Caribou management appeal focuses on the word ‘local’

The NWT government and Colville Lake have presented different interpretations of the Sahtu Dene Métis Comprehensive Land Claim during an appeal regarding caribou management.

The disagreement largely boils down to what the word “local” means in a section of the treaty related to the powers of renewable resources councils.

How that word is interpreted – and what the NWT Court of Appeal ultimately decides in the case – could affect how the Bluenose West caribou are managed.

The herd was estimated at about 112,000 animals in 1992. The most recent estimate in 2021 was 18,440, the lowest number recorded.  

In front of a three-judge NWT Court of Appeal panel in Yellowknife on Tuesday, lawyers for the territorial government argued “local” refers to treaty participants connected to one of five communities in the Sahtu region.

The territory’s lawyers said that means renewable resources councils have the power to manage conservation efforts for participants from those communities, but cannot restrict harvesting rights for all treaty members.

Representatives for Colville Lake and Sahtu Secretariat Inc, however, said “local” refers to a geographic area, meaning renewable resources councils can manage harvesting within an area for all treaty beneficiaries.

They argued the Colville Lake Renewable Resources Council could therefore manage harvesting of the Bluenose West caribou herd through a community conservation plan.

NWT challenging court ruling

The territorial government is appealing an NWT Supreme Court decision that ordered the environment minister to reconsider his decision to reject that conservation plan.

The case is important because it tests the NWT government’s authority over who does what to conserve and manage caribou.

Currently, the territory imposes a tag and quota system – known as the total allowable harvest – for the Bluenose West herd. Indigenous harvest of the herd is limited to 350 animals for the Sahtu.

Renewable resources councils administer the system at the local level.

The NWT government argues that should continue as the environment minister has the ultimate authority to ensure restrictions on harvesting rights are minimal and justified.

But a lawyer representing Colville Lake said the NWT’s interpretation of the treaty is inconsistent with its objective and ignores Indigenous customs and practices. He said requiring treaty members to simply take the perspective of the NWT government is not co-management.

“It’s the co-management chapter, not the total allowable harvest chapter,” he said.

He further said local regulations from community members are the best conservation management practice and Colville Lake has the closest relationship to the Bluenose West herd.

A lawyer for the Sahtu Secretariat argued on Tuesday that the NWT government’s interpretation of the treaty is inconsistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its implementation in Canada and the NWT.

He said a narrow interpretation of the treaty could have a “depressing effect” on self-government agreements.

The appeal court’s panel has reserved its decision in the case.