Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale (Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT - University of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Inuvialuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Beluga Whale
(Delphinaterus leucas) in a Changing Climate in Tuktoyaktuk, NT
By
Devin Waugh
A thesis
presented to
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
Masters of Science
in
Geography
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
© Devin Waugh, January, 2018
ABSTRACT
INUVIALUIT TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE (TEK) OF BELUGA
WHALE (DELPHINATERUS LEUCAS) IN A CHANGING CLIMATE IN
TUKTOYAKTUK, NT
Devin Waugh Advisor:
University of Guelph, 2018 Dr. Tristan Pearce
Committee Members:
Dr. Ben Bradshaw
Dr. Sonja Ostertag
Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are an important food source for
Inuvialuit, Indigenous peoples of the western Canadian Arctic. This thesis documents
Inuvialuit TEK about the ecology and behaviour of the beluga whale, hunting
techniques, food preparation and values, in the context of changing climatic conditions
in Tuktoyaktuk, NT. Data were collected using semi-directed interviews with 17
Inuvialuit beluga harvesters and participant observation, and thematic analysis methods
were used to code data. The research found that Inuvialuit harvesters possess detailed
rational knowledge of beluga, particularly regarding hunting techniques and food
preparation, and are guided by a moral code about how to behave with respect to
beluga. Inuvialuit are observing rapid changes in the environment, some with
implications for beluga hunting and food preparation but are coping thus far. This
research contributes to addressing gaps in the literature on Inuvialuit perspectives on
beluga, particularly in the context of rapid climatic change.
iii
Acknowledgements
This research would not be possible without the willingness of the community of
Tuktoyaktuk to be open and supportive of the research. I would particularly like to thank
the Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers Committee for supporting the research and
providing feedback throughout the research process. I would also to thank Verna Pokiak
for her hard work and professionalism throughout the field season as research
assistant, and her sage advice over many cups of tea and coffee. I thank Charles
Pokiak, Frank Pokiak, James Pokiak, Lucky Pokiak, Nellie Pokiak, Peter Nogasak,
Randall “Boogie” Pokiak, Raymond Cockney, Raymond Mangelana, Ron Felix, Roy
Cockney, Sam Gruben, Sam Pingo, Wayne Cockney, Willy Carpenter, and two
anonymous participants for graciously sharing their incredible knowledge of beluga, just
a small facet of the collective knowledge of the environment in the community. The
participants’ kindness and enthusiasm for beluga made the research a pleasure to
undertake. Thanks to Sonja Ostertag and Lisa Loseto for introducing me to the
community, and for their support and expertise on our several trips in the Inuvialuit
Settlement Region (ISR). I would also like to thank my parents, Neil and Rosanne, my
sister Emily, and my girlfriend Leah for their love and support over the last two years.
Thanks to Office 351 and the rest of the Hutt family for the on-campus comradery and
support throughout this journey. Thanks to Tristan and Ben for taking me on as a
student, and guiding me through the incredible experience that has been arctic
research; and to Peter Collings for providing excellent intellectual guidance in the
production of a manuscript from this work. Finally, I acknowledge financial support from
the Aurora Research Institute, the Northern Scientific Training Program (NSTP),
iv SSHRC, NSERC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and ArcticNet Project 1.8 - Knowledge Co-Production for the Identification and Selection of Ecological, Social, and Economic Indicators for the Beaufort Sea.
v
Table of Contents
Chapter I – Introduction.................................................................................................1
1.1 Research Context............................................................................................1
1.2 Research Aim and Objectives..........................................................................4
1.3 Thesis Organization.........................................................................................4
Chapter II – Literature Review.......................................................................................6
2.1 Climate Change in the Arctic...........................................................................6
2.1.1 Snow Cover........................................................................................7
2.1.2 Sea Ice...............................................................................................8
2.1.3 Marine Ecosystems............................................................................9
2.1.4 Terrestrial Ecosystems.....................................................................10
2.2 Beluga Ecology and Behaviour......................................................................11
2.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge..................................................................14
2.3.1 TEK of Arctic Wildlife........................................................................17
2.4 TEK and Wildlife Management......................................................................20
2.4.1 Co-Management Frameworks..........................................................22
Chapter III – Case Study Location...............................................................................24
3.1 Inuvialuit.........................................................................................................24
3.2 Inuvialuit Settlement Region..........................................................................24
3.3 Tuktoyaktuk, NT.............................................................................................27
Chapter IV – Methodology...........................................................................................30
4.1 Community Researcher Relations.................................................................30
4.1.1 Early Communication.......................................................................31
4.1.2 Community Involvement in Research and Design...........................32
4.1.3 Opportunities for Local Employment................................................32
4.1.4 Dissemination of Results..................................................................33
4.2 Research Participants....................................................................................33
4.2.1 Number of Research Participants....................................................34
4.3 Mapping.........................................................................................................35
4.4 Semi-Structured Interviews............................................................................35
4.5 Participant Observation and Phased Assertion.............................................37
Chapter V – Results......................................................................................................40
5.1 Beluga Ecology and Behaviour ....................................................................40
5.2 Hunting Techniques .....................................................................................42
5.3 Food Preparation..........................................................................................45
5.4 Values...........................................................................................................49
5.5 Observations of Change...............................................................................51
Chapter VI – Discussion...............................................................................................56
6.1 Implications for Co-Management of Beluga in the ISR.................................64vi
Chapter VII – Conclusion.............................................................................................68
7.1 Summary of Results.......................................................................................68
