Gespe’gewaq Mi’gmaq Resource Council 94B Riverside West, Listuguj Mi’gmag First Nation, Listuguj, Quebec G0C 2R0

Tel: 418-788-3017 Fax: 418-788-3192 Web: www.migmaqresource.org

Gespe’gewaq Mi’gmaq Resource Council

Monica Schuegraf B.Sc., M.E.S.

Peter Dowd B.A.

TA’N TELNENAS’GL GA’TE’GATI’L GESPE’GEWA’GIG

PERCEPTIONS OF AMERICAN EEL HABITAT

IN GESPE’GEWA’GI

Table of Contents

Abbreviations 1

List of Abbreviations 1

List of Table and Figures 1

Tables 1

Figures 1

Executive Summary 2

Eel in Mi’gmaw Culture 3

History of the Eel 3

Risks of the Eel Population 3

Materials and Methods 3

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge 3

Habitat and Maps 4

Water Quality 4

Results 4

Food and Use 5

Fishing – Historical 5

Fishing Present 5

Changes in Eel Population and Habitat 6

Eel River Bar: 6

Pabineau: 6

Listuguj: 6

Water Quality 7

i

Migration Barriers 7

Discussion 7

Why has Eel Fishing Declined? 7

Dams and Pollution 8

The Arrival of Industry and Acid Rain 8

Conclusion 9

Future Research 9

Acknowledgements 10

Literature Cited 10

Appendix A – Guideline Questions for Interviews 12

Appendix B – Questionnaire 12

ii

Abbreviations

List of Abbreviations CCME – Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEWG – Canadian Eel Working Group COSEWIC – Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada DO – Dissolved Oxygen DFO – Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Fw – Fresh water GMCME – Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment GMRC – Gespe’gewag Mi’gmaq Resource Council EC – Environment Canada NPRI – National Pollutant Release Inventory Sw – Salt water

List of Table and Figures

Tables

Table 1. Water quality assessment for sites in three different communities. August 25-27, 2007

Table 2. Industrial operations situated on the Bay of Chaleur. Construction and dates of reselling or renovation in-cluded where known. Letters corresponds to maps in Figure 5.

Figures

Figure 1. Maritimes showing the traditional Mi’gmaq region of Gespe’gewa’gi. 1) Listuguj First Nation, 2) Eel River Bar First Nation, 3) Pabineau First Nation.

Figures 2 and 3. Best eel fishing sites in Eel River Bar First Nation (Fig. 2) and Pabineau First Nation (Fig 3). Boxed numbers are water quality sample sites from Table 1.

Figure 3. Best eel fishing sites of Pabineau First Nation members. Hatch – Eels believed no longer present. Check – Eel population unchanged. Numbers corresponds to sample sites for Water Quality in Table 1.

Figure 4. Best eel fishing sites near Listuguj First Nation. Boxed numbers are water quality sample sites from Table 1.

Figure 5. Bay of Chaleur showing major towns and First Nations communities. Pollution point sources (•) are identi-fied with letters, ID chart on locator map. Data: Environment Canada: National Pollutant Release Inventory (2005).

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 1

Executive Summary

American eel populations (Anguilla rostrata) are in decline throughout Ontario and Quebec. COSEWIC has recently listed American Eel as a “Species of Concern”. Yet eel population data for Atlantic Canada are ambiguous at best. The Ameri-can Eel is physically, spiritually and traditionally significant to Maritime Mi’gmaq culture. The Gespe’gewag Mi’gmaq Re-source Council (GMRC) in New Brunswick was concerned that First Nations groups were not consulted prior to the list-ing of the eel and decided to undertake research of eel populations and traditional knowledge with participating commu-nities, Listuguj First Nation, Eel River Bar First Nation, Pabineau First Nation. This study involved Mi’gmaw people, pri-marily elders, in identifying past locations of key eel fishing grounds and habitat, any major migration barriers, knowledge of population size and reasons for population changes.

19 people participated in the study; 4 people through interviews with the authors and 15 people through a GMRC ques-tionnaire. Individuals were asked about use of eel, eel fishing, habitat and populations. Water quality (pH and dissolved oxygen) was measured in order to test for serious problems.

