history leading up to the present situation. Nearly a year ago the Akiliniq Planning Committee sent its Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary Draft Management Plan to the NWMB for consideration and approval. According to NLCA 9.5.2, a management plan for this sanctuary was to be submitted to the appropriate Ministers by July 1998. Both the KIA and the NTI indicated serious concerns about the draft that was submitted to the NWMB, and also indicated that they would be seeking changes. These concerns were communicated to the Planning Committee in February 1998. In view of these indications the NWMB delayed finalizing its own review and response.
The draft Plan nonetheless did receive the attention of NWMB staff and the NWMB Legal Advisor. Three main concerns were identified:
Michael d'Eça reiterated the unanimous view of all the pertinent agencies under the NLCA that the draft Plan is seriously flawed. Stu Macmillan expressed the view of RWED that the Plan is finished, and noted that the Planning Committee has been disbanded.
David Tagoona advised that the Akiliniq Planning Committee was dissolved after transmitting the draft Plan to the DIOs (KIA and NTI) and to the NWMB. David suggested that these three agencies, along with RWED, should get together and come to a resolution. He interpreted that a workshop conducted at Baker Lake in April was intended to accomplish this. Joan Scottie advised that almost no documentation was provided at the workshop. No one was present at the workshop who could provide dissenting comment, and no dissenting material was made available. David noted that the views of Baker Lake residents were recorded on videotape, as input to developing the Plan.
Michael d'Eça suggested that the draft Plan is nothing more than a document-in-progress and that the GNWT has an obligation to coordinate its completion as per the terms of and in harmony with the NLCA. Michael suggested that the NWMB contact the GNWT to request that they consider re-establishing the Akiliniq Planning Committee and completing the Plan. Michael noted that the bulk of the work has been done and that an extension of the deadline would be needed to allow completion including the necessary consultations. The Board agreed to request the Minister of RWED to re re-vitalize the planning process.
10.L Bluenose Caribou Management Plan
This item was on the agenda for review, but no update was provided.
10.M Muskox Hunting Season Extension Proposal: KWF
Stephen Pinksen advised that Keewatin HTAs and the Keewatin Wildlife Federation have requested that the hunting season for Muskox Management Zones MX/18, MX/20 and MX/21 be lengthened to commence July 1 rather than October 1 as at present. The flavour of muskox varies seasonally due to changes in the vegetation comprising the diet. Consumption of muskox in different seasons was traditionally used by Inuit as an alternative means to vary their own diet. Keewatin elders who were accustomed to eating muskox in summer have been unable to enjoy this opportunity. The Department is supportive of this request but does note a number of concerns:
Joe Tigullaraq noted that the proposed change was really relevant only in MX/18 and MX/20. He conveyed recommendations for two refinements to the proposal on behalf of the Department:
The Board approved changing the start of the muskox hunting season from October 1 to July 1 for Zones MX/18, MX/20 and MX/21. (Resolution 99-019)
11. NWMB Internal Items: Presentations / Decisions
Johnny McPherson advised the Board that the Wildlife Harvest Study Committee held its first meeting on March 13. Johnny also advised that he recently attended a four-day training program in Ottawa pertaining to software applications pertinent to the Study. Later in May, the four Co-management Harvest Study Coordinators currently operational in the NWT will be conducting a harvest study workshop in Yellowknife. Johnny noted that he had complied with a request from RWED for Harvest Study data, but with conditions (by agreement) on how the data can be used. Johnny advised that he had discussed with the Harvest Study Committee the possibility of converting the half-time Data Entry Clerks in Coppermine and Arviat to full-time employment status. The Harvest Study Committee endorsed this action and the approval of the NWMB is now requested.
The Board approved the recommendation of the Committee to convert the two Data Entry Clerk positions specified to full-time status. (Resolution 99-020) Johnny also advised that the Harvest Study Committee had discussed and recommended in favour of a technical review of the Harvest Study. Johnny tabled Terms of Reference for such a review but noted that no funds have been budgeted for it. The Board approved the recommendation of the Harvest Study Committee to contract for a technical review of the Harvest Study as per the Terms of Reference that were tabled. (Resolution 99-021)
11.B Inuit Bowhead Knowledge Study: Update
Dan Pike tabled briefing material pertaining to this Study on behalf of Keith Hay. Dan noted that the time lines for completion of the work have slipped. Keith has been ill and unable to make progress. It was now obvious that the completion date would have to be moved back and the budget increased.
As part of the briefing package Dan referred the Board to a revised schedule that indicated August 31 as the new target date for completion of the Final Report and Summary, but with an identified need for subsequent work on report translation, presentation, publication and distribution. Also included was a revised budget indicating a total requirement of $88,500 for 1998/99. This includes a very rough estimate of $40,000 for “Final Report Costs”. Dan reminded the Board that only $50,000 was identified for the Inuit Bowhead Knowledge Study in the Board’s 1998/99 estimates. Dan advised that according to the projections as presented, Keith’s services would not be required on a full-time basis after August 31. Dan proposed that he be offered a contract after that if more of his input was needed.
The Board accepted the adjusted schedule and the revised budget as presented for the Inuit Bowhead Knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
