|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download
PDF (111K) Printer
Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING NO. 14
22 - 27 FEBRUARY 1997 PANGNIRTUNG, NT Agenda Call to Order and Opening Prayer Greetings From Community Representative
Date and Place of Next Meeting Adjournment (Resolutution 97-152)
Saturday 22 February 1997
1. Call to Order and Opening Prayer
Ben Kovic convened the meeting at 9:20 A.M. Joannie Ikkidluak led the opening prayer. Ben welcomed Members to the community and requested those present to introduce themselves.
2. Greetings From Community Representative
Joanasie Maniapik, Mayor of Pangnirtung, welcomed the NWMB to his community. He urged the Board to approach him in the Hamlet office if any assistance was required. He stated that Pangnirtung residents know the meeting is open to the public; however he will continue to announce it on local radio.
3. Swearing-in Ceremony: GNWT Appointee
Ben Kovic requested that the new GNWT Appointee, Harry Flaherty, be officially sworn-in. Tim Dialla, Justice of the Peace for Pangnirtung, conducted the swearing-in ceremony. Ben Kovic welcomed Mr. Flaherty to the NWMB. Ben stressed that NWMB Members do not and can not represent any particular group or agency. Harry Flaherty expressed appreciation for being appointed to the NWMB. He mentioned that he was born in Grise Fiord and for the past few years has been residing in Iqaluit. He worked with the Nunavut Final Agreement in his recent position with the GNWT Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.
4. Agenda: Review and Approval
Members reviewed and approved the Agenda with no specific changes.
5. Minutes: Review and Approval
5.A Regular Meeting No. 13, Pelly Bay 18-21 November 1996
Gordon Koshinsky urged that particular attention be paid to these Minutes since a number of people participated in completing them. Joannie Ikkidluak requested that the Board review the Motions from the meeting and the progress made in respect to implementing each Motion. The Executive Director led this review. Gordon expressed satisfaction that the review demonstrated that for the most part the Motions are being dealt with expeditiously.
Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the Board consider making a review of Motions a regular part of each meeting Agenda. He suggested this be amalgamated with the review of the “To-do-list”, and should probably be done at the beginning of each meeting. Ben Kovic suggested that the review of Motions could be appended to the Minutes as a check list. Harry Flaherty noted that it is general practice to review progress on Motions in the course of reviewing the Minutes. Gordon reminded the Board of Michael d’Eça’s frequent assertions that Motions properly become Resolutions once they are passed. The Board approved the Pelly Bay Minutes with noted corrections. (Resolution 97-136)
5.B Conference Call No. 26, Conducted 04 December 1996
The Minutes were accepted as presented. (Resolution 97-137)
5.C Conference Call No. 27, Conducted 09 December 1996
The Minutes were accepted as presented. (Resolution 97-138)
5.D Special Meeting No. 5, Iqaluit 14-17 January 1996
The Minutes were accepted as presented with noted corrections. (Resolution 97-139)
6.A Financial Statement: 31 December 1996
Pierre Chartrand reviewed the December 31 Financial Statement and Variance Report. A surplus of $162,188 is projected for Fiscal-year-end. DIAND requires that any year-end surplus be returned. Gordon Koshinsky asked if prepaying any items or speeding up payment on legitimate contracts could reduce the projected surplus. Pierre suggested the Board could prepay Harvest Study contracts or contribute to the proposed RWO/HTO Workshop. Harry Flaherty asked if there were any ongoing research projects towards which the Board could contribute. Pierre advised that there is only one such project (CWS), and it involves relatively minor funding. Malachi Arreak asked what was covered by the “Miscellaneous Revenue” item and why it was negative. Pierre explained that this item is shown as a negative because it represents income in what is otherwise an expenditure report. It is made up of a repayment from KHTA on the $140,000 advance, revenue from sale of translation equipment, a refund from the Workers’ Compensation Board, a refund on a cancelled trip, and adjustments to the Harvest Study contracts pertaining to the Liaison Officer positions.
