ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound

February 2012

ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ

ᓇᐃᓈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᑦ ...... i 1.0 ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᓂᑦ ...... 1 2.0 ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ? ...... 1 3.0 ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ...... 3 4.0 ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ...... 5 5.0 ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ...... 7 6.0 ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᐱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ...... 9 7.0 ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎ ...... 11

ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᐃ - ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ...... 13 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 1: ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ...... 15 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 2: ᑲᑎᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᕐᓯᒪᕕᒋᓲᖏᑦ ...... 16 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 3: ᐊᖑᓇᓱᕝᕕᐅᓲᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᙳᐊᓂᑦ -ᕿᓚᓗᒐᕐᓂᑦ -ᐊᐃᕕᕐᓂᑦ ...... 17 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 4: ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᖃᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᒻᒥᐊᕋᓱᕝᕕᐅᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᓗ...... 18 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 5: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᕝᕙᑦᑎᐊᕙᖏᑦ ᓇᓐᓄᒐᓱᕝᕕᐅᓲᑦ ...... 19 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 6: ᐃᒃᐱᐊᕐᔪᖕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᕝᕙᖏᓐᓂ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ (ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ) ...... 20 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 7: ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᓯᕝᕙᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ...... 21 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 8: ᖃᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᕐᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ -ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ...... 22 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 9: ᖃᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᕐᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ -ᖃᐃᕈᓖᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ . . . . .23 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 10: ᐃᑦᑕᕐᓂᓴᖃᕐᕖᑦ , ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑐᖃᐃᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ...... 24

ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᐱ - ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᒋᔭᐅᖁᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᒪᓯᒪᔪᑦ ...... 25 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 11: ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᐊᖑᔪᒪᓯᒪᔪᖅ 2010ᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑏᑦ ...... 27 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 12: ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᔅᓴᓄᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᓕᐅᕐᕕᐅᔪᒪᓯᒪᔪᑦ 1986, 1989 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 2010 . . .28 ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅ 13: ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑑᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑎᖏᑦ ...... 29

ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᑎ - ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓕᓵᕐᓂᑯᑦ ...... 30 ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᑭ - ᖃᐅᔨᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᕕᒃᓴᐃᑦ ...... 40 Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... i 1.0 Introduction to National Marine Conservation Areas ...... 2 2.0 Why Lancaster Sound? ...... 4 3.0 Current Context ...... 6 4.0 Boundary Selection Process ...... 6 5.0 Boundary Considerations ...... 8 6.0 Beyond Project Feasibility ...... 10 7.0 Conclusion ...... 10

Appendix A - Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Mapping ...... 14 Map 1: Communities and Inuit Owned Lands ...... 15 Map 2: Total Community Land Use Areas ...... 16 Map 3: High Value Hunting Areas Narwhal-Beluga Whale-Walrus ...... 17 Map 4: High Value Resource and Hunting Areas ...... 18 Map 5: Inuit Value Hunting Areas Polar Bear ...... 19 Map 6: Arctic Bay Land Use Narwhal ...... 20 Map 7: Pond Inlet Inuit Land Use Ringed Seal ...... 21 Map 8: Resolute Inuit TK Polar Bear-Walrus Ecology/Migration ...... 22 Map 9: Resolute Inuit TK Seabird Ecology/Migration ...... 23 Map 10: Archaeological, Historical and Present Day Seasonal Campsites ...... 24

Appendix B - Federal Boundary Proposals and Existing Mineral Rights ...... 26 Map 11: Proposed Marine Park 2010 and Oil Leases ...... 27 Map 12: NMCA Federal Boundary Proposal 1986, 1989 and 2010 ...... 28 Map 13: English Place Names ...... 29

Appendix C - Recent Marine Mammal Science ...... 31 Appendix D - References ...... 49 ᓇᐃᓈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᑦ

ᐅᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᐊᓕᐊᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᒃ; ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑎᖃᖃᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃᓴᐅᓇᓱᒃᑐᖅ ( NMCA ), ᐊᒻᒪ, ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᓗ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒍᒪᓂᓖᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᒍᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂ.

ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᖅ ᑭᓲᒻᒪᖔᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ NMCA, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ ᖃᐅᓂᓕᐅᕐᓂᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᓗ ᓴᖅᑮᓪᓗᓂ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᑭᒡᓖᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᖓᖁᔭᐅᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐊᑑᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᕗᖅ ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒻᒥ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕈᒫᖅᐳᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐃᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᓂᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᓂᑦ ᓇᐃᓈᖅᓯᒪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᑦᑕᖏᑕ ᓇᔪᖅᐸᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ.

ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑉ ᐅᐃᒍᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᐃᓈᖅᓯᒪᔪᑕᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓕᓵᕐᓂᑯᑦ Courtesy: NTI/Celina Satuqsi ᒥᔅᓵᓅᖓᔪᑦ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᐅᓇ NMCA ᐊᔾᔨᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᔪᖅ: ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ/ᓴᓖᓇ ᓴᑐᖅᓯ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓲᖑᕗᖅ, ᓴᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᒑᓰᓪᓗ ᕿᓂᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᒐᓱᐊᖏᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᓪᓗᑎᓘᓐᓃᑦ.

ᑭᖑᓪᓕᐹᒥ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᓂᓗ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᕋᓴᓄᑦ ᐃᒫᒃ Lancaster Sound, ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᑕᐅᓲᖅ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐊᑎᓕᒃ, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ, ᑐᑭᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᒫᒃ “ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓇᔪᖅᑕᐅᔪᖅ” ᐊᒻᒪᓗ - “ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ.” ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᔪᑎᑐᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᖓᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔫᑉ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖃᑎᖃᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ.

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ i Executive Summary

This report has two purposes; to provide Nunavut Land Claims Beneficiaries with an introduction to the proposed Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA), and, to inform Parks Canada, the Government of Nunavut and those interested of Inuit perspectives on marine conservation.

This report explains what an NMCA is, the history surrounding interests in Lancaster Sound, the importance of where boundaries are suggested, and discussion on the realities of Inuit coooperative management in Nunavut. The report is a tool for North Baffin communities to help create an NMCA. QIA’s main plan is to work with communities to Courtesy: NTI/Glenn Williams prepare a comprehensive set of maps depicting ᐊᔾᔨᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᔪᖅ: ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ/ᒋᓕᐊᓐ ᐅᐃᓕᐊᒻᔅ Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.

This report provides a summary of Inuit land use and occupancy and recent marine mammal science. These combined ways of knowing can be used to define a common vision of conservation. One noteworthy feature of a NMCA is that once established, exploration and development of oil and gas will be prohibited.

