Tradition 'snatched away': Labrador Inuit struggle with caribou hunting ban

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

In 2016, there were 1,673,785 Aboriginal people in Canada, accounting for 4.9% of the total population. This was up from 3.8% in 2006 and 2.8% in 1996.

Since 2006, the Aboriginal population has grown by 42.5%—more than four times the growth rate of the non-Aboriginal population over the same period. According to population projections, the number of Aboriginal people will continue to grow quickly. In the next two decades, the Aboriginal population is likely to exceed 2.5 million persons.

Two main factors have contributed to the growing Aboriginal population: the first is natural growth, which includes increased life expectancy and relatively high fertility rates; the second factor relates to changes in self-reported identification. Put simply, more people are newly identifying as Aboriginal on the census—a continuation of a trend over time.

The First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations continue to be significantly younger than the non-Aboriginal population, with proportionally more children and youth and fewer seniors. However, they too are aging—in 2016, those 65 years of age and older accounted for a larger share of the Aboriginal population than in the past.

The data provide a portrait of the rich diversity of First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations. More than 70 Aboriginal languages were reported in the 2016 Census. Growth was observed in the Aboriginal population in urban areas, as well as First Nations people living on reserve and Inuit in Inuit Nunangat. Aboriginal children were more likely to live in a variety of family settings, such as multi-generational homes, where both parents and grandparents are present.
Click to expand...
 
nomad 68 said:
This nails it.
Click to expand...

Ayup.

"Traditionally" the Natives starved down to sustainable populations, same as in Sub-Saharan Africa, same everywhere. And if it wasn't starvation, it was disease that thinned the herd. Since the beginning of, well, everything.

Ain't tradition grand? Right up until reality strikes, anyways.
 
trevj said:
Ayup.

"Traditionally" the Natives starved down to sustainable populations, same as in Sub-Saharan Africa, same everywhere. And if it wasn't starvation, it was disease that thinned the herd. Since the beginning of, well, everything.

Ain't tradition grand? Right up until reality strikes, anyways.
Click to expand...

Very little disease in northern tribes until whiteman brought it. They never starved.
 
salarguy said:
Very little disease in northern tribes until whiteman brought it. They never starved.
Click to expand...

Interesting statement.
You don't think there were any bad winters,droughts,diseases that killed their food supply, in 10,000 or so years?
I'm pretty sure entire villages may have starved throughout history.
Of course there is no one left to tell us and no written record.
 
PastorOfMuppets said:
I totally respect aboriginal rights for traditional hunts (full disclosure: my ancestry includes Miqmaq, although I have no status and am not interested in same). However, if one wishes to hunt because of a traditional right, then one should be expected to do so using traditional tools. No high powered rifles. No snowmobiles. No helicopters to spot or hunt from. I guarantee that animals will be then taken in sustainable numbers.
Click to expand...

My feeling exactly! Traditional rights only with traditional tools!
 
flyr said:
Interesting statement.
You don't think there were any bad winters,droughts,diseases that killed their food supply, in 10,000 or so years?
I'm pretty sure entire villages may have starved throughout history.
Of course there is no one left to tell us and no written record.
Click to expand...

Didn't realize we were talking 10,000??? Lets talk history, recorded history!
 
salarguy said:
There never was an accurate count. They were finding new skeletons in the woods for years and years. Another factor I guess you didn't read"virtually all the breeding stock" My friend's brother in law was involved in the count Chief wildlife biologist Shane Mahoney. Commented that huge stags made up a large proportion. "Remained that way" whose counts? After that, maybe you should do your own investigation. It's already been said that the "cycle" predator to prey has an effect on large population drops. Not to mention the Innu 4X over harvest After that, Ask God.
Click to expand...


"My friend's brother in-law" Did you have a buddy from up the harbor who's sister's friend's cousin worked on it too? .... Too funny.

The drowning was in 1984 and when I worked with Shane on it later at university the first released number was approximately 7k then 10K animals with the estimates going as high as 26K: that higher number never being confirmed after but the final consensus was around the 24K mark. Before taking the word of a friend of a friend of a friend talk to those that were actually there / worked on the report & subsequent studies instead of trying to talk down to people and suggest they "fact check" based on third party here-say.

