|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (126K) Printer
Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARDMINUTES: MEETING No. 26
TALOYOAK, 26-28 September 2000
Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Financial and Administrative Business Chairperson, Senior Staff, and Advisors Reports Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting Environment Canada (CWS): Issues and Decisions
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Issues and Decisions
Government of Nunavut Wildlife (DSD): Issues and Decisions
NWMB Internal Items: Issues and Decisions
NTI Wildlife Division: Issues and Decisions
Matters of Funding: Reviews / Decisions
Executive Committee Report and Recommendations Meetings, Workshops and Other Pertinent Events Date and Location of Next Meeting
Tuesday, 26 September 2000
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, convened the 26 th regular meeting of the NWMB at 9:00 a.m. Ben welcomed the Board Members and all others present, and called on Moses Koonoo to lead the opening prayer.
The Deputy Mayor, David Tucktoo, welcomed the Board to Taloyoak. Mr. Tucktoo stated that he and the community recognized that the NWMB mandate pertained to matters that were very important to Inuit. He made reference to the current debate regarding the abundance of polar bears. Based on local encounters, the impression of the people is bears are in fact quite numerous in this area. Mr. Tucktoo suggested that assertions to the contrary may be linked to activities associated with surveying the population which could disrupt the ordinary distribution of the bears.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 180) to accept the agenda for Meeting No. 26 as presented, but recognising that there were several additional matters for inclusion under items 8 and 9.
3. Minutes: Review and Approval
3.A Regular Meeting 25, Iqaluit
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 25, held at Iqaluit on 14 – 17 March 2000, were adopted with four minor wording revisions. (Resolution 2000- 181)
3.B Conference Calls 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52The Minutes for Conference Call No. 48, conducted on 20 April 2000, were adopted as presented. (Resolution 2000- 182) The Minutes for Conference Call No. 49, conducted on 11 May 2000, were adopted as presented, with the exception that the wording for Item 8B pertaining to settlement of compensatory time earned by staff required clarification. (Resolution 2000- 183)
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 50, conducted on 14 June 2000, were adopted as presented. (Resolution 2000- 184)
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 51, conducted on 28 June 2000, were adopted as presented.(Resolution 2000- 185) The Minutes for Conference Call No. 52, conducted on 14 July 2000, were adopted as presented.(Resolution 2000- 186)
4. Financial and Administrative Business 4.A Financial Variance Report to 31 August 2000
Jim Noble led the Board in a line-by-line review of the variance report to the end of August. Jim clarified the line items with the largest variances as follows:
The overall projected fiscal-year-end variance at this time is positive $134,037. This amounts to approximately 2% of the budget. Kevin McCormick suggested that this is a minimal estimate of under-expenditure since it does not include the amount set aside for hearings and which is unlikely to be spent. Michelle Wheatley observed that the Wildlife Studies Fund partially off-sets this. Although only $99,000 was budgeted for this Fund, the Board has approved studies totalling $165,000.
Kevin McCormick asked for clarification on how funds are disbursed to RWOs and HTOs. Jim Noble replied that the NWMB annually requests from each organization a budget, financial report and proof of filing with Societies. If this documentation is provided on or before April 1, then the full annual funding allotment is immediately disbursed to them. If not all the documentation is provided, and depending on the nature of the deficiency, a certain amount of interim funding is sometimes given.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 187) to accept the interim financial variance report as presented.
4.B Research Trust Fund: Update
Jim Noble referred to the documentation provided by TAL Institutional Management (Deborah Lewis) for the present meeting. The NWRT fund currently has invested:
All of these investments are in TAL pooled funds. The amounts indicated are book values, i.e. values at cost. The current overall total market value of these investments is $18,837,652.
Jim reminded the Board members that exposure to offshore (Europe/Australia/Far East equities was initiated in February. Year-to-date the NWRT Fund has returned 11.77% compared to the benchmark of 9.89%, with Canadian equities being the best-performing component. For the 1-year period ended June 30, the NWRT Fund posted a positive performance of 12.66% compared to 9.92% for the benchmark.
Jim repeated the concern previously expressed by TAL regarding the implications of very high weighting of just one stock, Nortel Networks, in the Canadian equity index or TSE. It is not realistic for TAL to compete with the TSE because it would be too risky to invest in Nortel Networks in proportion to its weight in the TSE index. TAL has proposed an alternative approach for the consideration of the NWRT, namely to change from evaluating TAL performance against the performance of the TSE, and to evaluate instead against what is called a “Capped Index”.