The elder population (>50 years, 13/19 people) constituted the largest proportion of this traditional knowledge study. Eel was an important part of Mi’kmaq diets. Some elders would eat eel every day. Today only 2 people eat eel. Yet, 88% of individuals said they would eat eel if it was available. Many methods were used to fish eel, spearing was the most com-mon method used all year around. Locations of traditional eeling grounds were identified. 100 % of respondents said that eel fishing has decreased in their communities. The most common reasons offered for the decrease in eel fishing are, (1) pollution/sewage in the water, (2) change in diet, (3) traditions not passed down, (4) damming of the Eel River. In general, respondents did not think eel populations had changed that much. But, in Eel River Bar people think eel population has declined because of the dam on the Eel River.

Aquatic pollution was most common reason given for the decline of the eel fishery. Serious eel fishing has not occurred for 25-30 years (~1970s). Industrialization in the Bay of Chaleur also occurred during the 1970s. Industrial effluents, mu-nicipal wastewater and acid rain were all entering aquatic systems. People perceived the water as highly polluted. It was inferred that the perception of pollution contributed to the decline of eel fishing.

Perceived pollution (regardless of actual levels) has contributed to a partial loss of faith, and changing of the relationship between the Mi’gmaq and the natural world. The Mi’gmaq of Gespe’gewa’gi retain large amounts of traditional knowl-edge about the American Eel. If eel fishing and related traditions are not resurrected, then it is likely that the traditions will soon be lost, with the eventual loss of those remaining elders who carry the knowledge.

Further research is required to ascertain the status of eel populations in this region. Monitoring programs should be im-plemented in order to record any changes. Finally, eel should be tested for heavy metals and contaminants in order to determine effect on humans and to recommend a safe level of eel consumption for this area. Furthermore, these results should be communicated to the people of this area.Introduction

The American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) was recently listed by COSEWIC (2006) as a “Species of Concern”. The listing was made with little input from Aboriginal and First Nation peoples and was primarily based on information from Ontario and central Quebec where eel populations are experiencing drastic declines. The status of eel populations in Atlantic Canada is more difficult to determine because Atlantic eel population data comes primarily from fisheries landings and electro-fishing surveys. In New Brunswick, data was mined from salmon electro-fishing surveys on the Restigouche and Mi-ramichi Rivers (COSEWIC 2006). The results of these surveys showed no conclusive trends (CEWG 2007)

The purpose of this research is to address the lack of information about eel from both Atlantic Canada, and a First Nation people – the Mi’gmaq. This study involved Mi’gmaw people, primarily elders, in identifying past locations of key eel fish-ing grounds and habitat, any major migration barriers, knowledge of population size and reasons for population changes.

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 2

Eel in Mi’gmaw Culture The Gespe’gewa’gi Mi’gmaq Resource Council (GMRC) is a conservation oriented Mi’gmaw organization based in Listu-guj, Quebec at the head of the Bay of Chaleur (Figure 1). The Listiguj First Nation, Eel River Bar First Nation and Pabineau First Nation all contributed to the creation of the organization. The American Eel, known as “g’at” in M’igmaw is of sig-nificant physical, spiritual and traditional importance to the Mi’gmaw culture. Historically, the eel has been an important source of food, celebrations, and medicine as well as part of a number of Mi’gmaw legends (Vicaire 2007, Davis et al. 2004, Prosper and Paulette 2002). The listing of the eel as a Species of Concern without significant aboriginal input prompted the GMRC to take an interest in this issue.

History of the EelThe American Eel is a catadromous fish that can take up to 20 years to reach sexual maturity. Eels use a diverse range of habitat and hence it is difficult to identify specific eel habitat (Daverat et al. 2006, Domingos et al. 2006, Laffaille et al. 2004, Wiley et al. 2004). During maturation, eels may be found in marine, brackish and/or freshwater (Arai et al. 2006, Lamson et al. 2006) and over any substrate, including mud, cobble and bigger rocks, although they do tend build bur-rows in softer substrates (Aoyama et al. 2005). When the American Eel reaches maturity (from age 7-20+) it returns to the Atlantic Ocean and migrates to the Sargasso Sea where it is believed that all American Eel spawn at the same time (CO-SEWIC 2006). Adult eels die following reproduction (DFO 2006). Young eggs and leptocephali larvae drift with ocean currents. After metamorphosis, glass eels actively move to inland North American waters. Anguilla rostrata populations are believed to be panmictic, meaning eels throughout North America are one genetic population (COSEWIC 2006).