All the breeding stock? You do realize that the healthy breeding stock of a herd that size would amount to several hundred thousand animals (usually 60% of the herd)? Undoubtedly there was a significant percentage of stags in the drowning and yes Shane made that comment (he also suspected there was a larger number of cows & he turned out to be right about that too) but nowhere did he say, write or report to govt or media that the herd lost "virtually all the breeding stock". As an FYI... From a biological standpoint losing a significant number of healthy breeding females is more detrimental to a given population than losing males of the same stock but hey, what would I know about it.......

There was a much larger number of breeding stock that survived. The herd numbers continued to increase into the 90's as I stated earlier: herd numbers in 1984 were ~ 500 000 peaking at over 850 000 in the early 90's but again, don't let facts get in your way.. Just an irrelevant fact backed by stats on both sides of the border, supported by actual counts and methods used at the time.

I don't know why you want to try and start a pissing match with Op's that offer other facts; no one is debating the decline of the herd nor stating the decline isn't real. I have personally witnessed it over the years with my last successful caribou hunt being a over a decade ago now. I'd love nothing more than to see the numbers come back up so my kids could experience it with me.

Just relax....
 
Last edited:
What the swift collapse of some Labrador caribou can tell us about endangered species

Lessons to be learned about endangered species from what happened near Rigolet

By Bailey White, CBC News Posted: Feb 12, 2018 7:00 AM NT| Last Updated: Feb 12, 2018 7:00 AM NT

Everyone in Rigolet knew the caribou were out there on George's Island, and they knew what was going to happen.

The group of 40 or 50 animals from the Mealy Mountain herd trekked out over the ice some time in the early 2000s. They were first surveyed in 2005.

It was a golden opportunity: the Mealy Mountain herd was declared a threatened species in 2002, and they had no natural predators on George's Island.

Researchers were thrilled to collar a handful of animals. It was a chance to study the creatures in depth: a naturally occurring microcosm safe from the perils on mainland Labrador.

But the scientists shared a common worry with the people of Rigolet. They knew the population would explode, and soon there were 300 animals out there on that tiny island. Again, the caribou were in trouble.

Danny Michelin, who was the angajukKâk, or mayor, of Rigolet from 2006 to 2010, said the community pleaded with federal bureaucrats to sanction a controlled hunt.

"The indigenous people knew that if you leave 300 caribou out on an island," Michelin said, "they're not going to survive."
Click to expand...

■ Labrador caribou herds won't be listed as endangered, government says
 
Boomer686 said:
"My friend's brother in-law" Did you have a buddy from up the harbor who's sister's friend's cousin worked on it too? .... Too funny.

The drowning was in 1984 and when I worked with Shane on it later at university the first released number was approximately 7k then 10K animals with the estimates going as high as 26K: that higher number never being confirmed after but the final consensus was around the 24K mark. Before taking the word of a friend of a friend of a friend talk to those that were actually there / worked on the report & subsequent studies instead of trying to talk down to people and suggest they "fact check" based on third party here-say.

All the breeding stock? You do realize that the healthy breeding stock of a herd that size would amount to several hundred thousand animals (usually 60% of the herd)? Undoubtedly there was a significant percentage of stags in the drowning and yes Shane made that comment (he also suspected there was a larger number of cows & he turned out to be right about that too) but nowhere did he say, write or report to govt or media that the herd lost "virtually all the breeding stock". As an FYI... From a biological standpoint losing a significant number of healthy breeding females is more detrimental to a given population than losing males of the same stock but hey, what would I know about it.......

There was a much larger number of breeding stock that survived. The herd numbers continued to increase into the 90's as I stated earlier: herd numbers in 1984 were ~ 500 000 peaking at over 850 000 in the early 90's but again, don't let facts get in your way.. Just an irrelevant fact backed by stats on both sides of the border, supported by actual counts and methods used at the time.

I don't know why you want to try and start a pissing match with Op's that offer other facts; no one is debating the decline of the herd nor stating the decline isn't real. I have personally witnessed it over the years with my last successful caribou hunt being a over a decade ago now. I'd love nothing more than to see the numbers come back up so my kids could experience it with me.

Just relax....
Click to expand...