Finally, and most importantly, while known to most Canadians as Lancaster Sound, Inuit refer to this region as Tallurutiup Tariunga. This report has been titled, Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik, which means “Lancaster Sound has people” and also “Lancaster Sound has Inuit.” It is from the perspective of a homeland that QIA approaches discussions related to this great region.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound ii 1.0 ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓚᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓕᒫᓂᑦ, ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᓂᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᐃᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᒍᑎᒃᓴᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᕌᒐᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒥᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓲᖑᕗᑦ ᐃᓂᒃᓴᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᒥᒃ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊᓕᒫᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓂᖏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᔭᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᒍᑎᓄᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ (‘ the Act ’) ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ (2002). ᐱᖁᔭᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕗᖅ NMCA ᐃᒪᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ: ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᒍᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᓂᕐᔪᑏᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖁᑎᖏᓐᓃᓪᓗᑎᒡᓗ, ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒨᖓᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᔪᒐᐃᑦ ᓂᕐᔪᑏᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᓗᓂ ᐱᖓᓲᓕᖅᑲᖓᕗᖅ; ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓗᓂ, ᖃᓄᐃᓕᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐸᕐᓈᕆᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᒍᑎᒃᓴᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᑦᑎᐊᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓱᓐᓂᒃᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᐃᕙᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ, ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᓂᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐅᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ, ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᔪᒐᐃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓴᙱᒃᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᓂᖓ ᓴᖅᑭᒃᓯᒐᓱᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᓱᕐᓂᕐᒥᓗ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᕐᓂᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂᒃ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᒐᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᓯᑎᑦᑎᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ, ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᒍᑎᒃᓴᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓂᒡᓗ (ᓲᕐᓗ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᓕᐊᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᓗ) ᓴᖅᑭᒃᐸᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᕙᒍᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᖏᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ.

ᐱᑕᖃᓕᕈᑎᒃ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ 2.0 ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ? ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᓗ ᐊᓯᐅᑎᑦᑎᙱᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓂᕐᔪᑏᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖏᓐᓂᑦ. ᓱᓕᓗ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓂᕐᔪᑏᑦ 1970 s ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓘᔭᖅᑐᖃᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᖕᒪ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔩᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᓪᓘᓐᓃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᑦ. ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᒐᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᕈᓘᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᕙᑉᐳᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᓪᓗ ᓱᓐᓂᒃᓯᒪᖏᓐᓂᖓ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᒥᖑᐃᖅᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᒍᑎᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ. ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕈᓘᔭᖅᑐᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐳᓚᕋᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᑲᑎᒪᔪᖃᑲᑕᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓄᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᐃᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᐅᑦᑎᖅᓱᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐱᕙᓕᐊᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᑦ, ᓴᐳᔾᔨᔾᔪᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ. ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕈᓂ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓱᓕᒃᖢᓂ Green Paper- ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᔭᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᕿᓂᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖑᓂᕋᖅᑕᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓅᖓᓪᓗᓂ ( Dirschl ᑎᒍᓯᓂᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᒃᓴᓂᑦ, ᐅᔭᓐᓂᐊᒐᒃᓴᓂᑦ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ 1982 ). ᑖᓐᓇ Green Paper ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓗ ᑭᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ. ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᓯᐊᒎᕐᕕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ;

ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᕙᑎᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᒍᒪᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᒌᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖅᑕᖃᙱᑉᐳᑦ 1) ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᙱᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᓪᓗᓂ, ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᖀᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓂᒃᑯᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒐᒃᓴᐃᓪᓗ ᒪᑯᐊᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ: ᑐᓴᐊᒪᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ, ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ;

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 1 sustainable use of marine resources as well as areas 1.0 Introduction to National Marine offering full protection special features and sensitive Conservation Areas elements. NMCAs are managed or cooperatively managed by Parks Canada, which includes National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCAs) are operational aspects such as visitation, education, federally established marine conservation areas resource management, research and monitoring created under the Canada National Marine initiatives, management plan development and Conservation Areas Act (‘ the Act ’) (2002). As review, and, the development of regulations described under the Act an NMCA is meant to be supporting conservation area goals. Once created, a representative of healthy marine ecosystems, in one NMCA prohibits the exploration or exploitation of of the marine regions of Canada, contribute to hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other international efforts related to protected area inorganic matter. establishment, consider implications for ecosystems in marine conservation area planning and Given the unique circumstances surrounding each management, provide opportunities for people to proposed NMCA there is no predefined process enjoy and appreciate natural and cultural marine guiding the establishment of a NMCA beyond heritage, recognize the social, cultural and economic fulfilling the following requirements: conducting well-being of coastal communities, provide meaningful consultations with Aboriginal people, opportunities for ecologically sustainable use of local organizations and other appropriate parties, a marine resources, promote research and monitoring, mineral and energy resources assessment, an consider traditional ecological knowledge in marine interim management plan with management planning and management, involve appropriate objectives and zoning plans, and any agreements persons and bodies (such as land claim organizations respecting the establishment of the area. The and communities) in the effort to establish and results of all of these tasks must be included in a maintain marine conservation areas . report to Parliament before a NMCA can be designated under the Act . On ce established, NMCAs are intended to provide for sustainable management that meet the needs of The process to establish a NMCA in Nunavut present and future generations without compromise involves three distinct phases; feasibility study, to the marine ecosystem. Furthermore, NMCAs are interim management plan development and Inuit divided into zones which encourage ecologically

Courtesy: NTI/Glenn Williams / ᐊᔾᔨᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᔪᖅ: ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ/ᒋᓕᐊᓐ ᐅᐃᓕᐊᒻᔅ

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 2 2) ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓗᓂ ᐊᕙᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒍᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᐸᑦ, ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒍᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐅᓄᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᓯᒪᒐᓗᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ; ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓪᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ 3) ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᐃᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᒐᔭᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑯᓂ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒨᖓᔪᑦ ᐃᓂᓕᐅᕆᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᒃᓴᒥ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ. ᐱᔭᐅᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖅᑯᓯᑐᖃᖏᓐᓄᑦ; Green Paper ᖑᓂᕋᖅᑕᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᓂ 4) ᑭᒡᓕᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕈᒪᔪᑦ/ᐃᑰᑕᕈᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᒃᑰᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ, ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ ( LSRLUP ) (1991) ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᓱᓪᓗᐊᓗᐊ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒫᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ, ᐱᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᖃᕈᓐᓇᒐᔭᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ Beauford- ᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᐊᖅᓯᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐅᓯᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᐅᕙᑦᑐᒥᒃ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇ LSRLUP ᖄᖏᐅᑎᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐆᒧᖓ ᓂᐅᕕᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᕕᖏᓐᓄᑦ; ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐅᐊᖕᓇᖓᓂ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᐅᕙᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎ

5) ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ (NBRLUP ) (2000), ᑎᑎᖅᑲᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᓪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᒍᑏᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒨᖓᔪᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓂᑯᓂ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ. NBRLUP ᐅᓄᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ, ᐃᓗᓕᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᒍᑎᒃᓴᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᒃᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥᐅᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᒍᑦ 6) ᑲᓇᑕᒨᖓᓂᖅᓴᒥᒃ, ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑏᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒍᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ. NBRLUP ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐲᖅᓯᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᕐᒥᔪ ᓄᑖᓂᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᕕᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂ. ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᒃᑰᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓗ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔫᑉ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᖅᑰᖅᑐᓂᑦ, LSRLUP ᐊᒻᒪ NBRLUP ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᕗᑦ ᓱᓕᔪᕐᓇᖅᓯᑎᑦᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᖢᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᓰᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᕙᒌᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᕈᓘᔭᓂᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᓂᖓ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᓗ. 1986ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᕆᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑰᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᑎᓕᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ, 3.0 ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ, ᑕᕆᐅᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᖃᐅᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓇᓗᐊᓇᐃᖅᓯᒍᑎᒃᓴᖅ ᑎᓯᐱᕆ 8, 2009ᖑᕆᓪᓗᒍ, ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ (Harper et al., 1986 ). ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᕗᖅ, (ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ), ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅᓕᐊᕕᓂᖅ ᑐᕌᖓᓚᐅᕐᓂᖓᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᕋᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᓱᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓇᓱᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ ᑭᒡᓕᒃᓴᓂᑦ (MOU ) ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᔪᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑑᑉ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑉ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂᒃ. ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᑰᒻᒪ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᓂᕐᔪᑏᓪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᓂᕋᕈᑎ ᐱᔭᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᒥᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᖃᓗᐊᕋᓂ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ, ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᖑᓇᓱᕝᕕᒋᕙᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ. ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎᖃᖅᓱᓂ ᐅᓄᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᒃᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑎᓯᐱᕆ 2010ᒥ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᑦᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓂᒋᐊᒍᑦ, ᑲᓇᖕᓇᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᖓᖕᓇᖓᒍᑦ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖏᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᒥᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ, ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᕐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᓂᓗ 1989ᖑᑎᓗᒍ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᖕᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᖃᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᐅᑉ ᑭᒡᓕᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ. ᐊᓯᖏᑕ ᓴᓂᐊᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔭᐅᔪᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂᒃ ᑐᕌᖓᓪᓗᓂ ᑭᒡᓕᙳᐊᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ 2010ᒥ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᐹᖑᓯᒪᕗᑦ. ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒐᒃᓴᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ ( Smith ᐅᐃᒍ B ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᒥ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ et al., 1989 ). ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓇᓖᕌᕋᔅᓴᓕᐊᖏᑦ, ᒫᓐᓇ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕕᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᒪᖔᑦ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ.

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 3 Impact and Benefit Agreement negotiations. Parties 5) Careful and planned balance of renewable to the feasibility process are QIA, Parks Canada and non-renewable resource development and the Government of Nunavut. This report has with regard to social and environmental been written in an effort to reaffirm QIA’s interest impacts; in supporting the creation of a Lancaster Sound 6) On the basis of national interests, non- NMCA. It is QIA’s intention that this report should renewable resource economy giving priority inform the feasibility process and contribute to to the extraction and shipping of the interim management plan (IMP) development and region’s hydrocarbon and mineral Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) resources within the context of existing negotiations. regulatory processes.

2.0 Why Lancaster Sound? In 1986, Parks Canada commissioned a report titled, A Biological, Geological, Oceanographic Beginning in the late 1970’s a series of events Study of the Lancaster/Eclipse Sound Region for related to possible natural resource extraction the Purpose of Potential Marine Park Boundary demonstrated the complexity of relationships Delineation (Harper et al., 1986). As evident from between natural and human environments within the title, the report focused upon examination of Lancaster Sound. Coming from these events, a the Lancaster Sound region for the purpose of series of public policy inquiries led by the federal identifying and justifying potential boundaries for a government further examined the intricate potential marine park. It is important to note the considerations involved in the region, ultimately contents of the report were substantially weighted culminating in a Green Paper on Lancaster Sound towards the physical and biological features of the (Dirschl 1982). The Green Paper concluded with region, with limited observation of Inuit cultural, the following six alternatives for the future use of occupancy or harvesting elements. The report the region; concluded by providing a series of options outlining potential boundaries along the western, eastern 1) No development of any kind, including and southern reaches of Lancaster Sound . park or conservation areas and renewable resource development; In 1989, a detailed assessment of the feasibility of establishing a proposed national marine park in the 2) Protection of the environment and Lancaster Sound region was commissioned and biological resources through a strategy of focussed on the non-renewable resource potential of matching conservation requirements with the region (Smith et al., 1989). The report was appropriate levels of protection; developed in order to assess a body of information for the purpose of determining whether or not to 3) Development of the renewable resource establish a park, and if so where to locate base that would support the long-term boundaries. Though the report presents a number of economic requirements of Inuit compatible with traditional pursuits; conclusions about the resource potential and recommendations about future resource assessment 4) Limiting industrial activities to shipping, approaches, the final statement was that there was such as development of the Northwest sufficient information regarding the natural resource Passage as a year-round shipping route base in the region for the government to take a allowing Beaufort and high Arctic oil and position on a boundary associated with a Lancaster gas to be transported to market; Sound marine park proposal.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 4 Courtesy: NTI/Glenn Williams / ᐊᔾᔨᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᔪᖅ: ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ/ᒋᓕᐊᓐ ᐅᐃᓕᐊᒻᔅ

ᑎᓯᐱᕆ 2010ᒥ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᙳᐊᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒋᐊᓕᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᓄᑖᙳᖅᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑲᔪᖏᖅᓴᐅᑎᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ. ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒧᑦ. ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᓚᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ 4.0 ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐅᕐᓱᐊᓗᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᑲᔪᓯᔾᔮᙱᓐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑐᑦᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃᓴᖅ, ᑭᒡᓕᖏᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒥ ᓴᓇᓗᓂ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᒃᓯᓇᓱᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᖅᖢᓂ. ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑯᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ; ᖃᓄᐃᖏᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᒍᒪᓯᒪᔭᖏᓪᓗ, ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᐃᑦ, ᐆᒪᔭᐃᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᔅᓴᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᓕᐅᕋᔭᖅᑑᒃ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ. ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔨᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ, ᖃᖓᑦᑕᐅᑎᓄᑦ

ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑏᑦ ᓇᓛᒎᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂᑦ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᓄᑕᐅᑎᑦᓯᐊᒋᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐳᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔩᑦ ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒥᒃ ( MERA ) ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᕕᐅᒍᒪᔫᑉ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓂᖓᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᕗᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᐊᔭᐅᔪᒃᓴᓂᓪᓗᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ. ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᕗᖅ ᑭᒡᓖᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᑎᓯᐱᕆ 2012ᒥᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᕋᑖᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᑦ. ᐳᓪᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᖄᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᑦ 2013ᖑᕋᑖᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍᓘᓐᓃᑦ. ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑏᑦ MERA ᒥ ᐱᔭᕇᖅᓯᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᐃᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 5 Evolving from the foundation of the Green Paper, also confirmed that oil and gas exploration would the Lancaster Sound Regional Land Use Plan not occur within the proposed Lancaster Sound (LSRLUP) (1991) was developed for the purpose of NMCA area, nor within the final boundary as defining the principles, objectives, and actions to determined through the establishment process. guide land use activities in the region. The LSRLUP was superseded by the North Baffin Regional Land In order to support QIA’s activities related to the Use Plan (NBRLUP) (2000), a document which feasibility study, QIA and PC will sign a further defines the broad planning principles for the Contribution Agreement. Monies under the region. Included in the NBRLUP are several distinct contribution agreement will be used to hire a provisions related to conservation, including the project coordinator, cover the cost of travel, and establishment of a northern concept of conservation meetings with local committees. QIA, GN and PC and its importance. The NBRLUP also attempts to have established a Project Steering Committee provide a process through which the development which has developed a Terms of Reference and of new conservation areas can occur. Perhaps most discussed project timelines. importantly, the LSRLUP and the NBRLUP both recognize and affirm Lancaster Sound's interrelated It is anticipated the Lancaster Sound NMCA environmental and sociocultural significance . feasibility study will be concluded by December 2012 or early in 2013. The feasibility study 3.0 Current Context requires that a boundary be recommended after appropriate studies are undertaken. On December 8, 2009 the QIA, the Government of Nunavut (GN) and Parks Canada (PC) signed a 4.0 Boundary Selection Process Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to examine the desirability and feasibility of establishing a Defining a boundary is a key consideration in the NMCA in the Lancaster Sound marine region. One establishment of a NMCA and a requirement of of the features of the MOU is the provision that the the feasibility process. Boundary selection federal government fund the participation of QIA requires consideration of several features such through the process of NMCA creation.. as; well-being and interests of communities, traditional ecological knowledge, ecologically In December 2010, following extensive internal sustainable use of living marine resources and discussions the federal Ministers of Environment, mineral and energy potential. Natural Resources, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and Health Canada announced a As part of the feasibility process the federal federal boundary proposal for the Lancaster Sound government is updating a previous a Mineral and NMCA. Compared to previous federal boundary Energy Resource Assessment (MERA) to document proposals the 2010 announcement is the most the energy resource potential associated within the expansive. Appendix B of this report presents a proposed conservation area. This review is being series of federal boundary options, current boundary conducted within the boundaries defined in the proposal as well as existing petroleum rights. most recent federal announcement. No new seismic or other information is being collected to complete The December 2010 federal boundary proposal was the updated energy and resource potential released with a renewed commitment by the federal assessment. Instead, the assessment is based on government to work towards the creation of a applying modern analytical methods to seismic NMCA in Lancaster Sound. The federal government information collected decades ago.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 6 ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐱᕕᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᖏᑦ ᐱᔭᕇᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᖕᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓪᓗᐊᒍᖔᖅ, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᖃᖅᐳᖅ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅᓯᐅᑎᒥᒃ ᑭᒡᓕᓂᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᓂᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐳᓪᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᖄᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᐅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑯᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᒡᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᖃᖓᑲᓪᓚ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᔪᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᐃᓚᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ, ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖔᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᕕᒃᓴᖏᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᕆᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᕕᓃᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ

ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᕕᒃᓴᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᒍᓐᓇᖅᐳᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᖅᑐᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᓱᓂ. ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᒍ ᐱᔭᐅᒌᖅᓯᒪᔫᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓇᓖᕌᕋᔅᓴᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᓂᖅᓴᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ, ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒨᖓᓗᐊᖅᓱᑎᓪᓗ. ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓗᒋᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᕈᒪᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᓯᒪᒐᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᕝᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑕᖃᕆᐊᑐᙱᓐᓂᕋᐃᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕕᓂᖏᓐᓂᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᓗᑎᒃ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐱᕕᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᔫᑉ ᐃᓂᖓᓂ, ᒫᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᑐᖅᑲᑕᕐᕕᖓᓂᒃ ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᙱᑉᐳᖅ ᑎᓯᐱᕆ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᒍᑏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᖢᓂᒋᑦ ᓯᕗᒧᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ 2010ᒥᓂᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᖁᔭᖏᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑏᑦ (ᑕᑯᒋᐊᕈ ᐅᐃᒍ A). ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᒃᓴᐅᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᑲᐅᑎᒋᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᑐᓂᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒧᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᓐᓂᑰᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᓱᓕᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ ᑭᒡᓖᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᒍᑦ, ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒥᐅᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ

ᐊᑐᖅᐸᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓗᒋᓗ. ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑯᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᕈᒪᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑲᔪᓯᐊᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᕕᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᓇᐅᒃᑰᖓᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᒍᓂ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥ ᐊᖏᓪᓕᕚᓪᓕᖅᓯᒍᓐᓇᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕗᑦ ᓂᕐᔪᑏᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᕆᖕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᔪᖃᓕᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᑐᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓗᒍᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓗᓂ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᑕᐅᓯᒪᓗᓂᓗ. ᐱᖁᔭᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᒥᑭᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓇᓛᒎᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ, ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓚᖓᓂᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯᓂ ᓂᕐᔪᑎᓂᑦ (ᑕᑯᒋᐊᕈ ᐅᐃ ᒍC). ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑕ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᒥ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒥ ᑕᑯᔪᒪᕗᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᖅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᖏᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᒍᑎᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒧᑦ, ᑐᑭᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅᓯᐅᑎᒥᓗ ᐃᒫᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓂᖓ ᐊᓯᓄᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᒃᓴᓕᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᕕᐅᒋᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ.

5.0 ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃ ᑭᒡᓕᖏᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓗᓂ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒐᒃᓴᐅᔪᓂᑦ

ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᐅᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓯᒪᓗᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᑎᓯᐱᕆ 2010ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍᑦ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᕆᔭᐅᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ. ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᖅᓱᑎᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᒍᑦ. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒃᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕆᕗᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᑦᑎᐊᑐᓂᓗ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᐸᐅᖃᑕᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑭᒡᓖᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ.

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 7 The evolution of conservation planning in Lancaster as information from a number of key sources Sound has resulted in a number of boundary including Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, biological options. Previous boundary options have primarily sources, geographical considerations and mineral been weighted upon physical geography, biology and resource potential. Given the historical and and resource potential, but QIA hopes to arrive at a recent attention placed on better understanding boundary that will include consideration for Inuit Lancaster Sound, it is reasonable to assume many occupancy and conservation preferences. In an of the informational requirements associated with effort to further the feasibility study process, QIA feasibility study determinations have already been has assembled a collection of maps derived from fulfilled and are regional in nature. QIA’s Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit database (see

