Caribou Numbers in the NWT The Outfitter’s Battle

CaribouNumbers in the NWTThe Outfitter’s Battle

Opening Statement • The caribou have been hunted for tens of thousands of years by the aboriginal peoples of the north. The health of the caribou herds is sacred to them, it is part of their very being. Generation after generation followed the caribou, or waited for them to come. They understood the movements of the great herds, and the cycle of feast and famine. Now, with “modern” technology, we track caribou with satellite collars, count nematodes in their droppings, and census them using fancy terms such as linear regression analysis and coefficient of variation. It is not an easy job, counting over a million animals, scattered over tens of thousands of square miles of wilderness. This presentation is not meant to degrade, in any way, the efforts of some of the wildlife biologists that have worked hard over the last 60 years, risking their lives in an unforgiving environment, with limited budgets and manpower, to study and better understand the caribou. • Look at the numbers, the government’s numbers, and draw your own conclusions. This presentation is based almost solely on the government’s own numbers, and its own words. • Where we go from here is still unclear. We are fighting for the rights of small business, and the rights of sportsmen around the world. Thank you for looking at this presentation. Go to the websites, do your own research.

A Brief History 1.The outfitting industry for barren ground caribou in the Northwest Territories started in 1982. 2. Qaivvik, Ltd. was started in 1984, an NWT corporation owned by Mike Freeleand and Fred Webb. John & Anita Andre purchased the business in 1999, and have operated it under the name of Courageous Lake Caribou Camps until the present time . A quota of 132 tags came with the original business. Fred normally hosted 45-60 hunters per year. 3. In 2000, The GNWT Department Resources, Wildlife, & Economic Development Corporation, granted the outfitters a 180 tag quota, due to healthy and increasing caribou herds. 4. In 2001, John and Anita, having upgraded substantially the camp and equipment at the Courageous Lake Camp, were faced with more demand for their hunts than they could provide. We therefore built the camp on the east end of Lac de Gras. 5. In 2003, having, again, more demand than supply, we purchased Don Cadieux”s Caribou Pass Outfitters, Ltd. This provided us with an additional 180 tags. We built 6 new cabins, and refurbished the entire camp, to bring it up to the standards set at our other two camps.

6. In 2005, we demolished an old, unused camp on the west end of Lac de Gras, and built three new cabins. The purpose of this camp is to provide a safe haven for hunters traveling to the west end of the lake, should travel conditions become unsafe. 7. Running our business at full capacity, which is a must if it is to be profitable, given the level of service we provide, we host 216 hunters per year at all three camps. Success rate has run about 98 per cent over a 22 year period. We utilize about 400 tags per year, with about 40 tags coming from the pool of unused tags, provided by other outfitters not utilizing their 180 tag quotas. 8. There are currently 10 outfitters on the barrens in the N.W.T.- 7 Non-HTA and 3 HTA (Hunter-Trapper Associations.) 9. Total tag quota was 1260 for non-HTA and 396 for HTA outfitters, for a total of 1656 tags. 10. Non-resident hunters are allowed two caribou tags each

The Problems Begin • In late 2005, the government split the former RWED into ENR (Environment & Natural Resources) and ITI (Industry, Tourism, and Investment.) It may or may not be a coincidence, but this is when problems with the government began. • In May of 2006, we were abruptly told that we had to stop selling caribou hunts for that year; that the caribou numbers had dropped significantly. This cost the industry three months of sales, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The question is, if the next survey hadn’t been done yet, how did the government know for sure the herds were down? Was the outcome preconceived?

In June of 2006, the Bathurst herd was surveyed, and was down to 128,000 caribou. Minister Miltenberger, of the ENR , told the outfitting industry that they were cutting our tag quotas back to the pre-2000 level of 132 tags, for the 2007 season. At the same time, resident hunters were reduced from 5 tags to 2 tags, and bulls only. (The harvest of mature bulls has consistently been shown to have zero effect on overall ungulate population growth.) The outfitting industry, although not necessarily agreeing with their numbers or science, wanted to do their part to help the caribou, and so we accepted this slashing of our industry by nearly 30%. The fact is, we hadn’t looked at the numbers carefully enough.

