“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions”
11-13 SEPTEMBER 2012
Delta Centre-Ville, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
PROCEEDINGS & SUMMARIES
PREPARED BY:
Tyler D. Rudolph1
Aurélie Bourbeau-Lemieux2
1
2
Biologist M. Sc. [email protected]
Biologist M. Sc., Cree Regional Authority. [email protected]
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CARMA: CircumArctic Rangifer Monitoring & Assessment Network
GNL: Government of Newfoundland & Labrador
GRH: George River Herd
LRH: Leaf River Herd
MRNF: Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune
TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
2
PROCEEDINGS – DAY 1
September 11, 2012
RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION
09:00 Welcoming Address by Denis Vandal (MRNF)
-
-
-
On behalf of the HFTCC, welcome to all representatives
4th meeting of this type:
o 1975 (Schefferville)
o 1994 (Labrador)
o 2001 (Kuujjuaq)
o 2010 (Montreal)
Caribou = socioeconomic, cultural and spiritual importance, etc.
The situation of caribou concerns all stakeholders (e.g. Native and non-Native
hunters, outfitters, governments).
We are not the only ones in Québec and Labrador to experience problems like
these. We are many, and we must work together to ensure the survival of
migratory caribou, an emblematic species of Northern regions.
We sought a qualified person who would be up to the task of facilitating this
workshop and we decided on Louis LaPierre. I ask you to consult his
professional career record. Louis holds a doctorate in biology, is Professor
Emeritus at the Université de Moncton and he has been the Chair of the
Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research since 1996. He was
appointed a member of the Order of Canada in recognition of his
contributions to the environmental cause.
Introduction of the Organizating Committee members and acknowledgments.
Recognition of sponsors and acknowledgements.
We wish to encourage productive, respectful discussion.
09:12 Opening Prayer by Bobby Snowball (Makivik Corporation)
09:14 Denis Vandal: Introduction of Mme. Nathalie Camdem (Deputy Minister,
Faune Québec), Guy Hétu (Director General of MRNF, Nord-du-Québec region),
Pierre Bérubé (Director General of expertise on wildlife and habitat, MRNF), and
John Blake (Director, Wildlife Division, Environment and Conservation, GNL).
09:15 Introduction by Louis LaPierre
-
Good morning. Please be respectful of everyone’s views and also of the time
that has been allocated. Please reserve extended discussions for one-on-ones
afterward.
I wish you all constructive deliberations.
HFTCC Migratory Caribou Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
3
Proceedings – Day 1
-
Future management of the resource will be different from the past. There are
many examples of dwindling resources. Participants have the responsibility to
ensure the conservation of the caribou resource for future generations.
09:19 Summary of HFTCC’s 2010 Migratory Caribou Workshop by Stas Olpinski
(Makivik Corporation)
-
-
-
Good day. In February 2010 many of the people here today were in
attendance; however the context was different. The numbers of caribou in
existence at that time were different than they are today. We are interested
in three populations (Leaf, George, Torngat) that affect a great number of
parties and governments. In 2010 there was a suspected decline in numbers
of caribou; the last aerial census had been in 2001 so the context of the
discussion was speculative and addressed the need for a new management
plan. A plan produced by the HFTCC concerning the Leaf & George River
herds expired in 2010. We were seeking perspective on the causes of the
decline and ways in which we should approach a new strategy for ensuring
their long-term persistence.
2010: Information on caribou populations, human activities (harvest, habitat),
management themes and TEK.
2010 Key findings: consensus on herd declines of great concern to outfitting
industry and aboriginal peoples (not for sport but for food); estimated
declines since 2001 were 15.4% for the George, 13.5% for the Leaf. Noticeable
reduction in alpha males (perhaps due to trophy hunting) was also noted, and
this was thought to contribute to issues with population reproduction;
declines in the size and shape of summer habitat (GRH) and other indicators
(LRH); LRH is expected to recess northward and the GRH is expected to
remain near Labrador; LRH population trend generally follows GRH. Body
condition is declining in LRH but is improving in GRH.
Catastrophic decline of the GRH; early action is required. Is the monitoring
program doing enough? What can be done to improve it?
Detailed information on the harvest of caribou is required, also predation
mortality by wolves, bears, etc.
Predator control?
Parasites/diseases and impacts on population health?
Negative interactions between muskoxen and caribou (displacement).
Caribou is a fundamental food item for the Crees, Naskapis, Innus, Inuit in
both Provinces so this is an issue of food security. Caribou cannot be farmed.
Insights were provided by elders in 2010 regarding TEK; caribou movement
behaviour and reproductive success seems to have changed either due to
declining numbers or climate change (mosquitoes), etc.
How do we work with TEK? It is not the same body of data that scientists use.
How do we incorporate such knowledge into management decisions? How
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
4
Proceedings – Day 1
-
-
can we build a stronger, better bridge between users and managers? How
can all types of available information be better used?
Today: situation is much more severe, particularly with respect to the GRH.
Past decisions were, in hindsight, questionable, and some issues even ended
up in court. This is costly and doesn’t necessarily improve conditions for
caribou. Let us hope we can achieve some successful results through this
workshop, ideally ending with some management recommendations /
decisions that can be applied to the three different herds.
In memoriam: Cree elder John Petagumskum, passed away 15 January 2011,
who encouraged respect for caribou and eliminating waste of these precious
animals.
LEARNING FROM APPROACHES ELSEWHERE
09:37 Natalie D’Astous: presentation of Don Russell, Coordinator of the
CircumArctic Rangifer Monitoring & Assessment Network (CARMA). Former
biologist in Yukon, focus of research: factors affecting caribou populations.
09:38 Presentation by Don Russell:
“Overview of the CARMA Network”
-
Thank you to the organizers. There have been synchronous declines in
circumboreal/circumpolar caribou.
Outline:
o Status of North American herds
 Low population levels in 1970, increasing in 1980, rapidly
expanding in late 1980’s, most herds on decline by 2000. In
2010 some herds began increasing (e.g. Porcupine), whereas
others are still in “the trough”. LRH is still declining but we
hope the GRH is at it’s lowest.
 LRH & GRH are the largest of all North American caribou
populations but also experience the largest fluctuations.
o Harvest management in recent declines
 Bathurst herd: relatively large in 1986 (450,000 animals), by
1996 estimated at 350,000; 120,000 by 2006; dramatic crash to
2009 when 22% of herd was harvested. Harvest closure in 2011.
 Management Plan recommended in 2004
 Outfitters restricted in 2006
 Emergency Interim Measures by Government of
Northwest Territories in 2010, however not implemented
until June 2011.
 Five years between harvest restrictions and
implementation.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
5
Proceedings – Day 1

Cape Bathurst herd: ~20,000 in 1992; 11,000 in 2000; very low
with 30% harvest in 2005.
 2006 survey to confirm 2005 survey
 Total harvest restriction in 2007
 1.5 years from recommendation to implementation
 Porcupine herd: 178,000 in 1989; 120,000 in 2001; <100,000 in
2009; Comprehensive Harvest Management Plan signed in
2007, adopted in 2010.
 Workshop in 2001 to explore implications of harvest
policy
 No census possible from 2001 and 2010
 Three years between identified need and management
action
 Herd now on the rebound
o Management & monitoring during changing abundances
 Harvest management should be implemented sooner to allow
greater recovery time; this could be applied to the LRH at this
time, which likely cannot sustain an increased harvest from
former GRH hunters.
 Possible management goal = “reducing fluctuations in
abundance”
 Control harvest, slow rate of decline and reduce recovery time
 Example of Taimyr herd in Russia: during the increase phase,
harvest controlled population size; however once harvest was
drastically lowered the herd growth rate increased. The result
was a 15-year delay in the peak.
o Wolf control
 See Russell (2010): review of all wolf control programs in Alaska,
Yukon, BC, Alberta and NWT.
 For smaller herds wolf control is effective but only with
tremendous $$$.
 Taking 30% of wolves out of the range every year has no effect
on overall populations.
 Trapping alone has never been effective.
 Has never really worked for barren-ground caribou
o Calving ground protection
 WWF (Canada): Comprehensive Conservation Plan for calving
grounds; reviewing current status, etc.
 Increasing density on calving grounds at high population sizes
 LRH & GRH extreme examples, yet very low proportion of
tundra, which could have consequences for range quality.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
6
Proceedings – Day 1
-
o Comparison with other herds
 LRH & GRH: cool, moist summers suggest productive cases with
less mosquitoes than other herds, though deepest snow and
highest potential for icing conditions.
o Cumulative effects assessment
 Information on body size, climate variability, vegetation, and
population density all go into an energy-protein model. This can
be linked to vital rates (birth, death, etc.) and fed into a
population model. Information on the evolution of climate
change and development can be used to create different
projections and understand partial effects.
 What are the effects of different harvest policies on herds at
different points along size trend?
Next CARMA workshop on December 4-6, 2012 in Vancouver. Priorities include
managing and monitoring through abundance cycles, calving ground
conservation, and cumulative effects assessment.
10:12 Louis LaPierre: Please reduce health break by five minutes to bring us back on
track. Thank you.
HEALTH BREAK
10:30 Gregor Gilbert (Makivik Corporation): Introduction of Joe Tetlichi, Chair of the
Porcupine Caribou Management Board.
10:31: Presentation by Joe Tetlichi:
“Overview of the Status and Management of the Porcupine Caribou Herd”
-
-
-
Good morning. Thank you to the organizers for inviting me to this important
meeting. Caribou is important to all stakeholders. I am from the Gwich’in
Nation and I am here to discuss the Porcupine caribou herd. I have been with
the Porcupine Caribou management board (established in 1985) for the last 15
years.
The herd occupies a vast area of 250,000 square miles and includes Alaska,
Yukon and NWT. In 2000 the International Porcupine Caribou Herd
Management Board was established. The board would like to see the
Porcupine range protected. One of our main goals is to ensure the herd is
there for future generations.
Canadian Board consists of five aboriginal parties; these parties have the right
to enact laws on their traditional lands. The other parties on the Board
include the Governments of Canada, Yukon & Northwest Territories.
Communities strategically located along migration route of the Porcupine
caribou herd (from Alaska to winter range in Yukon), so migration is important
and cannot be obstructed.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
7
Proceedings – Day 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
From 170 000 caribous, the population reached in 2001 123 000 caribous:
Population reduced by 55,000 over ten years; this greatly concerned
communities.
In 2004 we decided to develop a harvest management plan in case the herd
went down lower and created a draft scoping document. We needed a
protocol agreement signed by all affected Governments. Then we needed a
Draft Management Plan, then a Native User Agreement.
In 2007 hunters of the Cape Bathurst & Bluenose West herds (the hunting of
which was then restricted) moved over to the Porcupine range to harvest that
herd, which greatly concerned resident communities. Then there was a
resolution for the conservation of the herd.
Between 2004 and 2007 we began consulting different communities (eight
communities on the Canadian side). We also formed a working group
comprised of two members of each party to flesh out the framework; this
took another two years. In the meantime, on their own initiative communities
reduced or ceased harvest, or decided to cease harvest of cows (because to
take one bull instead of cow gives a lot more caribous 10 years later…).
The board is not a governmental organization; it is a management board to
give recommendations to governments (e.g. on allocations).
In 2010 we produced the harvest management plan. Assigning responsibilities
and implementing the plan were important, so in February 2011 we signed the
implementation plan, containing actions or milestones that each community is
charged with.
The Dempster highway cuts right through the home range of the Porcupine
caribou herd. This creates problems, including the possibility of
overharvesting due to easy access and safety issues. Every year in late August
there is a one day closure hunt, to build awareness on safety.
Once collaboration is attained, we hope we can reach agreement among all
parties. Collecting TEK from aging elders has been important to us, and we
have attempted to integrate this knowledge with the scientific knowledge.
Now when caribou reach the Dempster highway in early July to late August,
there is an immediate closure to the hunt. Defining the exact moment of the
closure is not easy. People flocking to all harvest the first caribou creates a
safety concern. People employ TEK by allowing the cows to pass, only
harvesting the bulls.
The Board only provides recommendations to the Governments. The
communities have to embrace them in order for them to be successfully
implemented.
The caribou is near and dear to all our communities so its health and long-term
prosperity is important to us. Many challenges face the caribou, including
climate change, and we don’t want to contribute to its downfall.
The Native User Agreement (used for allocation to different groups) is the
responsibility of the users and the communities, not the Board.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
8
Proceedings – Day 1
-
11:01
The fire ban colour scheme (red, yellow, orange, green) is used as a function
of climatic conditions, and we use that approach to determine the timing and
choice of hunting closures based on estimated population size. There are
different management actions associated with different colour classes.
People always claim that harvesting is their right, yet because it is a right we
have the responsibility to ensure the protection of the resource, and that has
taken time for us to understand.
Collaboration, involvement of communities, and working together, making
sacrifices (hunt less to ensure there are caribou left for future generations),
and local policing, all contribute to a successful program.
Thank you, merci.
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): Introduction of Daryll Hedman, Vice-Chair of the
Beverly & Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, Manitoba Conservation.
11:02 Presentation by Daryll Hedman:
“Overview of the Status and Management of the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq
Herds”
-
Beverly, Pen Island & Cape Churchill herd examples in Manitoba. Here we
work closely with First Nations.
MANITOBA:
o Four different types of caribou in Manitoba:
 Barren-ground
 Migratory (tundra & forest)
 Smaller-bodied
 Boreal
 Forest-dwelling
 Larger-bodied
 Coastal
 Migratory
 Larger-bodied than boreal caribou
 Antlers similar in size to barren-ground but shaped like
woodland
o History/background of Pen Island caribou (see presentation)
 63 collars deployed to date, 18 mortalities
o Identification of needs
o We now have extensive relocation data for the Pen Island and Cape
Churchill herds.
o Some recent collaring of wolves, although other wolves usually chew
off collars. One young male travelled 1,600 km in ten months. One
adult female travelled 4,000 km in 4.5 months.
o We try to bring an elder from one of the communities out with us
when we do caribou captures so they can see what we’re doing.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
9
Proceedings – Day 1
-
11:24
Before doing so we went into the communities and explained what
we’re doing. The communities were very opposed to collaring caribou
in the summer by water and we have heeded their wishes.
Beverly Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board:
o Thirteen members total
o Non Government or regulatory board established in 1982
o Members from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, & Nunavut
o Concerned about the future of caribou and the people who depend on
them.
o Held workshop in 2010
o Issues include climate change, poor hunting practices, predators, and
disturbance.
o We all need to work together to do our part to help caribou. Summary
of the workshop.
o Protect important habitats
o Avoid disturbance, habitat loss
o Take no more than needed
Louis LaPierre: Opening of Questions for the three presenters and General
Discussion period
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): How many caribou can
we safely harvest? I’d like an opportunity for us to place collars as well. I
don’t know which Government was doing this but they have stopped and we
can no longer follow the caribou movements on maps. For us as hunters this
type of information was very useful, especially in the winter time when we
hunt for food. I am hoping for more discussion on this. I’m not saying we are
going to kill them, we just want to know where they are. We have not known
for two years now.
Louis LaPierre: The first question concerned caribou numbers.
Daryll Hedman (Beverly & Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board): I am not a
biologist, I am a manager, but I will try to answer your question. We consult
the communities to try and understand what the numbers are so we know
what percent of the herd we are harvesting each year. I haven’t been very
concerned about harvest pressure; I am more concerned with harvesting
practices, for example with respect to white hunters who are more familiar
with moose, which may injure animals and allow them to escape. With
respect to the second question, the Board has done a good job of convincing
the communities of the importance of collaring animals to better understand
them. With the Pen Island and Cape Churchill animals, we disallow hunting
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
10
Proceedings – Day 1
during summertime. If the First Nations didn’t want collaring, we wouldn’t be
doing it.
Louis LaPierre: Who funded the collaring?
Daryll Hedman (Beverly & Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board): It was the
management board with Governments.
Joe Tetlichi (Porcupine Caribou Management Board): We had similar problems
convincing communities to agree to the collaring of caribou, which they
eventually did in the late 1990s. At that time hunters were using the collar
locations on our website to target animals, which other community members
complained about. We therefore removed that information from our website.
Alaska Department of Fish & Game and the Canadian Wildlife Service fund our
collaring efforts.
Don Russell (CARMA): How much you harvest depends on your management
objectives.
Natalie D’Astous (Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach): When you are in a “yellow”
situation with the Porcupine herd, what kind of harvesting rules do you
employ? How many aboriginals/users are interested in the caribou issue? Are
mining interests represented on the management board?
Joe Tetlichi (Porcupine Caribou Management Board): 1) Voluntary cessation. 2) We
have approximately 10,000 users. 3) Mining interests are represented by the
Canadian Government.
Don Russell (CARMA): There is a lot of potential for mining in our territory but not
much taking place at this time.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation, Nunavik): Prior to scientific researchers we had
traditional knowledge. I am responsible for wildlife management at Makivik
Corporation. When our people were nomadic and monetary currency did not
exist. At that time hunting was for subsistence purposes and the hunter did
not harvest more than he needed for that did not provide anything. If you are
on the land with only money in your pocket you will not survive. However if
you can hunt, harvest, and clothe yourself, that is how you survive. I was
raised that way as a child and Inuit hunters are knowledgeable in that aspect
and use the animal as a whole without waste. In the past we traveled without
motorized vehicles; by dogsled in winter. There was no pollution in the past,
but motorized vehicles (motor boats, ATVs, snow machines) use gasoline
which is a pollutant to the environment. To this day I have not heard from any
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
11
Proceedings – Day 1
experts to what extent gasoline is negatively affecting the environment. In
my experience, since non-Indians have been involved with the native way of
life, sometimes I see animals stranded on ice floes. In the summertime if they
cannot find the leader’s trail they get lost or get into accidents. There was a
herd of 10,000 caribou that drowned in 1980; we knew why this happened.
The caribou is a very vulnerable species. If they are traveling on choppy
waters they can drown. We have made efforts to make scientists understand
native traditional knowledge but I am interested in understanding the
knowledge of other native groups. I have been to see the Saami people who
are very skilled and successful at farming reindeer. At the same time there is
no combination of science and Inuit traditional knowledge. We would like to
see this happen but there is no trust in our knowledge.
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): In our experience scientists are very
good at understanding caribou, but that knowledge has limits. In the early
years caribou were very plentiful. Ten-fifteen years ago we began seeing
numbers drop. The GRH has crashed and is in deep decline. The would have
seen the decline coming years ago if they had consulted communities. They
rely 100% on collar location data and do not collect information from the
communities, which is wrong. If there is no traditional component to their
approach the communities are never going to accept it. Inuit communities
have great knowledge about caribou and need to be integrated in
recommendations. The Porcupine example is something we can draw from to
see a similar approach applied in Labrador. What leads might you have to
make our efforts more successful?
Joe Tetlichi (Porcupine Caribou Management Board): The local people know more
what is happening on the land than we do. Every year we consult 20 local
experts to better understand what is happening on the land base. Local
knowledge is important, but how do we justify using it for management
purposes? Example: after ten years with no data, the Yukon Government
thought the population was troubled and placed restrictions on hunting off
the Dempster highway, yet there was NO consultation with the communities,
who saw no reason for an intervention. This almost resulted in a court action
but the Government pulled back. The two parties really need to work
together to make a win-win situation; consultation is key.
