Skip to main content

Wild caribou roam the tundra. (File Photo).

The Canadian Press

Tradition and technology are clashing on the tundra where Indigenous groups are debating the use of drones to hunt caribou.

The issue arose during public consultations on new wildlife regulations in the Northwest Territories, where First Nations and Metis depend on caribou for food.

Drones are not widely used to hunt, but the N.W.T. government says they have been utilized to find caribou and sometimes to herd them to a hunter. That’s caused fears of increased pressure on populations that are already struggling.

Story continues below advertisement

The Bathurst herd, nearly half a million strong in the 1980s, has dwindled to 8,500. The Bluenose-East herd has declined almost 50 per cent in the last three years to about 19,000 animals.

“We heard significant concern about the use of drones for hunting and broad support for a ban on their use,” Joslyn Oosenbrug, an Environment Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

“A ban on drones will help address conservation concerns for some species and help prevent new conservation concerns for others.”

The territory has proposed banning drones for hunting except for Indigenous harvesters.

Some Indigenous groups argue the ban should go further. The board that co-manages wildlife between Great Slave and Great Bear lakes wants a ban on drones to apply universally.

“The Wek’eezhi Renewable Resources Board would prefer that drones not be used for harvesting purposes,” said board biologist Aimee Guile in an e-mail.

The Northwest Territory Metis Nation also wants to see drones banned for everyone.

Story continues below advertisement

Others argue that banning drones for Aboriginals would violate treaty rights.

An N.W.T. report into consultations on the proposed ban says both the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Wildlife Management Advisory Council stated that rights holders should be exempt from the proposed ban, “because of the potential infringement to Aboriginal harvesters exercising their rights.”

The Tli Cho government, which has jurisdiction in communities west of Great Slave Lake, also wants Indigenous harvesters exempted.

“It’s a matter of leaving it with us,” said spokesman Michael Birlea. “We want to be able to make our own decisions rather than somebody else.”

Tli Cho residents are uneasy with the technology.

“(Tli Cho leaders) also acknowledged the discomfort heard from many of their citizens,” the consultation report said. “Many citizens expressed that all harvesters should be prohibited from using drones.”

Story continues below advertisement

Members of the Fort Chipewyan Metis local in Alberta hunt in the N.W.T. and are concerned about the impact drones could have on the health of caribou herds and on Metis culture.

“Drones could undermine the transmission of traditional knowledge to younger hunters about how to hunt and what to look for,” the local said in its submission.

It suggested that restrictions on drones should come from Indigenous governments, not the territory.

Others have made similar points.

Summarizing what the government heard during consultations, Oosenbrug said: “Using drones is bad because it is another loss of the Indigenous culture of NWT people as it does not represent a traditional way of hunting.

“(It) shows a lack of respect for Indigenous culture and the wildlife, and it should be considered cheating.”

Story continues below advertisement

The N.W.T.’s new wildlife regulations came into effect July 1, but the territory chose to defer a decision on drones until there are further talks.

More discussion is planned for the fall, said Oosenbrug.

“(The Wildlife Management Advisory Council) looks forward to continued discussions with the (territory) on the potential conservation issues for wildlife and implications to harvesters with Indigenous rights,” said an e-mail from the group.

Indigenous hunters have already accepted restrictions on the number of animals they can take. In some areas, no hunting is allowed at all.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies