Northern Yukon Ecological Knowledge Co-op

Table of Contents

1. Community-based Ecological Monitoring in Northern Yukon
2. Background
3. Origins of the Community Monitoring Pilot Project
4. What is "Local Knowledge" and How Does it Link with Monitoring?
5. Objectives of the Pilot Project
6. Method Used for Community Monitoring
7. What Locals Observed Last Year; 1996-97 Community Monitoring Results
   • Old Crow - Vuntut Gwitchin
   • Aklavik - Inuvialuit
   • Aklavik - Gwich'in
   • Fort McPherson - Tetl'it Gwich'in
8. Community Monitoring's Landscape Image of Porcupine Caribou
9. Evaluation of Pilot Project; Recommendations for Future Initiatives
10. Conclusion

Report prepared by:

Pilot Project Coordinator
Gary Kofinas
Resource Management and Environmental Studies,
University of British Columbia
Room 436 - 2206 East Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3
Canada

Community Researchers
Glenna and Joe Tetlichi, Old Crow - Vuntut Gwitchin
Carol Arey, Aklavik - Inuvialuit
Dolly Peterson, Aklavik - Gwich'in
Myrna Nershoo, Fort McPherson - Tetl'it Gwich'in

UBC Research Assistant
Julia Berardinucci

Community-based Ecological Monitoring in Northern Yukon

This community ecological monitoring program is a pilot project, undertaken by the Northern Yukon Ecological Knowledge Co-operative. The objective of the project is to investigate the feasibility and potential success of community-based ecological monitoring, based on the local knowledge of northern aboriginal communities whose socio-cultural systems include hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild food resources. Three communities participated in the project: Old Crow of Yukon Territory and Aklavik and Fort McPherson of Northwest Territories. Community members (n=52) were interviewed to document environmental conditions of the past year. The pilot project is funded by Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Yukon Region as part of the Canadian Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network. This report provides background on the community monitoring program, summarizes the methods and findings of the pilot project, evaluates its success, and offers recommendations for future Northern Yukon community monitoring initiatives.

Background

The Northern Yukon Ecological Knowledge Co-operative is a collaborative alliance of First Nations, native organizations, government agencies, and university researchers. The goal of the Knowledge Co-op is to monitor the trends and effects of ecological change, specifically on the Porcupine Caribou Herd's range, and including the near shore and marine ecosystems of the Beaufort Sea. The Knowledge Co-op is now concentrating monitoring efforts on three potential forces of change: climate change, contaminants, and development.

The formation of the Knowledge Co-op was motivated by interests and concerns at local, national, and regional levels. At the local level, there has been concern about the potential impacts of change on the ecological health of northern lands and sustainability of traditional lifestyles. These communities are interested in participating in a resource management processes that respects and incorporates local ecological knowledge. At the national level, public concern for global-scale change has led Environment Canada to establish the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) and encouraged the formation of regional "Science Co-operatives." Recognizing the potential role of communities in a monitoring process and aboriginal peoples' culturally defined approaches to understanding ecosystem dynamics, the more inclusive title "Knowledge Co-operative" has been adopted for the Northern Yukon region. On a regional level, the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope), as directed by its Wildlife Management and Conservation Plan, calls for ecosystem approaches to wildlife management on the Inuvialuit lands of Yukon's North Slope. Similar initiatives are being initiated by the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board of the Northwest Territories. Through the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agreement, the community of Old Crow is also exploring options for ecosystem management. As well, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Ivvavik National Park are implementing programs for ecosystem monitoring.

Origins of the Community Monitoring Pilot Project

Northern aboriginal peoples have a long tradition of keeping a watchful eye on the environment and learning from direct observations. The suggestion to incorporate a community monitoring component into the Northern Yukon monitoring program was made by community representatives attending the first planning meeting in the spring of 1994. This recommendation was repeated at the second planning meeting the following year, and again at the First Annual Gathering of the Northern Yukon Ecological Co-operative. This pilot project is a response to this recommendation and represents a first step in realizing the potential of community-based monitoring in this region.

What is "Local Knowledge" and How Does it Link with Monitoring?

There has been some confusion about what is meant by the terms "local knowledge," "traditional ecological knowledge," and "indigenous knowledge." The Knowledge Co-op uses the term local knowledge to recognize that northern communities with a long and a close relationship with the land offer a unique and valuable perspective of their environment, its patterns of change, and interrelationships.

The graphic above represents a simple model of the relationships between local knowledge and ecological monitoring and assessment. The model accounts for the wholeness of a local knowledge system and within it, identifies three frames:

1. community values and preferences, which may influence the public policy process;
2. local rules or theories of how the world works, which have helped in the selection of monitoring indicators and which can contribute to the development of theories about ecological change;
3. local observations or data, which can supplement and enhance other monitoring efforts.

Examples of how these three frames interact are provided below. Essential for effective community monitoring are two additional elements: a communications strategy and peoples' on-going relationship with the land.

Examples of "observations," "theories," and "values" documented from interviews with Old Crow, Aklavik, and Fort McPherson hunters. (Previously recorded by G. Kofinas)

Objectives of the Pilot Project

The objectives of this community monitoring pilot project are:

1. to explore the feasibility of Northern Yukon communities becoming being involved in Knowledge Co-op's monitoring process;
2. to develop a method(s) of drawing on local knowledge for community monitoring;
3. to assess community interest and willingness to participate in the project;
4. to evaluate the program's potential success;
5. to generate recommendations for future community monitoring.

Given this project's time and budgetary constraints, it was decided that the 1997 community monitoring would be a simple initiative. It focused exclusively on community members' on-the-land observations and indicators selected at the First (February, 1996) Knowledge Co-op gathering (see First Northern Yukon Ecological Knowledge Gathering Report).

A full analysis of the "data" gathered from interviews is not presented here (e.g. sorting out local observations from theories and values). Rather, information is summarized and attention devoted to the quality of information generated and the success of involving communities in the project.

Method Used for Community Monitoring

A questionnaire was developed for documenting local observations of environmental conditions and organized in the following topic areas:

1. Berry crop (blueberries and salmonberries)
2. Two species of fish (those identified as two most important to each interviewee)
3. Porcupine Caribou (conditions and movements and distribution)
4. General observations about other animals
5. Weather conditions
6. General community conditions

Questions in each topic area were designed to capture locals' observations of environmental conditions for the past twelve-month period. This objective was accomplished by comparing the year's observations to i.) the year before and ii.) quantity and quality of conditions in an "an average" year or season. Opportunities were provided for locals to share unusual observations and provide explanations for conditions (e.g. why berries were good this year). With each questionnaire was a regional map (black and white topographic map) for documenting observations of seasonal caribou movements and distributions.

Communications about the pilot project were made through:

• Old Crow:
  • Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Chief and Council,
  • Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Land Claims office,
  • Vuntut Gwitchin Renewable Resource Council
• Aklavik:
  • Aklavik Gwich'in Renewable Resource Council
  • Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board
  • Aklavik Inuvialuit Hunters and Trappers Committee
  • Inuvialuit Game Council
• Fort McPherson (Tetl'it Zheh):
  • Tetl'it Gwich'in Renewable Resource Council
  • Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board

Interviews were conducted by field workers who live in each of the three communities. The call for applications and hiring of local field workers were coordinated by community councils (i.e. HTC, RRC, First Nation Chief and Council). Because there are two aboriginal claimant groups in Aklavik (Gwich'in and Inuvialuit) , two local field workers were hired in that community. Each interviewed his or her fellow beneficiaries. All field workers were hired on a contractual basis. (See job announcement in Appendix 1 for details of job.)

Carol Arey conducted a pre-test of the interview in Aklavik and minor modifications were made to the questionnaire. Each field worker then received an orientation to the project's objectives and the structured interview in phone discussions with the project coordinator. Fifteen interviews were to be completed before the March 18-19 Knowledge Co-op meeting; field workers had ten days to two weeks to complete the field work.

No effort was made to interview a representative sample of community members. Rather, those interviewed were drawn from a list of "local experts," provided by directors of local councils (except in Old Crow where local researchers developed the list in consultation with the program coordinator.) Selection of local experts was based on availability of people, individuals' knowledge and experience of the local environment, and people's time spent on the land. No respondents were paid for their participation in the project, and each interview took 20 to 60 minutes to complete.

During the final week of interviewing, Gary Kofinas traveled to each community, offered support to community field workers as needed, met with local leaders, and made public presentations about the Knowledge Co-op, this pilot project, and the related National Science Foundation Sustainability project. Travel logistics were facilitated with help from Peter Clarkson, Donald Frost, and Johnny Charlie, Sr.

Fifty two interviews were completed, with data from interviews compiled in two ways. First, community field workers summarized findings into a report which was presented at the 1997 Knowledge Co-op meeting. Information collected from questionnaires was entered into a Microsoft Access database by a UBC research assistant. These data were then formatted into "Community Reports," each about 25 pages in length. Setting up the database, entering interview data, running queries, and formatting the reports took the research assistant 95 paid hours of work time.

What Locals Observed Last Year: 1996-7 Community Monitoring Results

In this section, community observations from each set of interviews are summarized. Since some local experts had no direct observations in selected topic areas, the number of responses in each area varies. Local observations are reported here in qualitative terms. Counts of responses to each question are cross tabulated in the complete community reports.

Old Crow - Vuntut Gwitchin Observations (n=15)

Blueberries

• Reported to be a below average year for number of blueberries produced
• There was enough rain to produce blueberry blossoms this year, but summer heat was too great in some places and dried up berries before ripening
• Some found big juicy blueberries in shady and swampy areas, others noted that blueberries were smaller, more bitter, burnt, and not ripe

Salmonberries/Cloudberries (Old Crow)

• Mixed responses on quantity of this year's cloudberries; Most said it was an average year
• Rain in spring makes for a good crop
• They dried up quickly because of heat, shady areas were okay
• In open areas salmonberries were burned and bitter
• Hot sun seemed to affect moisture of soil
• Cloudberries in shady areas stayed more firm and fresh Cranberries
• One local from Old Crow pointed out that cranberries were of importance to the community, that it was an average year for cranberries, and they were found in the usual areas

Fish species reported as two most important to locals interviewed

*One local did not differentiate between all three species of these fish when interviewed. The individual's comments are included with each species listed separately below.

King and Chum Salmon (Old Crow)

• Chum and King Salmon runs came together this year (very unusual)
• Dog Salmon came in July; they usually come in August
• Very good year for King Salmon numbers
• Average for Chum Salmon numbers
• King Salmon run one week after horseflies arrive
• May have to do with low water levels
• No abnormalities observed
• Overall salmon were healthy
• If water is low then fish get battered up
• When high water, fish come quickly. When water is dropping, fish tend to go faster up river

Silver Salmon (Old Crow)

• Silvers usually go up the Yukon river
• This year lots came through Old Crow area
• "Never happened before"
• Silvers spawned in Crow River and Porcupine River tributaries for first time

Whitefish

• Above average year for Whitefish numbers
• More than the year before
• One cyst found on lower belly

Porcupine Caribou (Old Crow)

• Annual movements and distribution observations
  • Seen going north early June of last year
  • Caribou came early fall (last week of August) in small bunches (cows and calves with no bulls)
  • Possible cause of early arrival: cold weather (snow) on the coast fooled caribou
  • Crossed first at Driftwood (early August)
  • In September caribou were closer to community (Crow Mountain and down river to border)
  • Mix of cows, calves, and bulls in Sept.
  • A lot of north wind may have influenced movements
  • Migrated through the region without stopping
  • Little to none over-wintered near Old Crow
  • Fall cows and bulls in average conditions (10 of 14 observations)
  • One abnormality- "short hair on arm and under belly; very poor conditions."
  • Few caribou in Old Crow area for winter months
• Antler Velvet
  • If no velvet, animal is healthy
  • If rainy season, velvet comes off easily
  • Mystery associated with where caribou drop antlers
• Warble Flies
  • Normal year for fly larva in hides (8 of 12 with 2 high and 2 low)
  • Fewer observed in recent years
  • Few harvest when larva are in high numbers

Ducks

• Few compared to year before
• No black ducks this year
• Ducks migrated south early
• New species of ducks appearing

Rabbits

• Lots around

Bears

• Hanging around the community all fall and breaking into cabins
• Limited berries made them extra hungry

Wolves

• Hanging around community all fall
• Killed a total of 15 or more dogs (last two not eaten)
• Not much snow so it is harder for wolves to get caribou

Other Animals

• Lots of ptarmigan
• Lots of moose on Crow Flat
• No muskox sightings last year

Weather

• Lots of rain (fall season) windy
• No wind in Crow Flats this year - very unusual
• Last year lots of west wind
• Hardly any storms over the winter
• No wind this year, less strong winds
• Stronger winds, thunder louder and rain harder
• No storms, no wind, getting warmer, no 60 degrees below days
• Very unusual to have no storms. No Chinook is very unusual

Ice and Rivers

• Ice observed to go out quickly
• No consensus on rate of freeze up

General Old Crow observations

• Bear head found with fat still on carcass - perhaps from wolverine which ate bear during hibernation
• Grizzly bear tracks found on Crow Flat in December
• Bears hanging around because no berries
• More wolves have been getting close to the community. Wolves killing dogs all winter. 15 dogs Dec./96 bear track observed bear traps, 2 weeks later tracks were spotted again in same area
• More dogs in town therefore reason for wolves and bears coming in
• Grizzly bear hanging around town for a few weeks.
• Elders say no snow flood, because there is more snow on the mountains to slow melting of ice
• Fewer people going out on the land because of all the luxuries of modern living. People use to be very independent. Now there are a lot of handouts
• More people staying in town because of wage economy. Bears and wolves hanging around the community more often
• More people staying in town. Different TVs
• Elders say respect the bear. Be friends with the bear
• People's decision to go out on the land for subsistence depends on the price of fur
• People are changing by different harvesting methods. Example: 4-wheelers are chasing caribou back into the mountain
• Less people go out on land, mostly in winter months

Aklavik Observations - Inuvialuit members (n=15)

Blueberries

• Only three people interviewed picked blueberries
• Weather was dry and cold
• Blueberries were low in numbers and average in quality
• Observed to be smaller this year due to cold weather
• Conditions were damp but still blueberries tasted good

Salmonberries, Cloudberries, Yellowberries, or "Akpik"

• An average year for salmonberry abundance
• Reports on quality were mixed
• Quality considered average
• Some found them at right time and found high abundance of salmonberries in willow-covered (drier) areas
• Others said too wet and cold
• Noted that in years when cotton grass grows before salmonberries, salmonberries won't grow well

Fish species reported as two most important to locals interviewed

Burbot/Loche

• Average year with no unusual observations

Arctic Char

• Reported to be an average year with same number as year before
• Reported that fewer at Shingle which necessitated going to Herschel Island to meet needs
• No abnormalities observed

Herring/Cisco

• Considered a below average year by most with one reporting high abundance in new area
• Noted that run was later than usual
• No abnormalities

Coney/Inconnu

• Average conditions
• No abnormalities observed

Whitefish

• Two locals reported on Whitefish
• Average year in numbers with no abnormalities

Porcupine Caribou (Aklavik Inuvialuit observations)

• Summer
  • Observed in summer in "regular" coastal areas
  • Average number observed for summer
  • Bulls and cows average body condition
  • Many mosquitoes observed on coast this summer
• Fall
  • Average number of caribou reported observed for fall with two reporting below average
  • Bulls and cows body condition average
• Fall caribou migration
  • Came around Shingle Point and then moved further west
  • Migrated east of Richardson Mountains (near town) this year; went west (far) last year
  • Young hunters are shooting leaders of the herd and diverting migration
  • Early freeze up may have shifted movements
  • Lots of rain made for high water; caribou came down to river around West Channel
  • Shift in movements observed - use to go near Shingle Point; now changing west.
  • Caribou couldn't cross First Creek because of high rain and had to divert
  • Too many muskoxen; changing migrations
• Winter
  • One of 10 observed Porcupine caribou in winter
• Calves
  • Average size this year
• Antlers
  • Nothing unusual
• Warble flies
  • Normal number of fly larva in hides

Other Animals

• Ducks are the same
• Swans are increasing in number as compared to long ago
• More yellowlegs these days
• More eagles (bald) and more in coastal areas
• If there are no caribou, there are no ptarmigan
• Snow bunting came early this year (November)
• More and more muskoxen - no good for caribou
• A lot of rabbits this year
• Starting to see wolves close to Aklavik
• More problem bears
• A sighting of a cougar
• Lynx and mink are good quality
• Mosquitoes were worse than usual this year; damp ground
• If bowhead are present, more seals will be along the coast
• Ants, commonly seen in mountains, observed at Shingle Point

Weather

• Break up went out quickly this year
• Thin ice, rotted quickly
• Very high water during last years freeze up
• Snowed early this year; not unusual (contradiction?)

General and unusual observations

• Lakes are drying up along with creeks (with trees growing in some lakes)
• Winters are getting warmer
• Earlier springs
• Animals (bears) are getting more used to people
• People have changed; not as co-operative in helping each other
• There is a need to lock bush camps now
• People can't agree on important things now without having meetings

Aklavik - Gwich'in Observations (n=12)

Blueberries

• Only three people interviewed picked blueberries
• Not as good as year before
• Too much rain during summer for blueberries; grew slowly

Salmonberries or "yellowberries"

• Few people picked since season dried up early
• Mixed reports on quality and quantity of this year's salmonberries
• Rain made berries soggy
• Year before too dry and everything dried up

Fish species reported as two most important to locals interviewed

Burbot/Loche

• Reported as above average year; no abnormalities

Char

• Reported as below average year; parasites noticed

Coney-inconnu

• Average to above average year for abundance
• Abundance better than the year before (this statement is redundant with previous one)
• No difference in location and movement of fish
• Reports of abnormalities but no detailed recorded
• Report that fish are getting smaller

Lake Trout

• Below average years; less than year before; no abnormalities

Whitefish

• An average to above average year
• There are more whitefish than 10 to 15 years ago
• Most consider this year to be better than last year
• Fish eggs seem to be plentiful and conditions different since the dam broke open
• No abnormalities
• All whitefish were fat
• Common parasites found on the outside of fish
• Whitefish considered fat this year
• Concern about river pollution expressed

Porcupine Caribou

• Summer
  • Few Aklavik Gwich'in observed caribou; not usually hunted in summer
  • Bulls and cows average body condition
• Fall
  • Average to below average number of caribou observed in Gwich'in use area for fall
  • Bulls average condition for fall; cows average to poor condition
• Fall caribou migration
  • Observed at Rat River, head of Willow River, and Sheep Creek
  • Hard snow pack made it difficult for caribou to feed
• Winter
  • Average number of caribou observed in area
  • Bull in average condition; cows very fat for winter
• Calves
  • Stayed with mothers throughout winter and spring migration
  • Size about average
  • Number of calves more than usual to average
• Antlers
  • No comments
• Warble flies
  • Normal to below normal levels

General observations about other animals

• Ducks, swans, geese in abundance
• Many bald eagles, whiskey jacks and owls observed
• Few ptarmigan or grouse
• Mixed reports on moose abundance; lots of sign but few animals observed
• More moose than years past
• Muskoxen in the Black Mountain area observed; one stayed at Michell Camp all summer
• Rabbits - lots (6); few (2); none (3)
• Many black bears, grizzlies, fox
• Few wolves
• Few mink, lots of lynx
• Lynx fur in good condition; some muskrat in poor shape; mink poor quality
• Mosquitoes average

Weather

• Lots of rain in summer
• Unusual to see early winter
• Most of the south wind was unusual; cold summer
• Spring ice went out quickly (6); slowly (3)
• Ice melted down to slush and moved away
• Mackenzie ice came through Esau River and Aklavik River
• Freeze up quickly (4); froze slowly (3)
• Lots of snow this year

General and unusual observations

• Nowadays people go hunting for shorter periods of time; not like before when people stayed out until hunting was done
• Before more time was spent on trap lines and traps were checked more regularly
• Nowadays lack of interest in younger generations in time on the land

Fort McPherson - Tetl'it Gwich'in Observations (n=14)

Blueberries

• Eight people interviewed picked blueberries
• Reported as above average to average year for quality and quantity
• About the same as last year with some saying blueberries bigger this year
• Rain made blueberries good; last year blueberries dried up
• Berries collected along side of highway; more found where ground was wet

Salmonberries or "yellowberries"

• Nine interviewed went salmonberry picking
• Quality and quantity of salmonberries considered average to above average
• About the same as last year with one reporting better than last year
• Lots or rain made salmonberries good; some years no salmonberries

Fish species reported as two most important to locals interviewed

Burbot

• Reported as below average in numbers and fewer than year before
• Livers reported in poor condition with different taste and smaller in size

Arctic Char

• Reported as high in numbers this year compared to year before
• No abnormalities observed

Coney - Inconnu

• An average to above average year for abundance
• Abundance same to better than the year before
• No difference in location and movement of fish; one person said fish slow to come
• One person commented on "yellowish color" as abnormality

Whitefish

• Considered an average to above average year
• Found in same areas
• No abnormalities
• Commented that flesh seemed soft
• Reported that liver in bad condition

Porcupine Caribou

• Summer
  • No summer observations of caribou this year
• Fall
  • Most interviewed saw caribou in fall
  • Mixed observations on number of fall caribou compared to average years
  • Most reported bulls and cows average to unusually fat body condition for fall
  • Of two reporting poor condition, one said that ice conditions on ground had prevented animals getting at food.
• Fall Caribou Migration
  • Migrated over Richardson Mountains to Eagle Plains Pass and around Horse Shoe; Windy Pass movement reported; James Creek to Border movement reported; Snow mountains to Rock River area and Arctic Circle reported too
  • Reported that hard snow pack made it hard for caribou to feed
  • Weather attributed to affecting caribou migration
  • Lots of rain, fog, snow, and wind affecting migration
• Winter
  • Caribou observed along Dempster for winter; just north of Ogilvie River
  • Mixed reports on body condition observed for winter, but most reported as fat to unusually fat
  • Most report seeing above average to average numbers, ranging in size of groups of 50 to 10,000
  • Bulls in good shape to average; cows in average shape
  • Maps indicate concentration of wintering caribou from Eagle Plains to border area
• Northern Migration
  • Observed to be high snow year in areas with trees, making caribou head towards mountains
  • Several note bulls and cows moving from Aitch Hill area on Dempster east to "Ithoh Hill", then turning north to border area
  • Some caribou observed west of border
  • Cows go first when migrating
• Calves
  • Most report that calves stayed with mothers; some say cows left calves on winter grounds
  • Calf size reports are mixed. but most say about average
  • Number of calves reported to be average to above average number.
• Antlers
  • Most reported nothing unusual about shedding
  • Reported that velvet stayed on late
  • Reported that bulls' antlers dropped early compared to other years
• Warble flies
  • Mixed reports on number of fly larva, but most say normal levels this year
  • One noted more flies last year that this year

Other animal observations

• More report ducks, swans, geese as "normal"
• Mixed reports on number of birds of prey
• All but one report "lots" of grouse and ptarmigan.
• "Lots" of moose in Peel River and Stony River areas, noted to be in good condition
• Muskoxen observed in the James Creek area
• Mixed reports on number of rabbits observed
• Lots of grizzlies; many wolves seen near caribou on Dempster
• Wolves seen in town
• Average year for bugs
• Otters starting to move into the Mackenzie Delta Region. Generally found up the Peel

Quality of Furs

• Mink fur, martin, lynx furs, red fox reported as in good shape

Weather

• Lots of heavy rains and big north and west winds reported
• Unusually early winter
• Cold summer
• Mixed opinion about rate of ice break up and freeze up
• Snow reported to have fallen on ice
• Several noted that water levels were low; also snow on ice caused freeze pattern

General and unusual Tetl'it Gwich'in observations

• Few people go on the land these days; one comments that some are starting to return
• People use to visit lots but not any more
• Too many departments
• People could go on the land, but no gas because of low income
• Lots of government cut backs and people not working together
• Too much television
• Many express need for young people to go on the land

Community Monitoring's Landscape Image of Porcupine Caribou

The full set responses from local experts provides a composite picture of the region's 1996-97 ecological conditions. The narrative below draws on local observations (answers to questions and mapping work) and describes caribou movements and distribution for the 1996-97 caribou year. Charts, based on interviews, report caribou body condition and quantity of warble fly larva.

This Year's Caribou Round

Foul summer weather in coastal regions and early snow are reported to have created difficult feeding conditions for caribou on their summer range, and resulted in early southern migration.

Rains and high water in Yukon's North Slope streams shifted the migration routes of some groups. Southerly migrating caribou were first observed by Arctic Village hunters in the week of July 14. Vuntut Gwitchin hunters first observed groups of cows and calves at Driftwood Creek (up-river from Old Crow on the Porcupine River) in early August. Mixed groups of bulls, cows, and calves were later observed at the Rampart House (Canadian/US Border) area with a few small groups seen on Crow Mountain. In the Old Crow area, caribou are reported to have migrated through "without stopping."

Little to no caribou wintered in the Old Crow or Arctic Village areas this year; hunters observed only small groups and individual animals. A large portion of the herd wintered in the Ogilvie region of central Yukon with other large groups observed from Arctic Circle Region north to the NWT/Yukon Border.

Cows began their northbound migration early (February). Moving north with some bulls, cow caribou crossed the Dempster Highway south of the Arctic Circle at Aitch Hill, and then turned northeast. Deep snow in forested areas is reported to have forced animals to the crest of the Richardson Mountains, which they followed to the James Creek/Yukon Border area, and on towards the coast. It is reported that most groups of caribou stayed on the west side of the Richardsons when in the vicinity of Aklavik, although some groups were seen on the east side of the range.

All communities reported an increase in the number of wolves entering communities for food. This wolf behavior was attributed to the low snow conditions and wolves' difficulty hunting caribou.

Evaluation of Pilot Project; Recommendations for Future Initiatives

As was expressed by those attending the 1997 Knowledge Co-op gathering, the community monitoring pilot project was successful in demonstrating the potential contributions of local knowledge to a regional monitoring program. The pilot project also raises important questions which need to be addressed before moving forward with the initiative. A point form evaluation is presented below along with recommendations.

1. Acknowledging a job well done. Outstanding applicants were selected to complete monitoring interviews and each did a thorough job in the limited time. Local researchers' presentations at the Knowledge Co-op gathering were a highlight of that event. Carol, Myrna, Dolly, Glenna and Joe should be commended for their essential contribution to this pilot project!
    
   
2. Planning ahead. Our short schedule, dictated by the last-minute availability of funding, rushed all aspects of the pilot project. The schedule limited the opportunity to recruit prospective applicants and provide better support to local interviewers new to this kind of work. It also put the local field workers in a time crunch, ultimately reducing the number of interviews they conducted.
   Recommendation: The community monitoring program should be scheduled a year in advance. Included in our planning process should be the development of a budget and work plan. Aspects of this work can be contracted, allowing individuals and organizations to think ahead, and collaborate as needed. Here is a proposed schedule for next year:
   
   1. Plan strategy during spring and summer with local and regional organizations
   2. Write work plan and have monitoring budget ready by late summer
   3. Hold orientation session for workers in autumn
   4. Conduct community meetings to discuss program by late autumn
   5. Conduct monitoring interviews twice a year - begin by January 1
   6. Establish on-going process of collecting specimen and caribou mapping
   7. Record data and analyze before Third Knowledge Co-op Gathering.
   
    
   
3. Hiring Right: Community organizations hired local interviewers. By asking these organizations to make the selection, a few keen RRC directors and staff who were interested in the positions became ineligible because of their organization's conflict of interest policies. In some cases, the selection of the local hire was based primarily on applicants' financial need rather than qualifying characteristics, and in one case this resulted in an individual becoming overwhelmed with the work and quitting the job early. As a result, the individual's ego was bruised and the project lost valuable time.
   Recommendation: When selecting local researchers, balance applicants' needs with their readiness and ability to do the job The choice of applicants should be based on their ability to:
   • talk knowledgeably about the land and its plants and animals,
   • listen actively,
   • ask appropriate follow-up questions,
   • refrain from "leading" the interviewee in a particular direction,
   • express support and appreciation for the information,
   • take careful and accurate notes,
   • manage time in such a way that notes can be written up as close to the interview's completion as possible.
   
