YUKON WILDLIFE ACT PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES

Transcription

1 YUKON WILDLIFE ACT PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES

2 2

3 SUMMARY FISHERIES HUNTING TRAPPING OTHER PROPOSAL 1 Fish Lake General Waters to Special Management G Yukon Government p. 4-6 PROPOSAL 2 Lake Laberge General Waters to Conservation Waters Yukon Government p. 7-9 PROPOSAL 3 Little Salmon Lake General Waters to Special Management G Yukon Government p PROPOSAL 4 Nares Lake & Nares River General Waters to Conservation Waters Yukon Government p PROPOSAL 5 Ladue Lake Fishing Regulations Change Mayo RRC p PROPOSAL 6 Mayo Lake Fishing Regulations Change Mayo RRC p PROPOSAL 7 Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection/Decontamination Authority Yukon Government p PROPOSAL 8 Close extended moose hunt & issue more permits Alsek RRC p PROPOSAL 9 Allow for the abandonment of either meat or hide of black bears Alsek RRC p. 27 PROPOSAL 10 Sheep Hunting Closure in the Thacha l Dhǟl (Sheep Mountain) Area Parks Canada, Kluane First Nation, Dan Keyi RRC p PROPOSAL 11 Pelt Sealing/Verification of Marten Harvest Carcross-Tagish RRC p PROPOSAL 12 Wolverine Trapping Season Adjustment Yukon Government, Carcross-Tagish RRC p PROPOSAL 13 Personal Exemption Amount for Export Permit for Meat Yukon Government p. 35 PROPOSAL 14 Allow Youth Hunters (without HEED) Under Age of 12 to Hunt Yukon Government p. 36 Administrative Proposals Yukon Government p

4 PROPOSAL 1: Fish Lake General Waters to Special Management G Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Fish and Wildlife Branch, Environment Yukon Change from General Waters to Special Management Waters G for Fish Lake. Change limits in Fish Lake to: Lake Trout catch limit of 1, possession limit of 1. All trout cm (26-39 ) must be released Arctic grayling catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All grayling cm (16-19 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 48 cm (19 ) Northern pike catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All pike cm (30-41 ) in length must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 105 cm (41 ) (Note that there are no Northern Pike present in Fish Lake) Barbless hooks mandatory. Angling effort and lake trout harvest from Fish Lake has been increasing in recent years. Recent surveys indicate that the population is healthy, but surveys of the fishery indicate cause for concern high angling effort across seasons, high retention rates, known recreational harvest exceeds sustainable limits. Fish Lake is one of only a few road accessible lakes remaining under the General Water regulations. Reducing limits will reduce some harvest pressure on this lake but also provide regulatory consistency and consistency of YG s fishery management approach. Changing Fish Lake regulations from General Waters to Special Management Waters is important for conservation of fish stock and to maintain sustainable harvest opportunities on this lake. 4

5 PROPOSAL 1: Fish Lake General Waters to Special Management G Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Between 1996 and 2015, Environment Yukon conducted 6 lake trout netting surveys and 3 angler harvest surveys of Fish Lake. Additional fisheries assessments were conducted for the Yukon Electric Water Licence renewal in The netting survey results have been consistent in showing high lake trout densities. However, recent angler harvest surveys show very high angler effort with slightly below average angler success. The combination of a high retention rate and harvest success results in lake trout harvest that regularly exceeds sustainable levels. This proposal has been discussed with Environment staff and the YFWMB during screening. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? Have discussed this issue with KDFN in past years where KDFN indicated that they would be supportive of more restrictive angling regulations on Fish Lake given the level of harvest. 5