4. Having had our tag quota cut from 360 to 264, our Courageous Lake business plan for 2007 was to operate the Courageous Lake Camp and the Lac de Gras Camp at full capacity, and to mothball the Jolly Camp. This meant the laying off of eight employees. Obviously painful for all concerned, but at least the businesses could survive for the short term under these conditions. 5. At 5:00 P.M., Friday night, December 15 (I’m surprised they didn’t pick December 7), we receive an e-mail from Mr. Ernie Campbell of the ENR, that he was cutting outfitter tag quotas to 35 per outfitter for the 2007 season. This would be his proposal to the Wek’eezhii Board the following Wednesday. (This is a new First Nation governmental board, meeting for the first time. Mr. Ray Case and Mr. Ernie Campbell, both of the ENR, sit on the board.) It is my opinion that the ENR hoped to railroad this proposal through the new board without the outfitters input. This proposal effectively ends the outfitting industry ( a 6 million dollar a year renewable resource industry, providing 100s of jobs, primarily to aboriginals.)

6. Following this blind sided attack from the government, the MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly) came to our rescue, and were able to back the ENR down temporarily. This was December 19, 2006. The new Wek’eezhii Board tabled the issue for the moment. At this point, I realized something didn’t make sense. The actions of the ENR were simply not logical. There was no inclusion; there was no common sense being applied to the issues. There were dozens of Win-Win options to solve the issues. This is how the situation should have been handled:

In the pre RWED-Split days, this is how this problem would have been addressed. RWED would have called us into a room, or as individuals, and said: “Hey guys, the caribou numbers are dropping. We need your cooperation. We want to get a better handle on some harvest issues, but we can’t do that without some balance. Let’s slide the tag numbers back to the 1999 number, and we’ll try to sort this thing out. History shows if we can harvest a few more wolves than we have been, maybe tighten up the aboriginal harvest a bit through education, get a solid non-resident meat donation program in place, cut back the resident harvest a bit, we can turn this thing around. We know this is part of a natural cycle, so let’s work our way through it together. We’ll do another survey in a couple of years, and hopefully, the management actions will start to take effect and we can warrant a tag increase. It takes time to get a decline fully turned around, and we may only be able to get you partway back to the 180 tags at first, but we’ll see what we can do, and we’ll work on this problem together” But that’s not what happened.

At this point, I started to do a little independent research. Something was wrong, but I wasn’t sure what. I have been researching every day, 12-16 hours a day, ever since. 7. On December 20, the government demanded to know how many hunts we had booked for the 2007 season. Our theory is they were going to be magnanimous enough to give us enough tags to honor those hunts already booked. This, of course, is patently unfair to some of the outfitters, who book their hunts at sports shows, January to April. Other outfitters, such as Courageous Lake, book up well in advance. It also saved the government money, because they are on the hook for deposits of tourism businesses that go broke. 8. On Thursday, January 4, the outfitters met with the Premier, Mr. Joe Handley. He refused to look at any of the numbers, saying he was going to decide this issue based on politics. I’m not sure what that means, but apparently that is how the government plans to manage wildlife in the Northwest Territories in the future. 9. The following Monday, the outfitters were told that they would be allowed to have 750 tags for this season, divided proportionately by the number we used in 2006. For Courageous Lake, that meant that we would have approximately 205 tags for our two companies. That represents approximately 50% cut in our business for this year.

10. The government remains steadfast in its proposal for the 2008 season of 350 tags, with a maximum harvest of 220 caribou. How they are going to divide the 350 is still unclear. Exactly how they plan to administrate this is also unclear. If the first 220 hunters coming north fill the harvest quota, when the remaining hunters arrive in Yellowknife, do we send them home?? In the past six months, this has been the changes from the GNWT in my companies’ tag quotas: 360 Then 264 Then 70 Then 205 Then? Then 44 11. Now, as of January 21, 2007, The ENR is apparently considering dividing the 750 total tags for 2007 in a different manner. This would cut our 2007 quota to 150.

