Overview
This lecture examines the challenges faced by indigenous peoples in the Arctic due to non-indigenous wildlife management and co-management regimes, focusing on caribou and whale management, and the role of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).
Introduction to Arctic Wildlife Management
- Arctic indigenous communities face increasing external influence through centralized government policies and commercial development.
- Wildlife management often imposes non-indigenous structures, marginalizing traditional resource use and TEK.
- The paper reviews three wildlife management contexts: imposed state programs, international regimes managed by indigenous authorities, and collaborative co-management.
State-Imposed Wildlife Management: The Canadian Caribou Crisis
- 1950s Canadian policies restricted Dene and Inuit caribou hunting due to concerns over declining herds.
- Practices like feeding caribou meat to sled dogs and leaving carcasses for animals were deemed wasteful by non-indigenous authorities.
- These restrictions ignored the subsistence and spiritual roles of these practices for indigenous peoples.
- Later research disproved the crisis, showing caribou population shifts rather than decline.
International Regulation: Whaling in Greenland under Home Rule
- Greenland’s Home Rule gained control over whaling but maintained centralized, non-traditional management structures.
- IWC-imposed quotas disrupted traditional, miut-based local management and communal sharing.
- Factors disrupting traditional management include commercialization, technology change, and equal access policies.
- The shift has eroded traditional access rights and fostered a mixed-cash economy.
Collaborative Co-Management: The Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op (ABC)
- The ABC involves Iupiat and Gwich’in communities, integrating scientific and traditional knowledge for caribou monitoring.
- Hunters actively participate in data collection, interpretation, and policy recommendations.
- Combining diachronic traditional knowledge with scientific methods results in more accurate and culturally appropriate management.
- Success criteria differ: hunters value practical outcomes, while biologists prioritize methodological reliability.
Challenges and Opportunities in Co-Management
- Co-management frameworks risk changing the context and moral value of traditional knowledge by conforming it to scientific formats.
- Storing traditional knowledge in databases may undermine oral and experiential transmission.
- Co-management can also protect and sustain traditional practices by requiring participation in subsistence activities for knowledge collection.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) — A cumulative, culture-specific knowledge system about ecological relationships, passed down through generations.
- Co-management — Collaborative arrangement where resource management decisions involve both indigenous and non-indigenous stakeholders.
- Miut — Local, kin-based Greenlandic community structure that traditionally controlled resource access.
- Diachronic Data — Information collected over multiple generations, enabling long-term ecological understanding.
Action Items / Next Steps
- Review the differences and impacts of state-imposed, international, and co-management wildlife regimes.
- Reflect on the importance of integrating TEK into resource management.
- Consider how knowledge transmission methods affect the preservation of traditional practices.