|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (104K) Printer
Friendly |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING No.13
18-21 NOVEMBER 1996 PELLY BAY, NT
Agenda Monday 18 November 1996 (Evening Session) Review and Approval of Minutes Address from the Mayor of Pelly Bay
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated NWMB-Funded Projects and Contributions
Monday 18 November 1996 (Evening Session)
Ben Kovic convened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. at the Kajuaaluk Community Centre. David Aglukark led the opening prayer.
Members, staff and guests introduced themselves. Ben Kovic stated that the meeting would be open to the public throughout the week. He advised that Helen Klengenberg and Joannie Ikkidluak could not attend due to other commitments. Helen has sent her report which will be distributed to the Members.
Jim Noble announced that Allan Angmarlik will be the recording secretary for the meeting.
2. Greetings from the Community This item was identified for action tomorrow (November 19), as initially scheduled.
Four additional agenda items were approved for attention at appropriate times in the meeting: • Narwhal tags for Kitikmeot communities (David Igutsaq) • PCB contamination at Resolution Island (Meeka Mike) • Bill C-62: An Act Respecting Fisheries (Michael d’Eça) • Format and content of Minutes (Jim Noble)
Jim Noble tabled the current draft of the NWMB composite annual reports for 1993/94, 1994/95 and 1995/96, and asked the Members to review for later discussion. It was agreed to alter the order of treatment for some of the agenda items to accommodate the availability of participants and other considerations.
The agenda was approved, with noted changes (Motion 97-099).
4. Review and Approval of Minutes
4.1 NWMB Meeting No. 12; Arviat 26-30 August 1996 Item 5.A: David Aglukark asked whether uncertainties pertaining to disposition of the Board’s $15,000 contribution to Pauktuutit have been resolved. Jim Noble replied that Pauktuutit continues to seek additional funding for their project; if they do not succeed prior to FY-end the NWMB contribution will be returned.
Item 7.A.2: David Aglukark noted that hunters in Arviat are very concerned about progress on assignment of hunting rights. It was noted that NTI is leading on this matter, and Helen Klengenberg is the Board’s best window to the NTI process.
Item 9.B.1: There was discussion on the need to establish walrus co-management agreements with Makivik. Dan Pike announced that Salluit did not conduct their planned walrus sport hunt in 1996. It is anticipated that DFO will have the draft walrus management plan completed for the Board’s consideration well before next hunting season.
Item 9.C.4.b: At the request of Members, Michael d’Eça clarified the context of the reference to use of dog teams and snowmobiles for polar bear sport hunting. David Igutsaq mentioned that in his region, some dogteam outfitters must transport their teams by snowmobile due to the long distances to the hunting sites.
The Minutes for Meeting No. 12 were approved, with noted corrections. (Motion 97-100)
4.2 Conference Call No. 24; 01 October 1996 The Minutes for Conference Call No. 24 were approved as presented. (Motion 97-101)
4.3 Conference Call No. 25; 23 October 1996 David Igutsaq referred to the condition stipulated in the NWMB resolution (Motion 97-096) which encouraged cessation of all Peary caribou hunting on Bathurst Island. In his (David’s) interpretation, Peary caribou are increasing in abundance as indicated by numbers (in excess of 2000) recently seen by hunters in the Kitikmeot area (near Taloyoak). Gordon Koshinsky stated his view that these are not the same caribou population. The Minutes for Conference Call No. 25 were approved, with noted corrections. (Motion 97-102)
1. Introductory Matters (continued) Ben Kovic asked Members if they would like to move the meeting from the gymnasium to the Hamlet Council Chambers. The concern was that guests will not be able to hear the proceedings due to echoes in the gymnasium. The majority of Members opted to move to the
Council Chambers. The interpreting equipment and other amenities were accordingly relocated. The meeting was reconvened at 9:30 a.m. David Igutsaq led the opening prayer.
2. Address from the Mayor of Pelly Bay: Ovide Alakkanuak The Mayor of Pelly Bay, His Worship Ovide Alakkanuak, welcomed the NWMB Members and staff to Pelly Bay. He expressed his pleasure that the NWMB was able to come. He wanted to do what he could to make the meeting productive and enjoyable, and asked to be advised of any problems. He mentioned that the residents of Pelly Bay will be restructuring themselves so that the younger generation can have a solid foundation in the community. The Elders want to ensure that the younger generation has a better future. He would like the members of the public to have a chance to voice their concerns to the Board. Residents have been informed that the meeting is open to the public.
Ben Kovic thanked the Mayor for his address. He also announced a public meeting on Wednesday night. The meeting will be advertised on local radio. Individual Board Members will be delegated to summarize various aspects of NWMB operations at the public meeting.
4. Examination of Minutes (continued) Ben Kovic asked if Members were satisfied with the present format and content of Board Minutes. Should the Minutes be more summarized, or more detailed? Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the present form and content were about right. He considered it important to have a reasonably complete record of discussions, that is, more than a mere record of decisions. Material and opinions should generally be attributed to source, albeit with judgment applied in the recording of sensitive discussion. Gordon visualized that the content of Board Minutes would eventually be catalogued, for easy access and reference by subject matter. David Aglukark urged that the Minutes be adequate to meet any future requirements for legal reference. The NWMB must be able to fall back on the Minutes to defend its actions. Malachi Arreak preferred substantial details in the Minutes, but the format should not be overwhelming. Meeting summaries should be developed as a matter of course, both for Members and for other interested parties. David Igutsaq expressed satisfaction with the present format, but the Minutes should be precise and accurate. Ben Kovic concluded the consensus was that the form and content of Board Minutes should remain basically unchanged.
5.A Financial Statement: 30 September 1996
Pierre Chartrand noted that if there are no further unanticipated expenditures, the NWMB could end the fiscal year with approximately $567,135 for carryover to FY 1997/98. The main factors contributing to the projected $567,135 positive variance are: 1. $400,000 for “Public Hearings”, of which none are currently anticipated.
2. $200,000 for “Wildlife Conservation Education”, over and above anticipated expenditures at this time.
There was considerable discussion of several line items in the report, particularly where substantial variances were projected. Pierre Chartrand provided explanations, and no revisions were indicated in respect to the FY 1996/97 year-end forecasts.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada requires the Board to identify, by 26 November, how much of the current year’s contribution the Board intends to carry over. To that end, further 1996/97 unbudgeted (but anticipated) major expenditures were identified (by Pierre) and reviewed (by the Board) as follows:
Pierre advised that the item designated “Miscellaneous Revenue” refers to sale by the Board of interpretation equipment. Malachi Arreak suggested that each RWO conduct a hearing before any decision is made on where to allocate the next bowhead hunt. It would be necessary to make budgetary provision for such an exercise.
The financial report and forecast and the authorization to request rollover from DIAND were approved, through a combined resolution. (Motion 97-103)
Pierre Chartrand referred to the report from TAL Investments pertaining to the Wildlife Research Trust (WRT). Pierre noted that a new investment philosophy document has been drafted and is being reviewed by the Executive Committee. The Board is projecting fees to TAL of $44,000 for the current fiscal year.
Gordon Koshinsky expressed his concern that the investment philosophy by which TAL has been guided in its transactions on behalf of the WRT to date may have prevented taking better advantage of the 1995-1996 stock market surge. It might be advantageous to give TAL broader investment guidelines to enable the Board to obtain better value from the expenditure for TAL’s services.
Pierre Chartrand noted that the next meeting of the WRT Trustees will be in February. The Trustees will presumably deal with the matter of investment philosophy at that time. Also requiring decision by the Trustees (no later than February) is the overall amount of funds which will be made available for research projects in 1997/98, along with clarification of funding treatment for multi-year projects.
Ben Kovic suggested that it is not necessary to include this item on the agenda in future. Copies of incoming and outgoing mail are made available at each meeting in binders, and Members are sent copies of mail logs on a weekly basis. Gordon Koshinsky noted that outgoing mail logs have not always been reliably distributed, and requested that a column be incorporated in the logs to clearly identify originators of correspondence.
7. Chairperson and Staff Reports
Ben Kovic reported attending three meetings since the last Board meeting. None implied any Board decisions. These meeting were as follows:
a) Meeting on West Hudson Bay Polar Bear Management Agreements: The Memorandum of Understanding for West Hudson Bay expired last year. Some communities have not had time to review the proposed changes. Ben suggested that they be given more time for this.
David Aglukark stated that there is considerable opposition by hunters to certain polar bear management zone boundaries. The system of buffer zones is helpful, but does not completely solve the problem. The issue of sex-ratio-adjusted quotas remains contentious.
Ben Kovic noted that according to the present management zones, polar bears for Baker Lake come from the Hudson Bay quota. Baker Lake hunters must thus travel all the way to Chesterfield Inlet, coming out of their zone to track bears even if the hunters encounter tracks on their way out of Baker Lake. This is very difficult for Baker Lake hunters to understand. The hunters would like to be able to travel north to hunt polar bears. This was obviously a topic for discussion and negotiation among the HTOs and with DRWED. Ben Kovic also noted that since York Factory now has a Land Claim Agreement in place and a Churchill Land Claim is being negotiated, there might be pressure from Manitoba to “retrieve” the 19 polar bear tags which they have “loaned” to the GNWT.
b) Arctic Environmental Sailing Directions Ben Kovic reported on an October meeting, organized by Coast Guard. Ben advised that funds ($600,000) which had been allotted for this project were totally expended in preparing the report. There were no funds left to publish the report, and all the participants were requested to chip in. The NWMB was among the agencies approached. The report shows detailed wildlife distributions, hunting patterns, camping areas, etc. The report will be available on the Internet but the general public will not be able to view it unless they are on line.
