|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (118K) Printer
Friendly |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARDMINUTES: MEETING No. 23NAUJAAT ( REPULSE BAY ), 24 - 26 AUGUST 1999 Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Financial and Administrative Business Chairperson, Staff and Members’ Reports
Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Tuesday, 24 August 1999; Evening Session Government of Nunavut Wildlife (DSD)
Executive Committee Report and Recommendations Meetings, Workshops and Other Pertinent Events Date and Location of Next Meeting
Tuesday, 24 August 1999
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, convened the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Ben called on Joan Scottie to lead the opening prayer.
Ben welcomed the NWMB Members to this the 23 rd regular meeting of the Board. He especially welcomed Moses Koonoo from Arctic Bay, recently appointed to a four-year term as a Member of the NWMB. Ben noted that it would be necessary for Moses to be sworn in, as the first item of Board business at this meeting.
Swearing-in Ceremony
Ben Kovic called upon the NWMB Legal Advisor, Michael d’Eça, to swear-in Moses Koonoo as the new Nunavut Wildlife Management Board Member appointed by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. After the swearing-in, all present offered their congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Koonoo on his appointment.
After the swearing-in ceremony, Ben Kovic introduced Donat Milortok, the Mayor of Repulse Bay. Mr. Milortok welcomed the NWMB to the community. He acknowledged the mandate and the work of the Board with respect to matters that are of vital interest to the people of Nunavut. He offered the services and facilities of the Hamlet office to meet any incidental requirements of the Board in the course of its meeting. He suggested that Board Members take the opportunity to mingle in the community, and indicated that Members should not be surprised to receive offers to partake in maktak in the course of any visits made to private homes.
Ben Kovic next introduced Andreasi Siutinuar, President of the local HTO. Mr. Siutinuar welcomed the Board to Repulse Bay. He indicated that it was an honour for the community to be hosting this meeting. He expressed regret that his schedule would not permit him to attend all of the meetings, and noted that the HTO Chairman was also unavailable. However the HTO intended to have continuing representation present. Mr. Siutinuar invited the Board to visit the HTO office, and to consult with the HTO Secretary at any time. He also indicated that country food would be supplied for the Board’s coffee breaks.
Ben Kovic thanked the local dignitaries for their kind remarks and for their offers of hospitality. He announced plans to have a public meeting on Wednesday evening, and issued an invitation for community members to come prepared to ask questions of the Board.
2. Agenda: Review and Approval
In reviewing the Agenda, it was noted that the Executive Committee was lacking a quorum. It was accordingly decided that the Board as a whole would deal with the most urgent items on the Executive Committee’s agenda. A need was expressed for an in-camera session to discuss some matters of a sensitive nature; this session was scheduled for the first evening. It was noted that Johnny Peters had expressed a desire to participate in the Agenda item pertaining to overlap issues with neighbouring jurisdictions; it was decided that arrangements would be made to accommodate this via teleconference.
The Agenda per se was accepted as presented. (Resolution 2000- 037)
3. Minutes: Review and Approval
3.A Regular Meeting 21, Iqaluit
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 21, held on 23 – 26 March 1999, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 2000- 038)
3.B Regular Meeting 22, Ikaluktutiak
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 22, held on 16 – 20 May 1999, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 2000- 039)
3.C Conference Call No. 43
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 43, conducted on 30 June 1999, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 2000- 040)
Some discussion ensued stemming from the Minutes. Ben Kovic questioned the adequacy of provisions for enforcing conditions periodically set out by the Board with respect to certain of its decisions. He expressed particular concern about enforcing conditions that are deferred, and referred by way of example to the Board’s recent (Regular Meeting 22) decisions to approve walrus sport hunts “subject to the condition that the HTO agrees to provide….full reports on all walrus struck and landed or lost”. Michael d’Eça noted that it was the responsibility of government agencies (in this case, DFO) to implement the Board’s decisions, including ensuring that the Board’s conditions are met. Kevin McCormick asked whether government agencies in fact had all the powers and authorities needed to accomplish this task. It was acknowledged that all the necessary mechanisms have not yet been fully worked out. It was noted that the matter is related to the question of conformity of agencies’ legislation with the NLCA. The Board decided to direct its staff to prepare a briefing note in order to better inform the Members on this subject. Gordon Koshinsky pointed out that Members who opposed particular Motions or who abstained from voting on them were identified in the most recent records of Board Resolutions. He noted that this had not been a matter of consistent practice previously, and suggested that the Board adopt a specific policy on the matter. Members agreed that it was appropriate for the record to show the identity of those who opposed or abstained from voting on particular Motions.
