|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Download PDF (136K) Printer Friendly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARDMINUTES: MEETING No. 24SANIKILUAQ, 23-25 NOVEMBER 1999 Agenda Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Regular Meeting 23, Naujaat Financial and Administrative Business Financial/Variance Report to 22 November 1999 Chairperson, Staff and Members’ Reports Chairperson’s Report Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting Environment Canada (CWS): Issues and Decisions Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Issues and Decisions Integrated Ocean Management Initiatives Government of Nunavut Wildlife (DSD): Issues and Decisions Compensation for Inadvertent Polar Bear Kills NWMB Internal Items: Issues and Decisions Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study: Update NTI Wildlife Division: Issues and Decisions
Funding Programs: Reviews and Decisions
Executive Committee Report and Recommendations
Date and Location of Next Meeting
1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, convened the meeting at 9:10 a.m., Sanikiluaq time. Ben called on Joan Scottie to lead the opening prayer.
Ben welcomed the NWMB Members to this the 24 th regular meeting of the Board. He introduced Annie Amitook, the Mayor of Sanikiluaq. Ms. Amitook welcomed the NWMB to Sanikiluaq. She noted that this is a peaceful and receptive community but since it is very isolated few organizations come here to hold their meetings. She announced that there would be a public reception and feast on Tuesday evening. She wished the Board success in its deliberations.
Ben thanked the Mayor for her remarks. He announced plans to have a public meeting on Wednesday evening, and issued an invitation for community members to come prepared to interact with the Board.
2. Agenda: Review and Approval The Agenda was accepted as presented, with the addition of one item pertaining to a request for permission to access the NSA to fish shrimp. (Resolution 2000- 067) 3. Minutes: Review and Approval 3.A Regular Meeting 23, Naujaat
The Minutes for Regular Meeting No. 23, held at Naujaat on 24 - 26 August 1999, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 2000- 068)
3.B Conference Call No. 44
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 44, conducted on 14 October 1999, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 2000- 069)
3.C Conference Call No. 45
The Minutes for Conference Call No. 45, conducted on 4 November 1999, were adopted with minor adjustments. (Resolution 2000- 070)
4. Financial and Administrative Business 4.A Financial/Variance Report to 22 November 1999
Jim Noble, on behalf of Gordon Tomlinson, tabled an overview of the NWMB financial situation to 22 November, in the form of a detailed variance report. Jim noted that the report was based on a revised budget of $5,507,934, with respect to which a negative variance of $42,693 is being projected to the end of the fiscal year.
Board Members questioned a number of details in the report and urged continuing efforts to improve the presentation. The Board accepted the report, subject to a number of minor clarifications. (Resolution 2000- 071)
4.B Final Budget Submission to DIAND for 1999/00
Jim Noble reported that the Board’s revised 1999/00 expenditure projections as per Resolution 2000- 065 (Conference Call 45) had been submitted to DIAND. The funding agreement has been revised accordingly. Jim reminded the Board that this budgetary revision entailed the re-profiling of $272,558 to future years.
Gordon Koshinsky asked if the Implementation Panel had been advised of the Board’s interpretation of this re-profiling, as the Board had instructed. Jim undertook to confirm that this had been done, and if not to action it immediately.
4.C New Funding Arrangement with DIAND: Update Michael d’Eça referred to his briefing note of November 18 wherein he reviewed the history of this matter and set out his recommendations to the Board. The Board instructed Mr. d’Eça to continue acting as spokesperson for the NWMB (and for the other IPGs as they deem appropriate) in further negotiating this matter with DIAND. The Board agreed that the priorities for revision remained those current provisions that pertain to termination and repayment of unexpended funds. Secondary objectives for negotiation would pertain to manoeuvrability in respect to satisfying accountability requirements, and entrenchment of the Board’s independent profile.
The Board spent some time discussing contingency plans if the negotiations now underway were unexpectedly derailed.
5. Chairperson, Staff and Members’ Reports Ben Kovic focussed his report on a recent meeting with the Premier, the Minister of Sustainable Development, and the President of NTI in which the participants agreed to cement a new partnership for the benefit of wildlife and fishery users in Nunavut. There was considerable discussion about the turbot fishery, and the NTI President confirmed that NTI was proceeding with its appeal of the most recent decision of the Federal Court. All agreed that it would be appropriate to seek a political resolution even while this litigation was underway. The participants agreed to meet quarterly.