Don Russell (CARMA): During the ten-year period without quantitative data,
community knowledge indicated the population was in a much better
condition based on their ability to meet their needs with a surplus. Without
the harvest management plan there would have been no impetus to finalize
an appropriate action. The Board treats local knowledge with an equal
weighting when considering appropriate management actions.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
12
Proceedings – Day 1
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): Question for Joe Tetlichi re: Native Users
Harvest Agreement (not consequence to land claim agreements). You speak
of an international effort involving eight parties. Do any of these parties have
legally assured harvest levels and how is their input into the management
process considered? How do you ensure compliance? How did you achieve
concensus on allocation, and did communities have a protected level of
harvest? Does it involve some groups that allocations are more protected than
others?
Joe Tetlichi (Porcupine Caribou Management Board): That is why the harvest count is
so important. People hesitate to give the information on how many caribou
are hunted every year. We justified our needs for the harvest count in the
Native Users Agreement. Different percentages of the harvest come from
different parties (e.g. 15% from Alaska); therefore when we restrict the harvest
we do so proportionally. This is advantageous for them. Our next step is to
create a Native Harvest Users Agreement implemented in Alaska (Gwichi’in).
Compliance is ensured through the protocol respected by each First Nation.
Everyone is concerned with caribou declines and wants the species around for
future generations. This being said, there are always bad apples and
therefore challenges. Dealing with these situations goes back to the
communities’ responsibilities.
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): Question for Mr. Blake (GNL
representative).
I have always provided information to Government
regarding my hunting practices. Adjacent to my community (most southerly
Inuit community in Canada), we have ~5000 animals identified as the Mealy
Mountain woodland caribou herd. Since 1968 hunting of that herd has been
prohibited. For 50 years we have pleaded and begged and presented our local
knowledge to Government, asking for our right to hunt the caribou for our
traditional purposes; the answer has always been no. In four or five years a
great number of George River caribou settled on an island and reproduced
every year, gradually deteriorating the habitat. We asked for the right to hunt
these animals but were denied, yet these animals literally starved to death on
that same island. I have traveled all over the territory hunting for over 35
years and I have seen low numbers in the 70s and high numbers in the 90s and
the way things are today. Will the Government support a recommended
sustainable harvest? The answer will be no, yet we know without a doubt that
it can be done. If we are not taken seriously as aboriginal people, we will still
be here in 50 years discussing how we still have no right to hunt.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
13
Proceedings – Day 1
12:10 Louis LaPierre: Thank you to the presenters, whose presentations have put a
lot of things into perspective. I encourage everyone to follow time allocations
as they have.
LUNCH BREAK
13:30 Louis LaPierre: Presentation of John Blake, Director of Environment &
Conservation, Wildlife Division, Government of Newfoundland & Labrador
13:32 Presentation by John Blake:
“Existing Structure for the Management of the Herds (Leaf River, George River
and Torngat Mountains Herds)”
-
-
-
-
Three Designated Caribou Units:
o 1) Torngat caribou range
o 2) George River caribou range, and
o 3) Sedentary Caribou Range (i.e. Lac Joseph, Red Wine, and Mealy
Mountain herds).
Migratory and sedentary herds overlap during winter.
Management Zones:
o George River (Aug. 10 – April 30)
o Torngat Mountain (Aug. 10 – April 30)
o Extension Zones (periphery of sedentary ranges based on presence of
large numbers of GR caribou).
Accountability for caribou management in Labrador goes to the Minister of
Environment & Conservation, considering input from:
o Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board
o Aboriginal considerations
o Torngat Mountains National Park Co-Management Board
o Nunatsiavut also makes recommendations.
GR harvest management strategy:
o Prior to 2010:
 Two caribou per licence
 Ability to transfer licences
 Lengthy season (August to April)
 Outfitting
 Commercial harvest
o November 2010:
 Quotas
 Eliminated the commercial harvest and outfitted hunting and
licenc
 e transfer
 Reduced quota from two to one
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
14
Proceedings – Day 1
-
o 2012:
 Further management action required
 Bilateral consultations
 NL & QC
 Input on BNL/TAH
 Advisory Committee
 Aboriginal and non-aboriginal user groups (Labrador)
 Provide input on management actions
 No decision-making power
 Management plan expected in fall 2012.
Torngat caribou herd
o Largely data deficient
13:42 Presentation by Denis Vandal (MRNF): “Management of Migratory Caribou
Herds”
-
-
-
Management plan based on:
o Population size
o Recruitment, mortality, trend
o Health and body condition
o Migration and habitat use
o Portrait of the harvest
o Impact of human activity and industrial development
Many objectives regarding populations and habitat
Many hunting zones reflecting the distribution of the herds
Organization:
o MRNF
 Roles
 Responsibilities
 Development of the management plan
 Protection
o HFTCC
 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), 24.4.1
 Participate in the development of the management plan
 Federal, Provincial Governments, Cree, Inuit, Naskapi members
o Nation Innu de Matimekush-Lac-John
 Composed of the Matimekush Nation and Government
 Advisory role, select committee
Provincial wildlife panel Regional wildlife panel - This meeting is important for
the MRNF with regard to information and the formulation of the management
plan for the three herds and for pursuing discussion following the meeting
with various stakeholders.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
15
Proceedings – Day 1
AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE ON THE TORNGAT MOUNTAINS HERD
13:53 Louis LaPierre: Introduction of Aaron Dale (Policy Analyst, Torngat Wildlife,
Plants & Fisheries Secretariat), Serge Couturier (Caribou Biologist), & Eric
Andersen (Torngat Wildlife & Plants Co-Management Board).
13:55 Presentation by Serge Couturier:
“Scientific Knowledge on the Torngat Mountains Herd”
-
Torngat: “the Forgotten Herd”, small herd
Important to the communities of Kuujjuaq and Nain.
Migratory herds are distinct units
o Use of traditional calving grounds for centuries
Partial range overlap along QC-Labrador peninsula
Limited emigration have been reported between George and Leaf River herds
(Boulet et al. 2007)
Bergerud (1988) introduced the ecotype concept
o Migratory
o Sedentary
Also mountain ecotype, e.g. Gaspésie, Torngat
Is the Torngat herd different from the GRH and/or from sedentary caribou in
southern Labrador and Quebec?
Scientific monitoring since the 1970s:
o Reconnaissance surveys
 Le Henaff (1975): small groups of caribou on all islands and
along coastal areas
 Bélanger & Le Henaff (1985) roughly estimated 5000, and
thought it seems as a group of caribou different than the
George River Herd
o Space use and annual range
 1986-2003 (Boulet et al. 2007)
 Collaring by Stuart Luttich (1988-1995)
 Eight collared caribou
 Low survival (average = 732 days)
 Schaefer & Luttich: Caribou of the Torngat Mountains (1998)
 March 1997-1999: QC Government & Makivik study to confirm
the distinctiveness of the Torngat herd
 Four radio-collars
 Low mean survival = 338 days
 March & April 2011: study by QC, NL, and Torngat Secretariat
 Ten radio-collars
 Very low mean survival = 337 days
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
16
Proceedings – Day 1
o Genetic differences
 Boulet et al. 2005, 2007 (see figure in presentation)
 Torngat herd is genetically different from all herds except the
GRH and LRH.
o Body size
 Torngat caribou are different in size and shape than other
types. Bigger than George River caribou
o Movement
 Couturier et al. 2010
 Move more than sedentary caribou but less than migratory
caribou
14:11
Presentation by Eric Andersen:
“Importance of Integrating Aboriginal Knowledge into the Management of the
Torngat Mountains Herd”
-
Traditional knowledge into management?
Genuine concern is being expressed by communities about the status of the
Torngat caribou herd. For example, in the past caribou would live close to
Makkovik and ranged to the west in the Mealy Mountains. In a nutshell, those
caribou are now gone.
In 1969, people from Makkovik moved north to hunt caribou using ten HP
skidoos with sealskin bridles. At that time the trip to Nain would take at least
one-two days, whereas today it can be done by anyone in six hours.
We need to listen to local people sharing their traditional knowledge.
Not enough recognition was given to Inuit women for their knowledge in the
past.
The more we can work together, land users, aboriginal people and elders, the
better.
-
14:19 Presentation by Aaron Dale:
“Importance of Integrating Aboriginal Knowledge into the Management of the
Torngat Mountains Herd”
-
Seventeen traditional knowledge interviews held between 2009 and 2012
We know Torngat caribou are different
Hunted
Regionally important for food security, socially, culturally
People are concerned that there are fewer today
We think they share range with GRH
Mortality appears to be high
Predation appears to be high
Similar population drivers as the GRH and LRH
Population distribution is changing
Smaller group sizes
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
17
Proceedings – Day 1
-
-
-
Fewer stags
Population is declining and very low
Research Priorities:
o We know very little about numerous important areas
o Need future partnerships
o Telemetry
o Survey
o Harvest survey
o TEK survey
Possible management actions:
o Status quo (i.e. nothing, unregulated harvest)
o Delay action (more of the same but with continued research)
o Take action
 Predator control
 Stewardship & education
 Restrict or redistribute harvest pressure through:
 A total allowable harvest
 Sex selection
 Closed areas
 Gear restrictions
 Closed seasons
 Trip limits
 Other
Two founding principles in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (Part
12.1) that are relevant here include:
o Conservation, i.e. “the management of wildlife, including the
management of human activities in relation to them, to foster
Sustainable Utilization and maintenance of natural populations,
biodiversity and ecological processes”, and:
o The Precautionary Principle, i.e. “if there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage to wildlife, measures to prevent the reduction or
loss of the wildlife should not be postponed for lack of full scientific
certainty”.
PLENARY SESSION
14:25 Louis LaPierre: During the open session we can provide comments and
suggestions; there will be another session for questions at the end. The
plenary sessions are designed to provide information and stimulate
discussions that can contribute to decision making.
-
The Themes are:
o 1) Acquisition of knowledge
 Are there gaps in traditional science or traditional knowledge?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
18
Proceedings – Day 1
o 2) Harvest, sharing and best practices
 How can this be facilitated?
o 3) Protection of seasonal habitats
 Are they important?
 Do they still exist?
 Where do they fit in an industrialized landscape?
 What kind of protection do they need?
o 4) Management and collaborative solutions
 What are the opportunities?
 How to reconcile different perspectives?
14:30 Questions and General Discussion
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): It seems as though every party is
planning to act unilaterally. Caribou do not recognize our political boundaries.
We need to focus on the caribou in particular and not the boundaries. Our
people know there is a problem and are prepared to accept restrictions.
However if we do this, what are people in Quebec going to do? I don’t get the
impression we are going to change the way we have been doing, yet I see an
important opportunity to work together today.
Willie Etok (Makivik Corporation) from Kangiqsualujjuaq: I am also a hunter. I also
grew up with caribou as a source of clothing and food. I am not against what
is being implemented but I would like to raise other considerations concerning
the caribou of George River. They have not arrived in George River for three
years now. We harvested four nearby for the community, not for economic
benefit. There were few last year near Kangiqsualujjuaq but this year there
were more, yet they are not migrating far south. In the past few years they
have almost reached George River but turned around. Wolves and black bears
are killing caribou; bears are now seen in the tundra. Ever since I was born we
have hunted for animals, but we are careful hunters and make sure we only
harvest what is needed. Today we try to distribute what we have harvested
to the whole community. In the past I had an outfitting camp for four years
but now we are required to stop the harvesters, and I think only local people
should be allowed to harvest caribou. With respect to collaring, please be
very careful not to place collars on pregnant females. We treat animals with
respect and do not interfere with traditional Inuit hunting areas. We now go
further to harvest for traditional food.
14:39 Louis LaPierre: Thank you very much for the overview. One recurring theme
has been sharing. If there are no other related comments I would like to ask a
question to Todd Broomfield: How would you like to see a more integrated,
rather than a fragmented, management taking place?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
19
Proceedings – Day 1
-
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): I have never had any specific
solution in mind. I think this is something we can decide together as a group,
not as individuals. We can achieve a lot if we put the caribou first and
foremost and everything else secondary.
-
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): I would like to echo the comments
of Willie Etok and the Torngat Plants & Wildlife Board. I started hunting
caribou in the early to mid 1970s. There were always caribou; if there were
none from the GRH we would learn of others in the Inuit territories of Nunavik
or Nunatsiavut. On many occasions, either by dogsled or skidoo, we would
share knowledge about the location and condition of caribou. This was at a
time when the GRH numbers were very low. We must not lose sight of the
fact that caribou have been there for thousands of years in a regular hunt by
Inuit. Inuit did not overharvest.
John Mameamskum (Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach): Thirty years ago (in the
1970’s) at a conference in Labrador City the Naskapi Nation advocated the
creation of an Interprovincial Co-management Board. We repeated this
recommendation at the HFTCC migratory caribou conference in 2010. The
Naskapi Nation has raised the good example of the Porcupine Caribou Herd
International Management Board.
The Lower Churchill panel also
recommended to the GNL that an Interprovincial Management Board be
created. Our suggestion that all stakeholders and aboriginal groups be
included in such a co-management board still remains. We are at the pinnacle
of change with respect to the state of the caribou right now. The caribou is an
interprovincial animal, and now is the time to act together to protect it by
creating this Board, the success of which will rely on cooperation between
Labrador and Quebec. There is no reason why this should not be successful.
The HFTCC has itself advocated this Board and we maintain that it needs to
become a political reality.
Jim Goudie (Nunatviasut Government): Inuit have harvested from the herd for a long
time. However the populations are in decline and we are receptive to seeing
another recommendation from the Torngat Board based on the latest
available science. We have always been open to any kind of co-management.
Valérie Courtois (Canadian Boreal Initiative): Question for Nunatsiavut members who
are familiar with the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area Land Use Plan, under
which there are particular measures for conservation around development in
particular with respect to the GRH. My question is has the Torngat herd been
considered under that plan and what would be required in order for it to be
so?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
20
Proceedings – Day 1
o Response by Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): Management
plans currently in place for protecting calving grounds at this time is
specifically related to the GRH. I don’t believe the Torngat herd was
taken into consideration at that point but the process of incorporating
the Torngat herd would likely be quite extensive.
Bobby Snowball (Makivik Corporation, Kuujjuaq): Concerning the caribou herd, when
I was growing up in the 1950’s they stayed near the shoreline. They started
returning to the shoreline in the 1960s and 1970s. We cannot say they
remained near the shoreline because they went inland for some time. Inuit
members were hunting for long periods of time in the winter, preserving the
meat and hunting when the fur is still good to make clothing with. The herd
was quite visible along the Ungava shoreline but then absent for many years,
now some. These are wild herds, not farmed, so we cannot domesticate and
control their movements. Whenever there is overpopulation there is disease
and life expectancy decreases. The female meat is better than the bull’s,
which is tougher. We therefore harvest more females. We are here to discuss
wild, not farmed, caribou. What can we do to take action? What are the next
steps? Commercial harvesters and outfitters are a factor in the declines. Are
we going to be oppressed by trophy hunters when there is a quota in place? If
we are going to allow sport hunters from the international community and
our needs are not being met at the same time then we are not being
accommodated. We were a nomadic people and we were assimilated. Many
hundreds of years ago the non-Inuit also hunted for their subsistence. It is not
in the Inuit culture to harvest domesticated animals. There are many
predators out there. We have good reasons to start collaborating. Thank you.
14:55 Louis LaPierre: The working committee has developed a series of questions
that we would like to pose to you. Theme 1: In your opinion, is the current
monitoring program adequate in order to gather the biological knowledge
needed to manage the Torngat mountains herd?
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): I would suggest there is a rather large
knowledge gap with respect to the Torngat caribou herd. Survey results are
quite limited. The data does not seem to be available. As we know, the
Torngat herd is present in the national park, yet the aboriginal people are
permitted to hunt within the park. Does there need to be restrictions on
aboriginal hunting within the park? I don’t believe so; these people need to
hunt for food, and there doesn’t seem to be adequate knowledge to support
a restriction. I would like to direct this question to the Torngat Wildlife &
Plants Co-Management Board.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
21
Proceedings – Day 1
-
Louis LaPierre: Please distinguish between subsistence and resident harvest.
Judy Rowell (Superintendent of Torngat Mountains National Park): As a Federal
Government representative, I am involved in these discussions. We take our
direction from the Torngat Mountains Cooperative Management Board and
therefore would not be wise to impose restrictions without the consent of the
Inuit, the rights of which we respect first and foremost. There appears to be
no common view that the herd is in enough trouble that the Inuit are
prepared to cease their harvesting. There is not enough information to jump
to management restrictions. One of the priority areas for information
acquisition is to identify an appropriate study to gather new knowledge upon
agreement about what the problems are; then we can go forward in a
collaborative way on the necessary steps. Harvesting pressures are not that
extreme, and no one on the Cooperative Management Board has identified
the need for restrictive measures.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation, Nunavik): I am in agreement with Judy; we are
not here to argue but to find solutions. I was a primary negotiator in an
offshore agreement. The aboriginal people are supposed to be allowed to
harvest in the Torngat Mountain area. However if an endangered species has
been identified no one is allowed to harvest it unless there is a danger to a
human. If there are outfitters operating within the park this needs to be
stopped right away; also the harvest of endangered species needs to be
stopped right away. Aboriginal people should have the first right to harvest.
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): Re: resident vs. non-resident hunting in
Labrador, this is worth discussing as there is no such concept in Quebec,
where we speak rather about resident vs. sport hunting, the latter of which is
now prohibited. In Labrador we speak of residents as those residing in
Labrador, whereas the aboriginal groups are not classified as residents in the
absence of an agreement. People classified as residents could have an
important impact on caribou populations, both Torngat & GRH. For
beneficiaries of the JBNQA, it is aboriginal rights to hunting first, then sport,
and then commercial (which is obviously not sustainable for the GRH at this
point). At this time we would suggest that a resident hunt in Labrador is no
longer acceptable.
Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): A cooperative look into the science and
traditional knowledge is a good idea, and we would be willing to look at all
new information presented. However until such information is presented we
will not be asking our members to cease hunting. The Nunatsiavut
Government does not want to see any resident hunting of the Torngat herd,
nor the George River Herd. We recognize that we need to maintain better
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
22
Proceedings – Day 1
estimates of the subsistence harvest and we will do a better job of this in
future years. This year there was a harvest of 80 to 90 caribou from the
Torngat.
Frank Philips (Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board): It is unfortunate
that Ron Weber of Nain is not here. I will try to speak for him. I have seen the
numbers rise and fall, and I have worked with collar data. There are different
groups of Torngat caribou. Southern animals are different from northern
animals. Many are resident animals and have traditional areas. From Nain
down to Hebron there have been very few caribou killed over the past two
years. My impression is there are plenty of caribou in the northern parts, but
in the south there are very few left, especially south of Hebron, where none
have been seen for a few years now. We cannot let lack of total scientific
certainty prevent us from making management decisions, and there is a
problem in the southern part of the range.
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): Willie & I are part of the Co-management
Board with Torngat Mountains National Park. In 2009 Aaron Dale and several
other people came and presented to the Board the same concerns that we are
hearing now. At the end of our meeting, our Co-Management Board
concluded that there was a lack of scientific data. As some of our respected
hunters from Nunavik (e.g. Willie Etok, Johnny Peters, Bobby Snowball) have
said, and as Frank also knows, north of Satilik is a very big land. I hunted there
last spring, and for three 24-hour days I was on a snowmobile traveling. When
I saw what little distance I had covered in that time I was amazed; it is a very
big land. The 2010 survey covered a very small portion of the occupied
territory, which is extraordinarily vast. We are protectors of our resources,
but there are still animals in a number of areas. Until there is a full, concrete
survey done of this area, I really cannot imagine how we could impose
restrictions on that herd at this time. With respect to a question by Louis
LaPierre, upon discussion with Todd Broomfield, in 2010 & 2011, technically a
non-aboriginal resident of Labrador could obtain a permit to harvest one
animal in that area (outside of the park) and can still do so today.