Ben Kovic further advised that the Board had been offered a seat on the Steering Committee which reviews and advises the federal government on marine shipping issues. It was agreed that the Board expects to provide its input on such matters through the Nunavut Marine Council, as per Article 15.4.1 of the NLCA. The other members of the Council have more direct interest in this matter than does NWMB.
c) Videoconferencing Ben Kovic reported attending two meetings pertaining to videoconferencing. One was a ten-minute session with the Minister of Environment. The Federal Government is exploring the practicality of video conferencing. In Ben’s opinion the video quality as demonstrated was not very impressive. The audio aspect was in real time, but the video aspect was not.
The videoconferencing demonstration at the “Arctic Forever” exhibit sponsored by the Canadian Museum of Nature and the Centre for Traditional Knowledge at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Montreal was more interesting. Students in Iqaluit and Montreal conducted an on-line educational project. They talked about polar bear populations and polar bear management.
7.B Executive Director’s Report Jim Noble outlined recent highlights at the NWMB office. He offered to provide a regular reporting of this nature (at all meetings) if the Members so wished.
7.C Report from Director of Wildlife Management • Dan Pike advised that the process for establishing Basic Needs Levels for beluga, narwhal and walrus is seriously delayed. His next task is to select a pamphlet and design from the alternatives available. • Dan reported that NTI ended up doing their own phone-in show, leaving the other anticipated participants in the lurch. NWMB will need to consider doing our own phone-in show, for which contract assistance would be required.
• Dan reported on the recent beluga tagging project at Devon Island. This was to demonstrate whether there is interchange with Greenland. A total of twenty belugas have been tagged. Out of that number, only one went to Greenland. Only one of the tags is still operating; satellite tags on beluga are reliable for only about three months, after which they usually fall off.
• Gordon Koshinsky suggested that developing criteria for shrimp and groundfish allocations in Zones I and II should be a matter of highest priority. He proposed that the Board’s Fisheries Advisor be instructed to draft material for consideration by the Board and staff.
8. Member’s Reports and Concerns
• Meeka tabled her concern regarding the abandoned Dewline Site at Resolution Island (Tujjaat). The site is now under the jurisdiction of DIAND. It is one of the registered sites for storage of of PCBs in Canada . Contaminants from the soil and the sewage may be leaching into the marine environment, possibly posing hazards for wildlife and for human users of the wildlife. DIAND has been conducting research at Resolution Island in conjunction with the Royal Military College . -Malachi Arreak noted that there are other contaminated sites in Nunavut besides the one at Resolution Island. While it may be appropriate to focus on Resolution Island, he would prefer to draw attention to other sites as well. Michael d’Eça pointed out that under Article 11.9.1 of the NLCA, the NPC is charged to identify and priorize the requirements to clean up waste sites in the NSA. The NWMB decided to send a letter to appropriate authorities, expressing concern and requesting a status report. • Meeka identified two matters regarding training, which she expects will be coming to the attention of the NWMB: • administrative training for secretary-managers, and • Outward Bound training (sponsorship) for two students.
• David identified a population explosion of ravens and gulls in his region. There seems to be a need for some control measures. Ravens are robbing people of their food. Gulls are stealing dried meat from unattended tents. Ravens have recently started nesting within community boundaries, and the number of these birds at dump sites is very noticeably increasing. -Malachi Arreak echoed the same problems in the eastern arctic. He suggested that an annual “raven day” be instituted to help control them. Ben Kovic wondered if birds might spread diseases out of sewage lagoons. -Glenn Williams noted that gulls are protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. However there is a precedent for issuing permits to cull gulls in some southern communities/situations. Grant Gilchrist suggested that the numbers of these birds are artificially high due to the human presence and influence. This might provide a justification for control action. He committed his Department to look into the matter.
• David reported that Elders in his region are interested in harvesting snowy owls. The Kitikmeot Inuit Association and the Kitikmeot HTA were going to write to the NWMB on this matter. Charlie Evalik was supposed to phone the NWMB office. -Ben Kovic noted that the NWMB has received no such communication.