12. I have a degree in Economics and Marketing, but I must have skipped the class on YoYos 101. I may not be the world’s brightest guy, but I have managed to run a few successful businesses in my time. I thought that, in a capitalist society, it was the government’s job to create an atmosphere of certainty and stability. Is this Canada or Zimbabwe? How the Government of the Northwest Territories expects anyone to operate a business under these constantly changing parameters, is absolutely beyond the scope of my limited abilities. 13. On January 17, 2007, I initiated discussions with my attorney to declare bankruptcy for the largest outfitting company in the Northwest Territories. Termination notices will be going out to forty people, all across Canada. And all of the above, is based on the following:

The Bathurst Caribou in Decline:What the ENR is Telling the Public “The Bathurst herd has declined 5% every year since 1986, from 476,000, down to 128,000. “ ENR Deputy Minister Bob Bailey, January 11, 2007 Press Release 476,000 128,000 2006 1986

The above statement has been repeated in the press, over and over again, in a campaign of misinformation. After looking at the following pages, no reasonable person could possibly come to the government’s conclusion of a herd in rapid decline. If your 6th grade student turned in a science paper like this, he would receive and “F”. The question that must be asked by the general public, is why? Why is the ENR deliberately misleading us? Why did they use a similar set of skewed numbers to take the Inuvik area outfitter’s tags away? What is their agenda? Follow along carefully, and we will connect the dots. Please look carefully at the government’s own numbers, and what they have said in years past, and what they are saying now. Do the math, use some critical thinking skills, and, you too, will start to connect the dots. This is our story. Please feel free to share it with anyone that has any interest in good government, and good wildlife management. Share it with biologists and other scientists. Perhaps they can explain these numbers to us. We’ve asked the ENR to explain them to us, but they have not been interested in sitting down at the table and going over the facts.

Herd Numbers for Barren Ground Caribou in the NWT, according to the ENR 1980 400,000 354,000 Source: CARMA website, using GNWT numbers 300,000 200,000 140,000 110,000 65,000 100,000 39,000 Bathurst Beverly Qaminuriak Bluenose Total

1,188,000 Herd Numbers for Barren Ground Caribou in the NWT, According to the ENR 2006 1,000,000 Source: GNWT Website 750,000 496,000 500,000 296,000 250,000 200,000 128,000 66,000 20000 100,000 2000 Total C. Bathurst Bluenose W. Bluenose E. Bathurst Ahiak Beverly Qaminuriak

1,188,000 1,000,000 Comparison Graph of 1980 vs. 2006 NWT Barren Ground Caribou Herds 750,000 This is a 336% increase. 500,000 354,000 250,000 Source: CARMA website 100,000 Caribou Numbers 1980 Year 2006

Herd Numbers for Barren Ground Caribou in the NWT, According to the ENR 1980 Population of Barren Ground Caribou in the NWT:354,000 The 354,000 is based on adding up the GNWTs four herd estimates in 1980. (Source:CARMA website) The Bathurst Herd in 1980 was 140,000 caribou. 2006 Population of Caribou in the NWT: 1,188,000-1,534,000 1,188,000 is the number derived from adding up the current government estimates of the barren ground herds in the NWT, based on their website. The 1,534,000 caribou is the number ENR gave to the Federal Government in 2005 for a cervid (deer family) base count on Chronic Wasting Disease.