Frank Philips (Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board): Just to clarify,
technically there has been a non-beneficiary harvest up until last year
(previously two animals, now one). Practically speaking, however, there has
always been relatively little (and now no) outfitter hunting and virtually no
non-aboriginal resident hunting taking place, so this is somewhat of a nonissue.
Jean-Claude Therrien Pinette (Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam): I am a
young hunter from Québec whose traditional territory is in Labrador. We live
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
23
Proceedings – Day 1
on the Côte-Nord (the North Shore) and we hunt George River caribou. All
the discussions we are holding here are major issues for biodiversity. The First
Nations have many concerns. We often talk about food security, but I would
also like us to talk about identity and cultural health. Caribou are essential to
our identity and spirituality, not only for food. It is time that the Innu of
Québec and of Labrador mobilize, create partnerships together, discuss, and
have a dialogue. The caribou is an animal that is essential and sacred, that is
an integral part of our identity and our spirituality. The ancient relationship
that the First Nations have maintained with this animal must not be forgotten,
that has allowed us to survive in this land. As far as herd management
strategies are concerned, I do not believe that hunting should be prohibited
as it could well disrupt the transmission of our culture and our identity,
especially as an Innu officially residing in Québec, and thus not a Labrador
resident. I would like us to ensure the survival of the caribou for future
generations. My Uncle Alexandre is able to use all parts of the caribout (e.g.
bones, fur, skin, for tool-making); we must preserve and pass on that
knowledge. It is not just a question of food security but also identity and
cultural security. Even if there were to be only ten years without hunting, it
would be ten years in which we could not pass on our tradition and
knowledge, and we want to preserve this.
George Peters (Nunavik Landholding Corporations Association): Ever since my youth
I have hunted caribou. Two weeks ago I saw individuals from the Torngat
population. It is time to put a complete stop to commercial and sports
hunting opportunities on the Torngat and GRH. Sport and commercial
hunting of the GRH has led to a scarcity of bulls, which in the past I didn’t
believe but now I see this is true. I don’t believe we should overharvest when
caribou are declining. If there are quotas in place how will they subsist on
other species? We need to move forward collaboratively to ensure an
increase in caribou populations and to close outfitter and commercial camps.
15:30 Presentation by Louis LaPierre of Theme 2:
“If a total allowable harvest level limiting subsistence harvest is implemented,
who should be involved in determining allocation of harvest of the Torngat herd
among communities?”
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): It should be a co-management board
informed by local communities.
Aaron Dale (Torngat Wildlife, Plants & Fisheries Secretariat): You could house a
Torngat co-management board within a George River co-management board
as they involve the same people. We have put forth a proposal about how
this could be implemented.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
24
Proceedings – Day 1
Judy Rowell (Torngat Mountains National Park): If we were at a stage where we
were to consider limiting the aboriginal harvest, we would absolutely need
the buy-in and input from the aboriginal communities.
Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): If this were to take place, the decision about
allocation should go directly to that local Inuit organization. If we don’t invite
the communities we will run into problems.
Joe Tetlichi (Porcupine Caribou Management Board): It seems as though we’re
putting the horse before the cart so to speak. We hired a consultant to look
at our draft scoping document. True, the local people need to make the
decision. The harvest management plan we made only required eight people,
one representing each party. However we needed senior officials from each
Government to move in and make concrete political decisions. There was a lot
of compromise and it wasn’t easy. We did a lot of consultations, but
communities were aware that political leaders were going to make important
decisions for them. Prior to moving ahead with management actions
concerning the Torngat, I would suggest hiring a private consultant to review
the framework.
15:40 Louis LaPierre: Do local and traditional knowledge play a role in caribou
management?
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): From my perspective the answer is a big
no. There are some consultations with aboriginal peoples with respect to the
GR and TM herds, but our opinions are not being heard. In some areas, some
of the time, in other areas, definitely not.
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): We cannot grow our food, we have to
hunt for it, so when someone comes and tries to tell you that you have to
stop, that kind of approach simply is not going to work. They should not
consult with us at the tail-end but at the beginning of the process. Scientifics
play a key role in research on caribou and it is good but the problem is when
they do not include traditional knowledge.
Aaron Dale (Torngat Wildlife, Plants & Fisheries Secretariat): We cannot make actions
based solely on scientific knowledge. As far as the GR and LR herds there is
very little TEK; however with respect to the TM herd there is very little
scientific knowledge.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): To Aaron Dale, I have a lot of compassion for
you as you have the same age as my grandchildren and you are saying there is
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
25
Proceedings – Day 1
not enough traditional knowledge, which young people are losing. Our elders
use the animals for food and clothing; we have learned to survive in this way.
During the negotiations of the JBNQ agreement in the 1970s we were in
discussions about guaranteed levels of harvest for local communities, which
would compile all records. We are given quotas for beluga whales and polar
bears (which are harming people), yet we cannot be oppressed by policy
makers who try to make decisions for us.
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): Thank you. Some have
said that George River caribou were running out of food so were moving
inland. Around 1989 we tried to raise our concerns but some have since
moved to follow the caribou in with the bush and trees. However it takes 20
years for the food to grow back. As such, we have seen the caribou leave and
return again. We need to assert our traditional way of life; I am unemployed
and like many others in my community I need to harvest caribou. We have
been asking to stop the sport hunt yet it is the Government who grants the
permits. In some cases 300-400 men have come to our community to harvest
two caribou each for sport; they gave the food to the community but take the
antlers back to the United States. There have been some interesting
comments here today. I agree with what the Innu (Jean-Claude) said, I think
we have to defend our ideas because we depend on harvesting and animals.
We should not only be preoccupied by the GRH because everything will be
impacted in Nunavik.
15:56 Presentation by Louis LaPierre of Theme 3:
“What are your main concerns relative to habitat protection in the current
context of the industrial development of the North?”
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): This raises the issue of the Plan Nord. There has
been a recent change in Government, but it is reasonable to expect increased
development in the north. What control will aboriginal users have over
mining developments? This involves railroad and some road construction,
port development to ship resources overseas, etc. What tools do the
managers and stakeholders have to mitigate and/or disallow such
developments, particularly with regard to sensitive habitat areas like calving
grounds? This is complex since calving grounds can shift over time. Flexible
system where an area can be protected depending on the situation (calving
ground), this is one of the considerations that need to be thought about. I do
not believe the new federal system of environmental impact assessment will
address all of the concerns that will be raised concerning development in the
territory.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
26
Proceedings – Day 1
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): Thank you. We are in dialogue and the purpose
of this meeting is to understand each other. We are concerned with how we
are going to survive given that we rely on caribou for food. At the time of the
signature of the JBNQA Inuit were only 4000, now we are 11 000. Foodstuffs
(e.g. milk) are very expensive in my community. Arctic species are at risk of
extinction. We need to see some kind of return to a balance, an equilibrium.
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): Our homeland is being developed now as
we speak in a way that we have never witnessed before, including forestry,
oil, and mineral exploration. In the Nunatsiavut territory we have numerous
projects including lower Churchill Falls. The amount of territory staked off by
individual claims is extensive. Vast amounts of money (three billion) are being
exported overseas from our communities every year, but there is no balance,
nothing that comes back to us. We do not have the capacity to mitigate major
accidents (e.g. spills) at winter in high seas. A major accident could happen at
any location across Canada at any time, and it is easy to say that we have a
strategic plan for environmental protection.
16:32 Louis LaPierre: What would be the best approach toward monitoring the
subsistence harvest?
Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): With respect to the Torngat harvest,
aboriginal groups could collect this data, but there is always room for
improvement. These people specialize in the caribou hunt; we could ask them
for harvest estimates.
Louis LaPierre: What confidence do you have in the numbers?
Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): We can be fairly confident in the numbers.
The territory may be vast but hunters inevitably return to their small villages
so it is simple to know who has hunted and who hasn’t.
Louis LaPierre: With such a large territory it would nevertheless be difficult to
capture that information.
Denis Vandal (MRNF): We could make more informed management decisions if we
could add subsistence harvest data to aerial survey data.
Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): We would need to consult our harvesters
prior to moving ahead with any such action.
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): I am involved with several other hunters
from Nain in a different approach to collaring animals. In this case people
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
27
Proceedings – Day 1
volunteered traditional information to us about locations and routes and
times of year. Several of us canvassed the communities with maps and
obtained the information we needed. People tend to voluntarily divulge
information about hunting location, number of animal, etc.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): Can Inuit & aboriginal communities compile
information and data? We have been working on a project about land use
occupancy in Nunavik. No one is withholding traditional information; we are
seeking continuity and transparence. Thank you.
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): Regarding Mr. Peters’
comment, we proposed Kuujjuaq as the location to collect this information.
Regarding the TM herd, here in Nunavik we have the Nunavik Marine Region
Wildlife Board and it is important to consult the Board concerning wildlife
management. If there are priorities to identify with respect to caribou
conservation, we need to identify a total allowable harvest. We need to also
consider the LRH. I urge you to relay any new information and developments
in order to inform the wildlife management boards in the region relating to
issues of caribou management. They are mandated to oversee these issues.
We are not going to give up, even though DFO has implemented quotas on
the harvesting of marine mammals in the region. We do not accept this kind
of oppression. Between the communities of Kuujjuarapik and Umiujaq there
are no caribou in summer (NB: referring to the LRH). I encourage greater
efforts to keep people informed and involve them prior to making policy
decisions. Our relationship with the other aboriginals is not that strong but
we have empathy for them. I urge the communities’ involvement in the
development of government policy.
Stas Olpinkski (Makivik Corporation): Our community members have agreed to keep
a tally of animals harvested. In terms of the trustworthiness of such data, it
comes down to trust. If everyone is willing to sit down and work toward a
common objective then we should do so, but there is trust required on both
sides. Harvest statistics are being collected and will be made available.
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): Caribou are missing from areas where
they were numerous before. That doesn’t mean we have a problem, as they
could have moved elsewhere, but I suspect hunting is one of the causes.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
28
Proceedings – Day 1
16:52 Louis LaPierre: I will now try to summarize some of the issues of the day.
-
Theme 1: There is a desire to integrate traditional knowledge and the
communities in a climate of mutual respect. We must move beyond
consultation. Communities must be involved in the integration of data and in
measures to take action. Further, knowledge and the needs of society must
be integrated to assess the impacts. The Joint Table must be fair, everyone
must receive the same level of knowledge. We must respect differences and
try to integrate these differences into decisions.
-
Theme 2: Priority to Aboriginals who need caribou for food. Consideration
must be given to prohibiting recreational and commercial hunting and setting
up frameworks for discussion to arrive at a better understanding of what is at
stake, and what the needs of each group are.
-
Theme 3: There is no trust in the two institutions that are currently
responsible for assessing the impacts of several industrial activities: neither
the federal program, nor the BAPE (Bureau d’audiences publiques sur
l’environnement) appears to ensure the preservation of habitat quality over
time. The components of the territory that are essential to the survival of the
species must be safeguarded. Habitat preservation (e.g. calving areas) is
crucial. These essential habitats should not be affected by industrial
development. It is our natural heritage and we must ensure its survival
together, while always respecting the needs and the desires of the
communities as an integral part of decision making. Caribou do not function
based on administrative territories but according to their own biology. To do
it right, we must advocate the sharing of data. How will we facilitate the
process of sharing and processing data? We have a collective responsiblity for
ensuring the preservation of the species for future generations. For those
who have not had the opportunity to express their opinions, you can write
your comments on the sheets provided and give them to April O’Donoughue.
END OF DAY ONE
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
29
PROCEEDINGS – DAY 2
September 12, 2012
RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION
08:40 Introduction by Louis LaPierre: Good morning. A reminder to please collect
your headsets where necessary for the simultaneous interpretation.
80:45 Louis LaPierre: For those who are previously registered and do not wish to
have their names published in the proceedings, please inform April
O’Donoughue. For recent registrants, please inform April if you do wish to
have your name published in the proceedings. This evening there will be a
gathering by and for aboriginal peoples; please inquire for more information.
We are aiming to finish by 17:00 today. We will begin with a prayer.
08:48 Opening Prayer by Philip Einish, Naskapi elder from Kawawachikamach.
08:50 Louis LaPierre: A reminder that we need to be respectful of divergent views.
Many of the issues that were prevalent in 2010 are still prevalent today. I
would ask you to consider what could be done in order to move forward
together in protecting this common resource that we all cherish. We all have
the responsibility to leave for future generations the same opportunities that
we have had. We may not achieve all that we would like to achieve, but we
need to make progress and advance further along than last time.
AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE ON THE GEORGE RIVER HERD
08:53 “Changes in the Size of the George River Herd – From Data to Management”;
Presentations by:
-
Katherine Mehl, Senior Manager, Habitat, Game and Fur Management,
Department of Environment and Conservation, Wildlife Division, Government
of Newfoundland & Labrador;
-
Vincent Brodeur, biologist, Direction de l’expertise Énergie-Faune-ForêtsMines-Territoire, Direction Régionale du Nord-du-Québec, Ministère des
Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec (Energy-Wildlife-ForestsMines-Territory expertise division, Northern Quebec regional; and
-
Joëlle Taillon, biologist and PhD candidate, Department of Biology and Centre
for Northern Studies, Université Laval.
08:54 Katherine Mehl: Thank you all for your time. This presentation will be divided
into three sections.
HFTCC Migratory Caribou Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
30
Proceedings – Day 2
-
Monitoring in partnership (Katherine Mehl)
o NL and QC Governments in collaboration with academic partners (e.g.
Caribou Ungava) and Aboriginal Governments.
o Effective monitoring requires a significant number of active telemetry
collars, and sampling has to represent the population in space and
time. Informs on movements, migration, survival, helps for aerial
surveys, etc.
o Nine surveys in total (approx. 1973-2012)
 Post-calving surveys began in 1993.
o 95% decline since 1993
o Interval between survey periods should be proportional to the size and
trend of the population
o The annual monitoring of recruitment and survival allows for
monitoring the population between survey years. Fall classifications
 Proportion of calves, adult males and females in the population
 Female survival
o Adult survival is estimated from trend between population surveys and
survival of collared animals
o Defining mortality is difficult and causes may be masked (e.g. diseased
animal taken by a predator). Causes include:
 Natural mortality
 Disease
 Predation
 Legal harvest
 Poaching
 Crippling loss
o Adult survival + calves = population trend
-
Research (Joëlle Taillon):
o Declines in recruitment (# calves/100 females) since 1985
 In 2010 & 2011: only 16 calves/100 adult females (in a healthy
population we can expect 40 calves/100 females)
 Too low to ensure population stability or growth
o Adult female survival was 95% in 1984
 Require > 85%, yet decline from 71% (2008-2011) – 60% (2011)
 Male adult survival only 62% (2008-2011) and 58% (2011)
 Too low to ensure population stability or growth
o The proportion of large males has declined since 2007
 12% in 2006, 3% in 2011
 There is a new disease (Besnoitia tarandi) since 2007 that may
have contributed to this. Ongoing research from the Université
de Montréal will tell us more.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
31
Proceedings – Day 2
o Body condition
 Calf birth mass = 6.1 kg from 2007 to 2011 (fair)
 At weaning (late October) = 51.5 kg from 2007 to 2009 (good)
 Female body mass (late October) = 100 kg from 2007 to 2009
(good)
 Good body condition suggests that females and calves have
access to adequate quality and availability of summer and fall
range.
o Changing gestation (pregnancy) rates:
 94% (1976-1982), 77% (1989-1993), 75% (2001-2001), 77% (2012)
 Gestation rates have remained low since the population’s peak
o Summary: low recruitment, low adult survival, and low proportion of
large males BUT calves and females are in good condition
 However some factors are potentially impacting a) number of
calves produced, b) calf survival and c) adult survival
o Factors influencing population parameters, however, include:
 Disease
 Issues with habitat quality and availability
 Incomplete information on habitat quality of winter and
summer ranges
 Accurate knowledge on the timing and location of
migration routes
 Identification of critical calving grounds
o Historic changes in location of calving grounds
o Recent calving on the Labrador coast
 Calving ground increasing in size when the population is
increasing. Calving grounds are moving.
 “Wildlife habitat” is a legal habitat protection accorded
by the Government of Quebec, however currently less
than 10% of the annual calving grounds of the GRH is
protected as Wildlife Habitat.
 In future, protection of calving grounds must consider
the dynamic use of space by female caribou over time
 Main factors known to influence habitat quality and
availability:
o Effect of caribou itself
o Environmental changes: plant growth and
migration condition (snow)
o Human activities and industrial development:
habitat modification and disturbance
 Northern environments have very low resilience, so
human activities and industrial development (e.g.
mining, hydroelectricity, roads, railways) can disturb
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
32
Proceedings – Day 2



-
caribou, lead to desertion of key areas, and interfere
with migratory routes.
o Caribou habitat needs should be considered in
the planning process in northern environments
Climate change
o Climate change is happening in northern regions
and can impact temperature and precipitation
regimes
o Effects on seasonal habitats (e.g. vegetation
growth, snow depth and melting patterns)
o Effects on body condition (e.g. insect
harassment)
o Consequences of movement patterns (e.g.
migration, predation)
Predation
 Satellite collars fitted on wolves and bears in June and
August 2012 near GRH calving grounds
 Future research efforts will focus on predator
monitoring to evaluate range use, movement rate, and
overlap with caribou space use.
Harvest
Management (Vincent Brodeur):
o Harvest Rate = Harvest / Population Size
o Long-term monitoring of sport hunt in Quebec
o 2010-2012 monitoring of resident and aboriginal harvest in Quebec and
Labrador
o Historical harvest rates would require seven different types of harvest
information
o The estimated harvest rate has been extremely high in recent years
(10% from 2006-2009, 6% 2010-2011, 12% 2012) and was likely still too high
in recent years. Harvest proposals in recent years are considered
unsustainable.
o A sustainable harvest rate allows stability increase or decrease
depending on management objective.
o Population trend is as important as population size in defining a
harvest rate.
o Aboriginal, resident and sport harvests most likely do not target dying
animals, the result of which is likely additive.
o The decline trend has been continuous over the past 20 years.
o Evidence of improving body condition has not resulted in better
recruitment or adult survival.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
33
Proceedings – Day 2
o Current population size estimates are at a historical low (~50,000 at
1950’s low, twice as much as we are seeing today).
o Hunting is an additive cause of mortality.
o From 100,000 (prior to 2008) to 74,000 animals from 2008-2010, then
to 26,000 in 2012
o Projected size next year could be 5,000
o Current harvest rate is unsustainable.
o NO FURTHER HARVEST is the only conclusion that can be made at this
time.
o The future of the George River herd is in our hands. Thank you.
09:33 Louis LaPierre: Thank you for your presentations, which unfortunately do not
give us a very positive outlook. We will now make a few announcements and
introduce the second portion of today’s activities.
09:38 Introduction of Johnny Peters (Vice-President, Makivik Corporation), Robbie
Tookalook (Board Member, Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board), and Willie
Etok (Elder).
09:40 Presentation in Inuktituk:
“Importance of Integrating Aboriginal Knowledge into the Management of the
George River Herd”
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): As we are appointed to carry out a task, we are
here to make a presentation concerning Inuit traditional knowledge. In 1939 I
was born in Kangirsuk in northern Quebec. At that time there were no
caribou in the vicinity but we were educated about them by our elders. I only
knew of one white man, the HBC manager in Kangirsuk. My grandparents
told us stories about when there were large populations of caribou at one
time and they would show us a trail used in the past that was still visible. Inuit
traveled by dog team at that time and went hunting for one month or more
on caribou hunts. Sometimes they were successful and others not. In the
1960’s in northern Quebec the population increased and they began coming
closer to the communities. At the same time the population of the white man
was also increasing. There was constant communication between the
different communities, some of which were receiving the population and
others that were not. At the same time we were informed by our
grandparents about other species that fluctuated in size over time. An
example of this is the fox: at times we see none, and then a tremendous
increase six years following. The lemming acts similarly. The caribou
populations also fluctuate but much more slowly. Human activities today are
much different than those in the past and I believe this is a major disturbance
to caribou and their movement patterns. I can still find old dog sled trails
because there is a scent gland from caribou hooves that can still be smelled
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
34
Proceedings – Day 2
today. In the past caribou were very timid but today they are bolder. We
have more and more non-Inuit coming into the region; we cannot tell them
otherwise, i.e. not to come, but Inuit are very concerned about the wildlife
and their subsistence. By Inuit law we take precautions and require a
common understanding that their needs to be respect about the Inuit
traditional knowledge and way of life. Thank you for allowing me to share this
information with you concerning traditional Inuit knowledge.
Willie Etok (Makivik Corporation): I was sitting here in 2010 next to a Cree elder that
has since passed on, but we will pass along his knowledge as people later will
pass along ours. I’m 74 years old. In the past Inuit would work together,
whether in Labrador or Kuujjuaq, and help each other but today things are
different. However as Inuit people we must continue to work together and
despite obstacles we must agree together about the future. In my region
there is a great deal of helicopter activity because people are allowed to have
fishing permits, even though they say they are following the regulations, but
they do whatever they want. Today we see illegal aircraft landing. I am not
raising trouble, but these are other factors. I was born and raised in Kuujjuaq
and in that past we were clothed only in seal and caribou skins and hunted,
and we didn’t worry about anything except the supply of food. When you are
there and experience it you understand the land. Today even though we say
we are Inuit our young men do not want to follow anymore for other reasons.
I do not wish to debate Inuit vs. white people, but it is a fact that there are
important differences between the older and younger generations today. I
used to follow my grandfather inland in the winter; he would walk very slowly
and never take chances. I thought he was slow at first but he never took a
rest but always continued walking. He would use the binoculars from afar and
if he saw caribou and they were not fighting he would say these are not the
caribou we want; he would wait to harvest a big and vigorous male. Even
today caribou is our traditional food. We as Inuit ask that you do not have us
stop harvesting our traditional food, or at least allow us to harvest some
carefully for food. We have seen the scientific presentations, some of which
has been true and some of which have not. As young men we were eager to
kill the first caribou we saw but we were taught not to kill the leaders because
if we did the herd would move somewhere else. Today snowmobiles go back
and forth from Labrador to George River. Because of increases in activity we
do not see caribou trails anymore and are told they have moved closer to
Killiniq (Port Burwell in English). We are selective of which caribou we kill, but
in the past few years they have not moved inland to George River. Wolves,
black bear, and more and more polar bears are moving to the land. Black
bears have increased in numbers, so there are other factors contributing to
the caribou declines and we are not the only ones responsible. I have more to
say but I will abstain. Thank you for this time.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
35
Proceedings – Day 2
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): In past years between
Leaf River, Kujjuarapik and Umiujaq there is a big lake where Inuit would hunt
caribou with bow and arrow (Tasiujaq, close to the Leaf River). This amazed
me, but it was our grandparents who practiced this way of hunting. I am very
happy that we are working to find solutions but I would also like to share my
knowledge. Thank you to the university people for their presentation.
However I believe that caribou were meant to be eaten; I believe it with all my
being, so please consider that. In the past it was not raining but today it rains
and snows much more than before and the ice is thick. Caribou are fortunate
to survive because it is more difficult than in the past for them to find food,
especially in the tundra. Academic researchers should study this, as it is
another reason why caribou have been decreasing. There is an area around
Umiujaq that never formed ice because of fast-moving water and caribou
sometimes die there, though we do not report this. There is another area
where this also takes place. Since the Quebec Government is governing we
have requested funding to put fences around that river because it is
dangerous to the caribou. To my knowledge the caribou is not wise; even
when it is a dangerous area they will travel through to reach their migratory
place. I have seen females die there. We surveyed by helicopter and 200
animals died there, not necessarily GRH caribou however. When we see such
incidents we inform Makivik Corporation employees. Today we are more
prepared and know more because we have a department of wildlife but I
want you to understand that caribou are vulnerable. Every year we receive a
lot of snow. Today it rains in the wintertime and it freezes the land. Caribou
are very tough and look for food in 6 feet of frozen ground, but the only way
they can reach their food is with their hooves. This is why they travel inland to
the woods. In 1990-1991 the caribou would cross to the Belcher Islands and I
have requested a survey there. I think because of poor ice conditions many
have died, and this needs to be researched. Around 3,000 passed near
Umiuaq, but almost all females and no large males. Usually in our community
we killed 3 females to last the winter, but the lack of large males surprised me.
5,000 were seen further inland on their way to calving grounds in May; at this
time the ice becomes dangerous and this merits further research. I also
believe there are a lot of wolves today and this is a factor in the caribou
declines. This is my knowledge; I hope it is useful information. If we are going
to come out with a decision to try and increase the caribou you will have to
make sure you include the Inuit in the decision making. For example, DFO
decided about the beluga whales without our knowledge and imposed quotas
on our territory. The information presented here is very useful to us,
especially concerning the GR and LR herds. I am happy for the opportunity to
speak, thank you.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
36
Proceedings – Day 2
10:13
HEALTH BREAK
10:34 Louis LaPierre: We need to work together to find a solution and a path
forward and everyone needs to be heard. Make your points short and clear
and we will do our best to pull them all together. The first theme asks: are
there knowledge gaps or areas where we would like to obtain more
knowledge? How is traditional knowledge integrated and how should it be?
We have 30 minutes to address this topic. We will begin with a general
discussion with some questions and directions. Note also if you do not wish
to make an oral presentation there are forms available and you can write your
comments and submit them when you leave. We will now open the floor.
PLENARY SESSION
Theme 1: Do you agree with the current evaluation of the GRH presented? In your
opinion, is the current monitoring program adequate in order to gather the
biological knowledge needed to manage the GRH? Does local and traditional
knowledge play a role in caribou management? What would be the best way to
integrate local and traditional knowledge into caribou management and to
foster communication between scientists, managers and users?
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): The excellent presentations this morning
demonstrate that there is a tremendous amount of information available
about the GRH (both scientific and traditional). We can always dissect things
more, but it is obvious that the GRH is declining, in fact it is crashing. The
bottom line is what do we do with this resource at this stage in time? This
means decision making at a management level that incorporates all the
players. This is a population that is shared by two provinces and various user
groups. The Torngat example was similar. We have representatives here
from Quebec at a high level; unfortunately NL is not represented politically to
the same level. I believe we need a co-management approach that
incorporates all levels of Government; we need an agreement that leads to a
decision. There have been discussions between both levels of Government,
but I might ask: are the respective Governments willing to sit down and work
together with the stakeholders to establish some kind of co-management
process? Joe Tetlichi gave us an example where just such a goal has been
achieved with a common resource. That is exactly the situation we are in
now, and I challenge both levels of Government to take the bold yet
necessary step to put aside the politics and work together to address the
management of the GRH.
Louis LaPierre: These are very valid points, but relate more to Theme 4. Let’s redirect
our comments to Theme 1 for the moment.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
37
Proceedings – Day 2
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): I agree with the information that was
presented by the scientists this morning, to a certain extent. Most of this
information was derived from satellite tracking technology. What we get
from this are locations where caribou go and remain residents there. How do
scientists know where the caribou that haven’t been collared are going? The
lack of integration of traditional knowledge is a problem for the communities.
What is needed is traditional knowledge about where caribou are going
throughout the year. Hunters know such things because they are out there in
the field. Two years ago I field dressed an animal in bad shape with skin like
sand paper. Elsewhere I know others found healthy animals. There is a lot of
information that hunters have about caribou that scientists do not, some of
which goes back generations. I would like to see a greater integration of
science with local hunter knowledge. Furthermore, we are in a crisis situation
right now. If we see a halt to harvesting with no plan and locals are seeing
increases in animals, people will be suspicious if they are not incorporated into
the process.
Bobby Snowball (Makivik Corporation): We received information this morning
concerning the surveys conducted by the universities, but I did not entirely
agree. If there are 100 caribou, only 6-7% of them will have a calf. I am a
traditional hunter, and I know in the winter time females are pregnant, so
they are not edible yet. Wolves always follow the pregnant females so they
can kill the newborn; eagles are a similar example. Caribou are not having
calves anymore, and I would like you to consider why: because other species
are following them around. Usually the male wolf hunts for their puppies.
Please consider this factor in your assessment of the causes for the decline.
Also I used to run an outfitting camp and the hunters went after the big
males. Usually Labrador caribou have the biggest antlers. Sport hunters also
play a big role in the caribou declines. Inuit do not usually hunt specifically
caribou with big antlers, but we consider what we see. We usually get our
caribou from other communities these days. For the caribou wearing collars,
in the past there was a monetary incentive for returning the collars worn by
harvested caribou, yet we know where they are so people would hunt them
and this was a mistake. I would like to see this practice stopped of projecting
locations of collared caribou.
Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): A big knowledge gap that exists is the
harvest record. The Nunatsiavut Government has been accurate with this in
the past two years but other parties could be better at this and this is
something we need to do a better job of.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
38
Proceedings – Day 2
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): Being able to hunt with experienced
hunters, i.e. elders, is a gift. Whenever I choose to go into a new area I
contact a skilled resident hunter. I have considerable past experience in
planning processes. If only the Government could stop and listen to what
people are saying. As Inuit, people come to our community and ask what we
know and we generously donate our time. The people come, they record,
they go away and they do not come back again. The knowledge base is
always strongest with the local people. I am not downplaying the role of
scientists, but emphasize the importance of the knowledge of local people.
Someone who had to travel a week to find caribou in the 1920’s or 1930’s and
thus avoid starving knows a lot more than someone who gets in a helicopter
and goes the same distance. Time and time again we have been ignored.
Richard Nuna (Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu): I have observed rises and falls in caribou
numbers, and I have seen the encroachment of development on caribou
habitat. Surveys do not cover large swaths of territory and more money
needs to go into better coverage. People are asking aboriginal people to
consider stopping the caribou harvest, yet Defence Canada is spending
millions to ship food to remote communities. Where the Government spends
its money requires investigation. People in our climate do not have the
metabolism to survive on a vegetable diet. I am not going to ask people in my
community to make that change, because this might kill the elders in our
community, and that would be like genocide. Transporting food to northern
communities is very expensive. I am 40 years old and spent two seasons in
the country with my grandparents until I was 16, at which point I educated
myself from the western point of view. I can afford to take a few days off, a
weekend, to go hunting. I spent three weeks hunting caribou about four
years ago, during which time my sugar levels were normal, because Innu
people are adapted to eating country food. You are asking us to shift to a diet
of food that will give us diabetes, essentially to kill ourselves. It is not normal
to ask a person to commit this kind of suicide. My people will consider
measures, but not by the demand of Government or scientists but through
their own knowledge and experience.
Jean-Charles Piétacho (Council of Ekuanitshit Innu): I insist on speaking in my
language because I respect it; I hope my message will be understood. This is
not the first time we have intervened in national or international forums; the
link between the caribou and the Innu is all we have left because the
Governments have taken nearly everything. Often, I say that the economy
prevails over ethics. We will not allow the Government to make decisions for
the Innu. I am not an Innu of Québec or Labrador; I am Innu, I was born Innu. I
understand that you have processes, but this is not the first time we find
ourselves here. For ten years, no one has come to see us in our community to
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
39
Proceedings – Day 2
talk about the decline, but now, you seek our participation. In my youth,
during the 1960s, I went hunting with my grandparents in the North. I
remember being at a lake and I saw a lot of caribou. We were two families,
and my grandfather and the other family killed a caribou. We took what we
needed; the rest of the caribou did not go away, we knew that because we
stayed for several days at this lake. But the Government’s way of doing things
is part of the problem. Last year, I received a letter at my home, I answered it
but I never got a response after that. We were asked questions, and we
answered. We are asked to participate in forums, we are heard, but nobody
listens to us. We are told: “they were consulted.” I wrote a letter to the
Government of Labrador, and I still have not received any answer. Today it is a
problem of jurisdiction: people continue to make decisions for us as they did
in the past. Let’s take the example of prohibitions on cod fishing, salmon
fishing or migratory bird hunting. We are still being asked today to stop
salmon fishing. We have been accepted in Caribou House, there were dreams
and if these dreams were not respected, there were consequences. We are in
this House, but others came and disrupted our system, they took our place,
and now they are demanding that we refrain. There was a drastic cut with our
culture. We are worried, and we have been worried for years. What is more,
we do not have many resources and it costs us a great deal to hunt. We have
constitutional protection for culture. We never abandoned our dwelling. We
never accepted being assimilated by this Government. They wanted to build
us a community but we refused, we asserted ourselves. As far as harvesting is
concerned, just behind us is the Mingan River, and someone told us to stop
fishing without consultation and consent. As for participation, we were in
territorial negotiations, all the issues were covered, we expressed our
concerns, people hear us but nobody listens. It is a question of decisional
jurisdiction and we are not part of this decision. As for the decline and how to
respond to it, it is clear that we will see how this process unfolds, but the
decision will come directly from our communities, Uashat and Matimekush.
Valérie Courtois (Canadian Boreal Initiative): There has been a problem of trust with
regard to data and knowledge about caribou. You understand, an incredible
number of studies have been done on Aboriginal peoples. We are asked how
many caribou we hunted, etc. This must be based on a relationship of respect.
So if people were part of the decision, there would be less of an issue of trust
because it would be established in that relationship. Also, there are different
definitions of sustainability. Our concept of sustainability includes the
responsibility we have toward the caribou.
11:23
Theme 2: Do you consider that monitoring of subsistence harvest is necessary
for the sound management of the GRH? If so, what would be the best approach
to efficiently monitor the subsistence harvest of the GRH?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
40
Proceedings – Day 2
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): I would like to make a comment with
respect to the harvest of GR caribou in Newfoundland & Labrador. As
aboriginal people it is our right to harvest. The Supreme Court of Canada gave
us that right. I find it difficult to go back to my community and convince them
that there is a serious problem. As a hunter I have travelled in just about every
region of Nunavut, Labrador and some areas of Ungava Bay. Last winter
while hunting the Government told us there was a major concern with these
animals and that we had to take conservation into mind, yet in central
Labrador and anywhere there is a population of caribou there are still many,
many non-aboriginal people who participate in the hunt. With this going on,
the aboriginal people in this area find it very hard to take and receive that
message of conservation seriously. It is hard to receive that message when
you can walk into any store in central Labrador and buy a permit that allows
you to harvest one to two animals using the same techniques and methods as
any aboriginal person. There is no distinction between a non-resident and an
aboriginal right. I am being told that as an Inuit hunter I have to restrict my
hunting practices when I turn around to my land and see virtually hundreds of
non-aboriginal people in central Labrador participating and taking those
animals.
Rebecca Wilcott (Nunatsiavut Government): Jimmy spoke earlier with regard to
monitoring, and we reiterate that monitoring of the subsistence hunt is
crucial, in addition to receiving data on the condition of the animals. We have
invested in collecting that data and we hope that other parties get on board.
With regard to the resident hunt, the Nunatsiavut Government does have a
policy respecting the harvest. In the past we have implemented measures in
the form of recommendations regarding harvest levels, and this was
respected overall in the communities. People were aware of the status and
severity of the issue. Even though it was a small measure that was taken we
did see results. We recently conducted a survey to determine the level of
need of the Inuit, yet this amount greatly exceeds what are considered to be
sustainable harvest levels for this year.
Kakkiniq Naluiyuk (Inuit, HFTCC): If I go out hunting I observe the caribou first to
only get what I need. I have seen caribou in bad condition. In my community
we wait until the skin is in good condition and can be useful to us for our
needs. In the fall we harvest when the skin is good to make parkas and the
food is good but we will hunt whenever we are hungry. Sports hunters are
completely different from us and I am sure they kill the first caribou they see.
I only kill what is enough for my family and for other people of my community.
I don’t want people thinking that Inuit will kill caribou any time of the year
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
41
Proceedings – Day 2
whenever they see one. I hope you will understand and heed what I am trying
to say.
Serge Ashini Goupil (Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam): I have hunted
caribou of the George River herd (southwest of Caribou House) for 10-11 years.
We had an information meeting this year with our friends of Mushua-Nipi
about the state of knowledge on caribou. At this meeting, I was obliged to ask
the elders, including Louis Lalo who is here today, to reduce their impact on
declining populations by restricting the hunt during their visit. But I cannot
ask him to completely stop hunting caribou, it is his life. Me, a young Innu, I
cannot tell him to do that, but out of respect for other Quebecers, I told him
to refrain, it was hard for me to do that. He told the others that it might be the
last time he hunted caribou. We killed about six or seven. Jacques Gauthier
wanted to take the caribou back to his community, it is very important for us.
We were shown how to kill a caribou, butcher it, us young people will have to
be able to show how to kill the caribou, how to respect it. I think it is
important to work on the issues mentioned, but people must understand the
bond the caribou has with us. It is an honour to bring a caribou back to your
house. The bond with the caribou is very important. This bond was taught to
me. I want to show my daughters how to hunt and butcher caribou. The
transmission of knowledge is going to be one of the key issues in coming
years. These issues have to be understood, how are you going to enable us to
respond to these issues? It takes work on information, and on validating these
issues. Louis Lalo only killed two caribou this year at George River. The
importance of caribou varies depending on the group concerned (e.g.
Aboriginal community, outfitter, recreational hunter). I do not believe we are
ready to answer your question today because it is the first time I see this
question.
Louis LaPierre : If I have understood properly, you are ready to participate in a
dialogue to discuss these issues.
Serge Ashini-Goupil : There is a great deal of consultation and validation work to be
done now in our communities. In the meantime, there are still caribou in the
region and our members are harvesting. Tonight there is a First Nations
caucus meeting in which we will be asking questions among Chiefs and trying
to make up for lost time. We have responsibilities to assume, but also more
work to do.
11:43
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): We chose not to present detailed census results and
methodology because we wanted to leave more time for discussions.
However most of the census results are driving discussions about population
size. The survey is not based on transect lines, but on collars that have been
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
42
Proceedings – Day 2
deployed during extensive search in the past six years. We have
photographed 93% of the active collars (84) and gone out to see most of
them. From my perspective we are very objective in our methodology, and if
there are animals in places away from our collared animals, then there are few
and I would ask everyone to consider this: If there are no more caribou in five
years, people will be forced to stop harvesting. We are discussing the right to
harvest, and not discussing population size and trend. No one is being
blamed, but we are off-task.
Anne Kendrick (Policy advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami): We are not only discussing the
status and the quality of the information, but there is a will to discuss possible
actions in the face of this kind of decline. In the Kecho example, NWT, a
population that was estimated at 100,000 ended up actually being more in the
realm of 25,000.
Louis LaPierre: In following up with Vincent Brodeur’s comment, communities need
the resource for food, but what happens when there are no more caribou?