4. Financial and Administrative Business
Gordon Tomlinson tabled the report of the Board’s auditors for the past fiscal year. He noted that the auditors had given the Board (including the Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust) a “clean opinion” with respect to financial accounting. The auditors did, however, make three observations pertaining to operating procedures. The substance of these critiques was as follows:
That the financial transactions of the Trust should be recorded in the organization’s books and records as they occur, and should be reconciled with bank statements on a monthly basis; That the Board should prepare and administer an inventory of fixed assets, as well as a formal policy on the disposition of these assets; That the Board should follow (or else should modify) its policy for Vacation Travel Assistance to employees.
With respect to these critiques, Gordon noted that the first item poses practical difficulties in that TAL does not provide monthly reports. Work is underway to address the second and third items.
The Board decided to accept the Audit Report with respect to the financial statements for 1998/99, as prepared by MacKay Landau. (Resolution 2000-041) The Board also directed that staff take all practical steps to address the concerns raised by the auditors as matters of priority.
The Chairperson directed attention to the need to appoint auditors for the current fiscal year. In response to questions from Members, Gordon Tomlinson advised that MacKay Landau charged about $11,000 for this function last year, and that this cost that has been on a slight upward trend. There is no indication of how, precisely, the firm rationalizes or justifies its audit fee. Some Members asked about the feasibility of tendering for annual audit services. Gordon noted that the RWOs are considering contracting regionally (in conjunction with the HTOs) for their audit services.
The Board decided to appoint Mackay Landau as auditors for the fiscal year 1999/00. (Resolution 2000- 042) The Board also directed staff to explore the tendering option for consideration in subsequent years, and also to request MacKay Landau to provide details on the derivation of their audit fees.
4.B Financial/Variance Report to 31 July 1999 Gordon Tomlinson provided an overview of the NWMB financial situation to 31 July, including a detailed variance report. A negative variance of $66,755 is currently projected to fiscal-year-end. The Board accepted the report in the context of an information item.
4.C Funding Arrangement with DIAND: Update
Michael d’Eça briefed the Board on the outcome of the June 8 meeting between representatives of DIAND and of the IPGs concerning the long-standing efforts to put in place an appropriate funding instrument for the IPGs. The meeting was called to develop a concrete plan for arriving at a mutually acceptable funding arrangement. It is once again becoming urgent, as has been the case at corresponding times in each of the past several years, to get this matter finally resolved prior to the expiry of the current “provisional” funding arrangement at the end of the fiscal year.
From the perspective of the IPGs, the issue is motivated by the power of the DIAND Minister, under the current arrangement, to terminate funding to the IPGs at his discretion, as well as to require repayment of “surplus” funds at the end of the fiscal year. The IPGs consider that these provisions are contrary to the NLCA. DIAND officials at the meeting indicated that these two provisions were not negotiable by them. However, they also indicated that they themselves did not have ultimate negotiating authority on behalf of the Department. It is worth noting that the previous DIAND Minister went on record as fundamentally supporting the position of the IPGs.
The IPGs have subsequently written (jointly) to the appropriate ADMs in DIAND to press these issues further, and specifically to request the intervention of the ADMs in the matter. The letter declares that the NWMB Legal Council will contact the ADMs personally if a response is not received by the end of August.
5. Chairperson, Staff and Members’ Reports Ben Kovic focussed his report on his recent meeting with the KHTA. It is apparent that this RWO is not performing to the level that could be hoped. It has been questioned if adequate funding is being provided, especially by the NWMB as per the responsibility set out in the NLCA. However there would seem to be a more basic question that needs to be considered, namely whether the quality of RWO performance derives from the level of funding, or whether poor performance leads to funding problems. The NWMB needs a mechanism for evaluating the performance of the RWOs and the role of funding in that performance. If more funds were somehow made available, it would be necessary to ensure that the membership benefited and not merely the office operations. Ben suggested that it might help if RWO reporting was made a mandatory feature of NWMB (Board) meetings. Kevin McCormick pointed out that ensuring the effectiveness of the RWOs is far from the sole responsibility of the NWMB, and that providing more funds from whatever source will not necessarily solve their problems.
5.B Executive Director’s Report In the absence of Jim Noble from the meeting, Ben Kovic referred Members to the Executive Director’s report contained in the briefing binders.
5.C Director of Wildlife Management Report
Michelle Wheatley referred Members to her activity report for the period since the last Board meeting. She noted that most of her major activity items had specific places in the agenda for the present meeting.
5.D Director of Finance and Administration Report
In addition to the financial reports he had already provided, Gordon Tomlinson advised of work underway to upgrade the Board’s computer systems, revamp the filing system, streamline personnel management policies, and complete the annual report. A complete re-write of the Board’s Operating Procedures Manual is under consideration.
