Observations of social and environmental change on Kendall Island (Ukiivik), a traditional whaling camp in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region
Abstract
As climate change intensifies, Inuvialuit in Canada's Western Arctic are facing a rapidly changing environment and associated impacts on human health, safety, and food security. Learning to cope with these changes requires context-based and current information that can inform subsistence activities and environmental management, and no one is better positioned to acquire this information than Inuvialuit themselves. This paper presents findings from in-depth interviews conducted in 2012 with six knowledge holders and seasonal residents of Kendall Island (Ukiivik in Uummarmiutun), a traditional whaling camp situated along the Beaufort Sea coast bordering the Okeevik Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area. A transdisciplinary and Inuvialuit-led effort, this research documents observations of change at this culturally important site and explores how residents are adapting to changing conditions. Interview transcripts were analyzed using iterative rounds of qualitative coding in NVivo software. Findings reveal pervasive social and environmental change on Kendall Island and in adjacent harvesting areas and highlight how changing conditions are affecting residents’ lives. This study identifies benchmarks upon which to compare and evaluate subsequent changes at this site and documents Inuvialuit knowledge and perspectives that can inform local-scale environmental monitoring, management, and climate change adaptation planning.
1. Introduction
As climate change intensifies, Inuvialuit in Canada's Western Arctic are facing a rapidly changing environment and associated impacts on human health, safety, and food security. Residents and researchers alike have reported extensive physical and ecological changes occurring along the Beaufort Sea coast, including rising air temperatures, receding sea ice, and fluctuations in wildlife migration timing and distribution (Stroeve et al. 2012; Dunmall and Reist 2018; Loseto et al. 2018b; Waugh et al. 2018; WMAC and AHTC 2018; Carothers et al. 2019; Steiner et al. 2019; Huntington et al. 2020; Yadav et al. 2020; Insley et al. 2021). Projections suggest that climate change will only continue to magnify (Steiner et al. 2019), creating new opportunities for development (e.g., non-renewable resource extraction and marine transport) that will subject Arctic ecosystems to additional stressors (Rodon and Lévesque 2015; Tyson et al. 2016; Arruda and Krutkowski 2017; Dawson et al. 2018; Ng et al. 2018; Chan et al. 2019; Bartsch et al. 2021; Ford et al. 2021; Miner et al. 2021; Cao et al. 2022; Min et al. 2022). Learning to cope with these changes requires both context-based and current information that can inform subsistence activities and environmental management, and no one is better positioned to acquire this information than Inuvialuit themselves.
Inuvialuit have resided along the Beaufort Sea coast for hundreds of years in what is recognized today as the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) (Fig. 1) (Friesen and Arnold 2008).1 The ISR is one of the four subregions of Inuit Nunangat (the Inuit homeland of Canada) and encompasses the traditional Inuvialuit lands spanning parts of Canada's Yukon and Northwest Territories. Following a prolonged land claim negotiation between Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada, the lands and waters of the ISR were formally designated to Inuvialuit with the signing of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) in 1984 (Berger 1977; IFA 1984; Bernauer and Peyton 2021).
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
During pre-European contact through the early 20th century, Inuvialuit were distributed along the eastern Beaufort Sea coast in up to eight distinct socio-territorial groups (Stefansson 1919; Nagy 1994; Morrison 1997). Traditionally, hunting and gathering formed the basis of the economy, and subsistence-settlement patterns closely reflected the availability and distribution of focal resources, including beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas or qilalugaq in Uummarmiutun), freshwater and marine fishes (iqaluk), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus or tutu).2 During key harvesting periods, Inuvialuit travelled from winter villages to seasonal harvesting camps to hunt, fish, and gather traditional foods that were readily consumed and cached for winter (Nuligak 1966; McGhee 1974; Friesen and Arnold 1995; Alunik et al. 2003; Friesen 2004; Betts and Friesen 2006). The arrival of European explorers and later commercial whalers to the Mackenzie Delta in the late 1800s ushered in a period of immense change in the region, shaped in part by colonization, the introduction of foreign diseases, and the commercial extirpation of key resources (Usher 1971a, 1971b; Nagy 1994; Lyons 2010; Friesen 2013). Although these developments had a profound impact on Inuvialuit communities and lifeways, many elements of Inuvialuit culture have been retained and revitalized in recent decades. Today, the ISR is home to six communities, including Inuvik, Aklavik, Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok, and Sachs Harbor (Fig. 1). Now characterized as a mixed-subsistence economy (Usher et al. 2003), subsistence harvest remains a critical activity in the ISR, and many Inuvialuit continue to procure traditional foods for their families at seasonal harvesting camps as their ancestors did before them (Day 2002; Usher 2002; Hoover et al. 2016; Tod-Tims and Stern 2021).
Inuvialuit possess in-depth environmental knowledge acquired through first-hand experience on the land and intergenerational knowledge transfer.3 This body of knowledge, referred to regionally as Inuvialuit Knowledge (Inupiat ilihimar̂angit) is place-based, adaptive, and reflects a long temporal scale extending back many generations (ICC et al. 2006; Berkes 2017). Accordingly, this knowledge has enabled Inuvialuit to thrive in extreme conditions (Nuligak 1966) and identify creative ways to cope with emerging challenges, including those related to climate change (Pearce et al. 2015; Fawcett et al. 2018). Per the IFA, fish and wildlife populations within the region are co-managed by Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada. Co-management is facilitated by regional boards (i.e., the Fisheries Joint Management Committee and Wildlife Management Advisory Council) and is guided by local and regional Inuvialuit organizations (i.e., community-based Hunters and Trappers Committees and the Inuvialuit Game Council). The members of these boards and committees play a vital role in guiding scientific research, wildlife monitoring, and decision-making while ensuring that these activities are informed by Inuvialuit knowledge and experiences as mandated by the IFA (1984).
Given the close relationship between Inuvialuit and the land, residents’ livelihoods, nutrition, health, and well-being are intimately linked to ecosystem health and vitality (IRC 2021). Under climate change, however, Arctic ecosystem dynamics and processes are shifting, with widespread implications for humans and wildlife populations (Huntington et al. 2020; Ford et al. 2021). For example, warming temperatures have yielded reduced ice cover, shifts in cetacean migration timing and distribution, and an influx of new species into the region that may prey on or compete with native populations (Hauser et al. 2017; Dunmall and Reist 2018; Stroeve and Notz 2018; Chan et al. 2019; Lefort et al. 2020a; Pettitt-Wade et al. 2020; Insley et al. 2021; Chila et al. 2022). These changes have the potential to alter access to traditional foods and disrupt Inuvialuit cultural practices, including subsistence harvest and knowledge transmission. Furthermore, abiotic changes, including increasing temperatures, reduced ice cover, and increasing storm frequency and severity, create hazardous transit conditions (Wenzel 2009; Pearce et al. 2010; Fawcett et al. 2018; Scharffenberg et al. 2020) and place increasing stress on wildlife (e.g., Durner et al. 2017; Hamilton et al. 2017; Mallory and Boyce 2018). As such, Inuvialuit and co-management partners are interested in documenting Inuvialuit knowledge on these changes to inform environmental monitoring programs, support wildlife management, and promote social-ecological resilience (FJMC 2013; ITK 2016; IHTC et al. 2016; IRC 2021).
Kendall Island or Ukiivik, meaning place to spend summer in Uummarmiutun, is a historic beluga whaling camp traditionally occupied by Inuvialuit from the Mackenzie Delta during the summer (Day 2002; ICC et al. 2006). Situated in the northwest part of the Mackenzie Estuary, the island is located along the Beaufort Sea coast and borders the Okeevik Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area (TNMPA) (Figs. 1–5). Many generations of Inuvialuit have travelled to Kendall Island to harvest beluga whales, seals, and fish, among other wildlife and plant species. Although Kendall Island is primarily occupied during the summer months when belugas are present in nearshore areas, some harvesters are also active on and around this site during other times of the year while hunting caribou and polar bear (Ursus maritimus or nanuq). In addition to its significance as a harvesting site, Kendall Island also supports waterfowl reproduction, molting, and staging and contains various archeological sites (Hart and Amos 2004; ICC et al. 2006). In 2010, the waters adjacent to Kendall Island were officially designated a marine protected area with the creation of the TNMPA (Fig. 1), which was “established to strike a balance between the protection of beluga whales and their supporting ecosystems, annual summer harvesting of beluga, and properly planned economic activity in the near-shore Beaufort Sea, thus preserving Inuvialuit cultural and spiritual connections to the land” (DFO 2013, p. 3). Today, Inuvialuit from the communities of Aklavik, Tuktoyaktuk, and Inuvik routinely harvest within the TNMPA, and various families from Inuvik maintain family camps on Kendall Island (DFO 2013; IHTC et al. 2016).4
In the years preceding 2012, seasonal residents began observing environmental changes occurring on Kendall Island and at adjacent harvesting sites, including shifts in beluga migration timing and deteriorating fish health (O'Hara 2012; Snow et al. 2016). Concerned by these reports, the Inuvik Hunters and Trappers Committee (IHTC), chaired at the time by co-author DE, sought to develop a project that would document residents’ knowledge and observations of changing conditions. To achieve this, the IHTC, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), and researchers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) collectively developed this project, which combined on-the-land experiential learning and interviews with seasonal residents of Kendall Island.5 Objectives included (1) exploring Inuvialuit knowledge of environmental baselines and observations of changing conditions to inform community-based monitoring, (2) bringing adults and youth together at a land-based field camp to facilitate experiential learning and knowledge transmission, and (3) promoting youth leadership and capacity-building by having youth play a central role in the research process. Although the field camp was described in a report to Health Canada (O'Hara 2012), interview findings were never summarized and published, thereby limiting the mobilization of the knowledge and observations shared by project participants.
With travel prohibited during the COVID-19 pandemic, co-authors KLO and LLL were interested in exploring unpublished sources of Inuvialuit knowledge on the Eastern Beaufort Sea beluga population to inform ongoing research. LLL identified the Kendall Island project as one such knowledge source. Upon connecting with the original project leads (KGAM and SO) in the fall of 2020, we formed a team to collectively revisit this project and summarize the knowledge-holder interviews in this publication, which explores social and environmental baselines, benchmarks, and changing conditions on Kendall Island and within the Okeevik TNMPA. This publication adds to the relatively limited body of documented, accessible, and current Inuvialuit knowledge on how ISR residents and select wildlife species are responding to environmental change (Waugh et al. 2018) and fulfills a commitment made to participants at the onset of this project that their knowledge would be shared beyond the project team.
2. Materials and methods
Project overview
This project is a partnership between the IHTC, IRC, and DFO and was implemented in two distinct phases (Fig. 6). Phase one involved a four-day field camp with adults and youth on Kendall Island featuring experiential learning, knowledge exchange, and interviews with expert knowledge holders (Figs. 7–12). Phase two involved a transdisciplinary team working together to summarize the interview transcripts in this publication.6 This research was guided by a land-based learning approach (e.g., Ljubicic et al. 2021; Lyons et al. 2021)—an Indigenous and decolonial research approach emphasizing intergenerational knowledge transfer, traditional skill-building, and youth empowerment (Wildcat and Simpson 2014; Bowra et al. 2021). Research design was led by Inuvialuit team members with additional support from academic and government researchers (LLL and later KLO). Inuvialuit professionals and institutions involved with this project (i.e., the IRC and the Inuvialuit Research Advisor) led research ethics considerations and decision-making processes that involved the co-design, review, and approval of research materials, the development of detailed informed consent forms, and the identification of protocols defining data storage and access.
Field camp
The field camp was facilitated by an Inuvialuit team that included the IRC Research Advisor (SO), a project coordinator (KGAM), two boat drivers (Angus Alunik and Freddie Rogers), six knowledge holders (Hank Angasuk, Sarah Rogers, Niulaq James Rogers, Sandra Ipana, Lillian Elias, and Abel Tingmiak) (Figs. 13– 17), two youth research assistants (Erin Goose and Paden Lennie), a marine mammal observer and wildlife monitor (James Elias), a videographer (Lawrence Rogers), and an Inuvialuktun interpreter (Lillian Elias). All team members were selected by the IHTC and were compensated for their participation in this project in accordance with regional guidelines.
Between 13 and 14 July 2012, the project team attended a pre-trip departure meeting at the Aurora Research Institute in Inuvik where they received training on safety protocols and data collection procedures (i.e., the use of GPS, spot locators, water quality monitoring tools, and interviewing techniques) (O'Hara 2012). The team then travelled five hours by boat down the central channel of the Mackenzie River (Kuukpak in Uummarmiutun) to Kendall Island, where the field camp occurred between 23 and 27 July. To avoid disturbing beluga harvesters, the project team set up their camp on a part of the island called Sanmiqaq, a short boat ride away from the historic Kendall Island camp site where belugas are traditionally landed and processed (Fig. 1). During the field camp, team members searched for local wildlife and plant species, harvested and prepared traditional foods, monitored the area for evidence of climate change (e.g., coastal erosion, permafrost slumping, and changes in plant and animal composition), and interviewed knowledge holders about changing conditions. Although several research methods were employed during the field camp (e.g., experiential learning and environmental monitoring), we report solely on the interviews in this publication.
Interviews
The research team conducted semi-structured interviews (Huntington 1998; Hay 2015) with six knowledge holders, including three women and three men (Figs. 13–17). All were seasonal residents of Kendall Island with extensive knowledge of the area.7 Interview participants signed an informed consent form and were advised that their responses would be recorded, summarized, and shared in various formats. Interview transcripts and consent forms were securely housed at the IRC office in Inuvik and with project partners at DFO in adherence with pre-determined data management protocols. With the IHTC's approval, we obtained copies of the informed consent forms participants signed in 2012 to confirm their preferences related to attribution and photo sharing.
Interviews were facilitated in English by the project coordinator (KGAM) with support from youth research assistants (P. Lennie and E. Goose). Questions and responses were translated to and from Uummarmiutun by an interpreter (L. Elias) as requested. Interviews followed a flexible guide developed by project partners that included questions on fish and beluga ecology and health, social and environmental change, and climate change adaptation (Appendix 1). Interviews lasted between 90–120 min, were audio and video-recorded, and were later transcribed verbatim by KGAM. Given the semi-structured interview format, question order, phrasing, and conversation topic varied between interviews.