5.B Executive Director’s Report Jim Noble provided a straightforward synopsis of his activities since the last Board meeting. Two new staff were hired during this period, to fill the recently-vacated Harvest Study Co-ordinator and the Finance/Administration Officer positions.
Harry Flaherty urged that provision be made for Board Members to play a more active role in screening and hiring decisions in future staffing actions. Ben Kovic noted that he has always been involved in at least some part of the hiring process. Ben observed that the Monday-morning staff meetings that Jim has begun co-ordinating on a regular basis have had a positive impact on office operations.
5.C Director of Wildlife Management Report Michelle Wheatley referred Members to her activity report for the period since the last Board meeting. She noted that most of her major activity items had specific places in the agenda for the present meeting. Gordon Koshinsky suggested that a procedure be developed to specifically identify items in activity reports that were scheduled for more detailed treatment at subsequent points in the agenda. 5.D Director of Finance and Administration Report
Jim Noble read the activity report on behalf of Gordon Tomlinson. Work is continuing to upgrade the Board’s computer systems, streamline personnel management policies, and complete the annual report. David Alagalak requested that a needs assessment report be prepared with respect to office equipment, including and especially EDP components
Michael d’Eça tabled a comprehensive report on his work for the Board over the preceding two months. Highlights included the preparation of major briefing documents with respect to the decision by the Federal Court of Canada to dismiss NTI’s application for Judicial Review of the DFO Minister’s decision of 9 June 1998 with respect to Davis Strait turbot, the position of the IPGs with respect to negotiating with DIAND for a more appropriate permanent funding instrument, and issues for consideration in the preparation of new wildlife legislation. In addition and among other things Mr. d’Eça made extensive preparations for the NWMB Strategic Planning Workshop including background documentation, and also provided extensive input into the arrangements by DFO to charter a vessel from Greenland to serve as the platform for the turbot survey in Davis Strait. Major items for attention prior to the next Board meeting will include documenting the output from the Strategic Planning Workshop, participating in negotiations to develop a more appropriate funding arrangement for the IPGs, and working with various agencies in their development of new legislation pertinent to the NWMB.
5.F Fisheries Advisor’s Report Michelle Wheatley referred Members to Ray Andrews’ activity report for the period since July 15. Highlights in which Mr. Andrews participated on behalf of the NWMB included a meeting of the Federal-Provincial Atlantic Fisheries Committee, the DFO Science Review in respect to groundfish stocks, consultations preparatory to the forthcoming Canada-Greenland meetings, and an inaugural meeting of agencies concerned about marine fisheries and sealing issues in Nunavut.
5.G Members’ Reports and Concerns David Alagalak brought three matters of concern to the attention of the Board: • Adequacy (or not) of Funding for RWOs David stated that it has been his experience that the RWOs are under-funded. In his view, this has undermined their scope and effectiveness, which in turn has eroded their credibility with the people they are meant to serve. The RWOs could and should be stronger partners of the NWMB in executing its mandate. David suggested that the roles of the RWOs need to be more clearly defined, and that funding needs to be provided that is consistent with their functions. Members noted that NTI had a similar item on their portion of the agenda for the present meeting.
• Funding for Wildlife Studies and Research David advised that in the last couple of years he had tried to motivate the communities in his Region to identify their concerns about wildlife that could be the subject of research programs. When he tried to obtain such input this year there was very little response. There seems to be considerable disillusionment; people perceive that their suggestions for research are not being taken seriously and are not being funded. David suggested that some of the available funds be setaside for each Region to conduct wildlife studies as they and the communities see fit. These would tend to be studies of a lesser scale than research projects ordinarily undertaken by government agencies.
• Reimbursement of Members for Conference Calls Members elected to defer consideration of this matter to a later point in the agenda.
Harry Flaherty also identified three concerns for the attention of the Board:
• Implementation of new management systems for marine mammals Harry expressed concern that elimination of the quota for beluga whales at Iqaluit may be resulting in some abuse of the resource. Harry was also concerned about the utilization of harvested animals, both beluga and narwhal. He noted there was provision in the agenda to address both items, and agreed to postpone detailed discussion. • Polar bear management Harry reiterated his concern about the “flexible quota system” for polar bear management that is currently in effect. He suggested that the onus that this system places on individual communities is too severe. He continued to advocate for a serious review and a significant overhaul of the system.
• Communication initiatives of the NWMB Harry has come to the conclusion that the Board must not be communicating adequately with the people of Nunavut. If the RWOs could be rendered more effective, it would be a very positive step towards addressing this problem.
Makabe Nartok asked why DSD is considering an extension of the current study of the M’Clintock Channel polar bear population. The study was scheduled to end in 2000, and hunters are concerned about the prospect of more bears being handled. Stephen Atkinson replied that the researchers are having difficulty capturing enough bears to meet the requirements of the statistical programs for confirming population identity and determining abundance. It will not be known until the scheduled three years of study effort are completed if more mark-and-recapture data will be needed.
Joan Scottie advised that she is in receipt of invoices from her Internet provider that she cannot reconcile with her usage and billing arrangements. Jim Noble agreed to investigate.
6. Completion of Assignments and Resolutions from Last Meeting
Jim Noble referred the Members to the Task List with status notations included in the briefing binder. Jim noted that the vast majority of the identified tasks arising from the last meeting were once again completed or are well underway. Two of the items generated some discussion, namely:
7. Environment Canada (CWS): Issues and Decisions
In the absence of any departmental representatives at the meeting, documentation only was tabled by way of providing updates on the following:
8. Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): Issues and Decisions
Ben Kovic introduced Burt Hunt, the newly-appointed DFO Area Manger in Iqaluit. Bert noted that Winston Fillatre was also attending his first NWMB meeting.
8.A Integrated Ocean Management Initiatives
Jack Mathias reminded the Board that the new (1997) Oceans Act calls for the development and implementation of a national oceans management strategy for Canada. As one tool for the pursuit of that strategy, the Act provides authority for DFO to lead in the establishment of integrated management plans pertaining to activities in or affecting Canada’s oceans. The Department is providing support to coastal communities for participation in this planning process.
The Department has initiated the development of such management plans for three coastal areas of Manitoba pertaining to Hudson Bay. The first stage in the development of these plans is to gather the necessary information. Jack noted that since Hudson Bay is part of Nunavut Zone II waters under the NLCA, and since part of the ocean off the Manitoba coast is designated as “Nunavut Waters in Manitoba”, this process needs to involve the Nunavut Government as well as the Nunavut institutions of public government.
Jack also advised that the Department is proposing to facilitate an integrated management initiative for the coastal area around Clyde River, contingent upon the establishment of the Igaliqtuuq National Wildlife Area (NWA). In this case, the aim is to conduct a pilot project that places a de facto marine protected area within a broader management-planning framework. The process will entail a detailed examination of coastal resources, and will look for ways that these resources might be more effectively used in an integrated and sustainable manner to generate wealth at the local level. The process will be conducted independently of the negotiations for an Inuit Impact Benefits Agreement in respect to the NWA. Once again, this initiative cannot proceed and cannot succeed without the active participation of the Nunavut Government and the Nunavut IPGs.
David Alagalak encouraged Jack to ensure that the Keewatin communities are appropriately consulted in the course of planning pertaining to Hudson Bay. Some of those communities have started to be supplied by fuel tankers, and people are concerned about whether there is adequate charting to accommodate such traffic. Bert Hunt pledged that the DFO Area Office will monitor these initiatives to ensure that they do not proceed unilaterally. Jack confirmed that any studies that are undertaken will make provision to collect and take account of traditional knowledge.
8.B Resource Person for the Nunavut Marine Council (NMC) Jack Mathias confirmed to the Board that DFO is prepared to fund a staff member to assist the NMC in developing positions with respect to Nunavut marine issues pertinent to the Department’s efforts to develop an oceans management strategy. The Department envisages that this individual would act as a conduit for information and ideas, and would help to draft documents and other materials for the NMC. He or she would also serve as a resource person with respect to legislation and government programs. It is anticipated that the position would be for a three-year term, subject to annual review. The salary would probably be about $50,000. DFO would cover salary costs, and also housing if necessary. DFO would also provide some funds for travel to communities for consultations. The IPGs would be equal partners with DFO in developing the job description, and it is hoped that the IPGs will participate actively in the process of selecting a person to fill the position. The duties will need to be designed so as not to impinge on IPG jurisdictions.
Jack reminded the Members that this matter has been under consideration and has been the subject of debate for some time. The NWMB has tended to be the focal point for the discussions on behalf of all the IPGs. It is intended that the individual be located in Nunavut. It is hoped that the individual could be housed in the offices of one of the IPGs, most logically the NWMB. Day-to-day oversight of the position would be the responsibility of the IPG that provided the office accommodation and other administrative amenities. An intensive orientation process is anticipated for whoever is hired. Depending on the individual, this may require spending some time initially in a number of federal offices. The incumbent will need to have, or will need to develop as a matter of considerable priority, a strong comprehension of DFO’s oceans sector. The proposal still needs to be presented in detail to the other IPGs. Legal counsels for all the IPGs seem to be in agreement that the NWMB should take the lead on behalf of the others.
