Grizzly bear monitoring by the Heiltsuk people as a crucible for First Nation conservation practice

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Guided by deeply held cultural values, First Nations in Canada are rapidly regaining legal authority to manage natural resources. We present a research collaboration among academics, tribal government, provincial and federal government, resource managers, conservation practitioners, and community leaders supporting First Nation resource authority and stewardship. First, we present results from a molecular genetics study of grizzly bears inhabiting an important conservation area within the territory of the Heiltsuk First Nation in coastal British Columbia. Noninvasive hair sampling occurred between 2006 and 2009 in the Koeye watershed, a stronghold for grizzly bears, salmon, and Heiltsuk people. Molecular demographic analyses revealed a regionally significant population of bears, which congregate at the Koeye each salmon-spawning season. There was a minimum of 57 individual bears detected during the study period. Results also pointed to a larger than expected source geography for salmon-feeding bears in the study area (> 1000 km²), as well as early evidence of a declining trend in the bear population potentially explained by declining salmon numbers. Second, we demonstrate and discuss the power of integrating scientific research with a culturally appropriate research agenda developed by indigenous people. Guided explicitly by principles from Gvi'ilas or customary law, this research methodology is coupled with Heiltsuk culture, enabling results of applied conservation science to involve and resonate with tribal leadership in ways that have eluded previous scientific endeavors. In this context, we discuss the effectiveness of research partnerships that, from the outset, create both scientific programs and integrated communities of action that can implement change. We argue that indigenous resource management requires collaborative approaches like ours, in which science-based management is embedded within a socially and culturally appropriate context. We emerge not only with a set of guiding principles for resource management by the Heiltsuk, but a broadly applicable strategy that fosters intimacy with traditional lands and resources and provides a powerful engine for conservation.

Toward increased engagement between academic and indigenous community partners in ecological research

“…In contrast, indigenous approaches are contextualized by local and traditional knowledge of biodiversity and sustainable resource management as part of complex socialecological systems (Brown and Brown 2009). Although ample attention has been given to these differences (Ingold and Kurttila 2000, Cruikshank 2001, Houde 2007, few studies explore establishing productive relationships that bridge these different knowledge systems and/or knowledge holders (but see ParradoRosselli 2007, Huntington et al 2011, Housty et al 2014. Moreover, indigenous communities have often not been included in the research process adequately.…”

“…Moreover, government processes that propose resource extraction must consult and accommodate indigenous governments (Government of Canada 1982). To acknowledge these rights and avoid legal conflicts, recent policy agreements have shifted regional decision-making agency toward indigenous governments in both co-management and government-to-government processes (e.g., Wyatt 2008, Berkes 2009, Housty et al 2014). …”

“…Despite this realization, ecological research often lacks a consideration of the potential costs and benefits of the research process and its outcomes on local residents. However, multidisciplinary approaches to ecological research that incorporate social dimensions provide increasingly effective approaches by which to consider the impacts of research for local people (Berkes 2004, Deur and Turner 2005, Drew 2005, Trosper 2009, Housty et al 2014). …”

Ancient clam gardens, traditional management portfolios, and the resilience of coupled human-ocean systems

“…On the central coast, traditional management among the Heiltsuk indicate that systems of territoriality, ownership, and governance have been in place for generations and included many strategies and practices that supported long-term human interaction and use of specific resources (Hilton 1990, Harkin 1997, Jones 2002, Powell 2012, Housty et al 2014, Gauvreau 2015; HLUP, undated http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss4/art20/ living document). Rules and regulations, including restricted access to harvesting locations (Powell 2012), limits on the timing and methods of harvesting (Jones 2002), and intentional disuse of areas to allow for recovery (Housty et al 2014) helped to ensure that resources were not overexploited.…”

“…Rules and regulations, including restricted access to harvesting locations (Powell 2012), limits on the timing and methods of harvesting (Jones 2002), and intentional disuse of areas to allow for recovery (Housty et al 2014) helped to ensure that resources were not overexploited. Although harvesting locations and resources were strictly regulated (Hilton 1990, Harkin 1997), permission to access resources could be granted upon request and elaborate winter ceremonies, such as the potlatch, facilitated the exchange of resources (Harkin 1997).…”