First Nations Dispute Government Claims About Moose Hunt

Manitoba’s provincial government faces mounting criticism from First Nations leaders over moose hunting licenses and alleged misinformation in recent court proceedings.

Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) and two northern First Nations have accused provincial officials of making false statements in court documents regarding the sharing of information about moose hunting decisions on traditional Indigenous lands. The dispute highlights growing tensions over wildlife management and treaty rights in the region.

In September, Misipawistik Cree Nation filed a lawsuit against the provincial government in the Court of King’s Bench. The First Nation claims that allowing licensed moose hunting on their traditional territories northwest of Lake Winnipeg infringes on their treaty rights to hunt moose for sustenance. According to the community, moose populations have dwindled significantly, threatening both their food security and cultural practices.

The provincial government responded last month with a statement of defense, denying any wrongdoing and requesting that the court dismiss the lawsuit. In their filing, provincial officials claimed they had provided Misipawistik with information about the guidelines, methodology, and calculations used to justify issuing hunting licenses in 2025 for areas near the First Nation.

MKO issued a strong rebuke on Monday, flatly stating that the province’s claim is “false.” According to the Indigenous organization, officials from MKO, Misipawistik, and Pimicikamak Cree Nation have repeatedly requested this scientific information from provincial authorities since May, with no response.

“For Manitoba to suggest it has already provided First Nations with the science behind its moose-licensing decisions is simply not true. Our nations have been waiting months for basic information that should have been shared at the outset,” said MKO Grand Chief Garrison Settee in a statement.

Settee emphasized the disconnect between the province’s public commitments and their actions, adding, “You cannot claim shared stewardship while withholding the very data needed to protect the moose our people depend on for food, culture, and the exercise of our constitutionally protected right of top priority.”

The dispute extends beyond Misipawistik. Pimicikamak Cree Nation is also engaged in a similar conflict with provincial authorities over moose hunting permissions on their traditional territories, underscoring the regional nature of these concerns across northern Manitoba.

Wildlife conservation experts note that moose populations across North America have faced numerous challenges in recent decades, including habitat loss, climate change, parasites, and hunting pressure. For Indigenous communities, these declining populations represent not only a threat to food sovereignty but also to cultural practices that have persisted for generations.

The conflict highlights the complex intersection of treaty rights, wildlife management, and government responsibilities. Under Canadian law, Indigenous treaty rights to hunt for sustenance typically take precedence over recreational hunting, but the implementation of these principles has often been contentious.

MKO argues that the province’s withholding of information undermines not only legal obligations but also contradicts the government’s public commitments to shared resource stewardship and reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples. The organization has called for immediate disclosure of the complete methodology and calculations behind moose-hunting licensing decisions.

This dispute occurs against a backdrop of evolving relationships between provincial governments and First Nations across Canada, where resource management and decision-making authority remain frequent points of contention. Wildlife management experts suggest that collaborative approaches that incorporate both Western scientific knowledge and Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge typically yield the most sustainable outcomes.

As the legal challenge proceeds, the case may establish important precedents regarding information sharing, consultation requirements, and the balancing of various interests in wildlife management decisions on traditional Indigenous territories.