|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (123K) Printer
Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MINUTES: MEETING NO. 22 16-20 May 1999 IKALUKTUTIAK, NT
Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Financial and Administrative Business
Chairman, Staff, and Member Reports
Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting Environment Canada (CWS) Issues and Decisions
Tuesday, 18 May 1999; Evening Session
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) Wildlife Division Funding for Projects, and Donation Requests
Executive Committee Report and Recommendations
Meetings, Workshops and Other Pertinent Events New List of Tasks to be Undertaken Date and Location of Next Meeting
Sunday, 16 May 1999
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
The Chairperson Ben Kovic convened the meeting at 1:40 p.m. in the Zinc Room of the Yellowknife Inn at Yellowknife. David Alagalak led the opening prayer. Ben welcomed the NWMB Members to this the 22nd regular meeting of the Board. He noted the unusually short time interval since the previous meeting and congratulated the staff for getting the preparations completed.
Members reviewed the agenda for the meeting. Jim Noble noted that a few changes would be required, most of them of a housekeeping nature:
The agenda was accepted with the noted amendments. (Resolution 2000- 001)
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 21, held on 23-26 March 1999, were not yet available for consideration. The Resolutions that were passed at the Meeting were available to serve as an outline of the decisions that were made.
4. Financial and Administrative Business
4.A Interim Year-End Financial Report (as at 31 March 1999)
Jim Noble tabled the interim financial report for the 1998/99 fiscal year and provided an overview of the major variances. A large negative variance is attributed to Conservation Education; this stems from a major re-coding of items that were previously assigned to Donations. An overall over-expenditure of $119,732 is currently projected. The report is now in process of being audited.
There was some discussion, but no decision, about whether to tender the audit for 1999/2000. The Board currently pays about $12,000 for its annual audit.
The Board decided to accept the interim financial report for 1998/99 as it was presented. (Resolution 2000- 002)
4.B Financial Report to 30 April 1999
Jim Noble tabled an overview of the NWMB financial situation to 30 April 1999. Members noted that the format of the report was much different from recent editions and expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the changes. Jim explained that the changes were linked to a different accounting program now being used. Members refused to consider the report in the manner in which it was formatted. They requested that future presentations be tailored more closely to the previous format, even if it meant constructing the tables manually.
4.C Funding Arrangement with DIAND: Update
Jim Noble advised that a meeting of the IPGs with DIAND officials is scheduled for June 8 in Ottawa. It has been agreed by all parties that the purpose of the meeting will be to work towards mutually acceptable wording for the annual funding agreements.
5. Chairman, Staff, and Member Reports
Ben Kovic noted that material pertaining to many of the items on his list of trips and meetings is included under other topics in the briefing binders. He elaborated briefly on his meeting with the Minister for Sustainable Development for the new Nunavut Government. Ben interpreted that Mr. Kilabuk has a priority focus on economic development, and also that he has a good understanding of the role and operations of the NWMB.
5.B Executive Director's Report
Jim Noble noted that most of the items in his list of tasks completed are also on the meeting agenda under different headings.
5.C Director of Wildlife Management Report
Michelle Wheatley referred the Members to her list of work completed and major tasks underway since the last Board meeting. She reported that all successful candidates for NWRT funding were simultaneously advised about the rigorous time frames that will henceforth pertain to project and financial reporting.
Kevin McCormick suggested that when the Arctic co-management boards meet together with one government department (as is scheduled with DFO at the end of May), it might be worthwhile to at least explore meeting with other government departments concurrently. Michelle advised that a measure of that is already happening: the “Western Co-management Boards” have arranged to meet with RWED (GNWT) in conjunction with the late-May meeting with DFO.