Risks of the Eel Population Eels are semelparous and can take up to 20 years to reach sexual maturity. Consequently, the single biggest threat to the eel population is death prior to reproduction. The two primary anthropogenic factors contributing to pre-spawning death in eels are dams and fisheries. In Ontario and Quebec, turbines in hydro-electric dams kill large numbers of adult female eels as they migrate back to the Atlantic Ocean (COSEWIC 2006). Eel fisheries also threaten Anguilla rostrata populations. Since the life-cycle of eels involves long migrations leading to a single reproductive event, every eel that is caught in inland waters is caught before it has spawned (COSWEWIC 2006). Selective fishing for larger animals also reduces the number of highly fecund females that are reproducing.

A lesser risk is habitat loss caused by barriers which stop or limit access to high-quality habitat. Hydro-electric and other dams limit seasonal migrations of adult eels from salt to freshwater and back (GMCME 2007, CEWG 2007, Lamson et al. 2006). Dams, culverts and some fish ladders also reduce habitat available to elvers. Elvers penetrate quite far up inland streams, yet they cannot swim fast or long enough to pass through most culverts and fish ladders (GMCME 2007). Elvers smaller than 10 cm can climb some vertical surfaces and thus penetrate beyond dams. However, young eels greater than 10 cm cannot climb vertically and must be assisted in passing dams or fail to colonize lakes and rivers be-yond (GMCME 2007, Lamson et al. 2006).

Because American Eel are panmictic, a population crash in one North American region may affect the number of young eel that come to any region (COSEWIC 2006). As such, a decline of American Eel in Ontario and Quebec could also pose a problem for eel in the Maritimes.

Materials and Methods

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

The GMRC received approval for the research from Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch at Cape Breton University (Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch 2007). Following approval, nineteen people from three different communities contributed information to this study. Elders were identified by GMRC and Band leaders. Two different methods were used to gather information, 1) semi-directed interview (4 people, Appendix A) and 2) a questionnaire (15 people – Appendix B).

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 3

The authors interviewed two people from Listuguj and one elder each from Pabineau and Eel River. The authors were ac-companied by a member of the GMRC to the homes of the elders. Each interview took about an hour. The authors asked questions only when necessary to refocus the discussion around eel and related issues. Topographic maps of the area were provided in order for interviewees to identify key eel fishing grounds.

For the , in Eel River and Pabineau, a GMRC em-ployee approached the Band Council office who recommended knowl-edgeable individuals to complete the question-naire (about 5 from each community). In almost

every case, the employee sat down with individuals and assisted in completing the questionnaire. In Listuguj, some eld-ers recommended other knowledgeable elders. The information was collated by the authors.

Habitat and MapsKey eel habitat was identified by interview and questionnaire respondents. The interviewees identified past eel fishing grounds on the topographic maps. In contrast, the questionnaire respondents only wrote down locations of good eel fishing locations. Consequently, it was not possible to locate all of the eel grounds on the maps (Figures 2, 3 and 4) due to the use of local names which are not labeled as such on the topographic maps.

Water Quality Temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity and pH values were measured using YSI 55 and YSI 85 handheld digital meters. Parameters were collected from most of the important eel fishing sites between August 25 and 27, 2007. Sam-pling sites are illustrated in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Dissolved oxygen and pH values were compared to acceptable values from the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (1999).

Results All of the individuals that were asked to participate responded to the questionnaire and agreed to have their responses used in this study. The elder population (>50 years) constituted the largest proportion of this traditional knowledge study: Of the 19 respondents, 13 were over the age of 50 (72%), three were between 40 and 50, two were between the ages of 30 and 40 (one age was not provided).

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 4

Figure 1. Maritimes showing the traditional Mi’gmaq region of Gespe’gewa’gi. 1) Listuguj First Nation, 2) Eel River Bar First Nation, 3) Pabineau First Nation.

Food and UseTraditionally, eel was a staple in the Mi’gmaw diet. Available for every day meals, it was also a part of feasts and celebra-tions. In discussions with the authors, three elders stated that eel was very good and would be chosen above salmon and lobster. Eel was eaten quite frequently by elders in most communities. Some elders ate eel every day, while others would eat it once a week for their Friday fish. Some of the younger respondents have never eaten eel.

However, eel is no longer an important part of a modern Mi’gmaw diet. In fact, only 2 of 18 people currently consume eel as a regular part of their diet. This low rate of consumption is not by choice: 88% of respondents said they would eat eel if it was available. Younger people also stated they would eat it, although they expressed a desire to learn more about its nutritional value.

Eel fishing was not just a subsistence activity. Fishing eel commercially also provided a source of income for many Mi’g-maq. Fishers used to sell eel for $1.00-2.00 per dozen. Eel were also traded with different communities for potatoes and other garden produce.