The Board concluded that this matter could be examined by the Trustees at the next meeting of the NWRT, presumably with Ms. Lewis in attendance.
5. Chairperson, Senior Staff, and Advisors Reports
Ben Kovic referred to his list of meetings and other events attended over the period March through June, along with his list of trips and meeting planned. Ben also called attention to his various meeting and trip reports in the last section of the briefing binder.
Jim Noble referred the Members to the briefing binder for activity and meeting/trip reports in respect to himself (Executive Director), the Director of Wildlife Management, and the Director of Finance and Administration.
Jim Noble tabled activity reports from the Board’s Legal Advisor for the period from March 3 through September 10, and from the Board’s Fisheries Advisor for the period April 1 through July 30.
5.D Members Reports and Concerns Makabe Nartok expressed concern about the lack of representation from the Kitikmeot region on the Narwhal Working Group. He cited issues concerning narwhal that arose at Pelly Bay this summer that might have been addressed by the Working Group had there been such representation. The Board agreed that such representation would be appropriate, and asked Phillip Kadlun, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Kitikmeot RWO, to ensure that an individual was appointed.
Moses Koonoo expressed concern about the orientation session conducted by DFO at Arctic Bay this summer preparatory to field sampling bowhead whales for genetic analysis. When the researcher (Sue Cosens) arrived to conduct this orientation very few bona fide hunters were available in the community to participate. More thought and planning needs to go into such sessions, particularly to ensure that the timing coincides with the availability of interested and affected persons. The Board agreed that Dr. Cosens would be urged to give more consideration to the timing of such sessions in future.
Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the Board might consider taking a more active interest in wide-ranging environmental issues, such as climate change. At a minimum, it would seem appropriate for Members to become better informed about such matters. It would seem that these kinds of perturbations are already impacting Nunavut wildlife. In the course of its recent strategic planning exercise, the Board set out to adopt a more holistic outlook in its deliberations. Kevin McCormick suggested that it would be useful to get an appreciation of the scope of Canadian and international initiatives that are already underway in respect to such matters. He offered to prepare a synopsis of these initiatives if requested by the Board.
Meeka Mike noted that the Inuit Circumpolar Conference has been working to draw attention to global pollution issues in the context of the Arctic. She suggested that the NWMB declare its support for the work of the ICC in these matters, with particular reference to the forthcoming meeting of the Commission in December. Meeka also commented on the recent meeting of the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission for the Management of Narwhal and Beluga that she attended in Greenland. She learned a great deal about the management of narwhal and other wildlife in that neighbouring country.
Ben Kovic agreed that broad-scale pollution issues merited more attention by the NWMB. He suggested that the Board consider inviting some appropriate person(s) address the Board about it a future meeting. Ben also urged Members to try very hard to honour their commitments, once given, to be available for Board meetings on agreed-upon dates. He acknowledged that unexpected emergencies can and do intervene, but he hoped that Members would consider the NWMB as a high priority. Ben also noted that some RWOs and RIAs have indicated that they would like to have more participation by NWMB Members in/at their AGMs. His (Ben’s) response has been that they should issue specific invitations, with the NWMB covering the costs of such participation. This is another matter that requires active commitment on the part of Members.
6. Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Jim Noble referred the Members to the Task List arising from the previous Board meeting (in March) and from the six intervening Conference Calls. He called particular attention to the status notations in respect to each of the tasks listed. Jim noted that the majority of the tasks had been completed or are well underway. He identified a number of tasks that, while not yet completed, are scheduled for specific treatment elsewhere on the agenda for the current meeting.
A few of the unfinished items not listed elsewhere on the agenda prompted some discussion, namely:
Item A.35: Approach DSD/NTI about options regarding the NTI decision to seek judicial review of the DSD Minister’s rejection of the NWMB final decision to permit a traditional polar bear hunt at Coral Harbour. It was reiterated that the intent was for the Chairman to seek, or at least be alert for an opportunity, to approach the protagonists in an unobtrusive way to explore if they would be interested in having the NWMB trying to play a conciliatory role. Michael d'Eça advised that the review has been postponed to November 1, so the opportunity for NWMB input still exists.
Item A.40: Prepare a definitive comparison of the Board’s status vis-à-vis other agencies regarding remuneration of Board members as determined by the federal Treasury Board. Michael d'Eça advised that he was having difficulty obtaining the necessary information, and that extra-ordinary measures might be needed to get it.