Continuing to harvest may drive these populations so low that the added
effect of predators and development and climate change may make it
impossible for them to recover.
Willie Etok (Makivik Corporation): I would like to make sure we avoid impacts on
aboriginal people and focus on sport hunters first because we only harvest
according to our need. If the Government decide to stop the hunting of
caribou, what will we live on? Food transported by air is very expensive.
Usually when traditional food is not available we depend on other
communities to share. We need to make the priority to eliminate sport
hunting. From the Inuit perspective we know that animals are declining, but
we need to be informed about other species too. Because of climate change
other species can be affected too.
Aquuja Qisiiq (Board member, Nunaturlik Landholding Corporation): I have one
question for the researchers. I am an Inuk traditional hunter. I have
depended on the land and sea all my life; it is my culture. The elders who
spoke this morning did not mention what I expected to hear. Regarding
caribou along the coast and in northern Quebec, we have noticed changes.
When I was a young man it was as though there were no caribou in the world.
As I grew older we started to see the caribou coming back. The elders that
were alive at that time are very few now, but their wisdom was correct when
they said there were many caribou in the past and that one day they would
return. I believe that traditional knowledge. If we are going to make policy or
regulations against the hunters I will not really believe in that because our
ancestors have always been right, about climate change as well. If I was not a
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
43
Proceedings – Day 2
man of the land and shore I would believe everything the scientists say but
because I am a hunter I don’t believe some of it. We are not talking about
mining activities, of which there are many in the north and this is affecting
caribou migrations. We have to be aware of other factors. Ten years ago
caribou would migrate near Kanisijuuluaq but since the Raglan mine they have
moved away from their traditional routes. Will the researchers conduct more
research in the future not only on caribou with collars but caribou without
collars as well? Also if you are going to continue your research then please
include Inuit people in your work.
Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): I can respond to part of your
comment. Regarding the observations of your elders, there have been
historic fluctuations because of caribou and their impact on the land.
However I have shown a list of factors that were not present at that time.
You have indeed mentioned industrial development and climate change.
There are more people in the communities and more human activities in the
north. All these factors are new and they are adding to the natural activities
of the caribou, so it is not like in the past and that is something we are going
to have to consider. Regarding the Raglan mine, we are studying that and will
be discussing it tomorrow in more detail.
Serge Ashini Goupil (Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam): Vincent Brodeur’s
question is relevant, but we can turn it back to him. Will the Government ask
the mining company that is bringing barrels of gasoline into Caribou House to
stop its activities? Before dipping into our caribou quantities, is the
Government prepared to take action against the industrialization of the
North? Will recreational hunting be asked to stop hunting large antlers? We
can have this kind of discussion but it works both ways, and there are many
aspects to explore. For example, has low-altitude flying improved or resulted
in a deterioration of the condition of GR herd populations? You have done
reseach on this, now we would like to have the findings. The Innu have
accepted their responsibility but the Government must also do so.
Louis LaPierre : At the Institute we always share our data with Aboriginal peoples
and we discuss it, but this is not the forum for it today.
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): I am not the Minister of Natural Resources.
Serge Ashini Goupil (Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam): The Government
representatives present here today are equally responsible. If tomorrow there
is a new mining development project, it will squeeze the caribou. Why do you
give permits to mining companies? What environmental monitoring is being
done of the daily flights of those companies? Are measures taken to protect
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
44
Proceedings – Day 2
caribou in the calving season? Who will do the monitoring? That is the type of
thing that will have to be discussed this week. There are railway projects
currently underway that will cut through the lands of two herds, the GRH and
the LRH. Let’s talk about that!
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): We have discussed the TM herd yesterday,
which is a very small population, and now we are discussing the GRH. As has
been shown by the presenters, in the last four years the GRH has not been
seen near George River and we know the population is estimated at 27,000.
The GRH also migrates to the Labrador side and different Innu groups are
coping with this differently and have many issues to address amongst
ourselves. We rely on the LRH and have ongoing communication between the
communities. These animals now spend their winters around the 55th parallel
(further south). We want to have the opportunity to share with you our
knowledge and concerns tomorrow when other aboriginal groups will have
the opportunity to speak (Naskapi, Innu, Cree). We have allowed the Innu and
Labrador to speak more because they are more affected by issues pertaining
to the GRH but we ask to be heard tomorrow.
Louis LaPierre: That is for certain.
Judy Rowell (Torngat Mountains National Park): I have an observation inspired by
Serge’s comments. The real missing information here is the absence of a
comprehensive management plan, which makes it difficult to discuss what
kinds of decisions are going to be made and how they are going to affect the
different users. We have the example of Joe Tetlichi and their efforts in
developing a comprehensive management plan, and as long as you orphan
the question of harvest from the larger discussion that needs to be had we
will not be getting far.
Natalie D’Astous (Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach): Indeed one of the goals of
this workshop is to discuss the subsistence hunt, but why is there a resident
hunt in Labrador?
John Blake (GNL): A number of measures have been taken in recent years.
Harvesting is mostly conducted by aboriginals who are forced to buy a
resident licence because of an absence of an agreement granting them treaty
rights. For all intents and purposes the resident hunt has been cancelled in
Labrador.
Richard Nuna (Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu, NL): I have a question concerning this
parasite; is it a disease that is transferred from other animals to caribou or did
it just surface somewhere?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
45
Proceedings – Day 2
12:19 : Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): Fortunately we have a
researcher here today who is working on this parasite, Stéphane Lair, and he
will be able to complete my response. This is a parasite that is known to exist
in other caribou herds and groups of wild bovids; however it is new to
northern Quebec and Labrador as we have inaccurate knowledge on the
presence of this parasite prior to 2006 or 2007 in the GRH or the LRH.
Stéphane will now complete my answer.
Stéphane Lair (Université de Montréal): Once in a while Besnoitia tarandi can be
found in other species but it is almost exclusively seen in caribou. We do not
yet adequately understand its life cycle in nature. Whereas the caribou is likely
the intermediate host, we do not know which species is the definitive host.
However it is mainly reported in caribou, also deer populations in western
Canada.
Richard Nuna (Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu, NL): In my twelve years with the Innu
Nation we have made significant changes to our conservation strategies for
both our communities. In 2003/2004 we had a well-attended caribou
conference (also attended by Quebec Innu) as well as meetings with
Government wildlife officials. We consequently agreed on a five-year
moratorium on hunting woodland caribou of the Red Wine, Lake Joseph, and
Mealy Mountains. During that period the GNL listed it as threatened with no
Innu consultation. Now we are facing a similar dilemma with respect to the
GR herd. In this instance the Innu Nation is willing and probably will take
measures on their own accord. We did, for example, support the
establishment of a wildlife preserve in the Lac Joseph area, which the
Government never supported. We did make the suggestion of a wildlife
preserve for the Red Wine herd in our forest management plan, but the
Province didn’t support that either. We are also considering very intensive
mitigation measures that our agency is recommending to Government
regarding mineral exploration and hydro development in Labrador, all of
which can be found in our statements on our website. Many people today
have fears about the declining caribou, for example over liver flukes and other
parasites that caribou have been found with in the recent past. The Innu have
avoided eating the livers and internal organs because of this; in the past our
elders ate them but today we have fears of these diseases in caribou so by
necessity we abstain. That is all I wanted to say.
Frank Philips (Torngat Wildlife & Plants Co-Management Board): I agree with Vincent;
in five years we may not be talking about caribou. It’s like we’re in a sinking
ship arguing about who’s sitting where, and most non-aboriginals have
already left the boat. All different groups are talking about caribou meat but
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
46
Proceedings – Day 2
nobody is talking about wastage. I have traveled all over and hunted too and
no matter where I go it is not difficult to hear about wastage. Nobody is
talking about this, yet if we had avoided it we probably wouldn’t have a
problem today. The word respect has not been talked about enough. In the
NWT they had the exact same problem: wastage. If there is going to be an
aboriginal hunt people need to talk about respect and learn not to be so
wasteful. The majority of caribou in Labrador have been harvested by
aboriginal people.
12:30 LUNCH BREAK
13:55 Louis LaPierre: In Quebec there is absolutely no sport resident hunting right
now on the GRH.
Theme 3:
- What are your main concerns relative to habitat protection in the current
context of the industrial development of the North?
- Which seasonal habitats should benefit more from protection?
o calving grounds (birth of calves)
o summer range (growth of calves)
o migratory corridors
o wintering range
- How to consider the seasonal needs of caribou while planning the development
of the North?
Jean-Charles Piétacho (Innu chief, Council of Ekuanitshit Innu): This brings me to
another concern regarding the Federal Government’s decision to reduce the
scope of requirements for the assessment of environmental impacts. We
contested this decision to weaken the environmental assessment process to
favour the economy. Economics often prevails over the environment in
decision making.
Eric Andersen (Torngat Wildlife & Plants Co-Management Board): There are nickel
deposits being developed in Labrador, and attempts for many years to mine
uranium, which we understand to be a very dangerous mineral to develop.
We wonder what is going to happen not only to caribou but to other animals
residing in that area. We are pleased to be here and I take this role very
seriously. I lived and worked as a fishery officer for 28 years trying to work
together. The frustrations of aboriginal people are valid, but hopefully we can
work together. The better you know people who are close to a resource, the
better that you can work together. The oldest delegate from Nunatsiavut is
me. The oldest of the caribou also is gone. It has been said custom before
law, and we are losing our ways. I am happy to be here today.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
47
Proceedings – Day 2
Valérie Courtois (Canadian Boreal Initiative): The question is poorly formulated.
Based on my experience with caribou, everything is connected, so everything
is important, and targeting one aspect is not productive. We should, instead
of only trying to protect seasonal habitats, try to manage the landscape itself,
keeping in mind that all elements of the caribou life cycle should be taken into
consideration.
Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): Question for members of
Nunatsiavut. Could you give us more information about the LISA (Labrador
Inuit Settlement Area) regional plan and its implications for the protection of
calving grounds in Labrador?
Judy Rowell (Torngat Mountains National Park): There is a draft land use plan, with a
set-aside area for protecting calving grounds within the Labrador Inuit
settlement area. Once the Government has approved the draft plan it is my
understanding that the plan goes over to the Provincial Government for
approvals and further discussions.
Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): What is your time frame and what is
the total area covered by the protection and what degree of protection is
being planned?
Judy Rowell (Torngat Mountains National Park) This really falls outside the realm of
what I do on a day-to-day basis for Government. I know the time frame laid
out was extended but I am not directly involved. Visually I can tell you it
covers what I see to be the major calving areas within the Labrador Inuit
settlement area.
John Blake (GNL): I am also not in a very good position to respond to this question. I
believe the Nunatsiavut approved their portion of the area’s plan, but LISA
also. To my knowledge, I would say that it would be around 10% of the calving
grounds that would be protected.
Serge Ashini Goupil (Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam): To implement sound
land management, it takes teams of experts who will accompany our
traditional knowledge experts to allow us to identify the best protection
measures we can have. Like others, we are talking about protecting our bond
with the caribou, which speaks to the question of seasonal habitats. It is not
habitat protection that is important to the Innu but the protection and
transmission of their traditional way of life. As I said this morning, we have to
address the impacts of northern development (i.e. roads, mineral exploration,
railroads) on caribou and on the traditional way of life of the Innu. Above all,
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
48
Proceedings – Day 2
we must validate what is presented to us. I will not tell you what you want me
to tell you; I tell you that we will do that exercise at some point. If you wish,
we can engage in discussion with you; is this a Québec Government
consultation that you are doing here today, will these things be taken into
consideration, are the Innu consulted about a new caribou management plan?
I think we are going to continue being reserved about being able to answer
your specific questions, but all the habitats (calving areas, summer areas,
migratory corridors) are important for caribou. For example, you may know
some migratory corridors, but we also know some. Now, how are we going to
share that information, who will have the privilege of protecting that
information? So there are all kinds of things to be done before we reach the
stage of discussing it.
Louis LaPierre: I do not believe this is a Government consultation that we are holding
today. It is a work session to bring together people and try to learn their
opinions. You have made the point very well that doing that in another
context should probably be considered.
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): It is important to recognize that development is
going to be occurring in one way or another due to global demand. It is also
important to recognize that the Inuit want development as well for their own
reasons, but not at any expense, and they want to ensure there is some
control over what kind of development is taking place and at what pace.
Mme Camden was the co-chair on one of the working groups for the Plan
Nord and I was there on behalf of Makivik. We brought forward some of the
fundamental preoccupations of the Inuit people at that time and they were
recognized. We then produced a Plan Nunavik in response to the Plan Nord.
We presume Mme Marois will produce something slightly different to the Plan
Nord but we will have to wait and see. One idea was to protect 50% of the
territory from development, but legislation was stopped due to the elections,
even though that tool allowed us some control over development of the
territory. For example, the calving grounds could be protected, though this
would have to be in a dynamic way that considers changes in caribou space
use over time.
George Peters (President of Nunavik Landholding Corporations Association): I am
president of the Landholding Corporation. There was a community
consultation concerning the Plan Nord and addressing road infrastructure.
The community of Kuujjuaq was very concerned; however we are more in
favour of railroad than road infrastructure because roads are favourable to
the Government. The Kuujjuaq River is a migratory path crossed by the
caribou from one location to another, and roads could be dangerous to the
migratory path of the caribou. This is a matter of concern. Thank you.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
49
Proceedings – Day 2
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): Industrial development is part of our
existence in the North. It became a reality and it is not going to go away. As
we all know the world is hungry for these developments. I can only speak to
what I know within the limits of my territory. In 2003 exploration for uranium
was taking place over a very large area touching numerous communities.
There were many concerns over this unknown mineral and there is still
uncertainty. The Provincial Government of the day put a moratorium on
mineral exploration for three years. The moratorium has since been lifted and
there is new exploration. The reality is we have to live with some
development. We have become accustomed to high-powered snowmobiles
and aircraft. We pay $1.70 for a litre of gasoline. Without the opportunity to
gain meaningful employment, which some of these developments bring.
People can no longer live on fishing, seal hunting, and trapping. I know
development can impact our lands, but I also know we coincide. Habitat
protection is very important and I couldn’t distinguish any difference in
importance between a calving ground and a wintering ground. Living in the
North is very expensive. New snowmobiles are $15-20,000. Power boats can
cost up to $60-70,000. We need development, but we need to put a plan into
place that will protect what we have. All caribou habitats are important.
Richard Nuna (Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu, NL): I am not sure what developments we
are discussing but there is a lot of development taking place in Labrador that
is bound to affect caribou habitat, our encampments, and migration corridors.
The Quebec Government is proposing a road from the bay to here and
uranium exploration near an important river in our territory. I would ask the
Government to respect our concerns.
Natalie D’Astous (Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach): I often travel in the North
as a pilot and I fly over calving areas, etc. I think that the protection of
seasonal habitats is important. Currently, what we see a lot of in the North is
mineral exploration. Before we talk about mining, we must consider that
exploration is being done in the meantime without any consultation with the
communities. Oftentimes there is no clean-up of exploration sites done. So
yes, it is important to protect seasonal habitats but it has to start before
exploration begins. I suggest that the Governments should require permits to
conduct exploration; in that way, the communities could see the development
coming and take part in consultations.
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): To Derrick Pottle, I wish
our gas was cheap like yours. In our situation we pay over $80 for 10 gallons,
it is very expensive today especially if you are unemployed. In 1954 a lot of
contaminants were left in our territory. A lot of towers have been built in
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
50
Proceedings – Day 2
Labrador and much garbage has been left behind. The Cree and Inuit are
responsible for this area but it would cost $5 million to clean it all up. Those
responsible did not even consult us, although some Inuit people were there to
dig the holes. Many companies have left their contaminants in many areas of
our traditional territory and it could still be happening today. There should be
research in this area. When we were negotiating the JBNQA we had little time
for reflection and were forced by Government to commit. The Landholding
Corporation should be taken seriously. I have seen mining activities right up
into Nunavut. We hear a lot about Chinese people who are interested in
activities within our region and there are more and more mining operations in
our territory, yet as Inuit there is no way to stop these companies. On the
Hudson Bay coast we live and hunt a lot from the ocean. But we are only
allocated three quotas for beluga whale. The Government needs to wake up
and see that it is that way we were supposed to operate at the time of the
JBNQA, meaning the local community must really be advised. Very slowly,
Inuit people are beginning to own their own homes, yet Government should
have been helping Inuit people, especially the Landholding Corporation. We
speak of our own rights at Inuit people, the Quebec Government has their
own rights too, but they are required to work with the Landholding
Corporation. I have been a mayor and have understood this. The JBNQA is
not respected by the Government because despite what was agreed upon we
have not moved forward in any significant way. It is very very expensive in the
north and if you do not have a job you cannot purchase a snowmobile
anymore. There are a lot of elders who are unemployed. One cannot make a
living on social welfare. People who make decisions affecting Inuit people
need to consider these facts.
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): You may ask yourself what side of the
fence I am on. Whether we are talking about development in the Western
Arctic, the James Bay, or in Labrador, there is big money at play and there is a
lot of pressure on our people to allow these developments to take place. We
are not going to stop these projects from putting billions of dollars into our
economy, but we have success stories; for example Voisey’s Bay. It runs from
Labrador Sea, with shipping twelve months of the year. There is an Inuitowned company that provides a service to winter and summer shipping. The
bay separates Nain from other communities to the south. Our progress has
not been stopped or impeded by this ship. The ship breaks ice and creates a
navigable path for us. Whether or not we like it or support it, there are
opportunities for Inuit people with such developments, but that is our choice.
At the end of the day we are unable as individuals to stop these
developments. However aboriginal perspectives need to be taken into
consideration when planning such developments.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
51
Proceedings – Day 2
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): In terms of control over one’s territory there are
Impact and Benefits Agreements (IBAs). It’s a balancing act and one must
decide on which side are the benefits and on which side the impacts. There
are however rules by which industry must abide with impact agreements, and
this is worth noting. Companies should take some responsibility, and conduct
monitoring.
14:45 Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): Presentation of Theme 4:
Do you consider that establishing a co-management system would improve the
management of the GRH? If yes, what form would it take (e.g. membership,
structure, function, powers)?
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): The bottom line for all Governments is comanagement. I personally don’t see any other alternative and I am wondering
what are the impediments preventing this co-management from taking place.
It is a shared population. The stakeholders from both Provinces must
participate. There is good collaboration and cooperation at the research level,
for example.
John Mameamskum (Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach): I’d like to follow up on
what I said yesterday. The Naskapi Nation has been seeking a comanagement system made up of users, the Governments of Québec and
Labrador, etc. and I want to confirm that the Lower Churchill panel
recommended to the GNL the creation of a co-management board for the
caribou. Now where it will take us depends on whether Governments on both
sides of the border will agree to such a system, but I think it is critical that we
establish one now for the good of the caribou. With less then 25,000 caribou
left, we don’t have much time left.
Aaron Dale (Torngat Wildlife, Plants & Fisheries Secretariat): In 1977 when the herd
was just starting to increase there was a recommendation from a users
meeting for a co-management structure. The Inuit later recommended the
same. In 1991, before the peak, co-management was again recommended. In
1991, Voisey’s Bay recommended the same, and then the Lower Churchill
example. In 2010, 2011, and 2012 the Torngat Wildlife, Plants & Fisheries
Secretariat has recommended a co-management board.
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): Even if we consider exclusive access to
all people, if everyone gets their way here there will be no caribou left. There
are more aboriginal people than there are caribou left in the GR herd and
that’s a fact (if we believe what the biologists tell us). It is therefore
imperative that we sit down and work together, and we must tread carefully.