Do you really think that was ONE herd in the same place, same time? I gave you more credit.
 
Boomer686 said:
"My friend's brother in-law" Did you have a buddy from up the harbor who's sister's friend's cousin worked on it too? .... Too funny.

The drowning was in 1984 and when I worked with Shane on it later at university the first released number was approximately 7k then 10K animals with the estimates going as high as 26K: that higher number never being confirmed after but the final consensus was around the 24K mark. Before taking the word of a friend of a friend of a friend talk to those that were actually there / worked on the report & subsequent studies instead of trying to talk down to people and suggest they "fact check" based on third party here-say.

All the breeding stock? You do realize that the healthy breeding stock of a herd that size would amount to several hundred thousand animals (usually 60% of the herd)? Undoubtedly there was a significant percentage of stags in the drowning and yes Shane made that comment (he also suspected there was a larger number of cows & he turned out to be right about that too) but nowhere did he say, write or report to govt or media that the herd lost "virtually all the breeding stock". As an FYI... From a biological standpoint losing a significant number of healthy breeding females is more detrimental to a given population than losing males of the same stock but hey, what would I know about it.......

There was a much larger number of breeding stock that survived. The herd numbers continued to increase into the 90's as I stated earlier: herd numbers in 1984 were ~ 500 000 peaking at over 850 000 in the early 90's but again, don't let facts get in your way.. Just an irrelevant fact backed by stats on both sides of the border, supported by actual counts and methods used at the time.

I don't know why you want to try and start a pissing match with Op's that offer other facts; no one is debating the decline of the herd nor stating the decline isn't real. I have personally witnessed it over the years with my last successful caribou hunt being a over a decade ago now. I'd love nothing more than to see the numbers come back up so my kids could experience it with me.

Just relax....
Click to expand...

I know Shane personally. I'm just hesitant to quote him, even though he has retired from Wildlife and started a consulting firm.This is no pi$$ing match. The friend and brother in law is Lloyd Pennell , lifelong friend and cameraman for Land and Sea, who was sent to get footage of the carnage. Hardly heresay!
 
Last edited:
Once there was plenty. Now there all going away....

The more we do to make certain animal populations skyrocket the better it will be for hunters who will not be treated like a villian for every animal tagged.

Soon your only chance to see some magneficent animals will be the zoo. Caged like serial killers but serial killers deserve to be caged.

I used look into my backyard and see wild turkeys and deer roaming thru the fields on a regular occasion. Now all i see is subdivisions...
 
Last edited:
In 2000 I talked with people who would harvest 20 caribou to feed the family and their dogs. And we wonder where the caribou went. Add the fact that hunters all were allowed to shoot 2 each time. An acquaintance used to go up twice and bring 4 home each year. The outfitter had the tags and didn't want them to go to waste.
 
tigrr said:
In 2000 I talked with people who would harvest 20 caribou to feed the family and their dogs. And we wonder where the caribou went. Add the fact that hunters all were allowed to shoot 2 each time. An acquaintance used to go up twice and bring 4 home each year. The outfitter had the tags and didn't want them to go to waste.
Click to expand...

About 2 months ago I reviewed a post on here, concerning Meat utilization. I was surprised and disgusted at the amount of members on here who " Cut out the loin and feed the rest to the dogs "
What the logic behind this being correct is... I have no idea.
Because Native's don't require tags...they are an easy target?
Or; perhaps " I paid for the tag...it's my business what I do with it "
No-one seems bothered by this concept of 90 % of the carcass is dogfood...but as soon as the people being scrutinized are Native... oh the horror!
And no; I didn't hit CAPS LOCK and 'go off' concerning the wasted meat. Trying to not sweat the petty stuff...or is that pet the sweaty stuff?
And yeah it seems like a shame...the topic of the original post. But such Diversity also includes WASP dyckheads too.
 
Disgusting what goes on in Nunavut and northern manitoba. Today the subsistence hunters get on social medial like Facebook and find out where at the animals are. Just a matter then of converging on the caribou and the shoot is on. the herd here is the only herd still holding its own, 450k strong... not for long. Whole thing is built on greed and lack of education with zero management teeth. Enough caribou for all...just all players gotta follow the rules...not 1849 any more...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom