New section added: Conservation Approach

• Explains some key Dene harvesting and governance concepts that underlie the plan
• Describes areas in which Dene approach conservation in a different way than other systems of resource management

New section added: Our Plan for Action

• Revised former Workplanning section, moving detailed actions into Appendix D and describing broader conservation goals and strategies by program area in new section of plan body

New program area details added: Ɂededáhk’ǝ́ (Habitat)

• Addressed community interest in having plan include more about ‘big picture’ issues like climate change and habitat protection
• Added specific sites recommended for protection and actions to address climate change

Ɂekwę́ Nátsezé Ɂeɂa moved into relevant action program area from Appendix B

• Information formerly in appendix was revised and added to the relevant program area in the plan

New Appendix A added: Délı̨nę Got'ı̨nę Community Members Participating in Belarewı́le Gots’ę́ Ɂekwę́ Planning Process

• List of community members involved in Working Group meetings to date

New Appendix C added: RRC Responsibilities Under the Land Claim

• Contains relevant clauses from the Sahtú Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993) pertaining to Renewable Resource Council responsibilities for wildlife and wildlife habitat

Délı̨nę Ɂekwę́ Code (former Appendix C) revised and moved to Appendix E

• Refined ideas around who the Harvest Code applies to and how it impacts Sahtú participants and people from other communities

Removed Appendix D: Practicing Our Ɂekwę́ Nátsezé Ɂeɂa

• Former appendix detailing Working Group responses to ENR questions about how the Harvest Policy would work in practice removed

More Dene language and concepts incorporated throughout plan

• Did additional language work to better understand Dene ecological concepts
• Added many Dene words and phrases to better reflect Dene perspective

Administrative/Other

• Updated working group members with additional names since latest meetings
• Updated process sections to include hearings and recent meetings.

• An outline of the relevant Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources Board) mandate per the Sahtú Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, including the statement of principles, objectives and provisions related to limitation of the harvest.
• The Need for Conservation: Status of the Bluenose-East herd.
• Main Elements of the Bluenose-East Management Proposal, including: Hunter Harvest; Predator Management; and Monitoring.
• What we heard during the public hearing, including: importance of maintaining caribou harvest for Aboriginal cultures; leadership in caribou conservation from Délįne; caribou collars; predator management; development and maintaining healthy habitat; co‐management through community outreach, education and involvement; Sahtú Needs Level.
• Schedule A: Submission to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

• Key considerations in relation to the management proposal submitted by NWT Environment and Natural Resources as well as the final submissions by Colville and the Tulı́t'a and Fort Good Hope RRCs.
• A summary listing of key revisions in Version 2 of the Belarewíle Gots'ę́ Ɂekwę́ proposal (posted to this registry as a separate document).
• Appendices consisting of a compilation of written documents submitted to the Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı and Wek'èezhı̀ı Renewable Resources Board as part of their Bluenose East hearing proceedings.

The questions addressed are as follows:

1. There was evidence at the SRRB and WRRB hearings about how different user groups from the Tłı̨chǫ, Nunavut and Sahtú all use the Bluenose East herd. You have had time to think about the questions raised by Colville Lake in the March 1-3 hearings, and the evidence from the regions in the April 6-8 hearings in Behchokǫ̀. Do you have more thoughts about how you see the plan interacting with plans developed for other user groups, such as the Tłı̨chǫ and other Sahtu communities?

2. This question is about how you see the Plan and Code relating to enforcement under the Wildlife Act, if people do not follow the harvesting thresholds you have set out.

   Délı̨nę’s Code proposes an alternative community-based enforcement process for dealing with people who do not follow the caribou harvesting code. That process, as we understand it, starts with the person's family speaking directly to the person who is not abiding by the Code, then moves to a Sentencing Circle process and then, if it is not resolved, referral of the matter to GNWT for enforcement under the Wildlife Act. Enforcement is an area outside the SRRB's jurisdiction but the ability of Délı̨nę to demonstrate that the Code will be effective is an important consideration in understanding the conservation implications of the Plan and Code. The Board is aware that there are mechanisms under the Wildlife Act that allow for alternative enforcement programs. For instance, the Wildlife Act allows alternative enforcement measures can be used to deal with offences under the Wildlife Act if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions, for example, is that an alternative enforcement program would have to be authorized by the Minister of Justice.