7.2 Scholarly Contributions..................................................................................70
7.3 Practical Contributions...................................................................................71
7.4 Future Research............................................................................................72
Bibliography..................................................................................................................73
Appendix I – Interview Guide.......................................................................................83
Appendix II – Interview Consent Form.......................................................................85
Appendix III – Northwest Territories Research License...........................................90
Appendix IV – University of Guelph Ethics Approval...............................................92vii
List of Tables
Table 4.2 – Demographics of Research Participants.....................................................35
Table 4.3 – Sample Interview Questions from Interview Guide.....................................37
Table 5.1 - Summary of Scientific and TEK Understandings of Environmental Change in
Tuktoyaktuk .........................................................................................................55
Table 6.1 - Harvesters’ Observations of Environmental Change and their Observed and
Potential Impacts on Beluga Harvesting..............................................................62
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 – Location of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Tuktoyaktuk, NT...........26
Figure 3.3 - Location of Tuktoyaktuk and Kittigaryuit Marine Protected Area (MPA).....29
Figure 4.1 - Key Considerations for Engaging Arctic Communities in Collaborative
Research.. ...........................................................................................................31
Figure 5.1 - Tuktoyaktuk Coastal Environs and Kittigaryuit Marine Protected Area
(MPA)...................................................................................................................41Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Research Context
Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are widely distributed across the Arctic,
and are hunted by many Indigenous peoples. The eastern Beaufort Sea stock is one of
Canada’s largest beluga populations, migrating between the waters off Alaska, Russia,
the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut throughout its annual cycle (DFO, 2002;
Harwood & Smith, 2002; Harwood & Kingsley, 2013). The migratory pattern of this
population brings it into close proximity to communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region (ISR) from late May to September. Beluga is an important food source for the
Inuvialuit, Inuit of the western Arctic, and the harvesting, preparation and sharing of the
species is an important cultural activity. All communities within the ISR hunt beluga but
the community of Tuktoyaktuk, located on the east side of Kugmallit Bay in the
Mackenzie River Estuary, is typically the most active (Harwood et al. 2002). Inuvialuit in
Tuktoyaktuk possess detailed bodies of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of
beluga whales, including ecology and behaviour, hunting techniques, and food
preparation methods. This body of TEK has been developed through an accumulation
of location-specific observations and refinement of techniques over time, passed down
through generations. This knowledge is continually updated to reflect new observations
and to take advantage of new technologies (Wenzel, 1991; Aporta & Higgs, 2005). This
thesis dissertation focuses on documenting these facets of TEK about beluga that are
not well represented in the literature and go beyond knowledge of beluga ecology and
behaviour, to also include knowledge of how Inuvialuit currently use and value beluga
(Usher, 2000).
1This research builds on a body of scholarship on Inuit TEK of different species of
wildlife in the Arctic. Previous studies have examined aspects of bodies of TEK around
various species, including, for example, eider duck by Nakashima (1986) in northern
Quebec, polar bear by Wenzel and Tyrell (1983) in the NWT, beluga by Huntington et
al. (1999) and Mymrin and Huntington (1999) in Alaska and Russia, Greenland shark by
Idrobo and Berkes (2012) in Pangnirtung, caribou by Ferguson and Messier (1996) on
Baffin Island, and ringed seal by Furgal, Innes, & Kovacs (2002) in Arctic Bay. Outside
of Canada, a handful of studies have documented TEK of beluga in the Chukchi and
Northern Bering Sea working with communities in Alaska and Russia (Huntington, 1999;
Mymrin & Huntington, 1999). These studies examined TEK of the natural history of
beluga, including distribution, migration, abundance, feeding, calving, molting, and
response to anthropogenic disturbance. Hunting and butchering techniques of beluga
have also been examined in Alaska in the community of Buckland (Marseth, 1997).
However, despite a long history of Inuvialuit interaction with beluga and its continued
nutritional and cultural importance, there has been limited documentation of Inuit
knowledge of beluga whale in the Canadian Arctic (Breton-Honeyman, Furgal, &
Hammill, 2016). This lack of documentation is particularly relevant at time when the
Arctic is experiencing rapid climate change with uncertain consequences for beluga and
Inuvialuit hunters, and a dataset on beluga that is limited to scientific measurements.
These factors have contributed to an increasing interest from Inuit and non-Inuit alike to
study and incorporate Indigenous perspectives into the scholarship on beluga and other
important arctic species. Average circumpolar temperatures have risen approximately
twice as much as average global temperatures since 1981 (Screen & Simmonds, 2010).
2The rise in average temperature has altered numerous characteristics of the physical
environment, such as sea ice extent and thickness, snow cover, permafrost,
precipitation and wind patterns (Larsen et al., 2014). These changes, in turn, have
impacted ecosystems, marine and terrestrial animals, and the Inuit communities that
depend on them. As the distribution, abundance, and composition of prey communities
are affected, the health and availability of marine and terrestrial wildlife at higher trophic
levels that Inuit communities rely on for subsistence are also impacted (Litzow et al.,
2006; Pearce et al., 2010).
Biological studies, followed by studies on management/co-management, make
up much of the literature on beluga (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). Outside of these
published studies, Inuit knowledge of beluga has contributed greatly to the
understanding and management of the species in co-management settings, but the
literature does not reflect this (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). This lack of published
documentation has real implications for the visibility of Inuit perspectives, and for the
equitability of co-management arrangements that draw on bodies of scholarship
dominated by western scientific studies. This research responds to this knowledge need
and documents what Inuvialuit know about beluga and how they use and value beluga,
focusing on knowledge of beluga behaviour and ecology, hunting techniques, and
subsistence food preparation. The research then examines these facets of Inuvialuit
TEK of beluga in the context of ongoing climatic changes in the region to understand
how these changes are affecting Inuvialuit, beluga, and beluga harvesting activities.
31.2 Research Aim and Objectives
The aim of the research is to document Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge
(TEK) of beluga whale in the context of changing climatic conditions in Tuktoyaktuk in
the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). The aim is realized through three objectives:
1) document Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge of beluga whale ecology
and behaviour, hunting technique and subsistence food preparation;
2) identify changing environmental conditions affecting Inuvialuit-beluga
interactions; and
3) examine if and how these changing environmental conditions are affecting
Inuvialuit, beluga and beluga harvesting activities.
