Editing Nunavut polar bear monitoring and management

The findings of the GN survey, conducted from 1997 to 2000, indicated that the MC sub-population had depleted to less than half of its previous population estimate. Recognizing that there was no community consensus on whether polar bear numbers were declining, and if so, whether this was due to over- harvesting, or migration for reasons like for example environmental disturbances or changes in ice, the NWMB proceeded incrementally (NMWB 2000). They first installed a quota of 12 for the MC PBMU in 2000, followed by a moratorium in 2001. They furthermore charged the Department of Sustainable Development to gather additional information during those two years, in order to develop an effective management plan for subsequent years (NMWB 2000). The only subsequent government-led research activity between the 1997-2000 survey and the next scheduled population survey in 2014 was however the publication of a telemetry study (Taylor et al., 2006) and a community consultation on the listing of polar bears as a species of special concern under the Species at Risk Act (SARA; CWS, 2009). Other projects related to polar bears conducted in Gjoa Haven during this period, were collaborations between Gjoa Haven’s HTA and VC de Groot et al. (2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2015), and a collaboration between Gjoa Haven’s HTA and Darren Keith to document polar bear IQ (Keith, 2005). These projects were conducted in (collaboration with) a community that has been seeking recognition for their disagreement around polar bear research and quota distribution since 2000, with an expectation that researchers address this issue. Neither V.C. de Groot’s nor Keith’s (2005) HTA-invited projects, however, had the resources the scope, or mandate to impact polar bear quota.

This speaks to a tangible gap between community priorities and the infrastructure available to those communities to have their priorities sufficiently funded, permitted and researched. Despite significant resources spent on polar bear research by institutions outside the community, see for example Nunavut’s Wildlife Research Trust (NWMB, 2022a; ITK, 2018), the financial, human, social and administrative capacities of community organisations like HTAs are limited, and their role in setting the research agenda is reactive rather than proactive; they can grant or withhold community sanction of wildlife research, but have limited mechanisms to influence terms or conditions under which this research is executed (Gearheard and Shirley, 2009). While community organizations like HTAs provide insights via consulting, handle requests for community sanction of research funding and permitting, and assume important roles within the research itself, (government) researchers and managers have not made themselves sufficiently available for questions of concern to the community itself. Such dynamics have tangible consequences for ongoing and future (research) partnerships, including our own. 


<span class="detour link" data-page-title="Science_based_Conservation" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="detour">[[Science based Conservation|Detour to Science based Conservation]]</span>