Item B.05: Review concerns regarding the Migratory Birds Convention Act . Kevin McCormick advised that the best way to move forward on this item would be to prepare a discussion paper identifying concerns and options for addressing them.
Item B.07: Communicate to DFO the NWMB position with respect to identifying “edible portions” of marine mammals. Gordon Koshinsky reminded the Members that the “NWMB position” on this matter was really only that the NWMB would not declare any position, except to declare that it would be DFO’s obligation to develop a workable definition(s), taking account of extensive consultations yet to be conducted. It was agreed that the matter should be referred to the committee that has been struck to assist DFO in drafting its new fisheries and marine mammal regulations.
Item B.09: Draft an advisory to the Co-Management Ministers, communicating the NWMB protocols for making its decisions in public forum rather than in-camera . Jim Noble noted that this was one of the matters that the NWMB put forward to the independent five-year review. There has been no indication to date from the Departments/Ministers that they even received this material. It was agreed that follow-up was needed.
Item D.08: Prepare briefing note with respect to the power and capacity of government agencies to implement NWMB decisions including any conditions that may be associated with those decisions. Michael d'Eça reiterated that this would be a worthwhile undertaking, but that other work was of more urgent priority. It was decided to deactivate this item, and to develop a “tasks archive” to accommodate it and similar items that the Board may want to reconsider periodically.
Item D.13: Investigate legal and related considerations regarding wildlife harvesting in National Parks and other protected areas. It was agreed that this would be a useful exercise, but it could not be considered as a pressing priority. Agencies now generally recognize the decision-making authority of the NWMB in this matter. As for Item D.08, it was decided to “archive” this task.
7. Environment Canada (CWS): Issues and Decisions 7.A Species-at-Risk Act (SARA): Update
Kevin McCormick suggested that Michael d'Eça’s Briefing Note of September 12 provided a suitable framework for discussion of this matter.
Michael reminded the Board that the NWMB has a number of roles under the NLCA with respect to species at risk in the NSA, including:
Michael noted that DOE’s previous attempt to develop legislation in this area died on the Order Paper at the time of the last election. It is possible that this will also be the immediate fate of the current bill, which has just passed second reading. In that event, however, it is anticipated that something very like that current bill would quickly re-emerge.
Michael revisited the NWMB’s extensive submissions made to the Standing Committee to date. Michael noted that along with his work for the NWMB, he had assisted the ITC and NTI in the preparation of their submissions, at considerable savings in time and cost to all parties. It is expected that the NWMB will be among those called to testify before the Standing Committee, probably in October.
Michael stressed that DOE has been innovative in their approach to developing this legislation. They have consulted with aboriginal organizations and wildlife management boards, and have taken account of much that they heard. The Act in its current form recognises the essential roles of aboriginal people and management boards established under land claims, along with traditional knowledge. A special subcommittee would be established as part of COSEWIC to specialize in traditional knowledge applications.
Michael tabled, via his briefing note, draft recommendations for the NWMB to consider putting forward in respect to these four concerns. Discussion turned to the third item, regarding re-assessment of currently-listed species. All such reassessments would be done by reference to status reports. Michael’s suggestion was that the NWMB recommend that reassessments be specifically linked to the subcommittee that is to be established for specialization in aboriginal traditional knowledge, and that the time frame for completion be expanded to encompass a period from 6 to 18 months from the date that the subcommittee is set up. The subcommittee would be tasked with ensuring that traditional knowledge is appropriately taken into account in preparation of the status reports and also in the development of recovery plans. Kevin McCormick wondered why, in the case of the NSA, it would not be the responsibility of the NWMB to ensure that traditional knowledge is appropriately reflected in status reports. Gordon Koshinsky noted that the Board’s interests would encompass the scientific inputs along with the traditional knowledge perspective. He suggested that it might be appropriate for the NWMB to take some initiatives on its own that would be preparatory to its eventual decision-making role. The Board might also want to nominate additional species for consideration/ inclusion.
Kevin McCormick suggested that even 18 months would be far too little time for all of this work to be accomplished. He noted that the COSEWIC secretariat has already commissioned new status reports on bowhead whales and Peary caribou. Michael agreed that even an 18-month time frame was not adequate, but suggested that it might not be a good negotiating tactic to ask for anything longer.
Michael suggested that the Board might wish to determine the COSEWIC priorities for doing re-assessments for the NSA. The simplest procedure would be to contact the Territorial COSEWIC representative, Siu-Ling Han from DSD. Michael also noted that Dr. Peter Usher is formally advising DOE with respect to harmonizing this new legislation with land claim agreements. Michael suggested that it might be productive to extend an invitation for Dr. Usher to make a presentation to the Board.