6 PROPOSAL 1: Fish Lake General Waters to Special Management G [Insert any maps or visuals here] 6

7 PROPOSAL 2: Lake Laberge General Waters to Conservation Waters Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Fish and Wildlife Branch, Environment Yukon Change from General Waters to Conservation Waters for Lake Laberge. Change limits in Lake Laberge to: Lake Trout catch limit of 2, possession limit of 2. All trout cm (26-39 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 100 cm (39 ). Arctic grayling catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All grayling cm (16-19 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 48 cm (19 ) Northern pike catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All pike cm (30-41 ) in length must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 105 cm (41 ) Barbless hooks mandatory. There is a long history of fish exploitation on Lake Laberge (since the Gold Rush), and the density of lake trout has been moderate/low for decades, and is below levels expected given lake productivity. Multiple indicators suggest a conservation concern for lake trout including consistently high angler effort and low catch rates. Evidence from netting surveys, angler harvest surveys, and previous experience with Yukon fisheries indicate that, without a change, lake trout abundance will remain low and may decline. Changing regulations from General Waters to Conservation Waters is critical for protecting the larger breeding fish and maintaining harvest opportunities on the lake. 7

8 PROPOSAL 2: Lake Laberge General Waters to Conservation Waters Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Between 1990 and 2016, Environment Yukon conducted 6 lake trout netting surveys and 3 Angler Harvest surveys of Lake Laberge. The most recent netting survey (2016) was consistent with past surveys showing moderate/low lake trout densities. Harvest trends show high angler effort, low angler success, harvest of large fish out of proportion to their abundance in the population, and a very long history of variable harvest. Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? This proposal has been discussed internally with Environment and with the YFWMB during screening. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? The Laberge RRC was contacted and they were generally in favour of this proposal. 8

9 PROPOSAL 2: Lake Laberge General Waters to Conservation Waters 9

10 PROPOSAL 3: Little Salmon Lake General Waters to Special Management G Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Fish and Wildlife Branch, Environment Yukon Change from General Waters to Special Management Waters G for Little Salmon Lake Change limits in Little Salmon Lake to: Lake Trout catch limit of 1, possession limit of 1. All trout longer than 65 cm (26 ) must be released. Arctic grayling catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All grayling cm (16-19 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 48 cm (19 ) Northern pike catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All pike cm (30-41 ) in length must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 105 cm (41 ) Barbless hooks mandatory. The density of lake trout in Little Salmon Lake has been low since our first survey of the lake in 1994, and remains low based on a 2015 population assessment survey. Our surveys of the fish population and the fishery in 2015 have provided troubling signs that cause concern: there are far fewer large lake trout in the population than expected. This means there are fewer large breeding trout to maintain the population over the long term. Only small, young lake trout were harvested in 2015, many of them before sexual maturity, meaning they did not survive to spawn. Anglers are keeping a majority of lake trout they catch. 10

11 PROPOSAL 3: Little Salmon Lake General Waters to Special Management G Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Between 1994 and 2015, Environment Yukon conducted 4 lake trout netting surveys and 1 angler harvest survey of Little Salmon Lake. The most recent netting survey (2015) was consistent with past surveys showing low lake trout densities. The single angler harvest survey (2015) shows moderate angler effort, below average angler success, a high retention rate, and most concerning, a lake trout harvest dominated by small, young fish. There is also anecdotal evidence of a long history of variable effort and harvest, at times high. This proposal has been discussed internally with Environment staff. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Who has been contacted that could be affected? Has not been previously submitted. Department staff discussed with LSCFN and CRRC. Both parties expressed support for this proposal. 11

12 PROPOSAL 3: Little Salmon Lake General Waters to Special Management G 12

13 PROPOSAL 4: Nares Lake + Nares River General Waters to Conservation Waters Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Fish and Wildlife Branch, Environment Yukon Change from General Waters to Conservation Waters. Change limits in Nares Lake and Nares River to: Lake Trout catch limit of 2, possession limit of 2. All trout cm (26-39 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 100 cm (39 ). Arctic grayling catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All grayling cm (16-19 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 48 cm (19 ) Northern pike catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All pike cm (30-41 ) in length must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 105 cm (41 ) Barbless hooks mandatory. With the exception of Nares Lake and River, all other waterbodies comprising the Southern Lakes (Bennett Lake, Tagish Lake, Tagish (Six Mile) River and Marsh Lake) have been under Conservation or Special Management Water regulations since the mid-1990 s. The current General Management Waters status for Nares Lake and River exists due to an administrative oversight. We propose that Nares River and Lake have regulations which align with regulations currently in effect for the other Southern Lakes and Rivers. 13