1.3 Thesis Dissertation Organization
The thesis dissertation is organized into seven chapters. Chapter Two, Literature
Review, presents a review of relevant literature to broadly situate the research,
including scholarship regarding climate change in the Arctic, beluga ecology and
behaviour, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and wildlife co-management.
Chapter Three, Case Study Location, reviews the geographical context of the research
including the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) and Tuktoyaktuk, NT. Chapter Four,
Methodology, presents the methodological approaches utilized in the research. Chapter
Five, Results, describes what was found through the research that addresses objectives
1-3, in addition to highlighting Inuvialuit values around beluga, and changes that are
being observed in the whales and the broader biophysical environment. Chapter Six,
Discussion, considers the significance of the results in the context of each body of
4scholarship and addresses objectives 2 and 3. Chapter Seven, Conclusions,
summarizes, and highlights the implications of, the key research findings, outlines the
scholarly contributions of the research, and suggests future research opportunities.
5Chapter 2 - Literature Review
This thesis dissertation engages with scholarship on climate change in the Arctic,
beluga behaviour and ecology, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and wildlife co-
management. This chapter reviews all four bodies of scholarship, developing a
theoretical and practical foundation for this research.
2.1 Climate Change in the Arctic
There is consensus amongst scientists that climate change induced by human
activity is occurring (Larsen et al., 2014). Greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased steadily since 1750, leading to
atmospheric concentrations that “are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years” (Larsen
et al., p.4, 2014). These emissions have altered the composition of the atmosphere,
leading to warming of the oceans and atmosphere, reductions in ice and snow, changes
in land cover, and a rise in sea level (Larsen et al., 2014). The relatively rapid changes
in the global climate system that are occurring have increasingly serious implications for
natural and human systems around the globe (Larsen et al., 2014). These implications
are even more concerning for the Arctic where warming is noted to be occurring at a
faster rate and greater extent compared to the rest of the world (Larsen et al., 2014).
Arctic near surface air temperatures have risen at nearly twice the rate of the global
average through ‘arctic amplification’ processes, namely through positive snow and ice
albedo reduction feedbacks (Screen & Simmonds, 2010).
Numerous biophysical environmental changes have already been observed in the
Arctic including reductions in sea ice, increased coastal erosion, thawing permafrost,
6ocean acidification, changes in river inflow, and changes in fish and wildlife distribution
and health (Larsen et al., 2014; Stroeve et al., 2012; Overeem et al., 2011; Callaghan et
al., 2011; Steiner et al., 2013). In addition to the changes observed, there is a threat of
several positive feedback mechanisms in the Arctic that may contribute to accelerated
warming at the local and global levels. These mechanisms include increased energy
absorption from reduced snow and ice albedo, release of stored carbon from thawing
permafrost layers, and the release of stored seabed methane hydrates (Brown, Derkson
& Wang, 2010; Whiteman, Hope & Wadhams, 2013; Schurr et al., 2013). The northern
permafrost zone is estimated to 1700 gigatonnes (Gt) and stored seabed methane is
estimated at 50 Gt making them both major concerns as they are liberated by warming
temperatures (Whiteman et al., 2013; Schurr et al., 2013). Environmental changes in
the Arctic are predicted to exhibit spatial heterogeneity and vary in rate and magnitude
(Van Hemert, 2015). Four prominent sub-areas of research on climate change in the
Arctic will be covered, including effects on snow cover, sea ice, marine ecosystems, and
terrestrial ecosystems.
2.1.1 Snow Cover
The steady decrease in indicators of snow cover such as snow cover duration
(SCD), snow cover extent (SCE), and snow water equivalent (SWE), over the last
number of decades is expected to continue in the Arctic (Callaghan et al., 2011). Over
the last 50 years in the Canadian Arctic, snow cover duration (SCD) has decreased at a
rate of approximately 2.8 days per decade, and maximum snow depth has decreased at
a rate of approximately 1.9 cm per decade (Callaghan et al., 2011). SCE and SWE have
7also been decreasing over the same period, with implications for albedo warming
feedbacks from more exposed darker ground (Callaghan et al., 2011). Snow cover
structure and the frequency of rain-on-snow events, which can both affect sub-snow
cover animal feeding behaviour, have also been changing (Callaghan et al., 2011).
Climate models predict a 10-20% decrease in overall snow cover along with decreases
in other snow indicators by 2050, with changes most pronounced in coastal areas
(Callaghan et al., 2011).
2.1.2 Sea Ice
Sea ice is the dominant feature of polar oceans, and changes in sea ice
conditions due to climate warming are one of the dominant influences on biophysical
systems in the Arctic region (Larsen et al., 2014). Positive ice-albedo feedback loops
leading to greater radiative warming account for the Arctic amplification phenomena that
causes the Arctic to warm at approximately two times the average global rate since the
1980s (Larsen et al., 2014). This accelerated warming has led to an accelerating rate of
decline in sea ice extent that has exceeded climatic models, resulting in record arctic
summer ice minima several times in the last decade (Larsen et al., 2014; Stroeve et al.,
2012). Sea ice helps to protect shorelines from erosion, and its reduction has
accelerated thermal and physical weathering of the coastal interface, threatening
infrastructure and municipal services (Overeem et al., 2011; Andrachuk and Smit,
2012). Change in sea ice also threatens communities that use sea ice as a platform for
hunting, travelling and fishing (Nichols et al., 2004).