Fishing – Historical Eel fishing was a common activity in all three communities. Eels were caught by hook and line, by hand, using eel traps or, the most common method, spearing. Eels were speared both in winter through the ice, and in open water. Eels were speared through the mud or in rocky pools. There are two different types of eel spears, one used in winter, one used in

summer and fall.

In Eel River Bar, people would most com-monly spear eel at night from a boat with a kerosene torch to attract the eel. The boat would circle the harbour. This was the best area for eel fishing in Eel River. (Figure 2)

Pabineau First Nation members fished eel in three primary locations: (1) in the Pabineau River; (2) the Nepisiguit River (especially at Pabineau Falls) and in (3) in Bathurst Har-bour, especially around Indian Island (Figure 3).

The community of Listuguj is on the famous salmon fishing river, the Restigouche. In Lis-tuguj, salmon fishing was more common than eel fishing, for most people. Yet, there were still a number of people that fished eel near the community (Figure 4). Fishing took place along the north shore of the Res-tigouche where the substrate was quite muddy – around the old piers at “the Drum” was a favorite spot. Eel were also fished among the islands further up the Res-tigouche, and at the piers from the old boom, both on the north and south shores.

Fishing PresentToday eel fishing is a rare activity. 100% of respondents said that the number of people fishing eel has decreased. The most com-mon reasons offered for the decrease in eel fishing are, in order: (1) pollution/sewage in

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 5

Figures 2 and 3. Best eel fishing sites in Eel River Bar First Nation (Fig. 2) and Pabineau First Nation (Fig 3). Boxed numbers are water quality sample

the water [6 people], (2) change in diet [5 people], (3) the tradition was not passed down to the present generation [4 people], (4) Eel River Bar only – the damming of Eel River [3 people], (5) the lack of eels available to be caught [2 people], (6) less interest in / fear of eels [2 people].

Changes in Eel Population and Habitat

Interviewees were asked their perceptions of changes in eel population sizes1. One interviewee from Pabineau stated that, in general, there are the same amount of eel today as there used to be, that there is little problem for the population because people no longer eat eel. Another interviewee responded that they had not noticed a change in eel population,

but in how people perceive the eel. However, three interviewees stated it was difficult to estimate population because no one fishes for eel any-more.

Eel River Bar:

The damming of the Eel River has changed the hydrography. According to respondents, the harbour at Eel River Bar was muddy with a healthy population of eelgrass. Today this har-bour is soft and silty and lacks eel grass. The siltation is primarily due to the dam that was constructed in 1963. Evidence of siltation was observed even in 1967 (Medcof 1967). Large sand and gravel bars are now present in the harbour. Before the dam was built, sand and gravel build-up would be washed out during spring runoff

and flash storms. The interviewee from Eel River Bar believed that as a consequence of the dam, eel, other fish and mol-lusk populations in Eel River have decreased significantly.

Pabineau:

The perception in Pabineau is that eel populations have changed little. In some traditional fishing areas, however, eel are no longer present, such as the downtown section of Bathurst Harbour. The harbour has a soft silt and sand substrate, there are still large areas of eelgrass meadows in the harbour and it appears in relatively good condition. A section of the harbour runs along downtown Bathurst: This section is almost completely blocked off by a causeway/bridge that was constructed in the 1850s. One interviewee mentioned that a large amount of waste bark and sewage has accumulated in that part of the harbour and that eel are no longer found there.

Listuguj:

Little information was received about eel populations around Listuguj. A questionnaire respondent from Listuguj volun-teered the information that there are “hardly any eels left”. One interviewee believed that something in the water is killing the eel. People in Listuguj no longer fish or swim in the Restigouche because of fears about polluted waters. The sub-strate along the North shore of the Restigouche River was said to be quite muddy. No comments were given about how the substrate has changed.

Figure 4. Best eel fishing sites near Listuguj First Nation. Boxed numbers are water quality sample sites from Table 1.

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 6

Water QualityAlthough not the focus of this study, basic water quality information was collected to indicate any serious problems. Wa-ter quality assessments (temperature, pH, DO and salinity) were completed for all areas (Table 1). With the exception of the site at the mouth of the Pabineau River, all values for pH were slightly basic. All dissolved oxygen and pH values fell within the recommended ranges given in the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (pH = 6.5-9.5; DO Fw=>6 Sw=.8; CCME 1999). Nonetheless, interview and questionnaire respondents expressed concern over possible levels of aquatic pollutants from different sources in the Bay of Chaleur.