Initial analysis and verification
In 2012, KGAM reviewed the interview transcripts in NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) to identify overarching themes. After compiling and refining a list of approximately 50 themes, KGAM met individually with each participant to verify her results. These meetings provided participants an opportunity to add additional context and clarify their responses. Post verification, KGAM presented her list of themes to project participants and other attendees at a workshop held in Inuvik in January of 2013 and in a short paper prepared for the Arctic Observing Summit (Snow et al. 2016) following review and approval by the IHTC. Although we do not present the findings of this initial thematic analysis in this publication, the themes KGAM identified and verified with participants are consistent with our findings.
Revisiting the Kendall Island project—secondary analysis and verification
In fall 2020, co-authors LLL, KLO, KGAM, and SO formulated plans to systematically review and summarize the interviews conducted on Kendall Island in 2012. Shortly thereafter, our team submitted a letter to the IHTC Board of Directors proposing our plans and requesting the board's direction on next steps. The board approved and offered feedback on how we should engage and recognize participants and verify our results. Subsequent decisions pertaining to our research process were made collaboratively by LLL, KLO, KGAM, and SO, with overarching guidance from co-author DE and the IHTC Board of Directors. Between 2020 and 2022, our team met 16 times to review our progress and determine next steps; communications with the IHTC consisted of three formal letters and participation in four board meetings.
Interview transcripts were analyzed in NVivo QDAS by KLO. Qualitative coding (Hay 2015) was used to organize transcript content topically, identify key themes related to the focus of this publication, and facilitate the comparison of inter-individual responses. The transcripts were read once in full without applying any codes and were read two additional times, during which qualitative codes were applied. In the first round of coding, descriptive codes based on the content and organization of the interview guide (e.g., beluga migration, fish health) were applied to the text. In the second round of coding, initial codes were refined, and additional descriptive and analytic codes were added (Hay 2015). Following these two cycles, codes were reviewed, condensed, and organized into first- and second-order categories (Appendix 2). Several codes unrelated to the interview content (e.g., method reflections) were also applied to sections of text that offered insight into ways that we could enhance our research design and process in the future. The coded text was organized topically in a comprehensive data table, which enabled us to identify areas of agreement and disagreement between participants and cohesively summarize interview responses in our results section. Preliminary findings from this analysis were presented at the ArcticNet Annual Scientific Meeting in 2020 to a diverse audience that included community members from across Inuit Nunangat, researchers, and co-management partners.
Our results were first reviewed and verified internally within the research team and then externally with interview participants or a close family member of participants that had since passed on. Following the completion of the secondary analysis, KLO and KGAM met several times to review the data table and the results section in-depth to ensure the content accurately reflected the information shared by participants in 2012. This was an especially important step in our analytical process as KGAM was able to provide additional context and clarification based on her experiences during the field camp, her relationships with the interviewees, and her personal connection to Inuvialuit lands and culture. KGAM then met with three of the interview participants (Lillian Elias, Hank Angasuk, and Sarah Rogers) to update them on our progress and review the manuscript draft with them, paying particular attention to the areas where they were quoted. Unfortunately, by the time we began manuscript verification, Abel Tingmiak was unable to meet with us due to health constraints, and Niulaq Rogers and Sandra Ipana had passed on. For these individuals, we met with a close family member who reviewed our manuscript draft on their relative's behalf. Meeting participants were generally pleased to see the interview summaries being published, while others expressed gratitude at having the opportunity to participate in a verification meeting on their loved one's behalf. Input we received during these meetings included clarification on the spelling of Inuvialuktun terms, requests to include the Inuvialuktun names for the islands surrounding Kendall Island, and clarification on wildlife observations (e.g., seal prevalence). A final manuscript draft was shared with verification meeting participants and the IHTC board to review and comment on as desired. In the spring of 2022, we submitted a final manuscript draft to Arctic Science and later revised our manuscript in response to reviewer comments. Key decisions on manuscript revision were made collectively by LLL, KLO, KGAM, and SO.
Results presentation
The interviews spanned a wide range of topics, however, space limitations required that we focus on a select number of these. Below, we present our findings pertaining to social and environmental baselines and changing conditions and elaborate less on harvesting, processing, and food preparation techniques, which are well described elsewhere (e.g., Nuligak 1966; Byers and Roberts 1995; Friesen 2004; Hart and Amos 2004; Willett and Pokiak 2010; Lyons 2013; Waugh et al. 2018). Throughout our results section, we quote interview participants to communicate their knowledge, observations, and perspectives using their own voices. Quotes are attributed to each participant using their first name with their permission. In some instances, quotes were edited lightly to enhance readability. Overall, we sought to produce a balanced summary by presenting the full range of perspectives on each topic and by clearly indicating areas of agreement and disagreement between participants. Readers should note that the transcript content and the summaries presented below directly reflect the questions in the interview guide (Appendix 1), which pertain primarily to fish and beluga whales. As such, our results do not represent the full extent of participants’ environmental knowledge and observations of other species and locations beyond Kendall Island and related transit and harvesting areas.
Throughout our results section, we include the common name for native plant and wildlife species, followed by the scientific and Uummarmiutun names in italics when possible. All Uummarmiutun names for plants and wildlife are written in singular form for consistency; some names for traditional roles, foods, and structures are also presented. Uummarmiutun spellings were confirmed by translator L. Elias, unless otherwise noted. Although we identify most organisms at the species level, some could only be identified at the family level. We advise readers that the information presented below is geographically and temporally situated (i.e., specific to Kendall Island and the time of year during which the island is and has been traditionally occupied), and furthermore, that variation in participants’ responses may reflect interindividual or interfamilial differences in site use (e.g., camp location and hunting trip timing). Lastly, readers should note that the information presented in our results section reflects observations made during and preceding 2012; given the rapid pace of climate change in the region, dynamics have likely continued to shift in subsequent years.
We want to express our sincere gratitude to Hank Angasuk, Sarah Rogers, Niulaq James Rogers, Sandra Ipana, Lillian Elias, and Abel Tingmiak for sharing their knowledge, observations, and perspectives with us and our readers. Although Indigenous knowledge holders and research collaborators are increasingly being recognized through individual co-authorship on research products (Castleden et al. 2010; Sarna-Wojcicki et al. 2017), several factors prevent us from adhering to this practice. In 2012, publication co-authorship and author responsibilities were not discussed with interview participants, and co-authorship was not included as an option on project consent forms. Given that two knowledge holders have since passed on and another was unable to meet with our team, we were not able to discuss the prospect of co-authorship with these individuals. Following discussion amongst our team on how to ethically recognize interview participants under these circumstances, we opted to recognize each participant by name throughout this publication and through the authorship of the IHTC with which each participant was affiliated.
3. Results
Below, we summarize interview content by topic, beginning with the history and significance of Kendall Island. We then transition to exploring social, physical, and ecological dynamics in the region, as well as key changes participants observed in the years leading up to 2012. We conclude this section by considering participants’ experiences with climate change (hila atlanguqtuq) and their perspectives on research and environmental monitoring.
3.3. Significance of Kendall Island
Kendall Island is a multifaceted site valued for its practical and cultural significance as a traditional harvesting area and a place that brings families together to reconnect with the land and each other (Table 1). Each summer, seasonal residents and their families travel to their camps on Kendall Island, where they reside from late June or early July through early August. Reflecting on the importance of this site, Lillian described the island as a core part of her identity, explaining: “it's just my home, when I go down there, I know that my grandfather is still looking at us… if I don't go down to the whale camp I don't feel right, I'm missing something”. While at camp, residents harvest (anguniaqtit) traditional foods including maktak (beluga skin and blubber), mipku (dried beluga meat), uqȓuq (beluga oil), quaq (frozen fish), kilitaq (dried beluga meat in beluga oil), pautchiaq (herring), and pipsi (dried and smoked fish) (Table 2). In addition to citing the link between Kendall Island and food security and sovereignty, participants described spending time at camp (e.g., enjoying the outdoors and relaxing in a peaceful, stress-free environment) as contributing to their health, happiness, and well-being.8 Hank, Sarah, and Sandra, also elaborated on the important role Kendall Island plays in learning, knowledge transmission, and Inuvialuit cultural continuity. In particular, they explained how being on-the-land enables them to refine their environmental knowledge (e.g., of shifting weather and wildlife distribution patterns) and transmit their knowledge and traditional skills to youth within their family and from the wider community using traditional learning approaches like storytelling, first-hand observation, and hands-on practice.
Table 1.
Table 2.
3.4. History of Kendall Island
Participants painted a vivid picture of Kendall Island as they knew it during their childhoods or when they first began travelling to the island as adults, as well as from stories shared with them by their parents and grandparents. Their accounts indicate that although many traditions have been upheld, some social and cultural dynamics of camp life have changed. Hank, who spent his summers on Kendall Island as a child, reminisced about how he and his family used to travel to camp aboard large wooden scows packed with his family's gear and dog teams. As the scow trips took much longer, they would remain on the island for an extended period of time, typically from late June through late August. Back when Hank was growing up, all the families on Kendall Island resided in traditional tents situated around one centralized campsite (Figs. 3 and 4) and all the residents worked together to harvest fish and marine mammals, which they consumed readily and cached for winter. Foods that were cached were typically preserved in a beluga stomach and stored in a traditional qingniq or sirluaq (icehouse). At the time, uqȓuq (beluga oil) was also burned as a light source, and beluga and fish were fed to dog teams.9
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
Fig. 17.
Traditionally, only men hunted beluga, and the hunting party was typically led by an umialik (a camp leader).10 Abel described harvesting with his father and brothers as a young man, recalling, “I was an engineer on the schooner boat. My dad and brother, they did the hunting, me I just go run the engine. They ring the bell bing bing, 2 for neutral, 3 for forward, 1 for neutral again, 2 for backward”. At the start of the hunt, the hunting party would anchor off the island and wait for the whales to arrive, sometimes for a very long time. As the whales appeared, the hunters herded and harpooned them using a harpoon attached to a float constructed from a beluga stomach. Hunters typically targeted the males and avoided mothers with calves, as remains the practice today. At the end of a successful hunt, landed whales were secured to the back of the hunters’ boats and transported to camp. Once on shore, the women would process and prepare the harvested whales by washing the blubber, cutting it into evenly shaped squares, and hanging it up to dry.11 According to Hank and Sarah, the blubber and meat were divided equally among each of the families at camp and were consumed during large group meals, which they remembered fondly, recalling, “[we had] a big table outside on the ground, big eating for supper, we used to all get together”. As a young girl at camp, Lillian recalled her disappointment about not being able to participate in the hunt, explaining, “I wasn't allowed to go on that boat when they go whaling… I wanted to so badly just to go see how they did it but, in my mind, I knew exactly what they did when they told their stories”. According to Lillian, even though girls were prohibited from hunting beluga, some would occasionally sneak out to watch the activity from shore. She also noted that at the time, Elders had strict rules about how one should engage with and talk about nature, explaining, “back those days, you didn't have fast boats or anything, so you had to be very careful of how you treated the water and the land… us kids couldn't even throw rocks in front of us, they say the whales are going to hear that rock hit the water [and be scared away]” and “the Elders used to tell us ‘you don’t say, I'm gonna go down and get one whale this summer [because] you'll come back with nothing’” insinuating that the belugas would evade harvesters boasting of their prospective catch.12 She still follows these rules today.
3.5. Present dynamics and social change
Although many camp traditions have been maintained, others have changed over time (Table 3). For instance, families today reside in personal camps with permanent structures as opposed to the centralized tent camps of the past. Lillian remarked, “a long time ago it wouldn't have been like this, the Elders would never let us have our own camps [in] different places”. Over the years, the amount of time residents spend at camp has also decreased by about a few weeks. Today, families typically arrive on the island in late June or early July and return to Inuvik by early August (as opposed to the end of August). Reflecting on this, Niulaq remarked that “today, families come down [and] as soon as they're done preparing their whale they're back to town; long ago everyone used to stay the whole summer, [now] some families catch a whale one day and [leave] the next day, I don't think that's right, everyone is in a rush these days”. Decreasing trip duration was attributed to busier schedules and increasing work obligations, as well as to the rising costs of travel and provisions (fuel, food, and equipment prices) and lost income from having to take time off work while at camp. For Niulaq, decreasing fur prices and the growing challenge of finding a job made it difficult to cover these expenses, while Sandra noted that due to rising costs, she had to plan carefully and well in advance to ensure she could afford the trip. One way she reduced her costs was by purchasing store-bought foods on sale well in advance of her departure for camp.
Table 3.
Technological innovations have also altered aspects of camp life. For instance, smaller aluminum watercrafts with outboard motors, GPS, and electronic depth finders have replaced wooden scows. Although aluminum watercraft expedite transit, they carry smaller loads. Residents are also increasingly referring to weather forecasts when planning their travels and employing electronic communication devices (e.g., CB radios, cell phones, and satellite messengers). The adoption of new technologies, typically employed in tandem with Inuvialuit knowledge, was generally considered a positive change given the potential for these devices to enhance human safety in remote areas and increasingly unpredictable weather conditions. Several changes pertaining to the beluga harvest were also described. In contrast to the large collective hunts of the past, today one or several families hunt beluga aboard their own motorized watercrafts, often without the direction of an umialik. Hank and Sarah mentioned that this absence of leadership can cause the hunt to become chaotic, resulting in boats operating out of sync and scaring away belugas. Although harpoons are still used to harvest belugas today, they are often used in combination with newer technologies and materials like firearms and plastic floats.
Notably, gender dynamics related to beluga harvest have also shifted considerably over time, although many traditional processing techniques have been retained. Women are increasingly taking part in the beluga hunt, either by accompanying male family members on the boat or by hunting their own whales. Men in the community are also assisting with more aspects of beluga processing, specifically with cutting and hanging up the blubber, which was formerly a task performed by women.13 Hank, Sarah, and Niulaq, whose daughters are already hunting their own belugas, supported these changes. Conversely, Sandra advocated for upholding traditional gender norms related to beluga harvest, which she felt would promote safety and preserve Inuvialuit traditions. She explained, “my auntie was a real believer of the traditional way of hunting, girls don't jump in the boat and weren't taught to do that. [We need] to follow those things or we will have girls going out there and shooting each other or drowning or having an accident… we have to try and follow some ways our Elders [did things] to keep order in our people”. Although she maintained a more traditional viewpoint on gender roles related to wildlife harvest, Sandra did not mind other families adopting a different approach.