We have talked about how aboriginal peoples leave the strongest leaders
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
52
Proceedings – Day 2
alone so they can eventually repopulate the herd. I think the animals
remaining in the GRH are the leaders; they will eventually reestablish the herd
and that is what we want to see. We do not want to see people taking all the
animals, whether Inuit, Innu or Métis. We know they are in a perilous
situation and we need to tread carefully and have some really intimate
discussions and it is through a co-management system that we can really
achieve that.
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): For the record, the HFTCC and native parties
therein have been pressing for some kind of co-management process over the
last decade.
This recommendation was contained within the last
management plan, which expired in 2010. If there is to be a total allowable
harvest (or total allowable catch, TAC) as we propose, how can the Quebec
and Labrador Governments determine this independently? Total Allowable
Harvest cannot be determined independently by Quebec and NFL and
Labrador Governments. It is the same population, it should be the same
vision. Only a co-management board can do that.
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): I agreed with Stas this
morning when he recommended working with the Government and Innu
Nation to work together on the GRH. I don’t think we will find a solution in
this meeting. I think we need to reach an agreement between Innu and Inuit
because there appears to be disagreement between us. Allowable permits
also need to be discussed. Tomorrow we will be discussing the LRH, but once
aboriginal people reach an agreement I think we will come up with a better
solution. Someone said they would consult their people and find a solution
and I think we need to do this: inform and consult first concerning the GRH.
For example, after we come up with a solution we will work on
implementation in Nunavik. Here in this meeting there seems to be conflicts,
but even if we do not agree completely, I think it would be better to consult
other aboriginals including Government; even Government will likely not be
the people who act on the matter.
George Peters (Nunavik Landholding Corporations Association): We have come to
this point and I believe we are reaching a consensus. Our aboriginal meeting
this evening is important because this herd is on the verge of extinction. The
question was raised: what other obstacles are in the way? There have been
mass deaths (10,000) when the caribou drowned near Kuujjuaq, but still the
Government refuses to offer their support. The same thing could happen
again, and if we want to ensure the same herd exists in our children’s lifetime
we need to create a co-management board and we will need this to be
funded. There is substance to this dialogue and I expect better results
because we will be discussing very positive issues tonight.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
53
Proceedings – Day 2
Jim Goudie (Nunatsiavut Government): re: Stas’ comments concerning total
allowable harvest, no, the two Governments cannot work independently.
Even if they were to work together there would be pandemonium without a
co-management board.
Serge Couturier (Biologist): I began my career studying those 10,000 caribou at
Limestone Falls for the Quebec Government. I left the Quebec Government
late May. We are indeed on a sinking ship and time is running short. If
management does not take place in a timely fashion this is equivalent to
taking no action. We cannot delay action. If we are closing down all three
harvests in the same year this means we are not respecting the priority of use
for native peoples. With the status of the GRH we are faced with the
disappearance of the herd. I agree we need a co-management system. There
are two ways of approaching this. You can use the top-down approach driven
by Government where the users are forced to comply, but when the decision
process is closer to the user there is greater success. However there is also
the bottom-up approach where the user takes the lead role and pushes the
management authorities in both Provinces to act quickly and do something. If
the pressure is coming from the bottom-up perhaps there is hope of success,
but if we do not act quickly to achieve consensus it will fail.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): Thank you Serge, this is exactly what I have
been waiting to hear. Government is always sending civil servants to impose
their will. I have traveled internationally to Scandinavia to observe the Saami
reindeer herding farms, which is very different from our practices. The 10,000
caribou that drowned at Limestone Falls, I took it on my own initiative to put
up fencing and hired local people. There is a lack of services and support by
Government. I know who can come and build fencing. There are many from
our communities who are imprisoned because of lack of opportunities. We
need a bottom-up solution. There is a provision that clearly states that
aboriginal rights have to be a priority. It is as though the Quebec Government
is saying the Inuit are going up to get the caribou with the biggest antlers, yet
our voices are silent. The GRH is at risk of complete extinction; we have to
take action now. Why are non-Inuit coming to our territory when they are not
going to listen to my concerns? It is not pleasant for me to say this but it was
mentioned by the last speaker. We will move a mountain by starting at the
community level because the Government does not want to comply.
Richard Nuna (Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu, NL): With respect to co-management, in our
present capacity we act in an advisory role. Aboriginal people are not always
respected and heard by our counterparts in Government, and this must be
improved if we want to see a co-management situation working. Many
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
54
Proceedings – Day 2
aboriginal peoples follow Canadian law on Crown lands as though their
existence was a privilege. The system that has been set up is foreign to our
culture; we have no rights, we are wards of the state. We must be careful that
such a co-management board would not become like that. In my experiences
on boards, when I speak I do not see it written down.
Louis LaPierre: Question to Joe Tetlichi; before you arrived you put together the
analogy of the forest fire risk colour-coded indicator. You are working on
management options with Alaska. Perhaps you have some insight as to how
you would see that working.
Joe Tetlichi (Porcupine Caribou Management Board): In regards to the colour zone, I
think we get our consensus from the protocol that was signed by both
parties, which has a lot of weight. Our management plan was not an easy task
to accomplish. We knew there was going to be a lot of compromise; people
have to sacrifice and it is not easy. People understand the colour zone
analogy. The challenge came down to the numbers associated with each
zone. Because this had political implications and because the Board was just
assisting the working group, which was moving to political decisions which
had to be made, those decisions were made by politicians behind closed
doors. When people saw those numbers people almost walked out, but
accepted the numbers that were given for the sake of the caribou, though it
was not an easy task. As for the Alaskan participation, I think the
International Porcupine Caribou Co-Management Board carried a lot of
weight. Any decisions on the Alaska side needed to be communicated to the
co-management board on the Canadian side. Once we tabled the harvest plan
and then the implementation plan, we carried these to the Gwichi’in gathering
of regional communities. When the International Board was reestablished we
took it to them. As Canadians we had to be very respectful not to impose our
will. We came to them with respect and told them what we were doing on
the Canadian side and then asked them how they were willing to work with
us. They were willing to take it to their communities, but already there is not
much harvest on their side so they did not have much issue with taking it to
their members.
John Blake (GNL): The decision to move forward with a co-management approach is
more a political than a biological decision so I cannot comment too much on
that, though I will say that on a biological basis we have very little time. The
type of decline we have documented has not been recorded elsewhere. This
fall they’re projecting 22,000 caribou. We are together here to try to work
together, which is essentially co-management, but I would urge everyone to
recall the biological reality in their consideration of building a co-management
structure.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
55
Proceedings – Day 2
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): I will make a controversial statement. At this
point in time I personally don’t feel anything can really be done to stop the
inevitable crash of the GRH. Under those circumstances, what really prevents
the continued harvesting at some level of those caribou? If it will crash it will
crash regardless; it may speed it up, but if there is no harvest at all it is unlikely
to reverse the trend. I don’t think it’ll be extirpated, but will reach some low
number and begin rebounding sometime after that.
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): Stas is not completely wrong, but as Todd mentioned
earlier, these animals can be perceived as the leaders of the population, and I
would suggest using the term “survivors” of the population. I don’t know if
surviving animals have the genetic advantage or increased fitness, but
because our harvest is random and not subject to natural selection, I believe
every animal we harvest can have an important effect on controlling the
decline.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): These academic researchers are indeed
credible. We as the Inuit people are concerned that this herd is disappearing
but we are not being heard. We do not go against regulations or the law. If
our wildlife is extinct how will we replace them? People who are eating nontraditional foods have diabetes. We should take the GRH as an example; we
must be heard, they are declining fast. We have to take action, we have no
other alternative. Caribou herds face challenges all the time; they get into
accidents, they have drifted into Ungava Bay, they have faced obstacles
during migration that have killed them. There will be a HFTCC meeting in
Chisasibi next week; at previous meetings we have discussed caribou issues
and the need to draft a co-management plan but there is no interest from the
Government side. It is not in my nature to point fingers, whether Inuit or nonInuit, but where there is a need to show support and that support is lacking.
This does not help us get anywhere.
15:00 HEALTH BREAK
15:59 Louis LaPierre: I want to look at this picture of a caribou with its offspring in a
human hand and let us reflect as individuals. Think of what this animal means
to your family and to your community. Think about your responsibility for
future generations. It’s a very expressive animal, it‘s a female, there is a
message concerning reproduction here. Now look at this slide (fire diagram +
clock). Where would you place the fire clock at this time, what color would it
signify and why? It takes time to address these complex issues. There is a
clock that says one minute to midnight. I encourage you all to think about
these diagrams tonight.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
56
Proceedings – Day 2
16h:06 Jean-Charles Piétacho (Council of Ekuanitshit Innu): I would like to present
someone I respect a great deal, a recognised teacher among the youth of our
community, a person who works very hard for our community, a great hunter,
Mr. Louis Lalo, for the closing prayer.
Closing Prayer by Louis Lalo, (Council of Ekuanitshit Innu)
END OF DAY TWO
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
57
PROCEEDINGS – DAY 3
September 13, 2012
RECEPTION AND REGISTRATION
08:47 Presentation by Isaac Masty of Opening prayer by Chisasibi elder Bobby
Neacappo.
AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE ON THE LEAF RIVER HERD
08:50 Louis LaPierre: Today we will be talking about the Leaf River herd. Although
this herd is not in as dire a state as the GRH, it is definitely heading in the same
direction, and I would encourage all of you to think about how we can
improve or even reverse this undesirable situation.
08:51 Presentation by Vincent Brodeur (MRNF):
“Changes in the Size of the Leaf River Herd – From Data to Management”
-
-
Long-term monitoring of the LRH by Quebec Government and HFTCC
o Caribou Ungava
o Makivik
o Hydro-Québec
Telemetry sampling is considered to be representative of the population
Distribution limited to western part of Ungava and no longer mixing with the
GRH since 2008
Sampling allows estimation of:
o Proportion of calves
o Proportion of adult males to females
Key elements: proportion of calves and adult female survival
o Adult survival is estimated from trends between population surveys
o Survival of collared animals
Causes of mortality:
o Natural
o Disease, etc. (see presentation)
Adult Survival + Calves = Population Trend
First reliable survey of LRH in twenty years in 2011
Interval between surveys should be proportional to the size and trend of a
population
Able to observe a population trend between 1990 and 2011.
o Managers worked with the lower end of the confidence interval since
the inaccurate 2001 survey in accordance with the precautionary
principle
o The population appears to have stayed below 625,000.
HFTCC Migratory Caribou Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
58
Proceedings – Day 3
09:00 Presentation by Julien Mainguy (MRNF):
“Other Key Elements: Body Condition, Use of Seasonal Ranges, and Migration
Routes”
-
-
-
-
-
Recruitment = # calves / 100 adult females
o LRH: higher in mid-1990’s
o Since 2000’s: 32 calves/100 adult females
o Fair recruitment
Adult survival is average to good
o Fair survival should be > 85%
o Adult female survival: 83% (2007-2011) and 82% (2011)
o Adult male survival: 66% (2007-2011) and 88% (2011)
Proportion of large males has declined since 2007
Body condition:
o Calves:
 5.6 kg from 2007 to 2011 = low to average at birth
 41.6 kg from 2007 to 2009 = low body condition
o Females:
 92.3 kg from 2007-2009
 Average fall condition
 Good recent gestation rates: 52% (2001-2002), 81% (2010-2011),
84% (2012).
In Summary: Fair recruitment, good gestation rates, average to good adult
survival and low proportion of adult males. However calves are in low and
adult females in average body condition
o Body condition of females and calves suggest: low summer and fall
range quality and availability, impact of large scale migration
movements.
o Need to identify factors impacting 1) range quality and availability and
2) space use patterns.
Factors influencing recruitment, survival and gestation:
o Diseases and parasites
 Besnoitia: potentially had a significant impact and still present
 Other parasites: normal prevalence
o Habitat quality and availability
 Good idea where seasonal ranges are
 Accurate knowledge on the timing and location of migration
routes
 Calving grounds are critical
 Shifted north 300 km since 1975
 Currently in Quebec only 16% of the LRH annual calving
grounds as Wildlife Habitat
 Factors affecting habitat quality and availability
 Impact of caribou on itself (e.g. browsing & trampling)
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
59
Proceedings – Day 3

Human impacts
o Low resilience of northern environments
o Disturbance and desertion
o Interference with migratory routes
o Current industrial developments (mining,
hydroelectricity, railways, roads)
 Climate change
o Climate change
 Effects on seasonal habitats (vegetation growth, snow depth
and melting patterns)
 Effects on body condition (insect harassment)
 Consequences on movement patterns (migration, predation)
o Predation
 Satellite collars fitted to wolves and bears in June 2012
 Future research
o Harvest (Vincent Brodeur)
 Harvest Rate = Harvest / Population Size
 Long-term monitoring of sport hunters
 Partial registration of the Cree harvest (voluntary process)
 Importance of monitoring the harvest is recognized by Makivik
 Need to define a sustainable harvest rate
 Sustainable Harvest Rate allows to maintain a healthy
population (to attain stability, increase or decrease)
 Missing Inuit portion of the harvest (estimated at 8,056 for
many years…); this is problematic.
 Population trend is as important as size in defining sustainable
harvest rates.
 Aboriginal and sport harvests are likely additive
 Reductions in sport hunt of LRH by 25% in 2011
 Total sport harvest = ~4,700
 The estimated harvest rate would have been high in recent
years (almost 8% at 16,754 in 2008) but recently down to a
sustainable level of 4%, which should continue into 2012.
 The LRH has recently declined, but biological indicators suggest
the population is stabilizing.
 The population is vulnerable to decline due to poor body
condition and extensive migrations.
 Need a closer monitoring of the harvest in order to allocate a
sustainable harvest rate.
 Need to develop an updated management plan with
stakeholders.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
60
Proceedings – Day 3
09:18 Louis LaPierre: Thank you very much for this comprehensive overview of the
LRH. The next presenter is Isaac Masty, president of the Cree Trappers Association.
09:20 Presentation by Isaac Masty:
“Importance of Integrating Aboriginal Knowledge to the Management of the
Leaf River Herd”
Good morning. As I listen to the presentations that have been made over the last
few days, I feel we are having difficulty trusting the knowledge that is being
presented by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups. This is something
that needs to be addressed. What is aboriginal knowledge and where does it
come from? I have heard statements that TEK is not structured, and that
really bothered me. We are people that come from a very complex society
with standards and values that guide them through just like other North
American communities. Aboriginal knowledge is not gained over night; it is
particular to a specific area of occupation. What I have observed and what is
relevant to me is different from other aboriginal groups and communities.
Like elsewhere, we have specialists in certain areas. For example, no biologist
can claim to know everything about all species, and that goes likewise for our
people. The primary value in our society is respect, and we all sometimes lose
track of that. Stories about respect were taught to children as soon as they
were old enough to understand. Wildlife deserves respect. For example, fairy
tales were designed to attract the attention of children, and we had a similar
program among aboriginal groups. The most important component of
learning is being able to listen carefully. We do not have libraries or buildings
where we store reference material containing the knowledge that passed on
to us from generation to generation. The elders say that to write something
on paper is an excuse to forget important knowledge. Unfortunately I
learned some of the non-aboriginal ways so I need a bit of paper in front of
me. I have two ears and a mouth that were designed in a specific way to
facilitate listening and the passing on of knowledge. I am no expert. My role
is to try and interpret traditional knowledge so others may understand what
was taught to me. The caribou deserves respect; this was taught to me by
John Petagumskum. I try to pass this knowledge along in an honorable way,
for this is very important to what we are doing here today. One could not
participate in a hunt prior to understanding the important aspects of hunting
the caribou. Hunting of caribou required knowledge at a very high level. Only
when you participated in a hunt did you graduate to a secondary level. When
everything of the caribou was taken after a successful hunt, you couldn’t even
tell there had been an animal there; the site was left without a trace. We
learned why a caribou was to be treated in a specific way and this taught
respect. We had to know which parts of the animal were for which purposes
and how to cut them. Different animal parts were meant to be eaten by
different members of our society (e.g. adult males, adult females, young men,
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
61
Proceedings – Day 3
etc.). Celebrations held after a hunt were alcohol-free and very special. The
preparation of the meat from a caribou hunt was done by the young men.
Usually it was the women, but in this case it was the special role of the young
men. There were basic skills one was required to master before actually killing
a caribou. This was to ensure there was no wastage. The Cree people have
always understood the connection between all living things. There is Earth,
Air, Fire and Water, and we were required to respect all these things. In a
healthy lifestyle there is the mental state, the emotional state, the physical
state and the spiritual state. All need to be nurtured with respect. Parts of
the caribou were used for clothing, other for materials (e.g. snowshoes). As a
young man I remember owning a new pair of snowshoes, which today would
be like owning a new car. I was so proud; I felt I could walk from one side of
the country to another. All this information can be used to gain an
understanding about the specific area where I am from. We didn’t learn
things we didn’t need to know, only what we needed to know and when.
There were experts in all aspects (e.g. land, sea, mammals, fish). Caribou
remains and those from other large game were disposed of in a very special
way. This led to an understanding of how males and females are to respect
each other also. An elder would not accept to provide expertise on
something they did not master but would instead direct you to the most
knowledgeable person on that matter. I hope this gives you perspective on
the way Cree knowledge works. Caribou experts are equivalent to scientific
experts who study a particular species. In understanding this we may learn to
respect one another. Aboriginals and non-aboriginals have a responsibility to
learn how to apply this knowledge with respect to the caribou. With respect
to animal numbers, it is alleged that the Cree are not paying careful attention
to the numbers. The Cree people are more preoccupied by the health of the
species than by its numbers. In closing, let me say that those who eat healthy
food grow black hair; those that eat chicken grow white.
09:45 Louis LaPierre: Thank you for that great presentation on Traditional
knowledge.
HEALTH BREAK
10:18 PLENARY SESSION
Louis LaPierre: The last aerial survey of the LRH counted 430,000 caribou.
Michael Ross (First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Sustainable Development
Institute (FNQLSDI)): With respect to the presentation made by the Québec
Government, the 2001 survey was not precise and they decided to take the
lower number (confidence interval), but that can be dangerous because it can
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
62
Proceedings – Day 3
underestimate the decline going on right now. How did they manage to find
that the herd had stabilized between 2001 and now?
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): With the 2001 data we chose to use the lower confidence
interval in accordance with the precautionary approach. The herd trend that
was presented is independent of the census and based on recruitment rates
and survival estimates that are judged to be reliable data.
Lisa Koperqualuk (Kativik Environmental Quality Commission): I have a question
related to mining. Has there been a study on the impact of mining on the
LRH? What is the situation in general, what plans are there for caribou surveys
in the future with respect to developments coming in Nunavik?
Louis LaPierre: We will talk about industrial development this afternoon.
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): In the scientific literature studies show that caribou can be
impacted by development, but nothing has been published precisely on the
LRH. Calving grounds are subject to mining interest and exploration, so it
would be interesting to know the extent of potential impacts.
Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): Ongoing work by Caribou Ungava is
looking at influence of mining and other development activities on migratory
routes. Results will be available soon.
Bobby Snowball (Makivik Corporation): We saw a presentation with a map of
Nunavik that showed the presence of caribou. We have to be cautious if we
look at aerial studies, they are not accurate, when they are done they must be
done on an annual basis. They have to be done over several days in a given
region. We know that the herds migrate north-south, east-west, etc. If it is
done over several days it could even be the same caribou.
