Identifying indigenous knowledge components for Whudzih (Caribou) recovery planning
Abstract
In Canada, recent advances towards reconciliation have introduced new collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments, including for species-at-risk recovery planning. During these collaborations, Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is often requested, however, clear expectations of what IK is being sought and how diverse knowledge systems will be woven to produce tangible benefits to species recovery are often limited. Here, we provide a case study of a two-stage process to identify and collect IK components that can aid whudzih (caribou) recovery planning. First, we surveyed non-Indigenous government professionals involved in caribou initiatives to specify what IK would benefit recovery planning. Responses were used to guide the development of semi-structured interview questions. Interviews were conducted with knowledge holders from Lhtako Dene, a Southern Dakelh Nation in British Columbia, Canada with historic socioecological ties to caribou. Responses of government professionals highlighted 24 topics for caribou recovery, and interviews with Lhtako Dene knowledge holders revealed strong linkages between ecological and social information types. In some cases, the IK requested was not available from knowledge holders. Collaborations for caribou recovery would benefit from clarity on expectations and outcomes of IK sharing. We suggest that structured processes that respectfully facilitate IK requests and collection become commonplace in species recovery planning.
Introduction
The benefits of including diverse partnerships and worldviews to resolve environmental and conservation issues are being recognized globally (David-Charez and Gavin 2018; Latulippe and Klenk 2020; Jessen et al. 2022; Stern and Humphries 2022). In Canada, recent advances towards reconciliation have provided new opportunities for collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners (Alexander et al. 2019; Popp et al. 2019; Henri et al. 2021). Since 2016, Canada has endorsed The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) that aims to facilitate collaboration among the Government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples and provide a roadmap towards reconciliation and Indigenous self-determination (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 2011). The province of British Columbia (BC) passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Declaration Act 2019) and has become the first province in Canada to adapt its laws to align with UNDRIP (Province of BC 2022). With federal and provincial government commitments to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, meaningful collaborations that promote the weaving of knowledge systems can be better achieved to address conservation concerns and improve species management.
Woodland caribou ecotypes (Rangifer tarandus caribou) have been rapidly declining across Canada for decades. In recent studies, Indigenous Knowledge (IK) has been documented to help predict caribou habitat suitability and occupancy (Polfus et al. 2014), identify unique classifications and behaviors of distinct groups (Polfus et al. 2016), and understand long-term changes in population size and body conditions of herds (Gagnon et al. 2020). In addition to moving towards greater interdisciplinary approaches in caribou research, the long-term decline of the species has resulted in the need to reassess current federal and provincial management and recovery actions. In many cases, Indigenous Peoples are being asked to contribute IK to help develop holistic scenarios for caribou recovery. The Southern Mountain population of Woodland Caribou, located in central British Columbia (BC) and along the western border of Alberta, is listed in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) as Threatened (Government of Canada 2002), which mandates recovery planning. A federal recovery strategy for the Southern Mountain caribou population was completed in 2014 (Environment Canada 2014) but is undergoing an amendment (since 2021) to include IK and update information on critical habitat. Despite this effort to better represent Indigenous Peoples in Southern Mountain caribou recovery planning, there is no clear framework on what IK is being sought and how IK will be meaningfully woven with western science to respect and represent the diversity of Indigenous voices. Furthermore, there is poor transparency over whether and/or how IK will contribute tangible benefits to Southern Mountain caribou recovery after being shared by knowledge holders.
Here, our goal was to provide a case study of a structured two-stage process to respectfully facilitate the identification and collection of IK components that could provide tangible benefits to the management and recovery of Southern Mountain caribou in central BC, Canada. Our process was to first identify IK components that are expected to have tangible benefits for caribou recovery based on the perspectives of non-Indigenous government professionals involved in caribou recovery programs. Based on the information collected, we then guided knowledge sharing using semi-structured interviews for Elders and knowledge holders of a Southern Dakelh Nation with historic socio-ecological ties to caribou.
Materials and methods
Positionality statement
This project was facilitated by the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance (SDNA), an Indigenous Alliance that represents the interests of its member First Nations and helps to assert inherent rights and title. Through its Stewardship Department, the SDNA works collaboratively with provincial and federal governments on Southern Mountain caribou recovery planning and restoring Southern Dakelh Nations’ sovereignty and governance over wildlife management. It had become evident to SDNA scientists (namely, the first two authors on this paper) that while Nations were frequently asked to contribute IK for wildlife management and recovery planning, a structured process facilitating knowledge collection and weaving with western science was lacking. The work in this paper was completed as a collaborative partnership with Lhtako Dene Nation, a Southern Dakelh (“Carrier”) Nation with a traditional territory that spans the eastern portion of the Cariboo Region in British Columbia, Canada. Although whudzih (caribou) were once abundant across the landscape, the decline of the species has resulted in Southern Dakelh Nations having to rely on other wildlife for sustenance and losing some of their traditional knowledge on caribou. This work has provided Lhtako Dene members with the opportunity to share their knowledge on caribou and collectively voice their concerns and perspectives. In addition to documenting knowledge on caribou for the Lhtako Dene People, we hope that this paper may help guide collaborative efforts and strategies for caribou recovery. Lhtako Dene's Chief and Council gave approval to name Lhtako Dene Nation as a co-author on this paper.