1,188,000 Caribou Population Trendline in the NWT, 1980 to 2006, over a quarter century of Caribou Monitoring by the GNWT 881,500 354,000 1980 1990 2006

The GNWT independently confirms our numbers in its 2005 report to the federal government. In 2004/2005 “As part of its work on the National Chronic Wasting Disease Control Strategy, The CCWHC assembled population estimates for wild cervids (deer family) from wildlife agencies across the country.” The number that the ENR gave to the agency is: 1,534,000 caribou in the NWT* We believe the reason for the discrepancy between the 1,188,000 caribou and the 1,534,000 caribou is that the latter number probably includes Woodland caribou. This has not been independently confirmed with the government. * Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Volume 11, Fall of 2005, #1

1.What’s going on??? 2.Why are ten outfitting businesses in North Slave fighting for their very existence??? 3.Why have the outfitters in Inuvik had there caribou tags confiscated??? 4. Why do hundreds of people, many of them aboriginals, have to lose their jobs??? 5. Why is the Number One Tourist Industry in the NWT being shut down?

In order to understand how the ENR is manipulating the figures, we need some background information and to establish consistent definitions. There were four “herds” of mainland caribou. • 1. Bluenose Caribou • 2. Bathurst Caribou • 3. Beverly Caribou • 4. Qamanirjuaq Caribou 1986

2006 Biologists have argued over the years how many caribou herds there really are. 1n 1954 we had 16 herds. There were four in 1986. At the present time, the ENR says we have 7 herds. • Cape Bathurst Caribou • Bluenose West Caribou • Bluenose East Caribou • Bathurst Caribou • Ahiak Caribou • Beverly Caribou • Qamanirjuaq Caribou Aboriginal knowledge tells us there is one great herd of caribou.

How do Four Become Seven? In the late 1990s, the ENR did not magically find three more herds of caribou. They simply carved the Bluenose Herd and the Bathurst Herd up, for study purposes, into five herds instead of two, based on theoretical calving grounds. (It is not a big deal, until you start using calving ground definitions for management purposes. More on that later) The “definition” of the Bathurst herd changed from what it was in 1986. In order to compare the status of the herds between 1986 and 2006, we must be using the same definition. This is not rocket science, and the outfitters have repeatedly pointed this out to the ENR, but they have ignored us. Why??? Certainly the ENR understands the Scientific Method, and that you can’t compare “Apples to Oranges.”

The Ahiak Herd The “creation” of the Ahiak herd was clearly the separation of caribou out of the traditional Bathurst caribou calving ground and overall annual range. It was not simply the renaming of the Queen Maud Gulf herd. In 1986 the Queen Maud Gulf herd, which had always been thought of as a rather obscure, relatively unstudied herd, had a population of 10,000. In 1996, when the Ahiak Herd was “created” it had a population of 200,000.* 190,000 of these caribou were carved out of the Bathurst Caribou Herd. A study of the following maps, of both the calving ground overlap, and the annual rutting and winter ranges, clearly demonstrates this. * CARMA website-Ahiak herd profiles

Traditional Bluenose, Bathurst, and Beverley Herd Ranges, prior to the “creation” of the Cape Bathurst, Bluenose West, Bluenose East, and Ahiak Herds Source: Chris Hanks, Environmental Scientist

Updated Ranges of the Herds, with Recognition of the Ahiak Herd Source: Chris Hanks, Environmental Scientist

Bathurst Calving Grounds* *Source: An Estimate of Breeding Females in the Bathurst Herd of Barren-Ground Caribou June 2003 Ann Gunn, et. al.

GNWT Map of Caribou Herd’s Annual Ranges, bases on Collared Caribou Source: GNWT Website

Formula for converting the “new” (Year 2000) Bathurst Herd to conform with the “old” (Year 1986) definition, so that we can compare “Apples to Apples.” Old Bathurst Herd = New Bathurst Herd + Ahiak Herd - old Queen Maud Gulf Herd + .5 Bluenose East Herd By creating a constant definition, we can now start to make valid number comparisons.