Michael d’Eça tabled his usual comprehensive, albeit streamlined, report on his work for the Board over the preceding three months. Highlights included the preparation of major briefing documents with respect to initiating the new narwhal management system, assessing the Draft Management Plan for the Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary, and negotiating with DIAND for a more acceptable permanent funding instrument. In addition and among other things he drafted a submission to the Five-Year Independent Review of the NLCA and helped draft a submission to DFO’s Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review.
5.F Fisheries Advisor’s Report Michelle Wheatley referred Members to Ray Andrews’ letter of July 15. In it he elaborated his recent lobbying and educational efforts with DFO on behalf of Nunavut fishing interests in respect to the Atlantic Policy Review, the exploratory shrimp allocation in SFA 2, and the June meeting of the Federal-Provincial Atlantic Fisheries Committee Working Group.
5.G Members’ Reports and Concerns
Joan Scottie drew the attention of the Board to continuing problems being encountered with the community freezer in Baker Lake. It keeps breaking down, and the contents are thereby thawed and lost. It is not clear who is to blame, but the community is exploring avenues for seeking compensation. Makabe Nartok signalled that the community of Pelly Bay is interested in seeking a TAH for a bowhead whale to be harvested by that community.
6. Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Ben Kovic referred the Members to the Task List with status notations included in the briefing binder. It was noted that the vast majority of the identified tasks arising from the last meeting were once again completed or are well under way. Two of the items generated some discussion, namely:
7. Environment Canada (CWS): Issues and Decisions
7.A Peregrine Falcon De-listing in the USA
Kevin McCormick updated the Board on the status of this initiative. In recognition of Canadian concerns about the biological criteria for the harvesting of these birds in the USA pursuant to their de-listing within the US jurisdiction, the Canadian Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team has prepared 12 recommendations for imminent presentation to the Canadian Wildlife Service for its consideration and attention. The first of these recommendations is to the effect that no harvest of falcons originating in Canada be permitted until the other eleven issues have been adequately addressed. Those other issues pertain primarily to harvesting protocols, allowable harvest levels, and establishing commitments and making provisions for research and monitoring.
CWS is aware that northern co-management Boards, such as the NWMB, must be consulted on the development of any formal Canadian position in respect to this harvest.
7.B Proposal for a Spring Season for Snow Geese in the Canadian Arctic
Kevin McCormick reminded the Board about ongoing concerns regarding the burgeoning population of North American snow geese and the negative effects of these high densities on their Arctic breeding habitats. As one measure of response, special spring hunting seasons for snow geese were established in Manitoba and Quebec in 1999. Both the GNWT/RWED and GN/DSD have informally expressed interest in having spring hunting seasons as well.
The prospect of a special spring hunting season for snow geese in the Canadian Arctic poses a number of questions, including:
The matter is at a very preliminary stage of consideration. There would have to be formal consultations with the NWMB and the RWOs, among others, before the initiative could proceed in the NSA. One probable imperative would be to avoid harvesting or interfering with birds that were in the process of actually nesting. This might entail a certain amount of zoning (with different season dates) within Nunavut, given the large latitudinal range of the Territory.
7.C Ban on Possession and Use of Lead Shot for Hunting Migratory Birds Kevin McCormick advised the Board that effective 1 September 1999, the possession and use of lead shot for the hunting of migratory birds will be prohibited throughout Canada. The ban will be actively enforced but is expected to be mainly self-administering, through the drying-up of sources of supply. Glenn Williams noted that there are many shotguns in circulation that cannot safely accommodate steel shot. He wondered if hunters had been adequately warned about this. Kevin replied that a great deal of educational material had been distributed, but that it was impossible to be sure that everyone who needed to know had become aware.
8. Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Issues and Decisions
8.A Walrus Sport Hunts: Update Gary Weber reported the following tentative walrus sport-hunting results for 1999:
8.B New Narwhal Management System: Update Gary Weber tabled a report on the 1999 narwhal hunt (to date) in the four communities that are operating under the new non-quota management system. The report included preliminary numbers (as at August 1) of narwhal landed, wounded but escaped, and killed but lost, all tabulated according to the type of hunt: floe-edge or open-water. Gary also provided a more up-to-date set of data, prepared by Patrice Simon, as follows: Landed Wounded/escaped Killed/lost Arctic Bay 17 2 3 Pond Inlet 96 6 9 Quikiqtarjuaq 5 3 0 Repulse Bay 128 67 30
Gary noted that the narwhal quotas previously (before 1999) in place for these communities were as follows: Arctic Bay 100, Pond Inlet 100, Qikiqtarjuaq 50, and Repulse Bay 25. Tags this year were distributed in these four communities on demand. Ordinarily, Qikiqtarjuaq would be the only one among these four communities to conduct substantial narwhal hunting after the present date.
