Baffin Island caribou population growth ‘incredibly good news’
Study shows herd is recovering well after previous collapse, researcher says
The caribou population on Baffin Island is making a strong recovery after collapsing over several decades, researchers say. (File photo)
Scientists studying Baffin Island’s caribou herds say there has been a ten-fold recovery of the population in the past decade.
“The numbers we are seeing are incredibly good news right across the board,” said Mitch Campbell, regional wildlife biologist for the Kivalliq region at Nunavut’s Environment Department, in an interview.
The population has grown to more than 48,000, the Aerial Abundance Estimates and Trends of the Barren-Ground Caribou of Baffin Island Nunavut – March 2024 and 2025 said.
The 2014 aerial abundance study determined the population had collapsed to 4,600 animals from a previous 1980s estimate of 150,000.
Government of Nunavut researchers broke their recent survey into two phases: March-April 2024 and March-April 2025.
In 2024, they surveyed south Baffin Island using two Twin Otter planes and a helicopter. Some caribou were tagged with tracking devices so researchers could locate herds and ensure they weren’t counting the same herds twice.
The process was repeated in 2025 for central and northern Baffin Island.
Before the recent study, researchers believed the population had been recovering. But the growth rate indicated in the study exceeded expectations, Campbell said.
Researchers estimate the population grew by between 15 per cent and 36 per cent every year from 2014 to 2025.
Prince Charles Island, an uninhabited island in the Foxe Basin, was the only place where the population declined. The number of caribou there shrank to 1,063 in 2025 from 1,603 in 2014.
Campbell said he isn’t concerned by that because small island herds are subject to frequent boom and bust cycles, so the island’s caribou population is expected to recover relatively quickly.
Overall, he said he believes the caribou population growth on Baffin Island hasn’t peaked, but he could not say what the upper limit could be.
The previous estimate of more than 150,000 in the 1980s was based on sparse data, he said, and scientists could not be certain the population was ever that size. Nunavummiut shouldn’t see that number as a target.
The new numbers are good news for the people of Baffin Island who depend on the caribou herds for hunting.
Since the 2014 survey, Nunavummiut on Baffin Island have faced restrictions on caribou harvests. Hunting caribou was banned outright until 2015 when the moratorium was replaced with a limited harvest that continues to this day.
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board “came up with a solution, and the people stood behind the solution and the herd recovered,” Campbell said.
With the study completed and the caribou population rebounding, there will be new discussions around hunting and conservation. Campbell said the Government of Nunavut will hold consultations with hamlets, hunters, and other stakeholders.
Consultations are set to begin in February, he said. Campbell couldn’t say whether harvesting restrictions might be relaxed, but that possibility would be a part of the conversation.
“I have a huge faith in the communities to continue providing excellent advice with their expertise on the land and with wildlife,” he said.
While the exact circumstances of the caribou population’s collapse before 2014 are not known, it’s suspected they go through cycles due to natural factors like food abundance and less due to animal predation or hunting.
“We’ve got the science end of it. [Now] we need Inuit knowledge to come into this equation,” Campell said. “We need to speak with the communities and caribou experts in the communities.”
So it wasn’t the mine after all…
I want , a study done on that
That is really great news to see the resurgence of the tuktu!
I also believe we should reframe the wording of Inuit or Traditional Knowledge to “Traditional or Inuit Science” because Inuit have been passing down their “knowledge/science” via oral transmission for centuries. Just because it isn’t passed down on a written piece of paper(western knowledge/science) doesn’t mean our knowledge isn’t science. There are so many Inuit Professors out there who know so much about the land, animals, plants, ice and everything else our environment has, that we need to get away from the term Traditional Knowledge and start calling it Traditional Science.
Can you tell us what methods traditional knowledge uses to determine what counts and what does not count as knowledge?
Science is a method more than a body of knowledge. If you aren’t using that method it is unlikely you are doing science.
Science is a process of observation, prediction, and evidence-based testing to understand the world. How is Inuit knowledge/science, not science? Your comments are just another example of how people treat Inuit as though they are stupid. Your arrogance is dripping all over the place, and it’s gross. Clean it up.
Maybe your arrogance comment is more to do with insecurity. Science is a method and process that is different than what came before. That is not disparaging traditional knowledge, it’s just recognizing that without the scientific process it’s not science. There’s been an explosion in knowledge and understanding of the world and the cosmos due to the scientific method. It has brought a lot of problems as well so we need to keep in mind the wisdom of our elders, but that wisdom, strictly speaking, is not science.
Oh, Einstein says it is science.
That’s not how it works either.
Dear Einstein, it seems I struck a chord?
It was really an honest question, which you didn’t answer, and an statement that seems uncontroversial and plainly obvious.
You asked “how is Inuit knowledge/science, not science?”
Well, perhaps it is. Let’s find out?
Observation and testing are necessary, but they aren’t enough. The results of testing need to be presented to the scientific community for scrutiny. They must be subject to the efforts of others to prove them wrong.
Does traditional knowledge have this kind of mechanism built in? Does it present the methods used to determine results to the outside world, knowing that scrutiny is necessary to weed out the bad and keep the good?
Tell us more?
No science about traditions you know remembering is key in your knowledge its not science.
When our elders observe animal behavior over decades, recognize patterns in migration, identify which animals are healthy or sick during butchering, know which plants heal and which ones don’t, that’s empirical observation, testing, and knowledge refinement passed down through generations. That’s scientific process. The Baffin caribou situation is a perfect example. Inuit hunters were right about population health while southern models were wrong, but it took years and expensive aerial surveys before anyone believed us.