82.1.3 Marine Ecosystems
Sea ice is a dominant habitat for arctic marine environments. Observed and
predicted changes to sea ice distribution and extent in the growing season will likely
shift the balance between ice algae, phytoplankton, and krill that form that base of arctic
marine food webs (Larsen et al., 2014). At lower trophic levels, these changes will affect
the duration, magnitude and species composition of primary and secondary production
on which arctic food webs are based (Larsen et al., 2014). While productivity may
increase due to more light and thus energy being available, the seasonal timing of sea
ice freeze and thaw is the main factor for the primary production on which marine arctic
ecosystems are based (Moore & Huntington, 2008; Van Hemert et al., 2015; Larsen et
al., 2014; Laidre et al, 2008). These changes at lower trophic levels could lead to
trophic decoupling and cascades, negatively impacting species at higher trophic levels
(Moore & Huntington, 2008; Van Hemert et al. 2015). Sea ice provides habitat for
numerous marine species at all trophic levels, including a number of charismatic
megafauna like polar bears (Ursus maritimus), beluga whale, and walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus), that depend on sea ice as a platform for various life processes such as
hunting, resting and reproduction (Moore & Huntington, 2008; Laidre et al., 2008;
Larsen et al., 2014; Van Hemert et al., 2015). Although arctic species are well adapted
to the high interannual variability of the climate in the region, the large unidirectional
changes being observed and predicted by climate change models leading to loss of sea
ice may overwhelm species resilience (Moore & Huntington, 2008).
92.1.4 Terrestrial Ecosystems
Terrestrial ecosystems in the Arctic have begun to be affected by the various
biophysical change caused by anthropogenic climate changes, with phenological
responses attributable to warming apparent in most (Larsen et al., 2014). The land
adjacent to the Beaufort Sea is exhibiting some of the greatest positive changes in plant
productivity seen in the Arctic, driven by dramatic changes in temperature (Larsen et al.,
2014). Northward movement of the tree line is associated with increased summer
temperatures, and while the effect is difficult to predict, up to 50% of tundra
environments are expected to be replaced by forest by 2100 (Callaghan et al., 2011).
This dramatic shift in ecosystem is especially relevant for Tuktoyaktuk, which sits just
north of the treeline.
Increased summer temperatures and associated decreases in seasonality may
benefit some species through greater primary productivity, lower thermal stress, lower
energy burdens, longer reproductive seasons, and increased offspring survivability
(Barton & Zalewski, 2007; Hersteinsson & MacDonald, 1992; Gallant et al., 2012).
Increased temperature and precipitation have a number of negative implications for
larger mammals as well. Declines in caribou and other large ungulates like muskox
have been linked in part to climate warming, and can be attributed to increases in rain-
on-snow events that restrict access to forage (Vors & Boyce, 2009; Larsen et al., 2015).
It has also been proposed that warming induced trophic mismatches between forage
and calving has and may continue to play a role in declines in caribou populations (Vors
10& Boyce, 2009). The plight of these species that are highly important for local
ecosystems and Inuit communities highlights the need for more studies to understand
the complex interplay of climate change effects.
2.2 Beluga Ecology and Biology
The beluga or white whale (Delphinapterus leucas), known locally in the Beaufort
Sea as qilalugaq, is a toothed whale found throughout the Arctic (DFO, 2000). Beluga
are distinct for their lack of dorsal fin and large forehead, or melon, as well as their
characteristic white colour as adults (DFO, 2000). Calves, or nalungiait, are born light to
dark grey in colour, 1.5m in length, and 50-80kg in weight, and grow to an average 4.3m
and 1500-2000kg as adult males, or anguhalluit (DFO, 2000). Adult females, or
nalungialiit, are slightly smaller, averaging 3.8m in length. Beluga lose all their skin
pigment around the age of 7-9 years (DFO, 2000). The diet of Beluga has been inferred
by examining stomach content, fatty acids profiles, and analysing nitrogen stable
isotopes of harvested whales, due to the difficulty of direct observation of feeding
behaviour in the wild (Loseto et al., 2009; Matley, Fisk, & Dick, 2015; Quakenbush et
al., 2017).
There are a number of populations of Beluga in the Canadian Arctic, and each
migrate significant distances throughout the year. Sea ice conditions are believed to be
the primary factor influencing the timing of migration, whereby beluga move out of
seasonally ice covered regions before the fall freeze, and move into regions after ice
break up in the spring (Asselin et al., 2012; Heide-Jørgensen, 2010). The Beaufort Sea
population winters in the Bering Sea, where they interact with populations that summer
11in Bristol Bay, Norton Sound and the Eastern Chukchi Sea (Citta et al., 2017). Studies
estimate the population at 20,000-40,000 individuals, although the current population
size is likely larger, and is considered to be stable or increasing (DFO, 2002; Harwood &
Kingsley, 2013). Norton and Harwood (1986) indicate the Beaufort population migrates
east along the north coast of Alaska in spring, following the seaward edge of land-fast
ice (DFO, 2002). Visual, aerial, and satellite tracking indicates that the population then
concentrates in the Mackenzie estuary in the summer, with segments of the population
moving offshore, or further east into the Amundsen Gulf and Viscount Melville Sound
areas by late summer (DFO, 2002). Laidre et al. (2008) notes that Beaufort beluga
prefer heavy sea ice cover and deep water, but they are also believed to use ice edges
for foraging, avoiding predation from killer whales, and for refuge in windy conditions
(Harwood & Kingsley, 2013; Harwood et al., 2002; Hornby et al., 2016). Laidre et al.