Gary drew the Board’s attention to the 1999 narwhal harvest at Repulse Bay, which has been much higher than in previous years; in fact landings to date have matched the combined landings over the entire preceding 10-year period. The last population estimate for this (Hudson Bay) narwhal stock was conducted in 1984 and estimated 1355 animals “on the surface of the water”. Doubling that estimate as a first-order correction for submerged animals, and applying a maximum sustainable removal rate of 4%, would indicate a maximum sustainable annual harvest of 108 narwhal. The Department reckons that a precautionary harvest rate of 2%, or 54 animals, would be more appropriate as a long-term goal. The current situation is certainly unique; the average annual harvest at Repulse Bay previously, under a quota of 25, was 17 narwhals. The Department did not expect that the harvest would or could increase so dramatically under a no-quota system. The Department is flagging the 1999 harvest as a potential conservation issue.
Gordon Koshinsky asked if there had been further narwhal hunting at Repulse Bay since the latest numbers were compiled, and if still more hunting could be expected. Patrice suggested that the number landed is now probably in the range of 140-150. If past seasons are any guide, the hunt should be pretty well finished. One very positive aspect of the new management system has been the excellent reporting by hunters of their strikes and landings.
Kevin McCormick asked if some special set of circumstances has contributed to the situation. Gary referred to reports that there has been an unusually active interaction between killer whales and narwhals in the area this summer, with the killer whales presumably making the narwhals more vulnerable to local hunters. The key factor in the size of the harvest appears to be hunting opportunity. Glenn Williams noted that the long-term average annual harvest of 17 narwhals at Repulse Bay has been less than half the estimated allowable removal, even using the precautionary basis of estimation. He suggested that this could be viewed in terms of a built-up credit.
Michael d’Eça noted that the NLCA has provision for the Minister, in urgent and unusual circumstances, to modify harvesting at his own discretion. This provision has never been used, and it would be an unfortunate development if it were. Presumably the NWMB can be counted on to work in the interests of conservation to preclude any such unilateral action by the Minister. Gary gave assurance that the Department wished to deal with the matter in a co-managerial context. Direction from the NWMB is requested on how to proceed.
Ben Kovic channelled the attention of the Board to deciding a course of action. He noted that the narwhal hunting season is nearly, if not fully, completed; and that the new management system contains its own requirement for a post-season review. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that it was important to obtain input from the community before making any decision for action or otherwise. Ben noted that HTO officials have privately expressed some concerns, but there has been no indication of the viewpoint of the community as a whole. It was decided to defer further consideration of the matter until later in the Board Meeting, and more specifically until after the community meeting tomorrow.
8.C Legislation Changes: Update
Gary Weber reported that the Department anticipates completing a draft of new Marine Mammal Regulations by the end of the calendar year, for consideration by the NWMB and others. These (Marine Mammal) Regulations will be national in scope. Once that draft is completed, work will commence on drafting new Sport Fishing Regulations; these will be specific to Nunavut. No imminent need is anticipated to open or change the Fisheries Act on these accounts.
Michael d’Eça urged the Department to engage the NWMB and probably NTI in discussions at the outset of this exercise. There are many considerations of a fundamental nature that should properly be taken into account when making regulatory changes in this context. The exercise should not proceed without a definition of guiding principles, and the process and time frame for arriving at the end point should be identified and agreed to before actual drafting commences. Gary noted that the Department had circulated a concept paper (including to the NWMB and to NTI) about a month ago that touched on such considerations. The Department considered that preparation of a draft would be the most effective way to move forward on the new Marine Mammal Regulations, in view of their intended Canada-wide application.
Glenn Williams suggested that making the Marine Mammal Regulations national in scope, but not so the new Fisheries Regulations, perhaps represented the kind of unilateral decision/assumption by the Department that the NWMB (and NTI) were concerned about. Gary replied that making the Marine Mammal Regulations national in scope did not preclude addressing regional issues and concerns.
It was agreed that the NWMB would respond to the DFO concept paper, at the same time identifying issues of mandate and protocol that need to be addressed.
8.D Bowhead Stock Status Report: Hudson Bay – Foxe Basin Population
Sue Cosens briefly described DFO’s two-year-old Regional Advisory Process (RAP). The Process brings together traditional and scientific knowledge and harvest data in the production of status reports on particular fish or marine mammal stocks. Sue reminded the Board that the NWMB had requested the production of such a report for the Hudson Bay – Foxe Basin population of bowhead whales. Sue said that Stock Status Reports are interpreted as management documents, for use in making resource-management decisions.
