Mandatory hunter training faces strong opposition

KIRSTEN MURPHY

A suggestion to introduce mandatory hunter education programs throughout Nunavut faced strong opposition last week during a public meeting to discuss changes to the Wildlife Act.

On May 30 in Iqaluit, members of the public had their say before a seven-person consultation panel made up of representatives from the department of sustainable development, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

They were asked to review 14 recommendations drafted by panel members, who make up the Wildlife Legislation Working Group.

The current act, created in the early 1970s, was inherited from the Northwest Territories on April 1, 1999.

The Nunavut version of the Wildlife Act must comply with the Nunavut land claims agreement, whose constitutionally protected provisions guarantee Inuit harvesting rights and spell out the role that Inuit must play in wildlife management.

“Many of these provisions conflict with provisions of the current Wildlife Act, according to a GN discussion paper on the development of a new act.

“The NLCA defines the harvesting rights of Inuit and clarifies the extent to which the GN and the NWMB can restrict or limit harvesting by Inuit. The act, therefore, requires updating in order to comply with the NLCA.”

Similar meetings are taking place all over Nunavut. A draft act should be tabled in the legislative assembly next year.

Part of the public consultation process involves discussing the 14 separate issues point by point. The consultations have run into the early morning hours in some communities.

Hunter training program?

The first of the working group’s recommendations, a mandatory hunter-education program in Nunavut, started a fierce debate in Iqaluit.

Every Canadian territory and province has a mandatory hunter-training program — except Nunavut.

The consultation committee did not say Nunavut must adopt a mandatory hunter-education program. It simply points out that other jurisdictions have.

Iqaluit’s Madeleine Redfern said the Nunavut land claims agreement says no obstacles should impede a beneficiary’s hunting rights.

“Hunter education should not be mandatory. There should be no obstacles to those rights. That’s completely unallowed,” Redfern said.

“Hunter education needs to be established for wildlife conservation, but those of us who live on the land already know wildlife conservation,” one man added.

Another contentious topic was residency requirements for non-Inuit.

Current legislation says non-Inuit residents must live in Nunavut for two years before they are allowed to hunt big game. “That is the most restrictive requirement in Canada,” the discussion paper says.

Most jurisdictions have a three-month to 12-month waiting period.

Even after the two-year waiting period, a new resident must hunt with an Inuit guide for another two years.

The working group asked people to consider a request for an exemption from the current two-year period by RCMP members, members of the clergy and Nunavik Inuit.

Winston Fillatre said he supports lowering the residency restriction if it increases employment opportunities for Inuit guides. However, he emphatically denounced making residency exceptions for RCMP officers, clergy and armed forces officers.

“They should not have any special considerations,” Fillatre said.

Mathew Alainga supported Fillatre. “We have to abide by their [RCMP] rules, they should listen to ours,” he said.

Iqaluit resident Rebekah Williams, who is also the MLA for Quttiktuq and the wife of Iqaluit city councillor and outfitter Glen Williams, said most clergy are paid minimal salaries and should be allowed to hunt.

Redfern returned to the microphone several times. She said the land claims agreement supersedes any government act, thus creating a two-tier system: one for Inuit and one for non-Inuit.

“Defining things like residency requirements is up to the [regional wildlife organizations] and the [hunters and trappers organizations] under the NLCA. I don’t want to see it defined in the Wildlife Act,” she said.

The meeting finished at 11:30 p.m. with six issues still to be discussed. The next meeting has not yet been scheduled.

Joe Tigullaraq, a panel member representing the department of sustainable development, admitted that consensus is not always possible.

Anyone unable to attend the meetings may add their comments toll-free at

(866) 887-5927 or via e-mail at wildlifeact@gov.nu.ca.