In order to compare the 2006 Bathurst Herd’s current size with any of the pre-2000 surveys of the “Old Bathurst Herd”, we simply plug in the ENRs numbers into the formula. 128,000 (2006 Bathurst Herd) plus 200,000 (Ahiak Herd) less 10,000 (old Queen Maud Gulf Herd) plus .5 x 66,000(Bluenose Herd East) equals 351,000

“The Bathurst herd has declined 5% every year since 1986, from 476,000, down to 128,000. “ ENR Deputy Minister Bob Bailey, January 11, 2007 Press Release 476,000 128,000 2006 1986

Now that we have our definitions straight, we can examine their numbers a little more closely. 476,000Caribou in 1986 This is arguably the most important caribou number ever produced by the ENR. It is a number that is being used to destroy people’s lives, and businesses, and to ruin a segment of the Tourism Industry that has been supported by thousands of taxpayer dollars for nearly a quarter of a century. Let’s look at it a little more carefully, since it’s such an important number.

Here is what Dr. Ray Case of the ENR said in 1996 about the 1986 survey* “The very large increase (280%) in Bathurst herd size observed between 1982 (174,000) and 1986 (486,000) was likely due to a combination of increased recruitment and immigration. It is possible that caribou from the Queen Maud Gulf area (northeast Mainland Herd), where caribou inhabit the tundra year-round, may have been included in the Bathurst calving ground survey. Such changes may represent real growth to an individual herd, however managers and resource users must recognize that the immigration of animals from one herd will result in the reduction of the size of an adjacent herd.” *The Status and Management of the Bathurst Caribou Herd, Northwest Territories, Canada, Ray Case, Laurie Buckland, Mark Williams, RWED, GNWT, 1996

Here is what Doug Heard of the ENR said in 1992 about the 1986 survey* “The interpretation of calving ground estimates is based on the assumption that all cows in the herd return to the same area every year to calve. That assumption has never been tested in the Northwest Territories. Heard and Calef suggested that recent increases in the Kaminuriak and Bathurst herds may have been due to massive immigration.”* *Herd Identity and Calving Ground Fidelity of Caribou in the Keewatin District of the Northwest Territories. Douglas C. Heard & Gordon Stenhouse, RWED, 1992

The 1986 Bathurst Caribou Survey (476,000 caribou) is the entire basis for the ENR’s “Crashing Caribou Theory.” The Government of the Northwest Territories freely admits that this is a flawed survey, a survey where two herds have gotten together. It is simply not biologically possible for the herd to have grown from 174,000 to 476,000 in four years, given anywhere near normal annual predation and other mortality rates.

The question is, why hasn’t Mr. Ray Case, who is part of the leadership of the ENR, not stepped forward and said “Hey, wait a minute guys. We can’t use that survey. Remember, that’s the year two caribou herds got together. “???

The question is, why would highly educated men, people with masters and doctorates in wildlife biology, pick a caribou survey that was obviously skewed??? A caribou survey tainted by immigration of another herd onto the Bathurst Herd calving ground. Why?? To give the scientists the benefit of the doubt, the public should ask, did the scientists have an alternative survey from which to start?

Yes, they did. From 1977 to 1982, the Bathurst Herd was surveyed 5 times in 6 years. The numbers ranged from 110,000 to 174,000, with an average of 142,200.A solid number, based on five surveys in six years. A number that would help average out the problems with aerial calving ground surveys, such as poor weather, caribou failing to aggregate on the calving grounds, observer bias, etc.* A number with which most scientists could agree would be a solid starting point for comparison purposes. But there was a problem with using the above number. It didn’t fit the agenda. *See Surveys of the Beverly Caribou Calving Grounds 1957-1994, pages 18-23 , Ann Gunn, 1997 for more details on caribou calving ground problems.