According to participants, the number of residents on Kendall Island has remained relatively steady over time, although beluga and fish harvest rates have declined. Hank and Sarah estimated that residents used to collectively harvest 40–50 belugas per year, while today they harvest about 20–30 (1–2 per family). Abel explained that the harvesters still target the males and avoid mothers and calves, noting, “[we] always try to get a single one, you got to watch for mothers [with] a little one, as soon as we see black whale beside a mother we go some other place and chase another whale”. Residents also continue to fish off of Kendall Island using setnets deployed from shore, but they harvest considerably less fish today. Declines in beluga and fish harvest rates were primarily linked to decreasing effort driven by a decline in the use of dog teams (previously sustained on a diet of beluga and fish) and to a shift away from the commercial sale of beluga—some Kendall Island harvesters used to supply whale meat to Ulu foods, a traditional food store that has since closed. Additional factors linked to the declining harvest included shifting consumption patterns and increasing access to store-bought foods. Reflecting on this, Sandra explained, “[our Elders] didn't bring down store bought food [to camp]; when they came down, it was dry fish, maktak, whale meat, and geese; we ate everything from the land… and now, you know, every other week they're sending us meat from Inuvik, wieners and all this stuff bought from the stores”. Although store-bought foods are more accessible and consumed more frequently today, most participants expressed a strong preference for traditional foods; however, this may be shifting generationally. For example, Sandra expressed frustration about how her young granddaughters resist eating traditional foods noting, “they say ‘eww’ and they don't even know, they haven't even touched it [or] tasted it, and they say, ‘I don’t like maktak’ and that drives me crazy… you know something's wrong when she says, ‘I think I’m allergic! ’ trying to be allergic so she don't have to eat fish”.
Despite the changes described above, Kendall Island residents still value and actively practice many long-held Inuvialuit traditions, particularly those related to food sharing and knowledge and skill transmission. Participants were adamant about the importance of keeping Inuvialuit traditions alive and fostering what Hank and Sarah described as the “togetherness of the Inuvialuk”. They remarked, “it's not all about money, sometimes you have to do it just to keep tradition alive [and] pass it on”, while Sandra stated, “you want to keep the culture and traditions, how people care for one another [and] look after one another”. Aligned with these sentiments, participants continue to share harvested foods with extended family and other community members who are unable to harvest for themselves. They also emphasized the importance of passing on Inuvialuit knowledge, skills, and traditions to youth. Consistent with the teaching and learning practices employed in previous generations, children on Kendall Island today begin observing the beluga hunt around 5–6 years of age and become more involved starting around 10–12 years of age. As they continue to grow, they gradually perform bigger tasks.
Beyond supporting intergenerational knowledge transfer, new opportunities for inter-community knowledge exchange have also been emerging. For instance, Lillian noted that today “whales are even going to Coppermine (Kugluktuk) and Holman (Ulukhaktok)! [and since they've] never worked with beluga before, they want somebody to go over there and teach them”. Inuvialuit have been widely supportive of these learning opportunities; and in the years following the field camp, knowledge exchanges have occurred in both of these locations (LLL (personal communication, 15 October 2021)).
3.6. Environmental change
In addition to changing social and cultural dynamics, a primary objective of the interviews was to explore environmental change occurring on Kendall Island and at nearby harvesting sites (Table 3). We begin below by summarizing interview responses pertaining to the physical (abiotic) system, followed by the ecological (biotic) system.
Physical system
Weather
Participants reported dramatic changes in the weather on Kendall Island over the last several decades, including an increase in average and maximum summer air temperatures. Sandra pointed to an increase in record hot days, which she described as almost unbearable for residents in the absence of wind or rain. She remarked that under these conditions “the kids are just living in the water [because] it's too much”. Abel also noted a connection between rising air temperatures and drinking water supply, stating, “we fill up all our pails with snow to have water; sometimes the snow stays there long but this summer there was nothing even though we went down there after Canada Day (July 1), it was too hot”. Hank and Sarah also described shifts in winter air temperatures, recalling, “when we used to drive dogs long ago, we would travel in any weather (−60° to −70 °C), now the coldest is −40 °C below and it's getting warmer”.14
Weather conditions today were also described as less predictable and more extreme, with participants reporting increasing wind speeds and more frequent changes in wind direction. For example, Abel remarked, “the winds [have] changed, sometimes its blowing for days and days and days. Long ago, it used to be calm all the time, no wind… the last three years it's been windy every day, as soon as the wind calms down, we get going out but [then] it starts blowing the next day”. Several others described notable increases in summer precipitation, including an increase in violent thunder and lightning storms. Elaborating on this, Sandra and Lillian exclaimed respectively, “we had three thunderstorms in one day in this place here!” and “remember that big thunderstorm, goodness! It was right there! It's different, it never used to be like that long ago”. Niulaq, however, did recall one extreme abnormal weather event occurring in the 1980s during which a 27 °C degree day was followed by a big snowstorm. He remembered that by the time they woke up, “the ground was white with a foot of snow and [the] water pail had a half inch of ice”. Despite these striking changes, inclement weather was not preventing residents from accessing Kendall Island in 2012. Hank, Sarah, and Niulaq explained that when the weather deteriorates, they simply stop along the riverbank midway to camp and proceed once the weather clears.
Coastline and inland areas
Coastal erosion and slumping were described as widespread and were of great concern to participants. Regarding the prior, Lillian remarked, “it's getting so bad that climate change is washing away the land… we're gonna have no more land around there soon”. Residents have observed extensive shoreline erosion along transit routes and in inland areas of the island. In one example, Niulaq described watching a beach on Kendall Island disappear into the ocean (eroding 30–40 feet inland) over the years. Some attributed this erosion to heavy rains and increasing wave action, which Niulaq linked to extreme southeasterly winds. Permafrost melt and ground subsidence were also described as extensive. These changes have already impacted various residents, some of whom have lost camp structures due to flooding and erosion. While some participants had contemplated relocating their camp structures, this was widely considered to be cost-prohibitive. In addition to the structural damage that participants have experienced, they articulated how rising air temperatures and permafrost melt preclude the construction and use of traditional ice houses. These changes necessitate the use of personal generator-powered freezers to store perishables at camp—a costly alternative to traditional methods. Although one participant speculated that it might be possible to build small ice houses about two feet deep, she was concerned that doing so would precipitate additional ground subsidence.
Freshwater systems
Although the interview guide included questions on freshwater systems (i.e., lakes, rivers, creeks, and streams), participants shared relatively few details on this topic. It was unclear whether this was due to a paucity of changes occurring in these systems or to another factor such as unclear question phrasing or participants focusing their attention toward monitoring other elements of the environment.15 Multiple participants did, however, report that the Mackenzie River channels had been filling in and shifting over the years, although Lillian speculated that this could be a natural occurrence within a large river delta. Sandra also described the water clarity in the area as variable, noting, “some years our water never gets clear, it stays silty, some years it's not so bad”. She also added that occasionally the water has a mossy taste; when this occurs, she sources her drinking water further inland.
Sea ice
The interview guide did not contain questions on sea ice dynamics; however, Hank and Sarah reported the sea ice in the Mackenzie Estuary breaking up earlier in the spring and belugas migrating into the area earlier. They also described observing increasing barge activity corresponding with the earlier sea ice breakup.
3.6.1. Ecological system
Below, we summarize participant responses to questions on species composition, abundance, and distribution on and around Kendall Island. Since beluga and subsistence-harvested fish species (Tables 2 and 3) were a central focus of the interviews, more substantive details on these species are provided, including information on beluga and fish health and associated wildlife health indicators that can inform MPA monitoring. The belugas harvested in the Okeevik TNMPA are from the Eastern Beaufort Sea (EBS) population, which migrates annually from the Bering Sea to the eastern Beaufort Sea (Storrie et al. 2022). Belugas from this population are harvested by Inuvialuit in the ISR and by Iñupiaq residing along the north coast of Alaska (Harwood and Smith 2002).
Species composition and abundance
No notable declines in the localized abundance of key species were reported. Both beluga and subsistence-harvested fish were described as abundant, although some temporal and fine-scale spatial shifts in beluga distribution were described. Participants also reported observing other cetacean species near Kendall Island, including one blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) and the occasional killer whale (Orcinus orca or arlu). Regarding killer whale activity, Abel remarked, “it's good when they're out there because they chase all the belugas in [towards harvesting areas]”. Observations on bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus or ugȓuk) presence varied. Two participants described bearded seal numbers as potentially increasing (beginning in about the mid-1990s according to Lillian), whereas another described seal numbers as remaining relatively stable over time. In follow-up meetings with participants in 2021, Lillian mentioned that, in general, it is relatively uncommon to see bearded seals around Kendall Island. Variation in responses on localized seal activity may be due to variation in participants’ temporal baselines or geographic use areas; however, this was not clear from the transcripts.
Notably, several participants reported observing new plant and animal species in the region that they described as typical of southern latitudes. For example, Sandra remarked, “we're even seeing otter [and] eagles now, goodness sakes what's going on? We never had that kind of animal around here; we never have crows around here and now there's a crow flying around”.16 She also described changes in insect composition, stating, “[we're] getting those big yellow jackets around here, one was trying to land on me! I almost fainted, oh my God! It's that big! Insects like that, I don't even think they belong around here, [those are] Fort Smith area bugs those yellow jackets”. Additionally, Niulaq described encountering more “noseeoms” and decreasing numbers of mosquitoes (Culcidae spp. or kikturiaq), which he said makes Kendall Island nicer to be at during July and August. Some shifts in terrestrial mammal composition were also noted. For example, Niulaq reported seeing more muskox (Ovibos moschatus or umingmak) in recent years, while Abel and Lillian reported observing caribou (Rangifer tarandus or tuttu) and beaver (Castor canadensis or kigiaq) in the area, which they considered unusual. It was not clear from reading the transcripts whether these sightings occurred in the vicinity of Kendall Island or across the Mackenzie Delta more generally. During a verification meeting in 2021, Lillian also mentioned seeing many more eagles (tingmiaqpak) and decreasing numbers of rabbits (ukalliq) in the Mackenzie Delta, which she attributed to climate change.
Observations relating to shifts in plant composition were somewhat mixed, with female participants noting greater shifts in plant composition and cover compared to male participants. Niulaq had not observed any substantial changes in plant composition, while Abel admitted that he does not typically monitor changes in vegetation. In contrast, Hank and Sarah reported observing more willows (Salix spp. or uqpik) and trees growing around Kendall Island, whereas Sandra expressed great surprise at recently encountering cloudberries (Rubus chamaemorus or aqpik) near her camp, exclaiming, “yesterday walking back here, we just about fainted when we saw akpiks, we were just like AKPIKS! It was crazy!” Lillian also reported observing extensive changes in plant cover, exclaiming, “Oh my goodness! They grow! There's just bushes all over, it used to never be like that, it used to just be cold and nothing like that would grow, but there's lots of leaves and bushes all over the place [now]”.
Beluga abundance and distribution
According to participants, beluga migration (i.e., timing of arrival in the Okeevik MPA) has shifted earlier in the summer. Three participants highlighted this shift in migration timing, including Niulaq, who explained, “this year the ice went early [and the] whales came in early, so you had to come [out to Kendall Island] in June” to harvest. In contrast, participants reported localized beluga abundance remaining relatively steady. Reflecting on this, Hank stated, “I never noticed a difference, every time I go out hunting this bay is full right across [but] sometimes it takes a little longer for the whales to come in”, and Abel asserted that “there are lots of whales [here] every year”.
Some fine-scale shifts in beluga spatial distribution and site use were described. In a typical year, belugas are observed along the Kendall Island shoreline on a semi-regular basis, including directly in front of residents’ camps. Sandra remarked how “when it's quiet now and [there are] no hunters, no boating, the whales come right in here, right here… the moms bring all their babies into the shallows [and] they just roll around”. Sandra typically observes belugas from her camp 5–6 times each year and was surprised that she had not seen any belugas from her camp in the weeks preceding her interview. At the time, she mentioned that her friends had recently encountered belugas further away by Rea Island (Kamik) (Fig. 1), scattered about in small pods. She found this curious, as the belugas she observes are typically organized in one large group. During his interview, Hank also noted how the belugas had been further out than usual (by Hanson Harbour) (Fig. 1), although he suggested this was likely natural since “some years [the belugas] come in, and some years they just don't”. He theorized that this could be linked to shifting prey movements and specifically to the belugas following herring (Table 2). Lastly, participants mentioned that it was becoming increasingly common for belugas to venture further east in the Beaufort Sea (toward Ulukhaktok and Kugluktuk) than was previously common, as has been observed and reported in other studies (e.g., Loseto et al. 2018a).
Beluga health and health indicators
The health of fish and wildlife harvested for subsistence is a central conservation objective in the ISR and one of the six categories of monitoring indicators outlined in the TNMPA Management Plan (DFO 2013). For decades, community-based monitoring and research programs have been implemented in the region to monitor beluga and fish populations, with a particular focus on documenting harvest rates, evaluating human health risks, and monitoring climate change impacts (Harwood et al. 2002; Loseto et al. 2015; Choy et al. 2020; Moore et al. 2020). Provided the critical link between wildlife health and human health in the ISR, interview participants were asked to reflect on the health of beluga and fish in the vicinity of Kendall Island and explain how they determine whether harvested beluga and fish are healthy and therefore safe to consume. Their responses to these questions provide insight into Inuvialuit characterizations of wildlife health and can inform the selection and refinement of TNMPA monitoring indicators.
At the start of the summer, typically in late June and early July, the belugas encountered in the Okeevik TNMPA are typically lean, while those encountered in late July and early August are notably heavier. Occasionally, residents encounter belugas that they consider unusually skinny or unhealthy; however, this was regarded as atypical. Hank and Sarah estimated that they encounter a sick whale every few years, while Sandra recalled harvesting only one sick whale in the several years preceding her interview. Regarding the latter, Sandra remarked that they had to burn it “as it was all yellow and had all kinds of yellow spots on it… it was really skinny too, so we didn't want to take any chances”. According to participants, it is difficult to determine whether a beluga is healthy simply by observing it in the water, and emphasized that assessing an animal's health requires both external and internal evaluation. According to Hank, a healthy beluga has “lots of blubber on each side, they are healthy when they come up with lots of blubber floating”. In contrast, external indicators of poor health included low body weight and/or the presence of skin abnormalities (i.e., discoloured tissues, severe wounds, or scars), while internal indicators included abnormally thin or discoloured blubber (i.e., of an orange or yellow colour), the presence of pus or spots on the liver, and tissues emitting a foul odor. Participants were not asked to reflect on causal factors linked to poor health, though Niulaq recalled previously harvesting an unhealthy whale that exhibited signs of attempted polar bear predation. If only mild abnormalities are observed but the rest of the animal appears healthy, residents may cut out and discard the abnormal tissue and retain the rest. If a beluga is determined unsafe to consume, residents discard the whole animal and often burn the carcass or drag it out to sea.