Pierre suggested that the large size of some of the variances reflects the Board’s inexperience in financial forecasting. At this early stage in the Board’s development it is impossible to accurately predict the cost of some specific items such as implementation of the Strategic Plan. Harry Flaherty asked why no expenses had been incurred for Wildlife Conservation Education. Pierre suggested that this budget item was an expression of intent by the Board for which action could not be implemented. Jim Noble noted that the NWMB contributed previously to production of a book on Birds of Nunavut developed by Baffin Divisional Board of Education, and had intended to contribute to a similar book on mammals and fish. This new book did not get underway because no group had come forward to take the lead in coordinating it. David Igutsaq questioned the expenditures for “Insurance.” Pierre explained that this covered travel insurance for Members, and insurance for vehicles and office equipment. Gordon Koshinsky questioned the status of obtaining liability insurance for Board Members. Pierre stated that the Board’s legal advisor is still sorting this out with potential providers. Jim Noble noted that the original aim was to obtain “Bonding” for employees handling Board funds; this had expanded to include liability insurance. The latter is very expensive if it is offered at all by insurance companies. Jim noted that Michael d’Eça could better comment on this subject, since he was the last to have contact with potential providers. The Board accepted the 31 December 1996 Financial Statement as presented (Resolution 97-140) , with the understanding that any residual funds be allocated to:
6.B 1997/98 Budget Review and Approval
Pierre Chartrand projected that $8,318,749 will be available to the Board for 1997/98. This is the total of the anticipated allocation as per the Implementation Contract, plus the projected carry-forward. Pierre projected a base operating requirement of $1,618,813 for 1997/98, assuming some rationalization and no major operating departures from 1996/97. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the $452,000 preliminary projection for operations will not be sufficient. Pierre suggested that future office set-up costs will be minimal and that consulting costs for start-up items will be much reduced. Gordon suggested that costs associated with consulting are more likely to increase rather than decrease. Gordon asked if the Harvest Study budget was up to date according to known realities. Pierre replied that the preliminary Study budget reflects Board approvals but does not take into account such things as pressures from field workers for increased salaries. Malachi Arreak noted that the Board budgeted for hearings last year but nothing is set aside in the preliminary projections for 1997/98. He predicted that there will surely be issues requiring structured public input in the future. Harry Flaherty preferred to see some funds allocated to Conservation Education. Gordon noted that other agencies have more specific training obligations than NWMB to lead in this role. Malachi Arreak suggested that the NWMB might contribute funding but not necessarily deliver the program for training in such matters as traditional ways of hunting and conserving wildlife. Gordon noted that it is good to plan new programs but questioned whether the Board has the capacity to implement such additional workload. He suggested that staff are working to full capacity already. The Board may be well served to develop an “Education and Training Plan” before becoming actively involved.
Pierre noted that the projection of no funding increases for RWOs/HTOs may not be realistic if there is a greater onus on the Board to provide “adequate funding”. Joannie Ikkidluak observed that there will certainly be pressure for increased funding from the RWOs. Malachi Arreak noted that the RWO/HTO budgets were established quite arbitrarily in the course of negotiations. Gordon suggested that the same is true in a general way for the NWMB funding. He considered it unlikely that the RWO/HTO funding will change significantly, just as the basic funding available to NWMB will not change. Harry Flaherty noted Pierre’s statement that no increase was projected for the RWOs/HTOs, yet an increase is shown and he wondered how the formula works. Pierre advised that the FIDDIPI has been applied but there is little actual increase. Pierre acknowledged that while HTOs and RWOs will probably request more funding, some of these organizations have successful business ventures and in fact may be more than adequately operational without more funding from`government sources. Ben Kovic was concerned that any move to withhold funding could erode the working relationship with these various organizations.
Gordon Koshinsky interpreted the long-range projections to show that the Board will no longer be able to fund agency research from NWMB operating resources. He proposed re-allocating the $500,000 previously allocated for agency research as follows:
Pierre Chartrand noted that the management fee for TAL could revert to the NWRT, providing a saving of $50,000 for the Board. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the Board might continue to use agency research as a repository for any unused NWMB operating funds in future. He also suggested that it might be useful and appropriate to advise the Implementation Panel of the NWMB’s 10-year financial forecast. This could serve to demonstrate the Board’s planning competence and to identify the Board’s long-term need for all available funds including carry-overs.
The Board decided to approve the 1997/98 budget, with noted amendments, in the total amount of $5,280,285. (Resolution 97-141)
Ben Kovic reviewed his diary of activities over the past three months.
7.A.2 Assignment of Hunting Rights
Ben Kovic noted that NTI has been doing some work on this issue but suggested that the matter of a policy framework has not yet been addressed. Discussion was deferred pending arrival of the Board’s legal advisor (see Agenda item 7.E).
7.A.3 Pilot Walrus Sport Hunt - Nunavik
Ben Kovic noted that the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) remains concerned about plans by Nunavik to conduct walrus sport hunts in the Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy. Discussion was deferred pending arrival of DFO staff (see Agenda item 9.B.4).
7.A.4 Meeting/Workshop with Nunavik to Discuss Overlap Issues
Ben Kovic advised that he and Joannie Ikkidluak recently attended a meeting in Salluit where the possibility for a joint workshop was discussed. Ben suggested that the NWMB re-schedule its regular May meeting to Iqaluit to accommodate this. Gordon Koshinsky noted that this type workshop will require considerable preparation. Joannie suggested that Kimmirut, Cape Dorset and Sanikiluaq HTO representatives be invited to participate. These communities are concerned that such a meeting may go beyond mere discussions, to formal negotiations. Malachi Arreak noted that this matter was dealt with many times in the course of negotiations and suggested that it may never be completely resolved. He suggested the DIOs will need to participate, along with the impacted communities. Ben noted that there are no agencies in Nunavik which correspond to Nunavut HTOs. There are some volunteer organizations, with no real power. Gordon Koshinsky suggested it may be necessary/useful for NWMB to meet with the communities in preparation for a meeting with Makivik. The Board decided to meet with Makivik in conjunction with the regular May meeting. (Resolution 97-142)
7.A.5 Bowhead Hunt (1996): Response by USA
Ben Kovic advised the Board about the response by the US President to the US Commerce Secretary’s certification of Canada under the Pelly Amendment in respect to hunting of bowhead whales by Canadian aboriginals last summer. The response, thankfully, appears relatively mild. There may be some significance and opportunity in the fact that the US President declared his support of aboriginal whaling, provided it is managed through the IWC. Further discussion was deferred to Agenda item 10.D.1.
