Proceedings of the Fifth North American Caribou Workshop

Joint management inaction - George River caribou herd

Chesley Andersen and Judy Rowell Labrador Inuit Association, Box 70, Nain, Labrador, Canada, AOP 1L0. Keywords: George River caribou herd, Labrador Inuit Association, explotation of land RangiSer, Special Issue No. 7: 67—72

Introduction The George River caribou herd This paper is not a scientific presentation of The George River caribou herd is most likely data on the George River caribou herd. Nor is the largest caribou herd in the world. These ca• it a scientific interpretation of the status of the ribou, generally considered to be barren ground herd. This paper is about a major caribou herd caribou, range throughout the entire Labrador/- that may be in trouble and the belief of the Ungava Peninsula which is split into the two Labrador Inuit Association (LIA) that the big• political jurisdictions of Quebec and Newfound• gest current threat to the health of the herd land. may be the management policies of govern• The caribou spend most of the winter spread ments. across the barrens of Northern Quebec as far Our experience and knowledge of the herd west and north as the coast of Hudson's Bay. combined with the data collected by biologists Migration eastward begins when the females over the years suggest to us that the George Ri• start to move in early March if conditions per• ver herd may be at risk. We are not interested mit. Females reach the main calving grounds in in getting involved in the techincal and someti• the upland tundra area in the height of land be• mes academic arguments about census techni• tween Quebec and Labrador at the end of May ques, confidence levels and theories of popula• or early June. Throughout the summer the ani• tion dynamics. We are primarily concerned mals disperse and are found along the north about the information base that is used by go• coast of Labrador and north to Ungava Bay. In vernment managers and the politics that conti• late summer and early fall the caribou head nue to influence management policies. west again for their winter range. The Labrador Inuit are watching with real One of the most impressive things about the concern as the governments of Quebec and annual migration of the George River caribou Newfoundland deny some of the indicators sug• herd is the distance that is covered. A satellite gesting the George River herd may be in trou• collar deployed on an animal captured near He• ble and proceed to manage it in isolation from bron on the coast of Labrador can later put out its biophysical realities and in defiance of prin• a signal from the Caniapiscau River. The herd ciples of conservation. lately has been shifting and while the general In this paper we will highlight what LIA con• east/west migration pattern is constant we see siders to be the essence of what Labrador Inuit changes in migration patterns and behaviour. In know about the herd as it should affect man• 1990 the caribou did not come into Labrador agement policies for the George River herd. We until mid-May. This was the first time this had will also point out what we believe to be some happend in living memory. of the major external threats to the herd and There are a number of aboriginal peoples li• focus on the absence of a joint management re• ving in the Labrador/Ungava Peninsula whose gime and the complete lack of political will on culture, economy and society are tied to the the part of Quebec and Newfoundland to work George River herd. In Labrador the herd is co-operatively. hunted by the Labrador Inuit who live along

Rangif er, Special Issue No. 7, 1991 67 the coast of Labrador and the Naskapi/Montag- would be given first to the subsistence hunt, se• nais Innu. Labrador Inuit will sometimes travel cond to the commercial hunt, and last to the west of the George River in search of caribou sports hunt. Caribou numbers have not gone for their families. low enough to test that assurance. In Quebec the Inuit, Naskapi and Cree all There is no management arrangement in traditionally and currently hunt the George Ri• Newfoundland that provides for co-operation ver caribou. In addition to the Quebec aborigi• with aboriginal users. There is no effort on the nal users there is a very significant sports hunt. part of the Newfoundland government to soli• The land claims of the Cree and the Inuit of cit the participation of the Labrador Inuit or Quebec have been settled and their rights are Innu with respect to management decisions. set out in the James Bay and Northern Quebec The LIA operates a commercial caribou hunt Agreement (JBNQA). The claims of the Naska• through its economic arm - the Labrador Inuit pi of Schefferville have also been settled and Development Corporation taking an average of their rights are set out in the North Eastern about 500 animals per year so far. Quebec Agreement (NEQA). Under the JBNQA and the NEQA the rights What we know about the herd of the Quebec Inuti, Cree and Naskapis to take We know that the George River herd is large levels of caribou sufficient to meet their needs and is likely the largest caribou herd in the are guaranteed. These agreements also guarantee world. We know that the herd is no longer in• a management body known as the James Bay creasing. We suspect that it has been decreasing Hunting Trapping Fishing Coordinating Com• at a rate of about 7-9% per year for the past mittee. While this is an advisor committee to few years. Evidence from the past few years the Minister Responsible for Wildlife it is a also suggest that the caribou coming off the cooperative management arrangement with re• summer range are in very poor nutritional state presentation from all three arboriginal parties, and some animals have started to death. the Quebec government and the government of The main calving grounds used by the Geor• Canada. A specific provision in the agreements ge River animals have been used consistently allows the Coordinating Committee to establish over the past 20-30 years and preliminary work the upper limit of kill for caribou subject to indicates that the calving grounds are almost the principle of conservation which is defined bare of forage. There is some intermingling of in the JBNQA as follows: descrete herds with the George River herd espe• «Conservation means the pursuit for the opti• cially where the Leaf River and George River mum natural productivity of all living resources caribou share the same winter and rutting rang• and the protection of the ecological systems of es. The range of the George River herd in the the territory so as to protect endangered species winter sometimes extends to include range that and to ensure primarily the continuance of the is used by more southern woodland herds. traditional pursuits of the Native people, and secondarily the satisfaction of the needs of non- What we do not know about the George Native people for sport hunting and fishing». River herd? The sports hunt kill in Quebec takes almost We do not have a population estimate of the as much as the subsistence hunt. Recent figures George River herd that is accepted equally by put the Quebec kill by sports hunters at 9,000 government managers, government biologists animals and the subsistence kill at 10,000 ani• and arboriginal users. Population estimates for mals. It is a very different situation on the Lab• the George River herd now range from 150,000 rador side. There are no land claims agreements to 680,000. The governments of Newfoundland with the Inuit or the Innu. The LIA has only and Quebec appear to be basing their manage• just started negotiations towards settling its out• ment policies on the high estimate of 680,000. standing claims. The Innu are not yet at the ta• Biologists for Quebec and Labrador believe the ble. There are no formal arrangements with count is lower. Newfoundland that provide any guarantee or We are seeing changes in migration routes form of protection for priority allocations for and patterns of the George River herd but we aboriginal people in Labrador. All that LIA has don't know what precipitates them. There are is a reassurance from a Minister responsible for som theories and speculation only. We know Wildlife in a previous government that priority that certain environmental factors especially ice

68 Rangifer, Special Issue No. 7, 1991 and snow in the winter and insect harassment about the effect of such activities on the health in the summer can influence cariobu behaviour and behaviour of the George River caribou and migration. However we don't really under• herd or on its habitat. stand what factors are at work. For instance we Current plans of Hydro Quebec involving do not know why the caribou ' did not show the La Grande and the Great Whale Rivers in up' in Labrador in 1990. We do not know the western Quebec potentially threaten important impact of wolf predation on the caribou nor do habitat used by the George River caribou. Both vi know very much about the quantity , qual• river systems, and particularly the Great Whale ity and nutritional levels of the vegetation thro• in the area of Lac Bienville, have been docu• ughout the George River herd's range. mented as having become a prime and/or pre• What we have just outlined is a simplistic and ferred winter range for a portion of the George incomplete overview of what we know and River caribou herd. Caribou collared' in the don't know about the herd for management Torngat Mountains, north of Nain, in the late purposes. Obviously such an overview is not summer subsequently crossed the Labrador Pen• intended to undermine all of the work done by insula during the autumn to over-winter in the scientists and wildlife managers. Rather it is in• Great Whale River drainage. It is very difficult tended to put things into perspective. for us in Labrador to get any information on Some of the very basic issues that are essen• what is actually happening in Quebec. The ini• tial to responsible wildlife management are un• tiative is being addressed as a project with no known. We know the herd is declining but we trans-boundary impacts and there is no pressure can't even agree on its size. We know animals coming from outside Quebec to address any are starving at a time when they should be buil• trans-boundary impacts. It is extremely unrealis• ding up their fat and nutritional reserves. We tic to expect that James Bay II will not impact think there may be a problem with the carry• on the George River herd but how and to what ing capacity of the range but we don't know. degree we do not know. Many efforts to pre• We are not naive enough to expect to have dict impacts will be reliable only to the degree answers to all these unknowns but we do ex• to which they incorporate the current situation pect that managment policies operating within of the George River herd. these parameters should be conservative and The governments of both Newfoundland and sensitive to the number of unknown variables. Quebec are relying on the high population esti• Management should also be sensitive to, and mate for the George River herd. Each govern• take into account, the external factors that may ment establishes kills independent of the other. also pose a threat to the herd. Because the herd is large it is corsidered to be «under-harvested». For the past few years Quebec has been wor• Threats to the herd king very hard to push for a commercial kill The Department of National Defence (DND) which is currently not allowed under the and various North Atlantic Treaty Organiza• JBNQA or NEQA. Originally the commercial tion countries have been practising low level quota was for 40,000 now it is in the range of flying in Labrador for eleven years. Until 1990 15,000. there was no monitoring of the effects of low level flying on caribou or on habitat. The ex• ception was a two year study done by Dr. Fred Harrington on the effects of low level flying on Joint management inaction the behaviour of George River caribou. Because LIA believes that the single biggest threat to of time and funding constraints the study was the health of the George River herd is the cur• inconclusive. Low level flying is practised from rent approach to management by the govern• mid April to the end of October and a signifi• ments of Newfoundland and Quebec. Dialogue cant portion of the George River caribou range between Newfoundland and Quebec has never falls inside the low level flying zone. No long been great and it is virtually non-existent in term monitoring studies have been initiated, no terms of management responsibilities for Geor• appropriate baseline studies have been done. ge River caribou. Each government manages the With eleven consecutive years of low level herd as if it is within its sole jurisdiction and flying we are unable to answer any questions does not migrate outside provincial boundaries.