14 PROPOSAL 4: Nares Lake + Nares River General Waters to Conservation Waters Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Current scientific studies, as well as local and traditional knowledge have demonstrated that fish move throughout the Southern Lakes System. Nares Lake is small and joins Nares River to Tagish Lake (Windy Arm). Current studies of this fishery are underway (unpublished YG data) and preliminary results and local knowledge indicate that fishing pressure and harvest are moderate. Sustainability concerns exist for the Southern Lakes as a whole, and allowing higher harvest and the retention of slot sized fish for one portion of the complex is inconsistent. This proposal has been discussed internally with Environment staff. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? We have met with both CTFN and the CTRRC and indicated their support for this proposal. 14

15 PROPOSAL 4: Nares Lake + Nares River General Waters to Conservation Waters [Insert any maps or visuals here] 15

16 PROPOSAL 5: Ladue Lake Fishing Regulations Change Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Mayo District Renewable Resources Council Change from General Waters to Special Management Waters C. Change limits in Ladue Lake to: Lake Trout catch limit of 1, possession limit of 1. All trout longer than 65 cm (26 ) must be released Arctic grayling catch limit of 2, possession limit of 2. All grayling longer than 40cm (16 ) must be released. Northern pike catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All pike longer than 75cm (30 ) must be released. Barbless hooks mandatory We would like to take this proactive step for the conservation of lake trout in Ladue Lake. In recent years, local residents who know this lake best have reported a decline in the lake trout fishery. There is presently a proposal by ATAC Resources before YESAB to construct an all-season tote road that would pass along the southern shore of this lake. This road would greatly increase access to the lake. We are proposing the change in lake designation rather than changes only in lake trout limits because of Environment Yukon s stated desire to keep fishing regulations simple and have all lakes with regulations consistent with one of the existing designations. 16

17 PROPOSAL 5: Ladue Lake Fishing Regulations Change Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Our source of information about negative trends in numbers and sizes of trout in the lake comes from local knowledge, reported by people who have fished the lake for decades. A survey was completed by the Department of Environment during the summer of Survey results have not yet been compiled. There have also been no surveys of angler harvest ( creel surveys) in Ladue Lake to date. Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Proposal has been discussed and supported by the Yukon Fish & Wildlife Branch s Fisheries Biologist, Senior Fisheries Biologist, and Northern Tutchone Regional Biologist, and recommended the Special Management Waters Category C designation for this lake. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? Lands & Resources Department of the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun are in support of this proposal. 17

18 PROPOSAL 5: Ladue Lake Fishing Regulations Change 18

19 PROPOSAL 6: Mayo Lake Fishing Regulations Change Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Mayo District Renewable Resources Council Change from General Waters to Conservation Waters. Change limits in Mayo Lake to: Lake Trout catch limit of 2, possession limit of 2. All trout cm (26-39 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 100 cm (39 ). Arctic grayling catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All grayling cm (16-19 ) must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 48 cm (19 ) Northern pike catch limit of 4, possession limit of 4. All pike cm (30-41 ) in length must be released. Only 1 may be longer than 105 cm (41 ) Barbless hooks mandatory. Mayo Lake is presently one of the few large lakes in the Yukon with the liberal catch limits of General Waters. It is road accessible and we do not want to see the negative trends we have been observing continue. Water levels in the lake are controlled for hydroelectric power generation and Yukon Energy has recently proposed lowering over-winter water levels by an additional 1 metre, which may adversely affect survival of lake trout eggs and eventually negatively affect lake trout populations. We are proposing the change in lake designation rather than changes only in lake trout limits because of Environment Yukon s stated desire to keep fishing regulations simple and have all lakes with regulations consistent with one of the existing designations. 19