David Alagalak, being a relatively new Board member, requested more background on the NMC in general, and on the proposal to hire a resource person in particular. Michael d’Eça explained that the NMC is founded in Article 15.4.1 of the NLCA. It is made up of the four IPGs: the NIRB, NWB, NPC, and NWMB. As such, the NMC is an optional vehicle for providing advice and recommendations to government concerning marine issues. It is up to the IPGs to shape and operate this entity if and how they see fit. The IPGs have decided that when they assemble themselves for the purpose of jointly considering and recommending with respect to marine issues, they thereby and for that purpose automatically constitute themselves as the NMC. As such, the NMC is viewed as “perpetually available” but not as a standing entity. The first time the NMC was “constituted” was in December 1998, when the IPGs decided to make a joint submission in respect to Bill C-48, an Act respecting Marine Conservation Areas. The NWMB has a natural interest in the NMC mandate because wildlife and wildlife habitat (including fisheries) are central to virtually every marine issue. Although DFO sees a functional NMC as a key ingredient to developing an integrated oceans management strategy vis-à-vis the Arctic, the DFO jurisdiction does not directly extend to the formation or operation of such an entity.
Meeka Mike noted that the NWMB has not been a strong supporter of the NMC concept, and that uncertainty remains about how the NMC will actually work. In view of this she wondered how realistic it was for the NWMB to play the role of lead advocate with respect to this proposed position. She urged that if the position did materialize it should indeed be located in Nunavut. She also suggested that having a good draft of a job description would help put the matter in better perspective.
Jim Noble requested clarification about internal-hiring priorities in the federal government vis-à-vis the proposed staffing action. Jack replied that preference could be given to a Nunavut beneficiary as per the aboriginal hiring strategy. It will be up to the selection committee to decide how widely to advertise for candidates. Jack indicated that if the NWMB registered support, he would work with the IPGs to draft a statement of qualifications and establish a selection committee. He requested direction from the NWMB on whether and how to proceed.
David expressed support for the initiative, while urging that every effort be made to recruit within Nunavut. Gordon noted that there has been no negative indication about the initiative from any of the other IPGs. They all seem prepared to proceed, under the leadership of the NWMB. Michael suggested that the NWMB might support the matter in principle, and formally advise the other IPGs and DFO of details regarding the preferred arrangement(s), including references to a framework of duties, range of salary, selection process, and the parameters of NWMB support. The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 072) to endorse in principle the DFO proposal to create and staff a position to be located in Nunavut to assist the NMC.
Jack declared his intention to work through the DFO Iqaluit Area Office to implement this initiative.
8.C New Beluga Management System (SE Baffin): Update Patrice Simon reminded the Board of its decision (August 1998) to eliminate beluga quotas for the communities of Iqaluit and Kimmirut, this pending the initiation of appropriate hunt and harvest monitoring programs. In responding to this NWMB decision, the Minister interpreted that it would be for a one-year trial period. Patrice presented preliminary totals for the 1999 harvest (which he acknowledged to be incomplete) as follows:
Community Killed and landed Killed but lost Wounded and escaped Iqaluit 55 5 23 Kimmirut 9 2 1 Pangnirtung* 50 +/-2 Not collected Not collected *An annual quota of 35 beluga remains in effect at Pangnirtung.
Patrice pointed out that a large number of belugas were harvested at Iqaluit this summer, and more were wounded and lost. It seems that Iqaluit hunters found beluga to be much more readily available than usual in Frobisher Bay. There were also reports that there was a tendency for the beluga to be different than in previous years in respect to colour, size and behaviour. Based on these reports the Department initiated a program to collect samples for genetic analysis. A report on the 1999 season is being prepared for the meeting of the SEBBMC in February. The Department will suggest that the HTOs develop by-laws to govern these beluga hunts, along the lines of what some communities have done to implement the new narwhal management system. Meeka Mike noted that the narwhal hunting rules developed by Pond Inlet were very good, both in content and detail. She suggested that they might serve as a model for a situation such as beluga hunting in the Southeast Baffin.