Study area
This study focused on eight southern mountain caribou herds (Fig. 1) that inhabit areas on the traditional territories of Southern Dakelh (i.e., Carrier), Tsilhqot’in, Northern Secwepemc, and Secwepemc Nations in central BC, Canada. All Southern Dakelh communities were invited to participate in the study in 2021, but due to COVID-19 restrictions, the SDNA was only granted permission to conduct interviews with Lhatko Dene community members. Today, Lhtako Dene consists of approximately 100 members (Statistics Canada 2016). The traditional territory of Lhtako Dene extends from the city of Quesnel, BC, to the Alberta border and overlaps with the Barkerville, North Cariboo, and Wells Grey Southern Mountain caribou herds (Fig. 1). In the west, there are three Southern Mountain caribou herds that make up the Chilcotin caribou herd complex (Itcha-Ilgachuz, Rainbows, and Charlotte Aplands herds) as well as the Tweedsmuir herd (Fig. 1). The population sizes of the herds varied from 25 animals (Rainbows and Charlotte Aplands herds) to 508 animals (Itcha-Ilgachuz herd), and all populations were in decline except for the Wells Gray North and South herds, which were stable (based on 2021 population estimates; Government of British Columbia 2021).
Fig. 1.
The Southern Dakelh People have historically (prior to the early 1900s) relied on whudzih (Southern Dakelh word for caribou) to supplement their main diets, which comprised of various plants, fish including salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), and small mammals including marmot (Marmota caligata), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), and beavers (Castor canadensis) (Santomauro et al. 2012). Moose expanded to central BC in the early 1900’s (Santomauro et al. 2012) and are now highly relied on as the main food source by the Southern Dakelh People.
The landscape in the west of the study area consists of forested mountain ranges and a dry interior climate. In contrast, the eastern range of the study area has a wetter climate and is part of the interior rainforest of British Columbia. Wildlife species with range overlap with caribou in the study area include other ungulates such as moose (Alces alces), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus). There is some range overlap with caribou and feral horses (Equus caballus) in the west, and with elk (Cervus canadensis) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in the east. Shared predators among ungulates include wolves (Canis lupus), black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), cougars (Puma concolor), and wolverines (Gulo gulo). To regulate predator density, provincially implemented wolf culls have been taking place in the western (Chilcotin) caribou range since 2017 and have more recently been re-initiated for eastern caribou herds, including North Cariboo (in 2022) and Barkerville (in 2023; Government of British Columbia 2023).
Survey of professionals
To identify IK with tangible benefit for caribou recovery (objective 1), SDNA’s Ecologist created and emailed questionnaire surveys to non-Indigenous government professionals who are directly involved in both provincial and regional caribou recovery initiatives in BC, Canada. A total of 15 survey invitations were sent to staff from the Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development (FLNRORD) and Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and included professionals who were selected by the SDNA Ecologist, as well as professionals who were recommended to participate by selected professionals. Questionnaires consisted of six background questions on each participants’ knowledge and role in caribou recovery (Questions 1 and 8–12; Supplementary Material 1) and six questions asking participants to indicate the Indigenous or local knowledge they believed would have tangible benefits to caribou recovery, what those benefits are expected to be and whether specific caribou herds should be considered (Questions 2–7; Supplementary Material 1).
Most of the survey requests were sent in August and September 2020, except for one survey sent in June and another sent in October 2020 to accommodate the availability of the participants. Survey requests were followed up with up to three email reminders at approximately a 1 month interval if no response was received. In each survey package that was sent out, information was included on the background of the study and objectives, the clarification/definition of terminology (Indigenous Knowledge vs. local knowledge), contact details for returning survey responses and/or questions, and the expected survey outcomes explaining the intended use of the survey results.
Survey results were synthesized by tabulating the number of re-occurring terms and/or responses for Questions 2 to 7 (Supplementary Material 1). The results were summarized graphically to show responses to: (1) IK with tangible benefits to caribou recovery (Questions 2 and 3); (2) socially, culturally, and other relevant information related to caribou recovery (Question 4); (3) the benefit and/or value in sharing ecologically, socially, culturally, and other relevant IK on caribou (Question 5); (4) if responses were for specific caribou herds (Question 6); and (5) how shared IK was anticipated to be used (Question 7; Supplementary Material 1). The results of the survey background questions with government professionals (Questions 1 and 8–12) were kept confidential.