• David expressed concern about a member of the Kitikmeot HTA missing meetings. He wished to see the organization functioning properly, and would like the NWMB to address the problem.
• David reminded the Board that the Kitikmeot HTA and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association have requested larger narwhal quotas for Kitikmeot communities.
9.A. Canadian Wildlife Service
No report on this Agenda item.
9.A.2 National Accord for Protection of Wildlife from Extirpation/Extinction Michael d’Eça reported that Bill C-65 has already gone through second reading and the government aims to pass it by December. There was no specific response to the NWMB submission made to the DOE Minister last spring, although it is clear that the submission was considered. It may be appropriate for the Board to submit to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. The Standing Committee is chaired by Charles Caccia, who has a protectionist reputation concerning wildlife. Jack Anawak is also a member of the Committee. The Committee is currently conducting hearings; one is scheduled for Edmonton on November 26 with others in December. Provision exists for northern management Boards to submit via video-conferencing if they so wish.
Ron Graf noted that as originally drafted the legislation would have applied only to federal lands, or 4% of Canada. By including the NWT as per the current draft, inclusion is increased to 60%.
Michael led the Board through a brief review of potentially contentious items in the Bill. Among the points which were raised:
• The NWMB’s primary interest in the proposed legislation pertains to the designation of species and the consequences thereof. • There is virtually no reference in the Bill to wildlife management boards; a major oversight given the provisions of the NLCA. • The references in the Bill to “residence” rather than to “habitat” of biota pose a weak and unsatisfactory scope for implementation. • There is inadequate provision in the Bill for effectively taking account of traditional knowledge. • Management of designated species such as polar bear (vulnerable) and Peary caribou (endangered/threatened) would transfer from the territorial to the federal government while the species remained so designated. This, if implemented, would have serious administrative implications since it is the territorial government which has the operational staff and infrastructure “on the ground”. If the GNWT was led to view its capacities as potentially redundant, there would be internal pressures to reduce or eliminate them. • The legislation as proposed would substantially increase the potential for litigation, similar to the situation in the USA. There was some discussion on the designation and content of the term “traditional knowledge”. Should it be traditional, or indigenous, or local, or something else? David Aglukark noted that the other circumpolar nations tend to use the designation “indigenous knowledge”. He himself prefers the designation “traditional”, because it carries the concept of long standing. Ben Kovic saw merit in the term “community knowledge”, which made room for the legitimate input of everyone present. It was concluded that for the purposes of the draft legislation at hand, the term “traditional knowledge” will be satisfactory. It was agreed that Michael d’Eça will finish drafting a submission to the Standing Committee on behalf of the NWMB, based on the Board’s discussion and in consultation with NTI’s legal advisors. [See also Page 22 (these Minutes)]
9.A.3 Compensation for Defence-Killed Polar Bears Grant Gilchrist reminded the Board that wildlife researchers sometimes find it necessary to kill polar bears in self-defence. Despite the best of intentions to compensate, it is actually difficult to do so in practice, and almost impossible to do so quickly. DOE proposes to establish a compensation fund, hopefully to be managed by and through the NWMB, to facilitate such payments.
Malachi Arreak asked about the historic frequency of such incidents. Grant replied that there had been such an incident in DOE about every five years. The last time was in 1993, on Coburg Island. Sea-bird and shore-bird researchers are the ones most likely to have interaction with polar bears.
Michael d’Eça advised that the NLCA does not obligate the NWMB to participate in the administration of compensation; however there is nothing to prevent the Board if it wishes to do so in the interests of cooperative expediency. Administration would have to be through the Wildlife Research Trust, which has the necessary legal provisions. A compensation agreement might be established at the outset, with the Board (i.e. the Trust) simply making payouts upon instruction without participating in any negotiations, etc.
Dan Pike agreed that it is reasonable that compensation be paid in such instances because the opportunity for economic gain by Inuit is diminished through loss of the bear. However, it should also be recognized that there is no definitive obligation to pay compensation if the research project has the appropriate approvals.
There was considerable discussion, but no consensus, on the “value” of a polar bear. There might be different implications if the bear died accidentally as a result of research activity, or if it was purposely killed. It was concluded that there can be no single, simple answers, and that NWMB should not get drawn into such debate.
Gordon Koshinsky proposed that the matter be referred to the Wildlife Research Trust, with the aim of developing an outline for how administrative assistance might be provided in the matter of paying compensation for polar bear defence kills. In-Camera Session (Motion 97-104 ) For the Board to proceed into in-camera session (3:55 p.m.) (Motion 97-105) For the Board to revert to regular session (6:10 p.m.)
The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 a.m. David Aglukark led in the opening prayer.