Harry Flaherty remarked on the proliferation of Working Groups, and wondered if time and effort was being or could be saved by modelling them on one another or even by appointing the same people to serve. Michelle replied that similar formats were being used, but that the issues being addressed tended to be community- as well as species-specific, and thus were best served by individualized membership. Harry expressed concern that these Working Groups might be getting assigned too much of the role of the RWOs. David Alagalak reported that some members of the Narwhal Working Group have felt marginalized because the Working Group met only once and then saw the process go forward without them. Michelle explained that it was the purpose of the Narwhal Working Group, as it was initially set out, to develop and recommend a framework that could then be implemented, but that it was never expected that the Working Group per se could or would take this framework into the field. It is anticipated that the Narwhal Working Group will be convened again in the fall, to evaluate the new management system. In this sense the Working Group is in the business of recommending overall policy rather than implementing specific action. It was agreed that terms of reference for Working Groups need to be clearly defined and well understood at the outset. If pertinent, their advisory roles should be clearly enunciated.
5.D Director of Finance and Administration Report
The Director of Finance and Administration was not present to elaborate on his activity report for the period. The financial material already presented reflects some items in that report. Jim Noble noted that the Director is exploring the subject of insurance coverage for Board Members.
Michael d’Eça tabled a comprehensive briefing note on his activities for the period. Michael noted that the new Nunavut Department of Sustainable Development (DSD) is showing a strong and genuine interest in fisheries development, in response to which he prepared a briefing note outlining relevant legislation and other matters. He also reported that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has released its report regarding Bill C-48 ( Marine Conservation Areas Act ), taking very positive account of the NWMB input.
5.F Fisheries Advisor's Report
Michelle Wheatley referred the Members to Ray Andrew’s activity report contained in the briefing binder.
Monday, 17 May 1999
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 2:30 p.m. at Ikaluktutiak. Board Member Makabe Nartok joined the meeting at this point. Pauloosie Keyootak offered an opening prayer.
5.G Members’ Reports and Concerns
David Alagalak expressed concern about the workload of staff members who are involved in the senior administrative and wildlife management aspects of the NWMB program. He suggested that the Assistant Director of Wildlife Management position could probably be made more relevant and productive. David also urged a more forward-looking approach in dealing with the HTOs. He suggested that concerted research be done on the contentious issues that remain unresolved between the NWMB and these organizations, including the matter of defining adequate funding and the creation of new HTOs.
Harry Flaherty echoed David Alagalak’s concerns about staff workloads. He suggested that it would be worthwhile for the Board to sponsor more training workshops for Members and staff. He also suggested that the Board should try to make better advance preparations for community attendance and participation, especially when it meets for the first time in a community.
Joan Scottie reported that administration of the Harvest Study continues to be a problem at Baker Lake. She cited lack of proper office accommodation as a contributing factor. She suggested that the Study needs to be promoted more aggressively and with more innovation to encourage better hunter participation.
Makabe Nartok urged that NWMB minutes and other informative documents be circulated with greater regularity to the HTOs in his region, as well as to the RWO and the RIA.
Kevin McCormick reported that shared waterfowl species are the subject of emerging discussions between CWS staff and officials from Greenland. Among the waterfowl receiving specific attention are harlequin ducks (considered by Canada to be at risk, but harvested in Greenland), and eider ducks (few of which nest in Greenland, but many of which are harvested there). Greenland officials have indicated enthusiasm for joint research on these two species, and the matter will likely require future attention by the NWMB.
6. Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Jim Noble referred the Members to the Task List with status notations included in the briefing binder.
All of the identified tasks arising from the last meeting were completed or are well under way. More problematical are some of the items brought forward from previous meetings, including many that are of rather long standing. These items were examined individually and the following decisions were made in respect to those that have not yet been completed or are not yet substantially underway:
7. Environment Canada (CWS) Issues and Decisions
7.A Proposal for Peregrine Falcon Delisting in the USA
Kevin McCormick advised the Board that three subspecies of peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus ) are native to North America. These are F.p.pealei on the northwest coast, F.p.anatum breeding south of the treeline, and F.p.tundrius breeding north of the treeline, including in the NSA. The various subspecies were for some time or still are designated as being “at risk”.