Appendix A ). The maps provide direct insight into Even though federal authorities concluded that no how Tallurutiup Tariunga has been, and continues additional information collection would be required to be used by Inuit. These maps and others will be to properly assess the energy potential of the study used by QIA during the feasibility process to area, the current energy review has been limited to document with community members current land the area within the December 2010 federal use practices. Community mapping sessions and boundary proposal announcement. It is important discussions will be used by QIA to help determine to note that while many of the information sources where the boundaries for the Lancaster Sound contributing to the feasibility study are amendable NMCA should be placed. to changes in boundary proposals, the energy assessment results may not be as flexible. QIA is also aware there has been a great deal of mari ne mammal science undertaken since the last It is important to recognize that the boundaries put comprehensive report by the federal government. forth in a feasibility study can be subject to Knowing the value of this information as it relates alteration. Although the feasibility process requires to natural resource evaluations, QIA has prepared a boundary be selected, once created the Act allows a basic overview of recent species specific research for future expansion of a NMCA where supported by (see Appendix C ). It is QIA’s ambition to see this necessary studies and agreements. Additionally, research applied to the feasibility processes and the Act also allows for reductions from the final boundary selection. boundary area based on consent from Parliament. Finally, a condition of NMCA creation is that 5.0 Boundary Considerations ownership of all areas reside with the Crown, meaning a NMCA can only contain areas to which Although the federal government announced a there are no third party rights. proposed boundary for the Lancaster Sound NMCA in December 2010, it is important that it be understood The Act requires that the conservation area include as a proposal, subject to further refinement during zones within the boundaries, which must include the feasibility process. The federal boundary at least one zone that fosters and encourages proposal should also be understood as one of the sustainable use of marine resources and at least most extensive conservation area proposals ever one zone that fully protects special features or presented for this Lancaster Sound region. sensitive elements of ecosystems. The conservation area may also include other types of zones. The Before determining the final boundaries, there are requirement for agreed upon zones is an element some key factors to consider. A final NMCA that will require significant contemplation and boundary requires community consultations as well input by Inuit within the boundaries.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 8 6.0 ᐱᓕᕆᐊᔅᓴᐅᑉ ᐱᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᒫᓐᓇᕋᑖᖅ, ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖕᒐᑕ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔪᖅᑎᑖᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖁᓪᓗᓂᐅᒃ ᐆᒥᖓ: 7-ᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᒃ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᑎᔅᓴᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᐅᔪᐃᑦᑐᒧᑦ, ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓯᕐᒥᓕᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᒌᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ (ᑭᒡᓖᓪᓗ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ), (“7-ᐊᕐᕌᒍᐃᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ”). ᑖᓐᓇ 7-ᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖓᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᓪᓗ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ: ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖏᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒐᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᐸᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖏᑕ ᓴᖅᑭᒃᓯᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ 1. ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓕᒫᑦ ᑕᑯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓕᒫᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᑉᐸᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒥᕐᖑᐃᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑐᕌᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒐᔭᖅᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ (IMP ) ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒥᒃ. ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᕙᓂᕐᒧᑦ. 2. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑖᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔩᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎ ᓴᓇᕐᕈᑕᐅᕗᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᐸᑕ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒐᔭᖅᐳᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔫᑉ ᑐᕌᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ 3. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᖓᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᐱᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓂᑦ. ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ; ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖓ, ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐃᒫᒃ, ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᑕᐅᑐᒐᖓ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑏᑦ, ᑐᕌᒐᕆᔭᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖃᑎᒌᒡᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᔪᐃᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᓐᓂᖅᐹᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᒍᑎᒃᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᕗᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᐊᑉᐸᓯᓐᓂᖅᐹᖓᓂᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕐᓂᖃᖅᑯᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖏᒍᑦ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. 4. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇ, ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᕐᔪᐊᑦ ᐃᓚᖓ 8 ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖑᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᐅᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᕗᖅ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒥᒍᑦ. ᐊᖏᖅᓯᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᕐᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ 5. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᑦᑎᐊᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑎ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂ: ᐃᓕᓴᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᑦ, ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᔪᕈᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖅᑖᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᑦ, ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᓴᓂᑦ, ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕕᒃᓴᓂᑦ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ, ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᒡᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᕋᓛᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒐᖃᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᒍᑎᒃᓴᖃᖏᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒧᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑕᖃᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᖏᔪᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖃᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒍᑎᒃ, 7-ᐊᕐᕋᒍᐃᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᔅᓱᕈᕐᓇᕐᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᕗᖅ ᐊᐃᕙᓃᑦ ᐊᑐᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᒫᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᒐᓱᐊᓕᕈᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐋᖅᑮᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᐃᕙᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ.

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 9 1. Parties revisit the entire approach to the 6.0 Beyond Project Feasibility Joint Park Management Committee Secretariat, particularly in light of a Once the feasibility study for a NMCA is complete possible additional IIBA’s in the near (including boundary selection), the President of future. QIA and federal and territorial ministers will 2. Additional capacity needs to handle review the feasibility study results for the purpose National Park related responsibilities and of determining whether to formally recommend provide required support. NMCA establishment. If all parties recommend NMCA establishment, the project will move ahead 3. Expectations for implementation have to be tied to objectives in the IIBA. In other into interim management plan (IMP) development words, there should be a mind-set among and IIBA negotiations. partners to reach the highest level of implementation standards, not the lowest. An IMP is a tool that will define the NMCA goals This is particularly important regarding and objectives from an operational perspective. park management and business planning. The IMP is likely to contain the following 4. Employment of Inuit must be improved. elements; park purpose, park vision, management Right now, there are few Inuit in scientific principles, interim goals, interim zoning, and and professional positions and a few only strategic operational actions. It is anticipated that in technical roles. elements of this plan will be considerably 5. The process of implementation has generally informed by and developed during the feasibility resulted in good working relationships process. between the parties and the communities. This experience should help in allowing the As required by Article 8 of the Nunavut Land parties to look at challenges and on-going Claims Agreement, prior to establishment a problems in a constructive way. NMCA requires the ratification of an IIBA. Included in an IIBA are features such as: training, It is QIA’s perspective that once IIBA discussions hiring, scholarships, business opportunities, in relation to the NMCA are initiated, the content language, access to services and facilities, outpost and conclusions of the 7-Year Independent camps, and active information flow. Although a Evaluation will need to be taken into NMCA currently does not exist in Nunavut, there consideration. The challenge for this portion of is considerable experience in the areas of national NMCA establishment will be the degree to which park management and IIBA implementation. It is parties are able to address previous IIBA anticipated negotiations will draw from current implementation shortcomings. experiences with IIBAs negotiated in relation to national parks. 7.0 Conclusion