Harry Flaherty stated that the preliminary beluga harvest data as presented for Iqaluit are “not even close” to numbers that he has been hearing in the community. One individual hunter claims to have taken 17 beluga, and “is proud of it”. Whatever system may be in place to monitor the beluga hunt at Iqaluit is having little or no effect in constraining it. According to his information, the actual harvest at Iqaluit will be well beyond the harvests of recent years, and this is of concern. Patrice explained that the preliminary figure of 55 beluga landed at Iqaluit was derived from the data sheets that were returned. These data sheets are part of the monitoring kits that DFO supplies to the HTOs for hunters to take with them when they go hunting. Patrice wondered if Harry’s information might pertain to all belugas struck, not only those landed. The HTOs do actively encourage their members to report, but it is difficult for DFO to ensure that the reports are actually submitted.
David Alagalak asked if information from the Harvest Study could be used to corroborate the number of beluga whales landed at Iqaluit. Patrice replied that the Harvest Study data are not yet sufficiently up-to-date, although those data will certainly be pertinent eventually. He affirmed that the collection of harvest information and samples had been a primary goal of the new system at the outset.
Meeka asked if DFO compensates hunters for taking and submitting samples and information from harvested whales. Patrice replied that there was no payment this year because the information requested was extremely basic: just numbers of animals landed, killed but lost, and wounded/escaped. Hunters at Iqaluit were also provided with a cord, to be knotted for recording beluga lengths. DFO considers that it is reasonable to expect hunters to do minimal reporting of this nature as part of their responsibility under co-management. If actual tissue samples are requested (as for narwhal and walrus in some communities) then payments are made.
Gordon Koshinsky noted that the decision to eliminate beluga quotas for Iqaluit and Kimmirut was taken in anticipation of enhancing beluga conservation, certainly not with the aim of subverting it. He suggested that it was still premature to try to evaluate whether the new marine mammal management systems were functioning as anticipated. It was certainly not his intention at this point to try to offer congratulations or to assign blame. He was confident that the NWMB would play its proper role, at the proper time, to ensure that any shortcomings were identified and corrected. The next step was for the SEBBMC to conduct its deliberations and, in the case of narwhal, for the Narwhal Working Group to develop and submit its conclusions.
Gordon indicated, however, that there was a related matter that was causing him concern beyond the question of whether or not beluga in Frobisher Bay were being appropriately harvested and utilized under the new management system. He referred to the evidence of poor compliance and weak enforcement in respect to some of the very explicit rules that are in effect. Gordon explained that after a long period of often-acrimonious debate, much time and effort was spent a few years ago to negotiate and reconcile an annual beluga quota of (specifically) 35 animals for Pangnirtung. This was established as an interim quota, to be re-assessed after the collection and analysis of an agreed-upon set of new information at the end of a prescribed period of time. In view of all that, Gordon found it disconcerting that 50 or more belugas are now being harvested at Pangnirtung with little apparent attention to the quota of 35, this prior to the scheduled re-assessment of that quota. Gordon noted that the number of beluga harvested at Pangnirtung in recent years has been gradually escalating beyond the quota, and asked how a community could progressively arrive at the point of over-harvesting its beluga quota by 50%. He considered that this was disrespectful of resource-management decisions that were made in good faith, through considerable effort, and with good representation.
Patrice confirmed that the Pangnirtung HTO has had difficulty managing the beluga hunt. Winston Fillatre noted that DFO has generally maintained a low profile in respect to enforcement in the NSA. A few warnings were issued at Pangnirtung this summer, but no charges were laid.
Gordon persisted to know more about how the system is actually administered. How is a particular hunter authorized to go out and harvest a particular number of beluga whales out of the overall allotment? Is there some kind of a tag system in place? Patrice replied that there is no tag system. The HTO is responsible to ensure that the quota is not exceeded. When the harvest approaches the quota, the members are asked to check with the HTO before going out. At Pangnirtung, the HTO has tended to stop the hunt initially at about 30 animals, reserving the other five “for contingencies”. This general approach has not been entirely effective. It is in fact very difficult to manage such a quota without the use of tags.
