Arctic Biological Consultants for Canada Department gfFisheries ' and Oceans, Iqaluit, WuNaYl!l! I I I I INUIT KNOWLEDGE OF BELUGAS AND NARWHALS I IN THE CANADIAN EASTERN ARCTIC I I l by I I D.8. Stewart I Arctic Biological Consultants Box 68, St. Norbert Postal Station 95 Turnbull Drive I Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R3V 1L5 I stewart4@m b.sym patico.ca I I 2001 I I I ii PREFACE This report was prepared under contract for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Scientific Authorities for this contract were Karen Ditz of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Iqaluit, NT, Canada, XOA OHO and Pierre Richard , Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 501 University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N6. Correct citation for this report is: Stewart, D. B. 2001 . Inuit knowledge of belugas and narwhals in the Canadian eastern Arctic. Prepared by Arctic Biological Consultants, Winnipeg, MB for Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Iqaluit, Nunavut. iv+ 32 p. I iii I TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT/RESUME . iv 5 Areas where hunters have observed INTRODUCTION . 1 belugas during auja (summer) . 20 METHODS ...... ... .. .. .. ... .... 1 I Sampling method . .. .. .. .. 6 Areas where hunters have observed Questionnaire versus workshop approach belugas during ukiaksak (early fall) . 21 Knowledge versus opinion . 2 I Area coverage . 2 7 Areas where hunters have observed Seasonal observations . 2 belugas during ukia (late fall) . 22 INUIT KNOWLEDGE OF BELUGAS . 3 I Seasonal distribution and movements . 3 8 Areas where belugas have been Changes in seasonal distribution found entrapped by ice . 23 and behaviour . 6 I Reproduction . 7 9 Areas where hunters have observed Food and feeding . 8 narwhals during ukiu (winter) . 24 Predators and ice entrapment . 8 I Stock identification . 9 10 Areas where hunters have observed INUIT KNOWLEDGE OF NARWHALS .. ...... 9 narwhals during upingoaksak (early Seasonal distribution and movements . 10 spring) ...... .. ........ .. .. 25 I Changes in seasonal distribution . 11 Reproduction . 12 11 Areas where hunters have observed Food and feeding . 13 narwhals during upingoa (late Predators and ice entrapment . 13 spring) . 26 I Stock identification . 14 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .. ... .. ... 14 12 Areas where hunters have observed ( REFERENCES . 14 narwhals during auja (summer) . 27 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS . 15 13 Areas where hunters have observed narwhals during ukiaksak (early fall) . 28 LIST OF FIGURES 14 Areas where hunters have observed I narwhals during ukia (late fall) . 29 15 Areas where narwhals calve . 30 16 Areas where narwhals have been I Place names in the Baffin Region . 16 found entrapped by ice . 31 2 Areas where hunters have observed l belugas during ukiu (winter) . 17 3 Areas where hunters have observed LIST OF TABLES l belugas during upingoaksak (early spring) . 18 l 4 Areas where hunters have observed belugas during upingoa (late spring) . 19 Hunter/Elder interviews conducted at l each community . 32 I iv ABSTRACT Stewart, D.B. 2001 . Inuit knowledge of belugas and narwhals in the Canadian eastern Arctic. Prepared by Arctic Biological Consultants, Winnipeg, MB for Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Iqaluit, Nunavut. iv + 32 p. This report is a summary of three studies of Inuit knowledge of belugas (Oelphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) conducted in the Baffin region between 1992 and 1997. Information presented on the seasonal distribution and biology of these whales was collected from hunters and elders at Pangnirtung, Iqaluit and Kimmirut (Kilabuk 1998); Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Grise Fiord, Pond Inlet, Qikiqtarjuaq and Resolute (Remnant and Thomas 1992); and Grise Fiord, Arctic Bay, lgloolik and Hall Beach (Stewart et al. 1995). This report documents their observations for use in resource co­ management, and to provide a basis for further discussions between the hunters and resource managers and researchers Key words: Arctic Zone; Nunavut; subsistence harvesting; indigenous knowledge; Admiralty Inlet; Jones Sound; Foxe Basin; Baffin Bay; Hudson Strait; Frobisher Bay; Cumberland Sound; Lancaster Sound; marine mammals; life history; survey methodology; fishery management. I INTRODUCTION measured. The reputational sampling method also r results in a small sample size. This does not diminish Inuit knowledge of belugas (Delphinapterus the information obtained. In fact, it may reduce leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in the misinformation that can be introduced by less I Baffin Region was collected between 1992 and 1997. experienced observers. Hunters and elders from Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Grise Fiord, Pond Inlet, Qikiqta~uaq