Indigenous knowledge interviews
Between August and September 2021, the SDNA Ecologist and Wildlife Biologist developed interview questions based on the results of the survey of government professionals and conducted in-person interviews with Southern Dakelh Elders and knowledge holders. By identifying IK components prior to requesting IK from knowledge holders, generalized information requests that can lead to under- or over-sharing of knowledge can be avoided to protect the cultural sensitivity and integrity of IK (Hill et al. 2020; Jessen et al. 2022). Interview questions were semi-structured and designed to guide discussions while allowing for different perspectives and opinions to emerge (see e.g., Huntington 1998; Rothe et al. 2009). The use of semi-structured in-person interviews can also ensure that information sharing is focused while promoting dialogue that is better reflective of how IK sharing has occurred across First Nations communities for millennia (Huntington 1998; Rothe et al. 2009; M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). A total of 40 interview questions were formulated, covering the following four subject areas: (1) the experience of Indigenous participants with caribou, (2) the socio-ecological importance of caribou, (3) information on caribou demography and limiting factors, and (4) information on caribou management strategies (Supplementary Material 2). In addition to the semi-structured questions, participants were invited to share any stories, experiences, opinions, or information related to caribou that were not covered by the questions at the end of the interview.
Prior to conducting interviews, the study design and participation of Lhtako Dene community members was approved by the Lhtako Dene Chief and Council, and by Elders during a Lhtako Dene Elders meeting. At these meetings, Lhtako’s interest in collaborating on the project was discussed and the project goals and end products (including this paper) were reviewed and agreed on. The SDNA followed band protocol and received direction from Lhtako Dene leadership and Elders on how to invite participants and conduct interviews with knowledge holders. Lhtako Elders and knowledge holders were invited to participate in the interviews, and participation was open to all community members using a sign-up method at the band office. Lhtako Dene provided the office space to conduct the interviews. The interviews were initiated and audio-recorded with permission from each participant. The intended use of the knowledge shared (including for this publication) was consented to by each interviewee. The OCAP® (Ownership–Control–Access–Possession; fnigc.ca) guidelines were adhered to during the study and ownership of all shared knowledge is retained by the interviewee (The First Nations Information Governance Centre 2014). Audio recordings of each interview were transcribed using the online “otranscribe” software. Information was then categorized by SDNA wildlife biologist based on key words or summarized based on unique information provided. Direct quotes from participants were included as much as possible to ensure that information was not paraphrased and that correct meanings were being shared. We kept the participants’ names anonymous for each quote.
Interview results were presented to Lhtako Chief and Council in the form of a presentation and a written report. A results verification meeting for this study was completed in March 2023 following the analysis of interviews to allow for Lhtako Dene participants to verify and comment on how interview results were synthesized and interpreted, and for additional knowledge and/or perspectives on caribou to be shared. At this meeting, the interview quotes that would be included in this paper were discussed and the decision to include a quote or specific knowledge component was made by the individual who shared it. The results of this study have been shared with federal and regional caribou recovery biologists to be included in caribou recovery strategies and documents.
Results
Survey of professionals
A total of eight surveys (53% of 15 total) were completed and returned by government professionals. Most of the government professionals surveyed indicated that their responses were for all BC caribou herds in general, while some responses were specific to the Chilcotin Southern Mountain caribou herds (Itcha-Ilgachuz, Rainbows, and Charlotte Aplands herds). Interest in IK on changes in caribou migratory behavior was also directed towards the Redrock-Prairie Creek and Scott caribou herds (not within the traditional territories of the Southern Dakelh). In this study, we did not include distinctions based on specific caribou herds and the responses represent all caribou herds in general.
When asked what specific IK would benefit the conservation and/or recovery of caribou populations in British Columbia, government professionals mentioned a total of 16 topics related to caribou biology and ecology (Fig. 2). The most mentioned topic was historic and current range/distribution of caribou, followed by current and/or changes in caribou behavior and habitat use (Fig. 2). Interest in caribou behavior included changes to migration patterns and the impacts of disease and predation. There was interest in knowledge on caribou population abundance/density and trends, particularly for the pre-1980s, and events that have caused major changes in caribou population dynamics (Fig. 2). Knowledge on interspecific interactions included predator-prey dynamics with wolves, bears, and cougars, and interactions with other ungulates such as moose, deer, feral horses, and livestock. There was also interest in the effects of climate change and land use activities such as salvage logging on caribou populations (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Information on which social, cultural or other relevant information pertaining to caribou should be gathered from knowledge holders included a total of eight topics by government professionals (Fig. 3). The most mentioned topic included historic/traditional and current Indigenous use of caribou, as well as why caribou are an important species to Indigenous peoples, followed by the significance of caribou decline on Indigenous communities (Fig. 3). It was also mentioned that information on the role that Indigenous communities would like to have in caribou recovery and management would be beneficial (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3.
In response to what purpose and/or value sharing ecological, social, cultural, and other relevant IK on caribou could have, most government professionals indicated an unspecified value for caribou conservation and planning (Fig. 4). There was a general sense that the more IK collected and shared, the better. There was also a shared belief that IK could fill many information gaps in western science, particularly at a temporal scale, that could aid in caribou recovery planning.
Fig. 4.
When asked how shared IK was anticipated to be engaged in caribou recovery, most government professionals provided a general statement of including IK in federal and/or provincial government decision-making and recovery actions (Fig. 5). Other responses from government professionals specifically mentioned that IK could benefit caribou herd planning (at the provincial level) and the amendment of the federal Recovery Strategy for Southern Mountain caribou (Environment Canada 2014; Fig. 5). Specific methods of weaving knowledge systems together (i.e., IK and Western Science) were not indicated in any response.
Fig. 5.
Indigenous knowledge interviews
A total of seven Indigenous participants from Lhtako Dene Nation were interviewed. Two participants were men, and five participants were women. The youngest person interviewed was a young adult (30s age group) and two participants were Elders. All participants indicated that they or a family member have hunted caribou in their lifetime, and 70% of participants indicated that they have eaten caribou, while 30% had not eaten caribou. The caribou herds Indigenous participants stated they had hunted and/or had eaten, included both eastern herds in Lhtako Dene traditional territory (40% of participants) and western herds in the Chilcotin (40% of participants). One participant indicated that they had hunted caribou outside of BC.
The seven interviewees were invited and attended the results verification meeting. All Lhtako Dene Elders were invited to participate in the meeting and an additional five Elders joined, bringing the total number of Elders participating in the verification process to seven.
Indigenous knowledge on caribou demographic information
Most of the participants interviewed (70%) indicated that they observed a decrease in the caribou population(s) over the last 5 to 10 years, while one participant indicated that the caribou had increased, and one participant indicated that caribou have remained the same.
“[Caribou is] probably more like a delicacy now- it's hard to come by.”-Participant 7
“[Caribou have] probably declined because I haven't seen [any]. Even when I'm hunting moose, you know, we never see them. Back in the west and back in Barkerville […] never seen any, so it's really declined.”-Participant 4
IK on causes for caribou decline included development (e.g., mining, forestry and urbanization) and predation, primarily by wolves (Fig. 6). Other factors mentioned included wildfires, and the presence of new species such as white-tailed deer that can displace caribou out of an area (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6.
When asked about caribou body conditions, 60% of participants indicated that caribou observed recently were in good body condition, while 30% indicated that caribou were in poor body condition, particularly in the spring. One participant was unsure about caribou body conditions recently observed.
“The ones I[“ve] seen in Lhoosk'uz, they were pretty healthy. They look beautiful, just you know, not bony or anything. And at Barkerville I[‘ve] seen them- it was spring time, so they had their winter hair, so they look kinda [in] good shape and the young ones too- they seem to be ok- walking ok- so I didn't see anything wrong with them.”-Participant 5
“We'd see a couple here and there but the ones we did see they […] didn't look very healthy. It was poor but I'm pretty sure it was tick season too, they had hair patches.”-Participant 1
Few participants had knowledge on changes in caribou distribution and/or range retraction, or changes to caribou movement patterns. Two participants indicated that caribou used to be more dispersed and closer to the city of Quesnel, BC.
“I think basically in the settled areas- [the caribou] had moved away and come further out. Like out in [Barkerville] and out towards Esdilagh. And northwest of there and northeast of Quesnel and East out into the Bowron Lakes […] maybe to the southwest. I've heard of them being down like into Quesnel Lake and I haven't heard of any to the south [of there].”-Participant 7
Social-ecological knowledge on caribou
The importance of caribou to the Southern Dakelh People was mainly expressed as being related to both subsistence as a source of food and for its cultural value in maintaining traditions and knowledge, particularly for younger generations. The importance of caribou in helping community members reconnect with the land and traditional ways of life was also expressed.
“If somebody drops off caribou, I'd be extremely happy because I have to feed my family for, however long I can. Anything like fish and moose meat but caribou, we get excited when we get caribou, because we don't get it that much.”-Participant 1
“I really believe that the caribou have a lot to teach us, if we had every[one] come out to hunt or to observe a game […] when we were hunting an animal- it brings us into [our] territory. This territory out here [Barkerville] is a lot different than our territory back in town- and so we would have an extended stay out here and we would be practicing different cultural practices. And we would be teaching all of this, [and] learning different parts of our territory with regards to different medicines and berries that we would pick on this territory as opposed to vegetation that we would find back home. And the other animals that we would hunt or gather here. That would be one of the main things that the caribou would be teaching, just by us coming out and seeking them. We would automatically have to adapt to the surroundings.”-Participant 7
The importance of caribou to the Southern Dakelh in previous generations was similarly expressed as related to subsistence as a source of food and for its cultural value. The strong reliance on caribou in previous generations was highlighted.
“From what I've heard [caribou] was just as important as moose and deer. So, it was kind of a necessity.”-Participant 2
“[Caribou] was pretty important because that was the main herds in the area. A lot of our people, the Carrier people, that was their main food source pre-contact and they pretty much used the caribou for everything. Like for sewing for thread, the hide for making clothing and moccasins and stuff like that and the bones for tools, all that kind of stuff. When a young boy became a man he had to shoot his own caribou […] that was kind of like a coming of man ceremony. So, they would send him out in the bush and he'd have to come back with an animal and the preferred one was a caribou because there was mostly caribou back then. And this was before the moose was introduced into our area, because moose is a northern animal, so the moose pushed a lot of the caribou out of our area. Around contact times- the non-native people put out a bounty on the caribou herds in this [Barkerville] area. Similar to what they did to the Plains Buffalo and they told the non-native to just kill as many caribou as they can for themselves so they can starve our people out of the bush and […] make us come to the cities to depend on the governments and stuff.”-Participant 3
All participants felt that their current needs for caribou, including for food and traditional purposes, were not being met. The impacts of the decline in caribou were linked to a loss in social and cultural values and a loss in knowledge, including many traditions and ceremonies that could not be passed down to younger generations (Fig. 7). Additional impacts of caribou declines included changes in the traditional diet, having to rely more on store bought foods that have negative impacts on people's health, as well as requiring more money to spend on food (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7.
Indigenous perspectives on caribou management
All participants indicated that they did not believe that enough was being done to help protect and recover caribou populations. A main factor that was mentioned included that there was poor communication with Indigenous Nations on caribou management and recovery actions.
“I think the starting point just started and we have no communication with whoever is trying to protect [the caribou], like through government or game warden or whoever is supposed to protect [the caribou]. There has to be a main person in the government and the main person in with the band. Right now, we need Elders- we have an Elders group here- we need to communicate with our Chief and Council, the band manager and all that. We have to be on the same page as [those] dealing with people that are trying to protect the caribou. We need to hear about it as Hunters and Elders and we have to come together and work together.”-Participant 5
All participants indicated that they were not aware of any current management practices taking place for caribou and that they were not adequately informed about caribou recovery. When participants were asked what they believed should be done to protect and recover caribou populations, a few different options were mentioned. Options included conducting more research on declining caribou herds to identify direct causes of declines, introducing conservation breeding and/or maternal penning to preserve population numbers, as well as sharing more knowledge on ways to preserve populations and the importance of conservation, particularly for younger generations. It was expressed that sharing knowledge on the importance of caribou conservation would also allow younger generations to respect the species more and may prevent people from harvesting animals before it was sustainable to do so. Some traditional management practices were described by participants, and these were centered on sustainable harvesting practices.
“There is a system that we had back[then], pre-contact. I remember my uncle William telling me the same story when I was a young kid and he said when there's a herd of moose or a herd or elk, whatever animal you are hunting, you gotta leave the big ones, the big bull moose, because they are the ones making the babies with the momma animals right? Then you got the ones that are younger than the bigger bull moose and you gotta leave those ones behind because there are the ones that are going to take over after the big bull moose are gone. And the ones that are diseased you leave those ones, you don't shoot those ones, because those ones feed the wolves, you know. And then the ones that are in between, like the bucks and the diseased, there is more [of] those and those are the ones that you take. So that's a traditional teaching that my uncle William talked a lot [about] from Kluskus and here. So, we had a system on how we hunted them because each one was for a purpose, each animal in the herd has a purpose for the environment, so it could be equal.”-Participant 3
“I mean we as a First Nation's people only kill when it is needed. And […] we try to utilize every part of the animal. If we are to kill a wolf we use the hide for clothing or something or other and the same would be for any part of the animal that we could utilize. We would not shoot it and leave it there to die- because every animal has a spirit, every living thing has a spirit.”-Participant 7
When participants were asked if they agreed with predator control as a management strategy to protect caribou populations, 70% of participants agreed and 30% of participants were unsure. Some participants also indicated that wolves were not the only predators for caribou that should be considered in recovery planning.
“It's not only the wolves, it's the grizzly bears too that's getting [the caribou]. Spring time, especially. That's when they're really hungry and they go after a moose, caribou, any sight of animals. We have that problem at the ranch. We're always losing calves and our cattle to the grizzlies […] because we are up in the mountains.”-Participant 4
Furthermore, strong support was indicated for the participation of First Nations in predator control for caribou recovery. A key rationale for First Nations involvement in predator control included ensuring that it was conducted ethically and in a way that respected the significance of wolves for First Nations communities and culture.
“There has to be some kind of process […] having respect for nature. [O]ur people respect animals and we need to do a proper ceremony if we are killing off the wolves, not killing them off but, managing them. There would need [to be] ceremonies or something that would need to be done beforehand.”-Participant 1
However, no participant agreed with moose control as a management strategy for caribou. Many participants felt that the moose population was too important for Indigenous communities as a source of food, and some participants also felt that the moose population was already declining and could be managed through subsistence harvesting.
“I think moose population would be maintained by just native people anyways, because that's the main source of food [for us].”-Participant 1
All participants agreed that Indigenous People should play a significant role in caribou recovery planning and implementation of management actions, including predator control. The importance of IK from Elders was emphasized.
“[Indigenous People] should have a big role in there, because it's our land and we want the best for our land, we don't want people all over. And the elders know a lot of stuff to help and they can guide other people, like how to go about the stuff instead of just sending colonizers in to do a job that maybe we would want to [do and] would benefit from.”-Participant 1
“[We need to have] more involvement with our people in that management system so that the herds can be preserved better. Because we, our people, lived with these animals for thousands of years, we kind of know how to manage them- you know- it's not like some European way of doing things, where they did it differently. [S]o they should have a lot more involvement of our people in those systems. Because it is, it was, our livelihood- but now its kind of not there anymore.”-Participant 3
The importance of including IK in species recovery planning was also emphasized by participants. However, it was also mentioned that most IK has been lost over time due to post-colonial displacement of Indigenous Peoples from their traditional lands and the loss in traditional ways of life. The value of re-learning traditional ways and re-gaining IK from Knowledge Holders from other Indigenous communities that still maintain traditional ways of life with caribou was also expressed.
“We had probably lost any traditional knowledge that we may have [had] down here with regard to this herd because they are so few and we as a people hadn't been out engaging with the animals and […] being out on the land and seeing them. But I mean traditional knowledge doesn't have to be from us. If we […] were to go and mingle with the people up in the north and learn their traditional knowledge and practices because […] no matter what First Nation we all feel that the animals have spirits, and we have the same beliefs whether we practice the same or not. We all believe that the animals have spirits and that they have to be treated with respect. They had been dealing with [caribou] for thousands of years up in the North and they are more numerous. To see how they practice their hunting and how they interact we could probably learn a lot from them even if it were just like for a hunting season to go out there and see how they practice their hunting and listen to their stories. Stories have always been a big part of our heritage and to go up and listen to the Inuit or whomever has the knowledge.”-Participant 7
All participants strongly agreed that autonomous (i.e., Nation-led) caribou monitoring should be conducted within the community and that it would strengthen the contribution of Indigenous People and their knowledge to caribou recovery. It was also emphasized that community-based monitoring would have a positive effect on the community and could support jobs and interest in species conservation and management, particularly for younger generations.
“Yes, I do think that First Nation led monitoring, if this were to be made and it doesn't have to be lucrative, but for youth to know that they would have a future in this type of field and know that they have a meaningful job, it would give them something to strive for instead of something that they are forcing themselves to get up and do everyday. I feel that for the most part, a lot of First Nations would rather be out in a setting like this as opposed to sitting in a gas station or a supermarket or something in the city. To be able to get up and say I'm going to get up and go out into the bush and go and help the caribou or something or other. It gives them something to look forward to.”-Participant 7
Discussion
As we show here, by applying a structured process that respectfully facilitates what IK is being asked for from Indigenous knowledge holders, information that can provide tangible benefits to species recovery can be brought to the forefront. Our study highlights that while it is important that requests for IK from knowledge holders be specific on what is being sought, requests need to also be open to all information types that are shared by knowledge holders and mindful of the holistic nature of IK and how it is formed.
Although government professionals identified 24 key demographic, ecological, social and cultural topics on caribou to aid in recovery planning, Indigenous participants often intertwined ecological and social information on caribou. The knowledge shared was expressed as being based on life experiences, maintaining traditional-ways-of life and knowledge sharing passed on from family members. For example, for many Indigenous participants, knowledge of changes in the caribou population was based on past and current experiences of family members harvesting a caribou and memories of how the animal was used for purposes such as food, tools, clothing and ceremonies. IK does not always distinguish between cultural, spiritual, and ecological practice and experiences that can evolve over time, which can create obstacles for weaving IK and Western Science (Hill et al. 2020; Jessen et al. 2022; Stern and Humphries 2022). Knowledge sharing was also communicated many times through storytelling, which is the core way for knowledge transfer and learning for many First Nation communities (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021). For caribou recovery planning, clarity on how collected information will be documented, woven with western science, and/or used to guide decision making can help Indigenous knowledge holders understand the context in which the knowledge they are contributing will be applied and bring certain information types to the forefront of conversations.
When government professionals were asked how IK would contribute to caribou recovery planning, details were often unspecified. Transparency on the expectations and outcomes of knowledge sharing is a critical step to build trust and reciprocity throughout the engagement process (Alexander et al. 2019; Henri et al. 2021; Jessen et al. 2022). A framework that outlines what knowledge is requested and how specific information will be woven with western science can also clarify expectations for the process, ensure that the role of IK is respected, and streamline the step of weaving knowledge systems. It is well documented that moving past using IK to simply fill knowledge gaps in western science and fusing multiple worldviews rather than being selective or favoring one knowledge system over the other can achieve more holistic species conservation action and results (Popp et al. 2019; Latulippe and Klenk 2020). Our results in this study suggest that an understanding of weaving knowledge systems and expectations for how this would be achieved is a current shortcoming of southern mountain caribou recovery planning that needs to be addressed.
When participants were asked about key information on caribou demographics, including information on caribou movement patterns, habitat use, and past distribution, we found that this knowledge was largely absent. Additionally, the effects of land dispossession and imposed historic and contemporary colonial systems were reflected in the responses of Lhtako Dene participants. We argue that the decline in IK and its impacts on Indigenous well-being needs to be part of the discourse surrounding how IK is solicited, shared, and interwoven with Western science. Notably, IK used in recovery planning should include information that signifies the impacts of wildlife population declines on Indigenous ways-of-life and well-being, which shapes the core of how IK exists and is formed (M'sɨt No'kmaq et al. 2021; Jessen et al. 2022; Priadka et al. 2022). The ongoing decline of caribou is likely to continue to threaten not only the reliance on caribou in indigenous communities for food, social and ceremonial purposes, but also the preservation of traditional ways-of-life and knowledge that has been declining over recent generations. Despite the loss in their relationship with caribou, there was strong interest from Lhtako Dene participants to help their younger generations re-gain traditional connections to and knowledge on caribou. It was suggested by a Lhtako Dene member during the interviews that IK could be recovered through knowledge sharing with other Indigenous groups. Through reconciliation efforts, facilitating the resurgence of precolonialism IK and traditions should become a core part of caribou recovery objectives and could start as capacity building and opportunity for IK transfer and/or exchange (if consented) across Indigenous groups.
In addition to IK weaving for species recovery, Indigenous Peoples should also be included in caribou recovery decisions. There was also strong support for predator control as a recovery strategy; however, not all participants agreed with aerial-based culls, as it does not align with traditional values. To strengthen meaningful working relationships, the BC government should collaborate with First Nations in the implementation of recovery actions such as predator control and find holistic solutions that are supported by all partners. In our study, all participants were highly supportive of community-based caribou monitoring and research, and believed that their community should be involved in recovery actions. In response to the concerns and wishes expressed by Lhtako participants to be more actively involved in caribou monitoring and management, the SDNA has started caribou monitoring projects on Lhtako Dene's traditional territory to contribute to caribou decision-making and recovery. By establishing on-the ground community-based monitoring, members have greater opportunity to reconnect with the land and regain IK that has been lost due to dispossession from traditional ways-of-life, while improving the Nations’ capacity to contribute to species recovery and planning (Popp et al. 2020; Reed et al. 2020; Priadka et al. 2022).
We acknowledge that different First Nations will have different needs and capacity to participate in species recovery planning, and that engagement processes should be Nation-specific. We also stress that engagement and IK-sharing processes should be co-developed with Indigenous partners to be culturally sensitive to how knowledge holders of the community wish to share IK. Our two-stage process allowed for respectful IK collection on caribou with Lhtako Dene knowledge holders; however, other interview methods (e.g., group or Sharing Circle interviews; Rothe et al. 2009) may be better suited for the community or topic of interest and should be considered.
Our case-study would have also been strengthened by receiving more detailed information from government professional surveys on how shared IK would be documented, woven with western science, and ultimately contribute tangible benefits to caribou recovery. Without this information, it was difficult to provide certainty in the value and outcome of the knowledge collected. More opportunities to strengthen collaborative partnerships, levels of communication and promote engagement past IK sharing are still needed and should be strived for across all species conservation initiatives. As Lhtako Dene participants had indicated, the Nation has a desire to contribute more towards caribou recovery. We recognize the commitments and effort made by federal and provincial government biologists to be inclusive and promote positive and meaningful engagements with First Nations during caribou recovery planning processes. We hope to see a continued effort made by professionals responsible for knowledge weaving, decision-making and the implementation of caribou recovery actions. By acknowledging there is a shared responsibility and desire to see caribou populations recover, collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners can be strengthened to diversify strategies for caribou recovery.
Conclusions
Here, we provide an example of a structured process that identifies and respectfully collects IK that can produce tangible benefits to caribou recovery planning. This study highlights that generalized requests for IK should be avoided, and there should be recognition that in some cases, knowledge on specific ecological and/or cultural components may no longer exist within communities. However, the impacts of displacement and colonialism on Indigenous Peoples should not hinder striving for collaborative decision-making for species-at-risk recovery, and instead the re-emergence of IK on caribou should be included as a federal caribou recovery strategy objective. We suggest that structured processes that respectfully facilitate IK requests and collection become commonplace in species recovery planning.
Acknowledgements
We thank all participants of Lhatko Dene Nation who shared their perspectives and knowledge on caribou, Snachailya (Thank you). We are grateful to all government staff participants who took the time to complete surveys and provide their knowledge and perspectives to enhance this study. We also thank Justine Correia for helping to transcribe the interview recordings. This study was funded by the Nature Fund from Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources, and Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance.
References
Alexander S.M., Provencher J.F., Henri D.A., Taylor J.J., Lloren J.I., Nanayakkara L., et al. 2019. Bridging indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Environmental Evidence, 8(1):1–24.
David-Chavez D.M., Gavin M.C. 2018. A global assessment of indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12): 123005.
Declaration Act. 2019. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (SBC 2019, CHAPTER 44).
Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Gagnon C.A., Hamel S., Russell D.E., Powell T., Andre J., Svoboda M.Y., Berteaux D. 2020. Merging indigenous and scientific knowledge links climate with the growth of a large migratory caribou population. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(9): 1644–1655.
Government of British Columbia. 2021. Population Estimates for Caribou Herds of British Columbia.
Government of British Columbia (Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Caribou Recovery Program). 2023. Predator Reduction to Support Caribou Recovery: 2022-2023 Summary.
Government of Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act: an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Henri D.A., Provencher J.F., Bowles E., Taylor J.J., Steel J., Chelick C., et al. 2021. Weaving indigenous knowledge systems and Western sciences in terrestrial research, monitoring and management in Canada: a protocol for a systematic map. Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 2(2): 12057.
Hill R., Adem Ç., Alangui W.V., Molnár Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y., Bridgewater P., et al. 2020. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43, 8–20.
Huntington H.p. 1998. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51(3): 237–242.
Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 2011. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Jessen T.D., Ban N.C., Claxton N.X., Darimont C.T. 2022. Contributions of indigenous knowledge to ecological and evolutionary understanding. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(2): 93–101.
Latulippe N., Klenk N. 2020. Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42: 7–14.
M'sɨt No'kmaq Marshall A., Beazley K.F., Hum J., joudry S., Papadopoulos A., Pictou S., et al. 2021. “Awakening the sleeping giant”: re-indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and beyond. FACETS, 6(1): 839–869.
Polfus J.L., Heinemeyer K., Hebblewhite M., Taku River Tlingit First Nation. 2014. Comparing traditional ecological knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models. The Journal of wildlife management, 78(1): 112–121.
Polfus J.L., Manseau M., Simmons D., Neyelle M., Bayha W., Andrew F., et al. 2016. Łeghágots' enetę (learning together) the importance of indigenous perspectives in the identification of biological variation. Ecology and Society, 21(2): 18.
Popp J.N., Priadka P., Kozmik C. 2019. The rise of moose co-management and integration of Indigenous knowledge. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(2): 159–167.
Popp J.N., Priadka P., Young M., Koch K., Morgan J. 2020. Indigenous guardianship and moose monitoring: weaving Indigenous and Western ways of knowing. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 14(2): 17.
Priadka P., Moses B., Kozmik C., Kell S., Popp J.N. 2022. Impacts of harvested species declines on Indigenous Peoples’ food sovereignty, well-being and ways of life: a case study of Anishinaabe perspectives and moose. Ecology and Society, 27(1):.
Province of British Columbia. 2022. Declaration on the rights of individuals peoples act action plan 2022-2017. The Government of British Columbia-A New Path Forward website.
Reed G., Brunet N.D., Natcher D.C. 2020. Can indigenous community-based monitoring act as a tool for sustainable self-determination?. The Extractive Industries and Society, 7(4): 1283–1291.
Rothe J.P., Ozegovic D., Carroll L.J. 2009. Innovation in qualitative interviews: “Sharing Circles” in a First Nations community. Injury prevention, 15(5): 334–340.
Santomauro D., Johnson C.J., Fondahl G. 2012. Historical-ecological evaluation of the long- term distribution of woodland caribou and moose in central British Columbia. Ecosphere, 3(5): 1–19.
Statistics Canada. 2016. 2016 Census Aboriginal Community Portrait—Lhtako Dene Nation.
Stern E.R., Humphries M.M. 2022. Interweaving local, expert, and indigenous knowledge into quantitative wildlife analyses: a systematic review. Biological Conservation, 266: 109444.
The First Nations Information Governance Centre. 2014. Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP®): the path to First Nations Information Governance. The First Nations Information Governance Centre, Ottawa, Ontario [online]: Available from https://achh.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/OCAP_FNIGC.pdf.
Supplementary material
Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX / 28 KB).
- Download
- 27.11 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 10 • January 2025
Pages: 1 - 11
Editor: Candace Nykiforuk
History
Received: 11 August 2023
Accepted: 11 June 2024
Version of record online: 3 January 2025
Copyright
© 2025 Lhtako Dene Nation and Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
The knowledge shared in this paper belongs to the knowledge holders and Nation who participated in this study. Access to interview data can be requested by contacting Lhtako Dene Nation or the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: PP, NS, LDN
Data curation: PP
Formal analysis: PP
Funding acquisition: NS
Investigation: PP, NS, LDN
Methodology: PP, NS
Project administration: PP, NS, LDN
Resources: NS, LDN
Software: NS
Supervision: NS
Validation: NS, LDN
Visualization: PP
Writing – original draft: PP
Writing – review & editing: PP, NS, LDN
Competing Interests
The authors have declared that there are no competing interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Pauline Priadka, Nobuya Suzuki, and Lhtako Dene Nation. 2025. Identifying indigenous knowledge components for Whudzih (Caribou) recovery planning. FACETS.
10: 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2023-0139
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item