(2008) also believes beluga to be resilient to climatic changes and reductions in sea ice,
and several observations support this theory (Asselin et al., 2012; Heide-Jørgensen,
2010). Although the ice adapted arctic cod is a primary prey species, beluga are known
to prey on a wide range of species, which they can target based on changing
abundance (DFO, 2002). However, the observed declines in beluga body condition over
the last few decades indicate a possible effect of beluga switching between less
favourable prey species (Harwood, Kingsley, & Smith, 2014; Choy, 2014; Choy et al.,
2017). Ice edges are noted to have high primary productivity and concentrations of prey,
and observations indicate that beluga may be increasingly taking advantage of these
structures (Asselin et al., 2012). Beluga are also increasingly abundant offshore in the
Beaufort during ice free periods (Harwood & Kingsley, 2013). It is believed that the
12whales may be taking advantage of greater pelagic marine productivity predicted by
climate change models, or are less deterred from the area due to significant decreases
in disruptive industrial activity (Harwood & Kingsley, 2013).
In addition to climatic stressors, Beluga are increasingly at risk from pollutants in
the arctic environment. Pacyna et al. (2006) indicates that anthropogenic mercury from
industrial activity, transported via the atmosphere and hydrosphere from populated
areas, has increased naturally occurring mercury concentrations throughout the world
(Krey, Ostertag & Chan, 2015). Mercury is taken up by organisms through their diet,
accumulates within body tissue, and biomagnifies through trophic levels (Krey et al.,
2015; Loseto et al., 2008). As arctic marine predators, belugas can accumulate high
levels of mercury in their body tissue, potentially affecting their health and the health of
polar bears and Inuit who hunt them (Krey et al., 2015; Loseto et al., 2008). Clarkson
and Magos (2006) note that acute mercury poisoning affects the kidneys of mammals,
while chronic exposure can cause permanent damage to the central nervous system
(Krey et al., 2015). Persistent organic pollutants like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and
chlordane are also chemicals of concern in Beluga (Kuhnlein & Chan, 2000; Ostertag et
al., 2009).
The anthropogenic contaminants that beluga are exposed to in the Arctic
represent a potential threat to the health of the animals themselves and the Inuit that
rely on them for subsistence. Studies of biomarkers indicate that mercury levels in
Beaufort beluga may be at or above neurotoxic thresholds, which can lead to
neurobehavioral change, impacting the survival of animals (Ostertag et al., 2014; Krey
13et al., 2015). However, it is noted that the actual effects of mercury toxicity on animals in
the wild are difficult to determine, and that more studies are needed for effective risk
assessment (Ostertag et al., 2014; Krey et al., 2015).
Modern day hunts in the region average around 180-190 whales removed from
the stock each year, representing less than 1% of the conservatively estimated
population of around 20,000 individuals (DFO, 2000; Harwood et al., 2002). McGhee
(1988) notes that evidence of beluga whale hunting in the western Arctic extends back
at least 500 years (DFO, 2000). With the rate of modern harvesting well under the
sustainable take of 2-3% per year and the ongoing presence of large, mature beluga
despite centuries of harvest, it is safe to assume that subsistence harvesting is not a
threat to beluga populations (Harwood et al., 2002; DFO, 2000).
2.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge
There has been widespread recognition of the existence of numerous knowledge
systems amongst various groups in human society (Berkes, 2008; Raymond et al.,
2010). Knowledge systems can be distinguished from one another by characteristics
such as the level of formal processes used to generate the knowledge, extent of
expertise, extent to which knowledge is articulated or available to others, and the extent
to which knowledge is embedded in and reflects traditional cultural rules and norms
derived from generations of past experience (Raymond et al., 2010). Indigenous groups
within states typically have knowledge systems that are distinct from the predominant
knowledge systems of the settler or colonial societies in which they are embedded.
Indigenous, or traditional knowledge, is a body of knowledge, skills, and values
14characterized in particular by being unique to a particular indigenous group, informal,
highly localized, embedded with values and cosmology, and passed down through inter-
generational transfer (Warren et al., 1995 in Raymond et al., 2010). ‘Local knowledge’
differs from traditional knowledge in that it borne out of more recent human interactions
with the environment, as opposed to being embedded in deeper and older cultural
practices (Raymond et al., 2010).
Traditional ecological knowledge, or TEK, is a subset of traditional knowledge that
pertains more specifically to human interactions with, and knowledge of the biophysical
environment (Berkes, 2008; Berkes, 2009; Wenzel, 1999; Usher, 2000). TEK is more
than just facts or knowledge about the environment. Some scholars note that it also
includes practices and beliefs, while others divide TEK into factual/rational knowledge
about the environment, factual knowledge about the use of the environment, culturally
based moral and ethical value statements, and culturally based cosmology (Berkes,
2008; Nadasdy, 1999; Reo & Whyte, 2012; Usher, 2000). The division of TEK into these
categories have assisted in efforts to bring together TEK and scientific knowledge, but
critics argue that the division of factual TEK away from its holistic nature and cultural
and local context can cause problems (Usher, 2000; Nadasy, 1999; Berkes, 2008;
Tester & Irniq, 2012). TEK is considered to be multi-faceted and holistic, imbedded with
values and beliefs about the environment beyond simple facts (Berkes, 2008; Nadasdy,
1999; Reo & Whyte, 2012; Usher, 2000). This holistic approach to knowledge adds a
dimension of complexity that continues to challenge efforts seeking to compare,
integrate or equate these knowledge types with western, reductionist knowledge types.
15Politics play an important role in the relationships between different knowledge
systems and the societies that generate them. Interactions between colonial powers
and myriad indigenous cultures throughout the world have highlighted how knowledge
has and continues to play a central role in how power imbalances are developed and
perpetuated. Even the term “traditional” in the context of traditional knowledge is
considered by some scholars to negatively imply static and unchanging, as an antonym
of modern (Berkes, 2008). This is one of the more problematic aspects of the term, and
has led to debate regarding contemporary knowledge being considered part of TK. The
adaptive and cumulative nature of TK means that new knowledge is incorporated into
the old to produce new insights; the phenomena of adopting new technology is not by
any means unique to recent times (Aporta & Higgs, 2005; Berkes, 2009). The
perception and politics of “traditional” Inuit culture is essentially a frozen, arbitrary image
drawn from early European contact literature, when in fact Inuit culture continues to
change and adapt to this day (Wenzel, 1991; Aporta & Higgs, 2005). This notion of Inuit
culture has been used to de-value Inuit knowledge in the past, particularly in the
important area of wildlife management of subsistence species such as caribou (Usher,
2004).
