Inuit Attitudes towards Co-Managing Wildlife in Three Communities in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, Canada

Abstract

We explored Inuit attitudes towards co-managing wildlife in the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, Canada, working in partnership with the hunters and trappers’ organizations of Igluligaarjuk (Chesterfield Inlet), Tikirarjuaq (Whale Cove), and Qamani’tuaq (Baker Lake). In mixed-methods interviews, study participants in the two coastal communities described dissatisfaction with polar bear (Ursus maritimus) management outcomes, in contrast to a general satisfaction with (or indifference to) the management of other species. Interviewees expressed concern about grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and, more prominently, caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) populations in Qamani’tuaq, the inland community. Researchers have predicted that conflicts specific to polar bear management could lead to regulations being ignored or even defied and endanger the entire system of wildlife co-management. Our results indicate that dissatisfaction over decisions is specific to polar bear management outcomes and does not necessarily apply to the broader system of wildlife co-management. The results suggest that the Nunavut wildlife co-management system is quite functional: polar bear issues aside, Inuit in Qamani’tuaq, Tikirarjuaq, and Igluligaarjuk are largely content with the current functioning of the wildlife co-management regime.

Grizzly and polar bears as nonconsumptive cultural keystone species

“…However, examining at the range of this bear population as a whole-including Nunavut, where the bears are regularly hunted and bear-viewing tourism is beginning-this criterion would clearly apply to both cases. We chose not to extend our comparison that far because of limitations in our data and to be respectful of the sensitivities around polar bear management in the region's Inuit communities (Lokken et al 2019).…”

Hunting trophy import bans proposed by the UK may be ineffective and inequitable as conservation policies in multiple social‐ecological contexts

“…For example, the US 2008 polar bear import ban made no numerical difference to polar bear harvest in Canada, where most polar bear trophy imports had originated (Weber et al., 2015). However, that ban economically harmed Canadian Inuit communities that had previously benefited from regulated polar bear trophy hunting, undermining the legitimacy and efficacy of the Indigenous‐State co‐management system responsible for two‐thirds of the world's polar bears (Lokken et al., 2019; Meek, 2018). This case illustrates how international trophy bans can even work to the detriment of domestic conservation policy processes themselves.…”

Local support among arctic residents to a land tenure reform in Finnmark, Norway

“…1 Many case studies have documented how land claim processes have resulted in the establishment of new institutions in the Arctic, but few have scrutinized the public support in the aftermath of their establishment. One exception is wildlife co-management in Nunavut in Canada, where diffuse support was reported as high, despite dissatisfaction with specific policies relating to polar bear quota (Lokken et al 2018). Easton's concepts of diffuse and specific support ties in to broader debates on the governance of indigenous lands, used and settled by both Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.…”