RangiSer, Special Issue No. 7, 1991 69 In the early 1980's LIA met with Quebec of its own biologists Quebec and Newfound• and Newfoundland officials to try to initiate land both choose to accept the highest popula• discussions that would lead to some form of tion estimate for the herd and continue to push joint management arrangement for the George for larger kills. Questions about the census, River herd. We were not successful. The politi• about the methods used to establish the popula• cal agendas of the two governments are such tion levels and warnings about a decline in the that there is no room to talk about joint man• population should generate a management ap• agement. Long standing disputes between New• proach that is cautious and errs on the low foundland and Quebec over the sale of Chur• side. Quebec and Newfoundland are reckless chill Falls power and the Quebec/Labrador bo• about establishing levels and allocations of kills undary leave no room for, or political will to from the herd because they believe it is large discuss joint management of a shared resource, enough that it can absorb whatever they per• particularly when each sees that resource as mit. being under-harvested. LIA also met with the At a time when the population count is un• aboriginal groups in northern Quebec to see if certain and the herd in a state of decline man• we could generate the initiation at that level. agement policies should be especially sensitive We failed there too. Apart from some interest to additional external threats that may add to shown by Makivik (which represents the the stress of an already stressed herd. Yet neit• Northern Quebec Inuit) there was no follow her government has taken any lead in trying to through. In 1984 when LIA was negotiating regulate, or at least monitor the effect of low with Quebec and the Inuit Cree and Naskapi level flying on the George River herd. In fact signatories to the JBNQA and the NEQA for Newfoundland is a strong advocate for the mili• rights to hunt in Quebec we tried to make tary presence in Goose Bay. Its political agenda joint management an issue. We failed again. We has little tolerance for actions that would place discovered that it was not an appropriate forum a burden on DND's flying activities. because we did not have all the necessary parti• The Federal Environmental Assessment and cipants. We were missing the Newfoundland Review Panel established in 1986 to assess the government and the Labrador Innu. environmental impacts of low level flying has LIA also spent considerable effort trying to stalled. The Environmental Impact Statement get Canada involved at least as a facilitator for prepared by DND was declared deficient by the negotiations between Quebec and Newfound• Panel in May 1990 and we are still waiting to land. But Canada has its own political agenda hear what happens next. Since the Review Pa• and at the time was not prepared to be seen as nel was established we are now entering the intervening in any way in the political squab• sixth season of low level flying. We have been a bles or the provincial jurisdictions for the two lone voice protesting this. Finally DND agreed parties. And so we have had to stand back and to negotiate a Memoradum of Understanding watch as a resource as vital as the George River with LIA which among other things planned a caribou herd pays the price for bitter, positio• monitoring program to be carried out by LIA nal political agendas. This then, has become the and funded by DND. biggest threat to the George River herd. When Newfoundland discovered that DND It is very alarming to watch governments de• planned to fund LIA to put satellite collars on fault on their management responsibilities the caribou they intervened in our discussion and way Newfoundland and Quebec continue to made it clear LIA had no jurisdiction, or right, do. Each government jealously guards its juris• to put collars on caribou. Newfoundland rejec• diction over wildlife and rabidly defends what ted a proposal that would have seen LIA con• it believes to be its jurisdictional territory. But tract the Newfoundland wildlife division to put just look at how they interpret their manage• on the collars. Newfoundland protested so ment responsibilities. First, as we have said, loudly that LIA forfeited that part of the plans they manage the herd as if it stays within pro• under the Memorandum of Understanding in vincial boundaries. Not only does that deny the order to save its other features. Newfoundland reality of herd dynamics, it also requires unne• then stepped into the ring at the eleventh hour cessary duplication of cost and effort for certain claiming an interest in establishing a monito• things like surveys and radio collaring. Despite ring plan for 1990. Newfoundland would have warnings from aboriginal users and from some maintained its wall of silence on the issue if it

