Hunting Caribou with the Cree People
By: Peter Miles
Tags: Indigenous People, Conservation, Cree, Indigenous Knowledge, Caribou

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) is an abundant large mammal of the sub-arctic tundra and lichen-woodland regions of North America and is an important part of the traditional economy of the aboriginal people of the area (Berkes, 2012). When abundant the Caribou migrates in large numbers (Elton, 1942).Thank you

Woodland Caribou Southern Selkirk Mountains of Idaho 2007. Image — Wikimedia Commons.

The closely related reindeer is important in Northern Scandinavia and Siberia (Brännlund & Axelsson, 2011).

The aboriginal hunting people of Alaska and Northern Canada, such as the Inuit, the Dene and the Cree people believe there is a natural population cycle of the Caribou but which is not predictable. Although the Cree people of James Bay, Quebec, Canada also believe the mystery of when Caribou appears is in part explained by hunter-animal relationships and transgressions by hunters (Scott, 2006).

The Dene people occupy a large region of boreal forest from Manitoba on Hudson Bay to Alaska and have a great knowledge of Caribou movements. Small groups of hunters would move north to monitor Caribou migration in the fall/autumn, as the herds moved south to their overwintering areas, in the hope of determining where the herds would be in winter. They knew Caribou avoided the large stretches of water such as lakes and looked for narrow water crossing points. The hunters observed the behaviour of animals and the landscape condition, such as amount of lichen and areas that had been burnt, both of these funnelling the herds; also, they observed the fatness of the animals, on the back and stomach, fat animals being more nutritious and therefore more desirable (Parlee, et al., 2005). To hunt the Caribou Dene would use a ‘chute and pound’ made of felled trees which directed the animals, much like a drift fence, into a pound where the caribou were snared or speared (Smith, 1978).

The Cree from Chisasibi on the east side of James Bay could tell the sex of the animals in the herd they were following by the digging marks in the snow, to reach the lichen, males and females dig differently. They could tell if a large bull was in the herd, his tracks would go wide around trees to avoid getting his large antlers tangled in the tree; good to know as large bulls can be dangerous. The Chisasibi Cree hunting in winter would involve the community and would hunt groups of Caribou not individuals. A maanikin, a corral, would be built constructed of tree trunks and looking like a fence, with the fence getting closer and closer together until the Caribou were in single file, at which stage they were snared to stop them, then were killed by spears or with bows and arrows (Berkes, 2012).

Cree see the living environment as including supernatural beings, having what we may think of as extranormal powers. They are sentient, watchful and aware of people’s behaviour (Lemelin, et al., 2010).

Western culture has a secularized, reductionist, depersonalized view of nature but not all cultures have this view, indeed it is an important part of human’s culture that there is diversity, such that it may bring the evolutionary adaptive responses (Turner & Berkes, 2006) needed to deal with anthropogenic climate change.

Chisasibi Cree believe it is the animals, not people who control the success of the hunt, the Inuit also have such views (Schmidt & Dowsley, 2010). Hunters must maintain respectful relationships with the animals, a continued proper use of resources is required for sustainability, and to show a reciprocity in human-animal relations as well as human-human. These social values indicate a belief in a cosmology in which humans are part of the ecology within an ecosystem.

Animals control the hunt and so decide whether to make themselves available. The success of a Cree hunter is not measured by the size of the kill but by the hunter’s ability to get what he needs.

Alaskan Caribou. Image — Wikimedia Commons.

The hunters have obligation to show respect for the animals as they are related, they are from the same Creator. If respect isn’t shown the animals can return the discourtesy by affecting the hunt and not being available, or not available the next season (Scott, 2006).

Respect for the animals is shown by:

Maintaining an attitude of humility when hunting, no boasting.

The animal is approached and killed with respect, quickly and simply with no mess, the hunter wants the animal to look its best, without blood all over the place.

The animal is carried respectfully to camp.

Offerings are made to the animal, this establishes a reciprocal relationship while asking the animal for more game, and may be done with an offering of tobacco or small pieces of skin or meat are thrown into the fire.

Meat is butchered according to rules signifying respect with special cutting patterns for Caribou, the hunter who killed the animal deciding on distribution of the meat between the families at the camp. Often a young hunter, out of respect, will offer the meat to an old man or an old woman to decide the distribution of the meat.

Meat is consumed according to rules signifying respect, everything must be consumed with no waste. There is no killing for fun, what is killed is eaten. Young boys learning hunting skills on small animals present their kills as gifts to older women in the camp who then prepare the meat and share it.

The remains of the animal are disposed of properly, by being burnt or buried.

The continued use of the Caribou maintains the sustainability and productivity of the resource but the concept of resting the hunting area is also used and rotating hunting territory is practiced. To the Cree the proper conservation of Caribou and other game species is to hunt and eat them. The Western preservation ethic of not hunting at all is not compatible with Cree conservation, after all if the animals wanted to be left alone, they would let the hunters know (Berkes, 2012).

Caribou. Image — Wikimedia Commons.

In the Chisasibi Cree area Caribou were present in the 1910s (Elton, 1942) but didn’t return for a long time until 1982–3, in the eastern region, with the hunt that winter season totaling about 100 animals.

The next winter larger numbers of Caribou were in the west and accessible by road. Excitement grew and a large hunt took place. It is not known how many Caribou were killed over about a month, but hunters said the hunt was frenzied, with large numbers taken and brought back by truckloads. Some meat was allowed to spoil.

Community elders were concerned with people’s behaviour, not the number killed but the wild shooting, letting injured animals escape, killing more than they could carry and hence wasting meat and not disposing of wastes correctly. Show no respect and the game won’t return.

In the winter of 1984–5 there were almost no Caribou. The hunters waited and waited.

Many people were worried, had the Caribou decided not to return?

The elders and leaders thought it was time for them to act on their concerns and called a community meeting. Two of the most respected elders spoke, but they didn’t voice their concerns or criticize the hunters, instead they told a story.

It was the story of the disappearance of Caribou from the James Bay area shortly after the end of the 19th century.

Nearby had been a great Caribou hunting area for many groups of people, the Cree of Chisasibi came from the southwest, the Cree of Mistassini came from the south, the Cree of Great Whale came from the northwest, the Naskapi and Montagnais of Labrador came from the east and the Inuit of Ungava Bay came from the north, all to hunt the great migrating herds of Caribou (Berkes, 2012, p. 136).

The hunters had equipped themselves with the newly available repeating rifles and the previously respectful hunters lost control of themselves, killing far more Caribou than they needed or could carry. Instead of being respectful and taking care of the Caribou the hunters slaughtered them, with many of the discarded carcasses polluting the river.

The following year no Caribou came, none, and didn’t come again for generations, until now, the elders said as they finished their story.

The elders story had a marked effect, especially on the young hunters, the old stories had come true and now were they going to be the ones to lose the respect of the Caribou?

The next winter hunt in 1985–6 was organised by the Chisasibi Cree Trappers Association and limited the Caribou hunt to two per household. The elders and hunting leaders ensured the hunt was conducted respectfully to traditional standards, no wastage, no wild shooting, transported properly and waste cleaned up. The Cree hunters used self-management and their own solutions.

Next year the Caribou came.

Many hunters passed by the chance to hunt small spreading groups of Caribou preferring to let their population grow. By 1990 Caribou were seen by the sea of James Bay which was their 1900s range. In 2006 the Caribou were still abundant.

Were the Caribou choosing to return because of proper hunting respect and hunting ethic?

Or was it the lichen on which Caribou graze? It is slow growing and takes many years to establish, this would affect population numbers as in some areas it has been growing undisturbed for more than a century, providing a large food reserve.

Was it the extranormal powers of the animals or the reductionist methods and explanations of western science?

Studies have found that Cree and Dene Caribou hunt monitoring and Western Science monitoring observe similar information, that is, location, individual behaviour, sex and age of members of the herd and landscape condition such as burnt areas and amount of lichen (Kendrick & Manseau, 2008).

I like to think it is the Caribou choosing to return but maybe it was plentiful lichen or some other factor at work. But in this particular example the old people’s words validating oral history had far more impact on conserving the Caribou than legislation and government resource management.

References:

Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology (3rd ed.) New York: Routledge. Book.

Brännlund, I., & Axelsson, P. (2011). Reindeer management during the colonization of Sami lands: A long-term perspective of vulnerability and adaptation strategies. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 1095–1105.

Christie, M. J. (1990). Aboriginal science for the ecologically sustainable future. Ngoonjook, (4), 56.

Elton, C. (1942). Voles, mice and lemmings. Problems in population dynamics. Voles, mice and lemmings. Problems in population dynamics. Book.

Goulet, J. G. (1993). Dreams and visions in indigenous lifeworlds: an experiential approach. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 13(2), 171–198.

Kendrick, A., & Manseau, M. (2008). Representing traditional knowledge: Resource management and Inuit knowledge of barren-ground caribou. Society and Natural Resources, 21(5), 404–418.

Lemelin, R. H., Dowsley, M., Walmark, B., Siebel, F., Bird, L., Hunter, G., … & Kakekaspan, M. (2010). Wabusk of the Omushkegouk: Cree-polar bear (Ursus maritimus) interactions in northern Ontario. Human Ecology, 38(6), 803–815.

Parlee, B., Manseau, M., & Łutsël K’é Dene First Nation. (2005). Using traditional knowledge to adapt to ecological change: Denésǫłıné monitoring of Caribou movements. Arctic, 26–37.

Schmidt, J. J., & Dowsley, M. (2010). Hunting with polar bears: problems with the passive properties of the commons. Human Ecology, 38(3), 377–387.

Scott, C. (2006). Spirit and practical knowledge in the person of the bear among Wemindji Cree hunters. Ethnos, 71(1), 51–66.

Smith, J. G. (1978). Economic uncertainty in an” original affluent society”: Caribou and caribou eater Chipewyan adaptive strategies. Arctic Anthropology, 68–88.

Turner, N. J., & Berkes, F. (2006). Coming to understanding: developing conservation through incremental learning in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology, 34(4), 495–513.