Aboriginal Moose harvest

[Slick_Jig 6]

We had a discussion on this board months ago about aboriginal moose harvest and its incorporation into the tag allocation system set up by the MNR. I am currently doing my undergraduate thesis on this topic and have analyzed my results. With that limited access to aboriginal communities and the difficulty of obtaining information from communities, I am pleased with my results. From interviewing aboriginal hunters that ONLY live on reserve. 40 hunters take 87 moose on a yearly basis!!!! Aboriginal moose harvest is not accounted for in management units 17, 18A and 19 as confirmed by the area biologist. Now if 87 moose are harvested by 40 hunters on reserve, What about the amount of moose taken by off reserve aboriginals, or the entire aboriginal hunting community?

MNR clearly states in the Ontario moose management policy that they consider aboriginal moose harvest, which is clearly not followed.(http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/263991.pdf). I know some biologist will account with a percentage of the harvest able population, but how accurate is this? I understand the difficulty of getting information from such communities and verifying the data. HOWEVER, with such an important species, is it worth forgetting about this number. I think with the help of the public and support from MNR, a working relationship can be developed to incorporate aboriginal harvest and strengthen moose populations in Ontario.

I hope this study has provided people with knowledge of better understanding moose population management.

If you have further questions about this research, feel free to PM me

[Buck 120 32]

WOW, that is a high number of moose! Thanks for the info.

[Travis Schallock 28]

Another thing that should be accounted for is the number of moose wounded by them at night, and not retrieved. I have reported them a couple times, and was told by the local CO that he would like to do something about it but was told by someone higher up the chain that he was not to look at it unless there was a safety issue. Although I don't know for sure, as I have never seen it for myself, if they don't see the moose fall in the spot light, they rarely go look for them. This has come directly from their mouths, allmost as if to brag. Sad.

[Slick_Jig 6]

I know what your saying, the treaty rights that they have cause some individuals to take advantage of the current system. I would really like to see MNR and aboriginals create a working relationship and help moose populations! Too much politics involved and not enough concern for our delicate natural resources.

Its disturbing to think this goes on!

[wicabel246 0]

John Kaplanis wishes to comment,

But to respond to the student's research concerns; he's right about MNR generally not being able to accurately track aboriginal harvest, but note the following: THEY NEVER HAVE! In other words, since the inception of selective harvest model adopted by Ontario in the early 1980s which has resulted in moose population growth to the levels we have today, aborignal harvest has remained a wild card that has impacted moose population growth minimally.

What this student also does not make reference to is the reduced cultural significance that hunting plays in the aboriginal community in general. This is a sign of the times I suppose with aboriginal youth, that they are not participating in the uptake in traditional activities ie. hunting and trapping, as much as they once did. In my own discussions with aboriginal elders however, subsistance fishing is an activity that is being kept up. An interesting point to note for fisheries managers.

The problem with groups outside of the aboriginal communities, "sounding the alarm" to unchecked or unregulated aboriginal harvest of moose is that we therefore entertaining the idea that we need to include these harvested moose in our overall harvest management plans with MNR on a WMU basis, and if this happens, "harvest rates" will be jacked up and adult tag allocations will be reduced accordingly. SO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR is the message to take away from this exercise. Aboriginal harvest should be and has been factored in along with wolf/bear predation, train/vehicle collision mortality etc. Leave it at that, is my suggestion. Also note, NON-HUNTING and ANTI HUNTING elements use this strategy of "what about the native harest" to indirectly and discreetly target non-aboriginal hunting and trapping.

And if follow questions, someone can contact me;

John Kaplanis

Executive Director

The NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE

807-623-7999 ph

807-623-7060 fax

kaplanis@tbaytel.net

www.teamnosa.com

Thanks for looking. Peter

[Slick_Jig 6]

I am clearly aware of the significance of the aboriginal moose harvest to sustenance hunting in aboriginal communities. I am also VERY aware that adding in aboriginal harvest would lower the tag allocations. That's not the point! If MNR is spending millions on counting moose and estimating populations, then why not do it properly. If moose are harvested at this rate among other communities and not accounted for this is a HUGE gap in MNR numbers, so I don't think it is minimal. Finally MNR DOES NOT account for aboriginal harvest in all management units, it is not accounted for in these WMU that I have listed. So why account for it in some units and not others. Makes absolutely no sense!!

I think there needs to be policy in place that is actually taken seriously, not like what the policy says now. Also there needs to be a CONSISTENT way of incorporating moose harvest!!!

Thanks for your interest

[wicabel246 0]

John Kaplanis would like to respond to this. Thanks and keep the faith all. Peter

"HUGE" gap in MNR numbers? I don't think so. And I don't think MNR spends near what they should to monitor moose pop.s and is it realistic to think we'll ever really get First Nations buy in on comprehensive moose harvest data contribution. Not likely. Should we also therefore try to nail down natural mortality numbers, to every known dead moose out there....could never do it anyway and we don't need to.

We are digressing here in the conversation - I think if anything with the aboriginal harvest apparently dropping over the past 20 years (no evidence other than anecdotal however) the aboriginal harvest of moose is not THE most important factor in moose management today. Ask any MNR moose biologist...in fact ask the MNR moose biologist in charge of any one of the highest density moose pop. WMU's in the province and they will concur that native harvest numbers, while nice to know, are not vital to moose management.

What is going to affect future of moose management in the highest density WMU's for moose?? This is the multi-million dollar moose management/budget question of the day! I'll put this out there for you to take on and respond if you think you know what it is?? And if you're looking for a ground breaking thesis topic that will dissect moose management and cast some hypothesis on what the future of moose hunting in Ontario will be like in 20 years....this would be truly valuable work to delve into!