The Department initiated the process by producing a first-draft document. Then, with the assistance of the NWMB, the Department convened a workshop in Iqaluit in June, with representation from DFO, NWMB, NTI, the RWO, and the pertinent HTOs. The workshop yielded major changes and additions to the draft document, and resulted in the version being tabled by DFO at the present time. The current package also includes a report on the proceedings of the actual RAP session, with both documents available in English and in Inuktitut. The present version has been sent to the workshop participants as well as to an external reviewer. Once their comments and advice are received, a final document will be prepared. This will be sent to the various participants in the process, as well as to the Canadian Stock Assessment Unit in Ottawa. The target completion date is mid October. The document will eventually be Internet-accessible.
Makabe Nartok asked about the nature and reliability of the boundaries that are assumed to separate bowhead harvesting regions. Sue replied that the information for separating Canadian Arctic bowhead stocks is not yet complete. The information now available would be consistent with the existence of at least two stocks: one summering in the Northern Hudson Bay / Foxe Basin area, and the other in the North Baffin / Davis Strait area. It seems most likely that the bowheads summering in Northern Hudson Bay / Foxe Basin are the same stock.
Makabe persisted in knowing more about the real or presumed boundaries that separate bowhead whales summering in the Kitikmeot region from those summering in other areas. Sue acknowledged that there is no direct information pertaining to the relationship, if any, between bowhead whales in Northern Foxe Basin and those in the Gulf of Boothia. It is generally assumed that bowheads in the Gulf of Boothia are part of a Davis Strait stock, but this is not known with certainty. The Inuit Bowhead Knowledge Study has not turned up evidence of migrations of bowhead whales through Fury and Hecla Strait.
Sue also noted that the distribution of marine mammals in her general study area seemed abnormal this year. Very few bowheads were sighted north of Igloolik, for instance, and it is not known where they were instead. She also noted that only part of the population uses Northern Foxe Basin; that area appears to be a nursery based on the preponderance of young animals. A substantial number of the older animals evidently do not summer in that immediate area. Kevin McCormick suggested that it should be possible to develop an independent estimate of total stock abundance from the numbers represented in the first few cohorts, assuming a normal kind of cohort distribution.
Ben Kovic asked if the ice-breaker passage through Fury and Hecla Strait this summer could have affected whale distributions. Sue acknowledged that this was an interesting possibility. She noted that marine mammal sightings were recorded in the course of the ship’s passage, and undertook to obtain this information.
Sue noted that the various estimates of sustainable harvest contained in the RAP document depend on whether the stock is considered to be endangered, threatened, or increasing. Since these bowheads are currently listed (by COSEWIC) as endangered, the appropriate sustainable harvest estimate is one animal every two years. However, one of the recommendations stemming from the workshop was to have COSEWIC conduct another status review. In view of information from the Inuit Bowhead Knowledge Study (IBKS) and other sources, the designation of “endangered” may no longer be appropriate. Kevin asked whether a COSEWIC review could be expected to add anything of value. Sue replied that approaching COSEWIC was a matter of proper protocol.
Raymond Ningeocheak expressed concern about the tardiness in completing the IBKS. Ben advised that the IBKS is a separate agenda item.
It was decided that Michelle, working with Keith Hay, would respond on behalf of the Board to DFO’s draft stock status report on the Hudson Bay / Foxe Basin bowhead, this to be completed by 24 September. Other Board Members were free to respond separately if they wished.
8.E Administration of Experimental Commercial Fishing Licences Michelle Wheatley summarized the briefing note that she and Michael d’Eça had prepared on this matter for the benefit of the Board. The essence of the proposal is that the Board approve a long list of temporary experimental quotas for species and waterbodies that DFO, albeit without due authority in the view of the NWMB, has already been administering as experimental fishing licences. This would permit DFO to continue to issue such licences for these species and waterbodies, this up to the temporary quota approved by the NWMB, but without further reference to the NWMB in each separate instance.
Michael d’Eça pointed out that the whole matter of commercial harvesting by Inuit under the terms of the NLCA is not well understood, and urged that the Board devote some attention to clarifying this subject. The Board assigned Michael to draft an NWMB position paper on this subject for the next Board Meeting.
Gordon Koshinsky asked if DFO was prepared to implement the new system for administering experimental commercial fishing quotas, if this new system was adopted by the Board in all the dimensions that are being proposed. Michelle replied that DFO staff had indicated their readiness to do so.
