SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE - Proposed legislation that would allow information about "at risk" wildlife to be kept from the public has perplexed some community leaders.

They're wondering how the government plans to honour wildlife co-management contracts as set out in land claims agreements if the new NWT Species At Risk Act passes.

Chuck Gruben, vice-president of Tuktoyaktuk's Hunters and Trappers Committee, said it's too early to jump to conclusions about the proposed act, but he doesn't see how the government could refuse to give out information about a species - including potentially dwindling caribou herds - when it has already committed to consulting with the Inuvialuit about wildlife under the Inuvialuit final agreement.

"We have a land claims agreement signed and, you know, we have a co-management process that has to be followed so even if you think about species at risk, it still has to go through us, too," said Gruben, who's been hunting caribou for more than 30 years.

Section 146 of the drafted act, which is scheduled to go before the legislative assembly for a vote in 2010, says ENR does not have to disclose any information about any at-risk species if releasing that information could further affect the survival of the species, or if "the information is traditional knowledge and a Management Authority requests that it not be disclosed."

Susan Fleck, director of wildlife for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said the environment minister would have to prove information is being withheld for the right reasons.

"It's set up so there is a test," Fleck said. "The test is if it involves additional risk. So, you would have to demonstrate that the information is not being released because it results in additional risk in survival or recovery."

The draft of the act doesn't specify how the minister would prove releasing the information would be a further detriment to the species, but Fleck said each species would be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

"What you might hide, or not disclose, is what we're doing right now and that's issuing current information on location during harvesting season," she said.

"If we believe releasing current, up-to-date information would be harmful to the recovery of a species then we would not release that."

The Inuvialuit would be part of the process as a co-management group, but the section pertaining to withholding information does not state who the information would be withheld from specifically, only that the GNWT can withhold it. No detail on who would be part of the control of information on species, like the co-management boards or the Tlicho government, is detailed in the section.

Gruben believes, like many other hunters in the territory, the government's renaming of herds is partly to blame for the perceived decrease of certain types of caribou.

"It was always the Bluenose herd; now there's Bluenose East, Bluenose West, Cape Bathhurst, Upper Tuk Pennisula herd. I know they do it for management purposes, but in regards to withholding any information to the people, it wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be good for us," he said.

"I strongly believe the people will oppose this anyway, you know, if they consult with us."