20 PROPOSAL 6: Mayo Lake Fishing Regulations Change Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? We would like to take this proactive step for the conservation of lake trout in Mayo Lake. In recent years, local residents have reported a decline in trout fishing quality and success on the lake, with lower numbers and sizes of lake trout caught. They have also observed higher fishing pressure. A survey by EDI of trout in the lake in 2014 indicated a healthy mix of age classes but low abundance of trout in the lake, and low densities compared to other similar-sized Yukon lakes. Yukon Fish & Wildlife Branch biologists (Yukon Fish & Wildlife Branch s Fisheries Biologist, Senior Fisheries Biologist, and Northern Tutchone Regional Biologist) expressed support for the RRC in going ahead with this proposal and recommended the Conservation Waters designation for this lake. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? Lands & Resources Department of the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun are in support of this proposal. 20

21 PROPOSAL 6: Mayo Lake Fishing Regulations Change 21

22 PROPOSAL 7: Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection/Decontamination Authority Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Fish and Wildlife Branch, Environment Yukon Proposal is to add Yukon into Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations (Canadian Fisheries Act) (Schedule 1, Part 2) for zebra and quagga mussels. Listing Yukon as a prohibited jurisdiction for the possession, transportation and release of zebra and quagga mussels would enable Yukon to develop an AIS program whereby authorized officials could stop, detain for inspection, order decontamination and quarantine of watercraft where contamination is suspected. The introduction of invasive mussels (zebra and quagga mussels) will pose serious threats to Yukon waters. Where they have been introduced elsewhere, they have significantly altered ecosystems and impacted fisheries, tourism and recreation. Invasive mussels foul underwater infrastructure and have caused millions of dollars in damage to hydro power generation, agricultural and municipal water supplies and recreational boating. Once established, invasive mussels are very difficult to control and eradicate. Watercraft are the key means of transport for invasive mussels between jurisdictions. This proposal would provide regulatory authority to prevent invasive mussels from entering Yukon water. Where real examples are encountered, Yukon currently does not have the regulatory authority or tools to respond beyond the use of education. 22

23 PROPOSAL 7: Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection/Decontamination Authority Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Both invasive mussels are able to survive and reproduce in Yukon waters because water temperatures and calcium levels are suitable for mussel reproduction and growth. The probability for survival in southern Yukon was estimated to range from low to high for zebra mussels and high to very high for quagga mussels (Therriault et al. 2013). Zebra and quagga mussels can live up to 30 days out of the water during ice-free months, making it likely they could arrive in or on contaminated watercraft from southern jurisdictions. This proposal has been discussed internally with Environment staff. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? Fisheries and Oceans Canada was contacted to discuss the nature and process for these amendments and did not identify any concerns. Provisions for the prohibition of possession, transport and release of zebra and quagga mussels are currently in effect for the western provinces of Canada. 23

24 PROPOSAL 7: Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection/Decontamination Authority [Insert any maps or visuals here] 24

25 PROPOSAL 8: Close extended moose hunt + issue more permits in season Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Alsek Renewable Resources Council Proposing to close the extended bulls only moose season in Game Management Zone 7, and replace the loss of hunting opportunity with an increase in the number of annual resident permits during the regular season. This change is required to maintain harvest opportunities for resident harvesters, improve meat quality from the hunt, and reduce post rut disturbance of aggregate groups of moose. This change can be achieved through adaptive measures and does not require a regulation change. 25

26 PROPOSAL 8: Close extended moose hunt + issue more permits in season Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? The late season moose hunt in zone 7 was originally designed to create opportunity for resident hunters if a specified number moose were not harvested under the permit system during the regular season. Hunter success has been relatively low in recent years and concerns have been raised regarding meat quality of post rut bulls. In addition, post rut aggregate groups of moose are disturbed and displaced during late season hunts, causing them to abandon important early winter habitat. We feel that by offering more permits and increased opportunity to harvest moose during the regular season, within prescribed harvest limits, hunter experience will be increased, meat quality will improve, and there will be less stress on moose in general. Proposal has been discussed with Environment Yukon, Conservation Officer Services, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and YFWMB. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Who has been contacted that could be affected? Has not been previously submitted. Proposal has been discussed with Environment Yukon, Conservation Officer Services, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and YFWMB. 26