400,000 351,000 This is how the trendline looks based on solid, scientifically defensible numbers. 300,000 200,000 142,000 100,000 Caribou Numbers 1977-1982 average Year 2006

Wolves – A General Discussion Wolves are the number one cause of calf mortality in the caribou herds. ENR biologist Ann Gunn stated that 60-80 percent of calf mortality (of calves born alive) was due to wolf predation. There is plenty of wolf science out there, along with wolf population estimates, but none of it is that great. I think most scientists could agree that wolves eat 25-35 caribou a year, some say as many as the biomass equivalent of 60. Wolf population estimates in the NWT run from 1500 to 10,000. Taking a low number, say 2000, this gives us a wolf predation range of between 50,000 and 70,000. This does not, of course, count caribou killed and not eaten, a phenomenon that is well documented. Looking at the higher range, wolves could be taking upwards of 250,000 a year. The truth is, scientists just don’t know. What we do have is significant anecdotal evidence of wolf predation and its affect on caribou herds. Int the 1980s, the State of Alaska stopped aerial gunning for wolves. By the 1990s, caribou and moose populations had plummeted. Similarly, wolf controls in British Columbia were ended, and the Mountain Caribou population crashed. Here in the Northwest Territories, there was a significant wolf harvest in 1980. (See following chart), and from that point to 2006, the caribou flourished. If the government caribou population trends start to show loss of calf recruitment, than increased wolf harvesting should be, in our opinion, the primary management tool used to reverse that trend. With overall hunter harvest of 5700, according to the ENR, and wolf harvest between 50,000 and 250,000, the most beneficial management action for the caribou is fairly obvious.

700 Wolf Harvest Numbers 600 1982 Year the outfitting industry begins Source: 1996 Bathurst Management Plan 500 400 1980 This is the year when the Bathurst Herd starts to flourish 300 200 100 Wolves Harvested Year 1970 1972 1974 1976 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988

Wolf Politics In all fairness to the ENR, there is tremendous outside pressure on them from anti-hunters around the world to eliminate all wolf hunting. Log onto www.tundrawolves.org. and you will see the propaganda campaign there about hunting wolves. When non-resident hunters this year were granted an extra wolf tag, the anti-hunters immediately termed this a “commercial wolf cull.”The actual figures from the GNWT show that the extra wolf tag, given to 555 hunters, produced one extra dead wolf, from 26 wolves in 2005, to 27 wolves in 2007. So much for the “commercial wolf cull.”

2006 Bathurst Caribou Survey • The second number that the ENR uses in their “Crashing Caribou Theory” is 128,000, from the 2006 Bathurst Caribou Survey. • Our first problem with examining this survey, is that it apparently, according to the government, doesn’t exist. That’s what the outfitters, and several MLAs from Yellowknife, were told when we requested the survey from Mr. Bruno Croft, who did the survey. So, the survey that is being used to destroy an industry, doesn’t exist?? • We then asked Susan Fleck, of the ENR, for copies of the raw data. We were told that the computer person that does that was on maternity leave. Apparently she is the only person in the ENR that can copy files to a CD.

A Look at the Problems with Calving Ground Aerial Surveys • Wildlife biologists have argued for decades about whether or not aerial surveys are accurate enough to make informed management decisions, and whether or not the calving ground survey method reflects accurately what is happening with the herds. Here is some of what our government biologists have said. 1. Governmental biologist Ann Gunn states: “While aerial surveys are currently the only practical way to estimate the density of caribou populations, they suffer from severe limitations. A visibility bias is present often of unknown size; it not only is a bias but causes loss of repeatability. This bias is then affected, also in unknown ways, by several factors including aircraft speed, altitude, strip width, observer ability, weather and habitat type. Caughley et al. (1976) believed that refinement of techniques would probably never completely eliminate visibility bias….accuracy has been reported to range from 30 to 80 percent (Caughley 1974, LeResche and Rausch 1974.)* *Study Design to Measure Distributional Changes of Barren-Ground Caribou Near a Winter Road, Pages 26-27, 1981, Kent Jingfors, Ann Gunn;

2. In 1997, Ann Gunn, in her “Surveys of the Beverly Caribou Calving Grounds” said “The confidence with which we have mapped the Beverly’s herd calving grounds is also influenced by two quite separate sources of uncertainty-technical and environmental. Listed here are five technical uncertainties: changes in survey design, changes in timing, weather, adequacy of coverage, and missing data.” Ms. Gunn goes on to discuss in detail how the survey design has changed over the years, so one survey may not be comparable to another survey. Ms. Gunn also goes on to detail all of the problems with the five technical uncertainties. 3. In the same report, Ms. Gunn also discusses environmental problems: “The environmental uncertainties that are incorporated in the composite map are those ecological variables, unpredictable from year to year, that affect the caribou’s distribution and behaviour. The most prominent is annual variations in weather.