The Chairman called for motions in respect to decisions made in-camera.
• Comprehensive Computer Purchase Policy and Acquisitions Decision to develop and implement. (Motion 97-106)
• Nunanet Website Decision to approve. (Motion 97-107)
RWO/HTO WorkshopDecision to approve in principle. (Motion 97-108)
Ben Kovic stated that the NTI, NITC and NWMB will share the costs of this workshop. David Aglukark stated that he expected the workshop to be very useful. Meeka Mike asked if NWMB Board Members would be involved. Ben Kovic anticipated that Board Members would be present, and that there would be opportunity to conduct some Board business during the course of the workshop.
9.B Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Robert Moshenko highlighted the following items:
• CITES: The next meeting is in June. There is no indication yet of any proposal to uplist walrus. It would not be unexpected if the NGOs began promoting this.
• Eastern Hudson Bay beluga: NWMB has written to the DFO Minister advising of the intent to have a workshop with Kativik Regional Government or Makivik on transboundary wildlife management issues. DFO Science (Laurentian Region and Central and Arctic Region) has embarked on a major 3-year stock identification project. Gordon Koshinsky noted that preliminary information on stock delineation suggests that most beluga harvested by Sanikiluaq hunters are not from the Eastern Hudson Bay stock. If this is proven correct, it would not be appropriate to include Sanikiluaq in the beluga management plan currently being implemented for Northern Quebec. Robert agreed that a separate beluga management plan is probably needed for Sanikiluaq. He also explained that the Laurentian Region of DFO manages the Hudson Bay stock.
• International Whaling Commission: The USA may “certify” Canada, a step prior to application of trade sanctions, in response to Canada allowing the 1996 bowhead hunt. The American aim would be to encourage Canada to join the IWC. Malachi Arreak characterized the American position as hypocritical. David Aglukark noted that NAMMCO represents a very good alternative to joining IWC.
• Baffin Bay beluga: Twenty were satellite-tagged in Canadian waters; one of these has turned up off Greenland. This suggests that most of the beluga which summer in the Canadian High Arctic stay in or near Canada. This would be good news for Canadian beluga hunters and managers, but inconvenient for Greenland. Only one tag (in Canadian waters) is still transmitting; the other tags have fallen off.
9.B.2 Whalebone Carvings: Export from Canada Robert explained that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) lists small whales such as narwhal and beluga in Appendix II - which allows commercial trade of parts with an export permit. Large whales such as bowhead are listed in Appendix I and parts cannot be traded for commercial purposes.
Whalebone carvings have been exported from Canada under declaration that the bone is Pre-Convention (from animals dead before July 1975). Under this policy and interpretation the species identity of the bone was inconsequential. Application of the policy was restricted to small carvings; larger pieces were referred to Appendix I (not tradable for commercial purposes).
This procedure is now coming under question. The authorities consider it impossible, or at least impractical, to confirm the species identity or the age of whalebone material after it is carved. The basis for the concern is to prevent commercial trade in material from recently-killed large whales. This matter might evolve to the point where Canada could not or would not issue export permits because importing countries would not or could not issue import permits for any whalebone material destined for commercial use.
Canada is currently assessing whether any procedures exist or could be developed for confirming species origin and age of material in whalebone carvings. Complications include the fact that the weathering/aging of whalebone can be accelerated by such treatments as boiling. Malachi Arreak advised that most carved material is in fact bowhead from the commercial whaling era. This is becoming notably more scarce. Whalebone is not entirely homogeneous; some portions contain hard and polishable surfaces. Nonetheless, the species of origin is readily apparent (to Inuit) from uncut material, and even the age of the material can be reasonably estimated (from the colour). Malachi suggested that a solution to the problem might be to require carvers to photograph their uncut material, in its source location, prior to commencing to carve it.
Michael d’Eça pointed out that the NWMB is not required under the NLCA to exercise any authority in this matter. He suggested that NTI be advised and updated.
Robert reported that comments on the draft management plan have been received. Their target for completion is April. Regarding the 1996 hunts:
• Igloolik conducted two hunts (successful; two were approved). One hunter was American; the other was from Calgary. Both hunters used rifles although one arrived under the impression that he could use bow and arrows. • Coral Harbour conducted one hunt (successful; five were approved). A large male was taken. • The hunts approved for Salluit did not take place. Several hunters have preliminary arrangements for 1997; they will need to reapply.
Robert reported that nothing conclusive has happened yet. It is known that there will be reductions in operating budgets and some staff will be leaving.
9.B.5 DFO Science Advisory Council: Representation by Co-management Boards Robert Moshenko reminded Members that Regional DFO staff had suggested that all NWT and Quebec Co-management Boards jointly nominate one person for the new Science Advisory Council. The DFO Science ADM is expected to announce the appointments very soon. The Council will consist of scientists and non-scientists from across Canada. Precise terms of reference are not available. Appointments will be for two years and the Council will meet three times per year.
Daniel Pike advised that Makivik has indicated, via Stas Olpinsky, that they will defer to NWMB to make an appropriate selection and nomination. Dan also noted that Ben Kovic has already been recommended as a possible candidate. Malachi Arreak proposed that Gordon Koshinsky be nominated. Malachi Arreak reminded Members that the NWMB appointee will have to represent all of the interests in the Arctic, including those of Makivik. It was decided to nominate Gordon Koshinsky (Motion 97-109)
9.B.6. Wearing of Sidearms by DFO Fishery Officers Considerable dissatisfaction and concern was expressed about the recent DFO policy requiring Fishery Officers on duty to wear sidearms. DFO has described this policy as being nation-wide, “to facilitate mobility and interchange of Officers”. Dan Pike noted that there are only two Fishery Officers stationed in the NSA, and in any event exceptions have already been granted for some parts of Newfoundland and Quebec. Michael d’Eça noted that the policy was put in place without consultation, and that this seems contrary to Article 15.4.1 of the NLCA. Malachi Arreak suggested that it would be an extremely exceptional and remote set of circumstances that would warrant Fishery Officers carrying sidearms while discharging their duties in the NSA. He noted that when a citizen sees a gun on a person in authority he adopts an entirely different attitude to that person: an attitude which tends to be inconsistent with the precepts of wildlife co-management. Malachi wondered if sidearms are considered necessary because wildlife poses a threat to Officers. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that at the very least there should be local discretion in implementing the policy. Implementation might be on a case-by-case basis with community input, perhaps analogous to the way search warrants are currently sought and issued.
Robert Moshenko agreed to transmit the Board’s concerns to DFO. He implied that the Department was already considering some kind of adjustment to the policy as it affects the NSA.
9.B.7 Narwhal Quotas, Kitikmeot Region David Igutsaq reported that narwhal appear only rarely in the Kitikmeot Region. The communities of Taloyoak, Gjoa Haven and Pelly Bay would like to have larger narwhal quotas, to take better advantage of those rare occasions when narwhal appear. A letter from the Kitikmeot HTA is to be expected.
Robert Moshenko advised that the total combined narwhal quota for all NWT communities is currently about 550. Two stocks are believed to be contributing. Some 300-400 narwhal are harvested every year. Sustainable harvest of narwhal is a matter of ongoing attention by the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission. The Commission is of the opinion that the present harvest is probably sustainable but in the absence of further studies would not advocate an increase. If the total quota were actually harvested, that would represent a substantial increase. Gordon Koshinsky offered that rarity of wildlife occurrence is not ordinarily interpreted as a signal to establish larger quotas.
Dan Pike stated that narwhal quotas are of rather wide-ranging concern in the NSA. The Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board recently passed a resolution urging development of narwhal management agreements similar to those in place for polar bears. Their aim is to establish a basis for larger harvests.
Malachi Arreak expressed concern regarding potential wastage of narwhal through improper killing and meat-handling methods by young and inexperienced hunters. Any move toward larger harvests would need to be balanced by a program of instruction in these regards. Ben Kovic agreed that the education of young hunters in appropriate and traditional hunting and handling techniques was a necessary prerequisite. Elders have repeatedly offered their expertise and services, and this source of knowledge needs to be more fully tapped. Gordon Koshinsky agreed that this was an area in which the role of traditional knowledge was indispensable and could not be questioned.
It was agreed to request DFO to develop a status report on narwhal productivity, harvest and quotas for the next meeting of the Board.
9.B.8 New Fisheries Act (Bill C-62) Robert Moshenko explained that Bill C-62 is essentially an update of an earlier aborted attempt (Bill C-115) to amend the Fisheries Act. When passed, it will constitute the first comprehensive re-write of the Fisheries Act since 1868. The Bill has gone through first reading. After second reading it will be the subject of hearings (Standing Committee) across the country. Iqaluit may be on the itinerary. The government hopes to pass the Bill by spring. The Bill aims to provide a simplified, streamlined, flexible, user-friendly legislative framework for sustainable fisheries into the next century.
Robert summarized highlights of the Bill from the perspective of the NWMB: • Will have minimal real impacts in the Arctic. • Leaves ultimate responsibility for conservation and protection with the Minister. • Is heavily oriented to the commercial fishing sector, with the aim of providing long-term stability and promoting viability. • Provides a framework for partnering, for those who wish to do so. (NWMB is already a partner.) • Provides for Sanction Tribunals, to operate outside the criminal justice system: one for the Pacific and one for the Atlantic. There will be boards, to hear licence appeals, etc. • Provides for greater control over international fishing of Canadian stocks. • Provides for agreements with the provinces on habitat management. • Fines will be increased. • Regulations will be condensed and made more flexible. • Management Orders will be actionable within Regions.
Malachi Arreak interpreted parts of the Bill to be inconsistent with or infringing upon the authority of the NWMB. The new legislation also seems to infringe upon Inuit rights to fish for subsistence. He suggested that the Bill be carefully examined in the context of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Michael d’Eça suggested that many aspects of the new legislation will be welcomed by the NWMB. However he interprets from the current version that DFO is largely ignoring the need and opportunity to clarify in legislation its relationship with the management boards (such as NWMB), and is unnecessarily setting the stage for future acrimony and misunderstandings. The Board is not asking for any new powers, but only for clearer definitions and setting. The bulk of a submission (to the Standing Committee) already exists, and the Board will need to decide if and how it will be put forward.
9.C Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development
Glenn Williams reported that: • The GNWT will be filling its vacant position on the NWMB very shortly. • DRWED is working to establish a Nunavut headquarters to mesh with NWMB. • DRWED wishes to reintroduce discussion on their contribution proposal at the next Board meeting. The ADM has indicated interest in delegating such matters.
9.C.2 Polar Bear Management MOUs: Update Glenn Williams requested clarification regarding the “noted corrections” referred to in NWMB Resolution 97-068. It was agreed that Dan Pike and Michael d’Eça will work with Glenn to develop acceptable wording.
Glenn noted that polar bear management has interjurisdictional and international aspects which would benefit from co-management agreements. One example pertains to Greenland. The polar bear harvest in Greenland, as indicated by a recent skull-purchase program, appears greater than was expected. The Greenlanders are not considering introduction of quotas at the moment, but might be amenable to protecting polar bear family groups in a co-management context. Glenn requested any advice or input that the NWMB might offer on the protocol and content for pursuing any such co-management initiatives. Who should be talking to whom, where and when?
It was suggested that the forthcoming (February) meeting of the Polar Bear Technical Committee (in Edmonton) might be an opportunity to start ground-breaking discussions with Greenland. No harm was foreseen in anybody who was available participating in discussions at this early stage. A working group may be the answer. Dan Pike noted that there is an organization in Greenland called KNAPK made up of fishermen and hunters which may wish to be involved. There have been certain agreements developed in the past between Inuit organizations without the involvement of their respective governments. This procedure may have legal shortcomings, but it has proven workable.
Glenn Williams reported that the attempt to capture Peary caribou on Bathurst Island had to be called off because blizzard conditions and lack of light precluded air support. It might have been possible to capture a few caribou on Cornwallis Island, but not the 25-30 needed for a serious relocation attempt.
Glenn asked how strenuously the Board wished to pursue the fifth condition in its Resolution 97-096, which called for cessation of all Peary caribou hunting on Bathurst Island. The Resolute hunters have taken strong initiatives on their own to conserve this population, but they object to a total ban. They would like to be able to harvest one or two caribou when they visit Bathurst Island in the spring, and in any event they cannot understand why Bathurst Island was singled out. Malachi explained that Bathurst Island has the best habitat, and if the Peary caribou are going to survive anywhere it is most likely to be here. Ben Kovic wondered if the Board was on firm ground in advocating a prohibition on hunting without having any firm population information. Glenn advised that the Resolute hunters recently harvested four caribou on Cornwallis Island and found them to be in very good condition. It was agreed to revisit this matter at the next Board meeting.
9.C.4 Downlisting of Gyrfalcons: CITES Appendix I Ron Graf reported that the USA will likely propose that the gyrfalcon be removed from Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This is expected to be on the agenda of the forthcoming CITES meeting in January. Canada has been asked to support the desisting initiative.
Ron advised that the species really never was under threat in North America, but was listed on account of a look-alike situation in respect to genuinely rare birds in Greenland. Tagging studies have now shown that there is no interchange between Canada and Greenland. Downlisting would reopen the possibility of renewed trade in Canadian gyrfalcons, although this was much less financially attractive now than previously. Gyrfalcons used to sell for up to $30,000 per bird; the current price would be nearer $5,000. Dan Pike observed that under the NFA there is a presumption of 100% Inuit need for raptors in the NSA. This means that any harvest opportunities would automatically accrue to Inuit. Malachi Arreak proposed that Canada make desisting conditional on proper documentation of stock status and abundance. David Igutsaq stated that gyrfalcons are poorly regarded in his Region because they prey on ptarmigan.