Migration Barriers There do not appear to be many dams or other barriers that are affecting upstream or downstream migration of eels and elvers. Only three major barriers to up- and down¬stream eel migration were identified by respondents: (1) the dam on the Eel River built in 1963, (2) a hydro-electric dam on the Nepisiguit River which was constructed in 1921 and (3) the causeway in Bathurst that was constructed in the 1850s. The causeway may have little effect as it does have a small bridge which allows passage of eels.

The Eel River dam does have a fish ladder, however the velocity and turbulence of the water is probably too high to allow elvers to swim up it (GMCME 2007). After the dam was built many adult eels could be found at the base of the dam. On occasion, adult eels would cross the road section of the dam. The slime trails left behind were observed by the Eel River respondent. This dam must be a significant barrier to migration.

Hydro-electric dams can cause fatal injuries to eels if caught in the turbines. The Nepisiguit dam was built to power the pulp mill in Bathurst. The mill closed in 2005 and the dam was sold to New Brunswick Power in 2007. The dam is still functional producing 10.8 megawatts of electricity a year. The turbines likely present a risk to female eels migrating back to the Sargasso Sea.

DiscussionAmong the six interviewees there did not seem to be general consensus as to whether eel populations were increasing, decreasing or constant. In fact, the perception of the health of the eel population seemed dependent on location. Al-though people that live or fished around more populated coastal areas (Bathurst, Listuguj and Eel River Bar) believe that eel populations have declined, the perception of the more rural Pabineau area is that the eel population has remained relatively unchanged. However, the overarching conclusion shared by First Nations fishers is that there is little knowledge about the current status of eel. The demise of the eel fishery is directly responsible for at least some of the gaps in knowledge.

Why has Eel Fishing Declined? Fifty years ago, eel fishing was a common activity in Eel River Bar, Listuguj and Pabineau. Eel was part of the diet during the fall, winter and late summer. Eel was not just a staple, but also a favorite food. Some individuals fished commercially, and for them eel also provided a way of life. Although many places in New Brunswick and Quebec still have an active

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 7

W1 Eel River west side of Road 17 24.6 8.0 8.5 W2 Pabineau mouth Pabineau River 21 0.0 6.7 8.6

W3 Pabineau Boucher Falls 21 0.0 7.3 9.1

W4 Bathurst mouth Nepisiguit River 20 4.9 7.6 8.9

W5 Bathurst south of Causeway 21 10.0 7.6 8.6

W6 Bathurst Indian Island 20 18.1 8.3 9.6

W7 Listuguj the Drum 16 2.3 8.0 9.4

W8 Listuguj the Wharf 16 3.1 7.9 9.5

commercial eel fishery (some First Nations groups in New Brunswick even have commercial eel fishing licenses), there are no longer any commercial eel fishers in Eel River Bar, Listuguj, or Pabineau. None of these communities have com-mercial eel licenses. Despite the fact that fishing is permitted for subsistence and ceremonial purposes (DFO 2000, 2007), there are few eel fishers at all in either of these three communities.

Eel fishing is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. According to five respondents eel fishing declined because diets changed. Yet eel is currently desired as a protein source. With 88% of people saying they would eat eel if available, it seems more likely that what happened is the converse: diets changed because people stopped fishing eel. Many of the younger respondents believe that eel fishing has declined because the methods and traditions of eel fishing were not passed on to them. The question that remains to be answered is “Why weren’t these traditions passed on?”

Dams and Pollution In Eel River Bar, the dam constructed in 1963 caused dramatic change to the harbour within 3-4 years. The siltation and gravel build-up changed the substrate in the harbour making it less hospitable for soft shell clams (Medcof 1967). Re-spondents from Eel River Bar believe that changes in the harbour also caused a decrease in the number of eel. The dam may have contributed to the decline of eel fishing in Eel River Bar, but it does not explain the decline of eel fishing in the other communities.

Two elders that were active fishers stated that the last time they had fished for eel was around 30 years ago - sometime during the 1970s. However, neither one could think of a particular reason why they stopped fishing for eel. When asked if they had concerns about the eel population both stated that they were worried about pollution. They mentioned con-cerns over multiple sources of pollutants: sewage and household waste, effluent from mills and large industry. Another respondent mentioned concern about acid rain and other sources of pollution.