Patrice reported that both cliff-based and aerial surveys of belugas at Pangnirtung (in Clearwater Fiord) were done this summer. The results will be available for the forthcoming meeting of the SEBBMC. The information will also be discussed with the HTO and hunters at Pangnirtung. The elimination of quotas at Iqaluit and Kimmirut probably was and remains a worthwhile venture. The SEBBMC will need to consider whether any remedies should be attempted. The lack of formal rules and bylaws may have contributed to the larger-than-expected harvest at Iqaluit. Some people may have interpreted the new system as a kind of free for all. It is legitimate to ask whether the reporting system is working as well as was intended, and there is a need to seriously assess if changes should be made. Ben Kovic noted that the mix of cultures (including a variety of Inuit cultures) represented in Iqaluit poses a unique challenge for wildlife management.
Michael d’Eça noted that the NWMB decision to remove beluga quotas for Iqaluit and Kimmirut contained no reference that this was to be for a one-year trial period. It would be unusual for the NWMB to make such a decision, since these kinds of initiatives typically take more than one year to evaluate. That the DFO Minister chose to interpret the NWMB decision in the manner that he did would seem to represent a unilateral modification of the NWMB decision by the Minister.
8.D New Narwhal Management System: Update
Patrice Simon distributed updated 1999 narwhal harvest estimates for the four communities that had been approved by the NWMB to participate in the new non-quota management system. He noted that these figures were not yet final, and that they were probably quite incomplete for Qikiqtarjuaq. The preliminary totals are:
Community Killed and landed Killed but lost Wounded and escaped Pond Inlet 130 16 14 Repulse Bay 149 30 68 Qikiqtarjuaq 76+ 0? 0? Arctic Bay* 101 N/A N/A______ * Arctic Bay ended up not participating in the new management system in 1999
Patrice suggested that the quality of reporting in respect to narwhal landings and strikes has been very good. The size of some of the harvests remains a concern. Good information is generally lacking on the disposition of the animals that are harvested. The impression is that very little of the meat is utilized, and that only the maktak is typically taken. Some elders have expressed concern about this. Advice from the NWMB is invited. A summary report on the new management system is being prepared for the meeting of the Narwhal Working Group in December.
David Alagalak suggested that the narwhal harvests in particular communities be assessed in the context of the overall harvest in Nunavut. Low harvests in some areas may compensate for high harvests in others. David also requested a copy of whatever data and reports that DFO provides to the Narwhal Working Group. Patrice advised that the Repulse Bay HTO has made some changes and is considering further modifications to their hunting rules in an effort to lessen some of the problems encountered this year.
Harry Flaherty urged that a stronger stand be taken (by DFO) to encourage more complete utilization of harvested animals. David recalled that DFO has requested the NWMB to provide assistance with the definition of edible parts, this in the context of revising the marine mammal regulations.
Patrice predicted that more communities will seek elimination of narwhal quotas. At least three additional communities (Hall Beach, Igloolik and Pelly Bay) have started to prepare hunting rules in anticipation of this. Pangnirtung has also expressed interest. The Pangnirtung quota of 40 narwhal was easily harvested this year, and the community requested and obtained the transfer of some unused tags from Iqaluit (5) and Clyde River (10).
Makabe Nartok asked why Arctic Bay ended up not participating in the new narwhal management system, after obtaining approval from the NWMB to do so. Patrice replied that in the end the Arctic Bay HTO was unable to arrange the necessary meeting to finalize their hunting rules.
Harry suggested that consideration be given to instituting a requirement that narwhals, and probably also belugas, be harpooned before being killed with rifles in order to lessen the numbers lost. Moses Koonoo agreed that conservation and sustainability needed to be first-order priorities of the Board. He suggested that developing guidelines for hunting would be very complicated. Hunting procedures are highly variable among communities, depending on local circumstances. Rules that might be appropriate for open-water hunting might not be appropriate in ice cracks or at the floe edge. Harry agreed that a requirement to harpoon whales before shooting them with a rifle would probably be unrealistic for a floe-edge hunt.
Gordon Koshinsky suggested that the new management systems for marine mammals have produced results in the first year that have been good in some ways, but worrisome in others. These new systems must be evaluated objectively and with open minds. We must try to promote sound management principles. Harpooning is one possibility, and it is important to start exploring ideas such as this. It will be the responsibility of the SEBBMC and of the Narwhal Working Group to lead in this. The NWMB can of course provide input as well as receive it.
8.E DFO Regulatory Revisions: Update
Winston Fillatre reminded the Board that DFO is developing new Fishery Regulations for Nunavut, pertaining to sport fishing, commercial fishing, fishing by Inuit as specified in the NLCA, harvesting of marine plants, and other fishing-related matters. This will be a “made-in-Nunavut” initiative, and the aim is to have a discussion paper for circulation early in the new year.