Go ahead, give it your best guess and I'll respond with what I think is going to impact moose management more than any other issue in the near future...! You may know what it is already....?

John Kaplanis

Executive Director

The NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE

807-623-7999 ph

807-623-7060 fax

kaplanis@tbaytel.net

www.teamnosa.com

[Slick_Jig 6]

I agree that aboriginal harvest has dropped over the decades with the lack of interest from young community members. The whole idea behind my thesis was to look at the MNR management and make recommendations after being at the two review sessions. This was the largest downfall that I could pick out immediately. Its was not the concern for counting every single animal but rather have a better idea of these harvest numbers. There's always room for improvement!

I didn't choose this topic to cast doubts on MNR but rather recommend a better way to estimate populations sizes. I appreciate the interest of people and think this makes for great conversation. As for moose management in the future, hard to say. This thesis was produced by myself with the help of aboriginal community members and some faculty, In order to graduate.

I am interested to hear what will affect moose populations in the future.

If i wasn't graduating, I would love to tackle more research dealing with moose and their populations.

I appreciate your concern and interest and look forward to chatting about this in the future. Everyone's opinion is appreciated

Thanks again John

[wicabel246 0]

Further from John,

On the contrary, I think you are on the right track even if your assessment indirectly "casts doubt" upon MNR's management practices. Never fear the "casting of doubt" upon a government agency of any stripe! This is a good thing. I have been quoted many times saying it before, so I'll inject it here right now again; MNR needs to be held accountable and your queries re: harvest data, are valid ones - however in the big picture, sometimes these "valid" concerns that WE ALL share at some point, don't amount to much in terms of changing the way the bureaucracy thinks and operates. A similar argument to yours has been made by groups like NOSA who have asked MNR to conduct mandatory harvest reports/checks of resident moose hunters - as this data also exists with considerable gaps as well - but all to no avail (it would seem cost of this measure is prohibitive).

However at this point in time more than any other, it would appear that things such as Species at Risk Legislation and Endangered Species Act hold more potential to do harm to moose populations, and other species, than anyone might realize.

For example, in the "New Forest Management Guides for Conserving Biodiversity" put out recently by MNR - in them is clear direction prioritizing Caribou habitat management as the premier management direction within MNR right now. The once abundant and high density populations of moose are going to be a thing of the past I fear, and this will be as a result of forestry and silviculture practices being altered to favor "historical condition of the forest" which really means increasingly more conifer type forest habitat which is great for caribou....not so great for moose!

So as with most things related to the wildlife world - the major additive or limiting factors on any species is habitat - above all else. Without enough habitat for a given species to thrive, it cannot reach higher population than the carrying capacity of the habitat can provide. Other factors such as predation, disease, hunting, etc. all contribute to this condition of course but the primary driver is habitat availability.

I applaud your keen interest in the subject and wish more young people - aboriginal included - took a more critical look at how MNR and the public views wildlife management. If indeed the mighty moose is to continue to play any role in the traditional subsistance/ceremonial purposes of aboriginals as well as continue to provide resident hunters with great sporting/tourism opportunity in the region - then more needs to be done to ask MNR why so much emphasis is being put on species that while important in the overall landscape, should not perhaps be given unnecessary ecological priority (caribou are not endangered..and they exist as a single species across Canadian north in great abundance) while species such as moose are forsaken.

Food for thought! Indeed, great discussion and feel free to quote any of this opinion at any time throughout your research documentation. If you have any other questions relating to this or other issues you may also reach me directly at:

John Kaplanis

Executive Director

The NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE

807-623-7999 ph

807-623-7060 fax

kaplanis@tbaytel.net

www.teamnosa.com

Cheers!

[Travis Schallock 28]

I know this is a little off topic, but you had brought up Caribou and the MNR's new guidelines. The caribou has been made out to be endangered and is one of the array of things that are being used as pawns for various groups as well as reserves to stop exploration and logging operations. I often fly out to a few of the fly-in reserves and was at one of them 2 years ago while there annual hunting tournament was going on. I was surprised to see that Caribou was on their list of 'tournament species' and was rated highly. I asked some of the people there and they told me they shoot caribou quite often. Also, there is/was a small herd that lives just out of Nakina on Twin Lakes, that we used to see quite often while fishing. 2 years ago while archery hunting moose in the same area there were 10-12 caribou that were also seen. There were a couple natives driving in to these cuts every night as we were leaving, within a couple days there were 9 Caribou gut piles and not another one seen. All taken at night.

So if they really were serious about protecting Caribou, why are they still allowed to do this? If Caribou are supposed to be protected, nobody should be allowed to hunt them. This should apply to sturgeon as well.

[Guest Ityflies]

Well put, John Kaplanis!

"If Caribou are supposed to be protected, nobody should be allowed to hunt them. This should apply to sturgeon as well." Quoted by tlock

Just a reply to your thinking.

So you think, just because there are a few bad hunters everyone should be punnished!

How about if you seen a few non aboriginals taking too much walleye from a lake that is protected (size limits)....everyone should be punnished and no one should be allowed to fish walleye all together?

I just wanted to point out how it sounds like you are lumping all good and bad people together.

[Travis Schallock 28]

I don't believe I said anywhere that every native from every reserve are abusing their rights, nor that every one should be punished. What I am saying is that their are a couple in my area that are. One reserve in particular that is trying to put a stop to "The Ring of Fire" area of exploration area by using the Caribou as a threatened species, among other things, and then sport hunt them with spotlights to gain points in a tournament.