   Another approach to hiring would be for community leaders to recommend a list of locals (approx. 3) for the job. The monitoring coordinator, in close consultation with local leaders, could then make the final selection.
    
   
4. Evaluating the questionnaire. Interviewed locals did not evaluate our questionnaire and thus, did not offer input on how to improve the process. Several indicators not appearing in the questionnaire were mentioned in some answers (e.g. people's time on the land, cranberry conditions).
   Recommendation: An evaluation of the questionnaire should, in hindsight, have been included as part of pilot project. If repeating the project, an evaluation of the interview (including the selection of local indicators) should be added to the interview to improve the monitoring process.
    
   
5. Using closed vs. open-ended questions. Using a structured interview format provides local researchers, who have limited interviewing experience, a clear road-map for asking questions. However, structured interviews are not well suited for interviewing Elders whose reports come in the form of stories. A set of open-ended questions about each topic area is an alternative interview approach. This would mean that interviewers would have to take detailed notes or record each interview with a tape machine. This adds the labor intensive task of transcribing and coding.
   Recommendation: Develop the questionnaire to balance better these two approaches.
    
   
6. Comparing observations with memory. Locals were asked to compare 1996­97 conditions with the previous year and "average years." These measures, especially the latter, raise questions about the extent memory interacts with emotions like nostalgia (e.g. "Things always used to be better in the old days.") There may be no solution to this problem.
   Recommendation: Explore the option of sharing limited quantitative monitoring data (e.g. weather records or last year's community monitoring findings) as a prompt to generate locals' discussion about observed ecological conditions. The use of this method would require interviewers to know the significance of the information they are sharing.
    
   
7. Documenting interviews and keeping detailed notes. While some interview forms were completed with detailed notes, other forms were not. This creates problems for those who may want to learn from our findings in the future. In some cases, a single word or phrase was noted repeatedly on forms (rather than noting the exact words as expressed by locals). In a few cases, respondents noted unusual conditions, but few or no details.
   Recommendation: Interviewers should participate in a two-day workshop in which they develop interviewing skills for use in local monitoring. This forum would offer an opportunity for local researchers and monitoring coordinator(s) to refine the wording of the questionnaire, build rapport, and explore potential problems.
    
   
8. Mapping caribou movements and distributions. Documentation of caribou distributions and movements generated data of moderate quality. In some cases, notes provided with maps do not give enough detail to understand which caribou were observed (e.g. bulls or cows,) as well as where and when. The map may, however, have served to facilitate talk about caribou. Again, there are time and place problems associated with this exercise. This area of monitoring has the potential to complement data produced from satellite collared caribou mapping.
   Recommendation: Better map notations are needed. As an alternative to individual mapping, caribou movements and distributions could be documented on an on-going basis (vs. once or twice a year). This task could, potentially, be undertaken by local RRC staff and hunters visiting their offices. Caribou monitoring could be recorded on a base map hung in the office and using a marker , with the map replaced once or twice a year. There must also be resources to produce final products to demonstrate the benefits of this work to those participating (i.e. digitize or make some kind of summary overlay.)
    
   
9. Confusing species. The use of common species names, some of which vary from community to community, created some confusion. This was especially true when questioning about fish and ducks. The Gwich'in RRB has recently produced a poster, illustrating species used (list of species attached). The Inuvialuit harvest calendar offers the same.
   Recommendation: In the future, interviewers should make use of illustrated images to correctly identify species.
    
   
10. Interpreting varied and conflicting reports. Several of the questions generated a wide range of responses. In some cases, locals' reports conflicted with others' observations from the same community. There are several possible explanations. There may be little to no community consensus in basis for evaluating the conditions (e.g. "Looks like the ice is moving fast to me." "Nope, looks like its moving slowly.") An alternative explanation is that some questions are particularly sensitive to the timing and location of observations (e.g. "The ice moved quickly at 8 Mile." "The ice moved slowly at the mouth of the Peel.") Clearly the intent of this pilot project is not to provide highly precise quantitative measurement. Still, improvement can be made in this area.
    Recommendation: If using an individual interview format, there is a need to critically evaluate measures used in the questionnaire. In some topic areas it is necessary to develop more precise measures for evaluating conditions. One possible solution is to interview the same set of individuals each year. Another is to have a small group of locals in each community who are annually identified as "local monitors," take part in a once-a-year orientation on monitoring, and keep more detailed records of their observations ( e.g. caribou body condition). This would allow better comparisons, but would also create an additional logistical challenge and cost. (These people should be paid for their contribution.) Another option is to document better the time and place of locals' observations.
     