Winston also provided an update on what Gary Weber reported at the last NWMB meeting with respect to the development of new Marine Mammal Regulations. The Department aims to have a draft of these new regulations sometime early in the new year, for consideration by the NWMB and others. These (Marine Mammal) Regulations will be national in scope.
Michael d’Eça reviewed some of the history of interactions between the Department and the NWMB pertaining to the initiative to amend the Marine Mammal Regulations. The NWMB seems to be effectively excluded from the process, as a result of a sequence of communications from DFO that were misleading and/or misunderstood. Michael reiterated the concerns he expressed at the last NWMB meeting, that there are fundamental problems with how DFO is pursuing this matter. Not enough attention is being paid to getting agreement on preliminary matters.
Burt Hunt noted that representatives of the NWMB, DSD and NTI did meet for preliminary discussions and mutual assurance regarding participation in these regulatory initiatives. With respect to the new Fishery Regulations, it was agreed that DFO would develop a discussion paper for consideration by the various stakeholders. It was deemed important to prepare something to get the process underway; this is now scheduled for January. DFO will also work with its co-management partners in determining how to approach the communities.
8.F Walrus Sport Hunting in 1999
Winston Fillatre reported that based on the total of 41 walrus sport harvests approved for 1999, eleven walrus were harvested at Igloolik and one at Salluit. 8.G Walrus Sport Hunting in 2000
Michelle Wheatley reported that not all the HTOs have yet submitted their proposals and requests for approval to conduct walrus sport hunting next year. It was agreed to wait until all the requests are received, and then deal with them as a package.
Michelle Wheatley reported that the first meeting of the Walrus Working Group was held in September, and considerable progress was made. One of the key items in the task list that was developed is the commitment by Dr. R. Stewart of DFO to develop an options paper on approaches to walrus management. The Working Group plans to meet again in April.
8.I Request to Fish for Shrimp Inside the NSA
Michelle Wheatley directed the Board to the briefing note that she had prepared on this matter. The matter pertains to the 1750 MT exploratory shrimp fishery in Shrimp Fishing Area (SFA) 2, north of 63°N, off the coast of Baffin Island.
In July, the NWMB allocated a total of 475 MT of this shrimp fishery to four groups that subsequently pooled their allocations and made arrangements with one vessel to fish on their behalf. The vessel made very poor catches in the designated portion of SFA 2 outside the NSA. These four groups are now requesting permission to fish their allocation inside the NSA. The four groups in question are Quliruak Incorporated (Amarok HTO), Mittimatalik HTO, Kabva Marine, and Mayukalik HTO / KTJ Holdings. Michelle also advised that the turbot fishery interests at Pangnirtung are opposed to permitting this shrimp fishing venture to come into the waters of Cumberland Sound, for fear of disrupting turbot habitat.
Gordon Koshinsky observed that granting the request would be tantamount to focussing harvest activity that had been envisioned for quite a large territory into a much smaller area. He asked if this raised any conservation concerns. Michelle suggested that it did not, citing the fact that shrimp are highly mobile organisms.
The Board decided (Resolution 2000- 073) to approve the request from the four groups in question to attempt to harvest their 1999 exploratory shrimp allocations in that portion of Shrimp Fishing Area 2 within the NSA, but with the waters of Cumberland Sound to be excluded from this authorization.
Wednesday, 24 November 1999
The Chairperson, Ben Kovic, re-convened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. He called on David Alagalak to offer an opening prayer.
9. Government of Nunavut Wildlife (DSD): Issues and Decisions
9.A Compensation for Inadvertent Polar Bear Kills
Stephen Atkinson reminded the Board that polar bears that are occasionally killed by accident or in self-defence are charged to the quota of the nearest community. This is in fact not so rare an occurrence as is commonly supposed. Over the period 1993 – 1998, a total of 153 polar bears were killed in Nunavut as a consequence of nuisance control, self-defence, or handling by researchers. The bulk of these were perceived problem bears that were killed by beneficiaries.
A streamlined system for handling payment of compensation to communities in these situations has long been an objective for many of the agencies and interests operating in the Arctic that do or could find themselves inadvertently killing polar bears. Agencies conducting research on polar bears per se have a special interest in this matter because they sometimes cause polar bear mortality directly through their work. Discussions among agencies to date led to the conclusion that DSD should draft a discussion paper exploring options for a streamlined, and hopefully standardized, compensation system that addressed polar bear kills that happened in the course of research being conducted in Nunavut. The CWS subsequently urged that such a system be developed to compensate for any polar bears killed by non-beneficiaries, with the exception of those killed in connection with industrial operations. These latter situations would be covered through Article 6 of the NLCA.