Fish abundance and distribution
Interview questions on fish largely pertained to fish harvested for subsistence and were not species-specific. While some participants referenced particular species in their responses, most spoke about fish generally. Detailed information on participant fishing effort and activity was not described and may account for variation in responses. The fish commonly harvested on Kendall Island include coney, whitefish, herring, and grayling, while crooked back, jackfish, suckerfish, and flat fish are also occasionally harvested (Table 2). Hank and Sarah had also observed jellyfish in the area, while Niulaq reported encountering salmon on occasion while fishing at camp. Two participants described fish abundance in the region as remaining steady over time, while another reported catching less fish today than they did in the past. According to Hank and Sarah, there was a several-year period during which whitefish numbers had decreased but they had since returned to normal, while another participant was of the opinion that herring had been arriving earlier in the season (in mid-June instead of early July). Niulaq, however, regarded some fluctuation in fish abundance and distribution as natural, remarking: “it's nature itself”.
Fish health and health indicators
Reflecting on the quality of locally harvested fish, Hank and Sarah described the fish around Kendall Island as “good fish, even better than those found in the Mackenzie Delta”. Although the fish encountered in the area are generally healthy, residents do occasionally encounter fish that need to be discarded. The indicators participants use to assess fish health are similar to those used for beluga. External indicators of poor fish health include unusually low body weight and/or the presence of skin abnormalities (e.g., discolouration, scarring, and unusual spots), whereas internal cues of poor health include tissue discolouration or textural abnormalities (i.e., dark colouration around the lungs, spots on the lungs or liver, unusually soft organs, or the flesh being unusually soft, watery, or falling apart). Fish that exhibit these characteristics are discarded. In contrast, a healthy fish is plump, free of scars, has a layer of internal white fat, and the females are full of eggs. Hank and Sarah reported that between 2009 and 2012 they began noticing fish with more scars, remarking, “we notice that fish nowadays have a lot of scars, we don't know what that's from, we figure it's from more otters [or] beavers. You can see muskrats on the coasts that used to be from the delta. Maybe the delta is moving this way, maybe that's why the fish have scars”.17 Some of the scarred fish they encountered also presented with dark spots on the lungs and liver, necessitating that they be discarded.
Activities adversely impacting fish and/or beluga
Participants were asked if they could think of past or present activities that had adversely impacted fish and beluga in the area. In response, they shared memories relating to past vessel activity and oil and gas exploration. Regarding the prior, Sandra recalled observing a few large vessels in the vicinity of Kendall Island, as well as “something way out in the ocean [from which she could] hear a humming sound”. At the time, she thought this may have deterred belugas from approaching the shore. Niulaq, a former beluga monitor, also described observing large vessels anchored offshore in the past but noted that they did not appear to deter belugas from accessing nearshore areas at the time.
Regarding industrial activity, three participants reported observing belugas avoiding nearshore areas during high-activity periods, sometimes involving the use of seismic or explosives. Abel explained that “years ago, when they had the Diligauk—the boat that's smashed up in Navy Creek—they did seismic there one time in the summer and we didn't like it, because the whales weren't coming in, they always stayed out”. He elaborated further, noting, “they used dynamite for that work, [it] blows up the water, kills the fish, and scares the whales… it just happened that one year and they stopped, maybe in 1960-something”. Hank and Sarah recalled that back in those days they had no say as to what oil companies could do, explaining, “our Elders would go to the oil companies and tell them not to do that, but they never listened [they said] ‘who are you to tell us what to do? ’ But now we can do that [and] say what we have to say”.18
Wildlife health and contamination was a concern among participants, with some expressing higher degrees of concern than others. No direct links between activities occurring in the area and declining fish and beluga health were described aside from the mortalities associated with the use of explosives and the potential impacts of vessel activity on belugas mentioned above. All participants wanted to ensure that the plants and wildlife they harvest are healthy and safe to eat, and they planned to continue harvesting and consuming traditional foods into the future. Participants generally reported that research findings had not caused them to alter their consumption of traditional foods and explained that they intended to continue consuming harvested wildlife until a serious health risk was identified.
3.7. Coping with climate change
Toward the end of the interview, participants were asked to describe how they had been adapting to changing conditions and to consider how they might adapt in the future (e.g., to fluctuating fish and beluga abundance, a longer open water season, and the impacts of continued erosion and permafrost slumping near camp structures) (Table 4). Their responses are summarized below.19
Table 4.
Beluga harvesting and processing
Sentiments toward modifying wildlife harvesting and processing practices in response to changing conditions were mixed. Most participants were unwilling to relocate to a different harvesting camp (e.g., West Whitefish or Hendrickson Island) if harvesting beluga on Kendall Island became untenable, for instance, due to the loss of camp structures or shifting beluga distribution. This included Hank, who expressed a strong attachment to Kendall Island, noting, “this is my home away from home, you have to bury me here”. In contrast, Lillian reported that she would consider harvesting at East Whitefish (Qangmalit) in Kugmallit Bay if necessary. Participants were more willing to alter their harvesting activities spatially and temporally on and around Kendall Island, including Hank, who said he sometimes travels further out to Hanson Harbour (Fig. 1) to search for belugas when he does not find them near Kendall Island. In 2012, Niulaq also travelled to Kendall Island earlier in the season in anticipation of an earlier beluga migration. Other ways participants were coping with changing wildlife distribution patterns included expanding their search areas (travelling further away from Kendall Island and to new sites nearby to look for belugas) and sharing information on wildlife activity with other residents. Lastly, if localized beluga abundance were to decline, several participants suggested voluntarily reducing their annual catch for a few years as well as prohibiting the sale of beluga.20 When asked if they would target other whale or fish species besides those commonly harvested, Hank and Sarah reported that they would, while Abel reported that he would not transition from hunting beluga to bowhead, citing a lack of specialized knowledge required to harvest the latter.
A common theme across interviews was that shifting and increasingly unpredictable weather has complicated wildlife processing. Severe weather, including high winds and rain, makes it physically challenging to process harvested foods, while damp conditions prevent maktak from drying properly. Participants also identified food safety risks posed by processing wildlife at high temperatures, noting that today they must be extra careful to prevent spoilage. In the days leading up to the field camp, Sandra recalled: “it was really hot so I had to really make sure my girls knew that they couldn't just be sleeping or being lazy; [we] have to get up and work [because] once the sun reaches a certain point it gets really bad, if we start early, we try to finish before it reaches that point”. She continued, explaining, “I'm trying to teach them things like that, how to put [the meat] away; you don't just hang your meat and leave it like that, you've got to flip it over, the wind and sun is a good tool if you work with it good, [but] it can also be really dangerous, you can make poison”. Like Sandra, other residents are adapting their processing techniques by working more quickly during cooler temperatures earlier in the day, closely monitoring the condition of animal tissues, and storing harvested and processed wildlife in temperature-controlled settings. In the past, Sarah explained, “we used to have barrels where we keep the maktak and just put plywood over it then hang it, but now [my husband] and the boys have to dig a pit right to the ice and we put our maktak there; this was before it started getting really warm”. She noted that with the melting permafrost, however, they have to store harvested wildlife in generator-powered freezers while at camp.
Knowledge generation and transmission
Multiple participants agreed that successfully harvesting and processing wildlife under changing conditions requires learning-by-doing, trying out new things, and sharing the knowledge they acquire with others in their community. Supporting this, Sarah asserted, “we have to adapt to climate change because we're getting warming weather” and regarding beluga processing, she noted, “you have to watch what you are doing, be aware of the weather, [and] learn to do things better”. Sarah learns a lot about how to adapt from watching others, and if a technique works, she passes it on. When asked if they would change or adapt the knowledge they transmit to youth (e.g., knowledge on harvesting, processing, safety, or survival), three participants reported that they would, while two reported they would not. In response to this question, Hank and Sarah acknowledged that you must be willing to adapt if you want to harvest traditional foods under changing conditions. Echoing this sentiment, Sandra affirmed that she would also change the knowledge she shares with youth because she “can't put things back to the way they were, it's changing, it's evident… I would have to try to teach them the best I could with the change”. In contrast, Abel reported that he did not intend on changing his hunting patterns and communicated that he would pass his accumulated knowledge onto his son, while Lillian noted, “we like to teach the tradition and keep the culture alive… cutting up and cooking [maktak] is still the same as it was a long time ago, if you want to have a good maktak, you follow that”. Responses to this question indicate that participants likely interpreted this question differently but also suggest that certain knowledge and traditional practices (e.g., how to cut and cook maktak) remain relevant under changing conditions while other practices (e.g., how to prevent spoilage under warming conditions) necessitate adaptation.
Maintaining camp sites and structures
Concerns about maintaining family camps on Kendall Island under present and predicted levels of environmental change were widespread. Participants highlighted that their camps were not originally built to be watertight, and thus, increasing summer precipitation and storms have caused interior damage. Furthermore, flooding and erosion are destabilizing camp structures and have caused residents to lose equipment and, in some cases, their cabins. Field camp participants witnessed this firsthand upon arriving at Sanmiqaq (the site where the research team stayed during the field camp), where they found the ground beneath Lillian's cabin giving way. Together, the field team worked to restabilize the cabin and make it more secure.
Impacts on camp sites and structures resulting from coastal erosion and flooding were described as extensive. Most participants anticipated having to relocate their camps in the future but were concerned about not having the funding, technology, or capacity to do so. For example, Sandra acknowledged to interviewers that she would likely have to relocate her camp at some point; however, she was unsure of where to relocate it to. Furthermore, she was concerned that, due to continued environmental change, her camp would need to be relocated again within the next decade, regardless. Although Abel initially built his cabin on high ground, his camp site flooded in the two years preceding his interview, resulting in the loss of his kitchen. The damage to his camp forced him to move to his sister's. He figured that he would probably have to let his cabin succumb to the elements, as he did not have the equipment to move it. Although relocating camp sites and large structures poses a considerable challenge, residents have found some ways to cope and prevent gear loss during flooding by moving their gear to higher ground, anchoring it down, and improving how they secure their boats.
Resource pooling and collaboration
Participants were asked about their support for community-style hunts and community freezer programs. Community-style hunts are when multiple community members pool resources to hunt together or when a community organization like an HTC sponsors a group hunt, the products of which are later distributed amongst the broader community, while community freezers are publically-accessible spaces to which residents can donate traditional foods and acquire foods they do not have. These initiatives are meant to mitigate some of the economic burdens associated with wildlife harvest and processing and to promote access to or the exchange of traditional foods within the community. Participants unanimously supported both program concepts and agreed that they would benefit community members. Regarding community hunts, however, several participants explained that they already hunt in groups and practice food sharing with other families, which are long-held Inuvialuit traditions. Some aspects of collaboration that are currently practiced include communicating the arrival of beluga over the radio, sharing and bartering traditional foods (e.g., exchanging beluga for char), and working together during a hunt (e.g., to herd whales and avoid scaring belugas away). Although community hunts were widely supported, Lillian and Abel shared the opinion that community hunts should not replace individual hunting altogether. All participants reported that they would participate in community freezer programs, both by supplying foods and potentially acquiring foods they do not have. Lillian remarked that since her immediate family did not harvest a whale in 2012, she would have accessed maktak from a community freezer.
Technology use
Generally, participants were willing to embrace new technologies in tandem with Inuvialuit knowledge to understand and cope with environmental change and increasing variability. Most reported using technology (e.g., GPS, weather forecasts, cell phones, and radios) to facilitate their navigation and communications while at camp. Given the increasing weather variability and shifting river channels, technologies such as online weather forecasting and depth finders are playing a bigger role in their navigation and decision-making about where and when to travel. However, Hank and Sarah cautioned that since weather forecasts are often inaccurate, it is important to rely on one's personal land-based knowledge when making decisions related to the weather and environmental conditions.
Beyond employing technology to cope with changing weather and enhance communications, participants are also using other equipment, including portable freezers, generators, and small motorized watercrafts, while out at camp. The latter have increased harvest efficiency in that hunters can spend less time out on the water waiting for the whales to arrive; however, they carry smaller loads than the scows of the past. Although the questions on the interview guide and participant responses on climate change adaptation primarily centered on the use of western technology, Sandra shared how her son had recently begun testing out harpoon heads obtained from Iñupiaq harvesters in Alaska, highlighting an example of cross-cultural knowledge exchange, experimentation, and innovation using traditional tools.
3.8. Research, monitoring, and management
Perspectives on research and monitoring programs
Participants were asked to reflect on research and monitoring occurring in the region and, in particular, on the hunter-based beluga monitoring program—a long-term program in the ISR in which local monitors are hired and trained to collect tissue samples and record observational data on harvested belugas (Harwood et al. 2002). Generally, participants felt the beluga monitoring program was working well and should continue. Two approved of how the beluga monitor positions rotate between different individuals annually, while another was glad to see that the monitors were collecting more and more samples every year. Reflecting on this, Hank and Sarah remarked, “[it's] a pretty good set up that we have, [the monitor position] rotates every year, they know what they are doing. It's good and gets better every year”. Advocating for environmental sampling, Lillian stated, “we know there is lots of stuff in the water that we don't know [about], sometimes I think that's what makes us sick… I wouldn't know until researchers do things and check to see what's in the water”. Although testing beluga tissues for contaminants was generally supported, participants stated that they rely primarily on their traditional and experiential knowledge, rather than on western science findings to determine if harvested wildlife is safe to eat. Although residents possess extremely detailed knowledge on animal health, responses to questions using the term contaminants suggest that this term may not be well understood by community members. Researchers should be aware of this when reporting contaminant-related information at the community level.
Communication preferences
Finally, participants offered various recommendations on how they would like research and monitoring conducted and research findings communicated in the region. Lillian advised that researchers should hire and work closely with locals who know the land, while others recommended that researchers communicate results in-person, in group settings (e.g., workshops, community gatherings, or HTC meetings), and in highly visual ways (e.g., using photos or animations of tagged wildlife movements). Several also stressed the need to have interpreters present at all workshops and meetings. Others were concerned that scientists may not be relaying their results back to communities and requested the active and timely communication of research results to communities and HTCs. Since this project was implemented, Inuvialuit and Inuit from other parts of Inuit Nunaat have developed formal research policies, licensing requirements, and other supporting documents to guide Arctic research (IRC 2013; ITK 2016, 2018; Pedersen et al. 2020; ICC 2022). Researchers should consult these documents and the appropriate communities, organizations, and licensing bodies prior to initiating a project.