Modern wildlife management has moved towards a more equal integration of
scientific and traditional knowledge, with widespread use of co-management
arrangements in the Arctic (Usher, 2000; Wenzel, 2004). However, constructive
integration of knowledge systems continues to be challenged by the epistemological
differences between them (Usher, 2000). That being said, problems with integration are
noted to be more about the need for greater mutual understanding between knowledge
16holders than some inherent incompatibility, but power dynamics continue to play an
important role in knowledge integration, where decisions regarding what constitutes
“useful”, what knowledge is used or privileged, and final decisions about laws are
usually in the hands of non-Inuit (Tyrell, 2007; Raymond et al., 2010; Berkes, 1993;
Nadasy, 1999; Tester and Irniq, 2008).
2.3.1 TEK of Arctic Wildlife
TEK has been studied in various contexts throughout the Arctic as an area of
inquiry. Documentation of TEK has been noted to extend back to some of the earliest
European explorers like Boas, Jenness, Stefansson, and Rasmussen, who described
Inuit knowledge of local ecology (Wenzel, 1999). Boas, for example, examined the
relationship between sea ice type, ringed seal abundance, and Inuit settlement patterns
in one of the earliest non-Inuit inquiry into TEK (Wenzel, 1999). Since the 1970s, TEK
has come to form a significant component of cultural ecological research in the Arctic,
as well as a central ethical and information role in interactions with researchers
(Wenzel, 1999). Inuit TEK of various species has been examined throughout the
Canadian Arctic. TEK of eider ducks have been examined by Nakashima (1990) in
northern Quebec, polar bear by Wenzel (1983) in the Northwest Territories, beluga by
Huntington (1999) and Mymrin & Huntington (1999) in Alaska and Russia, Greenland
shark by Idrobo and Berkes (2012) in Pangnirtung, caribou by Ferguson & Messier
(1997) in the Northwest Territories and Baffin Island, and ringed seal by Furgal, Innes, &
Kovacs (2002) in Arctic Bay. These studies vary widely in the aspects of TEK that they
focus on examining. Scholars like Idrobo and Berkes (2012) examined how TEK is
17produced, while others like Wenzel (1983) examined hunting strategies and broader
values and beliefs. Many TEK studies, like Huntington (1999), Mymrin and Huntington
(1999), Ferguson & Messier (1997), Honeyman et al., (2016), focus primarily or entirely
on the factual/rational aspects of TEK, such as wildlife behaviour and ecology. Scholars
like Usher (2000) and Tester & Irniq (2008) have noted that the focus on this area of
TEK can be attributed in part to its ease of access, and for its similarity to scientific data
that can be more easily integrated into management frameworks. While some scholars
like Ferguson & Messier (1997) have examined TEK in the context of change in a
species over time, there remains few or no studies of specific bodies of TEK of wildlife
species in the explicit context of climate change. Rather, scholars like Pearce et al.,
(2010; 2015) and Ford et al. (2007) have examined TEK in the context of climate
change as an aspect of adaptive capacity, and the role it plays in the context of
vulnerability and adaptation. Other scholars, like Wenzel (2009) have examined how
subsistence hunting and sharing structures, are changing in response to climate
change, and Tyrrell (2006) has documented differences in Inuit and non-Inuit knowledge
and perspectives on changing polar numbers in the context of climate change. This
area of inquiry into bodies of TEK is not without its controversies, such as the
methodological approaches utilized to conduct the research, use of the term TEK itself,
neo-colonial ethical and moral considerations, and that non-Inuit are typically the
primary investigators of Inuit TEK (Nadasdy, 1999; Davis & Wagner, 2003; Fernandez-
Giminez, Huntington, & Frost, 2006; Wenzel, 1999).
TEK of beluga has been documented explicitly in the academic literature in
Russia, Alaska, and Nunavik, examining knowledge from a number of communities of
18beluga populations in the Eastern Chukchi and Northern Bering Sea, and Nunavik in
eastern Canada (Huntington, 1999; Mymrin & Huntington, 1999; Breton-Honeyman et
al., 2016). These studies examined TEK of the natural history of beluga, including
distribution, migration, abundance, feeding, calving, and molting, and response to
anthropogenic disturbance. Several other grey literature studies have been conducted
on TEK of beluga, both in the ISR and elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic. Two broad
traditional knowledge studies in the ISR have included beluga within their scope. Hart &
Amos (2004) examined the hunting and processing of beluga whales, as well as the
changes in technology associated with the hunt over time. A second traditional
knowledge study undertaken to fulfill the obligations of a proposed natural gas pipeline
in the Mackenzie Delta region included knowledge and use of beluga whale in the
region within its scope (Inuuvik, Tuktuuyaqtuuq, and Akłarvik Community
Corporations,2006). Byers and Roberts (1995) conducted work in the ISR on TEK of
beluga more specifically by documenting TEK of beluga at the time in Tuktoyaktuk,
Aklavik and Inuvik, and reviewing the historical context of the beluga hunt. The study
examines various facets of Inuvialuit TEK of beluga ecology including movement,
reproduction, behaviour, and diet, as well as brief descriptions of hunting practices and
consumption practices. A study conducted by Remnant and Thomas (1992) focused on
Inuit TEK of beluga and narwhal distribution and biology in seven communities in the
high eastern Canadian Arctic. However, only two of these four grey literature studies are
publically available online, limiting their access to a wider audience.