The US delisted tundrius peregrines in 1994. US authorities have recently determined that the population of the anatum subspecies is at or near target levels set out in the (their) recovery plan. On this basis they are proposing to delist this subspecies (as per their own jurisdiction) as well. This would automatically permit falconers once again to capture falcons to be trained in the pursuit of their sport. In anticipation of this, US biologists are trying to establish a biological basis for such a falcon harvest. The inclination of the US biologists is to:
The US authorities anticipate that such provisions would facilitate a sustainable harvest of primarily the tundrius subspecies, believed to be the most robust of all the North American peregrine falcon populations. The focus of the expected captures would thus be expected to include birds that breed in Nunavut. Some birds of the anatum population breeding north of about 53º N would inevitably be harvested concurrently. The birds do mix to at least some extent in migration, and the different populations are hard to distinguish at this stage in any event.
Actual or potential concerns from the Canadian perspective would/might include:
This matter, if it develops further, will eventually have to come to the CWS for a formal Canadian response. If and when that happens, the NWMB will be asked for input. A response might be built around proposals such as:
Preliminary reaction to the proposal to delist the anatum subspecies in particular, and especially to any renewed harvest that a further delisting of falcons would enable, has been decidedly negative in Canada.
7.B Judicial Review of Special Harvesting Regulations for Snow Geese
Kevin McCormick reminded the Board about concerns that rapidly expanding snow goose populations are negatively impacting their breeding habitats. The Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management has designated the mid-continent populations of lesser snow geese and greater snow geese as over-abundant, and has agreed that it would be appropriate for each country to take special measures to increase harvests. In response, Canada proposed to introduce special goose hunting regulations for the spring of 1999. The proposed regulations were challenged by a coalition of animal-welfare and other interests.
The proposed regulations were upheld in the ensuing judicial review, on the basis that there is provision in the Migratory Birds Convention for harvesting birds in special ways in extraordinary circumstances. However the judge ruled that the regulations could/would not automatically extend to the harvesting of Ross’ geese (in spring), since Ross’ geese are not claimed to be overabundant. This does pose a practical problem, since it is almost inevitable that some Ross’ geese would be harvested inadvertently in any spring hunt for snow geese.
Tuesday, 18 May 1999
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. David Alagalak led the opening prayer.
8. Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Issues and Decisions
8.A DFO Research Supported by Nunavut Implementation Funds, 1999/00
Lynn Siegersma tabled a summary report pertaining to DFO research projects that were approved for support from the Nunavut Implementation Fund (NIF) for 1999/00. These funds are provided to the Department to address incremental costs stemming from the NLCA. According to the terms under which these funds were negotiated, they are meant to provide support for stock assessment and closely related research ventures. The funds are administered out of DFO’s Iqaluit office. The research priority listing developed by the NWMB is a major factor in deciding allocations.
Of the 15 projects approved for 1999/00, nine pertain to marine mammals and six pertain to fish. The assigned NIF funding totals $327,000. Most of the approved projects are also being supported through the NWRT or by the NWMB directly. All have DFO support, most notably by way of salaries and equipment.
Ben Kovic noted that at least one of the projects pertains to assessment of Arctic char stocks in Cumberland Sound. He hoped that this work would soon yield tangible results, since the Pangnirtung HTO has been calling for the completion of char stock assessments that have been underway in that area for a considerable length of time. Harry Flaherty questioned whether Pierre Richard could realistically do all the projects (total of four) that are attributed to him. Lynn replied that although Pierre was identified as the leader on the four projects, he did enjoy substantial staff assistance.
8.B Southeast Baffin Beluga Management Committee
Michelle Wheatley tabled the full report from the November 1998 meeting of the Committee in Winnipeg. The report includes Appendices devoted to:
The Meeting Report from November contains a number of recommendations to the NWMB pertaining to research and management. The research item pertains to the need to conduct a beluga survey in Cumberland Sound this (1999) summer as set out in the original (1994) Co-Management Plan. Plans and resources are in hand for this work. The management recommendations pertain to the future of the Committee and the production of educational materials pertaining to the importance and use SE Baffin beluga.
Michelle estimated that a video of the type envisaged by the Committee would cost around $250,000. Much preliminary thought and work would need to be devoted to such a venture. The Board decided that the Committee should remain operational at least until the 1999 survey is completed and the results are assessed. The Board also directed staff to give further preliminary consideration to the cost and other implications of producing the video.