The Board decided:
7.B Proposed Spring Snow Goose Hunting Season in Nunavut
Kevin McCormick reminded the Board that the CWS and other agencies are trying to address the present over-abundance of snow geese relative to their breeding habitat in Arctic Canada. The method of choice has been to try to increase the harvest. Spring sport hunts were introduced in 1999 and continued in 2000, in Quebec (where 40,000 birds were taken in 1999) and in northern Manitoba (where the hunts have been less successful). Actual harvest numbers for 2000 are not yet available.
It is proposed to expand this initiative by inaugurating, for non-Inuit hunters, a spring sport-hunting season for snow geese in Nunavut. The three RWOs have been consulted and voiced no fundamental objections. The KWF initially proposed that such a season close earlier in the southern part of the Region (to conform with earlier nesting), but eventually agreed to set that concern aside on the understanding that the situation would be monitored during the first year for possible modification subsequently.
The new season as proposed would be open from May 1 through June 7 throughout Nunavut. The daily limit would be 15 snow geese. There would be no possession limit for Canadian hunters, but non-residents of Canada would be limited to 30 snow geese in possession. Use of electronic calls would be permitted.
Moses Koonoo observed that there seemed to be fewer snow geese in the Baffin region this year, and wondered if the spring sport hunts have had an effect. Kevin replied that there are preliminary indications that production this year was low in the north Baffin, which might account for fewer geese being observed in the fall. He did note that snow geese migrating through Quebec, where the largest spring sport harvests have taken place, are the greater snows that breed on Bylot Island. The general feeling, however, is that snow goose populations would need to cut in half to have the desired positive impact on northern habitat. The harvests that are taking place are well within the desired levels.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 188) to approve, for non-Inuit hunters, a spring sport-hunting season for snow geese in the Nunavut Settlement Area commencing in 2001 as per the dates and bag limits recommended by the CWS.
7.C Shellfish Sanitation Program
Kevin McCormick referred to the joint briefing material from CWS and DFO. The Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program is a federal initiative jointly administered by DFO and DOE in conjunction with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is designed to ensure that shellfish are safe to eat, whether consumed locally or exported. The responsibilities of the respective agencies are as follows:
Burt Hunt noted that the program has not as yet been incorporated into the fisheries management regime for Nunavut. It will need to be introduced if and when a significant shellfish fishery develops. Restricting shellfish harvests would be matters for NWMB decision, even for reasons of toxicity or contamination. DFO would be encouraging the participation of the NWMB if and when a Regional Classification Committee is established for Nunavut. The matter is raised at this time merely to give advance notice of an initiative that can reasonably by expected.
8. Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Issues and Decisions
Burt Hunt advised that Fisheries Management Biologist Patrice Simon will be leaving the Region. Karen Dietz, a biologist from Yellowknife, will be filling this position starting November 13. The Habitat Management Biologist position was recently filled by Jordan DeGroot, who was previously employed with the NWMB. The competition to replace Lynn Siegersma in the Land Claims Liaison Officer position has closed; the aim is to eventually have two such Liaison Officers for Nunavut: one for the east and another for the west. Another aim is to have on-site representation by the Department in the Kitikmeot Region. There is reason for optimism that this can soon be achieved. The Department is trying to be less insistent and more realistic about enforcing qualification requirements in order to maximise opportunities for Territorial residents on its Nunavut staff roster.
8.B Arctic Science Planning Initiative
Burt Hunt advised that $185 million was being made available over 5 years. The aim is to develop Canada as the world’s Arctic authority. A substantial component will be devoted to such topics as climate change. Michelle Wheatley noted that the NWMB was invited to make input to planning for this initiative, and did in fact do so.
8.C Legislative Changes: Update Burt Hunt reported that DFO has changed its approach to the task of developing new fisheries regulations for Nunavut. The original concept was to adjust the existing regulations to accommodate the NLCA. Based on the urgings of the NWMB and others, it is now the intent to identify the issues and challenges posed by the NLCA and use that analysis as the starting point for the exercise. The Committee that was set up in February to pursue this matter has recently hired a consultant (Nigel Banks) to develop some preliminary documentation with an initial reporting date in November. The Committee has also commissioned a video to be used in the consultation process.