192.4 TEK and Wildlife Co-Management
The ongoing integration of TEK and scientific knowledge in wildlife management
continues to play a central role in improvements to Inuit/federal relationships in the
Arctic, and improvement of wildlife management in the north. TEK has been used to
understand wildlife and the biophysical environment more completely and in greater
detail than would be possible with scientific knowledge alone (Berkes, 2009; Berkes,
2001; Armitage et al., 2009). This is due in part to the continual evolution of TEK
through “learning-by-doing, experimenting, and knowledge building” through locally
relevant human interactions with the land and resources (Berkes, 2009). In bringing
together different knowledge holders, co-management arrangements necessitate co-
production of knowledge from a plurality of knowledge systems. (Dale & Armitage,
2011). This co-production aims to improve understandings of complex natural systems
and address problems within those systems better than with one knowledge system in
isolation (Armitage et al., 2011; Dale & Armitage, 2011). Wildlife management in the
north especially is challenged by incomplete information particularly about species’ life
histories and distribution, and is challenged further by the climatic changes that are
continuing to alter the distribution, migration, abundance, reproductive success, prey
abundance, and survival of many species (Breton-Honeyman, Furgal, & Hammill, 2016).
In addition to practical improvements of co-management, inclusion of TEK is considered
to improve trust building and social learning between parties (Dale & Armitage, 2011).
While the inclusion of TEK in co-management arrangements is generally
considered to result in “better, more equitable, flexible, or sustainable decisions,....there
are significant challenges and risks associated with knowledge inclusion” (Dale &
20Armitage, p.441 2011). Engagement of TEK and TEK holders is represented by a
spectrum of interactions, ranging from token consultation to legitimate devolution of
power to Inuit rights-holders. It has been noted that at worst, token engagement with
TEK is only undertaken because it is “politically expedient” to do so, and there is a
“hidden discourse” of racial and political reasons little discussed through official
channels on why TEK and science are sometimes seen to be at loggerheads (Nadasdy,
p.3 1999). Effective engagement with TEK in co-management goes far beyond simply
including it as additional data that can be slotted into place. The most democratic form
of management involves maximizing flows of information between participants in
equitable arrangements characterized by genuine power sharing, while avoiding
intentional or unintentional neo-colonial forms of exploitation and co-optation (Nadasdy,
1999; Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2006).
Biological studies, followed by studies on management/co-management make up
much of the literature on beluga (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). While TEK of beluga
has been used opportunistically in biological studies, the explicit academic study and
documentation of TEK of beluga in the Arctic has been limited to a handful of studies in
the eastern Chukchi and northern Bering Seas, on knowledge from a number of
communities in Alaska and Russia (Huntington, 1999; Mymrin & Huntington, 1999).
These studies examined TEK of the natural history of beluga, including distribution,
migration, abundance, feeding, calving, and molting, and response to anthropogenic
disturbance. Where grey literature on TEK of beluga exists, it is often in the form of
narrowly disseminated hard copy reports that are not publically accessible online.
Outside of these studies, Inuit knowledge of beluga has contributed greatly to the
21understanding and management of the species in co-management settings, but the
published literature does not reflect this (Breton-Honeyman et al., 2016). This lack of
documentation has real implications for the visibility of Inuit perspectives, and for the
equitability of co-management arrangements that draw on bodies of scholarship
dominated by scientific studies. Henry Huntington notes,
“The use of TEK is often hindered because it is unavailable to or
considered irrelevant by a broad audience. In the absence of wide access,
the influence of TEK extends only as far as the influence of those who hold
it. Holders of TEK may be able to speak, and speak forcefully, at public
hearings and in other fora, but the undocumented information is not
portable, and the influence of such spoken testimony diminishes with
distance in time and space. Documentation is one means by which TEK
can be made more accessible, allowing it to be considered in parallel with
other information, typically from scientific studies, that is written.”
(Huntington, p.238, 1998).
Inuit and scholars alike have noted that management of beluga that are so important to
some Inuit communities demands improved study of TEK (Huntington, 1999; Mymrin &
Huntington, 1999; Breton-Honeyman, Furgal, & Hammill, 2016).
2.4.1 Co-Management Frameworks
There are a number of prominent co-management arrangement structures that
are utilized in the Canadian Arctic to manage wildlife species. These frameworks are a
response to the need to address complex socio-ecological management dilemmas
22where a multiplicity of actors are involved (Armitage et al., 2009). Some key features of
co-management frameworks include their ability to learn from and adapt to socio-
ecological feedbacks from the system of interest, and to develop vertical and horizontal
linkages between local, regional, national, and international institutions (Armitage et al.,
2009; Berkes & Jolly, 2001). The adaptive and flexible nature of co-management
arrangements makes them “suited to conditions of uncertainty and conflict” (Armitage et
al., 2009). Learning is a key factor to this ability, whereby various types of knowledge
from a range of actors can be brought together through knowledge co-production to
continuously improve understandings of the system of interest (Dale & Armitage, 2011).
This also has the added benefit of creating a better understanding than could be
achieved by one source of knowledge alone, whilst fostering trust and understanding
between actors (Armitage et al., 2011; Dale & Armitage, 2011).
23Chapter 3 - Case Study
This chapter serves to situate the research within its geographical and socio-
cultural context, through a brief description of Inuvialuit, the Inuvialuit Settlement Area
(ISR), and the community of Tuktoyaktuk.