The Arrival of Industry and Acid Rain There are a large number of industrial developments situated along the New Brunswick side of the Bay of Chaleur (Table 2; Figure 5). Most of these industries opened, or were renovated between 1965 and 1975, northern New Brunswick’s “industrialization” period. During “industrialization” federal and provincial governments provided incentives to industries to locate in northern New Brunswick (Beaudin 1999, The Canadian Encyclopedia). Mills, mines and factories produce quan-tities of inevitable waste products. In the 1970s environmental regulations were less strict; industrial effluents were often

released untreated, directly into coastal waters. In addition, municipal wastewater was also released un-treated to inland waters. In 1983, only around 50% of municipalities were treating wastewater (EC 2003). People were beginning to wonder about the safety of their water, and consequently, the safety of the food that came from that water. Research conducted in the 1960s and 70s shows that there was also rising con-cern among scientists over pollution and development in the Bay of Chaleur (Schafer 1973; Sprague 1966). Generalized sources of pollu-tion also played a role in affecting people’s perception of their environ-ment. During the late 1970s and into 80s the hot topic was “acid rain”, caused by airborne pollutants, mainly sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (EC 2003). The scare over acid rain only served to further upset peoples’ faith in their environment.

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 8

A AV Cell Inc. - pulp mill Atholville 1920s 1981 B Irving Oil Campbellton

C PCI Chemicals Canada Co. Dalhousie 1963 1971

E Abitibi-Bowater Inc. - pulp mill

Dalhousie 1928 1980

F NB Power – thermal gener-ating station

Dalhousie 1969

H NB Power - thermal gener-ating station

Belledune 1993

I Falconbridge Limited - smelter

Belledune 1960s 1971

J Acadie-Bathurst Health Auth. - hospital

Bathurst 1973

K Smurfit-Stone Container – mill

Bathurst 1914 1968

(closed 2005)

Table 2. Industrial operations situated on the Bay of Chaleur. Construction and dates of reselling or renovation included where known. Letters corresponds to maps in Figure 5.

Between 1965 and 1980 the aquatic environment was receiving pollution from sewage, industrial effluent and acid rain. Although it was not stated by respondents, it seems likely that the slowing and eventual stopping of eel fishing was re-lated to the perception that the water was unsafe. Inhabitants of the area, especially First Nations, had a feeling that their water sources were being contaminated. This probably led to the logical conclusion that animals spending their entire

lives in coastal waters are also contaminated. Most fish do not spend their entire lives in coastal wa-ters.

For example, fish such as salmon (Salmo salar), striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and gaspereau (Aloso spp.) all migrate upstream to spawn, but spend most of their lives in the ocean (Chadwick 1995). American eel grow to maturity in inland wa-ters, many of them in harbours and estuaries and thus are constantly exposed to pollutants, mercury, heavy metals and organic chemicals during their relatively long lives (Brusle 1991, Couil-lard et al. 1997). Organic pollutants are soluble and bioaccumulate in fats. Eels have a high percent-age of fat, compared to some fish and for this reason, can harbour high levels of pollutants (Brusle 1991). It seems then, that

First Nations people had good reason to be wary of fishing, and eating eel. Today, pollution still exists (Chou 1995), but environmental regulations have improved and pollution levels are likely lower. There is still not enough information about contaminants levels in harbours and estuaries in the Bay of Chaleur. Nor is there enough knowledge of how pollutants might affect eel and the possible health risks of consuming that eel.

ConclusionThe Mi’gmaq of Gespe’gewa’gi still retain much knowledge about American Eel. Fishing and eating eel was a central part of Mi’gmaw culture. Eel fishing stopped almost completely in the 1970s. Over time, with population growth, larger towns and the arrival of big industry, coastal waters and harbours became polluted. Regardless of actual levels, the per-ceived pollution created a fear of the water and its resident aquatic life. It is our theory, that this fear caused a decline in the traditional activity of eel fishing. Not only this, but fear may also have contributed to a loss of faith and changing rela-tionship with the natural world. Comments from respondents showed that the American Eel is a tasty and desirable food, even in the modern Mi’gmaw diet. If eel fishing and related traditions are not resurrected, then it is likely that the traditions will soon be lost, with the eventual loss of those remaining elders who carry the knowledge

Future Research Although there remain significant gaps in knowledge regarding the status of the American Eel population in the three communities, this study identified a possible reason, pollution of the aquatic environment, for the decline of the eel fishery

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 9

Figure 5. Bay of Chaleur showing major towns and First Nations communities. Pollution point sources (•) are identified with letters, ID chart on locator map. Data: Environment Canada: National Pollutant Release Inventory (2005).

in Mi’gmaq communities along the Bay of Chaleur. The results of this study suggest that further research is needed in a number of areas:

1) Status of the eel population – Current population research focuses in Ontario and Quebec. Since the eel is now a Species of Concern it is vital that accurate information be collected on eel population in all areas of the country where it is used and fished. Eel trapping studies and surveys should be completed in order to determine an estimate for eel population in this region.