8.D Conservation and Protection: Update
Keith Pelly explained that DFO has four Fishery Officers based in Iqaluit: Winston Fillatre (Supervisor), one Senior Fishery Officer, and two trainees. There are also two Fishery Officer positions at Rankin Inlet but one of these is currently vacant. Keith explained the various patrols in which these Officers have participated over the spring and summer, including some in conjunction with DSD Wildlife Officers. Staff aim to do a lot of conservation-education work in schools during the less-busy winter period.
Keith Pelly reported that Winston Fillatre was DFO’s on-site Officer for this hunt. The hunt was a fast and efficient operation, being completed in two hours. Three shots were required to dispatch the whale with an exploding harpoon. All the muktuk was taken. A large part of the meat was left behind along with the baleen, this (latter) has now been retrieved. All licence conditions were met to the satisfaction of DFO. The harvested whale was a young male. Biological samples were taken. The muktuk is still being distributed.
8.F Community-Based Narwhal Management : Update and New Developments
Burt Hunt advised that the overall harvest of narwhals as reported is increasing under the new management system. He referred the members to the current-year harvest statistics (to September 20) for the four communities participating in the new system. He predicted that the final total reported narwhal landings for these communities this year would likely be around 350 animals. Burt also interpreted some of the information to be quite suspect. As one example, in some cases there have been more reports of narwhal “found dead” than narwhal “struck and lost”. This is very suspicious. If a narwhal is “found dead”, the finder can swear an affidavit and then obtain a permit to possess the tusk.
Burt reported that three more communities (Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour and Rankin Inlet) are keen to participate in the new management system for narwhal and are in process of developing MOUs to that effect. Pangnirtung has requested that their annual narwhal quota be increased from 40 to 90 animals. These are worrisome trends, in view of what has been happening. Burt noted an agreement between Canada and Greenland that neither country would increase its overall narwhal harvest until the Scientific Working Group of the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission had opportunity to examine the available population data, perhaps obtain more data, and make recommendations.
Burt reminded the Board that one of the reasons for adopting the community-based (non-quota) management approach on a trial basis was the hope of obtaining better information on actual harvests and especially on animals struck and lost. This was seen as a sort of trade-off: no quotas in exchange for more complete and better reporting. Some of the communities are having a great deal of difficulty getting their members to provide full and accurate information. The HTOs and their members must understand that they have a key role to play. If they are not providing the information as agreed, then they are not fulfilling their responsibilities. Glenn Williams stressed that there are a number of roles to be played and responsibilities to be exercised in implementing the new community-based management system. This is a crucial initiative, but everybody seems to be fumbling the ball in their own court. The initial meetings and workshops in the four communities were well received and productive, but there has been a remarkable lack of effective follow-up. Opportunities are continually being missed. Part of the problem stems from a lack of adequate support for the HTOs.
Burt Hunt reported that the results of this year’s survey of the Hudson Bay narwhal stock should be available by December. The Department is also considering the possibility of doing a traditional knowledge study and melding the results with the scientific work. It seems unlikely that the communities will be open to any significant changes in the management regime until they see the new information.
Burt Hunt pointed out that Pelly Bay, where the quota system is still in effect for narwhals, has harvested 30 narwhals this year. They have a quota of ten, and an investigation of the over-harvest is underway. The HTO has taken some steps to develop narwhal hunting rules in hopes of and in preparation for moving to community-based management.
8.G Requests to Transfer Narwhal Quotas or Tags
Ben Kovic advised that the Pangnirtung HTO recently asked the Kimmirut HTO for a transfer of unused narwhal tags. Moses Kaapik, Chairman of the Pangnirtung HTO, also acknowledged in a letter to Ben that Pangnirtung has over-harvested their 2000 narwhal quota by seven animals. Kimmirut HTO agreed to make 10 narwhal tags available to Pangnirtung. They did not know about the over-harvest when they agreed to this transfer, and they are uncomfortable about their decision in this light. However they are also not inclined to rescind it. Pangnirtung HTO had not considered that the ten transferred tags could or should be used in the first instance to cover their over-harvest. Ben suggested to Mr. Kaapik that this might be the appropriate approach. The suggestion was not well received.
Meeka Mike noted that the DFO briefing material states that Pangnirtung has over-harvested by ten animals rather than seven. Burt Hunt explained how the DFO estimate of ten was obtained. Burt also revealed that the DFO Minister has a request from the Pangnirtung HTO for an increase in their annual narwhal quota from 40 to 90 animals. Meeka observed that the population of Pangnirtung is increasing rapidly, and the present quota of 40 narwhal is certainly not in line with the basic need of this growing community. Unless and until the quota is increased, however, any transferred tags should first be applied to the over-harvest. Makabe Nartok and Moses Koonoo both agreed with this assertion.