3.1 Inuvialuit
Inuvialuit, as with other contemporary Inuit populations, share common ancestry
with the Thule migration that moved west to east across the Arctic from Alaska
sometime around 1000 C.E. (Damas, 2002, p.6). However, the notable
“biogeographical” richness of what is now the Inuvialuit Settlement Region supported a
unique culture with high population densities distinct within the Arctic (Morrison, 1997,
p.33). Approximately 2500 ancestral Inuvialuit known as the Siglit occupied what is now
the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) in 6-8 distinct groups prior to contact with
European explorers (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2015). From 1789 to 1840,
interactions with early explorers like Mackenzie and Franklin, and the diseases and
trade goods that accompanied them, stimulated cultural and demographic changes
among the Inuvialuit (Morrison, 1997, p.44). Measles epidemics in 1900 and 1902
further reduced populations in the area, and by 1910 there were only approximately 260
inhabitants, half of whom were recent migrants from Alaska (Usher, 1971).
3.2 The Inuvialuit Settlement Region
Located in the western Canadian Arctic, the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR)
was created by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) and the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit)
24Claims Settlement Act on June 5, 1984. The agreements and the creation of the ISR
resulted from 10 years of negotiation between the Inuvialuit, represented by the
Committee for the Original People’s Entitlement (COPE), a small Inuvialuit volunteer
organization originally formed to safeguard the environmental and economic interests of
First Nations of the Mackenzie Delta/ Beaufort Sea area, and the Government of
Canada (Saku & Bone, 2000). The region, home to approximately 10,000 residents
spread across the six communities of Aklavik, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk,
Ulukhaktok, and Sachs Harbour, covers 906,430 km2, of which the Inuvialuit own
90,643km2, with 77,694km2 of surface rights and both surface and sub-surface rights on
the other 12,949 km2 (Fast, Mathias, Banias, 2001). The aims of the agreements were
to “preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society, to
enable the Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and
national economy and society and to protect and preserve the arctic wildlife,
environment and biological productivity and for the payment to the Inuvialuit of certain
compensation” (Government of Canada, 1984). The communities of the ISR have
majority Inuvialuit populations that are highly dependent on the wildlife resources of the
area for subsistence hunting, with public administration, sporadic resource development
and exploration and limited tourism providing other economic opportunities (Pearce, et
al., 2011).
25Figure 3.1: Location of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and Tuktoyaktuk, NT. (Inuvialuit
Cultural Resource Centre, 2017)
The contemporary governance of the ISR falls under a number of corporate and
co-management structures. The management and distribution of benefits from the IFA
rests with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) (Fast et al., 2001). The Inuvialuit
Land, Investment, Petroleum and Development Corporations, along with six Community
Corporations from each of the major communities in the ISR, complete the corporate
26structure under the IRC. Resources within the ISR are co-managed by the Inuvialuit and
the Canadian, Northwest Territories and Yukon governments through five organizations,
including the Inuvialuit Game Council, Environmental Impact Screening Committee,
Environmental Impact Review Board, Wildlife Management Advisory Council (WMAC)
(NT), and Fisheries Joint Management Committee (Fast et al., 2001). In regards to
wildlife management, the WMAC “has jurisdiction over the adjacent nearshore and
offshore waters of the ISR related to wildlife policy and the management, regulation and
administration of wildlife, habitat and harvesting”, the FJMC administers “rights and
obligations relating to fisheries under the IFA, and [advises] the Fisheries Minister on
the management of fisheries in the region”, and the six Hunter and Trapper Committees
represent the interests of their respective communities (Fast et al., p.190, 2001).
However, federal and territorial ministers have the ultimate decision in wildlife
management, based on the advisement of the above mentioned joint Inuvialuit-
government committees (Fast et al., 2001).
3.3 Tuktoyaktuk, NT
Located in the Mackenzie River Delta in the northwest corner of the Northwest
Territories, Tuktoyaktuk or “Tuk” (69°26′34″N 133°01′52″W), traditionally known as
Tuktuujaartuq in Inuvialuktun, is one of the major population centers within the ISR
(Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2015). As of the 2011 population census, the hamlet
had 855 residents, of whom 52.5% were men and 47.5% were women (Statistics
Canada, 2017). Inuvialuit settled in the area after the Hudson’s Bay Company
established Port Brabant in the mid 1930s to the service the fur trade that was the
primary economic activity of the time (Pool, 2015). The 1950s brought increased
27economic opportunity for the community with jobs in the construction and operation of a
number of Distant Early Warning (DEW) line radar stations, built to detect Soviet
bombers flying over the Arctic. The “Bar-3” station, a mid-sized radar facility, was built at
Tuk in the mid 1950s (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2007). Oil and gas exploration
around the same time discovered large reserves within the ISR, and rapid development
proceeded in the 1960s as DEW lines were being decommissioned (Inuvialuit Regional
Corporation, 2007). The oil and gas boom of the 60s and 70s brought much needed
employment and money to the region, but the Inuvialuit became concerned by the lack
of control they had over development, in addition to mounting environment degradation
and the disruption of cultural practices such as trapping and hunting (Inuvialuit Regional
Corporation, 2007). Pushback from Tuk residents over seismic testing off the coast,
mobilized all the ISR communities against a proposed pipeline and demand for greater
control over development in their traditional territory paved the way for the IFA land
claim (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, 2007). Concerns for wildlife, particularly beluga,
and the wider marine environment in the context of industrial activity led to the creation
of the Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area (TNMPA), Canada’s first arctic MPA, in
the area in 2010 (see figure 3.3) (Harwood et al., 2014). The TNMPA is made up of
three areas in the Mackenzie Delta, include including the Niaqunnaq MPA, Okeevik
MPA, and Kittigaryuit MPA (see figure 3.3) (Harwood et al., 2014). The current major
economic prospect in the area is the 137 kilometer expansion of the Dempster highway
that would see its terminus extended from Inuvik to Tuk (CBC, 2014). The extension is
expected to be completed by 2017, at which time Tuk will be able to realize the benefits
of road access to good and services previously only accessible by air or water.
28You can also read
