Nunavut Polar Bear Monitoring and Management: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:06, 26 February 2025

Researchers of the Bearwatch project were initially hesitant to enter into a conversation on quota. The topic of quota setting was considered as outside of their sphere of influence, and scope of scientific research objectives.

This hesitation followed a 15 year gap of government research into polar bears, despite a promise to gather additional information to inform an effective management plan for the years after the moratorium ^[1] The community's frustration speaks to a tangible gap between their priorities and the infrastructure available to them to have their priorities sufficiently funded, permitted and researched.

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 have not made themselves sufficiently available for questions of concern of the community itself.

Such dynamics have consequences for ongoing and future (research) partnerships, including those within the BW project.

"Return to Cut 1": Voices of Thunder, to consider the responsiveness of the BearWatch researchers when it comes to the concerns put forward by the Gjoa Haven HTA.

↑ Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (2000, 19 December) Minutes: Conference Call no. 54 [Conference call minutes]. Iqaluit.

Return to Cut 1: Voices of Thunder Testimonial Reading

[1] Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (2000, 19 December) Minutes: Conference Call no. 54 [Conference call minutes]. Iqaluit.

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-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.
+[[File:The wrecksite.png|thumb]]
-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).
+Researchers of the Bearwatch project were initially hesitant to enter into a conversation on quota. The topic of quota setting was considered as outside of their sphere of influence, and scope of scientific research objectives.
-The only subsequent government-led research activity between the 1997-2000 survey and the next scheduled population survey in 2014, that we could find in the literature and NWMB archives, was however the publication of a telemetry study (based on previously collected data, 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 (VC de Groot, 2006; 2007; 2012; 2013; VC de Groot et al., 2008; 2009; 2010; 2013; Campagna et al., 2013; Weber et al., 2013; Wong et al.,  2011; 2013, 2015), and a collaboration between Gjoa Haven’s HTA and Darren Keith to document polar bear IQ (Keith, 2005). 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 hesitation followed a 15 year gap of government research into polar bears, despite a promise to gather additional information to inform an effective management plan for the years after the moratorium <ref>Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (2000, 19 December) Minutes: Conference Call no. 54 [Conference call minutes]. Iqaluit.</ref> The community's frustration speaks to a tangible gap between their priorities and the infrastructure available to them to have their priorities sufficiently funded, permitted and researched.
-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. 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 consequences for ongoing and future (research) partnerships, including those of the BW project.
+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 have not made themselves sufficiently available for questions of concern of the community itself.
-<span class="next_choice"> Return to Cut 1: Voices of Thunder, to explore the research relationship between BearWatch researchers and the Gjoa Haven HTA.
+Such dynamics have consequences for ongoing and future (research) partnerships, including those within the BW project.
-</span>
-<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>
+<div class="next_choice"> '''"Return to Cut 1"''': Voices of Thunder, to consider the responsiveness of the BearWatch researchers when it comes to the concerns put forward by the Gjoa Haven HTA.
+</div>
+<small><references /></small>
+<span class="return to-cut-1 link" data-page-title=" Multiple Voices" data-section-id="9" data-encounter-type="return">[[Multiple Voices#Response-ability|Return to Cut 1: Voices of Thunder Testimonial Reading]]</span>