Glenn Williams noted the requirement as proposed for commercial fishers to comply with certain sampling and reporting protocols to facilitate further management decisions at the end of the five-year experimental period. He urged that consideration be given to compensating fishers for such efforts.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 043) to approve experimental fishing quotas on a temporary basis for particular species in particular Nunavut waterbodies as set out in the document, Temporary Commercial Quotas for Freshwater and Marine Species and Waterbodies in the NSA identified as at August 1999 , this to provide the basis for DFO to issue experimental fishing licences to individual fishers or to groups of fishers without the need to make individual representation to the NWMB. The Board further agreed that administration of these temporary composite experimental quotas would be subject to the following conditions and constraints:
8.F Requests for Access to the NSA to Fish for Shrimp
Michelle Wheatley reviewed the history of this matter. She noted that since 1998, and in addition to a 500-metric-tonne (MT) allotment of striped pink shrimp reserved exclusively for Nunavut interests, the NWMB has had authority to allocate 500 additional MT in the NSA to one or more of the 17 permanent licence holders. Those 17 licence holders are currently aggregated into two groups, the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers (CAPP) and the Northern Coalition (NC). Both of these groups have requested the NWMB to grant access to them to fish this 500-MT Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in the NSA in 1999.
After considerable discussion, the Board decided that it was unwilling to establish the precedent of granting access to other-than-Nunavut fishery interests to pursue this component of this shrimp fishery at the present time. The Board accordingly decided (Resolution 2000- 044) to grant the request for access brought by the Northern Coalition, and to deny the request brought by CAPP. It was agreed to notify CAPP how they might make such a request more attractive to the Board in a subsequent year, such as by partnering with Nunavut interests in the north or demonstrating benefits to Nunavut interests in the south.
In light of the fact that the Shrimp Management Plan is scheduled to be renewed after the current fishing season, the Board also decided to raise again with the DFO Minister the matter of the Board’s dissatisfaction with how he (the Minister) had interpreted the Board’s advice in the course of establishing this special 500- MT TAC for striped pink shrimp in the first place.
Tuesday, 24 August 1999; Evening Session
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
The Board decided to go in-camera in order to discuss three items having confidential implications.
Resolutions passed in connection with holding this in-camera session were:
• To go in-camera (Resolution 2000- 045) • To close the in-camera session (Resolution 2000- 046)
Wednesday, 25 August 1999
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. He called on Joan Scottie to offer an opening prayer.
Ben directed the attention of the Board to the three matters discussed in-camera last night that required further treatment by the Board in open forum.
On the matter of the impending advisory from the Nunavut Implementation Panel (NIP) to the IPGs pertaining to protocols for any re-allocations of funding among the IPGs, the Board decided (Resolution 2000- 047) to indicate to the NIP, if possible in concert with the other IPGs, support for a more formalized approach and a willingness to try to develop the work plans and financial forecasts contemplated by the NIP. On the matter of out-of-pocket personal expenditures incurred by the Executive Director in connection with his recent medial emergency, the Board decided (Resolution 2000- 048) to cover these costs by way of an NWMB donation, and further that the NWMB develop a policy pertaining to coverage (or not) of expenditures made for compassionate purposes by or for Board and staff members.
On the matter of the Board’s contract with its Fisheries Advisor, the Board decided (Resolution 2000- 049) to seek to extend this contract, incorporating increases of $50 per day for consulting work and $25 per month for administrative allowance; and further that the NWMB attempt to negotiate this contract extension to the end of the current planning period.
9. Government of Nunavut Wildlife (DSD): Issues and Decisions
9.A Subsistence Harvest of Snow Geese at Arviat
Stephen Pinksen tabled the final report on the 1999 project, prepared by Wildlife Officer Joe Savikataaq. Twenty hunters participated in the harvest of 1000 snow geese just north of the McConnell Bird Sanctuary. The birds were distributed to various communities in Nunavut. DSD considers that this kind of hunt makes a useful contribution to controlling the population of these birds. DSD also supports the concept of a spring sport hunt for snow geese in Nunavut and will be so advising the CWS.
9.B Polar Bear Quotas for 1999/00
Stephen Pinksen tabled polar bear harvest data for the 1998/99 season, along with the Department’s quota recommendations for 1999/00.
Based on its analyses and in accordance with the provisions of the existing polar bear management agreements (MOUs), the Department is recommending four quota changes for the coming season as follows:
Makabe Nartok requested explanation for the substantial quota reduction being recommended for Taloyoak. Stephen pointed out that the quota for 1998/99 was ten males and five females, but the actual harvest was six males and nine females. The quota reduction being recommended for 1999/00 stems from the over-harvest of four females, and was calculated according to the formulas in the MOU. This has been explained to the community. Female polar bear credits are available in other communities that share the Gulf of Boothia population, and the community of Taloyoak has tried to obtain the loan of such credits but without success. Makabe noted that communities apparently want to conserve their own credits in case they might need these credits themselves in a later year.