7.A.6 Wildlife Harvesting by Nunavik Residents in Nunavut
Ben Kovic noted that Nunavik residents who live or work in the Nunavut area are not allowed to hunt by laws of general application. This causes friction, partly because residents from Nunavut are allowed to hunt in Nunavik at any time without restrictions. Ben asked if anything could be done to alleviate this situation. Malachi Arreak suggested that if there is a surplus (e.g. for caribou, for which there are no quotas) Nunavik people should be allowed to hunt in Nunavut. However there are often local concerns about this, and the HTOs should have the final say. Ben suggested that the problem stems in some cases from an expectation that benefits are transferable between Agreement areas. David Igutsaq suggested that the problem pertains only to caribou, muskox and polar bears. If the spouse is a resident of Nunavut, then the husband can hunt. Harry Flaherty noted that Nunavik beneficiaries may be concerned about jeopardizing their Nunavik benefits. Jim Noble noted that the NLCA does not include individuals enrolled in other land claims. Malachi Arreak stated that during negotiations, the Government insisted that individuals could not be enrolled in more than one claim. This stemmed from the situation in the West, where individuals were required to choose between enrolling in Nunavut or enrolling with the Inuvialuit. Malachi suggested that someone from Nunavik wishing to hunt in the NSA could try to obtain an assignment of hunting rights from a Nunavut beneficiary. Ben Kovic asked if there is a process for someone to “become” a Nunavut beneficiary. Jim Noble suggested the NWMB might consider instituting a special transboundary licence. Helen Klengenberg suggested that NLCA 40.3.3 might be applicable and offered to explore this with NTI legal advisors. Malachi Arreak doubted that this Article could provide the necessary legal framework.
7.A.7 Meeting With Other IPGs in Yellowknife
Ben Kovic noted that he and Jim Noble had attended a joint meeting of the Co-management Boards in Yellowknife. It was worth the time and effort to review common concerns with the other institutions. Ben reported that honoraria were similar for all the groups. Some of the boards are having difficulty reconciling whether or not to have full-time chairpersons. Ben noted intentions for further meetings and indicated that the NWMB may be asked to arrange the next one.
Ben Kovic noted that Cumberland Sound Fisheries is suggesting an overall co-operative approach to the development of emerging fisheries. QWB wants opportunity to consider this concept in more depth. Ben noted that other established bodies may be able to play this role and the co-operative movement may not have sufficient support. Joannie Ikkidluak indicated that this topic will be dealt with seriously at the QWB AGM in April.
7.A.9 Meeting with Minister of DFO
Ben Kovic advised that he and Ray Andrews (NWMB Fisheries Advisor) met with the Minister of DFO on February 19. Items discussed included:
Ben noted that the Minister was very down-to-earth about these issues. The Minister did not approve any new licenses, but indicated that he would consider the request seriously. Ben stated that he argued against Canada unilaterally claiming 70% of the Davis Strait turbot TAC on the grounds that this could lead to extra harvest which would not be good conservation according to the knowledge currently available. He suggested to the Minister that if an increased Canadian harvest were to be taken, it should be exploited as a test fishery in Zone 0A, and that Nunavut fishery interests should get the first opportunity due to their adjacency. Ben also reported that a new turbot fishing area has been identified in Davis Strait. Malachi Arreak noted that NLCA 15.3.7 and 16.1.3 are relevant to fishing in Zone 0A, even on an experimental basis. Malachi suggested that heavy exploitation of turbot might disrupt the feeding of narwhal, and this should be taken into account. Ben noted that there was not sufficient time to discuss shrimp issues at the meeting.
7.B Executive Director’s Report
Jim Noble presented his activity report. Gordon Koshinsky once again raised the matter of urgency to complete employee appraisals. Jim noted that most job descriptions were completed and that appraisals will be done by 31 March and certainly prior to the May meeting.
