Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement

Among the functions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) was the establishment of a series of mechanisms to enable its Indigenous signatories to continue their subsistence practices. Central to these mechanisms were commitments to create a co-management regime for the area’s wildli...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:ARCTIC
Main Author: Gombay, Nicole
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: The Arctic Institute of North America 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/68287
id ftunivcalgaryojs:oai:journalhosting.ucalgary.ca:article/68287
record_format openpolar
spelling ftunivcalgaryojs:oai:journalhosting.ucalgary.ca:article/68287 2023-05-15T14:19:24+02:00 Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement Gombay, Nicole 2019-06-17 application/pdf https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/68287 eng eng The Arctic Institute of North America https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/68287/53157 https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/68287 Copyright (c) 2019 ARCTIC ARCTIC; Vol. 72 No. 2 (2019): June: 103-214; 181-196 1923-1245 0004-0843 Inuit Indigenous James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement Nunavik wildlife management land claims subsistence co-management Autochtone Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois gestion de la faune revendications territoriales subsistance cogestion info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion research-article 2019 ftunivcalgaryojs 2022-03-22T21:24:27Z Among the functions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) was the establishment of a series of mechanisms to enable its Indigenous signatories to continue their subsistence practices. Central to these mechanisms were commitments to create a co-management regime for the area’s wildlife. In 1995, 20 years after the Agreement was signed, Lorraine Brooke published an analysis of Inuit experiences of the regime. This article extends her study, presenting the present structures of wildlife management in Nunavik, particularly as of the mid-2000s. It explores the extent to which the federal and provincial government commitments laid out in the JBNQA have been fulfilled and assesses the contemporary relevance of Brooke’s conclusions. Based on interviews with Inuit and non-Inuit stakeholders, including bureaucrats and individual hunters and fishers, the paper outlines the diverse perspectives of those who administer and who are subject to the enforcement of Nunavik’s wildlife management regime. It concludes that many of the findings from Brooke’s analysis persist. The region continues to be subject to complex bureaucratic and administrative structures that routinely make power sharing between Inuit and non-Inuit government agencies problematic. Parmi les modalités de la Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois (CBJNQ), notons l’établissement d’une série de mécanismes permettant à ses signataires autochtones de continuer à exploiter les ressources à des fins de subsistance. Une série d’engagements visant à créer un régime de cogestion de la faune de la région était à la base même de ces mécanismes. En 1995, 20 ans après la signature de la convention, Lorraine Brooke a publié une analyse au sujet des expériences des Inuits par rapport à ce régime. Cet article se veut le prolongement de son étude et présente les structures actuelles de gestion de la faune du Nunavik, plus particulièrement depuis le milieu des années 2000. L’article explore la mesure dans laquelle les engagements du gouvernement fédéral et du gouvernement provincial énoncés dans la CBJNQ ont été respectés, et évalue la pertinence contemporaine des conclusions de Lorraine Brooke. En se fondant sur des entrevues réalisées auprès d’intervenants inuits et non inuits, y compris des bureaucrates ainsi que des chasseurs et des pêcheurs particuliers, l’article fait état des diverses perspectives de ceux qui administrent le régime et de ceux qui sont assujettis à l’application du régime de gestion de la faune du Nunavik. Il conclut que grand nombre des constatations découlant de l’analyse de Lorraine Brooke sont encore valables. La région continue de faire l’objet de structures bureaucratiques et administratives complexes qui rendent problé­matique le partage du pouvoir usuel entre les organismes gouvernementaux inuits et non inuits. Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic inuit inuits James Bay Nunavik University of Calgary Journal Hosting Baie James ENVELOPE(-80.500,-80.500,53.500,53.500) Nunavik ARCTIC 72 2 181 196
institution Open Polar
collection University of Calgary Journal Hosting
op_collection_id ftunivcalgaryojs
language English
topic Inuit
Indigenous
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
Nunavik
wildlife management
land claims
subsistence
co-management
Autochtone
Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois
gestion de la faune
revendications territoriales
subsistance
cogestion
spellingShingle Inuit
Indigenous
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
Nunavik
wildlife management
land claims
subsistence
co-management
Autochtone
Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois
gestion de la faune
revendications territoriales
subsistance
cogestion
Gombay, Nicole
Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
topic_facet Inuit
Indigenous
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
Nunavik
wildlife management
land claims
subsistence
co-management
Autochtone
Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois
gestion de la faune
revendications territoriales
subsistance
cogestion
description Among the functions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) was the establishment of a series of mechanisms to enable its Indigenous signatories to continue their subsistence practices. Central to these mechanisms were commitments to create a co-management regime for the area’s wildlife. In 1995, 20 years after the Agreement was signed, Lorraine Brooke published an analysis of Inuit experiences of the regime. This article extends her study, presenting the present structures of wildlife management in Nunavik, particularly as of the mid-2000s. It explores the extent to which the federal and provincial government commitments laid out in the JBNQA have been fulfilled and assesses the contemporary relevance of Brooke’s conclusions. Based on interviews with Inuit and non-Inuit stakeholders, including bureaucrats and individual hunters and fishers, the paper outlines the diverse perspectives of those who administer and who are subject to the enforcement of Nunavik’s wildlife management regime. It concludes that many of the findings from Brooke’s analysis persist. The region continues to be subject to complex bureaucratic and administrative structures that routinely make power sharing between Inuit and non-Inuit government agencies problematic. Parmi les modalités de la Convention de la Baie-James et du Nord québécois (CBJNQ), notons l’établissement d’une série de mécanismes permettant à ses signataires autochtones de continuer à exploiter les ressources à des fins de subsistance. Une série d’engagements visant à créer un régime de cogestion de la faune de la région était à la base même de ces mécanismes. En 1995, 20 ans après la signature de la convention, Lorraine Brooke a publié une analyse au sujet des expériences des Inuits par rapport à ce régime. Cet article se veut le prolongement de son étude et présente les structures actuelles de gestion de la faune du Nunavik, plus particulièrement depuis le milieu des années 2000. L’article explore la mesure dans laquelle les engagements du gouvernement fédéral et du gouvernement provincial énoncés dans la CBJNQ ont été respectés, et évalue la pertinence contemporaine des conclusions de Lorraine Brooke. En se fondant sur des entrevues réalisées auprès d’intervenants inuits et non inuits, y compris des bureaucrates ainsi que des chasseurs et des pêcheurs particuliers, l’article fait état des diverses perspectives de ceux qui administrent le régime et de ceux qui sont assujettis à l’application du régime de gestion de la faune du Nunavik. Il conclut que grand nombre des constatations découlant de l’analyse de Lorraine Brooke sont encore valables. La région continue de faire l’objet de structures bureaucratiques et administratives complexes qui rendent problé­matique le partage du pouvoir usuel entre les organismes gouvernementaux inuits et non inuits.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Gombay, Nicole
author_facet Gombay, Nicole
author_sort Gombay, Nicole
title Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
title_short Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
title_full Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
title_fullStr Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
title_full_unstemmed Wildlife Management in Nunavik: Structures, Operations, and Perceptions Following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
title_sort wildlife management in nunavik: structures, operations, and perceptions following the james bay and northern quebec agreement
publisher The Arctic Institute of North America
publishDate 2019
url https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/68287
long_lat ENVELOPE(-80.500,-80.500,53.500,53.500)
geographic Baie James
Nunavik
geographic_facet Baie James
Nunavik
genre Arctic
inuit
inuits
James Bay
Nunavik
genre_facet Arctic
inuit
inuits
James Bay
Nunavik
op_source ARCTIC; Vol. 72 No. 2 (2019): June: 103-214; 181-196
1923-1245
0004-0843
op_relation https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/68287/53157
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/68287
op_rights Copyright (c) 2019 ARCTIC
container_title ARCTIC
container_volume 72
container_issue 2
container_start_page 181
op_container_end_page 196
_version_ 1766291232227590144