8.C DFO Oceans Strategy and Related Issue
Dr. Jack Mathias gave a presentation on Canada’s emerging Oceans Strategy. By the terms of the new Canada Oceans Act , which came into force in early 1997, the DFO Minister is required to collaborate with Canadians to develop a national Oceans Strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. The Strategy will be based on the principles of sustainable development, the integrated management of ocean activities, and the precautionary approach. The Strategy will encompass a number of program elements to be developed, including:
DFO is in the process of developing a white paper to assist Canadians to come to grips with these concepts and provide their input. It is envisaged that a Panel will be constituted to tour the country to talk to Canadians about these matters, probably about mid winter. Michael d’Eça suggested that the Department consider having Arctic representation on the Panel.
Jack also told the Board that DFO is preparing to offer the services of a resource person to the Nunavut Marine Council (NMC) to assist the Council in:
As envisaged by DFO, this would be a three-year commitment, with the possibility of extension. Line reporting would be through Jack, but operational reporting would be to the NMC. Workplans would be established annually by all the IPGs in concert. Work assignments and conduct would be designed to avoid duplication or interference with the mandates and ongoing work of the IPGs. For fiscal reasons the position would have to start out being headquartered in Winnipeg, but transfer to Nunavut is anticipated within the first year.
Jack invited the NWMB to provide guidance to DFO in designing a consultation strategy on oceans programs in the NSA, and also to respond to DFO’s impending offer of staffing assistance for the NMC.
8.D Anticipated Shrimp Exploratory Fishery in SFA 2 North of 63 °
Michelle Wheatley advised the Board that DFO has indicated an intention to establish a new exploratory fishery of 3500 metric tonnes of shrimp in Shrimp Fishing Area 2, north of 63º, for 1999. The NWMB was advised of this during an April 7-8 meeting with DFO officials in Iqaluit. Officials acknowledged the departmental obligation to consult with the NWMB with respect to allocation, since the Area in question occupies Zone I (except for the inshore component, which is in the NSA per se). Subsequently (on April 15) DFO officials telephoned to say that the NWMB had less than one day to state its position.
The Board responded under protest (since there was no opportunity to consult the Members), putting forward the recommendation that 80% of the proposed fishery should be allocated to the adjacent fisheries of Nunavut, and that the remainder should be allocated to the members of the Northern Coalition. There has been no response from DFO as yet (now over a month later) to this NWMB recommendation that DFO first indicated was needed on an urgent basis.
8.E Walrus Management Plan: Update
Lynn Siegersma reported that a fifth draft of the Walrus Management Plan has now been prepared, incorporating NWMB and internal DFO comments with respect to Draft No. 4. It is anticipated that the present draft will form the starting point for discussions of the Walrus Working Group when it convenes this fall. Comments from the Working Group will be used to finalize the document, which will then need to be approved by the NWMB.
8.F Walrus Sport Hunting Allocations
Michelle Wheatley referred Members to the briefing binders for copies of the proposals for walrus sport hunting that were received, along with her analyses of the proposals.
In addition, Michelle tabled two newly-prepared documents with the Board:
The interim policy as proposed embodied five criteria:
David Alagalak suggested that provision be made in future to involve the RWOs to a greater extent in matters of this nature. Harry Flaherty suggested that the HTOs should have a role in authorizing any sport hunting activity. There was general agreement that tallies of animals struck-and-lost should be submitted annually for all approved hunts. There was also agreement that proponents should be asked to submit their requests for next year’s walrus sport-hunting allocations in conjunction with providing their reports on animals struck-and-lost.
In respect to making walrus sport-hunting allocations for 1999, the Board agreed (Resolution 2000- 003) to structure its debate and decisions around the five criteria as set out in the interim policy. On this basis the Board considered and decided as follows:
1. In respect to Igloolik (Twelve walrus sport hunts requested by the HTO, and four requested by a private operator – Igloolik Outdoor Adventures, or IOA): Background : This community has had a relatively long (four years) and successful (walrus taken each year) history of walrus sport hunting. There is no walrus quota in effect for the community. Sport hunting is accommodated through assignments. It is not clear whether the HTO is aware of the IOA request or if the HTO has factored the IOA request into their own proposal. Discussion : The IOA proponent is not an Inuk, and his participation would require an assignment of harvesting rights from his wife.
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 004) a total of twelve walrus sport hunts for the Igloolik HTO for the 1999 season and two additional walrus sport hunts for Igloolik Outdoor Adventures (IOA) subject to the NWMB’s request that the assignment of the right to harvest each walrus be made in writing, and to the following conditions:
2. In respect to Salluit (Eight walrus sport hunts requested by Willie Keatainak): Background : This request pertains to the Nottingham/Salisbury Islands region, in the Area of Equal Use and Occupancy. Despite earlier approvals, last year was the first that a walrus sport hunt actually took place (one walrus was apparently taken). Johnny Peters provided harvest study data indicating that the average annual walrus harvest by the community from this Area over the six-year period 1990 through 1995 was 13 animals. Discussion : The request represents a large increase from the one animal that was harvested last year. It is also a large fraction of the community’s total historical harvest. Johnny Peters suggested that approving half the amount requested would not pose any particular inconvenience or hardship to the proponent.
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 005) a total of four walrus sport hunts for Willie Keatainak of Salluit (Nunavik) for the 1999 season, subject to the following conditions:
3. In respect to Coral Harbour (Fifteen sport hunts requested by the HTO): Background : The community has taken one walrus by sport hunting in each of 1996 and 1998. The community has an annual quota of 60 walrus. Discussion : The existence of an overall quota eliminates any conservation concern posed by a sport hunt, at least in theory. The proponents have included some unique provisions in their hunt plan, that the Board might consider incorporating as general specifications for walrus sport hunting. Examples are the prohibition against butchering animals at haul-out sites, the permitting of only one strike per hunter, and the requirement to carry flares in the boats. David Alagalak noted that it is a traditional condition of walrus hunting never to butcher animals on multi-year ice.
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 006) a total of fifteen walrus sport hunts for the Coral Harbour HTO for the 1999 season, subject to the condition that the HTO agrees to provide to the DFO, upon completion of the 1999 season, full reports on all walrus struck and landed or lost; and that the hunt must be conducted according to the hunt plan provided.
4. In respect to Cape Dorset (Five walrus sport hunts requested by the HTO): Background : Although one sport hunt was approved for 1998, the community has never conducted such a hunt. No walrus quota is in effect for the community. Sport hunting is accommodated through assignments. The hunt plan that was provided with the application is rather sketchy. Discussion : Some members expressed the opinion that the application does not demonstrate sufficient maturity to warrant approval of the full request. It is important that any new tourism venture get off to a smooth start.
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 007) a total of five walrus sport hunts for the Cape Dorset HTO for the 1999 season, subject to the NWMB’s request that the assignment of the right to hunt each walrus be made in writing, and to the following conditions:
5. In respect to Hall Beach (Three walrus sport hunts requested by the HTO): Background : No walrus quota is in effect for the community. Sport hunting is accommodated through assignments. The community harvested over 100 walrus for subsistence purposes last year. Discussion : The application does not make it clear who will provide the necessary insurance coverage.
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 008) a total of three walrus sport hunts for the Hall Beach HTO for the 1999 season, subject to the NWMB’s request that the assignment of the right to harvest each walrus be made in writing, and to the following conditions:
The Board decided to go in-camera in order to:
No decisions were made in-camera that required subsequent referral to the open Board Meeting.
Resolutions were passed in connection with this in-camera session as follows:
Tuesday, 18 May 1999; Evening Session
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
8.G Implementing New Management System for Narwhal
Michelle Wheatley introduced this Agenda item. She reminded Members that, on the advice of the Narwhal Working Group, the NWMB has implemented a new narwhal management system available to any community wishing to participate, provided that certain basic requirements are met. In essence, communities qualify for the removal of any existing narwhal quota restrictions if they establish local rules that address three basic concerns. These rules are subject to review and approval of the NWMB, and must demonstrate that the community has in place:
Michelle explained that the NWMB has focussed its initial attentions on assisting four pilot communities that have expressed interest and for which narwhal hunting is currently constrained (at least in theory) by existing quotas. These communities are Pond Inlet, Broughton Island, Repulse Bay, and Arctic Bay. These four communities, the latter three assisted by the NWMB and its associates, have developed and submitted materials in efforts to demonstrate conformity with the requirements as identified above. The Board has these materials at hand (in the briefing binders), and must now decide if they meet the terms for participation in the new narwhal management system. Where they do, the NWMB will remove the existing narwhal quota for that community. The DFO Minister has already agreed to such an arrangement.
The Board moved to a detailed consideration of the material submitted by the four communities. This material was accompanied by the assessments and recommendations of the Director of Wildlife Management working in concert with the NWMB Legal Advisor, along with an identification and interpretation of legal considerations pertaining to implementation of the new management system (prepared by the Legal Advisor). In addition to the material submitted by the four communities that have been the primary focus of the exercise to date, proposals were also at hand from the communities of Hall Beach and Igloolik. Glenn Williams, an active participant in the process up to now through a working understanding with NTI, was available to take part in the discussion.
Harry Flaherty expressed surprise to see no evidence of involvement by the RWOs in developing the material at hand. Michelle explained that the RWOs were represented on the Working Group that developed the concept now being implemented. Glenn Williams added that since the HTOs have control over local hunting and hunters, it must fall to the HTOs to establish local rules. The RWOs must come into play when there is overlap between community hunting areas or movement of hunters from one community area to another. Such situations do exist and are matters of current attention by the RWOs.
On the basis of the briefing given and the materials provided, the Board considered and decided as follows:
1. In respect to Pond Inlet (Material prepared/submitted by Mittimatalik HTO): Background : As noted previously, the Mittimatalik HTO developed its material independent of direct outside assistance. Discussion : The material submitted by the Mittimatalik HTO is very comprehensive and its scope goes well beyond the immediate requirements of the present exercise. On the other hand, some important concerns do remain to be addressed. Remaining concerns :
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 011) removal of the narwhal quota for members of the Mittimatalik HTO on the basis of the narwhal harvesting rules that were submitted by the HTO as per the new narwhal management system, and to communicate to the HTO the Board’s remaining concerns about these rules as they are currently drafted.
2. In respect to Broughton Island (Material submitted by Nattivak HTO): Background : The HTO is very interested in introducing the new narwhal management system on a trial basis. The HTO took full advantage of the assistance provided by the NWMB and others to prepare their proposal. Discussion : Harry Flaherty questioned the rationale and interpretation of Rule No. 9, which calls for hunters to dispose of narwhal carcasses in deep water. Glenn Williams explained that the Broughton Island hunters interpret “carcasses” to mean “unusable parts”. Most of the narwhal hunting in this location is done in open water near the community. The intent of the Rule is to prohibit the abandonment of unusable narwhal parts where they could attract polar bears to the vicinity of the community. Gordon Koshinsky remarked on the prohibition (Rule No. 11) against using narwhal calves to lure older narwhal. Glenn confirmed that this has sometimes been used as an effective hunting procedure: a calf that is harpooned without killing it will bring other narwhal into easy proximity regardless of other distractions. Remaining concern :
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 012) removal of the narwhal quota for members of the Nattivak HTO on the basis of the narwhal hunting rules that were submitted by the HTO as per the new narwhal management system, with the requirement that the HTO develop and submit, to the NWMB, rules to address hunter education and training within the next year.
3. In respect to Repulse Bay (Material submitted by Arviq HTO): Background : The HTO has been enthusiastic and positive in developing the material for this exercise. They have worked closely with the resources provided by the NWMB and others to prepare their proposal. Discussion : It is understood by the community that removal of the narwhal quota will pertain only to the members of the Arviq HTO. Glenn Williams explained that a hunter from elsewhere would require an assignment from a Repulse Bay beneficiary in order to participate in the new system. With such an assignment, that hunter would be subject to the Repulse Bay hunting rules. Without such an assignment, such a hunter would need to bring narwhal tags with him/her from his/her home community in order to hunt narwhal in the Repulse Bay area. David Alagalak predicted that only Rankin Inlet hunters were likely to want to hunt narwhal in the Repulse Bay area, and they would bring their own tags with them. David suggested that the NWMB urge HTOs, under the auspices of their RWO, to negotiate and formally designate community hunting areas for narwhal and other species. Remaining concerns :
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000- 013) removal of the narwhal quota for members of the Arviq HTO on the basis of the narwhal hunting rules that were submitted by the HTO as per the new narwhal management system, and to communicate to the HTO the Board’s remaining concerns about these rules as they are currently drafted.
4. In respect to Arctic Bay (Material submitted by Ikajutit HTO): Background : The HTO has produced a complete and satisfactory proposal. Discussion : No comments. Remaining concerns : None.
Decision : To approve (Resolution 2000-014) removal of the narwhal quota for members of the Ikajutit HTO on the basis of the narwhal hunting rules that were submitted by the HTO as per the new narwhal management system.
5. In respect to Hall Beach and Igloolik (Material submitted by the Hall Beach HTO and by the Igloolik HTO respectively): Background : These two communities developed and submitted proposals on their own initiatives, to participate in the new narwhal management system. While narwhal quotas are currently in effect for both communities, these quotas are reached only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. when there are winter narwhal entrapments. The existing quotas thus cannot be interpreted to be particularly limiting to narwhal hunting at Hall Beach and Igloolik. Discussion and concerns : The materials that were submitted are pertinent and constitute credible efforts, but do not address all of the requirements that have been identified by the NWMB. This is not surprising, since the materials were developed without benefit of the assistance that was made available to the four pilot communities. Igloolik has introduced the interesting concept of “narwhal hunt supervisors” who would have specific assigned responsibilities and powers. Both communities should be applauded for their initiatives to date and encouraged and assisted to further refine their submissions.
Decision : Not to approve (Resolution 2000- 015) removal of the narwhal quota for members of the Igloolik and Hall Beach HTOs on the basis of the narwhal hunting “by-laws” submitted by these HTOs as per the new narwhal management system, and to communicate to these HTOs the Board’s concerns about these “by-laws” as currently drafted; and to encourage these HTOs to revise and refine their materials in order to address these concerns.
The Board considered that since the DFO Minister has already approved the new narwhal management system, these NWMB decisions need not be conveyed to him in the ordinary context of NLCA 5.3.17. However in view of the pioneering nature of the initiative, the Board agreed that it would be appropriate to keep the Minister fully informed. Wednesday, 19 May 1999
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. Pauloosie Keyootak led the opening prayer.
8.H Turbot Allocations for 1999: NAFO Sub-Area 0
Michelle Wheatley advised that under the terms of the five-year groundfish management plan currently in place, the Board has 1500 metric tonnes (MT) of turbot to allocate in Division OB for 1999. In addition, the Board has 50-60 days of fishing effort to allocate in Division OA. The Division OB quota includes 500 MT nominally allocated for inshore fishing. The Pangnirtung winter fishery receives first consideration for this inshore quota (about 30 MT has already been accounted for on the basis of the winter just passed), and the residual amount traditionally has been amalgamated with and harvested as part of the offshore fishery. The OA enterprise is a continuing exploratory fishery. In addition to whatever fishing they choose and are able to do for economic gain, operators participating in the exploratory fishery are also required to fish in a standardized manner at a series of sentinel sites. The Board has received nine applications to participate in these Sub-Area 0 fisheries.
Michelle referred the Members to the briefing material and recommendations that she had prepared. David Alagalak reiterated his preference to see the actual applications in the course of resource allocation exercises such as this one in future. Gordon Koshinsky cautioned that the potential effects on fishing operations and viability of not allocating to the full amounts of requested tonnages should be taken into account in the evaluation process. Gordon also noted that Aqviq Marine appeared to be the only applicant with a stated intention to use long lines in this fishery. This may be an environmentally-preferable fishing method that should possibly be encouraged by the NWMB.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 016) to approve the allocation of turbot quotas and turbot fishing effort for NAFO Sub-Area 0 for 1999 as follows:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