27 PROPOSAL 9: Allow for the abandonment of either meat or hide of black bears Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Alsek Renewable Resources Council Proposing to allow for the abandonment of either meat or hide of black bears. Currently hunters are prohibited from abandoning the hide from a black bear. Hunters are currently permitted to abandon the meat from a black bear. This proposal would permit hunters to utilize either the meat, the hide, or both from a black bear. Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Has this proposal been previously submitted? Who has been contacted that could be affected? Currently hunters are allowed to abandon the hide of moose, caribou, sheep, goats etc. Local knowledge indicates that there has been an increase in the number of hunters who are interested in harvesting black bears as a food source. Hunters have indicated that they are reluctant to shoot a black bear for food as they are currently required to salvage the hide, and the costs associated with tanning etc. are prohibitive. Proposal has been discussed with Environment Yukon, Conservation Officer Services, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and YFWMB. Has not been previously submitted. Proposal has been discussed with Environment Yukon, Conservation Officer Services, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and YFWMB. 27

28 PROPOSAL 10: Sheep Hunting Closure in the Thacha l Dhǟl (Sheep Mountain) Area Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Parks Canada (Kluane National Park & Reserve), Kluane First Nation, and Dän Keyi Renewable Resources Council Close the portion of Game Management Subzone 5 21 between the Ä äy Chù (Slims River) Bridge and Congdon Creek to licensed sheep hunting. This would require a change to Section 7(a) of Schedule B, Part 1 of the Yukon Wildlife Regulations. Public Safety Concern with hikers, photographers, and other visitors in close proximity to hunters; increased collisions between vehicles and sheep or other wildlife attracted to gut piles from hunting. Sheep conservation The Thacha l Dhǟl population is naturally occurring, with a full distribution of age classes (lambs, ewes, and rams) in this area throughout the entire year. This population has been protected through various means and has not seen licensed hunting for over 23 years Impacts on Visitors and Tourism Maintaining the mature ram component of the population in this portion of the Park and nearby area is important for quality wildlife viewing. It affords opportunities for visitors to see full-curl Dall sheep and rutting behavior in the natural environment. 28

29 PROPOSAL 10: Sheep Hunting Closure in the Thacha l Dhǟl (Sheep Mountain) Area Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? The Kluane First Nation Final Agreement includes the establishment of 2 No Harvest Zones in the National Park Reserve which were established to address public safety and sheep conservation concerns, and they are immediately adjacent to the section of GMZ 5 21 (and the same population of Dall sheep) in question. The proposal is supported by internal research and documents regarding wildlife-human interactions in the Park Increasing numbers of sheep-vehicle collisions (Yukon Environment) and increasing numbers of sheep coming down to the Highway (various personal observations) Yukon Regional Biologist, Technician, and Conservation Officers (Haines Junction) were consulted and provided guidance on the proposal. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? Held 2 public consultation meetings in Burwash Landing, and in Destruction Bay to explain the proposal and solicit public input into the closure, and the response was positive. Alsek RRC and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations were advised of this proposal. 29

30 PROPOSAL 10: Sheep Hunting Closure in the Thacha l Dhǟl (Sheep Mountain) Area Proposed sheep hunting closure area, GMS

31 PROPOSAL 11: Pelt Sealing/Verification of Marten Harvest Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Carcross-Tagish Renewable Resources Council Implement the mandatory reporting and pelt sealing for marten in order to verify harvest numbers. Marten represent a key furbearer species in the Yukon in terms of harvest and economic returns for trappers and the continued viability of the industry. Marten are the only furbearer species that are managed directly in some areas through harvest quotas. There is no single harvest reporting requirement that provides a reliable source of harvest information for species management, trapline allocation and management and industry development and support. Renewable Resources Councils need reliable and readily accessible fur harvest information to make recommendations to governments on the management of furbearers as well as the allocation and utilization of traplines as provided for in the UFA. 31