The Board agreed to support a downlisting initiative for gyrfalcon. (Motion 97-110)
9.C.5 Trade in Bear Gall Bladders Ron Graf noted that the Northwest Territories, along with Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia, are the only jurisdictions in Canada in which bear gall bladders can be legally sold. A bear gall bladder sells for about $100. The GNWT is under considerable pressure to amend its legislation to prohibit the sale of bear parts in order to provide protection for genuinely threatened bears in other parts of the world. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement confirms the right of beneficiaries to trade parts from legally harvested bears. The NLCA states that an Inuk may require a permit to transport wildlife out of the Nunavut Area. The DRWED, as a designated Canadian CITES Management Authority, can issue CITES export permits for legally harvested bear gall bladders.
Malachi Arreak wondered whether it might be possible to differentiate bear species on the basis of bile chemistry. Polar bears must surely have a very distinctive diet among bear species, including consumption of seaweed in summer. Grant Gilchrist agreed that bear gall bladders could almost certainly be identified to species by stable isotope analysis; however the procedure was expensive and was not considered practicable.
Ron Graf presented three options, as follows: (1) Status quo; (2) Inform and consult more broadly with user groups; and (3) Immediately restrict the trade. The Board selected the second option, with consultations to be carried out quickly. Glenn Williams stated that his department will undertake the consultations.
9.C.6 Caribou Calving Grounds Protection and Legislation Ron Graf reminded the Board of the earlier workshop in Yellowknife on this subject. More recent attention has been triggered by Canadian/American exchanges regarding protection for the Bluenose calving grounds in Alaska in the face of petroleum interests there. President Clinton was successful in obtaining this protection, and in essence has challenged Prime Minister Chretien “to match in Canada what he had requested the USA to do in Alaska”. Ron invited the NWMB to make its input on this subject by February. David Aglukark mentioned that human activity of any kind, including harvesting, is not allowed on the caribou calving grounds in the Keewatin from May 15 to July 15. Ron Graf confirmed that under the 1978 Caribou Protection Measures, developers are prohibited from entering the calving grounds in the Keewatin during that interval. Michael d’Eça suggested that the Board might want to work closely with NPC and NIRB on this matter.
9.C.7 Effects of Research Methods on Polar Bears Glenn Williams made reference to the 04 July letter from NWMB requesting an update on this topic. Glenn reported that there had been two handling deaths (in 1994 and in 1996) out of 2,000 bears captured and drugged. The drug used to immobilize bears (telazol) is undetectable after three days. Agriculture Canada has declared that bears are safe to eat one year after exposure to this drug. Dr. Ian Stirling is undertaking an analysis of all bear handling data in Canada but it is not yet clear when the results will be available. Meeka Mike cautioned against extrapolating results from the “dump-dwelling” bears at Churchill. Dan Pike noted that the University of Saskatchewan has offered to provide an independent analysis if requested by the Board. David Igutsaq suggested that bears are more susceptible to the effects of handling when temperatures are very low. He would prefer to see such work done during the off season. Malachi Arreak cited Inuit observations that there are effects after a second capture. Cubs also tend to be smaller if the mother has been drugged previously. Not all polar bears are identical; those farther north seem to be more physiologically active and may respond differently. Malachi also questioned the possibility of behavioural changes from handling: perhaps it could make the bears meaner. Inuit are very strong in their belief that animals should only be handled respectfully. David Igutsaq stated opposition to drugging bears during the hunting season. Glenn stated that DRWED did not want to tag or handle bears during a sport hunt, and will consult with the communities prior to the forthcoming Gulf of Boothia survey in order to avoid such an overlap. Glenn Williams noted that the controversies about handling and tagging animals are not confined to polar bears. All wildlife management agencies need to be constantly seeking alternative methods. Ron Graf mentioned that he has heard about work to determine if the genetic composition of animal hair could be adapted as a kind of mark-recapture technique for estimating populations. Gordon Koshinsky cited work being supported by NWMB on photo-identification of individual whales.
Ron Graf reported that Canada has been working to develop a national response to the Convention on Biological Diversity introduced at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro three years ago. The resulting Canadian Biodiversity Strategy has now been signed by all Canadian jurisdictions. The strategy is comprised of over 100 strategic recommendations for how Canadian governments, organizations and individuals should act to protect the diversity of wild species in Canada. DRWED will be developing an action plan for implementing this strategy in the NWT. Meeka Mike expressed her strong support for this initiative. She accompanied an Elder from Pond Inlet to Arizona last winter to make a presentation on this subject. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