10:33 Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): It was a very productive way of
conducting a survey from west to east and during the wintertime it is a lot
easier to count and estimate the population number because we can see the
dark caribou spots on a blanket of white snow as opposed to conducting a
survey in the summertime when the land is brown. Going back to the lady’s
question, when I was a young boy there were a few prospectors in Nunavik
drilling for mineral ore. Today there are a lot of abandoned mineral
exploration sites in Nunavik; barrels of oil and gasoline, old batteries
containing acid. Working with Laval University we had satellite images taken
and were able to see evidence of more than 600 abandoned exploration sites.
This could have a negative environmental impact whether it be on caribou,
sea mammals or fish. We lobby the Government to have these sites reclaimed
but to no avail because there is no funding. We therefore took our own
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
63
Proceedings – Day 3
initiative to start a program. We brought up a journalist for the CBC to expose
this nationally. After this was televised we received $5 million in funding from
the Nunavik Government and Makivik to clean up these sites. We were able
to produce a comprehensive report. We need to be able to provide adequate
information to help the caribou.
Roderick Pachano (Chisasibi): Regarding caribou that are not returning to Ungava,
they are either both inland or on the coastal islands. The question I have for
the Government and biologists is have they taken a survey of those animals to
know how many there are? Also are they using or do they intend to use the
native people in the caribou counts and surveys? Local people are the best
ones to use in these surveys. Also do they know the reasons why the declines
are taking place? How has the food been affected by development, for
example? They seem to imply it is caribou that are making their own food
disappear because they are too numerous. But what is in their food and how
has that changed in our area? It is time they change the way they investigate
these animals.
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): The data we are presenting should not be seen as a
challenge to aboriginal knowledge; we need to work together to share
knowledge. We are using scientific planning to estimate the probability of
detection. We have some collared caribou spaced away from the main
aggregations. This has all allowed us to estimate a range of possible
population sizes that we can all be comfortable with.
Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): Regarding habitat quality and
availability, over many years we have been able to identify locations of
seasonal areas including calving grounds, but finer-scale research is more
difficult to conduct. Local sampling does not provide enough information to
understand range quality. We are looking at using high-resolution imagery to
better understand habitat quality but we are new to this technology and still
learning. However we know a lot from studies in western Canada and we
conduct field work to improve our knowledge. It is a massive range to us and
difficult to characterize definitively. We are working on better answering your
questions.
Louis LaPierre: Regarding the question concerning the integration of local traditional
knowledge, I am not sure if there is an answer. To the gentleman who asked
the question, do you have any suggestions? You need a very good
understanding of your area to be a good hunter. However you will not be
able to understand all aspects. Do you have an answer?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
64
Proceedings – Day 3
Roderick Pachano (Chisasibi): Thank you for referring to me as a gentleman; not
many people do! Now I find that strange; if I asked my own question why
would I have the answer to it? It is still somewhat relevant. We need more
data to better understand the food quality. Then maybe we will know what
has caused changes in habitat quality. Regarding data, the scientific
community needs this information written down on paper, but local people
will simply tell you without sharing numbers or statistics. For the future
generations we need to have this information on paper so they will know
what the conditions were at that point when something happened. The
Government is going to have to listen to its scientists and its own people. You
could spend a whole lifetime learning traditional knowledge and sharing it all
in one sitting is not easy as you know, being a professor.
Traditional
knowledge has to be taken at face value; you cannot ask yourself why things
are the way they are, but you can ask yourself what have been the impacts of
humans on these natural systems.
Nadia Saganash (Cree Regional Authority): The question asks if local or traditional
knowledge plays a role in caribou management, and we can all tell you the
answer is no. Joëlle is talking about new technology and models, etc. but
what kind of effort are the scientists making to obtain traditional knowledge?
You cannot talk about integrating traditional knowledge if you do not go and
see the people who possess it. Especially regarding the surveys, we have only
ever received the results but have never participated.
Vincent Brodeur (MRNF): The comments that have been shared are quite relevant.
As caribou biologists we have the responsibility of building different protocols
and implementing them in the field, but we cannot be responsible for the
management structure. Blaming scientists for failing to integrate traditional
knowledge is perhaps not the best solution. Identifying mechanisms wherein
this is possible is probably the better solution. No one is opposed to sharing
the experience of field data collection. There is limited room in a helicopter
and the people we bring have received specific training. To bring more people
along would be very costly. A management plan should determine how
traditional and scientific knowledge can be integrated.
Nadia Saganash (Cree Regional Authority): I was not placing blame, I was asking a
question. Biologists are there to go and collect information and we are not
saying they are responsible. What we are saying is that there is extensive
knowledge among local people but not once have I seen a biologist consulting
them about their knowledge. Three years ago we asked about joining the
biologists and the Government rejected us, saying we required special training
about how to survive in the bush. How can we tell an elder who has been
trapping all his life that he needs to take a course about survival in the bush?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
65
Proceedings – Day 3
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): I will be brief. Concerning the GRH, they had a
traditional location but I saw that past habitats have no more vegetation.
They used to migrate there and have their calves but there are no more plants
there and I have since noticed they have moved to another location. That
area was a migration zone for many, many years and that is why there is no
more vegetation. Our knowledge is written in the Inuk language. In the past
when the blueberries are ripe we knew the caribou skin was ripe. We would
take what we needed and store extra meat in the ground. We have our
traditional Inuit law.
Judy Rowell (Torngat Mountains National Park): With respect to incorporating TEK, I
found it was more successful when Inuit were brought in at the interpretation
and analysis stage. Often researchers arrive with a conclusion, and that is
often the point of disagreement with the elders. You want to expand the
discussion and develop research questions of mutual interest and concern.
Information can be interpreted in two different ways by two different
cultures, and it could be important for the scientific community to understand
how their data is interpreted by aboriginal peoples.
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): I have three things to say
as time is short. As Inuk, all our lives we have learned not to waste any part of
the animal and we are taught where to hit in order to kill the caribou right
away. This is not to speak against anybody, but I have seen white people
using the bow and arrow. Some Inuit are starting to use these. The Inuit are
being told not to use a 22 calibre rifle to hunt beluga whales, for example. In
James Bay we killed two caribous because they had many scars from an
arrow. One time I saw one in Umiujaq at an outfitting camp. Sport hunters
shoot from great distances and fail to kill the animal. Outfitters allow the
hunters to use the bow and arrow to please their client. According to the
survey there might be 420,000 caribou in the LRH, so the Government is
saying that sport hunting should continue because it’s good for the economy
whereas they should be giving permits to the Inuit. The sport hunters are a
big reason for the declines in the caribou herds. I am unemployed and
dependent on “ma récolte” (my harvest) for a living, and there are many
others in that situation. We do not usually lobby the Government but we
want to be heard too. When we are ice fishing in winter, the caribou come
through and are not scared anymore. We need to be careful of this situation.
Caribou are not passing through the tundra anymore but instead in the James
Bay bush country. People need to travel far to hunt out of our communities.
There is more snow and winter rain than before. This is my knowledge. In my
region the snow becomes very hard in winter, this needs to be researched. I
am encouraging you to observe the rivers and the lake that is flowing inland
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
66
Proceedings – Day 3
where the pregnant caribou pass and drown when the ice is not solid. We
saw 200 caribou killed in that situation so I encourage scientists to be more
critical and careful in blaming hunters for the caribou declines.
George Peters (Nunavik Landholding Corporations Association): I am not entirely in
agreement with the comments and questions here. We need a collaborative
approach in conducting an aerial survey between Government and aboriginal
people. We need to provide accurate information. Twenty-five to 27,000
caribou is not an accurate estimation.
Lisa Koperqualuk (Kativik Environmental Quality Commission): Listening to both
sides I see a major gap in the way the knowledge is acquired. The biologists’
point of view is much based on quantitative research and therefore lacks the
human aspect. As an anthropologist I can see the acquisition of information
about migration, birth rates, etc. is done so differently. To acquire knowledge
about these things they need to go and see aboriginal people themselves.
They try to involve aboriginals when they have the time and finances, but they
are not seeking out knowledge from the people themselves. They should be
working on more qualitative research if they can. There is too much of a
divide between the biological and traditional knowledge perspectives.
Sara McCarthy (GNL): I am a wildlife biologist and I have encountered challenges
incorporating traditional knowledge but I have two positive experiences to
share. People working as conservation officers in Nunatsiavut and aboriginal
guardians working together have done a good job of collecting classification
information on population structure. We would like to expand on this in
future. The second example is a health monitoring program we began this
year. We went out to the field to sample the harvests and learned a great deal
about these communities and shared what I was doing with them. If you have
information to share, please come forward and we can do more of that in
future.
11:21
Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): Presentation of Theme 2:
Harvest Monitoring
• Do you consider that monitoring of subsistence harvest is necessary for the
sound management of the Leaf River Herd?
• If so, what would be the best approach to efficiently monitor the subsistence
harvest of the Leaf River Herd?
Total allowable harvest level and harvest threshold
• What should be done to favor the long-term food security of native communities
using the Leaf River herd?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
67
Proceedings – Day 3
•
•
•
Under a precautionary approach, should sport hunting on the Leaf River herd be
limited and closed below a threshold (determined from biological indicators,
population trend and other sources of information (including traditional
knowledge))?
Do you consider the restrictive modalities adopted to regulate sport hunting of
the Leaf River herd adequate?
Under a precautionary approach, should subsistence harvest be limited and
closed on the Leaf River herd below a threshold (determined from biological
indicators, population trend and other sources of information (including
traditional knowledge))?
Allocation of harvest
• If a total allowable harvest level limiting subsistence harvest is implemented,
who should be involved in determining allocation of harvest of the Leaf River
herd among communities?
Harvest practices
• Do you consider that adopting guidelines for hunting practices is necessary to
the management of the Leaf River Herd?
• Is the current enforcement capacity adequate to apply the guidelines for hunting
practices?
Serge Couturier (Biologist): We conducted two censuses in 2011, one on snowcovered ground, so there was very good data collected there. However in the
past we have not collected as good quality data. A model is only as good as
the data used, so the LRH population model will be improved in future years.
For the harvest rate, we must keep in mind that it is based on the model, so
we need to be cautious and use the best available data.
Louis LaPierre: How would you best monitor the subsistence harvest? How would
you get that data?
Nadia Saganash (Cree Regional Authority): I would have to refer to the Cree Trappers
Association, which has a voluntary system whereby people can register their
harvest in every community. Of course not everybody is registering their
harvest, so we consider this data to represent a minimum. There is work to be
done in order to encourage people to register their harvest, and this is
important for the monitoring of the populations.
Louis LaPierre: What should be done to favour the long-term food security of these
communities?
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
68
Proceedings – Day 3
Derrick Pottle (Nunatsiavut Government): As Inuit people we have adapted our way
of harvest. If we have to travel into Nunavik territory, I know that we share
our borders. This may be an option that is only left to us; if our local caribou
are all gone and we cannot access them anymore, traveling further to access
caribou in other ranges is not out of the question. This is something we may
need to look at doing in the future if we want to continue to harvest and
consume and practice our traditional activities that have been passed down to
us. With a snowmobile we can only haul one to two animals at a time,
maximum four with a sled.
Roderick Pachano (Chisasibi Cree): It is very hard to answer the question about
registering the number of animals taken. We don’t know what the needs of
the other communities are. To a certain point the caribou determine the kill
depending on their travels. Sharing is a traditional value that aboriginal
people practice. However, we are slowly learning bad harvesting practices
from non-aboriginals and that is a shame. The numbers taken are not an
indicator of the impact that non-native hunters and outfitters are having on
the caribou. In Zone 22A there is a draw where Quebec residents are not
required to go through an outfitter. There are insufficient conservation
officers in this area where everyone wants to be. Caribou are smart and pass
through the zone before the season opens, but non-native hunters still go to
these places. They do not give the caribou a chance to rest, to feed. This is
not normal from the aboriginal perspective. The biggest impact comes from
non-native sports hunters. Harvesting is unregulated in Zone 22A. However
on numerous occasions these same people would have died without us. At
times they have come into our camp because they were lost or because the
batteries in their GPS transmitters had died. We are showing pictures of a
carcass clean-up after the sport hunt is over. How many people count these
caribou in the surveys? There are hundreds left unattended out in the bush. It
is the hunter’s responsibility to ensure an animal is put down before pursuing
another animal because that is their responsibility. Outfitters that come
provide little supervision, and there are only ever two, maximum four
conservation officers at a time that travel together and cannot cover the
entire area. Conservation officers tell us the Government told them they
could go anywhere, and I tell them we have never seen any Government
people in our traditional territory so how can they tell us what to do? Hunting
is not a sport, hockey is a sport. Hunting is our way of life, it is who we are. To
answer the question we had yesterday, it is easy: the number of animals killed
in zone 22A? There was something like 400 licences at two caribou per
licence. Are the dead caribou left on the land by the non-aboriginal hunters
counted in their harvest? Do they recover the costs of the hunting by selling
permits? We need to start by ending the resident hunt and return to the way
things were in the past. The better management of the sports hunt is the
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
69
Proceedings – Day 3
minimum requirement. I even have a bullet that went through my cabin wall
and I found lodged in another, a type of bullet that no Cree people use. This is
why the Cree people need to come back to the village when the sport hunting
season is open.
Willie Etok (Makivik Corporation): Our ancestors worked together and by Inuit
tradition we shared food with each other when others were hungry. If we
have to end the hunt I’m sure people will lose the tradition. We are taught to
assist people who are hungry and never leave another human being when in
need. If you have enough food to share, please do. Early Europeans struggled
hard here and the Inuit helped them to survive. It is not the tradition of the
Inuit to leave other people in a critical situation.
Todd Broomfield (Nunatsiavut Government): Returning to the first theme, gathering
information from the aboriginal hunters does not just mean numbers.
Satellite telemetry allows biologists to do this. The health of the animal itself
is a strong indication of where the population is going. In the past we never
worried about health when harvesting from the GRH. Now the animals have
no fat, though there stomachs are still full. You could probably assume by this
that the animals are not healthy. Local people who know this can provide
valuable information to the scientists. Healthy caribou can take hunting
pressures and repopulate themselves. It has been quite a few years since I
have seen a healthy GR caribou. We should not be so concerned about the
numbers; I don’t think those 25,000 animals are healthy.
Jean-Charles Piétacho (Council of Ekuanitshit Innu): I cannot understand how we can
talk about investing billions in northern development without ever coming to
consult with us. I do not understand why there is no funding for research on
an animal that is part of our lives, I do not understand how funding cannot be
found for caribou. Researchers come into our communities, they meet with
us and they leave without ever sharing the findings of their studies with us.
The question of the caribou harvest is up to our communities. Yes there is
waste at our level, but never on the scale of the whites. When 10,000 caribou
drowned in two or three days, the communities could have made use of these
animals. We are often judged, but those people forget that they have a much
greater impact on the resource. I am one of the Chiefs who have been sitting
at the negotiating table for some thirty years with the Government, and I
withdrew from the table because we continue to demand that our title and
our rights be recognized, and they do not want to recognize us. We assert,
we request, we demand, and they should recognize our rights. The title of a
people cannot be extinguished. We respect each other, but no one respects
us. They have forgotten the people who were already here when the whites
arrived. We have been trying for thirty years to have our rights recognized, to
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
70
Proceedings – Day 3
have our own governance, but no one is listening to us. They talk to us about
management, about consultation, but they forget our recommendations, our
words. We are buried. Innu are moving out of the territory because there are
moose hunters who take too many. I have been chief since 1991. The only
one who almost convinced us was René Lévesque, because he was a man who
had understanding of what we were saying. I simply wish to reiterate our
history. More and more restrictions are being imposed on us and this is not
appreciated.
Aquuja Qisiiq (Nunaturlik Landholding Corporation): Thank you to Isaac Masty for his
talk, it was really appreciated. We have heard about the declining
populations, the impacts, the diseases, the wolves, the river incidents, the
drowning in the lakes. From what I have observed, the bigger males should
be in the same proportion as in the past, but since about twenty years when
the sports hunt began, the alpha males who are usually the producers of the
calves have declined in number. There are many females but we do not see
many large males any more. Starting in June the caribou descend closer to
the shore. Usually there are a lot of females and young males, but few large
adult males. If you are going to speak to us of allowable harvest and you
continue to allow the sports harvest, this will mean nothing to me. Thank you.
Thomas Sealhunter (Chisasibi Cree): Every year we get caribou coming down to the
James Bay. We have noticed they are feeding a lot on gravel because they go
to the roadsides for salt. I would like to see more research about the effects
of such food habits on caribou health.
Marc Plourde (Québec Outfitters Federation): In 2010 we had very constructive
discussions. I repeat that it is important to work together, but here we are,
three months behind and we still cannot manage to work together. I hope
that the meeting of this year will not be a failed meeting. Waste is something
that has been proven for a long time. It is deplorable, the discharge of
firearms on roadsides, but there are solutions. I believe recreational hunting
has its place; it generates revenues and can contribute to enhancing
knowledge. But we have never worked on educating recreational hunters. I
understand that the priority is subsistence, we have never contested it and we
never will. We are also concerned about Plan Nord. There are other factors
besides hunting that affect the health of populations (e.g. parasites). We
must change our practices and make sure that better use is made of the
animals. Recreational hunters can learn. We must change our practices and
work together, I am ready to promote new ways of doing things and greater
respect for the animals, and better use of the animals.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
71
Proceedings – Day 3
Louis LaPierre: Many people are ready to work together and share their ideas and
knowledge. We should leave today with some possible solutions. We will
return to this this afternoon.
Marianne Aubin (Association of James Bay Outfitters): During the winter hunting
season, we do not only target big males because they drop their antlers
before the winter hunt. In addition, non-Native hunters also want the meat,
they are also entitled not to get their meat at the grocery store. Outfitters
have made numerous efforts to improve hunting practices, especially with
regard to safety. I want my children and my grandchildren to appreciate
caribou, and not necessarily to hunt it. I don’t know where the term
recreational hunting comes from. As an outfitter, we have no interest in the
extinction of the resource. I do not see the usefulness of preventing
recreational hunting. We have made tremendous efforts, the number of
permits has decreased, it is hard for outfitters. Many outfitters are on the
brink of bankruptcy. It is not just recreational hunters who are wasteful, other
people are as well. Abuses exist among Aboriginal people as well, and I don’t
think that the hunters who come to us are responsible for the extent of waste
we saw in the presentation (referring to hunters in the free zone). I address
this question to the Aboriginals: what are your methods for preventing young
people from wasting [the resource]?
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): I go out hunting in the cold winter months to
collect meat. The past two speakers seem to mean the Inuit are not practicing
good hunting etiquette. We saw pictures of carcasses having to be cleaned
up by the Cree Nation; that is extreme and unfair to the caribou. We have
heard of many incidences of caribou hunters that do not take the whole
animal, they leave a lot of meat behind. Concerning the road salt, caribou are
consuming this product and is it not contributing to the declines in their
health? We have heard it has no negative impact but I am not sure. In the
near future we will have to see some reports showing such an analysis.
Caribou are not as sensitive as they were in the past. They do not run away as
in the past when they sense humans or see a snowmobile. Their hooves are
very sensitive as well and they do not want to be exposed to pollution. I wish
I could eat some caribou meat this lunch hour.
Nadia Saganash (Cree Regional Authority): I want to address Mme Aubin’s question.
I am sure you are aware that these issues have been going on for years now,
almost twenty. The Cree have always had a concern with the sports hunt,
especially Zone 22A. I am surprised that an outfitter representing the sports
hunt should come out and ask us what we are doing when there have been so
many complaints about the wastage that we have shown you in the pictures.