    
11. Validating findings. The current project offered no formal methods of reviewing results (apart from asking each local researcher if findings "make sense" and then requesting local leaders to review this report.) Given the workload of local leaders and the goal that reports become part of the permanent record, a better approach may be needed.
    Recommendation: The presentation of community monitoring data should become a regular part of the "Community Monitoring Tour" to be held each year. Alternatively, a discussion group of local experts could be held periodically to supplement the findings from individual questionnaires.
     
    
12. Overburdening the user. There was little to no resistance from locals to participate in the monitoring interview. Still, there is a need be mindful of the burden placed on locals to answer another set of questions. Conducting group interviews is an alternative approach, though some locals are intimidated by public or group discussions and prefer the one-on-one environment of private interviews.
    Recommendation: Consider combining the work of community monitoring with on-going programs like the Inuvialuit Harvest Study. While the discussion group approach could serve to lighten the burden, it is not recommended as an alternative to individual interviews, but as a complement.
     
    
13. Maintaining strong community support. The idea of monitoring is something that seems to fit well with northern peoples' idea of what is good resource management. Community interviews indicated a willingness to be interviewed and share observations. They also responded positively at community public meetings. This willingness was evident in Old Crow where about 15 locals sat through an information­intense (e.g. graphs and charts) presentation and then stayed on to discuss the implications of observations. Similar responses were heard at Aklavik's HTC Annual General Meeting and the RRC meeting in Fort McPherson. No one from the communities said that monitoring is a bad idea. Some individuals wanted to know why they had not been interviewed.
    Recommendation: Maintain good local support by distributing a summary of this year's findings (local and scientific) directly to households. Gwich'in Geographics has created a newspaper called "Delta Voices," which is distributed to all communities of the Delta Region and all Inuvialuit communities of their settlement region. Distributing to Old Crow would be a minor expense. A full two-page spread cost $500 plus graphic design costs. The paper is placed in each postal box at no charge to the community member.
     
    
14. Seeking local and regional organizational support. Little was asked of regional and local organizations, although all supported the project. No financial support was requested from organizations. Most of these organizations are now pursuing parallel projects (e.g. the Gwich'in's new Expert Systems Project, the re-evaluation of the Inuvialuit Harvest Study, the Vuntut Gwichin Renewable Resources Council's Research program.)
    Recommendation: Include key players from these organizations in a meeting or teleconference to get an overview of their current and future initiatives. Work to integrate their project objectives into community monitoring initiatives. Explore the possibilities for melding "on the land support" programs with community monitoring.
     
    
15. Involving agency personnel in community monitoring. This project did not draw on agency field personnel who work in resource management. Some conservation officers and park wardens spend considerable time on the land and also serve as a listening ear for locals who report abnormalities, the quality of furs, and unusual sightings. In some cases, these individuals conduct "patrols" and file reports on some of the very topics the Knowledge Co-op is documenting.
    Recommendation: Explore ways the work of agency personnel can become more integral to community-based monitoring. Patrol reports of Vuntut and Ivvavik Park personnel, Porcupine Caribou body conditions studies of YTG Renewable Resources, and the Charr Monitoring Project of the Gwich'in region are a few examples.
     
    
16. Balancing techno-science with local knowledge To what extent should community monitoring draw on the observations and theories of traditional local hunters and to what extent should it become a process through which locals learn and begin using technical methods to monitor the environment? This is not necessarily an either or proposition, although it does have implications in the allocation of resources and the dominance of western culture.
    Recommendation: Maintain respect of local knowledge as a distinct way of knowing. Better links between local monitoring and more technical approaches are needed. Local researchers could learn the more technical tasks of local monitoring (e.g. collecting specimen, recording plant phenology), interact with local experts to document local knowledge and, possibly, help to integrate the two approaches to monitoring.
     
    
17. Working with Schools. This year no effort was made to work with local schools. When traveling to communities, Gary Kofinas met with the principal and teachers of two of the three the communities to discuss the idea of their students becoming involved. All are keenly interested in participating.
    Recommendation: Send a letter to each of the three schools asking of their interest and organizing a teleconference to explore implementation of a modest program (one or two indicators) for the coming school year.
     
    
18. Going international. Gwich'in of the Venetie Reservation in Alaska have expressed an interest in initiating their own locally-based ecosystem monitoring program and collaborating with the Northern Yukon Knowledge Co-op.
    Recommendation: Include Alaska Native organizations like the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments and North Slope Borough Wildlife Management Committee in this process and extend the program to be more transboundary.

Conclusion

This Community Ecological Monitoring pilot project represents an important first step in developing a method for incorporating the use of local knowledge into a regional ecological monitoring program. The project's future will be determined by the long-term commitment of participating communities and the willingness of managers and scientists to learn from local systems of knowing. Further discussion amongst all parties is needed to build on this success achieved.

We welcome suggestions and comments on how to improve the program.