Stephen tabled a draft discussion paper that was recently prepared by DSD, and which the Department hopes will be a constructive step in this direction.
In essence, it is proposed (as per this discussion paper):
A number of alternative ways are explored in the discussion paper for calculating the replacement value of a polar bear tag. These values might be determined on a community-specific, regional, or territorial basis. The underlying determinant would be the use pattern for polar bears, notably the apportionment between sport hunting (valued at, say $15,000 per bear) and subsistence use (valued at, say $1,500 per polar bear hide). It is envisaged that there would be a payout from the fund only if the kill was found to have been justified. Alternatively, the fund might pay out regardless, and then seek redress from the perpetrator or from his/her agency if the kill was deemed to be unnecessary or avoidable.
Meeka Mike urged that assigning valuation to a polar bear in the subsistence economy take account of more than the value of the hide. For instance, the meat has value in the order of $1,000 per animal, and the claws are worth up to $1,500 per bear. Stephen agreed that determining the value of a polar bear is the key and probably most difficult part of this exercise. He also noted that it is not only the communities that have a stake in the market value of a polar bear sport hunt; other contenders might include outfitters outside Nunavut, booking agents, airlines, etc.
Meeka also observed that formally alerting communities to the potential loss of polar bear harvesting opportunities from inadvertent kills, even if compensation is assured, might be a motivation for opposing the conduct of research during the polar bear hunting season if and when sport-hunting tags have not yet been completely filled. Stephen pointed out that that there would be no new harvesting loss implications under such a compensation system, but rather that such losses would now be compensated in a pre-agreed manner.
David Alagalak suggested that it often is and would continue to be difficult to assign a particular polar bear that was killed inadvertently to a particular community or even to a particular group of communities. Both polar bears and the people who benefit from using the bears tend to be more far-ranging than is often appreciated. The “ownership” of polar bears is in fact widely held among the people of Nunavut.
Harry Flaherty noted that the compensation system as proposed would key on the present system of polar bear management in Nunavut to the extent that it would extrapolate from the age and sex of any bear so-killed to the number of tags subsequently lost. Many communities have expressed serious dissatisfaction with this management system, and it would be useful to obtain the input of the RWOs before proceeding very far to build a compensation system that is based upon it. Stephen agreed that a compensation system could not be developed without consulting the RWOs; in fact it would be prudent to also consult the HTOs, at least those that have experienced the most incidents of polar bear defence kills.
Moses Koonoo advised that more consideration should be given to the possibility that increasing encounters with problem polar bears are simply due to an over-abundance of bears. A major source of difficulty with such bears is their destruction of meat caches. Moses noted that the value of a polar bear sport hunt in his community (Arctic Bay) is $20,000.
Harry noted that the compensation formulas as drafted end up computing fractional numbers of polar bear tags lost. Such derivations would be very difficult to explain at the local level. Any formulas used should deal in whole numbers of bears. Stephen agreed that simplicity was a key consideration, and that it was crucial that people in the affected communities understand how compensation would be calculated. Harry also suggested that not all killing of the so-called nuisance bears by beneficiaries is completely legitimate. He noted that there are no penalties for this, other than reductions in the community quota. David suggested that the number of problem bears is in fact increasing in some places, such as around Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet. He attributed this in part to a recent increase in the numbers of beached bowhead whales.
Gordon Koshinsky applauded the initiative of Mr. Atkinson and DSD in this matter, and offered encouragement for the work to be taken to a functional conclusion.
9.B Development of a Public Safety Program vis-à-vis Bears
Stephen Atkinson reviewed a DSD initiative now underway to increase public safety with respect to bears, and simultaneously to reduce the number of bear defence kills. The main focus of this effort in Nunavut, of course, is polar bears; however grizzly bears are also of concern in this context. It is planned to develop a comprehensive program to include pubic education, behavioural research, and development of deterrents. A number of more immediate interim projects are also underway; these include the production of a video on ways to avoid problem encounters, and field tests of a new type of electric fence. A longer-term undertaking might be the development of community-specific “action plans” for bear management. Such plans could include the identification of different types of zones adjacent to and within the community, in each of which the discovery of a bear would trigger a prescribed type and intensity of response. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