Most of those responsible for the wastage we presented were from Ontario,
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
72
Proceedings – Day 3
these people were definitely not Cree people. The Crees recognize there is a
need to better transmit traditional values, but I do not think it is appropriate
for you to ask us what we are doing when you have only been taking action
for the past two years.
Louis LaPierre: I want to keep these discussions general. There is obviously a
dialogue that needs to be had, but we need to work together.
Bobby Snowball (Makivik Corporation): Concerning the LRH, when we were children
we were taught that caribou would not always be plentiful and may decline
and maybe even disappear one day. Things are not as in the past; we have
better transportation. The youth in our communities are taught how not to
waste the animals. Most men do not even own a rifle and many do not hunt.
Many men do not practice traditional ways and many are incarcerated in
prison. There are few community hunters yet many seek food from the
community freezer. I was general manager of an outfitting camp in the past. I
am very ashamed to be from this Province to see the images of waste as this
puts us in an unfavourable and vulnerable position with the Government. In
the past when a sports hunter did not practice ethical hunting they were fined
or had their licence revoked. We are in the Province of Quebec and under
their jurisdiction; however we are not in agreement with them handing out so
many permits. These images we have seen should not be exposed on the
worldwide web. I am a member of the International Elder Association and
have traveled all over the world; we discuss different issues pertaining to
cultural practices. Namely, we need to practice fair hunting etiquette with the
LRH.
Marianne Aubin (Association of James Bay Outfitters): I apologize if I appeared to be
blaming Aboriginals because that was not my intent. I am asking for real
advice, we want less wastage. I am very proud of what outfitters have done
in recent years. Caribou are also important to us. Besides, there are no
outfitters in zone 22A. We do not want there to be waste and we have
worked with our hunters to improve the circumstances. We are making
progress and improving things, because caribou is also important to us.
Nadia Saganash (Cree Regional Authority): I completely understand and we must
explore the possibility of better educating people. We have had many
discussions about allocating two caribou per permit. This is sending the
wrong message: that there are plentiful caribou. Perhaps rectifying this by
only allowing one would send the message to hunters that they need to be
more careful.
12:30 Louis LaPierre: Lunch Break.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
73
Proceedings – Day 3
14:00 Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): Introduction of Adamie Delisle Alaku,
from Saluit, Executive Assistant of Resource Development, Makivik Corporation.
Presentation of summary on aboriginal perspectives by Adamie Delisle Alaku.
I must humbly say I think I am the least knowledgeable man at my table, but I can
contribute certain aspects to our experience. We had an interesting meeting
yesterday among native parties and will contribute a summary (recital of following
text):
Summary of Meeting of the Aboriginal Participants to the 2nd Caribou Workshop
During the evening of September 12, 2012, the aboriginal participants to the 2nd
Caribou Workshop met to discuss their concerns and views on the status of the three
caribou herds of Northern Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador; the Torngat,
George River, and Leaf River herds. The aboriginal peoples have hunted caribou
since time immemorial. All of the aboriginal participants stressed that the
subsistence harvest of caribou is an issue of food security, and that any changes to
the subsistence harvest have direct implications on the health and cultural
preservation of the aboriginal populations. Equally, all of the participants recognized
the critical situation and the need for urgent actions.
All aboriginal participants recognized the need to hold consultations in their
respective communities to inform them of the status of the three caribou herds, and
to receive feedback upon the best course of action to address the situations of the
three herds.
The aboriginal participants reached consensus on their desire to continue
discussions regarding the caribou situation. All of the parties are committed to
further meetings to discuss possible actions that would address the evolving
situations with the Torngat, George River, and Leaf River herds. To this effect, the
aboriginal rights holders who harvest from these three herds would like to request
financial support from the Governments of Québec and Newfoundland & Labrador
for the establishment of an aboriginal Round Table. This Round Table would act as
the forum of exchange and support, in view of finding solutions, actions, and
recommendations built upon consensus and respect. In view of the urgency of the
situation, the Round Table would act to provide recommendations to management
authorities until the establishment of co-management boards is formalized.
All aboriginal participants support the creation of an effective co-management
board or boards to address the situations of the three caribou herds. However, any
co-management process and the decisions that would flow from it must be given due
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
74
Proceedings – Day 3
respect and recognition by the bodies responsible for the management of the herds
and reflect an equitable sharing of authority. Furthermore, any modifications of
management measures would be conditional upon the establishment of a comanagement board.
All of the concerned aboriginal parties agreed that there should be no reduction
of the subsistence harvest of the Torngat caribou herd until such time as there is
more information on the status of the herd. It was also agreed that there should be a
formal elimination of the non-aboriginal (sport/resident) hunt in Labrador.
The participants to the evening session were:
The Inuit of Nunavik
The Cree of Eeyou Istchee
The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
The Innu of Ekuanitshit, Uashat mak Mani-Utenam and Nutashkuan
The Inuit of Nunatsiavut
The Innu Nation
The Métis of Nunatukavut
14:05 Louis LaPierre: Since not all aboriginal parties are present with us here today
we cannot debate what has been proposed at this time.
Joëlle Taillon: Theme 3: What are your main concerns relative to habitat protection in
the current context of the industrial development of the North? Which seasonal
habitats should benefit more from protection (e.g. calving grounds (birth of calves),
summer range (growth of calves), migratory corridors, or wintering range)? How to
consider the seasonal needs of caribou while planning the development of the North?
Louis LaPierre: An additional question; when the caribou food source is scarce, do
aboriginal people need to consider alterative means of subsistence?
Aquuja Qisiiq (Nunaturlik Landholding Corporation): What you just mentioned I want
to add to. Near Kangiqsualiujjuaq there are two mining operations and since
they began I have seen the LR caribou spread out and move away. We are
very concerned that in the future they may disappear because of the mining
industry.
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): In 1964 and 1965 I
remember going inland by dog team to hunt for caribous for several weeks.
The LR herd at that time never came near Salluit but much farther inland. I
was born in 1944 and I followed my father’s way of life. In his day they would
hunt for subsistence. In Kuujjuarapik and Salluit we are now seeing caribou.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
75
Proceedings – Day 3
We used to travel 300 miles through dangerous areas. I learned from Johnny
Peters that Ungava people would go inland as well. I myself use a
snowmobile to hunt caribou up to 100 miles away in the wintertime. I rarely
eat boiled or fried caribou meat. I am a raw meat eater. There are many
people today and numerous means of travel. Long ago Minto Lake was a
hunting ground for the caribous. The lakes now can have ice until July and the
caribou now can travel through in large numbers and I have seen many dead
near Nastapoka River and Minto Lake. There are other examples of mass
deaths that we have not discussed. In response to the lady’s question, I
estimate that Inuit are harvesting 25% of caribou, but we are not paying
attention to the natural cost of death. The flooding caused by the
hydroelectric dams created a large lake that submerged a cemetery and
caused much grief for communities. I have heard there are caribou now
migrating through this area. I would like to know if the researchers are
interested in investigating this area. I have made mistakes but I want to make
a positive contribution and the Government should not be the only decision
maker. This is my first meeting like this. I would like to see another meeting
going forward; this is only the first step.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): I just want to clarify this. I know there are
many experts in here. Ever since a boy is growing up we are taught to
properly take care of an animal, not to play with it, not to let it suffer but to
treat it very well and this is an important teaching. I want to ask about the
migratory path of the LRH. This area should not be contaminated by garbage
or mining leftovers. This has been our statement by aboriginal people since
the beginning. If the animal is sick, what will replace it? There is much to
discuss. We saw a picture this morning of Zone 22A which provided a very
good example of why we should not do that. I am sure there are as many
carcasses that have been left behind in the bush where they are not visible.
We do not want this practice to take place. If the area smells rotten the
animal will not stick around. They usually look for the best area to live upon. I
want non-aboriginal people who also harvest to stop this kind of activity; it is
unacceptable. This is a very old teaching of ours.
Kakkiniq Naluiyuk (HFTCC, Salluit): 10,000 caribou drowned back in the 1980’s and
this could happen again so I think it is a good idea to put fences around these
dangerous areas but the Quebec Government does not want to fund this. If
we want to keep the population stable we need to do something about it.
Joëlle Taillon (Caribou Ungava/Université Laval): With regard to migratory routes and
icing on the lakes, we have a lot of information about this for the LR herd. We
also have a data sharing agreement with Hydro Quebec to learn more about
ice and melting conditions in the spring to see how it could affect caribou
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
76
Proceedings – Day 3
migration. There are other studies that we have looked at as well to examine
this problem. It is true there are natural causes of mortality that we need to
investigate and we will present, for example, the results of our study on
disease with the communities. We have also begun studying predators.
However, as a biologist I also need information on the harvest because it
helps me understand population changes over time.
Roderick Pachano (Chisasibi Cree): The caribou were meant to roam where the
caribou want to go, not where man would have them go. They should
therefore be allowed to roam where they want to go. We know there are
groups that use planes to divert or hamper caribou migration and this must be
stopped. The Government has asked the Cree and Inuit to identify candidate
areas for protection. The Cree did that and nothing to speak of was accepted
by the Government. They based their decision on information they got from
Hydro Quebec and others but not from the Cree. It is important to protect
not just the calving areas but the wintering range as well. We must not permit
disruption of the caribou. In our hunting territory there used to be a lot of
caribou. We had one Cree outfitter and the hunters used to have a 100%
success rate. When the caribou started declining in other areas all the
outfitters knew there were still some here and came over to hunt in our area,
which led the caribou to disappear. The Government allocates permits to
hunt wherever people want, but this is political. A certain Minister goes
hunting with an outfitter, but won’t come to see how things are done in the
Cree territory. The calving areas, the wintering ranges, the migratory
pathways are also important but they can change over time. We must
understand the natural conditions and disallow actions designed to alter
those conditions. The quality of the food determines the quality of the
animals. If they don’t come back there is a reason for this.
Willie Etok (Makivik Corporation): I think we will need to take into consideration
other species, for example fish. In the fall we are seeing a lot of small aircraft
flying to our community to go fishing without any permits. We are talking
about the caribou population but maybe in the future we will be sharing
concerns about other species. I have a good communication with the
Nunatsiavut region and any air traffic into our area needs to be controlled. I
don’t want to stop tourism but these aircraft disturb wildlife. We need to
know where these aircraft come from but we are unable to question them.
They claim they are fishing but perhaps they are poaching and we need to be
cautious with this in the future.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): Thank you. Having been involved in wildlife
management issues and discussions we have met many times with other
native groups through the HFTCC. We have identified many cases on the land
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
77
Proceedings – Day 3
where the survival of caribou is in peril. When we placed fencing at the rapids
of the river at Limestone Falls, we saw numerous caribou that would have
perished if we had not built those fences. How can the natural environment
contribute to the decline of those herds? We have raised this issue with game
wardens. The population decreases in the winter and increases in the
summer. Southerners come into Nunavik like a herd, growing in the summer
and waning in the winter.
Louis LaPierre: Theme 4) How can exchange and communication among users be
improved for the management of Leaf River herd?
Robbie Tookalook (Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board): Concerning this
morning’s question, each and every one of us walks on land like the caribou. I
believe that road contaminants are affecting the caribou’s well-being. In the
past the caribou meat was very good to eat, of high quality. But when the
caribou migrated to the ocean, to the bay, they were drinking salt water and I
think this also contributes to a lower quality of meat. It would be a good idea
to conduct an analysis of this. We also fear that what the caribou eats might
contaminate us human beings. We cannot stop the application of road salt on
highways, but I am also referring to natural sea salt caribou ingest when they
are migrating along the bay. They also consume roots of plants. One
particular plant contributes to the better quality of the meat. Thank you, I
hope I was concise.
Louis LaPierre: In your list of collaborative solutions, we have much to discuss for
possible ways ahead in the future. In some areas we have a lot more time, in
other areas we do not. I suggest we project Aaron Dale’s chart and consider
what it can contribute to this discussion.
Aaron Dale (Torngat Wildlife, Plants & Fisheries Secretariat): We need to think longterm in terms of what should happen. This was not intended to be a
discussion aid for GR caribou, it can be modified and changed.
- Displays forest fire risk indices applied to caribou harvest
- Displays map from “The Return of Caribou to Ungava”: Relative
abundance of GR caribou over time in Quebec/Labrador.
- Displays more complicated version of forest fire index
14:56 Louis LaPierre: We have heard the aboriginal groups speak of moving
forward, and in your experience Joe Tetlichi, how did you move forward?
Joe Tetlichi (Porcupine Caribou Management Board): That is a pretty loaded
question. Historically, aboriginal people were definitely managers, to which I
think all people here can agree. Historically our people really respected the
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
78
Proceedings – Day 3
caribou because they needed it to survive, and that is why our spirituality is
built around respect for nature. We didn’t have guns before and had to
develop skills. In 1968 I had the opportunity to go out with our people and
live a traditional lifestyle. I have seen women give their sons three bullets and
tell them they had to come back with a caribou and this was a way to educate
the young people. People returned from the kill site by removing everything
and covering the site with snow. From living 20 years on the land, I have seen
this. We all know what to do, but we have to find that within ourselves. In
the past the Board was focused exclusively on protecting the Porcupine herd
calving grounds in Alaska from U.S. oil and gas development. No alternate
calving ground exists. We had to approach that situation in a productive way.
Today there is no development on those calving grounds but it may still be
under threat and we have worked hard to accomplish what we have done.
Our situation was much less complicated than what you have now because we
only had two territories and seven communities, a maximum two hours flying
distance from West to East. The other area of importance was education. I
have always had the viewpoint that if people want to work with caribou, they
had better go into the communities and learn the history of the aboriginal
people. You have to eat and sleep and dance with them and listen to their
stories. When our elders talk, they are not going to give answers; they are
going to tell stories, and it’s your job to pick out the messages from that story.
This makes you listen, and try to catch the intended message. We place
importance on our elders because they have the traditional knowledge. We
have discussed incorporating scientific and traditional knowledge, and I will
say that’s important. As Chair of the Porcupine Caribou Co-Management
Board I need to know where we are, what our goals are, and what the
challenges in between are. We called our harvest management plan “setting
a trail for our future generations” because it is not for me or for Board
members but for the children. I try not to speak of my right to be on the land,
but I took twenty years of my life working on the Board because I believe in it.
I think we all need to be honest with ourselves and trust each other. This can
start when researchers make contact and collaborate with the communities.
This can be an eye-opening experience for these people, and vice-versa. Our
people had a hard time accepting conventional satellite collars, but when the
scientists went in and justified the need, they agreed to go ahead and began
walking together. The trust was the big thing we had to overcome. Comanagement was not the answer, but it was a trust. We are a
recommendation body; Government has the power to instate laws on safety
and conservation, but they have their own constraints and that is something
we need to be aware of. They wanted interim measures based on a computer
model and we said no, that is not how you make management decisions. We
took court action and it stalled. Two years later we counted 160,000 caribou.
People knew there were lots of caribou out there and there was no need for
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
79
Proceedings – Day 3
interim measures. There is still a lot of distrust, but we still come back to the
table and talk about it and get back to walking together. As a guest I am not
going to make any suggestions or recommendations; I am here to listen and
to give examples of the sort of challenges we had. I don’t want to paint a
picture that everything is working with our Board for it is not. We still have
people going out and disrespecting what our elders taught us. But at least we
do not put it under the rug; we are accountable to our people and we are
quite direct with them to rectify such problems. Many cumulative footprints
(e.g. oil and gas exploration, mining, roads, etc.) result in one large footprint
and there can result in little area of high integrity for caribou. It is challenging
and we must do what we can.
Louis LaPierre: We did not get to the moon without working together and rising to
the challenge. Resolving this issue is a real challenge but we can go it. Are
there any additional comments?
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): I always tend to mention what I have learned
and seen. Animals can have all kind of incidents, not just caribou. When there
are such incidents, usually nobody wants to be responsible to preserve. There
were 2,000-3,000 LR caribou that died and nobody but the Inuit were trying to
clean that area. Also climate change is a very big factor. When the caribou
cross waterways when it is very hot they have very little energy so they drift
and die. Also, GR caribou passing Kuujjaq on their way to Labrador in April. At
the Whale River there is a very big island, the other side of which was not
frozen. We used helicopters to try and move them away from the dangerous
area. How can we have more resources available to us to help prevent
accidents in future? All aboriginal people need to work together to ensure
food security but we all live so far away from each other. I am thankful to be
here right now.
15:20 HEALTH BREAK
15:48 Louis LaPierre: I have four points to make. Having listened to a lot of the
discussions over the past few days I have learned a lot.
1) Pursue efforts to acquire and integrate knowledge. We must continue to
acquire knowledge and also integrate scientific and Aboriginal knowledge and
share them in a common forum.
2) Concerns about caribou habitat
3) Improve monitoring of harvests
4) Establishment of an aboriginal round table
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
80
Proceedings – Day 3
Thanks to everyone; this was not an easy process but it was an enriching one. I
particularly appreciated the comments from the elders and the people of the land.
You must continue to convey your values. You have been very respectful; I thank you
for this and I wish you good luck.
15:55 Denis Vandal (MRNF): I will make the closing address in English. I have been
working with caribou for 35 years as a biologist and manager. I have been the
Chair of the HFTCC for some time and I have done a lot of observing and
listening. I learned that respect and trust are the most important. We must
assume our responsibilities. I will cite some of your comments. Thank you to
Isaac Masty for his presentation this morning. It is imperative that we sit
down and have a meaningful discussion (George Peters). However these
words need to be transformed into actions. There were many constructive
and respectful exchanges that opened the doors for further discussions. We
brought people in from divergent backgrounds to draw inspiration from each
(thank you Don, Darryl and Joe). We must work in all transparency in the
sharing of information. We are two minutes before midnight where it comes
to the GR herd. As we have seen, there is certainly a gap between western
science and traditional knowledge backgrounds and we need to take the
necessary steps to bridge the gap between these two sides. I will close by
addressing what is going to come next. I hope I will not be here in two years
listening to Stas making a summary of this meeting that sounds identical to
the one in 2010. We all have a responsibility to follow up on this. Thank you
very much in particular to Louis for acting as facilitator. Thank you to all the
members of the organizing committee for their involvement. Thank you to all
attendees for your presence. I know a certain number of you and I have met
several new people. In my mind these were three excellent days. Thank you
to the aboriginal language translators, Miss Maggie Putalik and Sarah Aloopa,
and to the French and English translators, Nicole and Mireille. Thank you also
to April O’Donouughue for organizing the logistics. We have a challenge to
transform our intention into action. Good luck and thank you. We will end
with a closing prayer by Johnny Peters.
Johnny Peters (Makivik Corporation): From the Inuit organization this meeting was
very useful. Through the JBNQA the HFTCC was created. I have been involved
with this committee for many years, and this is the first time I have heard
Denis say such pleasant things about me whereas usually we are in conflict.
This bodes well and shows how far we have come.
Stas Olpinski (Makivik Corporation): We do hope that our concerns will be listened to
and that the Governments will move forward and commit to working
together on mutually beneficial co-management strategy. I want to recognize
the presence here for three days of Natalie Camden, a senior politician.
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
81
Proceedings – Day 3
16:15 Closing Prayer by Louis Lalo (Council of Ekuanitshit Innu). Mr. Lalou thanks
everyone and would like to continue discussion of the subject in future.
END OF DAY THREE
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
82
Proceedings – Day 3
“Declining Caribou: Shared Concerns, Shared Solutions” Workshop
Montreal, 11-13 September, 2012
83