December 17, 2004
Iqaluit beluga hunters fear quota
DFO hints at changes
to community-based management plan
SARA MINOGUE
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is reviewing the five-year trial
period of a community-based management plan for beluga in Iqaluit and Kimmirut
that will expire on March 30, 2005, at a time when the management plan does
not appear to be running smoothly.
The current agreement - between DFO, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
and the Amarok and Mayukalik hunters and trappers associations - sets no beluga
quotas, but makes the HTOs responsible for ensuring hunters report belugas that
are landed or struck and lost.
This year, only six kills were reported in Iqaluit through this system.
After hearing the reported numbers, DFO spoke to the Amarok HTO, which agreed
that 27 was a closer approximation of actual kills. That number is significantly
lower than the five-year annual average of 38.
No estimates were made of the number of animals that were struck and lost.
"We put a lot of effort into accurate reporting and we're not getting
the information that's required," said Karen Ditz, a fisheries management
biologist with DFO in Iqaluit. "I think it's fair to say that the accuracy
of what's being submitted doesn't suit the needs of responsible management."
Section 5.3.3 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement says that DFO can restrict
or limit harvesting if there is a valid conservation concern.
A report produced by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife this
spring said that six out of seven beluga populations in the Canadian Arctic
are at risk of extinction. That suggests that the south-east Baffin beluga stock
is also at risk, but nobody knows for sure.
That's because belugas in Frobisher Bay appear to be migrating animals that
come from several areas, rather than a single stock that can be monitored and
counted.
For the past five years, the DFO has asked hunters to take samples of landed
whales so they can analyze the genetic makeup of the animals to determine where
they come from. So far, no unique genetic signature for belugas in Frobisher
Bay has been found.
Without concrete numbers, the DFO cannot argue that belugas are at risk, and
cannot impose a quota, as was done with the Cumberland Sound beluga population,
where hunters were allowed to take only 41 belugas last year.
For that reason alone it's surprising that the DFO is not more sensitive to
its new role as assistant and partner to the HTO and the NWMB, rather than as
enforcers from the era before the land claim, when DFO had the power to impose
a quota on whales in Frobisher Bay.
Recommendations on whether to renew or amend the current agreement will not
be made public until at least February, but a DFO employee may have inadvertently
given a sneak preview of what's to come at the Amarok HTO's annual general meeting
in Iqaluit last Tuesday.
About 100 hunters were gathered in the Parish Hall on Dec. 7 to discuss the
beluga hunting rules - a three-page document printed in English only - that
forms the backbone of the community-based management plan.
The rules were originally drafted by the HTO in 1999, and were amended by the
NWMB and DFO. The HTO must vote to accept the rules every year before they come
into effect.
Martine Giangioppi, a fisheries management technician with DFO in Iqaluit,
spoke at the meeting.
"We recently did a review tour on community-based management," she
said. "The main issue, it seems, is that a lot of people don't follow the
rules, and some don't even know the rules."
Giangioppi then told the hunters that a working group is about to make recommendations
to the NWMB on whether to continue with the current plan.
"The rules have to be followed," she said. "I'm just giving
you a little tip here."
Giangioppi also said she had heard reports of meat being wasted. The rules
clearly state that all edible parts of a beluga should be used.
Several hunters did not take kindly to these remarks, and many made impassioned
and eloquent speeches about the right to harvest country food.
"Right now, it seems that the hunters are not really responsible for the
activities here," said Joe Tikivik. "We know for sure that there is
no meat being wasted."
"So DFO consulted elders," said Johnny Mike. "Have they been
given authority by the elders to deal with this issue? That doesn't make any
sense.
"I'm saying this as loud as I can - I don't want to see the old quota
system back in place."
Sytukie Joamie, a former chairman of the HTO, reminded the members to be distrustful
of DFO.
"Be aware of the fact that Inuit in Nunavik were told by DFO to work together,
and afterwards were told they could not harvest any whales," he said.
Madeleine Redfern, a student with the Akitsuraq law program at Nunavut Arctic
College, read from notes when she rose to speak.
"I'm a little concerned with DFO's approach. You came across as very threatening
when you said that... if hunters continue not to report, a quota's going to
be imposed," Redfern said
"I am not a beluga hunter but I do take hunting and harvesting rights
very seriously, and those rights are being extinguished."
Giangioppi later apologized, and said she even felt sick after seeing how her
comments were received, but she was interrupted by two hunters who heckled her
in Inuktitut.
But Ditz, who later acted as a spokeswoman for the DFO, was firm on their position.
"One of the things that has to happen is that individuals need to take
responsibility," Ditz said. "If they want to have control over their
resources, they need to take responsibility for it. That makes perfect sense,
I think, and that is the essence of community based management in the land claim."
TOP
|