The problem with keeping “traditional knowledge” separate from “science” is it creates this hierarchy where one is treated as fact and the other as cultural perspective. It means an elder with 70 years observing caribou gets paid a small honorarium while a biologist with 2 field seasons gets a salary, publications, and career advancement using that same elder’s knowledge.
If we started calling it traditional science, or better yet just recognized it as science, it would force institutions to compensate knowledge holders appropriately, give their observations equal weight in decision making, and stop treating Inuit expertise as something that needs validation from southern researchers before it counts.
Our ancestors used the scientific method for thousands years. They just didn’t write it down in academic journals. That doesn’t make it less valid.
Amen to that! Last summer I noticed that the tundra had plenty more vegetation and plant growth and thus, lots of yellow lichen. I thought, “Ah, perhaps the caribou will be returning to our region”. That is both Traditional Knowledge and “Western Science”.
We should just stop acknowledging them as the sole proprietors of scientific knowledge in our environment.. If their knowledge is reported without inclusion of Inuit science, their findings should be dismissed as incomplete and therefore inconclusive. If they are incapable of conducting true research without Inuit knowledge/science, then they are not the sole researchers, and therefore need to acknowledge their collaborators if they are being published anywhere. Climate scientists learned this ages ago. Our observations of our environment are no less valid, and I’m sure, in a lot of cases, western scientists would have had no idea what to research without Inuit reporting the changes as they were happening.
Hello Mr. Einstein, your comments are very interesting. I am curious as to how what you call ‘Inuit science’ explains the northern lights?
Were those observations written down into a data set? Was the testing method replicated by others to achieve the same results? No? Not science. Traditional Knowledge is just as valuable and compliments science. It does not however, replace science. Both are equally valuable and both should always be examined and considered because together, it leads to a more clear picture of natural phenomenon. You’re de-valuing Traditional Knowledge by trying to force it into something it is not.
Listen harder, you’ve pointed out some good parallels between traditional knowledge production and the scientific method. But I think your comment is trying to fix the wrong problem. If you believe people who have a deep and ancient understanding of the animals and land deserve more credit and more pay, then fight for more pay.
Slapping the word science on something to achieve this is a red herring.
If Inuit scientists want publication and career advancement in the scientific community they should publish their findings. The point of publication is not prestige. it is to allow a community of peers—typically other scientists—to scrutinize and falsify the results of their tests.
To achieve this scientists present both their findings and the methods used to achieve them. At this point others try to replicate or disprove them. If the findings stick we have a theory. If not, they are discarded.
That is science. If you aren’t doing that, you are doing something else. That does not mean that ‘something else’ is of lesser value.
Very good news year
In 2014, the GN biologists first enumerated the decline in Baffin Island caribou and published their survey results pointing to only 4,652 caribou being left on the island.
In their paper, they said:
“The northern arctic ecozone is rich in mineral and hydrocarbon reserves creating
conflicts with the long-term viability of wildlife populations both now and into the
future. Baffin Land Iron Mines represents one such mining operation where
long-term impacts on wildlife remain an ongoing concern.”
Well, this operation has been in production since 2014, and the caribou have grown over 10 fold in the preceding 11 years.
Now they say:
“While the exact circumstances of the caribou population’s collapse before 2014 are not known, it’s suspected they go through cycles due to natural factors like food abundance and less due to animal predation or hunting.
“We’ve got the science end of it. [Now] we need Inuit knowledge to come into this equation,” Campell said. “We need to speak with the communities and caribou experts in the communities.”
Well, I am sorry, but GN biologists, you do not have the science end of it, and hardly appear to take Inuit knowledge seriously.
They were quick to employ pure speculation about a cause for the decline in 2014, and were probably wrong (if development was bad for caribou, it hardly makes sense caribou could recover if development continued).
Now they point to other factors, but have nothing concrete to say about them (food, predation, hunting). They have had 11 full years to work with Inuit to figure how this herd ticks since the crash occurred yet they appear no more enlightened on these things than in 2014.
I actually do not think they really want to know why caribou populations crash.
They seem more to want sufficient uncertainty to blame collapses on things they might personally do not like when these things happen (or have political license to attack).
Then they want to be able to control Inuit when there is a crisis by harnessing the fear of the unknown.
Then they want to be the good news guys when caribou do what caribou are prone to do (breed like rabbits when conditions are good).
Traditional knowledge.
I get lost trying to find Micky D and KFC without Google maps.🤟🎵
Relax.
I’m sure Baffin hunters will get the caribou population down in no time flat. One season…no sweat.
Kivalliq caribou.
Duck and run. You’re next on Baffin hit list to extinction….same with beluga around Churchill.
Mitch is saying that this is a Boom n bust cycle although us Inuit know of it as a cycle. Boom n bust cycle is of another scientific term he is making up. Sounds like the scientific people are listening and learning and make up new cycles.
Boom and bust is a ‘scientific term’ LOL … good lord
Does the report differentiate between North and South Baffin populations? I wonder if one is rebounding faster than the other?
GN biologists get away with saying ‘there is a concern’ without explaining how or why. They lead the public to believe a ‘concern’ equals an ‘impact(s)’ without being transparent with their rationale. What defines a ‘concern’ and what defines an ‘impact’? When does a ‘concern’ become and ‘impact’? It’s effectively misleading the public on information they’re entitled to.
You all disagreed few times as we mentioned caribou numbers are well up and watch new qouta say good numbers to harvest 2000/2500 and should increase each year 5% ,
Eyes & Ears