70 Rangif er, Special Issue No. 7, 1991 had not perversely believed that in securing We believe Canada has jurisdiction for trans- funding for satellite collars LIA was somehow boundary migratory species and it too has ste• threatening its jurisdiction. wardship responsibilities on behalf of the Cana• dian public. Canada can see what is happening Right to manage to the George River herd and yet it will not in• We are becoming bitter about what we see hap• tervene despite the obvious violations of the pening and afraid of what the consequences will principles of sound management and conserva• be. The question we ask ourselves is «by what tion. These violations are, if nothing else, a rights does either Newfoundland or Quebec breakdown in order and good government wit• have jurisdiction over wildlife®? Surely jurisdic• hin the Country. Canada's silence on this issue tion for wildlife implies a role of stewardship. also calls into question its commitment to the By vesting jurisdiction for wildlife in the principles of environmental protection and Crown the intent is to ensure responsible ste• wildlife management which form the basis of wardship of the resource for the citizens of the the newly announced Green Plan, It is also dif• province or the county, as the case may be. ficult to take seriously Canada's commitment LIA believes that defaulting on that responsibil• to environmental protection on the internatio• ity should be a criminal offense. We watched nal scene when it chooses to abdicate its re• while government mismanaged and ultimately sponsibilities at home. decimated the northern cod stocks off our coast. We pay the consequences for this action. We go hungry and watch as a critical part of Conclusion and recommendations our future harvesting rights are wiped out. But LIA is discouraged and afraid of what govern• what happens to the government managers and ments may be doing to exacerbate and accelera• policy makers, to all of those people who, in te a decline in the health and numbers of the exercising their powers violated the very re• George River caribou herd. We have a major sponsibility that was vested in them? Nothing. migrating herd that is becoming the victim of Their jobs are secure, their futures are secure. political divisions between Newfoundland and They are simply not accountable. We don't Quebec. There are other major herds in the mean accountable in the political or electoral country that involve more jurisdictions than sense. That may be enough in an industrial so• just two provinces. The Beveriy/Kaminuriak ciety that does no depend on renewable resour• Joint Management Board has two provinces, a ces and that probably has the kind of popula• territorial government and federal government tion base that could make electoral accountabi• as well as the major aboriginal users all repre• lity mean something. We mean legally account• sented on it. The Porcupine Caribou Herd able or legally liable with legally enforceable Management Board has two territorial govern• remedies. ments, the federal government :nd Alaska as The Labrador Inuit are an aboriginal people well as the major aboriginal use's represented whose lives, culture and economy depend on on it. These management boards are not with• access to healthy populations of wildlife. How out their problems but they are success stories can we be expected to respect government's in the field of co-operative management. They claim to jurisdiction over wildlife when their provide a means by which best efforts can be political agendas override responsible manage• made to manage a wildlife population in a way ment based on conservation? How would the that integrates wildlife and habitat, uses the best system change if there was a way to make go• information available, optimizes research efforts vernments legally liable for the consequences of and respects the principles and practices of con• negligence in wildlife management policies? We servation. are not lawyers but we strongly suggest to It is a tragedy that such a system cannot be those people who are lawyers or who are inter• established for the George River herd because ested in public policy and who care about the there is no political will. It is especially tragic future of certain wildlife populations to go out that the Quebec and Newfoundland govern• and be creative and find a way that can make ments choose to ignore the indications that we governments legally accountable for their ac• believe are signalling trouble. Governments can tions. We believe this applies equally to Canada afford to operate in this manner because they with respect to the George River caribou herd. are not legally liable for their actions. It is the

Rangif er, Special Issue No. 7, 1991 71 aboriginal people who will pay the cost. LIA dependent of what governments may or may has given this situation much tought and we not do. It is time for the aboriginal users in have come up with two possible courses of ac• Quebec and Labrador to act unilaterally and tion: in the interests of the herd. The Inuvialuit in the western Arctic were able to negotiate 1) Canada could commit to a financing and with the Inupiat in Alaska a co-management convening process to deal with conflict reso• agreement on polar bears. We should be able lution and interest identification associated to do a similar thing with caribou. with the governments and the aboriginal users involved with the George River cari• 2) Accordingly, LIA is prepared to consider ta• bou herd in a way similar to that done by king initiatives to bring together the major Don Snowden for the Beverly/Kaminuriak aboriginal users of the herd for purposes of herd. discussing a way of establishing a joint man• The governments have failed to act respon• agement agreement. LIA considers that the sibly as managers of the George River herd JBNQA could act as a vehicle in the interim and they have helped to create a manage• through which the aboriginal users could ment crisis. LIA believes that the aboriginal give expression to an aboriginal joint man• users of the herd also have a duty to act as agement agreement. No such vehicles exist responsible managers and this duty exists in• in Labrador.

Printed from manuscript after editorial review.

72 Rangiier, Special Issue No. 7, 1991