Wildlife and environmental management
Although not a core focus of the interviews, several participants shared their perspectives on wildlife and environmental management. For instance, Sandra mentioned that the new HTC bylaws (IHTC et al. 2016) requiring that harvesters harpoon a whale before shooting has helped to reduce the number of struck and lost whales in the area, while Abel asserted that Kendall Island should continue to be protected given its importance as a site where residents obtain their winter supply of maktak and ukȓuk. In particular, he advocated for temporal and spatial management measures that restrict certain activities in specific areas and times of the year, stating, “we don't like anybody working [here] until August 15th because they usually try doing seismic around here [but] we always tell them ‘no, you can't’ because it's a good place”.
4. Discussion
Overarching themes emerged across the interview transcripts, including (1) that Kendall Island and the adjacent harvesting areas remain culturally important sites that should be preserved and protected into the future, (2) that ecological and physical change has been pervasive on Kendall Island; however, the local abundance, distribution, and health of key subsistence species was relatively stable as of 2012, and finally, (3) although climate change poses considerable challenges to residents, many are finding creative ways to maintain access to their Kendall Island camps and locally harvested wildlife within their physical and economic means. Below, we reflect on these themes, consider our results in relation to emerging research findings, and comment on our research design and process.
Like other harvesting camps in the ISR, Kendall Island facilitates continued access to traditional foods, promotes the health and well-being of seasonal residents, and fosters the continuation of the Inuvialuit culture and language through subsistence harvest, food sharing, collaboration, and knowledge and skill transmission. Over time, some camp dynamics on Kendall Island have changed, including those related to camp configuration, trip duration, food consumption patterns, and gender roles associated with beluga harvest. Changes, including the adoption of modern communication and navigation technologies and shifting gender roles, were generally viewed positively, while increasing costs and busier work schedules limit the extent to which residents can spend time at camp and participate in subsistence harvest. Interview participants were not asked to identify drivers behind the social and cultural changes observed on Kendall Island; however, research would suggest that these extend from broader regional-scale changes that include shifting demographics, colonial policies, technological advancements, and the rise of the wage economy (Usher 1971a; Usher et al. 2003; Friesen 2004, 2013; Lyons 2009, 2013; Pearce et al. 2015; Fawcett et al. 2018; Worden et al. 2020; Naylor et al. 2021). Climate change, an underlying focus of this study, represents an added pressure that will continue to interact with and shape social dynamics and mediate access to traditional foods and cultural sites like Kendall Island (Friesen 2015; Naylor et al. 2021).
Interview responses indicate that Kendall Island residents share a relatively uniform set of values and practices pertaining to environmental stewardship. Participants strongly advocated for preserving Kendall Island for future generations and described employing various practices to protect the land and wildlife. These practices include only harvesting what one needs to sustain oneself and one's family, carefully processing harvested foods to prevent loss and spoilage, and minimizing activities that may damage the land or disturb wildlife during key periods of the year. This is consistent with long-held Inuvialuit beliefs about how to interact with nature as described in other publications (Berger 1977; Byers and Roberts 1995; Day 2002; Hart and Amos 2004) and by prominent Inuvialuit Elder Billy Day, who stated: “our Elders told us that the land and waters had looked after them for centuries and would look after us for many more if we looked after our environment” (Day 2002, p. 1). Although caring for the environment remains a central objective within the region, Lillian's interview responses suggest that younger generations may not be adhering as strictly to some of the informal traditional rules governing interactions with nature that were common in the past. This may be related to shifting mobility and consumption patterns, for example, the transition from living on the land to living in town and attending westernized schools, which alter youth access to land-based learning opportunities and traditional foods (Hoover et al. 2016; Worden et al. 2020; Tod-Tims and Stern 2021).
Environmental change has been pervasive on Kendall Island, reflecting trends observed throughout the Arctic (Wood et al. 2015; Waugh et al. 2018; Worden et al. 2020; Huntington et al. 2020). Kendall Island residents are observing both physical and ecological changes that they attribute to a warming climate, including rising summer and winter air temperatures, increasing weather severity and variability, earlier sea ice breakup, and widespread coastal erosion. These observations are consistent with emerging research findings throughout the Arctic (Jones et al. 2008; Steiner et al. 2015; Obu et al. 2017; Stroeve and Notz 2018; Biskaborn et al. 2019; O'Neill et al. 2019; Berry et al. 2021) and reflect observations made by Inuvialuit across the ISR (Brewster et al. 2016; Fawcett et al. 2018; Waugh et al. 2018; WMAC and AHTC 2018; Worden et al. 2020) and Iñupiaq along the north coast of Alaska (Hauser et al. 2017; Huntington et al. 2017). Notably, no considerable declines in the local abundance, spatial distribution, and health of key species harvested for subsistence were reported, indicating that in the absence of other barriers, access to key marine resources remained relatively intact on Kendall Island as of 2012. Noticeable changes in subsistence-harvested marine organisms reported by interview participants included beluga migrating into the Okeevik TNMPA earlier in the season, potential fine-scale shifts in beluga distribution (also reflected in Scharffenberg et al. 2021; Noel et al. 2022), and increased scarring on subsistence-harvested fishes during a several-year period. Shifts in beluga migration timing have also been reported by Loseto et al. (2018b) and Waugh et al. (2018); in the latter, harvesters in Tuktoyaktuk reported EBS belugas migrating into the area up to 2.5 weeks earlier in the summer of 2016. These observations reflect trends observed for other cetaceans in the Beaufort Sea (Insley et al. 2021) and globally under climate change (van Weelden et al. 2021). Harvesters from Tuktoyaktuk and Paulatuk have also reported harvesting thinner whales in recent years (Waugh et al. 2018; Ostertag et al. 2019). Although this was not reflected in the Kendall Island interviews, trends related to beluga health and body condition may have changed considerably since 2012, when the Kendall Island interviews were conducted. Although the extent of the physical and ecological changes occurring in the region has evoked concern from many residents, participants in this study cautioned that some changes (i.e., minor fluctuations in wildlife distribution and abundance) are part of a natural cycle and emphasized the need to distinguish between natural variation and abnormal environmental change. The fine-scale distributional changes reported for beluga in this study may fall within the limits of natural variation highlighted by knowledge holders or may be an early sign of longer term shifts in habitat use or food web dynamics under climate change as has been explored in recent studies (Harwood et al. 2015; Loseto et al. 2018a, 2018b; Scharffenberg et al. 2019, 2021; Choy et al. 2020; Noel et al. 2022).
A common concern amongst participants was the influx of new plant and animal species into the region that they regarded as endemic to southern latitudes. This may indicate a northward shift in these species’ distributions or an increase in their localized abundance and is consistent with predicted and realized northward range expansions for select subarctic species under climate change (Grebmeier 2012; Steiner et al. 2015; Huntington et al. 2020; van Beest et al. 2021). To date, range expansions have been documented for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas (Babaluk et al. 2000; Dunmall and Reist 2018; Carothers et al. 2019; Chila et al. 2022) and killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the Western and Eastern Canadian Arctic (Stafford 2019; Lefort et al. 2020a, 2020b). Interestingly, notable increases in salmon and killer whale activity were not reported by participants in this study. Due to the turbidity of the Mackenzie Estuary, however, not all wildlife activity is easily observed by the human eye (e.g., subsurface beluga or fish presence and behavior); hence, coupling local knowledge and observations with non-invasive monitoring techniques, such as drones or passive acoustics, could prove highly informative in this context.
Climate change poses serious implications for Inuit health, safety, and food security (Pearce et al. 2011; Ford et al. 2020, 2021), including for residents of Aklavik, Inuvik, and Tuktoyaktuk who are experiencing damage to their camps due to flooding and erosion, hazardous transit conditions, and impediments to food processing (Waugh et al. 2018; Scharffenberg et al. 2020; Worden et al. 2020). Despite facing an array of climate-induced challenges, Kendall Island residents were still able to access their camps, harvesting areas, and subsistence-harvested wildlife as of 2012. In contrast, harvesters in Ulukhaktok have recently benefited from increased access to beluga under climate change (Loseto et al. 2018a), while harvesters in Aklavik have lost access to key harvesting sites, leading to a decline in beluga harvest (Worden et al. 2020). Decreasing site access (i.e., the ability to get to a harvesting area safely and reliably) was also perceived by harvesters in northern Alaska as the primary factor shaping resource availability, outranking changes in wildlife distribution and abundance (Brinkman et al. 2016). This is particularly salient for residents of Kotzebue and Kivalina, where chronic climate stressors, such as sea ice change and coastal erosion, were recently described as the most important factors influencing wildlife harvest (Green et al. 2021). Notably, the Kendall Island interviews indicate that the primary short-term threats to marine resource access and food security for residents in 2012 were not climate-related but economic in nature (i.e., increasing costs and work obligations), consistent with findings from community-engaged research in Ulukhoktok (Naylor et al. 2021). Comparing these local experiences highlights how even within the same region, communities are experiencing climate change in nonuniform ways, underscoring the importance of examining climate change impacts at various scales and prioritizing place-based management and adaptation strategies (Tyson 2017).
The economic barriers to transit and harvest discussed above suggest that harvesters on Kendall Island may benefit from investment in hunter support programs, in addition to other culturally relevant solutions such as community freezers and land-based learning camps (Hoover et al. 2016). While our interviews with Kendall Island residents reveal various trends and challenges experienced by other ISR residents, it should be noted that we only interviewed individuals that had access to a seasonal harvesting camp and an active harvester in their family. Individuals and families that lack this access likely experience greater food insecurity and a different set of challenges related to actualizing food security and sovereignty (Hoover et al. 2016; Tod-Tims and Stern 2021), which are not reflected in this publication.
Despite facing mounting climate-induced challenges, Arctic communities are well-versed in coping with change (Nuligak 1966; Usher 1971a; Lyons 2010; Huntington et al. 2021), and the residents of Kendall Island are no exception. Interviews reveal that residents are actively identifying creative ways to adapt to changing conditions (by altering processing techniques, expanding harvesting areas, and better securing gear during storms) and supporting the development of community programs designed to mitigate food insecurity. Participants asserted that coping with climate change on Kendall Island requires being observant, experimenting with new ways of doing things, transmitting old and new knowledge to youth, and using technology in combination with local and traditional knowledge to overcome challenges. Their responses make clear, however, that successful adaptation is contingent on maintaining access to traditional sites like Kendall Island, which offer opportunities to learn about environmental change, experiment with adaptation mechanisms, secure nutritionally rich traditional foods, and strengthen Inuvialuit culture through knowledge and skill transmission.
This transdisciplinary project brought together a diverse team with expertise across epistemological, geographic, and cultural boundaries and was predominantly designed and implemented by Inuvialuit. This partnership embodies a shift away from research formats that engage community members solely as information providers towards a more equitable and meaningful multi-stage collaboration (Fox et al. 2020; Norström et al. 2020; Huntington et al. 2021). Combining methods like interviews and experiential learning with Elders and youth also proved instrumental in facilitating intergenerational knowledge transfer and relationship building. It would be advantageous for future projects involving the latter to explore and evaluate this method so that associated insights may be shared beyond the project team (as is described in Ljubicic et al. 2021; Lyons et al. 2021). Although this project is an example of a successful transdisciplinary effort involving the collaboration of co-management board members, representatives from local institutions, government scientists, and community members, qualitative researchers were not initially involved in the project despite the use of qualitative methods. Involving individuals with expertise in qualitative methods and Indigenous research paradigms earlier on could have strengthened our research design and expedited the reporting of research findings.
Participants appreciated that the interviews were led by Inuvialuit youth, which promoted youth leadership and supported knowledge transmission. Interviews were guided by a comprehensive guide covering a range of topics identified by project partners. The broad scope and length of the guide, which contained over 80 questions, however, made it difficult for participants to reflect on all the questions in full detail. Hence, although the interviews were characterized by a wide breadth, specificity, and depth, exploration into causal factors and links were sometimes lacking. Furthermore, multiple questions on the guide were phrased as compound questions, and others used technical language (e.g., abundance, fluctuation, recruitment, and contaminants), which resulted in some questions being misunderstood, answered incompletely, or skipped altogether. As such, we recommend that future research teams consider these elements during research design and generate guides with a more targeted focus and the inclusion of accessible and culturally relevant language.
Interestingly, the interview transcripts also reveal gendered aspects of residents’ knowledge and observations. Female participants possessed greater and more detailed knowledge on plants, animal health, and wildlife processing compared to male participants, with the opposite being observed for knowledge about hunting and the location of wildlife typically harvested by male hunters. This is unsurprising given that Inuvialuit men and women historically specialized in different skills (Byers and Roberts 1995; Day 2002; Friesen 2004), but nonetheless underscores the importance of including participants with diverse gender identities in the exploration of environmental knowledge and observations. Lastly, given that mobilizing participant knowledge was a central objective of this project, it may have been advantageous to pursue the Kendall Island interviews as oral histories and to have a consent agreement in place permitting the archiving of interview audio and transcripts at the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Center. Such an arrangement would have made this knowledge more readily accessible to Inuvialuit and would have prevented the interview content from being lost to time.
Collaboratively revisiting these interviews over the last two years has itself proved highly rewarding. This process has compelled our team to exchange knowledge and expertise, reconnect with the Elders, mobilize Inuvialuit knowledge, and honor those that have passed on. Each of us contributed unique insight toward this initiative and learned something new through our collaborative process. For myself (KLO), working on this manuscript provided an opportunity to build valuable relationships with my Inuvialuit co-authors and learn about Inuvialuit history, culture, and environmental change through the lens of Elders. Although I did not have the opportunity to participate in the Kendall Island field camp directly, I feel a personal connection to this important site having read through the interview transcripts countless times—to quote Lillian Elias, I feel as though I can see Kendall Island in my mind when I read the Elders’ stories. For other team members, contributing to this publication provided an opportunity to learn about the publishing and peer review processes. On this topic, co-author SO remarked, “I'm happy with how this has gone, that it's not just compiling dust somewhere—it's a closed book now and it's been really collaborative. I've never gone through the publication process before, normally I just wait for the end result from the researchers, so this has been a really interesting experience for me”. For co-authors KGAM and DE, revisiting this project presented an opportunity to reflect on collaborative research and authorship practices and consider future opportunities. Regarding the prior, KGAM emphasized the importance of engaging knowledge holders during all phases of the research process, noting: “identifying the research questions with those who are directly affected by [environmental change], gathering knowledge to assist the current generation and guide the next generation, and co-publishing with the Inuit is a pattern that should be repeated in all Arctic research”, while co-author and IHTC Director DE shared: “I'm happy to have been a part of this project and to see the IHTC recognized through authorship. Working on this project prompted us to have a good discussion around co-authorship, and we [the board] were in agreement that the IHTC should author this paper. A lot of work went into this project, and we're interested in seeing something like this done again—there's a lot more to be collected with the way that climate change is impacting our area”. Considering some of the challenges and opportunities we encountered, co-author LLL recalled: “we had many great ideas about how to pursue this work but initially, we didn't have a full follow-up plan for what to do with the documented knowledge after the field camp and knowledge sharing workshop. At the time, I think we underestimated what it would take to complete a product like this publication. This information was so precious to the community that we wanted to make sure it had a home and that it was accessible but in a way that was done properly. In a way, COVID gave us an opportunity to pause and revisit this work again. In the end, the timing actually worked out well in that had this paper been published immediately after [the field camp], I'm not sure the magnitude would have been fully realized. Now, ten years on, we recognize the gravity of the knowledge and observations shared by these Elders and are excited to share this information in published form”. One of the key realizations we have come to through this process is that in the current research climate characterized by fast-paced funding cycles and an insatiable demand for new data, it can be easy to overlook existing sources of documented knowledge, especially those not publicly archived. As is evidenced here, however, collaboratively revisiting these sources offers many opportunities and benefits that extend well beyond the development of a research publication.
5. Conclusion
This project explored social and environmental change on Kendall Island through the lens of six Inuvialuit knowledge holders. The accumulated knowledge shared by these individuals provides unique insight into the dynamics of this important cultural site, including how this area has changed in recent decades. Although climate change continues to pose various challenges, Kendall Island residents have proven relatively resilient due in part to their experimentation with various coping strategies. Our findings provide a benchmark upon which to evaluate future changes at this site and inform environmental monitoring, management, and climate change adaptation planning. With the rapid rate of change occurring in the Arctic, conditions on Kendall Island have likely continued to shift since these interviews were conducted, warranting a follow-up with the original participants and other residents. As climate change is expected to intensify, continued community-led research and monitoring should occur on Kendall Island and in the TNMPA to track subsequent changes, transfer knowledge, inform place-based management, and preserve access to this important site.
Acknowledgements
We extend our sincere gratitude to Hank Angasuk, Sarah Rogers, Niulaq James Rogers, Sandra Ipana, Lillian Elias, and Abel Tingmiak, who generously shared their knowledge, observations, and perspectives with us during this project. We also thank Angus Alunik, Freddie Rogers, James Elias, Lawrence Rogers, Paden Lennie, and Erin Goose for supporting project fieldwork; the IHTC, IRC, and DFO for contributing to project design and implementation; and Eileen Allen, Mason Ipana, and Doris Rogers for meeting with our team to review this manuscript on behalf of their late family members. We also extend our thanks to the Aurora Research Institute and Joel McAlister for providing supplies to use during the field camp, to Daniel Slavic with the World Wildlife Fund for assisting with consent form development and providing access to camera equipment, to Lisa Rogers with the IHTC for her help with project planning and finances, to Chris Harrison of the IRC for providing technological support, and to the peer-reviewers who provided feedback on our initial manuscript submission. Lastly, we thank Health Canada's Climate Change and Health Adaptation Program for supporting this project.
Footnotes
1
Inuvialuit are the Inuit of Canada's Western Arctic. The archeological record indicates that the earliest ancestors of the modern Inuvialuit, the Thule Inuit, migrated to the Mackenzie Delta in approximately 1300 A.D. (Friesen and Arnold 2008). The term Inuvialuit (meaning the real people in Inuvialuktun) emerged as a common identifier for Inuvialuit during land claim negotiations in the late 1960s (Lyons 2009) and has since replaced earlier terms of western origin (e.g., Mackenzie Inuit).
2
Uummarmiutun is the Inuvialuktun dialect spoken in the Mackenzie Delta communities of Inuvik and Aklavik. We include Uummarmiutun translations for key terms in italics throughout our introduction and results sections. Translation support was provided by L. Elias. Some translations were sourced from existing publications as pertinent (i.e., Papik et al. 2003; Joint Secretariat and Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources 2011).
3
Inuvialuit Knowledge is “the knowledge gained by Inuvialuit individuals through traditional learning patterns (stories/songs), and through living on and using the land… observing, listening, testing, determining and experiencing all play considerable roles in retaining traditional knowledge” (ICC et al. 2006, p. 55).
4
A camp is a remote seasonal residence located in close proximity to a harvesting area (Day 2002); the practice of harvesting for subsistence at seasonal camps is deeply rooted in Inuvialuit history and culture (Friesen and Arnold 1995; ICC et al. 2006).
5
This project was titled The link between climate change and health in the ISR: Capacity building, traditional knowledge exchange and community-based monitoring for Elders and youth at Kendall Island, NWT; more information on project design and implementation is outlined in an activity report to Health Canada (O'Hara 2012) and in a community paper for the Arctic Observing Summit (Snow et al. 2016).
6
Youth refers to individuals between the ages of 18 and 30; at the time the field camp occurred, most of the knowledge holders interviewed would have been considered Elders—esteemed individuals in the community who possess substantial Inuvialuit knowledge.
7
Participants had spent many seasons on Kendall Island by the time they were interviewed for this project (i.e., Sandra had spent approximately 15 seasons, Hank and Sarah over 25 seasons, Niulaq 30 seasons, and Abel and Lillian had spent upwards of 50 and 60 seasons on the island, respectively). In this context, season refers to part or all of the summer harvesting season on Kendall Island, which typically lasts from July through early August; however, the amount of time residents spend at camp each year varies.
8
Food security refers to the ability to acquire safe, nutritional, and culturally relevant foods, while food sovereignty refers to the ability to self-determine one's diet and the mechanisms of food production (Ferranti et al. 2019).
9
Additional information on traditional camp life and changing social and cultural dynamics can be found in Day (2002), Friesen and Arnold (1995), Friesen (2004), and Lyons (2013).
10
The attributes of an umialik were not described by interview participants but are noted in other publications (see Stefansson 1919; Friesen et al. 2004; Byers and Roberts 1995; ICC et al. 2006). Byers and Roberts (1995, p. 19) describe umialik (which they spell umialit) as “experienced and respected beluga hunters who served to regulate the ethical conduct of the hunt”. According to these authors, this role is more often performed today by co-management bodies than individuals.
11
Additional information on Inuvialuit beluga harvesting and processing is detailed in other sources (see: Nuligak 1966; Byers and Roberts 1995; Day 2002; Alunik et al. 2003; Hart and Amos 2004; Willett and Pokiak 2010; Waugh et al. 2018).
12
The rules described here reflect practical concerns (i.e., limiting noise to prevent beluga disturbance) and spiritual associations with wildlife. As an example of the latter, Inuvialuit traditionally consider boasting about one's catch to be disrespectful and believe this can jeopardize the outcome of a hunt (Byers and Roberts 1995). Traditional rules and norms related to wildlife are described further in Friesen (2004) and Lyons (2013, p. 119).
13
This is consistent with findings reported in Byers and Roberts (1995) and Day (2002); the latter suggests that strict gender norms associated with the beluga harvest were upheld until about the 1950s, after which they began to shift.
14
See Cai et al. (2021) and You et al. (2021) and NASA Global Climate Change Global Temperature, Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Extent, and Ocean Warming for information on global and regional climate trends.
15
This question asked interview participants to reflect on a list of items simultaneously (e.g., rivers, lakes, and streams); this compound phrasing may have resulted in participants responding only partially.
16
Referring to the otter (pamiuqtuuq), eagle (tingmiaqpak), and crow (Corvus sp. or tulugaq). The otter and crow species observed were not specified in the transcripts; however, otter likely refers to the North American river otter (Lontra canadensis), and crow may refer to the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) or the common raven (Corvus corax), as the terms crow and raven are sometimes used interchangeably in the ISR (ICC et al. 2006).
17
Referring to muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus or kivgaluk).
18
The prior part of this statement refers to the time period predating the Berger Commission and the signing of the IFA (Berger 1977; IFA 1984).
19
For updated information on regional climate change adaptation planning; see IRC (2021).
20
Per the IFA, Inuvialuit may “sell, trade, and barter fish and marine mammal products acquired through subsistence fisheries to other Inuvialuit” subject to public health regulations (IFA 1984, p. 44).
References
Alunik I., Kolausok E.D., Morrison D.A. 2003. Across time and Tundra: Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic. Raincoast Books, Vancouver.
Arruda G.M., Krutkowski S. 2017. Social impacts of climate change and resource development in the Arctic: implications for Arctic governance. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 11: 277–288.
Babaluk J.A., Reist J.D., Johnson J.D., Johnson L. 2000. First records of sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) from Banks Island and other records of Pacific Salmon in Northwest Territories, Canada. ARCTIC.
Bartsch A., Pointner G., Nitze I., Efimova A., Jakober D., Ley S., et al. 2021. Expanding infrastructure and growing anthropogenic impacts along Arctic coasts. Environmental Research Letters, 16. IOP Publishing Ltd.
Berger T.R. 1977. Northern frontier northern homeland: the report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Vol. 1.
Berkes F. 2017. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. 4th ed. Routledge, Philadelphia, PA.
Bernauer W., Peyton J. 2021. Energy extraction, resistance, and political change in Inuit Nunangat. In The Inuit world. Routledge. pp. 340–358.
Berry H.B., Whalen D., Lim M. 2021. Long-term ice-rich permafrost coast sensitivity to air temperatures and storm influence: lessons from Pullen Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic Science, 23: 1–23.
Betts M.W., Friesen T.M. 2006. Declining foraging returns from an inexhaustible resource? Abundance indices and beluga whaling in the western Canadian Arctic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 25: 59–81.
Biskaborn B.K., Smith S.L., Noetzli J., Matthes H., Vieira G., Streletskiy D.A., et al. 2019. Permafrost is warming at a global scale. Nature Communications, 10: 1–11.
Bowra A., Mashford-Pringle A., Poland B. 2021.June 1. Indigenous learning on Turtle Island: a review of the literature on land-based learning. Blackwell Publishing Inc.
Brewster J., Brewster J., Neumann D., Ostertag S., Loseto L. 2016. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) at Shingle Point, YT : observations on changes in the environment and fish populations fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Technical Report of Fish.
Brinkman T.J., Hansen W.D., Chapin F.S., Kofinas G., BurnSilver S., Rupp T.S. 2016. Arctic communities perceive climate impacts on access as a critical challenge to availability of subsistence resources. Climatic Change, 139: 413–427.
Byers T., Roberts L. 1995. Harpoons and ulus: collective wisdom and traditions of Inuvialuit regarding the beluga (“qilalugaq”) in the Mackenzie River Estuary.
Cai Z., You Q., Wu F., Chen H.W., Chen D., Cohen J. 2021. Arctic warming revealed by multiple CMIP6 models: evaluation of historical simulations and quantification of future projection uncertainties. Journal of Climate, 34: 4871–4892.
Cao Y., Liang S., Sun L., Liu J., Cheng X., Wang D., et al. 2022. Trans-Arctic shipping routes expanding faster than the model projections. Global Environmental Change, 73. Elsevier Ltd.
Carothers C., Sformo T.L., Cotton S., George J.C., Westley P.A.H. 2019. Pacific salmon in the rapidly changing arctic: exploring local knowledge and emerging fisheries in Utqiaġvik and Nuiqsut, Alaska. Arctic, 72: 273–288.
Castleden H., Morgan V.S., Neimanis A. 2010. Researchers’ Perspectives on Collective/Community Co-Authorship in Community-Based Participatory Indigenous Research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5: 23–32.
Chan F.T., Stanislawczyk K., Sneekes A.C., Dvoretsky A., Gollasch S., Minchin D., et al. 2019. Climate change opens new frontiers for marine species in the Arctic: current trends and future invasion risks. Global Change Biology, 25: 25–38.
Chila Z., Dunmall K.M., Proverbs T.A., Lantz T.C., Hunters A., Hunters I., et al. 2022. Inuvialuit knowledge of Pacific salmon range expansion in the western Canadian Arctic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 79: 1042–1055.
Choy E.S., Giraldo C., Rosenberg B., Roth J.D., Ehrman A.D., Majewski A., et al. 2020. Variation in the diet of beluga whales in response to changes in prey availability: insights on changes in the Beaufort Sea ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 647: 195–210.
Dawson J., Pizzolato L., Howell S.E.L., Copland L., Johnston M.E. 2018. Temporal and spatial patterns of ship traffic in the Canadian arctic from 1990 to 2015. Arctic, 71: 15–26.
Day B. 2002. Renewable resources of the Beaufort Sea for our children: perspectives from an Inuvialuit Elder. Arctic, 55: 1–3.
Dunmall K., Reist J. 2018. Developing a citizen science framework for the Arctic using the ‘Arctic Salmon’ initiative. Impacts of a Changing Environment on the Dynamics of High-Latitude Fish and Fisheries. 31–47.
Durner G.M., Douglas D.C., Albeke S.E., Whiteman J.P., Amstrup S.C., Richardson E., et al. 2017. Increased Arctic sea ice drift alters adult female polar bear movements and energetics. Global Change Biology, 23: 3460–3473.
Fawcett D., Pearce T., Notaina R., Ford J.D., Collings P. 2018. Inuit adaptability to changing environmental conditions over an 11-year period in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories. Polar Record, 54: 119–132.
Ferranti P., Berry E., Jock A. 2019. Encyclopedia of food security and sustainability. Elsevier, San Diego. CA.
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 2013. Tarium Niryutait marine protected areas management plan. [Online]. Availablefrom https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library-bibliotheque/40595523.pdf [accessed 9 October 2022].
Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC). 2013. Beaufort sea beluga management plan. Fisheries Joint Management Committee. p. 44. [Online]. Available from http://fishfp.sasktelwebhosting.com/publications/Beluga Management Plan.
Ford J.D., King N., Galappaththi E.K., Pearce T., McDowell G., Harper S.L. 2020. The resilience of Indigenous peoples to environmental change. Cell Press.
Ford J.D., Pearce T., Canosa I.V., Harper S. 2021. The rapidly changing Arctic and its societal implications. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Fox S., Qillaq E., Angutikjuak I., Tigullaraq D.J., Kautuk R., Huntington H., et al. 2020. Connecting understandings of weather and climate: steps towards co-production of knowledge and collaborative environmental management in Inuit Nunangat. Arctic Science, 278: 267–278.