and Resolute In contrast, Remnant and Thomas (1992) I (Remnant and Thomas 1992); Grise Fiord, Arctic Bay, selected an arbitrary number of hunters to be lgloolik and Hall Beach (Stewart et al. 1995); and interviewed from each community and left the Pangnirtung, Iqaluit and Kimmirut (Kilabuk 1998) selection of hunters to be interviewed to the discretion provided information on the seasonal distribution, of the interviewers. A sample selected in this way is biology, and harvesting of belugas and narwhals not likely representative of the community, nor does (Figure 1) . This report summarizes their observations it necessarily identify and interview only the most I on the seasonal distribution and biology of these experienced hunters. Indeed information from the whales on a regional basis for use in resource co­ more experienced hunters may be obscured by that management, and to provide a basis for further from those who are less experienced. I discussions between the hunters and resource managers and researchers. Questionnaire versus workshop I approach: METHODS Remnant and Thomas (1992) and Stewart et I al. (1995) gathered information from the hunters using This section describes differences in the questionnaires. This approach is especially sampling methods used by Remnant and Thomas vulnerable to failure if the questions are inappropriate (1992), Stewart et. al. (1995) and Kilabuk (1998) and or the answers ambiguous. A number of questions .in I now these differences affect the interpretation of the earlier study were unclear or were answered information collected . ambiguously and, despite rigorous editing, several were apparent in the later study. These problems are I discussed below. The use of local interviewers to Sampling method: gather information also made follow-up questioning difficult and effectively prevented the clarification of l Stewart et al. (1995) and Kilabuk (1998) used inconsistencies in the data. a "reputational" approach to sampling (Roberts 1993). The HTO in each community was asked to identify The esteem in which elders and senior I which hunters and elders it considered to be most hunters are held may also pose difficulties for this knowledgeable of belugas and/or narwhals in their method of gathering information. Young interviewers area. These people were then approached for may not understand some of the technical terms used I interviews (Table 1) . Thomsen (1993) used a similar by these experts, and may thereby miss important approach in Greenland. nuances of the information (Johnson 1992; G. Williams, pres. comm.). They may also be in awe of I This method of selecting people to be the elders and reluctant to ask questions for interviewed introduces a variety of biases into these clarification. Likewise, a younger hunter may be studies. In particular, no information was collected reluctant to volunteer information that contradicts I from women or non-hunters. These people are often what an elder has said. astute observers of species biology and physiology. Because of their roles in the community, and interests, Kilabuk (1998) gathered local knowledge I they may hold knowledge that is different from that of without the use of questionnaires . He used a the hunters. Women also tend to live longer and may workshop approach wherein eight hunters/elders from therefore have a greater span of traditional knowledge each community addressed specific topics identified than the men. The effects of these biases were not in preliminary meetings with their HTO's. This I approach is more responsive to the interests of the I 2 local harvesters and provides useful information that between the beluga and narwhal sections. might be missed by a questionnaire. However, like the questionnaire surveys it is vital to distinguish between knowledge versus opinion, to consider the problem of Seasonal observations: area coverage, and to relate seasonal information to environmental conditions. Inuit base their six seasons on the environmental conditions, not on the calendar. There is some variation in the months assigned to each Knowledge versus opinion: season between communities due to different latitudes and oceanographic and climatic conditions, Inuit knowledge studies must distinguish and within communities due to year-to-year variation between knowledge and opinion. While Inuit in conditions. It is not unusual for the Inuit seasons to observations are rarely wrong, their interpretations of vary by a month or more on either end due to annual what they have seen may be (Gunn et al. 1988). A variations in climate. Inuit knowledge studies that major criticism of the questionnaire used by Remnant relate observations to the calendar or to western and Thomas (1992) is that it asked general questions, seasons (spring/summer/fall/winter) and not to the such as "How many calves does a beluga usually have Inuit seasons risk losing a valuable