A Conservation Perspective

Arctic Tern

The Canadian Nature Federation believes that the Migratory Birds Convention should be amended to legalize the traditional spring hunt by aboriginal people in a manner that will ensure both healthy waterfowl populations and fairness to all North Americans. At the same time, the federation sees a number of other issues that require attentlon.

During the last 50 years, the context of the aboriginal spring hunt has changed considerably. While the traditional and associated spiritual values of the hunt remain, in many cases, northern residents no longer face winters of near-starvation and the resulting need for fresh meat in spring is not as urgent; the carrying capacity of the species' habitats has decreased as a result of development; and aboriginal hunting now involves all the technology used by non-native hunters. Consequently, the potential for over-harvesting has increased greatly.

Given this context, the well-being of the resource must be given top priority. The legalization of a spring hunt, while giving equitable access to the resource, must be accompanied by a redistribution of hunting quotas. Bag limits and/or the duration of the hunting season in the south will have to be reduced to reflect the fact that killing a breeding female in spring is equivalent to taking her and her offspring in the fall.

From the conservation perspective, it matters little whether a bird is shot by a native or non-native hunter. A spring hunt is acceptable only if it is conducted in a manner that ensures maintaining, or attaining, healthy populations of all species; this includes allowing declining populations to recover. Consequently, there must be a mechanism in place to close all hunting of a species, including that by aboriginal people, if that becomes necessary for conservation purposes. This could be accomplished through co-management agreements. Undoubtedly, the effectiveness of such agreements will be scrutinized by all stakeholders and the parties involved will be held accountable.

Although equitable access to the resource provided the impetus to amend the MBC, the purpose of the convention is to protect migratory birds. Because threats have changed since the signing of the convention in 1916, amendments should reflect this change.

The MBC lists birds currently protected by the convention, but not all Canadian and U.S. migratory bird species are on that list. Pelicans, cormorants, birds of prey, blackbirds, and all members of the grouse and crow families have been excluded for no valid reason. The MBC should be amended to cover all migratory birds, including the migratory members of these groups.

Continentally endangered species need enhanced protection. Endangered species lists in Canada and the U.S. continue to grow at an alarming rate, and some species are teetering on the brink of extinction. The U.S. has federal endangered species legislation that provides some protection to birds considered endangered in that country. Canada, however, does not have equivalent legislation. Several provinces have enacted endangered species acts, but the level of protection provided is uneven. Moreover, because migratory birds are under federal jurisdiction, they do not benefit from provincial legislation. As a result, the maximum fine for shooting a very common American Robin is exactly the same as that for killing an endangered Piping Plover or Whooping Crane.

Although Canadian endangered species legislation is highly desirable, it would not provide a complete solution to this problem. Consistent, continent-wide protection for continentally endangered birds is required to ensure that these species do not become extinct. Consequently, a welcome addition to the MBC would be an article that would allow authorities to periodically designate species of birds as endangered for the purposes of the convention. To provide extra protection, stiff penalties that would act as true deterrents could then be imposed for infractions against endangered species.

At the other end of the spectrum, the current MBC makes provisions for the control of nuisance birds in specific locations when such action is warranted. The convention should be updated to regulate the newest technologies used in the often-controversial control of nuisance birds. Also, it should recognize explicitly that at times it is necessary to control one species to preserve another.

Protective legislation, no matter how tough, is of little use if birds do not have the habitats that support them. Currently, severe reduction in the quantity and quality of habitat is the leading cause of population decline. Without measures to protect landscapes and prevent ecological degradation, the MBC will fail to achieve its declared aim of sustaining bird populations; and the convention's amendments should reflect this reality by ensuring a strong emphasis on habitat protection for all species.

Although the spring hunt is an important issue, the widespread tendency to ignore other problems, and the apparent unwillingness to deal with them, is unacceptable. It took almost 80 years to open the convention. Will serious problems unrelated to waterfowl exploitation have to wait for another 80 years to be addressed?

Theresa Aniskowicz is Director, Biodiversity Conservation, Canadian Nature Federation.