The global environmental organization wanted to present data on the effects of global warming on the North. But it also came to repair rocky relations with Northerners, hurt by past anti-fur campaigns.

“Greenpeace recognizes that (its anti-sealing campaign) had unexpected and inadvertent consequences for Arctic sealers,” states a paper handed to members of the Inuvik Hunters and Trappers Committee, the Inuvialuit Game Council and the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Committee.

“This is one of the reasons why Greenpeace is now working to better understand the concerns and views of Arctic indigenous peoples ‹ so that these concerns and views can be taken into consideration in our future campaign work.”

Richard Binder, resource person for the Inuvialuit Game Council, said he went to the meeting to hear out the organization, not to criticize it.

“All that would do is give them more ammunition to say that (Northerners) are being very uncooperative,” said Binder. “We thought we’d just go there, and listen.”

“For a number of years, I’ve felt that we needed to repair our relationship with people of the North,” said Steve Shallhorn, campaign director for Greenpeace. “We went North to face the tough questions.”

The organization has visited Fort Good Hope, Yellowknife, Inuvik and Tuk so far this summer, and attended Gwich’in and Dene Nation assemblies.

Shallhorn said Greenpeace has done a great deal of positive work for the North, including its opposition to Russian nuclear dumping in the Arctic and its fight against airborne pollutants entering the North.

Greenpeace “does not campaign on the fur trade,” according to statement handed out. “For a brief period of time in the mid-80s, a few people in the United Kingdom office of Greenpeace did campaign against fur. However, after strong objections from many Greenpeace offices, the U.K. campaign was shut down and we have not worked on the issue since.”

Shallhorn confirmed the organization does not oppose the fur industry but said it was unlikely Greenpeace would use its political clout to fight the European fur ban.

That’s “pretty difficult for us,” said Shallhorn. “What we want to do is to come up with a strategy to defeat the ban rather than make Greenpeace the target.”

Did Greenpeace know at the time that its anti-sealing campaign in Newfoundland would wreak havoc on the Northern seal industry?

“I honestly don’t think so,” said Shallhorn. “The organization (then) was nowhere near what it is today... there was no governing body, and nobody thought more than a few months ahead what they wanted to do.” Binder did not oppose a warmer relationship with Greenpeace, but said he had his reservations.

“They expressed a willingness to work with us, but still seem to want to keep at arm’s length.”