2012 status of two West Greenland caribou populations 1) Ameralik, 2) Qeqertarsuatsiaat. Technical Report No. 98

West Greenland (south of 69°N) has six caribou regions that in total contain 
eight sub-populations. This report presents new information about the South 
region, which is divided into two sub-populations, Ameralik and 
Qeqertarsuatsiaat. These were last surveyed in March 2006. Given unlimited 
harvests, long autumn hunting season as well as a winter hunting season, a 
new estimate of abundance was overdue. The March 2012 helicopter survey 
used different methods and analysis than those implemented in the 2001 and 
2006 surveys. Line distance sampling was employed. Another change was 
that the boundary between Ameralik and Qeqertarsuatsiaat was returned to
the Sermilik fjord and Sermeq glacier. 
The overall abundance for the entire South region (Ameralik and 
Qeqertarsuatsiaat combined) in March 2012 was approximately 16,500 
caribou, and overall caribou density was about 1.3/km2. Although the latter is 
almost identical to the recommended stocking density of 1.2/km2, the density 
specific to the Ameralik population exceeded this.
Individually, the Ameralik population was estimated to ca. 11,700 caribou (90 
% CI: 8,500 – 16,000; CV = 0.18), with a density of 1.7 caribou/km2. Calf (age 
9-10 months) percentage was 28.2 %, calf recruitment was 63.5 calves per 100 
cows. The sex ratio was ca. 62 bulls per 100 cows. The Qeqertarsuatsiaat 
population is estimated to ca. 4,800 caribou (90 % CI: 3,400 – 6,800; CV = 0.21), 
with a density of 0.8 caribou/km2. The 2012 Ameralik population estimate is 
likely an underestimate because observer bias was not addressed. Further the 
2012 estimate may be low in comparison with the 2006 population estimate, 
since the 2006 survey was less accurate but attained a similar number.
Altered and atypical Ameralik caribou distribution and choice of elevation 
strongly suggested that the winter harvest has a disturbance impact on 
caribou behavior. In future there should be an appropriate hiatus between the 
cessation of harvest and the initiation of monitoring. The present situation 
necessitates a pre-survey reconnaissance for correct allocation of survey effort.
New to this survey were five crippled caribou. We suspect the immediately 
preceding winter hunting season (end date 29 Feb 2012) was responsible. We 
observed no muskoxen; however five feral sheep were seen.
8
The changed survey methods could have confounded a discussion of 
population trend since 2006. However, the 2006 and 2012 estimates of 
abundance are similar and are within each other’s confidence intervals. 
Ameralik and Qeqertarsuatsiaat population abundance appears to have been 
relatively stable for that period. We suggest the caribou harvest in 
combination with continued high calf production is responsible for 
maintaining the population size close to the Maximum Sustainable Yield 
(MSY) level. Given the 2012 high calf recruitment, we advise a continued high 
autumn harvest pressure similar to recent levels, specifically in the light of the 
relatively high 2012 density for Ameralik. Although the South region taken as 
a whole had a density close to the recommended stocking density (1.2/km2), 
Ameralik density was ca. 2/km2 and could rise. In the interests of caribou 
conservation, any growth in Ameralik population size causing high density 
(e.g., 4/km2 which occurred in 2001) must be prevented, because it would 
negatively impact vegetation, which already received overgrazing 16-20 years 
ago. Conserving the caribou’s forage vegetation is our best method to ensure 
healthy caribou and enable a good annual calf production and survival.
Although caribou numbers in the South region for the period 2006-2012 were 
seemingly stable, there is no reason to be complacent. Hunter knowledge in 
2016 suggests that caribou abundance has not declined since 2012, but may 
actually be rising. If true this would threaten forage vegetation and ultimately 
caribou numbers. Further, there are some disquieting anthropogenic changes 
to the caribou environment since 2012. These include altered caribou habitat 
use (distribution), demographics, crippling loss and new trends in hunting. 
These are important to consider since expected global warming will be an 
additional change that can bring environmental instability with negative 
consequences for caribou abundance.
We suggest that the commercial activities directly and indirectly involved 
with the harvesting of caribou now make a hitherto unrecognized substantial 
contribution to the Greenland economy that far exceeds the meat’s market
value. Meanwhile, the caribou populations in West Greenland, including 
Ameralik and Qeqertarsuatsiaat, are basically discrete populations inhabiting 
small ‘islands’ of land sandwiched between the Davis Strait and the 
Greenland Ice Cap. This makes the caribou vulnerable because these ‘islands’ 
offer nowhere-to-run-to, if and when, changes come, be these climate (e.g., 
drought, severe winter) or other factors (e.g., disease outbreaks, 
anthropogenic impacts). For wildlife management to have any chance of 
9
mitigating future change(s), monitoring is necessary. Unfortunately lack of 
financial resources has suspended caribou surveys until further notice.
Meanwhile the magnitude of the harvest is unknown, poaching may be 
substantial and winter hunting (which can increase mortality risk) is allowed, 
albeit on a restricted basis at present. With climate change lurking, we suspect 
the chances for catastrophic weather will rise. The future of our caribou 
populations, and hence the significant economic benefits obtained thereof, 
could be in jeopardy. Without monitoring data the current situation is 
unknown and scientifically founded recommendations for the sustainable use 
of caribou become impossible