Caribou Hunters and Researchers at the Co-management Interface: Emergent Dilemmas and the Dynamics of Legitimacy in Power Sharing
Dates
Year
2005
Citation
Kofinas, Gary P., 2005, Caribou Hunters and Researchers at the Co-management Interface: Emergent Dilemmas and the Dynamics of Legitimacy in Power Sharing: Anthropologica, v. 47, no. 2, p. 179-196.
Summary
A content analysis of PCMB meeting minutes from its first meeting to 1993 reveals a repeated pattern of communication in which Native hunters pose questions about the need for caribou research requiring the use of aircraft and collars and the handling of animals, and a response by agency managers to inform community residents about the value of collars in science and/or demonstrating their application. Never discussed openly at PCMB meetings was what the Gwich'in regard as a negotiated order of power-sharing arrangement between Gwich'in and caribou, established in the time before there was time, nunh ttrotsit ultsui gwuno (when the earth was first made), when caribou were people and people were caribou. As told through the stories [...]
Summary
A content analysis of PCMB meeting minutes from its first meeting to 1993 reveals a repeated pattern of communication in which Native hunters pose questions about the need for caribou research requiring the use of aircraft and collars and the handling of animals, and a response by agency managers to inform community residents about the value of collars in science and/or demonstrating their application. Never discussed openly at PCMB meetings was what the Gwich'in regard as a negotiated order of power-sharing arrangement between Gwich'in and caribou, established in the time before there was time, nunh ttrotsit ultsui gwuno (when the earth was first made), when caribou were people and people were caribou. As told through the stories of the Gwich'in elders, nunh ttrotsit ultsui gwuno (when the earth was first made) humans and caribou each experienced hardship. Recognizing their common needs, caribou and Gwich'in shared something of each other and struck an agreement, or as Mary Kendi, a Ehdiitat Gwich'in elder of Aklavik put it, "a deal" that would define future relations. At their separation, an agreement was made for mutual respect, yet the separation between Gwich'in and caribou would never be complete; part of humans' tinji tthui (human flesh) would remain in caribou.10 The mention of this belief here is not to suggest that non-Native agency board members were unaware of indigenous views of caribou as sentient beings. The point is to highlight the absence of such topics in discourse at the co-management interface, and the belief of agency managers that if hunters could be fully educated about the use of collars, they would understand their value to management and therefore, support their use. Team #1 members were unlucky hunters. The 12 to 15 cow caribou needed for the collection did not avail themselves and the researchers departed the community with only four sets of specimens. As biologists departed for Whitehorse, I was visited by a local hunter who commented on the high expense of flying biologists to conduct fieldwork and asked why those who live in the community were not hired to conduct the body condition sampling on their own. Immediately after Team #1's departure, reports in town circulated that a lone calf orphaned by Team #1 had been seen on the banks of the river, and appeared "lost" and in danger of imminent death by a wolf. Later, a community member sought me out and spoke of his disapproval of those who "play with animals," citing "his religion" as the explanation for caribou's limited availability to the team. The hunter made his point by describing the coincidence of events in the year's observed autumn caribou migration; animals first appeared in large numbers early in the season, then disappeared during the period of the biologists' field study of body condition, and reappeared in large numbers immediately after the biologists' departure. Implicitly, the hunter was referencing his belief that inappropriate human actions affect the behaviour of caribou, and that when traditional rules governing relations with caribou are violated, caribou will not offer themselves to the community. After the departure of the research teams, three community PCMB representatives and the community's Chief expressed their support in separate interviews for instituting a two- to three-year moratorium on all caribou research in order to "Give caribou a rest." Calls for a two- to three-year moratorium on caribou research were also mentioned by other leaders, including a high-profile informal community leader (i.e., not elected and not on the PCMB) who drew on access to the media to embark on a campaign to advocate the moratorium. At several public events the informal leader publicly countered the PCMB chairperson who defended the need for scientific research (Buckley 1993a; 1993b). As a result, the PCMB chairperson and the informal leader found themselves in an awkward position of being allied in the fight to stop oil development in the concentrated calving area of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet at odds bout the future of caribou research. As the stress of the situation surfaced at the co-management board level, community and government board members talked of the importance of maintaining good intra-group relations among the board's membership and the difficulties of sharing their understanding of caribou science with fellow community members. Several members talked of the strong bonds of loyalty and trust that had evolved between all PCMB members through their shared experience at meetings. One government PCMB member spoke to the group of his commitment to the co-management agreement, and how his membership on the board superseded his responsibilities as an agency manager.
