Nunavut Polar Bear Monitoring and Management: Difference between revisions

From Knowledge-land-scape
← Older edit
Saskia (talk | contribs)
3,956 edits
No edit summary
Saskia (talk | contribs)
3,956 edits
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:The wrecksite.png|thumb]]
[[File:The wrecksite.png|thumb]]
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.


Despite a promise to gather additional information in order to develop an effective management plan for subsequent years<ref>Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (2000, 19 December) Minutes: Conference Call no. 54 [Conference call minutes]. Iqaluit</ref>, 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<ref>Taylor, M.K. et al. (2006) “Demographic Parameters and Harvest-Explicit Population Viability Analysis for Polar Bears in M’Clintock Channel, Nunavut, Canada,” Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(6), pp. 1667–1673. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541x(2006)70[1667:dpahpv]2.0.co;2.</ref> and a community consultation on the listing of polar bears as a species of special concern under the Species at Risk Act<ref>Canada Wildlife Services. (2009) Nunavut Consultation Report Consultations on the Proposed Listing of the Polar Bear as Special Concern under the Species at Risk Act</ref>.  
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 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 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.  
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.  


<div class="next_choice"> '''"Return to Cut 1"''': Voices of Thunder, to explore how responsive BearWatch researchers have been to the concerns put forward by the Gjoa Haven HTA.
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.
 
<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>
</div>


Line 14: Line 17:
<small><references /></small>  
<small><references /></small>  


<span class="return to-cut-1 link" data-page-title=" Multiple Voices" data-section-id="14" data-encounter-type="return">[[Multiple Voices#Response-ability|Return to Cut 1: Voices of Thunder Testimonial Reading]]</span>
<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>

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.



  1. ↑ 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

Retrieved from "https://knowledgelandscape.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nunavut_Polar_Bear_Monitoring_and_Management&oldid=3680"