Friesen T.M. 2004. Kitigaaryuit: A portrait of the Mackenzie Inuit in the 1890s, based on the journals of Isaac O. Stringer. Arctic Anthropology, 41: 222–237.
Friesen T.M. 2013. When worlds collide hunter–gatherer world-system change in the 19th century Canadian Arctic.
Friesen T.M. 2015. The Arctic CHAR Project: climate change impacts on the Inuvialuit Archaeological Record. Les nouvelles de l'archéologie. 31–37.
Friesen T.M., Arnold C.D. 1995. Zooarchaeology of a focal resource: dietary importance of beluga whales to the precontact Mackenzie Inuit. Arctic.
Friesen T.M., Arnold C.D. 2008. The timing of the Thule migration: new dates from the western Canadian Arctic. American Antiquity, 73: 527–538.
Grebmeier J.M. 2012. Shifting patterns of life in the pacific Arctic and sub-Arctic Seas. Annual Review of Marine Science 4: 63–78.
Green K.M., Beaudreau A.H., Lukin M.H., Crowder L.B. 2021. Climate change stressors and social-ecological factors mediating access to subsistence resources in arctic alaska. Ecology and Society, 26.
Hamilton C.D., Kovacs K.M., Ims R.A., Aars J., Lydersen C. 2017. An Arctic predator–prey system in flux: climate change impacts on coastal space use by polar bears and ringed seals. Journal of Animal Ecology, 86: 1054–1064.
Hart E.J., Amos B. 2004. Learning about marine resources and their use through Inuvialuit oral history. Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Center, Report Prepared for the Beaufort Sea Integrated Management Planning Initiative (BSIMPI) Working Group.
Harwood L.A., Smith T.G. 2002. Whales of the Inuvialuit settlement region in Canada’ s Western Arctic: an overview and outlook. Arctic, 55: 77–93.
Harwood L.A., Norton P., Day B., Hall P.A. 2002. The harvest of beluga whales in Canada's Western Arctic: hunter-based monitoring of the size and composition of the catch. Arctic, 55: 10–20.
Harwood L.A., Smith T.G., George J.C., Sandstrom S.J., Walkusz W., Divoky G.J. 2015. Change in the Beaufort Sea ecosystem: diverging trends in body condition and/or production in five marine vertebrate species. Progress in Oceanography, 136: 263–273.
Hauser D.D.W., Laidre K.L., Stafford K.M., Stern H.L., Suydam R.S., Richard P.R. 2017. Decadal shifts in autumn migration timing by Pacific Arctic beluga whales are related to delayed annual sea ice formation. Global Change Biology, 23: 2206–2217.
Hay I. 2015. Qualitative methods in human geography. Oxford University Press.
Hoover C., Ostertag S., Hornby C., Parker C., Hansen-Craik K., Loseto L., Pearce T. 2016. The continued importance of hunting for future Inuit food security. Solutions, 7: 40–51.
Huntington H.P. 1998. Observations on the utility of the semi-directive interview for documenting traditional ecological knowledge. Arctic, 51: 237–242.
Huntington H.P., Danielson S.L., Wiese F.K., Baker M., Boveng P., Citta J.J., et al. 2020. Evidence suggests potential transformation of the Pacific Arctic ecosystem is underway. Nature Climate Change, 10: 342–348.
Huntington H.P., Quakenbush L.T., Nelson M. 2017. Evaluating the effects of climate change on Indigenous marine mammal hunting in Northern and Western Alaska using traditional knowledge. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4.
Huntington H.P., Raymond-Yakoubian J., Noongwook G., Naylor N., Harris C., Harcharek Q., Adams B. 2021. “We Never Get Stuck:” a collaborative analysis of change and coastal community subsistence practices in the Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas, Alaska. Arctic, 74: 113–126.
IFA. 1984. Inuvialuit final agreement.
Insley S.J., Halliday W.D., Mouy X., Diogou N. 2021. Bowhead whales overwinter in the Amundsen Gulf and Eastern Beaufort Sea. Royal Society Open Science, 8.
Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC). 2022. Circumpolar Inuit protocols for equitable and ethical engagement. [Online]. Availablefrom https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/project/circumpolar-inuit-protocols-for-equitable-and-ethical-engagement/ [accessed 9 October 2022].
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK). 2016. Inuit priorities for Canada's climate strategy: a Canadian Inuit vision for our common future in our homelands. [Online]. Availablefrom https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ITK_Climate-Change-Report_English.pdf [accessed 9 October 2022].
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK). 2018. National Inuit strategy on research. [Online]. Available from https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ITK_NISR-Report_English_low_res.pdf [accessed 9 October 2022].
Inuuvik Community Corporation (ICC), Tuktuuyaqtuuq Community Corporation (TCC), and Akłarvik Community Corporation (ACC). 2006. Inuvialuit Settlement Region Traditional Ecological Knowledge Report.
Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC). 2013. Guidelines for research in the Inuvialuit settlement region. Inuvik, NWT. [Online]. Availablefrom https://nwtresearch.com/sites/default/files/inuvialuit-regional-corporation.pdf [accessed 9 October 2022].
Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC). 2021. Inuvialuit Settlement Region Climate Change Strategy. [Online]. Availablefrom https://irc.inuvialuit.com/sites/default/files/ISR_Climate_Change_Strategy.pdf [accesssed 2 November 2022].
Inuvik Hunters and Trappers Committee (IHTC), Inuvik Community Corporation (ICC), Wildlife Management Advisory Council (NWT), Fisheries Joint Management Committee, (FJMC), and Joint Secretariat (JS). 2016. Inuvik community conservation plan. [Online]. Availablefrom https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e2093a7fd6f455447254aff/t/5e262b04166a41157ca93855/1579559719275/2016-Inuvik-Community-Conservation-Plan-R.pdf [accessed 9 October 2022]
Joint Secretariat, and Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources. 2011. Species at risk (NWT) terminology translation workshop: report and glossary of translations in Inuvialuktun. [Online]. Available from https://www.pwnhc.ca/docs/Glossary-SpeciesAtRisk-Inuvialuktun.pdf [accessed 28 October 2022].
Jones B.M., Hinkel K.M., Arp C.D., Eisner W.R. 2008. Modern erosion rates and loss of coastal features and sites, Beaufort Sea coastline, Alaska. Arctic, 61: 361–372.
Lefort K.J., Garroway C.J., Ferguson S.H. 2020a. Killer whale abundance and predicted narwhal consumption in the Canadian Arctic. Global Change Biology, 26: 4276–4283.
Lefort K.J., Matthews C.J.D., Higdon J.W., Petersen S.D., Westdal K.H., Garroway C.J., Ferguson S.H. 2020b. A review of canadian arctic killer whale (Orcinus orca) ecology. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 98: 245–253.
Ljubicic G.J., Mearns R., Okpakok S., Robertson S. 2021. Learning from the land (Nunami iliharniq): reflecting on relational accountability in land-based learning and cross-cultural research in Uqšuqtuuq (Gjoa Haven, Nunavut). Arctic Science, 8: 252–291.
Loseto L.L., Brewster J.D., Ostertag S.K., Snow K., MacPhee S.A., McNicholl D.G., et al. 2018a. Diet and feeding observations from an unusual beluga harvest in 2014 in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic Science, 431: 421–431.
Loseto L.L., Hoover C., Ostertag S., Whalen D., Pearce T., Paulic J., et al. 2018b. Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), environmental change and marine protected areas in the Western Canadian Arctic. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 212: 128–137.
Loseto L.L., Stern G.A., Macdonald R.W. 2015. Distant drivers or local signals: where do mercury trends in western Arctic belugas originate? Science of the Total Environment, 509–510: 226–236.
Lyons N. 2009. Inuvialuit rising: the evolution of inuvialuit identity in the modern era. Alaska Journal of Anthropology, 7: 63–79.
Lyons N. 2010. The wisdom of elders: Inuvialuit social memories of continuity and change in the twentieth century. Arctic Anthropology, 47: 22–38.
Lyons N. 2013. Where the wind blows us : practicing critical community archaeology in the Canadian North. University of Arizona Press. [Online]. Available from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umanitoba/detail.action?docID=3411846.
Lyons N., Hodgetts L., Joe M., Piskor A., Arey R., Stewart D., et al. 2021. Enduring social communities of the Inuvialuit: from the Yukon North Slope to the circumpolar stage. In The Inuit world. Routledge. pp. 34–51.
Mallory C.D., Boyce M.S. 2018. Observed and predicted effects of climate change on Arctic caribou and reindeer. Environmental Reviews, 26: 13–25.
McGhee R. 1974. Beluga hunters: an archaeological reconstruction of the history and culture of the Mackenzie Delta Kittegaryumiut (Newfoundland Social and Economics Studies, No. 13). Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Min C., Yang Q., Chen D., Yang Y., Zhou X., Shu Q., Liu J. 2022. The emerging Arctic shipping corridors. Geophysical Research Letters. e2022GL099157.
Miner K.R., D'Andrilli J., Mackelprang R., Edwards A., Malaska M.J., Waldrop M.P., Miller C.E. 2021. Emergent biogeochemical risks from Arctic permafrost degradation. Nature Research.
Moore R.C., Loseto L., Noel M., Etemadifar A., Brewster J.D., MacPhee S., et al. 2020. Microplastics in beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from the Eastern Beaufort Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 150: 110723.
Morrison D. 1997. An ethnohistory of the Inuvialuit from earliest times to 1902. Revista de Arqueología Americana. 29–54.
Nagy M. 1994. Yukon North Slope Inuvialuit oral history, Whitehorse, Government of the Yukon, Department of Tourism, Heritage Branch, Hudç Hudän Series. Occasional Papers in Yukon History, 1.
Naylor A.W., Ford J.D., Pearce T., Fawcett D., Clark D., van Alstine J. 2021. Monitoring the dynamic vulnerability of an Arctic subsistence food system to climate change: the case of Ulukhaktok, NT. PLoS One, 16.
Ng A.K.Y., Andrews J., Babb D., Lin Y., Becker A. 2018. Implications of climate change for shipping: opening the Arctic seas. WIREs Climate Change, 9: e507.
Noel A., Devred E., Iacozza J., Marcoux M., Hornby C., Loseto L.L. 2022. Environmental drivers of beluga whales distribution in a changing climate: a case study of summering aggregations in the Mackenzie Estuary and Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area. Arctic Science. Canadian Science Publishing.
Norström A. V., Cvitanovic C., Löf M.F., West S., Wyborn C., Balvanera P., et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability.
Nuligak. 1966. I, Nuligak. Edited by Metayer M. Peter Martin Associates.
O'Hara S. 2012. Health Canada Final Report for project: the link between climate change and health in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR): capacity building, traditional knowledge exchange and community based monitoring for elders and youth at Kendall Island, NWT.
O'Neill H.B., Smith S.L., Duchesne C. 2019. Long-term permafrost degradation and thermokarst subsidence in the Mackenzie Delta area indicated by thaw tube measurements. Cold Regions Engineering, 643–651.
Obu J., Lantuit H., Grosse G., Günther F., Sachs T., Helm V., Fritz M. 2017. Coastal erosion and mass wasting along the Canadian Beaufort Sea based on annual airborne LiDAR elevation data. Geomorphology, 293: 331–346.
Ostertag S., Green B., Ruben D., Hynes K., Swainson D., Loseto L. 2019. Recorded observations of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) made by Inuvialuit harvesters in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, NT, in 2014 and 2015. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 3338.
Papik R., Marschke M., Ayles B. 2003. Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge of fisheries in rivers West of the Mackenzie River in the Canadian Arctic. p. 20.
Pearce T., Ford J., Willox A.C., Smit B. 2015. Inuit traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), subsistence hunting and adaptation to climate change in the Canadian arctic. Arctic, 68: 233–245.
Pearce T., Ford J.D., Duerden F., Smit B., Andrachuk M., Berrang-Ford L., Smith T. 2011. Advancing adaptation planning for climate change in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR): a review and critique.
Pearce T., Smit B., Duerden F., Ford J.D., Goose A., Kataoyak F. 2010. Inuit vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Polar Record, 46: 157–177.
Pedersen C., Otokiak M., Koonoo I., Milton J., Maktar E., Anaviapik A., et al. 2020. ScIQ: an invitation and recommendations to combine science and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for meaningful engagement of inuit communities in research. Arctic Science, 6: 326–339.
Pettitt-Wade H., Pearce T., Kuptana D., Gallagher C.P., Scharffenberg K., Lea E. V., et al. 2020. Inuit observations of a tunicata bloom unusual for the amundsen gulf, western Canadian arctic. Arctic Science, 6: 340–351.
Rodon T., Lévesque F. 2015. Understanding the social and economic impacts of mining development in Inuit communities: experiences with past and present mines in Inuit Nunangat. Northern Review, pp. 13–39.
Sarna-Wojcicki D., Perret M., Eitzel M. v., Fortmann L. 2017. Where are the missing coauthors? Authorship practices in participatory research. Rural Sociology, 82: 713–746.
Scharffenberg K., Whalen D., Marcoux M., Iacozza J., Davoren G., Loseto L. 2019. Environmental drivers of beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas habitat use in the Mackenzie Estuary, Northwest Territories, Canada. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 626: 209–226.
Scharffenberg K.C., Macphee S.A., Loseto L.L. 2021. Upriver sightings of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) follow storm surges and high water in the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic Science, 7: 679–689.
Scharffenberg K.C., Whalen D., Macphee S.A., Marcoux M., Iacozza J., Davoren G., Loseto L.L. 2020. Oceanographic, ecological, and socio-economic impacts of an unusual summer storm in the Mackenzie Estuary. Arctic Science, 6: 62–76.
Snow K., O'Hara S., Esagok D., Ostertag S., Loseto L. 2016. Community paper for the 2016 Arctic Observing Summit: our beluga, fish and environment are changing: traditional knowledge study on food resources on Kendall Island in the Inuvialuit settlement region. pp. 1–5.
Stafford K.M. 2019. Increasing detections of killer whales (Orcinus orca), in the Pacific Arctic. Marine Mammal Science, 35: 696–706.
Stefansson V. 1919. The Stefansson–Anderson arctic expedition of the American Museum: preliminary ethnological report. The Trustees.