Makabe suggested that the NWMB needed a policy to guide its decisions in respect to transferring quotas. Moses agreed, and suggested that one of the main considerations should be if the communities are harvesting the same stock. Meeka suggested that Michelle and Jim, with help from Michael, draft a policy for the December meeting. Gordon Koshinsky noted that marine mammal quotas were usually set in the first instance with the expectation that not every community would take their full quota every year. If transferring unused quotas between communities had been contemplated, the quotas may well have been set lower in the first place. Of course the reality is that most marine mammal quotas, and especially for narwhal, do not have a strong biological basis. Before sanctioning more room to harvest eastern Arctic narwhal, however, the Board might want to consider the commitment made through the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission not to increase harvests until more information is available to do a proper assessment.
Michael d'Eça interpreted that the issue under consideration revolved around the assignment of harvesting rights. Assignment is the purview of Inuit as per the NLCA, and no one (including the NWMB) has any authority to limit it. However if harvest controls are in place for a particular stock it has to be understood that harvesting rights can only be assigned with respect to that same stock. Gordon pointed out an assignment would generally be perceived as an arrangement that was made before an over-harvest occurred, rather than as a way of sanctioning an over-harvest. Michael agreed that it would not be appropriate to try to use assignment as a way of nullifying an illegal act. This however did not prevent the Board from directing that assigned quota be used to cover an over-harvest.
Ben acknowledged that it is not known if Pangnirtung and Kimmirut are harvesting the same narwhal stock. The main thing that the NWMB can and should be insistent about is that any transferred tags be used in the first instance to cover any over-harvest. The absence of a policy need not deter the Board from making a decision on the matter at hand, although the Board could also give notice that a policy is being developed.
Gordon suggested that delimiting eastern Arctic narwhal stocks be made a research priority, along with obtaining estimates of population abundance. Michelle advised that samples for narwhal stock differentiation were in fact being obtained.
Kevin McCormick suggested that the tag system used to track and control polar bear hunting seems to be quite effective. He wondered why the same principles could not be applied to other species such as narwhal. Ben pointed out one of the problems is the different behaviours of polar bears and marine mammals. Narwhal tend to show up at a community only occasionally, and then often in rather large numbers. Meeka further explained that when this happens and many hunters are trying to harvest narwhal in the same short period of time it is easy for an over-harvest to occur. Still, over-harvesting is illegal and it should be possible to develop a system that makes it less likely to happen. Kevin noted that in the final analysis, control and reporting of the harvest are matters that need to be improved.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 189) to acknowledge the transfer (assignment) of ten narwhal tags from the unused narwhal quota at Kimmirut to Pangnirtung for the current hunting season, and at the same time encourage the Pangnirtung HTO to ensure that this transferred quota is used in the first instance to cover the current over-harvest of narwhal prior to using the additional quota for any additional hunting. The Board also directed NWMB staff to draft a policy with respect to transferring quotas or tags for the consideration of the Board at the next meeting.
Ben advised that he also had a request, recently delivered to him by the Chairman of the Clyde River HTO, for a transfer of “any number” of unused narwhal tags from Resolute to Clyde River for the current season. The Board concluded that this was a straight-forward matter of assignment.
8.H Community-Based Beluga Management : Update
Burt Hunt interpreted that the new management system was working well at Kimmirut, but certainly was not working at Iqaluit where there has been essentially no reporting. (Michelle Wheatley noted that Kimmirut, in fact, does not yet have their hunting rules in place.) Burt reported that agreement was reached to maintain but increase the beluga quota at Pangnirtung, from 35 to 41 animals this also pending the affirmation of certain arrangements by the community. Although the pre-adjusted quota has already been exceeded by two animals as reported, there is no indication that the conditions/arrangements for expanding the quota have been met. These conditions include:
Ben Kovic reported that the Iqaluit HTO is trying to obtain the necessary beluga harvest and related statistics and monitoring data, but the hunters have not been responding. He interpreted the problem to be based in the highly mixed nature of the community in terms of culture and perspectives. Ben asked for suggestions on what the NWMB might do to improve the situation. He noted that failure to improve the implementation aspects of community-based management could be expected to result in the demise of the new system. He could not excuse hunters for not meeting their reporting and monitoring commitments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
