Plenary Speaker Abstracts
Poster Abstracts
Five decades ago the relationship between government resource managers and North American indigenous peoples was one of conflict. Caribou biologists commonly assumed that the hunting activities of indigenous people were having a negative impact on caribou populations. Concurrently, indigenous peoples expressed concern that draconian government policies to acculturate northern hunters and expropriate northern resources would ultimately deny them access to animals while transforming their way of life. And many social science projects of this era focused on mitigating the impacts of their transition.
Today, much has changed. While caribou remain an important subsistence resource and a cultural symbol to many indigenous communities, greater numbers of Native locals work cash jobs, there are improved lines of communication linking villages to the greater world, and in several regions, the economic interests of Native peoples are focused both on subsistence hunting and on the resource-extractive activities of Native corporations. Among caribou scientists, there have been changes in perspective, including a greater appreciation for the complexity of the natural systems and a recognition of the need to include Native hunting communities in caribou management process. And for those conducting resource management policy studies, there is now an interest in the applied problems associated with differing cultural views of property, the sustainability of common pool resources, and the potential success of alternative forms of management.
The resultant change of the past decade in caribou management systems is the establishment of several government-community power sharing or "co-management "arrangements. Accepted in some circles as the most effective approach to caribou management, co-management arrangements are instituted to specify indigenous users' rights to caribou, improve communication among indigenous caribou users and agency managers, and increase the likelihood of user compliance with management policies. In some areas, caribou co-management arrangements are linked to the settlement of Native land claims agreements. In other areas, they are established through stand-alone, herd-wide formal agreements that are implemented through co-management boards. And in other areas, where there are more protracted political conflicts, power-sharing follows from the informal relationships of regionally -based agency personnel and local hunters. Most recently another chapter has been added -- terms like "traditional ecological knowledge," "local control," and "participatory action research" have become standard in caribou management discussions.
Reflecting on these changes, this paper provides an overview of the emerging power relations between indigenous caribou hunting systems of North America and government caribou management systems, and assesses the status of indigenous community involvement in North American caribou management. The objective of the analysis is to suggest future research directions in the study of caribou co-management relations. Through a review of literature and management conditions of several Alaskan and Canadian herds, I examine current caribou management conflicts, some of the barriers in the evolution of community-government partnerships, and the implications of various situations to the protection of indigenous cultural traditions. This review leads to an identification of key problem areas associated with government-community power sharing arrangements. Some of these problem areas include:
The movement to institute caribou co-management arrangements in northern US and Canada and the problem areas identified above have several implications for future research into the role of humans in caribou management systems. First and foremost, differing cultural perspectives should be infused into our research agendas, both with respect to the substantive questions asked as well as the research methods employed. Efforts to learn from differing cultural perspectives on human-caribou relations should not be confused with the task of amassing and organizing data and disseminating information. Clearly, our understanding of the role of indigenous hunting communities in caribou management and the legitimacy of their systems of knowledge has moved beyond the question of whether locals should be involved, to the more pragmatic question of how best to structure co-management processes. Needed now are comparative analyses that provide an in-depth understanding of the appropriateness of various co-management innovations for differing contexts. Questions regarding the development of social capital in co-management systems also remain unanswered. We need to explore more carefully the implications of power sharing arrangements as a force for community change. The paper concludes by proposing a participatory-action research process that seeks to facilitate the sharing of North American caribou co-management experiences among users, biologists, and managers while addressing regional caribou management problems and building common property theory.
Author: Gary Kofinas Adjunct Professor, Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC CANADA Research Fellow, Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire USA
By: Michael Ferguson
Inuit knowledge of historical changes in the South Baffin caribou population was collected from 43 elders and active hunters. Their observations indicated that caribou distributions were extensive and abundance was high in most coastal areas of southern Baffin Island from1900 until the mid-1920s. Subsequently, caribou distributions contracted and abundance declined, probably reaching an overall low in the 1940s. Beginning in the mid-1950s, distributions and abundance began to increase gradually; this increase continued at least until the mid-1980s. Changes in distribution occurred mainly during autumn as caribou migrated to their wintering areas. Within any given wintering area, increases in caribou abundance followed a process of range expansion, range drift (i.e., expanding on one front while contracting on another) and finally range shift (i.e., mass emigration in a new winter range). During the population decline and low, the caribou often exhibited winter range volatility (i.e., frequent, unpredictable inter-annual range shifts). Based on Inuit descriptions of caribou abundance, I have estimated that the population as a whole decreased an average of 9% annually from 1910 to1940, and then increased about 8% from 1940 to 1980. This pattern was largely consistent across southern Baffin Island, although some local areas were not in synchrony with the overall trends. As predicted by Inuit elders in 1985, the population essentially abandoned their highest density wintering area on Foxe Peninsula (FP) during the late 1980s, emigrating en masse to a new wintering area on Meta Incognita Peninsula (MIP), about 375 km to the southeast. Inuit knowledge suggested that population fluctuations are cyclic, with each full cycle occurring over the lifetime of an elder. This study and historical records dating from1860 support a periodicity of 60-80 years for fluctuations of the South Baffin caribou population. Inuit elders suggested that local sub-populations of caribou decrease several years after caribou occupy small coastal islands, a phenomenon currently occurring throughout southern Baffin Island, except on Cumberland Peninsula. Inuit recognize two ecotypes of caribou: migratory upland-lowland caribou, and resident mountain-plateau caribou. After migratory caribou from FP shifted their winter range in the late 1980s, MIP was occupied by both ecotypes. Migratory caribou apparently occupy low elevations during winter, while resident caribou remain in the mountains, producing two seasonal migratory patterns. Inuit knowledge proved to be temporally and spatially more complete than the written record, and to the extent possible, available reports agreed with the results of my analysis of Inuit knowledge.
Author: Michael Ferguson Caribou biologist PO Box 202 Pond Inlet NT X0A 0S0 CANADA
By: Denise Geoffroy
The Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Coordinating Committee (HFTCC) is an example of wildlife co-management involving the governments and native peoples. It was established by the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (1975) and the Northeastern Québec Agreement (1978) signed by the Government of Canada, the Government of Québec, the James Bay Energy Commission, the James Bay Development Corporation, Hydro-Québec, the Grand Council of the Crees, the Northern Québec Inuit Association, and the Naskapi de Schefferville Band (NEQA). The Agreements were important landmarks that recognized the claims of native peoples of Northern Québec over their traditional territory. The HFTCC involves the Crees, Inuit, and Naskapis in the management of the wildlife present on the territory.
The role of the HFTCC as defined by the Agreements is to "review, manage, and in certain case, supervise and regulate the Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Regime." (NEQA 15.4.1) HFTCC has fourteen members representing the Governments of Québec and Canada, the Crees, Inuit, and Naskapis.
The George River Herd constitutes one of the most important species under the jurisdiction of the HFTCC. In recent years, the HFTCC had to review regulations and changes regarding the outfitting industry and the commercial hunting of caribou. There are concerns about the herd itself, and the HFTCC wants to prevent harmful human interventios, such as excessive harvesting. On the other hand, the HFTCC has to ensure that the harvesting rights of the Crees, Inuit, and Naskapis are respected. The HFTCC expressed the need to join its efforts with those of the otther actor in the management of the George River Herd, the Government of Labrador.
Author: Denise Geoffroy a representative of Naskapis of Québec on the HFTCC
By: Dan McDiarmid, John Reid, Dorothy Cooley Presented by: Doug Urguhart
For the past 20 years, the Clear Creek region of the Yukon has been assumed to be part of the traditional range of the Hart River woodland caribou herd. Caribou management by the Yukon Department of Renewable Resources has always assigned harvests from this area to the Hart River herd which, due to its large size and remoteness, was generally considered capable of sustaining the average annual harvest levels.
However, a survey of local and traditional knowledge undertaken in 1993, as part of a community based integrated wildlife management plan, identified local concerns that caribou taken from the Clear Creek region belonged to a much smaller and separate woodland caribou population. Management implications were that the "Clear Creek" population could not withstand the annual harvest that was coming from that area. In response to the community concerns, the first initiative was to conduct detailed interviews in 1995 with 17 local residents who described the physical characteristics and seasonal movements of what they referred to as the "Clear Creek" caribou. These animals, they maintained, spent part of the year in close association with the Hart River herd but remained in the Clear Creek area when the Hart River animals moved out in the fall.
The second project is a 4-year radio-collaring program, begun in 1997, to document the movements of caribou captured in the Clear Creek area. Initial results from 8 radio-collared females appear to confirm local knowledge since these animals remained in the Clear Creek area and did not move to the Hart River winter range. An additional 22 radio-collars will be deployed in March 1998 to further document the seasonal movements of the "Clear Creek" and Hart River caribou.
The initial management response by the Yukon Government has been to reduce the annual bag limit from 2 animals, of which one could be a cow, to one bull. Further refinements of a management strategy that recognizes two distinct woodland caribou populations in the Hart River-Clear Creek region will await analysis of the radio-collaring results plus additional information from local knowledge.
Authors: Dan McDiarmid Chair, Mayo District Renewable Resources Council John Reid Executive Director, Mayo District Renewable Resources Council Dorothy Cooley Regional Biologist, Department of Renewable Resources, Government of Yukon
By: Alice Legat
The Dogrib Dene, of the Northwest Territories, Canada, are concerned that caribou may be affected by increased industrial development. More specifically, they are concerned that with the loss of habitat and increased pollution, the Bathurst caribou herd will decrease in number and possibly change migration patterns. To better monitor the Bathurst caribou herd, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council is working with the West Kitimeot Slave Study Society by undertaking the research project entitled, "Caribou Migration and the State of their Habitat." To date, the research team has used oral narratives to document:
Currently, the team is working with elders to doucment:
By: Anne Gunn
The ecological and socio-economic environment for Bathurst herd of 350,000 barren-ground caribou in Canada's western Arctic is rapidly changing. Mining exploration and development is occurring on seasonal ranges and migration routes with two mines operational and other mines under development. A winter road links the mines and an all-weather road is being proposed. Changes to the wage economy following mining may lead to increased caribou hunting. Global warming has the potential to alter the current balance between forage intake and energy losses from insect harassment and deeper snow on the winter ranges. The effects of long-range aerial contaminants are beginning to be measured.
Caribou through their individual behaviour integrate a complex array of factors expressed as, for example, learned behaviour or, at the population level, changes in birth and death rates. Our ability to predict how caribou will integrate all these environmental changes and what that may mean for the herd's stakeholders is barely beginning. The herd is shared by people from some 10 communities with land claims either settled or under negiotation. The political changes have accelerated management away from a centralized government to co-management.
As one step to deal with the changing the caribou's changing environment, aboriginal and non-aboriginal stakeholders identified caribou migration routes as a priority for baseline research on the effects of industrial development. Satellite-tracking gives us a detailed glimpse of the caribou during their seasonal movements. But it is only a glimpse and for the longer term view of caribou movements we have to turn to the people who have spent decades and centuries with the caribou. That is why this project is cooperative with the Dogrib Traditional Knowledge study which is being presented at this workshop.
Author: Anne Gunn