Steiner N.S., Azetsu-Scott K., Hamilton J., Hedges K., Hu X., Janjua M.Y., et al. 2015. Observed trends and climate projections affecting marine ecosystems in the Canadian Arctic. Environmental Reviews, 23: 191–239.
Steiner N.S., Cheung W.W.L., Cisneros-Montemayor A.M., Drost H., Hayashida H., Hoover C., et al. 2019. Impacts of the changing ocean-sea ice system on the key forage fish arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) and subsistence fisheries in the Western Canadian arctic-evaluating linked climate, ecosystem and economic (CEE) models. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6.
Storrie L., Hussey N.E., MacPhee S.A., O'Corry-Crowe G., Iacozza J., Barber D.G., et al. 2022. Year-round dive characteristics of male beluga whales from the eastern Beaufort sea population indicate seasonal shifts in foraging strategies. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8.
Stroeve J., Notz D. 2018. Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons. Environmental Research Letters, 13: 103001.
Stroeve J.C., Serreze M.C., Holland M.M., Kay J.E., Malanik J., Barrett A.P. 2012. The Arctic's rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: a research synthesis. Climatic Change, 110: 1005–1027.
Tod-Tims C., Stern P. 2021. “We are starving for our food”: country food (in) security in Inuvik, Northwest Territories. In The Inuit world. Routledge. pp. 270–287.
Tyson W. 2017. Using social-ecological systems theory to evaluate large-scale comanagement efforts: a case study of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Ecology and Society, 22.
Tyson W., Lantz T.C., Ban N.C. 2016. Cumulative effects of environmental change on culturally significant ecosystems in the Inuvialuit settlement region. Arctic, 69: 391–405.
Usher P.J. 1971a. The Canadian Western Arctic: a century of change. Anthropologica, 13: 169–183.
Usher P.J. 1971b. Fur trade posts of the Northwest Territories: 1870–1970. Arctic.
Usher P.J. 2002. Inuvialuit use of the Beaufort Sea and its resources, 1960–2000. Arctic, 55: 18–28.
Usher P.J., Duhaime G., Searles E. 2003. The household as an economic unit in arctic aboriginal communities, and its measurement by means of a comprehensive survey. Social Indicators Research, 61: 175–202.
van Beest F.M., Beumer L.T., Andersen A.S., Hansson S. V., Schmidt N.M. 2021. Rapid shifts in Arctic tundra species’ distributions and inter-specific range overlap under future climate change. Diversity and Distributions, 27: 1706–1718.
van Weelden C., Towers J.R., Bosker T. 2021. Impacts of climate change on cetacean distribution, habitat and migration. Climate Change Ecology, 1: 100009.
Waugh D., Pearce T., Ostertag S.K., Pokiak V., Collings P., Loseto L.L. 2018. Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge of beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) under changing climatic conditions in Tuktoyaktuk, NT. Arctic Science, 17: 1–17.
Wenzel G.W. 2009. Canadian Inuit subsistence and ecological instability: if the climate changes, must the Inuit? Polar Research, 28: 89–99.
Wildcat M., Simpson M. 2014. Learning from the land: Indigenous land based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society.
Wildlife Management Advisory Council (WMAC) and Aklavik Hunters and Trappers Committee (AHTC). 2018. Inuvialuit traditional knowledge of wildlife habitat. Yukon North Slope. Whitehorse.
Willett M., Pokiak J. 2010. Proud to be Inuvialuit: Quviahuktunga Inuvialuugama. Fifth House Publishers, Toronto.
Wood K.R., Bond N.A., Danielson S.L., Overland J.E., Salo S.A., Stabeno P.J., Whitefield J. 2015. A decade of environmental change in the Pacific Arctic region. Progress in Oceanography, 136: 12–31.
Worden E., Pearce T., Gruben M., Ross D., Kowana C., Loseto L. 2020. Social-ecological changes and implications for understanding the declining Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) harvest in Aklavik, northwest territories. Arctic Science, 6: 229–246.
Yadav J., Kumar A., Mohan R. 2020. Dramatic decline of Arctic sea ice linked to global warming. Natural Hazards, 103: 2617–2621.
You Q., Cai Z., Pepin N., Chen D., Ahrens B., Jiang Z., et al. 2021. Warming amplification over the Arctic Pole and Third Pole: trends, mechanisms and consequences. Earth Science Reviews, 217: 103625.
Appendix 1: Interview guide
Participant information and characteristics
1.
Interviewee name:____________________________________
2.
Interviewer name:____________________________________
3.
Date: ____________ (MM/DD/YYYY)
4.
Time: __________ A.M ___________ P.M.
5.
Location: ______________________________________
6.
Age (interviewee): under 18 18–30 30–50 50–70 70–100
7.
Birthplace: ______________________________________
8.
Experience (Screening): Who, What, When, Where, Why?
9.
Approximately, how many years of experience (time) do you have at Kendall Island?
0–5 years 5–10 years 10–15 years 15–20 years 25 + years
1.
When do you usually go out to Kendall Island?
2.
Who do you usually go out to Kendall Island with?
3.
What do you usually go out to Kendall Island to do?
4.
Where do you usually go on Kendall Island or surrounding areas?
5.
Do you think the Island is important?
6.
Do you have any social, environmental, or economic concerns regarding beluga or fish at Kendall Island? Please explain.
7.
Do you have any concerns about beluga or fish abundance or health at Kendall Island? Please explain.
8.
Do you have any concerns about climate change and adaptation at Kendall Island? Please explain.
Questions on the history of Kendall
1.
Can you tell me your and/or your family's history of harvesting beluga and fish on Kendall Island?
2.
How far back can you tell me about harvesting beluga whale and fish at Kendall Island?
3.
Have you personally observed fluctuations (changes in population or health) of beluga and fish abundance over time?
4.
Can you think of any past events that might have affected beluga and fish abundance?
5.
Can you think of any recent events that might have affected beluga and fish abundance?
Past and present harvesting techniques
1.
Do you know how to hunt and harvest a whale? If yes, who did you learn from? If no, why?
2.
Have beluga hunting techniques you have observed or participated in changed over time? How about fishing?
3.
How do you presently hunt beluga?
4.
How did your family members traditionally hunt beluga? Has that changed over time? If so, how?
5.
Do you think the number of families or individuals hunting beluga and fish at Kendall Island changed over time? If so, how?
Whale observations: beluga or other
1.
What kinds (species) of whales have you observed at Kendall Island over time?
2.
Have you ever harvested any other type of whale besides beluga at Kendall Island or surrounding areas?
3.
Have belugas you observed always been relatively healthy? If not, when (what year (s)?) did you notice they were not healthy?
4.
In your opinion, has beluga abundance (number of beluga sited and/or harvested), increased, decreased, or remained the same over time?
5.
From your experience or knowledge, has the rate of beluga whale harvesting changed overtime?
Beluga health: risks and benefits
1.
What does a healthy beluga look like?
2.
What does an unhealthy beluga look like?
a.
Body condition
b.
Colour
c.
Weight
3.
Are you aware there are contaminants found in beluga/fish in the ISR, as well as all living things but they are not visible to the human eye? Yes or No
4.
Did you know that current research on beluga whales and fish found in the ISR shows that the levels of contaminants like mercury are at safe enough levels to consume in the right amounts?
5.
Are you concerned about contaminants in the beluga/fish you consume?
6.
Has research results ever made you change the amount of beluga whales/fish that you consume?
7.
Do you think continued monitoring of beluga and fish should take place? If so, how often?
8.
What kinds (species) of fish have you observed (over time) at Kendall Island?
9.
Have you observed or caught any new fish species at Kendall Island?
10.
From you experience, have fish abundance (number of fish sited or harvested), increased, decreased, or remained the same over time?
11.
Where do you normally fish in and around Kendall Island? Has that changed over time?
12.
Are the fish you catch generally healthy? Without diseases or visible stress? If so, which year (s) can you remember this occurring?
13.
Health of a Fish: What does a healthy fish look like? What does a sick fish look like?
a.
Colour:
b.
Weight:
c.
Body Condition:
Adaptation to climate change
Adaptation means to change one's behaviour or lifestyle to survive in a changing environment. I want you to think about adaptation to climate change and about the ways you as a community member can see yourself adapting to problems caused by climate change, not only on the land but also within the communities they reside in. For the following questions, the participant should answer yes or no and have the option to explain their answers.
Harvesting and survival adaptation
1.
If the beluga and fish numbers continue to fluctuate on Kendall Island (increase and decrease), what ways would you adapt?
2.
Would you consider hunting beluga elsewhere?
3.
Have you ever had to hunt beluga elsewhere because of low abundance in Kendall Island?
4.
4. Would you consider hunting any other whales or fish that might be available?
Social and cultural adaptation
1.
Can you think of ways you might maintain your traditional cabin and harvesting grounds with known threats such as permafrost melting and slumping?
2.
Can you think of any ways cabin owners and beneficiaries dealing with disturbances to sacred or family burial or significant grounds being exposed by high winds, ground heaving, etc.?
3.
3. Do you see yourself or family able to move you cabin or harvesting sites to higher ground due to an expected increase in the water level in the Western Arctic in years to come?
Economic/community adaptation
1.
Would you be willing to pool resources with other families to extend or maximize the results of the yearly hunt?
2.
In your opinion, would community hunts be more effective at dispersing country foods, including beluga whales and fish, versus what is happening now?
3.
If ISR communities had more community freezer programs, would you participate in them, both contributing foods and acquiring those in which you don't have?
Traditional knowledge adaptation
1.
Would you change your traditional hunting routes due to a longer open water season expected as a result of a warming climate?
2.
Would you see yourself changing or adapting the knowledge you give to youth regarding climate and harvesting animals/mammals or survival and safety?
3.
Would you consider using more technology or research to get a better understanding of current weather, ice conditions, and research being done on adaptation to climate change?
Climate change observations at Kendall Island
Please consider the following questions based on your own opinion or experience out at Kendall Island.
1.
Have you noticed any changes to the land on Kendall Island overtime? If so, how?
2.
Has animal abundance and species changed or remained the same over time? If so, how?
3.
Has plant abundance and species changed or remained the same over time? If so, how?
4.
Has insect abundance and species changed or remained the same over time?
5.
Has water in all its forms (lakes, creeks, shoreline, ocean etc.), changed over time at Kendall Island? If so, how?
6.
Has the temperature at Kendall Island changed over time? If so, how?
7.
Has the precipitation (rain, snow, hail, etc.) changed over time? If so, how?
8.
Has there been an increase of storms or conditions not normal for the area around Kendall Island?
9.
Has weather or unsafe conditions ever hindered (stopped) your planned hunting trip to Kendall Island or any other harvesting sites?
10.
Have you noticed any other changes to Kendall Island or other Arctic Islands in the ISR?
Social observations of beluga harvesting (Kendall Island or other harvesting camps)
Please consider the following questions based on your own opinion or experience out at Kendall Island or any other harvesting camps.
1.
In general, have you noticed social changes {families who go out, new harvesters, woman} (who, what, when, where and why?) on how belugas are harvested over time?
2.
Beginning to end, how does a beluga hunt happen in terms of planning, funding, recruitment, logistics, etc.? (past vs. Present)
3.
Are there specific roles given to each person who is at the harvest? (Past vs. Present)
4.
Does everyone learn all the techniques required to hunt beluga, or do individuals always do certain jobs? (Past vs. Present)
5.
Who gets a share of the beluga maktak, or other beluga parts? (Past vs. Present)
6.
In your experience or knowledge, when does the younger generation usually become involved in beluga harvesting?
7.
When did you first learn about or become involved in beluga harvesting?
8.
Have you ever hunted your own beluga? If so, when, and how many?
9.
Have you ever been involved with the butchering and preparing of the beluga for safe consumption? If so, who taught you these skills?
10.
Do you or your family go out beluga harvesting? If so, how often?
11.
Do you or will you teach the younger generation traditional hunting techniques?
Social observations of fish harvesting at Kendall Island
1.
Do you or your family fish at Kendall Island?
2.
How often does you or your family fish out a Kendall Island? (ranges in a year)
3.
In general, have you noticed social changes on how fish are harvested?
4.
Have you ever caught fish before? If so, where and when
5.
How many fish do you think you have caught since your first one?
6.
Which fish do you catch at Kendall Island?
7.
What species of fish do you prefer to catch at Kendall Island?
8.
Has the number of fish have harvested at Kendall Island has changed over time?
9.
Have you caught less fish at Kendall Island than in the past?
10.
What do you do with the fish you catch at Kendall Island?
Appendix 2: NVivo code list from the secondary analysis
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Arctic Science
Volume 10 • Number 1 • March 2024
Pages: 140 - 168
History
Received: 16 March 2022
Accepted: 24 January 2023
Accepted manuscript online: 16 October 2023
Version of record online: 13 December 2023
Notes
This paper is part of a special issue entitled "Tarium Niryutait Marine Protected Area".
Copyright
© 2023 Copyright remains with the author(s) or their institution(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
Project data are owned and managed by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and the Inuvik Hunters and Trappers Committee; these data are not publicly available.
Key Words
Plain Language Summary
Social and environmental change on Kendall Island (Ukiivik), a traditional whaling camp in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: DE, IHTC, LLL
Formal analysis: KLO, KGAM
Funding acquisition: SO, DE, LLL
Investigation: KGAM, SO
Methodology: KLO, SO, DE, IHTC, LLL
Project administration: KLO, KGAM, SO, IHTC
Resources: LLL
Supervision: SO, DE, IHTC, LLL
Validation: KLO, KGAM
Visualization: KLO
Writing – original draft: KLO
Writing – review & editing: KLO, KGAM, SO, IHTC, LLL
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Funding Information
Funding for this project was provided by Health Canada's Climate Change and Health Adaptation Program for First Nations and Inuit Communities; additional in-kind support was provided by the Inuvialuit Hunters and Trappers Committee, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Aurora Research Institute, and the World Wildlife Fund.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Kimberly L. Ovitz, Kathleen G.A. Matari, Shannon O'Hara, Douglas Esagok, Inuvik Hunters and Trappers Committee (IHTC), and Lisa L. Loseto. 2024. Observations of social and environmental change on Kendall Island (Ukiivik), a traditional whaling camp in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Arctic Science.
10(1): 140-168. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2022-0016
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
1. A review of climate change impacts on migration patterns of marine vertebrates in Arctic and Subarctic ecosystems
2. Exploring Drivers of Historic Mercury Trends in Beluga Whales Using an Ecosystem Modeling Approach
3. Indigenous Subsistence Practices of the Sakha Horse Herders under Changing Climate in the Arctic