   Do you see the entire three-step Délı̨nę Code enforcement program being an alternative under the existing Wildlife Act, or do you see the Délı̨nę enforcement program as a process completely outside the Wildlife Act that is recognized by the Wildlife Act as an alternative only at the third and last step in the proposed process?

   Would Délı̨nę be willing to work with the GNWT to develop an alternative enforcement measures program authorized by the GNWT Minister of Justice?

1. Is Délı̨nę asking to establish a Total Allowable Harvest (TAH) for Délı̨nę as a whole that reflects what is written in the Code?
2. With respect to s. 7 of the Délı̨nę plan which refers to harvesting 150 Bluenose-East and [50] Bluenose-West – is Délı̨nę asking the Board to make a locally applicable harvest for Délı̨nę or a locally applicable TAH of those numbers of caribou within the Délı̨nę district as a whole?
3. If Délı̨nę is requesting a TAH established through the community of Délı̨nę or within the Délı̨nę district, is Délı̨nę requesting that the harvest can only be carried out within the Délı̨nę district; must that quota of caribou only be harvested in the Délı̨nę district or does it travel with the Délı̨nę participant to other areas of the Sahtú?
4. Regarding other Sahtú beneficiaries – is Délı̨nę requesting the Board to limit the rights of Sahtú participants to harvest any caribou in addition to the 150 BNE and 50 BNW caribou in the Délı̨nę district?
5. Is Délı̨nę requesting the Board to limit the exercise of rights on the part of Délı̨nę participants to harvest BNE and BNW only in the Délı̨nę district?

• Provide information about how Deline defines the area of "the locations where Deline has traditionally harvested in the Bluenose West area" as referenced on page 30 of the Deline Plan.

The Délı̨nę Ɂehdzo Got’ı̨nę responds that due to revisions made in the plan clarifying that it applies to the Bluenose East and Bluenose West Areas within the Délı̨nę District, the question is no longer applicable.

• Responses to undertakings and SRRB questions by April 30
• Final submission by May 20 (the deadline for Parties that are not proponents is May 6).

• Bluenose-East Herd Status
• Proposed Actions

The document also includes a link to the animations of barren-ground caribou herd movements  presented during the hearing.  These can be found on page 3 of the presentation, or by clicking here.

The question is as follows: The new Wildlife Act for the Northwest Territories came into force in November 2014. There are a number of actions and approaches for the purpose of ensuring compliance for caribou harvest. What role has your organization played in the compliance and public education programs run by ENR for the Bluenose-East caribou herd?

The Délı̨nę Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę response notes the following: "The primary emphasis for Délı̨nę Ɂehdzo Got’ı̨nę collaboration with NWT Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) as a co-management partner during this first season of implementation of the Belarewı́lé Gots’ę́ Ɂekwę́ plan (winter 2015-2016) has been not so much on Délı̨nę participation ENR compliance and public education programs, but the reverse – Délı̨nę has invited ENR to participate in its plan implementation activities."

Four key areas of collaboration during the 2015-2016 winter harvest season, and four areas of potential future collaboration in 2016-2017 are listed.

1. Predation
2. Herd distribution
3. Herd recovery
4. Linear feature avoidance
5. Cross-regional variation

The key topics addressed are as follows:

1. Predation
2. Herd distribution
3. Herd recovery
4. Linear feature avoidance
5. Cross-regional variation

In this information request, Colville Renewable Resources Council, Behdzi Ahda" First Nation and Ayoni Keh Land Corporation pose questions to NWT Environment and Natural Resources on the following four topics:

1. Management strategy and methods
2. Commitments under the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and NWT
   Wildlife Act
3. Caribou status and Total Allowable Harvest
4. Other factors

1. Understanding the environment in which ɂekwę́ live
2. Keeping the land healthy
3. Defining ɂekwę́ populations
4. Ecotourism program
5. Working together
6. Reviewing and revising the plan

1. Enforcement of the community caribou plan
2. Authorization to harvest
3. Measures to ensure bull harvest
4. Harvest reporting and monitoring
5. Cross-regional conservation measures
6. How the community caribou plan relates to the Sahtú Renewable Resources Board's recommendations and the co-management process