32 PROPOSAL 11: Pelt Sealing/Verification of Marten Harvest Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? A comprehensive system for the mandatory reporting all furbearer harvest would be the best approach, but this option seems out of reach at the present time and this regulation proposal would ensure reliable and readily accessible harvest information for the major furbearer species. The main purpose of sealing for Marten would be to verify harvest and not pelt tracking as it is for the other species. Thus the pelt sealing/harvest verification process could be simplified to actual count of pelts and possibly some marking technique to ensure that the marten pelts are not double counted at some later date. CTRRC presented a resolution at the 2016 AGW proposing a harvest report from trappers as a condition for the issuance of a new licence in the following year. Further discussion by RRCs, FN governments and YG was had regarding this proposal to implement a sealing requirement for marten to provide verifiable and reliable fur harvest information. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Has not been previously submitted. Who has been contacted that could be affected? There has been informal discussion only with furbearer and regional managers at the RRC AGW in

33 PROPOSAL 12: Wolverine Trapping Season Adjustment Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Fish and Wildlife Branch, Environment Yukon and Carcross Tagish Renewable Resources Council To change the end date for the trapping season for wolverine from March 10th to February 28th to improve the ethics in wolverine harvest, by ensuring wolverine kits are not left in the den when females are trapped. This can occur in the end of February and early March when the wolverine trapping season is still open. The season reduction by 10 days removes the risk of orphaning kits in Yukon. This change is required to ensure that Yukon's harvest of wolverine meets the ethical duty of care inherent in wildlife management. Additionally, since there is no quota for wolverine, our harvest may be challenged by importing countries if concerns are raised that harvest in Yukon is detrimental to population viability. The most significant outcome from this concern would come in the form of a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES challenge), with possible consequences for Yukon's trade in wolverine pelts and products. 33

34 PROPOSAL 12: Wolverine Trapping Season Adjustment Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Has this proposal been previously submitted? Who has been contacted that could be affected? Wolverines are of increasing conservation interest in northern Canada, Alaska, and Scandinavia, with research focused on harvest sustainability. Recent research has shown that a) denning females are occasionally harvested, which is arguably an ethical issue, and b) late in the season the harvest is increasingly comprised of adult females (the least desirable segment to harvest). Shortening the season will help to protect denning females from being harvested, and the inevitable orphaning and death of their dependent kits, and b) lessen the number of adult females being harvested. This proposal shows that Yukon has taken steps to ensure that its harvest of wildlife (specifically wolverine) is sustainable and ethical. This proposal was conceived by Yukon Government's Senior Wildlife Biologist, who has spent 12 years studying the harvest of wolverine in Yukon. Trappers associated with the Carcross-Tagish RRC have essentially come to the same conclusion regarding the need to shorten the season to avoid the potential of orphaning young in harvesting females in the late season. Has not been previously submitted. Carcross-Tagish RRC had submitted an identical proposal consequently both were merged into this single proposal. 34

35 PROPOSAL 13: Personal Exemption Amount for Export Permit for Meat Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Conservation Officer Services Branch Establish an exemption under to allow for the export of up to 20 kilograms of processed meat from legally harvested big game, without an export permit. Persons travelling outside of the Yukon currently require a permit to export small amounts of any legally harvested big game meat (regardless of the quantity). Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Has this proposal been previously submitted? Who has been contacted that could be affected? Between , the Department of Environment issued 1187 export permits identifying 10 kilograms or less of processed legally obtained meat. This regulation change would apply to legally harvested meat which has been processed (ie. sausage, burger or cut and wrapped for personal use). This exemption will not include meat which has not been processed (ie. whole quarters, complete set of ribs or similar parts). Client Services Branch and Conservation Officer Services Branch support this change. This regulation would reduce administrative requirements, provide better service to the public and provide for more effective governance by Environment Yukon. Has not been previously submitted. As this regulation reduces regulatory obligations we believe RRCs and the Yukon Fish and Game Association would be in support of this proposal. 35

36 PROPOSAL 14: Allow Youth Hunters (without HEED course) Under Age of 12 to Hunt Small Game while Accompanied by Yukon Resident Licensed Hunter Who proposed the change? What is the proposal? Why is the change proposed? Conservation Officer Services Branch To enable youth under the age of 12 to obtain a small game hunting licence without having to complete the Hunter s Education and Ethics Development (HEED) course. Currently there is no minimum age requirement for a hunter to hold a small game licence in Yukon, however there is a requirement for the hunter to have successfully completed the Hunter Education and Ethics Development (HEED) Course. Information to support this change? (includes scientific, local, traditional knowledge) Has this been discussed with the Board and/or Yukon Government? Completion of the HEED course by students under the age of 12 is considered counterproductive with respect to retention of material by the participant, as course content largely deals with the harvesting of big game. Youth under the age of 12 are still required be accompanied by a licenced parent or guardian. Conservation Officer Services Branch fully supports this proposed regulation change. Has this proposal been previously submitted? Who has been contacted that could be affected? Has not been previously submitted. Discussions have been held with the Yukon Fish and Game Association, Alsek and Laberge RRCs. There was full support by all three groups. 36

37 ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSALS The Board is also reviewing the following Administrative Proposals. Administrative Proposals are required changes necessary to update legislation or to reflect current practices. Public feedback is not solicited on Administrative Proposals, however these proposals are provided here to inform the public of these changes. Please contact the Board s Executive Director if you have any questions. ADMIN PROPOSAL 1: Amend the Definition of Ammunition for the Purpose of Hunting To amend section paragraph 31(1)(a) of the Wildlife Regulations by removing the current restriction of soft pointed ammunition and replace it with expanding ammunition. To amend section paragraph 31(1)(b) of the Wildlife Regulations by adding the requirement to use expanding ammunition in a black powder rifle. This change will update the current regulations to recognize advancements in bullet design, legitimize their use, and be consistent with other western jurisdictions in Canada. ADMIN PROPOSAL 2: Electronic Licensing Administrative Change Enable electronic declarations and signatures for electronic licensing (and permitting). Remove the requirement for the Department to notify successful applicants of Permit Hunt Authorizations (PHA) permits via registered mail in Wildlife Regulations Section 28(3) and enable the Department to notify successful applicants electronically. The Department of Environment has adopted electronic licencing (e-licencing) to improve client service and its ability to collect, retain and store licencing and harvest information for better wildlife management. The requirements for 1) signatures and marks for declarations and 2) notification by registered mail for success in a permit hunt authorization lottery (28(3)) are barriers to the full implementation of e- licensing. 37

38 ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSALS ADMIN PROPOSAL 3: New Certified Restraining Traps for Wolf and Beaver Require the mandatory use of certified restraining traps for use when trapping wolf and beaver in Yukon. The required traps would be certified for capture by a recognized trap certification authority. This regulation is being proposed in the YFWMB 2017 proposal cycle in order to meet the 2020 implementation requirement of The Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). ADMIN PROPOSAL 4: Adding Nahanni Range Road to Export Exemption Requirement Remove the requirement for an export permit in the following scenario: Yukon licensed hunters with harvested wildlife who have travelled out of, and back into, Yukon, through the NWT. This requires an exemption under section 49 of the Wildlife Regulations, and equivalent exemptions already exist for the North Canol Rd, Alaska Hwy, and Dempster Highway. Currently, the Wildlife Regulations provides exemptions movement of harvested wildlife for the Alaska Highway (HWY #1), the Dempster Highway (HWY #5) and the Canol Road (HWY #6). This amendment would add Nahanni Range Road and exempt Yukon hunters who may cross the Yukon/NWT border on their return home. This is an administrative change intended to provide consistency for hunters accessing all areas of the Yukon and using existing trail and road systems. 38

39 QUESTIONS + COMMENTS Provide your feedback through our online public comment survey yfwmb.ca/regsurvey-2017 DEADLINE DECEMBER 1, 2017 yfwmb.ca Graham Van Tighem Tecla Van Bussel executivedirector@yfwmb.ca communications@yfwmb.ca env.gov.yk.ca Rob Florkiewicz Barb Coppard Rob.Florkiewicz@gov.yk.ca Barbara.Coppard@gov.yk.ca 39