EcoHealth DOI: 10.1007/s10393-009-0256-7 Ó 2009 International Association for Ecology and Health Original Contribution Fostering Community-Based Wildlife Health Monitoring and Research in the Canadian North Ryan K. Brook,1,2 Susan J. Kutz,1 Alasdair M. Veitch,3 Richard A. Popko,3 Brett T. Elkin,4 and Glen Guthrie5 1Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada 2Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada 3Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Sahtu Region, Government of the Northwest Territories, Norman Wells, NT, Canada 4Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Wildlife & Fisheries, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT, Canada 5Sahtu Renewable Resources Board, Norman Wells, NT, Canada Abstract: Many northern Canadians have continued a subsistence lifestyle of wildlife harvesting and, therefore, value sustainable wildlife populations. At a regional wildlife workshop in the Sahtu Settlement Area, Northwest Territories in 2002, elders and community leaders raised concerns regarding wildlife health, food safety, and the effects of climate change on wildlife. They requested that efforts be put toward training youth in science and increasing involvement of hunters and youth in wildlife research. In response, we initiated a long-term, integrated approach to foster community-based wildlife health monitoring and research. Annual trips were made to all schools in the Sahtu from 2003 to 2009 to provide hands-on learning for 250–460 students on a range of wildlife topics. In addition, interviews were conducted with 31 hunters and elders to document their local ecological knowledge of wildlife health and local hunters were trained as monitors to collect tissue samples and measurements to assess body condition and monitor health of harvested caribou (n = 69) and moose (n = 19). In 2007 the program was extended to include participation in the annual caribou hunt held by one community. Each year since 2005, a graduate student and/or a postdoctoral trainee in the veterinary or biological sciences has participated in the program. The program has evolved during the last 6 years in response to community and school input, results of empirical research, hunter feedback, local knowledge, and logistical constraints. The continuity of the program is attributed to the energetic collaboration among diverse partners and a unified approach that responds to identified needs. Key words: wildlife health, community-based monitoring, youth education, local ecological knowledge, collaboration, disease, parasites INTRODUCTION First three authors contributed equally to this paper and are listed alphabetically. Climate change, together with increasing human activities Correspondence to: Ryan K. Brook, e-mail: [email protected] in polar regions, are dramatically altering the structure and Ryan K. Brook et al. function of northern ecosystems and the socioeconomic in the Sahtu Settlement Area (SSA). Although the co- framework of northern communities (Wonders, 2003; management process is challenged by conflicts about McBean et al., 2005). Despite an increasing reliance on a decision making and occasional disagreements between cash economy and store-bought food, indigenous peoples scientific data and local knowledge, it provides a formal in arctic and subarctic regions maintain a strong cultural framework for interaction among community members connection with wildlife and many still rely on wildlife as a and government resource managers. The co-management principal source of food and self-employment. This way of process also facilitates considerable respect for the knowl- life may be in jeopardy, however, as the expansion of re- edge and attitudes of local people in making decisions that source development in northern Canada, recent dramatic influence wildlife health and implementing monitoring declines in caribou numbers, and the rapid environmental programs. and social changes that are occurring in northern regions Community-based monitoring (CBM) is an approach create important and unique risks to wildlife and human to environmental observation that incorporates local peo- health (Kofinas et al., 2000; Furgal and Seguin, 2006; Ho- ple, government agencies, academia, community groups, berg et al., 2008; Kutz et al., 2008; Vistnes and Nellemann, and local institutions to monitor, track, and respond to 2008). issues of common concern (EMAN, 2002). This approach Monitoring and management of wildlife health often encourages interdisciplinary methods and collaboration involves diverse stakeholders with a shared interest in among individuals and groups while recognizing the wildlife and a common desire for their long-term sustain- sociopolitical nature of the issues. Effective CBM should be ability (Peterson et al., 2007). Effective action, however, is designed and implemented collaboratively to provide lo- sometimes hindered because of conflicts that arise from cally relevant information and ensure support from all differing world views and insufficient meaningful two-way parties. CBM may include participation of local citizens in communication and collaboration between wildlife-using data collection and interpretation, which can democratize communities, scientists, and government management the research process (Brook and McLachlan, 2005; Cooper agencies (Brook and McLachlan, 2005, 2008). Communi- et al., 2007) and function as another means of peer review ties in northern regions, and indeed around the world, are (Functowicz and Ravetz, 1994). CBM may be most effective increasingly demanding that scientific studies respect their at engaging communities and scientists and provide the needs and concerns, incorporate their local knowledge, most relevant and useful information if it facilitates the more effectively communicate the research methods and inclusion of both local knowledge and scientific data in a outcomes, and include local input in translation of research way that identifies the benefits and limitations of each results into local action (Brook and McLachlan, 2005; (Brook and McLachlan, 2005). Wallington et al., 2005). In 2002, representatives from all five communities in Scientific methods and approaches that adequately the SSA, together with government and academic scientists, incorporate local ecological knowledge (LEK) simulta- participated in a workshop co-hosted by the Government neously give relevance and importance of both science and of the NWT (GNWT) and the SRRB to determine wildlife LEK, help ensure buy-in from communities and scientists, research and monitoring needs (Swallow and Veitch, 2002). and underscore the value and importance of LEK (Berkes, Participants identified wildlife health as a priority and 2004; Brook and McLachlan, 2008). These community- wanted local subsistence hunters to be involved in wildlife based programs are central to managing wildlife and monitoring and research. Importantly, they also identified meeting the needs of the Arctic’s indigenous people. Per- a critical need for youth to receive enhanced education in haps the most successful approach to facilitating discussion science and wildlife biology. One participant noted that: among communities, scientists, and government resource agencies to integrate LEK with contemporary science has Alfred was saying there is no doctor for the wildlife been the development of co-management boards across the when the wildlife get sick, we need to preserve our north (Kendrick, 2003; White, 2008). The Sahtu Renewable wildlife. A long time ago it was not like that because Resources Board (SRRB) in the Northwest Territories our land was not disturbed, but now it’s different. (NWT) was established by a land claim agreement as the Now we are becoming aware of all these things ‘‘main instrument for wildlife management’’ to facilitate happening. We need to educate our children, so they co-management of wildlife and other renewable resources know how to preserve wildlife and fish. So before Fostering Community-Based Wildlife Health Monitoring and Research the meetings start I just wanted to express that and elsewhere in long-term monitoring of wildlife health. concern. We have two days so we will get more This approach includes collaboration and ongoing infor- ideas. We are not educated in the school way, but we mation exchange among hunters, academics, and wildlife are knowledgeable about the wildlife and the managers, identifying and responding to locally important environment. (A.J. Kenny, translated) issues, and educating and inspiring our next generation of scientists and hunters. Another participant indicated the importance of working collaboratively to monitor wildlife health: If we cut our hand and don’t get it treated it will get MATERIALS AND METHODS infected. If we don’t take care of our wildlife, if they are sick it will spread and spread if we don’t take care Study Area: The Sahtu Settlement Area of it. Not just wildlife, it’s our environment. We need The 283,000 km2 SSA was established through a land claim our own people with Traditional Knowledge to work settlement agreement among Sahtu Dene and Me´tis and the with you on these studies (Leo Modeste, translated). Government of Canada and the GNWT in 1993 (Auld and This meeting provided important direction for our Kershaw, 2005). The SSA includes five communities: De´- work, including being the catalyst for the establishment of line, Tulita, Norman Wells, Fort Good Hope, and Colville the Sahtu Wildlife Health Outreach