4. In 1993, biologists surveyed the Beverly Caribou Herd, using the same caribou calving ground method and found 87,000 caribou. The next year, they surveyed the Beverly Caribou Herd and found 267,000 caribou, three times as many in one year. 87,000 to 267,000 in One Year!!! How Reliable Can These Surveys Be??? The government’s explanation of this “bad” survey, was that the caribou didn’t “aggregate” well on the calving ground. “If the caribou must trudge through deep, wet, or crusted snow during spring migration, some cows may be delayed in reaching the calving ground” Ann Gunn, 1997* In other words, the caribou had their babies in the taxi, instead of the hospital. *Surveys of the Beverly Caribou Calving Grounds 1957-1994, A. Gunn & M. Sutherland, RWED, 1997

5. This is what Ann Gunn said about the 1995 Bathurst Caribou Survey: “ Our mapped distribution was neither comparable in methodology nor results to previous surveys (Sutherland and Gunn in Press). Our methods differed because of the 7 day interruption. The first survey on 7 and 8 of June was incomplete when the pilot left and the second part was incomplete because we had essentially to start over again and then were short of available flying hours….The eastern boundary was similar to some other surveys but the apparent departure was that cows and calves were still moving east. Either these were not Bathurst herd cows or an eastern extension to the calving grounds had been missed in previous years.” * *Caribou Distribution on the Bathurst Calving Grounds, GNWT, June 1995. Anne Gunn, GNWT, 1996

6. In the 2003 Bathurst Caribou Survey, the weather variability issue was clearly in play. “Poor weather from 8-12 June (low cloud ceilings, snow and blowing snow) delayed the photographic survey”.* • So the photographic team loses five consecutive days of flying, at the peak of calving, the most critical time to get an accurate count, according to all the science we have found. (After three or four days, the caribou start to move, possibly because of fecal pellet buildup on the calving ground, and become uncountable.) So how good is this survey, the survey where the herd starts to theoretically decline? • Human nature and common sense tells us that the scientists are not going to come home from a survey and say “We had bad weather, we got a lousy count, we just spent half a million dollars of the taxpayers money, too bad.” • *2003 Bathurst Caribou Calving Ground Survey, Ann Gunn, RWED 2004

7. “This effect of imprecision extends further when extrapolated to total herd size. Critics of calving ground photography (Thomas in prep.) have used this problem of low precision as the rationale to drop the technique” Ann Gunn, GNWT 8. In regards to the 2006 Bathurst Caribou Survey, we have been unable to examine it, as of 1/22/2007, because Bruno Croft of the ENR tells us it doesn’t exist. (Please bear in mind, this was Bruno’s first year of leading the survey, following Ms. Gunn’s retirement.) Our feeling is it will magically appear sometime down the line, probably at the request of a judge. Likewise, the raw data. We do know that the survey missed at least three days of flying, and that half the collared caribou did not aggregate on the calving grounds (see map of collared caribou, June 5, 2006.) Please bear in mind that each collared caribou represents approximately 30,000 caribou. As you can see, half the collared caribou decided to be elsewhere at calving time. One decided to become a Bluenose caribou, and the other five decided to party with the Ahaik herd. The Bathurst Herd may be shifting back to its traditional calving ground, east of Bathurst Inlet. Of course, if they do that, they will become Ahiak caribou. Right???

Caribou Numbers in the NWT The Outfitter’s Battle