Ben Kovic asked if it was possible that some areas simply had markedly more female polar bears than males. He suggested that data from the mark-and-recapture program could be used to determine this. If it was shown to be the case, it might be appropriate to adjust the sex-ratio aspects of the quotas according to the sex-ratio characteristics of particular populations. Bert Dean expressed concern that the current polar bear management system tends to pit communities against each other. He suggested that the harvest characteristics (notably the sex ratio) for an entire polar bear population should be taken into account before quota reductions are levied against any particular community. Bert also noted that there is some expert opinion to the effect that the present system may be leading to the over-harvest of male polar bears in some areas.
Gordon Koshinsky observed that quota adjustments are the natural outcome of an active wildlife management system. The process that has been established and that is enshrined in the MOUs is fairly routine and mechanical. Until and unless the MOUs are changed - which may or may not be advisable - it is only reasonable to adhere to the formulas that the MOUs contain.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 050) to approve the changes in polar bear quotas recommended by DSD for the 1999/00 season. The Board recognized, however, that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the flexible quota system that is currently in use, and that many credible suggestions have come forward for modifying the system. The Board urged the Department to give credence to these ideas and concerns in its forthcoming evaluation.
9.C. Study of the Effects of Capturing and Handling on Polar Bears
Stephen Pinksen advised that the contracted study has been completed, and referred to the Executive Summary contained in the meeting binders. The study reviewed eight years of data collected by federal and territorial government agencies as well as universities. All aspects of the techniques used to capture and handle polar bears were examined, including drugging, ear-tagging and radio-collaring. The study concluded that while there may be short-term effects on individual animals, there do not appear to be significant long-term effects. Stephen had no indication of the Department’s official reaction to the report.
Moses Koonoo noted that the conclusions as outlined were at variance with the perceptions of hunters in his area. Hunters believe that this kind of handling weakens a bear, causes loss of fur, and decreases the quality of the meat making it soft. Moses also noted that the results from the kinds of studies that utilize these approaches are not being communicated adequately to the hunters/communities. Stephen expressed surprise that there still were problems with the flow of research results to communities. He gave assurance of an ongoing commitment by the Department to make its research findings known to the people who stood to be affected by them.
Ben Kovic expressed disappointment that there is no mention, at least not in the Executive Summary, about the implications for people who consume the meat from polar bears that were previously tranquilized. Kevin McCormick referred to some earlier studies that examined the quality of meat from bears that were previously drugged, and he offered to find and table those publications.
Glenn Williams reported a concern among local hunters that some polar bears in the vicinity of Resolution Island are still carrying radio collars that should have been removed by now. Glenn asked when it was proposed to remove them. Stephen replied that he thought that the Department, in conjunction with Coast Guard, planned to recover these collars in September.
The Board decided to direct its staff to review the consultants’ report and draft an appropriate response.
9.D Manitoba / Nunavut MOU re Western Hudson Bay Polar Bears: UpdateStephen Pinksen reminded the Board that an agreement between Manitoba and Nunavut for the management of the shared polar bear population in Western Hudson Bay is in the process of being developed. He referred the Board to the current draft of this agreement, which has been included in the meeting binders.
The agreement will primarily formalize protocols that are already being followed on an informal basis. A new provision being sought by Manitoba is to establish a no-sport-hunting zone in the marine region east of Manitoba as defined in the NLCA. It is hoped to have a final version of the agreement available for the consideration of the NWMB by early next year. DSD considers that the main input from the NWMB will be in respect to quotas and non-quota limitations.
Michael d’Eça took issue with the marginal role that DSD portrays for the NWMB in this matter. He interpreted the NWMB to have a significant jurisdiction, and urged that the parties involve the NWMB more intimately in the process of developing the agreement.
The Board decided to ask the Director of Wildlife Management, with the participation of the Board’s Legal Advisor, to review the current draft of the agreement and recommend an appropriate course of action.
9.E Completion of Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary Management Plan: Update
Stephen Pinksen reported that DSD is working with KIA, NTI, and the NWMB to arrange a meeting to resolve final concerns. The matter of Inuit harvesting rights within the Sanctuary seems to require further attention.
Michael d’Eça expressed reservations about assuming at the outset that such a meeting would be final. He urged a conference call as a background to the meeting in order to identify and clarify the scope of remaining issues and establish a meeting agenda.
9.F Wildlife Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ): Proposal for an Advisory Group
Stephen Pinksen advised the Board that the RWO Executive Directors are examining a proposal to establish an advisory group to provide a vehicle for promoting and ensuring that the knowledge and values of Inuit elders and hunters are documented, developed and taken into account by agencies exercising research and management responsibilities pertaining to wildlife in Nunavut. DSD, for its part, is determined to take a more systematic approach in integrating IQ into its wildlife research and management programs. It is anticipated that the NWMB could provide pertinent advice on if/how to proceed.
Michelle Wheatley noted that the RWOs have agreed to explore the concept but have not yet committed to actually developing or supporting a formal advisory group. Kevin McCormick was interested to know what deficiencies have been identified in present arrangements that such a body would be expected to address.
9.G Protection of Caribou Calving Grounds
Stephen Pinksen reminded the Board that DIAND has been leading an initiative to develop protocols for the protection of caribou calving habitat in the face of industrial activity. The primary motivation is to end up with a policy setting out how the Department will conduct environmental reviews of development projects that are proposed to take place on caribou calving grounds.
Given its role in the management of caribou in Nunavut, the DSD will be participating in the development of these protocols. Before proceeding further, DIAND and DSD would like to an indication of whether the NWMB supports the initiative and would be prepared to participate in its development.
Kevin McCormick applauded the intent to protect caribou calving grounds, but he questioned the role that DIAND appears to be identifying for itself in the matter. A role such as that implied would seem to be at variance with the provisions of the NLCA, and clarification is warranted. Michael d’Eça agreed that it may not be appropriate to develop a policy for DIAND to exercise a jurisdiction that is the proper domain of the NIRB and the NPC. He suggested that the NWMB not commit to the initiative without exploring the matter in some detail with NTI, NIRB, NPC, and the RWOs, as well as trying to obtain more clarification from the two government agencies that are spearheading the initiative.
The Board decided to seek more information from DIAND, DSD and NTI before attempting to prepare a response.
9.H New Nunavut Wildlife Act : Update
Stephen Pinksen reported that DSD, NTI and NWMB officials met on July 26 to discuss the DSD report setting out the proposed process for developing this new legislation. The NWMB has provided written comment. The meeting participants are being constituted into an ongoing working group. Next steps include:
9.I Polar Bear Population Studies: Status and Outlook
Ben Kovic tabled a report that had been prepared by Mitch Taylor, concerning the status of polar bear research projects in Nunavut. A considerable number of studies are listed under “data collected, but analysis and writing not completed”. Ben asked about the outlook for these projects, considering the recent departure of Mr. Taylor. He noted that NWMB funding had most likely supported much of this work.
Stephen Pinksen suggested that the Board formally approach the Department with these concerns. The Board decided that this would be done.
9.J Request for Commercial Caribou Quota Increases: Rankin/Chesterfield
Michelle Wheatley referred the Board to the recent recommendation from the Beverly Qamanirjuac Caribou Management Board that the commercial caribou quotas for Rankin Inlet and Chesterfield Inlet be increased by 105 and 100 animals respectively. The BQCMB has advised that, based on current estimates of the size of the Qamanirjuac herd and assuming a 5% sustainable harvest, the unallocated portion of the available harvest is about 3500 caribou.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 051) to approve the increased commercial caribou quotas from the Qamanirjuac population for the two communities as recommended by the Beverly Qamanirjuac Caribou Management Board.
10. NWMB Internal Items: Issues and Decisions
10.A Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study: Update
Johnny McPherson advised the Board that the Technical Review of the Harvest Study has commenced. The senior investigator for the project, Bill Kemp, was recently in Iqaluit for familiarisation, and a good introductory meeting was held. Mr. Kemp’s initial impressions appear to be positive. The report on the Technical Review is scheduled for completion prior to the next Board meeting.
From June 1996 to the end of July 1999, 84% of possible data have been collected and incorporated into the database. Of the remainder, 8% have been collected and are being processed, 5% are still being collected, and 3% are unrecoverable and will require project extensions in order to achieve five-year data sets. The response rate has been 85%.
Interim reports are now being produced, with a view to obtaining confirmation or corrective input from the HTOs. Production of and reaction to these interim reports will provide important insights for structuring the final report on the Study. These reports also help to motivate the Field Workers and to encourage participation by the hunters. Johnny distributed samples of these interim reports for review by the Board Members. Some of these reports have been distributed to communities already, and responses have been mostly positive.
Board Members expressed satisfaction with the progress of the Harvest Study, and enthusiasm about the interim reports. Moses Koonoo recalled that he was one of the members of the original Harvest Study Steering Committee, and declared that it was a matter of considerable satisfaction and pride for him to see the initial planning efforts leading to such good results. He understood the importance of having wildlife harvests in the NSA well documented. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