2) Monitoring program – Eel population data is available for Ontario and Quebec because of counts and monitoring obtained at dams and other barriers. Efforts should be made to obtain this data for areas in the Maritimes. Monitor-ing projects for adult eels, or elvers could be established in partnership with conservation, community or other groups.

3) Eel contaminant levels – The American Eel spends almost its entire life in inland and estuarine waters. These waters often have some of the highest pollution levels. Eel has importance to Mi’gmaq cultures as a traditional food. Re-search should be done to determine effects of and contaminant levels in eels from areas in the Bay of Chaleur. This information should be provided to Mi’gmaq groups so they can make an educated decision on the safety of includ-ing this traditional component in the current diet.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the GMRC and its employees for the wonderful welcome they received. Gratitude is also due to Ian Bryson for all his hard work on the maps. The GMRC and authors would like to thank the communities of Listuguj, Eel River Bar, Pabineau and all people who participated in the study, especially the Elders. Also thanks to Mi’k-maw Ethics Watch for the timely approval of the ethics proposal.

Literature CitedArai, T., A. Kotake and T.K. McCarthy. 2006. Habitat use by the European eel Anguilla anguilla in Irish waters. Estuar-ine Coastal and Shelf Science 67:569-78.Aoyama, J., A. Shinoda, S. Sasai, M.J. Miller and K. Tsukamoto. 2005. First observations of the burrows of Anguilla ja-ponica. Journal of Fish Biology 67:1534-43.Beaudin, M. (ed) 1999. The State of the Regions: The Economic Region of Northeast New Brunswick. Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development. National Library of Canada; Canada.Brusle, J. 1991. The Eel (Anguilla spp) and organic chemical pollutants. The Science of the Total Environment 102: 1-19.CCME. 1999. Canadian environmental quality guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba.CEWG (Canadian Eel Working Group). 2007. American Eel Management Plan. Draft January 15, 2007. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministere des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Quebec.Chadwick, M. 1995. Index rivers: A key to managing anadromous fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 5:38-51.Chou, C.L. and J.F. Uthe. 1995. Thallium, uranium and 235U/238U ratios in the digestive gland of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) from an industrialized harbour. Bulletin of Environmental Contaminants and Toxicology 54:1-7.COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 71 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm)Couillard, C.M., P.V. Hodson, and M. Castonguay. 1997. Correlations between pathological changes and chemical con-tamination in American eels, Anguilla rostrata, from the St. Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 54: 1916-27.Daverat, F., K.E. Limburg, I. Thibault, J.C. Shiao, J.J. Dodson, F. Caron, W.N. Tzeng, Y. Iizuka, and H. Wickstrom. 2006. Phenotypic plasticity of habitat use by three temperate eel species, Anguilla anguilla, A. japonica and A. rostrata. Marine Ecology Progress Series 308:231-241.Davis, A., J. Wagner, K. Prosper and M.J. Paulette. 2004. The Paq’tnkek Mi’kmaq and Ka’t (American Eel): A Case Study of Cultural Relations, Meanings, and Prospects. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 24(2):359-390.Domingos, I. and J.L. Costa and M.J. Costa. 2006. Factors determining length distribution and abundance of the Euro-pean eel, Anguilla anguilla, in the River Mondego (Portugal). Freshwater Biology 51: 2265-2281.

