The purpose of this study is to evaluate the methodologies employed in counting and estimating Native harvests, to assess the utility of existing data, and to recommend improvements for future data collection, management, analysis, and use. The primary geographic focus of this study is the Northwest Territories, where comprehensive surveys are currently underway.

ABSTRACT. Native harvest statistics are counts, or estimates, of the number of animals by category taken by a specific group of native people during a specific time period. These statistics are significant for basic research in the social and biological sciences, for public policy and for the resolution on environmental conflicts in the North. This paper reviews and assesses two common sources of native harvest data- administrative and monitoring records, and special-purpose studies - and provides an extensive bibliography for the latter. Native harvest data are normally obtained by recall survey rather than direct observation. The existing data base is therefore evaluated in terms of the methodological norms of social surveys, with particular attention to precision and uniformity of survey parameters and interview terminology, sampling procedures, non-response bias and response bias. Despite some lack of methodological rigour, especially regarding parameters, terminology and projection from reported harvest, it is, concluded that the existing body of information may be used to recreate an historical statistical series of substantial breadth and depth, useful for both socio-economic and biological research purposes.

This report provides an assessment of the options for collecting statistical data on wildlife harvesting in Nunavut. The authors provide 19 recommendations on topics listed below which parties need to consider in harvest data collection.

1. More precise criteria to aid in design.
2. Identifying the sampling frame (hunter list).
3. Sampling strategy.
4. Promoting high response rates (minimizing non-response bias).
5. Managing response errors.
6. Defining core variables.
7. Effort information.
8. Socio-economic information.
9. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit,
10. Household or individual approach.
11. Reporting frequency.
12. Continuous and detailed record decision.
13. Continuous and detailed record of decisions.
14. Validation procedures, quality assurance and control.
15. Need for management structure and technical oversight.
16.  Communication.
17. Data analysis.
18. Data product.
19. Data access and control.

This paper examines biodiversity monitoring in the context of a community wildlife management program developed with the indigenous organization, the Capitanı´a del Alto y Bajo Isoso. Hunter self-monitoring (100–150 hunters per month) combined with monthly activity records for potential hunters (7637 observed hunter-months) permit estimations of total offtakes of subsistence game species for 1996–2003, as well as catch-per-unit-effort over the same time period. These data show considerable fluctuations from year to year and no declining trends that would suggest over-hunting. Monitoring populations of multiple game species can be relatively expensive, even with the voluntary support of hunters, considering data collection and analysis, as well as presentation and discussion through community meetings. At the same time, monitoring does not provide highly accurate assessments of short-term changes in wildlife resources. However, relatively simple participatory methods are important for generating information on long-term trends and for creating a context for community discussion of formal wildlife management.

This thesis titled Yukon First Nation Wildlife Harvest Data Collection and Management: Lessons Learned and Future Steps.  

In this article the authors defined harvest-based monitoring as the long-term collection of data or samples from a subsistence harvest in order to reveal, document, and track changes in biophysical resources. The objective of the article was to describe five practical steps that have guided us over the past two decades during the delivery of harvest-based monitoring studies in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). Studies have usually been designed to detect (but not necessarily explain) change, to involve local harvesters, and to incorporate indigenous and science-based knowledge. The five steps are to (1) formulate a scientific research or long-term monitoring question that can reasonably be answered by analyzing data from harvests or harvested specimens, (2) design the program according to scientific and indigenous protocols, (3) determine respective partner roles for delivery of the field program, (4) conduct the field work, and (5) analyze data and communicate results. At all steps, it is important to ensure that science and indigenous knowledge partners respect and trust each other’s skills, knowledge, and abilities; that regular communication is fostered; and that provisions are in place to monitor progress. The credible blending of indigenous and scientific views and skills improves the likelihood of ultimately understanding the resource, its habitats, and its inherent ecological relationships.

This is notes on the Northern Tutchone May Gathering, May 53-25, 2012, taken by Walter Bayha and Deborah Simmons. This is an annual gathering of Northern Tutchone peoples of the Selkirk First Nation (Pelly Crossing), Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (Carmacks), and Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation (Mayo). For the last twelve years this gathering has provided a forum for First Nations harvesters to make decisions on salmon, moose, caribou and sheep harvests, and other issues affecting wildlife.

This technical report presents the findings of a review of methods commonly used in harvest surveys in the north of Canada, as well as findings from a review and assessment of the Sahtú Settlement Harvest Study in particular. The work was done at the request of the Ɂehdzo Got’ı nę Gots’e ̨́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources Board [SRRB]). Included in this report are recommendations for maintaining and using the existing harvest study data, bringing the initial study to completion, and considerations for future harvest study work in the region.

This is a report on the Sahtú Harvest Study data collection and analysis methods. Further study results and analyses are included in separate reports. The report is divided into five sections:

1. Study Background – Contains an overview of requirements for the Harvest Study as described in the Land Claim Agreement. Details are provided about Sahtú Minimum Needs Levels (SMNL) calculations and how they may be used to help protect Sahtú Dene and Métis harvesting traditions in the event of any future harvest limitations. This section also describes how the Study was designed and coordinated.
2. Study Methods and Implementation – Provides details on study area and timing, data collection methods, and how information was managed and stored.
3. Data Analysis – Describes the necessary calculations and statistical analyses for estimating total harvests from harvests recorded by Community Interviewers.
4. Data Reliability – Provides a discussion of how well the SHS met the assumptions of the statistical analysis, as well as any known strengths and weaknesses of the dataset.
5. Conclusion – An overall assessment of Study data accuracy and reliability is provided, along with caveats for use of the information.

This report is intended to be used as a way of communicating how the Sahtú Harvest Study was conducted, with the goal of better informing researchers, managers and any others who intend to use the information resulting from the Study.