Understanding Determinants of Hunting Trip Productivity in an Arctic Community

Abstract

We examine factors underlying hunting productivity among Inuit in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Specifically, we focus on the role of gasoline use as the main variable of interest—commonly cited as a crucial determinant of hunting participation. Over the course of 12 months, 10 hunters recorded their on-the-land activities using a GPS tracking system, participatory mapping sessions, and bi-weekly interviews. A multivariable linear regression model (MvLRM) was applied to assess whether factors such as consumables used (i.e. heating fuel, gasoline, oil, food), distances traveled, or the number of companions on a trip were associated with the mass of edible foods returned to the community. Results indicate that, despite being positively associated with hunting trip productivity when assessed through a univariable linear regression model, gasoline is not a statistically significant determinant of standalone trip yield when adjusting for other variables in a multivariable linear regression. Instead, factors relating to seasonality, number of companions, and days on the land emerged as more significant and substantive drivers of productivity while out on the land. The findings do not suggest that access to, or the availability of, gasoline does not affect whether a hunting trip commences or is planned, nor that an increase in the amount of gasoline available to a hunter might increase the frequency of trips (and therefore annual productivity). Rather, this work demonstrates that the volume of gasoline used by harvesters on standalone hunting trips represent a poor a priori predictor of the edible weight that harvesters are likely to return to the community.

Socio-economic predictors of Inuit hunting choices and their implications for climate change adaptation

“…The number of companions on a harvesting trip may affect patch choice and the probability of a successful hunt through a number of mechanisms; travelling in groups increases safety though it may slow down some travellers, can facilitate finding and capturing prey, and people may share vehicles or sleds for transportation (Smith 1985;Naylor et al 2021). However, the optimal group size for Inuit hunters varies by hunt type (see discussions of optimal foraging theory in Smith 1985).…”

“…Sea ice loss, erosion, and increasing variability in weather conditions are some of the consequences of climate change that affect the accessibility of the land, the sea ice, and open waters (Green et al 2021). While altering land use patterns may facilitate involvement in subsistence activities (Naylor et al 2021), some people cannot afford the high costs of gas or buying and maintaining vehicles for safe transportation to alternative harvest areas. Similarly, people may not be able to target alternative prey due to a lack of access to hunting supplies.…”

“…Similarly, people may not be able to target alternative prey due to a lack of access to hunting supplies. Spreading harvest efforts across different activities may reduce the risk of shortfalls if some patches become less productive or available, but such diversification requires time, skill, and knowledge, in addition to the ability and willingness to finance traditional subsistence activities (e.g., Green et al 2021;Naylor et al 2021).…”

“…The need to engage in wage labour-or, for young harvesters, formal schooling-further reduces the time available for hunting (Condon et al 1995;Harder and Wenzel 2012;Ready 2018). These recent changes have been linked to different strategies of engagement in the subsistence economy, specifically sharing of country foods (e.g., Collings 2011;Ready 2018;Ready and Power 2018), although little research has focused on whether these factors impact land use patterns or the choice of foods to harvest (but see, Green et al 2021;Naylor et al 2021).…”

“…However, relatively little research has directly examined the relationship between socio-economic factors, climate change, and foraging decisions. Recent exceptions include Green et al (2021), who found that chronic climate stressors most impacted harvest access in two Alaskan Inuit communities, but monetary capital, technology, knowledge, and social relations facilitate access to coastal subsistence resources, and Naylor et al (2021), who found that the size of the hunting party and time investment are significant to trip productivity, while gasoline expenditures are a poor predictor of Inuit hunting participation and success.…”