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 10

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2000. Integrated Eel Fishery Management Plan: Eastern New Brunswick Area Gulf Region 2001-2006. www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mgmt-plan/nb-nb/eel_anguille_2001_2006-e.html (Accessed June 13, 2007) DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006. “Underwater World: American Eel” Fisheries and Oceans, Science Branch www.dfo-mpo.gc.caDFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007. Integrated Eel Fishery Management Plan: Eastern New Brunswick Area Gulf Region 2007-2010. http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fam-gpa/plans/nb/eel-anguille_2007_2010-e.pdf (Accessed Nov. 30, 2007)Environment Canada. 2003. Canada’s National Environmental Indicator Series 2003. Environment Canada, Ottawa. http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/esignals.pdf (Accessed Dec. 6, 2007)GMCME (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment). 2007. “American Eels -Restoring a Vanishing Resource in the Gulf of Maine.” www.gulfofmaine.org. 12 pages.Laffaille, P., A. Baisez, C. Rigaud and E. Feuteun. 2004. Habitat preferences of different Euopean eel size classes in a reclaimed marsh: A contribution to species and ecosystem conservation. Wetlands 24-3:642-651.Lamson, H. M., J.C. Shiao, Y. Iizuka, W. Tzeng and D.K. Cairns. 2006. Movement patterns of American eel (Anguilla rostrata) between salt- and freswhwater in a coastal watershed, based on otolith microchemistry. Marine Biology 149: 1567-1576.Medcof, J.C. 1967. Third survey of Eel River Cove, N.B., soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) population. Fisheries Research Board of Canada 941. Excerpts from Indian Claims Commission: Eel RiverBar First Nation Inquiry. Eel River Dam Claim http://www.indianclaims.ca/pdf/EelRiverEng.pdf (Accessed Nov 30, 2007)Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch. 2007. Mi'kmaq Research Principles and Protocols. The Mi’kmaq College Institute, Cape Breton University. (http://mrc.uccb.ns.ca/prinpro.html)NPRI (National Pollutant Release Inventory.) 2007. Bay of Chaleur Area 2005. Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_online_data_e.cfmNew Brunswick Power. 2007. Hydro Tour. http://www.nbpower.com/en/commitment/education/generating/hydro/reg.aspx (Accessed Dec 6, 2007)Prosper, K. and M. J. Paulette. 2002. The Mi’kmaq Relationship with Ka’t (American Eel). Fact Sheet #7 Social Research of Sustainable Fisheries and the Paq’tnkek Fish and Wildlife Commission. http://www.stfx.ca/research/srsf/researchreports1/FactSheets/Factsheet7.pdf (Accessed June 23, 2007)Schafer, C.T. 1973. Distribution of Foraminifera near pollution sources in Chaleur Bay. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 2: 219-233.Sprague, J.B. 1966. Dissolved oxygen in the Restigouche river estuary, October 1966. Manuscript Report Series No. 903 Fisheries Research Board of Canada.The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2007. New Brunswick. Historica Foundation of Canada. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC8921 07#SEC892143 (Accessed Dec. 6, 2007)Vicaire, J.M. 2007. “G’at – American Eel” Gm’tginaq Spring 2007. Newsletter of the Gespe’gewag Mi’gmaq Re-source Council.Wiley, D.J., R.P. Morgran II and R.H. Hilderbrand. 2004. Relations between physical habitat and American Eel abun-dance in fiver river basins in Maryland. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:515-526.Appendix: Lorem ipsum

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 11

Appendix A – Guideline Questions for In-terviews

1. What/when was the best eel fishing trip you ever had?

2. What method do you use to catch eel? Has it changed? How?

3. Where are / were the best places to fish eel? Show on map?

4. Are eel doing better/worse than in the past?

5. Are there places where eel are no longer found? New places where they are found?

6. Other species (food species) doing bad in this area?

7. What are the best eel fishing spots today? Why do you think that the eel live in this area?

8. Have you seen any new species other than eel in the area? Any ideas on what could be happening to the eel/ other species?

9. Given the current state of the resource (eel), what do you think are some of the problems regarding the eels?

Appendix B – Questionnaire

The Gespe’gewaq Mi’gmaq Resource Council is currently conducting a research project on the American Eel. The pur-pose of this project is to gather background information on local eel habitats and current barriers to migration. The American Eel has been designated a Species of Concern in April 2006 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). This questionnaire will help us gather information on the historical significance of the American Eel to Quebec Mi’gmaq culture.

1. Have you ever went fishing for eels, or know anyone who has, in your lifetime?

Yes: _____ No: _____

2. What method was used to catch the eels during these fishing trips?

Past: Present:

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 12

3. What were the best spots to go eel fishing?

Location:

Habitat description:

4. How often was eel a part of your meal?

Present - Days per week: __Past – Days per week:__

5. Are there currently still places to go eel fishing today? What have been some of the changes, if any, that you noticed?

6. Have you noticed an increase or decrease with the number of people fishing eel?

Increase: __ Decrease: __

7. What are some of the reasons you feel have lead to this increase or decrease?

8. Is the American eel currently a party of your diet?

9. Would you include the American eel in your diet if they were available?

10. Do you currently have concerns about the state of the eel population and its habitat? Explain.

Name (optional): ____________________ Age: _____

Community: ________________________ Male: ___

Female: ____

Date: _____________________________

Ta’n telnenas’gl ga’te’gati’l Gespe’gewa’gig 13