7.C Wildlife Director’s Report
Dan Pike reviewed his work list with the Board. He noted that some of the items are on the meeting Agenda and will be reviewed at the appropriate time. Dan identified four areas in which work is falling seriously behind, at least according to the expectations of some agencies:
Dan suggested that the first three items in the above list “could constitute an additional staff position”. Malachi Arreak suggested that the Board might be well advised to ask DFO to draft a process for dealing with quotas. Dan indicated that the peak workload with respect to quotas is in April, with a lesser peak in the fall just before the winter fishery. Jim Noble suggested that Finance and Administration could take a larger role in administering research contribution agreements. Gordon Koshinsky questioned whether the NWMB really needs to take a higher profile in land- and water-use permitting, and in reviewing research applications. Michael d’Eça indicated that the first category of items is clearly discretionary, but NWMB has decided to exercise a role in these areas. He indicated that active participation in research permitting appears to be mandatory for the Board, but other agencies might be tempted to exploit opportunities to offload their own responsibilities. The Board needs to more clearly define and declare its jurisdiction, and if this demonstrates significant new workload it may equate to a need for additional staff. Malachi suggested that it is highly desirable to define this jurisdiction and workload during the initial years of Board operation; it will be much harder to adopt an enlarged NWMB jurisdiction and obtain proportional new resources after the initial 10 years. Jim Noble noted that the Board had indicated a desire to wait for completion of the Communications Strategy before considering further staffing.
Work objectives (Dan Pike) for next period:
7.D Finance and Administration Director’s Report
Pierre Chartrand reviewed his briefing note on activities since the last regular meeting. A decision is required on distribution of the Tri-annual report. Malachi Arreak suggested that the DIOs be included in the distribution in their role as appointing bodies. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the report be distributed to government field offices rather than concentrating solely on headquarter locations. Ben Kovic suggested that copies be sent to community libraries, and that agencies such as Makivik also receive copies. Pierre requested a Board decision on how to deal with the request from DIAND for repayment of the 1994/95 surplus of $26,236. Pierre suggested that DIAND might subtract this amount from their March payment to the Board if this surplus item is not refunded. Gordon Koshinsky recommended that the amount be repaid, if it is inevitable that the Government will collect it in any event. Harry Flaherty suggested it would be better to challenge DIAND on this matter. Helen Klengenberg agreed, while cautioning that a formal challenge might cost more than the amount in dispute. Pierre advised that he has budgeted the amount as an account payable; if it is not paid it will create an additional year-end surplus. The Board decided to pay the item under protest, pending further advice from the Board’s legal advisor in consultation with NTI.
Monday 24 February 1997
Morning: Tour of Pangnirtung Fisheries Limited fish plant operation. Afternoon: Tour of turbot fishery in Cumberland Sound.
Tuesday 25 February 1997
The Chairperson reconvened the meeting at 8:40 A.M. He called on those present to introduce themselves. He confirmed the public meeting this (Tuesday) evening at 7:00 P.M.
Michael d’Eça reviewed his activities over the past quarter. Considerable time was spent working with the Standing Committee on the Endangered Species legislation. Some members of the Standing Committee are favourably disposed to Co-management Boards, and presentations by these Boards have been well received so far. The Canada Oceans Act has become law and the changes which the NWMB suggested were accepted. The new Fisheries Act (Bill C-62) is not likely to make it through the current session of Parliament; the Bill must first pass second reading and then go to Standing Committee. Most of the NWMB submission regarding Bill-C-62 is complete, based on a detailed letter sent early to the DFO Minister. Michael also noted that an amendment to the NWT Elections Act should allow Board members to run as election candidates.
Michael reviewed his activity forecast for the next few months. He predicted that the “Marine Protected Areas Act” will be a priority, with the government keen to move this Bill along in Parliament. Assignment of Harvesting Rights is still an issue and QWB had requested his assistance in developing this package. Jim Noble cautioned against spending a lot of time on this issue since the Board has interpreted that Inuit have the lead responsibility.
Gordon Koshinsky questioned the status of obtaining liability insurance for Board Members and staff. Michael replied that this file is still open. The insurance company with which he has been communicating has not understood the NWMB situation (NLCA 5.2.39) whereby Members have liability protection in respect to discharging their powers under the Claim. The Board may still want to carry some liability insurance to cover some future situation, for instance if it came to grief exercising some power that it was later determined not to have had. Article 5.2.39 notwithstanding, there could also be costs to invoke the Article in a legal defence situation. It was agreed that Pierre Chartrand should continue to shop for reasonably-priced liability insurance.
Malachi Arreak noted that NTI is proposing that NWMB become a party to a Canada/Greenland Polar Bear Agreement. The NLCA does not call for the NWMB to do that, especially if it is not a negotiator. Malachi suggested that NLCA 5.9.5 refers/applies more to domestic (Manitoba-type) situations. Michael d’Eça agreed that there is no express requirement to do so, but neither is there anything to prevent the NWMB from getting involved. Whoever the parties turn out to be, it is essential that NWMB be consulted in the development of such an agreement.
Joannie Ikkidluak asked about the status of developing a process for assigning harvesting rights. Michael stated that Laurie Pelly for NTI has asked for advice on how to proceed. Jim Noble noted that Helen Klengenberg has indicated that NTI has this matter under control and there is no need for the NWMB to be involved. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that there is confusion about what remains to be done, and that it would be appropriate for the Board to assist by having Michael draft a set of principles. This could be sent to the Inuit organizations via Ms Pelly, who might then draft the protocols for implementation and administration. This could be an agenda item for the RWO/HTO Workshop in April. Kevin McCormick suggested that this was a good issue on which to base a clarification of the respective roles of NTI and NWMB. Joannie said that he is frustrated by the see-sawing, and proposed that NWMB get on with the exercise. Michael suggested that while the jurisdiction clearly rests with the Inuit organizations, the Board must foster its relationship with the RWOs and HTOs which have a vital interest in this matter. Gordon Koshinsky suggested a compromise: declare that it is the responsibility of NTI to lead in this matter, but ensure that they understand the pitfalls and principles that need to be taken into account. Michael d’Eça agreed to develop a set of principles and pass them to NTI for development of the necessary protocols, after which the package will come back to NWMB for approval.
7.F NWMB Fisheries Advisor’s Report
Ray Andrews reviewed his activity list with the Board. He predicted that turbot will continue to be a major topic of discussion at the federal level because of the different ways that Canada and Greenland manage their stocks. Ray noted that he and Ben had met with the DFO Minister on February 19 in Ottawa. Topics discussed included science, conservation, resource sharing and experimental fishing. The Minister seemed to appreciate the discussion. Ray suggested the Board may wish to focus in the next few months on:
Kevin McCormick suggested that the first step to effectively executing the Board’s role is to define that role very clearly. Gordon Koshinsky suggested writing to the DFO Minister as a follow up to the meeting just held. Ray agreed that a letter was appropriate to highlight and confirm the items discussed:
Michael d’Eça suggested that neither DFO nor GNWT nor the NWMB consistently act as though they are very clear on their respective jurisdictions regarding the marine commercial fisheries. Any allocations to the NSA require the approval of the NWMB. When a TAH is set within the NSA, NWMB has the sole authority to set quotas. Michael suggested that legal counsel should be obtained on any correspondence going out on these issues. Malachi Arreak noted that while the NSA ordinarily extends to 12 miles offshore, this can range out to as much as 100 miles in the region of land-fast ice, which also varies annually.
8. Member’s Reports and Concerns
David advised that Burnside HTA would like an increase in their hunting area for grizzly bears. Grizzlies are a nuisance in the outpost camps. Children are required to stay on guard in the camps while the adults sleep. He noted that Burnside only recently started participating with KHTA, and he requested deferral of this item to allow more opportunity to consult. Kevin McCormick asked if DRWED had been alerted to this matter. David stated that they were advised.
David advised that Gjoa Haven HTA is seeking funds to support dredging of two streams near their community. There is hardly any wildlife in that area (around the outpost camp) and people there get hungry at times. Michael suggested that they may have to go to the NWB or NIRB for approval to dredge. Ben Kovic indicated that the Board cannot act without a proper application. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that improving or developing habitat is not an NWMB role. David noted that the work is planned as a manual operation.
Malachi noted that he has been devoting attention to the concept of training for young/incoming hunters, particularly for the purposes of reducing strike/loss rates and optimizing use of the harvest. Malachi concluded that considerable work is needed to assemble information from elders and experienced hunters in order to make such a project effective and worthwhile. Gordon Koshinsky repeated his earlier suggestion that this would be an ideal use for the $100,000 which the GNWT is holding in trust “for conservation purposes” from the Town of Iqaluit. Michael d’Eça noted that training hunters to promote conservation is pertinent to the regulatory roles of the HTOs and RWOs pursuant to NLCA 5.7.3 and 5.7.6.
Malachi noted that in the 1950s, an aircraft with nuclear weapons on board crashed in the ocean near Greenland. Inuit in the High Arctic are getting concerned about the possibility of resultant contamination. In the past year and half there have been about twenty deaths (ages 40 to 55) due to cancer at Pond Inlet. Country food provides the bulk of these people’s diet. The question is whether currents are carrying radiation to wildlife species in the area. Malachi noted that he realizes this is not the jurisdiction of the NWMB, but the item could be referred to an appropriate agency. Ben Kovic suggested that a letter be sent to the Canadian Polar Commission. Michael d’Eça suggested it might be a matter for consideration by the Nunavut Marine Council (pending).
Gordon advised that DFO is setting up an internal “web site” on fish and wildlife management boards for use of their staff. They want to be sure of getting accurate information about NWMB for inclusion. Gordon advised them of current NWMB efforts to develop a formal Web Site, and DFO requested sharing of site information. The Board approved this sharing concept.
9. A Canadian Wildlife Service (DOE)
9.A.1 Snow Goose Population Concerns
Kevin McCormick referred to a recent report on Arctic geese that was prepared by a working group under the Arctic Goose Joint Venture. With the exception of Wrangle Island and McConnell River, virtually all colonies of snow geese started to increase in the late 1970s or early 1980s and are now over-abundant in some areas. Serious habitat degradation is occurring, notably along the western Hudson Bay coast and at the juncture of Hudson and James Bays, and some populations now exceed sustainable levels. Reasons for the population explosion are thought to include the following:
Kevin noted that climate warming is making the problem worse by drying out some coastal marshes.
Certain corrective management actions are proposed, aimed in particular at the mid-continental population of lesser snow geese. One goal is to reduce this population by 50%; this would require a 2-3-fold increase in harvest. Measures must take account of the fact that snow geese are not inherently the most popular birds among hunters. Culling per se is rejected as a management tool. The measures are still being refined, and input from the Board would be appreciated.
Ben Kovic asked if CWS was aware of the Arviat proposal to harvest 2000 snow geese this summer. Kevin said that they are aware, and noted that the harvest will require Ministerial approval.
9.A.2 Contaminants in Waterfowl
Kevin McCormick referred to a 1988-1995 reconnaissance by CWS across Arctic Canada, with sampling in the NWT in 1993 and 1994. Ten birds per species were pooled by location for analysis. No hazardous levels were found in geese, but a few isolated occurrences of elevated levels were found in some species higher in the food chain. These occurrences pertain to lead and cadmium mainly in livers, although a sample of glaucous gull eggs from Prince Leopold Island also had elevated concentrations. Health and Welfare Canada has declared that, for the most part, levels of contaminants are non-detectable or low, and not a hazard.
9.A.3 Ravens and Gulls: Nuisance Issue
Kevin McCormick reiterated that gulls, as migratory birds, are the jurisdiction of CWS whereas ravens are the jurisdiction of GNWT. In the event of serious nuisance concerns about gulls, CWS will issue permits for control. The community needs to approach the local Renewable Resource Officer, who will bring the matter to the attention of CWS. Procedures for dealing with nuisance concerns about ravens will need to be worked out with DRWED. Ben Kovic reported concerns in some communities about these birds nesting on the periphery of water-supply reservoirs.
9.A.4 Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary
Kevin McCormick reminded the Members that CWS had approached the Board a year ago regarding change of designation and boundaries for this sanctuary. The Board had agreed with the proposals, subject to further consultations by CWS. Several meetings were held, but the department has found that the myriad of new entities with uncertain and evolving jurisdictions has made consultation difficult and unproductive. The department has decided to put the matter on hold until the circumstances become clearer. Dan Pike noted that he recently recommended to NIRB that they deny an entry permit for mineral exploration, in accordance with an earlier Board directive dated 26 July 1996.
9.A.5 Banning Lead Sinkers and Jigs in NWAs and NPs
Kevin McCormick briefed the Board on the CWS initiative to ban sport fishing equipment made of lead from National Wildlife Areas and National Parks, in order to protect water birds. Although this matter has little actual significance for the NWMB and none for aboriginal fishery users, it does constitute a non-quota limitation and thus requires the Board’s decision. The Board decided in favour of the initiative. (Resolution 97-144)
9.B Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Gary Weber tabled the regular DFO Update of Nunavut Fishery Events and Issues. Malachi Arreak asked if the DFO position on (not) rejoining IWC had changed since the American response to the bowhead harvest. Gary replied that the position has not changed.
Gary Weber tabled a Fishery Management Plan Background Document pertaining to High Arctic narwhal. DFO recently met with HTAs in each Kitikmeot community. David Igutsaq was to join this tour, but could not participate due to illness. Gary advised that he has not been briefed on what transpired. He indicated that DFO will not be able to return to these communities in the near future. David Igutsaq reminded the Board that three communities in his area have a long-standing request for larger narwhal quotas. This request is supported by the KHTA and the KIA. Malachi Arreak asked if the Kitikmeot narwhal are the same stock as those in Baffin Bay. Gary stated that there is still uncertainty on this matter. Malachi noted that the various population estimates are not very comparable, and asked if there is a single best estimate. Gary pointed out that some of the estimates are not recent and noted that surveying marine mammals is not an exact procedure. DFO is continually refining survey methods. Dan Pike noted that many communities are requesting larger narwhal quotas. He stressed that DFO and the Board need to actively address this question. Ben Kovic suggested that the Members familiarize themselves with this matter and be prepared to discuss during the next conference call.
Stas Olpinski conveyed the regrets of the Makivik Members who were unable to attend this meeting. Gilles Chantigny, Head of Operations, Northern Quebec Area for DFO, reviewed the status of the Northern Quebec 5-Year (1996-2000) Beluga Management Plan. Gilles noted that the plan was tabled with the NWMB in the spring of 1996, for comment and support. Michael d’Eça asked if DFO considers that this management plan pertains to matters that would ordinarily be the jurisdiction of the NWMB. Gilles replied in the affirmative, to the extent that Eastern Hudson Bay belugas are harvested by the residents of Sanikiluaq.
Gilles noted that the Eastern Hudson Bay beluga stock is listed by COSEWIC as “threatened”, but uncertainty does remain about stock delineation and distribution. Genetic studies on stock separation are well underway but will take several years to complete. Migration studies are also contemplated. The main geographic focus of the current research is the Sanikiluaq area. The Eastern Hudson Bay beluga hunt in Quebec is tightly controlled through reference to the management plan, and the full allotment of 45 animals is harvested by the Quebec communities with no current provision for, or consideration, of any harvest by Sanikiluaq. Gilles noted that the management plan was negotiated with the full participation of Quebec Inuit, and compliance with the plan has been good.
Gilles suggested that precautionary management measures for the Sanikiluaq beluga hunt would be appropriate while new information is being developed. Kevin McCormick asked if there were any specific recommendations to the NWMB, since “precautionary” is not definitive. Gilles suggested that such measures might include quotas, seasonal focussing of the hunt, or some combination. Joannie Ikkidluak stated his opposition to such controls in the absence of specific information. Gilles and Stas, on the other hand, urged that the Board approve the management plan and then adopt a precautionary approach to implementing it for Sanikiluaq. Gilles hoped that the management plan could be dealt with at the forthcoming NWMB/Makivik meeting. Stas suggested that after the recent IWC meeting in Aberdeen, more international attention to beluga whaling can be anticipated. Co-managers need to be able to show good and defensible stewardship.
Dan Pike noted his expectation that DFO would present, at this NWMB meeting, the best evidence that is already available about beluga stock identities in this area. This has not occurred. Dan suggested that the Board can only operate with access to the best available information. Sanikiluaq hunters have certainly been cooperative, providing samples from nearly a hundred belugas in recent years. Preliminary evidence he has seen suggests that they are not harvesting the Eastern Hudson Bay beluga stock very much, if at all. Stas countered that tagging studies indicate at least some interchange of belugas between the two hunting areas. Michael d’Eça noted there are several items in the management plan that do not accurately reflect the NWMB jurisdiction. If the NWMB were to approve the plan it would first need to be re-drafted. Malachi suggested that such approval, involving a matter pertaining to the Areas of Equal Use and Occupancy, could only be actioned at a full meeting of the Board, including the Makivik Members.
Stas suggested that it may be better to negotiate the plan at the community level with local hunters before coming back to the NWMB. Sanikiluaq should be involved in such discussions. Malachi asked if communities such as Cape Dorset would logically be included. Stas suggested that Cape Dorset hunts a different beluga population and their participation would not be germane to the present issue. Ben Kovic suggested that this might also be a matter for the attention of the QWB. Ben noted that Sanikiluaq walrus hunting is controlled by quota whereas Nunavik walrus hunting is not: something else to be considered. Michael d’Eça advised that the matter falls under NLCA Article 40. Section 40.1.3 provides for “the negotiation of agreements between Inuit…..respecting overlapping interests and claims”. Malachi Arreak noted that NWMB does not represent Inuit per se and stated his preference that Inuit-to-Inuit negotiations start with NTI. Stas Olpinski stated that they were interpreting the NLCA to the effect that NWMB would be the lead agency. Malachi suggested that it would be the role of NWMB to consider and approve any actual management plan, but establishing the political framework for it is the function of NTI. Michael confirmed that the management mandate is clear: NWMB has the authority to approve such a plan for the NSA, along with the authority to submit its decision to the Minister. Kevin McCormick suggested that the matter embodies issues of both process and biology. He suggested that Michael d’Eça and Dan Pike examine the management plan and develop a list of required amendments and an action plan for the consideration of the Board.
Gary Weber advised that the aim is to have a document drafted for community review and comment by April 1. Based on this and other input, DFO hopes to have the management plan ready for the May meeting of the Board. Stas Olpinski noted that numerous comments had already been submitted and asked if these were being taken into account. Gary advised that they were. Stas stated that Salluit wants to re-activate their walrus sport hunting initiative in 1997 and asked if they will need to reapply. He also asked if Salluit could proceed with the hunt as agreed last year in the event that the management plan is not completed. Ben Kovic suggested that Salluit could proceed on the basis of last year’s approval; however he expected the management plan to be completed. Gordon Koshinsky and Jim Noble suggested that a new application should be made as a matter of due process since circumstances do change, even though there is no intention to deny approval. Under laws of general application, all such initiatives should expect to apply annually. Gary Weber indicated that the hunt plan (component) is the minimal management planning requirement for the 1997 hunt. DFO needs to know the basic parameters of the hunt if they are to issue the licence. Michael d’Eça urged that there be adequate opportunity for prior review by the Board if the May meeting is a real target for approval of the management plan. Malachi Arreak suggested that the Board can expect more applications for walrus sport hunting in future.
9.C Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development
Glenn Williams pointed out the absence at this meeting of DRWED personnel from Yellowknife. This is part of the conscious effort by the Department to develop and strengthen its separate Nunavut profile.
9.C.1 Northeast Mainland Caribou: Status Report
Glenn Williams reviewed the briefing note pertaining to the population trend of caribou on Melville Peninsula and north of Wager Bay. The 1983 estimate was over 120,000 animals, whereas a May 1995 survey estimated 72,000 animals. The population has either declined or shifted. Caribou often rotate their winter range, but are generally quite faithful to their calving grounds. The recent significant decline of this population on the calving grounds is a matter of considerable concern. Studies are underway to understand this decline and the NWMB can probably expect an application for funding assistance in the near future (but not for 1997).
DRWED is considering setting up an Ungulate Technical Committee (comparable to the Polar Bear Technical Committee) to provide advice on research topics and priorities. David Igutsaq noted that caribou passing Taloyoak enroute to the calving grounds have decreased over the past three years.
9.C.2 . Gyrfalcon Downlisting (CITES)
Glenn Williams noted that Canada and the USA will not be proceeding with downlisting of gyrfalcons as was previously proposed. There is still a problem of confusion with (genuinely) endangered European gyrfalcons and an open Canadian market would destabilize the situation. Gordon Koshinsky noted that NWMB Motion 97-110 to support downlisting was subject to tabling of certain information by GNWT. Since this information was not tabled, the Motion is not activated.
9.C.3 Polar Bear Research and Management Activities
Mitch Taylor tabled a status report prepared for the Board on activities in 1996. The report comprised two sections.
With respect to research, Mitch noted that the Baffin Bay data indicate the need for another year’s work. Greenland is harvesting more bears from that population than was initially believed, which might indicate overharvest. Another aim is to begin work in the Central Arctic (Gulf of Boothia and M’Clintock Channel areas) in 1998. There are also plans to inventory the Davis Strait population, with Labrador contributing $60,000 for radio-collar work. The previous study is now over 20 years old, and Greenland and Quebec also harvest from this population. Work is also required on the South Hudson Bay population, with Ontario to take the lead.
With respect to management, Manitoba is seeking a government-to-government agreement. An initial meeting was held with representatives from Greenland and it was agreed to start working towards a co-management agreement. The process for setting quotas was reviewed at the Polar Bear Technical Committee meeting last month and the process was endorsed. Mitch is preparing a report on the meeting, which also passed two resolutions of importance to sport hunting. The IUCN Polar Bear Technical Group has interpreted that sport hunting is completely acceptable for taking polar bears. Tags for sport hunting do not add to quotas, and sport hunting results in fewer kills overall because not all such hunts are successful. Sport hunting also takes more male than female bears. Another resolution from this meeting was to the effect that taking of cubs is acceptable as long as reproductive females are protected.
Mitch advised that some interpretations of over-harvesting both now and in the past may actually derive from under-estimates of population; therefore biologists are not looking to reduce quotas, at least for the present. Malcolm Ramsay is starting a study of radionuclide contaminants in polar bears at Resolute Bay. Canadian polar bears are generally among the least contaminated. DRWED plans to establish an Animal Care Committee, and the NWMB will be asked for input.
Glenn Williams tabled a progress report on the wolverine project under the West Kitikmeot Slave Study Society. NWMB is supporting this ongoing study, and continued funding is being requested. The study is providing a good demonstration of the effective use of traditional knowledge and local expertise.
9.C.5 Peary Caribou Situation Report
Glenn Williams advised that there is no new information on the survival or status of the stock. No new reports are expected until hunters start travelling to Bathurst Island in March.
9.C.6 Effects of Polar Bear Immobilization and Handling
Glenn Williams anticipated that this matter was going to be discussed at the recent meeting of the Polar Bear Technical Committee. In fact, the subject received little attention. Dr. Ian Sterling is planning to do a thorough review, but this is not imminent. Gordon Koshinsky noted that information received to date has been more in the nature of compilations of historical technical publications rather than an up-to-date and user-friendly compilation of the Canadian Arctic experience in context. His expectation was that this was going to be done by one or both of the government agencies some time ago, after which the NWMB would decide if an “independent” assessment was warranted (refer Motion 97-012). Perhaps there has been a problem of conflicting expectations, which should be clarified. Joannie Ikkidluak repeated his observation that polar bears which are immobilized more than once end up in very poor physical condition. Although he appreciates the need to use such technology, there is considerable resistance to it in the communities. Mitch Taylor indicated that polar bears in general have been in relatively poorer condition the past two years for environmental reasons, and this may be confusing local interpretations. There are of course many possible ways in which bears could be affected by the procedures, other than outright toxification. There might be impacts on subsequent hunting behaviour, for example. There is however no reason to fear effects on humans from consuming the meat of bears which have been subjected to immobilization. The material disappears very rapidly from the tissues, and bears are being distinctively marked (painted) so that hunters can easily avoid them for at least a year. Mitch indicated that a “plain-language” report on the subject will be provided within eight months.
9.C.7 Polar Bear Management Agreements (MOUs)
Glenn Williams noted that the development of MOUs with the communities turned out to be an iterative process: improvements derived in the course of completing the later ones were subsequently incorporated in the earlier ones as well. A composite package has been sent to the HTOs for their review.
Glenn reminded the Board that the MOUs contain various calls and commitments to action on the part of agencies. One of these is a call to NWMB to streamline the process of compensating communities for “non-beneficiary polar bear kills”. This matter is currently causing serious concern at Grise Fiord. Malachi Arreak confirmed that there have been a number of recent incidents at Grise Fiord, of researchers killing polar bears in apparently rather careless fashion. This has eroded the food and income opportunities of that community, which relies heavily on polar bears. Wildlife researchers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