Recently, QIA and Parks Canada hired a Though long a homeland to Inuit, Tallurutiup consultant to prepare the following report: 7-Year Tariunga has often been the subject of intense Independent Evaluation of the Inuit Impact and debate over how to best plan for the future of this Benefit Agreement for Auyuittuq, Quttinnirpaaq region. The proposed Lancaster Sound NMCA and Sirmilik National Parks (“ 7-Year Independent arrives at a time of increased awareness over the Evaluation ”). The 7-Year Independent Evaluation Arctic, often framed in the order of sovereignty, concluded that: environment, and Inuit.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 10 7.0 ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ, ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᐊᕈᒫᖅᐳᑦ ᖁᑦᑎᒃᑐᒥ ᐃᒃᐱᐊᔪᖕᒧᑦ, ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᖕᒧᑦ, ᑲᖏᖅᖢᒑᐱᖕᒧᑦ, ᖃᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑐᒧᑦ ᐊᑯᓂ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᒐᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᖃᕆᐊᖅᑐᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐊᐃᕙᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᕆᒃᐳᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃᓴᖅ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᒧᑦ. ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃᓴᐅᖁᔭᖅ ᐃᓚᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒍᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᓈᖅᓯᕗᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ, ᐱᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᑲᔪᓯᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᓇᓛᒎᖓᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓱᓂ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐊᕙᑎᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅᓯᐅᖕᒥᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ, ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒋᐊᙵᕐᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᓂᑯᒥᒃ ᐅᐃᒍᐃᑦ A, B ᐊᒻ ᒪC ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᕗᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᑭᐅᓯᓗᓂ; ᖃᓄᖅ ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᒐᔭᖅᐸ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ? ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᓂᕐᔪᑎᒐᓴᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᒻᒪᕆᐅᓪᓗᓂ, ᐊᕐᕌᒎᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ, ᑲᑎᙵᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ. ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᖓ ᑕᒫᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᒥ, ᐅᓇ ᐊᔅᓱᕉᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᓗᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᒧᐊᒍᑎᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᕗᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᓴᐃᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒦᒍᓐᓃᖅᑎᒋᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᓖᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃᓴᒧᑦ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ. ᒥᖑᐃᕐᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᕐᔪᐊᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦ ᓇᓗᐊᓇᐃᖅᓯᕗᑦ, ᑭᒡᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᑦ; ᑭᐅᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑯᖅ ᓱᓕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓃᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᕋᔭᙱᒻᒪᑕ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓴᖅᑮᓗᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒥ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᐅᕐᓗᓂ. ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖑᓗᓂ. ᓂᕐᔪᑎᖃᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᓂ, ᓇᓛᒎᖅᖢᓂᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖓᓂ. ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᒃᑲᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑎᒌᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᒥᒃ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐃᓅᓯᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᒃᑐᐊᓂᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᖏᑦ. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓅᖓᔪᑦ, ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᒥᒃ ᑕᐅᑐᙳᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ ᐱᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔾᔪᑎᓕᕆᔪᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒧᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑑᕗᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᒍᒪᔭᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᒍᒪᔭᖓᒍᓪᓗ. ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᖏᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖃᕆᕗᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕆᒍᒪᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓅᖓᔪᑦ, ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᒥᒃ ᑕᐅᑐᙳᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ ᐱᔭᐅᔪᒪᔪᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᔾᔪᑎᓕᕆᔪᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᖕᒧᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑑᕗᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᓴᖅᑭᒍᒪᔭᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᒍᒪᔭᖓᒍᓪᓗ. ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᕕᒃ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᓕᖏᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖃᕆᕗᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕆᒍᒪᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 11 As Appendices A, B and C will demonstrate, the use of renewable resources while also Tallurutiup Tariunga is home to an abundance of promoting a role for Inuit to directly influence its species that frequent the area, often seasonally, in creation and eventual management features. The high densities. Protection of this area through the NMCA process also requires integration of Inuit establishment of a NMCA would be a significant Qaujimajatuqangit and offers opportunities to step forwards in acknowledging the significance of directly apply community preferences in a this region to Inuit, while also reducing known conservation setting. threats to the species that inhabit these waters. It is QIA’s intention, in conjunction with the As the report demonstrates, boundary lines alone Project Steering Committee, to visit the five north will not result in a comprehensive approach to Baffin communities of Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet, conservation. Lancaster Sound is a representative Clyde River, Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord in order area with uniquely high concentrations of to discuss what the proposed Lancaster Sound species, which also coincides with known NMCA offers Inuit and to determine how Inuit physical and geographical features within an interests can best be achieved. Prior to a final Inuit homeland. True conservation of this area feasibility study report, the items found in this requires a cooperative management approach report will be used to answer a question first that incorporates broader perspectives of posed in the 1980’s; what is the best plan for species life cycles and interrelated conservation Lancaster Sound? measures. Finally, one particular challenge will be Approaches to conservation initiatives in determining what the most effective management Lancaster Sound, are placed into a larger context structure and programs can be for a NMCA. QIA of national interests, such as transportation and Parks Canada have learned a great deal from routes, and, access to potential resources. The past IIBA’s; it is now a question of how that current formula of a proposed NMCA is unique in knowledge can be put to use in the creation of that it offers a type of conservation that permits Nunavut’s first NMCA.

Courtesy: NTI/Niore Iqalukjuaq / ᐊᔾᔨᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᔪᖅ: ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ/ᓂᐅᕆ ᐃᖃᓗᒃᔪᐊᖅ

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 12 ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᐃ: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ

ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᐃ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᒨᖅᑲᐃᓂᖅ • ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑦᑕᐅᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓃᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᒥ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᐊᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᔪᐊᓗᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᙵᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔨᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓅᓕᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᑦ. ᓯᕕᑐᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᑕᖐᔪᒥᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᔅᓱᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᑦ, ᐊᑐᕐᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓯᒪᔭᖏᓪᓗ ᒥᔅᓵᓂᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ • ᐱᐅᓯᑐᖃᕐᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᓕᓴᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕐᒥ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᐅᑉ, ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖑᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕙᑖ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑎᑭᐅᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᐊᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂᐊᓗᒃ 60 ᐅᑭᐅᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓂ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ 1975 ᑐᖔᓂ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᕕᒥᓂᖏᑕ. ᓄᐊᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ • ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᕐᐹᖑᖃᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᐱᕐᓱᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᓂᓪᓗ 500 ᐅᖓᑖᓃᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᑦᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 100ᑲᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓪᓚᑦᑖᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᑲᔪᓰᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᑎᒻᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥ ᐊᐱᕐᓱᕈᑎᒥᓃᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᕙᑎᖓᑕ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖏᑕᓗ ᐊᕙᑎᖓᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ. ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᐅᓛᖅᑐᒥ.

• ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᔅᓴᐃᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᐃᒍᖓᓂ ᐃ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᒻᒥᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᓯᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ; ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ, ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᑎᖏᑦ, ᐃᑦᑕᕐᓂᓴᖃᕐᕖᑦ, ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑮᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᕝᕕᐅᓲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓱᑯᑦᑎᐊᓃᒐᔪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᑐᑎᒍᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ-ᒥᔅᓵᓅᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒪᑐᒪ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑎᒍᑦ. ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᓂᑦ, ᐊᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᑕᓕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᐅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᐅᔪᒪᓯᒪᔪᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒍ ᐊᑑᑎᒋᒐᔭᖅᑕᖓ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐊᑐᕈᒫᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᕐᓯᒪᕕᓐᓂᓗ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖑᕙᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᓄᓇᙳᐊᓂᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᐅᔪᒫᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᖃᕐᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᒐᔅᓴᐅᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐃᓗᓕᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑎᓴᒪᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᖃᕐᕕᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᑖᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᑦᑎᐊᕈᑕᐅᓂᕐᐹᖑᓂᐊᕐᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᓯᒪᒍᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ, ᓴᐳᔾᔨᒍᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᑲᒪᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒥᓗ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖅᑖᕈᑕᐅᒃᑲᓂᕐᓂᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓃᙶᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ.

ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖓᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᑦᑖᕋᓱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᓂᒃ ᑐᙵᕕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᑦᑖᕋᓱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᒧᑦ;

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 13 Appendix A: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Mapping

Appendix A, Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Mapping • Inuit leadership recognizes that both the presents materials drawn from the Inuit Land Use immediate objectives of the feasibility study and Occupancy Project (ILUOP). The materials as well as the longer term objectives for the presented represent a small portion of the entire co-management of the Lancaster Sound collection related to the Lancaster Sound region. region requires access to high quality and reliable information that is derived from the The maps presented have been selected in order integration and application of different to demonstrate the general breadth and depth of systems of knowledge. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within the area. The ILUOP materials presented in this report contain • Inuit collective knowledge, experience and Inuit land use and knowledge that extends back skills associated with the traditional and more than 60 years prior to the 1975 collection present day use and value of the marine, fresh water, land and wildlife resources of date. The collection contains interviews and maps Lancaster Sound and its surrounding for over 500 individual Inuit hunters and another territory will be an essential source of this 100 maps from individual or group interviews on information. Inuit knowledge of the physical environment and wildlife ecology. • Maps are one of the most important tools to collect Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and make it available for direct and sustained A number of maps are presented in Appendix A participation of Inuit in the integrated based on common themes such as; travel routes, planning of the Lancaster Sound NMCA. place names, archaeological sites, harvesting • The participatory framework governing the areas and species specific maps. Although each NMCA must recognize the importance of theme represents a summary map, additional establishing protocols on the sharing of map- materials exist and can be applied to the based and related information and on proposed NMCA depending on the intended implementing measures to expand Inuit purpose. It is QIA’s intention to uses these maps capacities for the collection, processing and as a basis from which North Baffin communities application of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit at the can contribute to feasibility process content community and regional organization levels. development and boundary determinations. It is QIA’s vision these maps be used to conduct Observation of these four basic principles will further community mapping exercises, leading to ensure the best possible balance between the more information being gathered from community need to define, protect and manage the resources members in an effort to expand the breadth of of Lancaster Sound. Inuit knowledge in the Lancaster Sound region.

This component of QIA involvement in the NMCA processes is centered on four basic principles that will ensure the role of Inuit knowledge and participation in the NMCA feasibility process;

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 14 1 p a M

/

1 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

15 2 p a M

/

2 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

16 3 p a M

/

3 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

17 4 p a M

/

4 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

18 5 p a M

/

5 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

19 6 p a M

/

6 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

20 7 p a M

/

7 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

21 8 p a M

/

8 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

22 9 p a M

/

9 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

23 0 1 p a M

/

0 1 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

24 ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᐱ: ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᒋᔭᐅᖁᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕋᔅᓴᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ

ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᐱ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᒋᔭᐅᖁᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓯᒪᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕋᔅᓴᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑏᑦ, ᓄᓇᙳᐊᖅᑕᖃᐅᕐᖓᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᕕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᐅᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᐅᒍᒪᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᖃᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᐅᒍᓯᒪᔪᑦ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 25 Appendix B: 2010 Boundary Proposal, Previous Boundary Options and Existing Petroleum Rights

Appendix B, Federal Boundary Proposal and maps provide an indication for where conservation Existing Mineral Rights , contains a selection of interests have been focused relative to known maps depicting previous conservation area marine mammal science and natural resource proposals within the Lancaster Sound region. These potential.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound . 26 1 1 p a M

/

1 1 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

27 2 1 p a M

/

2 1 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

28 3 1 p a M

/

3 1 ᖅ ᐊ ᙳ ᓇ ᓄ

29 ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᑎ: ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᕋᑖᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ

ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᑎ, ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᕋᑖᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᖁᑦᑎᑦᑐᒦᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ/ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅᑕᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓃᑉᐸᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᕈᒻᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᓂ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᓯᑯᒥ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᑐᙵᕖᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᒪᓃᓛᕌᓗᒻᒥ (ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᑎᓐ 1984; ᑐᐃᔾ ᐊᒻᒪ ᕕᓐᓕ 1993). ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᙵᑦ 1986ᒥ ᒥᕐᖑᐃᓯᕐᕕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᙶᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᓴᐃᑦ ᑲᖐᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᕆᐊᙵᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ( Hᐋᐸ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ, 1986). ᑖᒃᑯᐊ (ᑕᒫᓂ 13,000ᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓚᐃᑐ ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓖᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᑦ (2004)), ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᔪᕋᕐᓃᓲᖑᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔾᔪᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓯᑯᔪᐃᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᑕᐃᔭᐅᒐᔪᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ, ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᑎᒍᑦ ᓇᒦᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᕐᒥ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ (ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᕙᑖ. 1998; Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1998; ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2001). Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (2003) ᐃᓱᒪᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑐᖔᓃᑦᑐᑦ 50 ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓅᓕᖓᔪᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᐳᓴᓐᑦ ᑲᑎᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑕᒫᓂᔅᓴᐃᓐᓈᖃᑎᒌᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒪᑐᒪ ᒥᔅᓵᓅᖓᔪᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓃᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᓯᑯᔪᐃᑦᑐᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᖓᑕ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓯᒍᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᔪᕋᕐᓂᓪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᖃᐅᔨᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᕕᒻᒥᒃ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖓᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᖃᑦᑕᓲᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᐅᑯᐊᖑᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ Peel Sound, Barrow Strait, ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ( COSEWIC 2004). ᓅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖅ Beluga ( Delphinapterus leucas ) (ᕿᓚᓗᒐᖅ) ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓲᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᓲᖅ ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓴᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᕋᑖᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᕿᓚᓗᒐᖅ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ-ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᐅᓄᑦ ᐱᓗᐊᙳᐊᓲᑦ ᓯᑎᐱᕆᐅᑉ ᕿᑎᖏᓐᓂ, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒎᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐆᒪᔫᖃᑕᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ, ᐊᒥᐊᓕᒐᐃᑦ, ᐅᓛᓵᑦ, ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᓪᓗ ᓂᒋᐊᒍᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᒍᓪᓗ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᑕ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᕙᑎᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᓪᓗ (22) ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ (ᑯᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ 1980; ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᑎᓐ 1994; ᑲᑎᙵᐅᑐᒡᒍᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᕆᑦᓱᑦ 1998; ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2001; Stewart 2001; H ᐊᐃᑎ- 2010) ᑎᓴᒪᐅᔪᙱᒐᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᑐᒡᒍᑎᐅᓲᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003). ᑯᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ (1980) ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓈᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᒃᑯᑦ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒫᕐᓗ ᑕᒫᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ( COSEWIC 2004). ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐃᒪᖓᒎᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓱᑲᑦᑐᐊᓗᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓲᖑᓂᖓᓂᒃ, ᑕᒫᓂ ᖁᑦᑎᑦᑐᒦᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ/ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒫᖅ ᐅᓪᓗᓂᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᖓᓱᓄᑦ ᕿᓚᒻᒥᐅᑎᒋᓲᖅ. ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᓲᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓂ ᓇᔪᕐᐸᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᐅᑎᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓲᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒫᓂ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᑯᐃᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᔪᕋᕐᓂᑦ ᑕᐅᓄᖓ ᓯᑰᑉ ᓯᓈᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᓪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ( NAMMCO 2005). ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᔪᔪᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᖓᑕᓲᒃᑯᑦ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓯᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ’ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᙵᑦ COSEWIC 1992 ᒥ 2004ᒥᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᓯᓈᖓᓂ ᒪᐃᒥ ᔫᓂᒥᓗ (ᓯᒥᔅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1985) ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᑯᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒫᕋᓛᓂᑦ ᑲᑎᒻᒪᒍᑎᓐᓃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᓂᒃᑕᐅᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᐃ 31ᒥ (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ 1990). ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᒐᓗᐊᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᑐᒡᒍᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ( COSEWIC 2004).

ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᒫᓂᔅᓴᐃᓐᓈᖃᑎᒌᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᓴᐃᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓇᑭᙶᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᕐᓄᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂᓗ ᓇᔪᕐᐸᑦᑕᖏᑦ ( de March et al. 2002). ᓯᔾᔭᖓ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ, ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᓂ ᒪᕐᕈᓕᖅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖓ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1998). ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 30 Appendix C: Recent Marine Mammal Science

Appendix C, Recent Marine Mammal Science Martin 1984; Doidge and Finley 1993). Some contains an update and expansion of the knowledge belugas from this population, a larger number base for marine mammals in the Lancaster Sound than was previously suspected (approximately area since the initial 1986 Parks Canada report 13,000 according to Heide-Jørgensen and Laidre (Harper at al., 1986). This section summarizes (2004)), are also known to winter in the leads and marine mammal research by species including a polynyas, commonly referred to as the North brief description of geographical distribution, Water, between North West Greenland and Devon population size if known, and threats to their and Ellesmere Islands (Richard et al. 1998; Heide- continued use of the area. Jørgensen et al. 1998; Richard et al. 2001). Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2003) estimate that less It is anticipated that the overview provided in this than fifty percent of the total population winters in report, and the associated source documents will be West Greenland with the rest inhabiting polynyas used to enhance the body of knowledge and and leads in the North Water. findings of the NMCA feasibility process. Summering areas in the Lancaster Sound area are known to be in Peel Sound, Barrow Strait, Prince Beluga ( Delphinapterus leucas ) Regent Inlet, and Lancaster Sound itself (COSEWIC Th e beluga is a semi-circumpolar cetacean 2004). Migration to wintering grounds begins in commonly inh abiting Canadian, American, Russian, early fall, peaking in mid September, through and Greenland waters. There are twenty two Lancaster Sound along the south and east coast of populations worldwide (DFO 2010) with seven Devon Island (Koski and Davis 1980; Smith and populations found in Canadian waters seasonally Martin 1994; Richard 1998; Richard et al. 2001; and year round (COSEWIC 2004). The Eastern High Stewart 2001; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). Koski Arctic/Baffin Bay population is present in the Arctic and Davis (1980) observed fall migration through year round inhabiting the Canadian Arctic Lancaster to occur rapidly, taking place over a archipelago in the vicinity of Lancaster Sound in period of two to three days. From wintering summer and waters between Canada and Greenland grounds, the beluga’s return trip in the spring in winter (NAMMCO 2005). This population was follows the receding ice and leads to the floe edge of designated ‘Special Concern’ by COSEWIC in 1992 Lancaster Sound. Belugas have been seen from and 2004 due to uncertainties about stock aerial surveys at the Lancaster Sound floe edge in separation and hunting pressure in portions of the May and June (Smith et al. 1985) with the earliest populations range (COSEWIC 2004). This population reported sighting of calves in the area on May 31 may consist of two or more management stocks (Cosens and Dueck 1990). based on genetic information and wintering locations (de March et al. 2002) . The Lancaster Sound area is known to be an important summering ground for belugas, Th e Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay population is particu larly along the south and east coasts of known to winter in north Baffin Bay between the Devon, the south coast of Cornwallis Island and west coast of Greenland and the Canadian around Somerset Island (Heide-Jørgensen et al. archipelago amongst heavy pack ice (Smith and 1998). Belugas are considered to have high site

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 31 ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᑭᑦᑐᕋᐅᑎᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᔅᓴᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᒐᓱᒐᔅᓴᓂᑦ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᕋᔪᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᓄᓕᐅᔭᖅᑐᖅᑐᑎᒃ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ- 2010) ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003), ᐅᐸᖃᑦᑕᓲᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᑎᓕᖅᑭᑦᑖᕙᑦᑐᑎᒃ (ᑕᐃᓇᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑎᒫᔅᑕ 1997, ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕈᐊᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓯᑯᖃᕐᓂᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒪᐅᑉ ᐃᑎᓂᖓ (ᕚᕗ ᑲᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ (1990) ᐃᓱᒪᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓯᑲᑦᑕᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᖅᑲᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2001). ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓱᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᒃᑲᑦᑐᒥ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒍᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᕐᖓᑦ ᒫᕋᓛᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᒫᓃᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑰᑉ ᑐᑭᐊᓂ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᒫᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖓᕋᑖᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒫᒍᑦ ᓂᐱᖏᑦ ᒫᕋᓛᕐᓄᑦ (ᐅᐊᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1991; ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1992; ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᑎᓐ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 1994), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑎᔪᒥ ᐃᑭᕐᒥ ᑲᖏᕐᓱᓂᓪᓗ, ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᒫᕋᓛᖏᑕᓗ ᓂᕆᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᑦᑐᑎᒃ, ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᑯᓪᓗ (ᒫᑎᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓯᒥᔅ 1994; ᓈᒻᒪᒍᓐᓃᖅᑎᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂ. ᕆᑦᓱᑦ 1998). ᑲᑎᑦᑐᐊᓘᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᑯᓇᓂ: Maxwell and Croker Bays ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑦ; ᖃᖁᓪᓗᒃ, ᐃᓄᔾᔨᕕᒃ, Garnier, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑰᒐᓇᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑭᑉᐹᕆᑦᑐᖅ Narwhal ( Monodon monoceros ) (ᕿᓚᓗᒐᖅ ᑑᒑᓕᒃ) ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒃ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖓᓂ; ᑰᑉ ᑐᑭᐊ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐊᑯᓐᓈᕿᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑭᒍᑎᓖᑦ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ Wadworth Island ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖓᓃᓲᑦ, ᓇᔪᒐᖃᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᑭᐊᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖓᑕ Peel Sound; Coningham, Willis and Transition ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑑᑉ Bays ᑲᖐᓚᕐᒥ ᑕᒫᓂ Peel Sound; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒥᓱᑲᓪᓚᐃᑦ ᑰᑉ ᑭᓪᓕᙳᐊᖓᑕ ᓴᓂᒧᑦ ᖁᓛᓂ. ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᙳᐊᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᒃ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᖏᖅ ᐊᑯᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᒃ (ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1985; ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓲᖏᑦ, ᐱᖓᓲᒻᒪᑕ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1992; ᑐᐃᔾ ᐊᒻᒪ ᕕᓐᓕ 1993; ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᑎᓐ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ. ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᕐᐹᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ, 1994; ᕆᑦᓱᑦ 2001). ᕗᕋᓐᑭᓕᓐ ᓴᕐᕙᒃ, ᓂᒋᐊᓂ Peel Sound, ᖁᑦᑎᑦᑐᒥ ᐃᒫᓂ ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᓪᓗ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒋᐊᔅᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᑕᒫᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓴᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑎᒃ, ᕿᓚᓗᒐᕐᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓂ Coningham Bay ( ᓯᒥᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒫᑎᓐ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕕᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓂᒋᖃᑦᑕᓲᖏᑦ, 1994; ᕆᑦᓱᑦ 2001). ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥᐅᑦ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕆᓲᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᖃᑦᑕᓲᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒦᓲᑦ, ᕿᙳᐊᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᕐᓗᖅᑑᕐᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖓᓂᒃ (ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᒫᕋᓛᖃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᖑᓪᓖᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᓯᒪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᓇᓪᓗᐊᑕ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ (ᓯᑑᐊᑦ 2001). ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇᓕᓴᐅᓂᕐᐹᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᒧᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 1998). ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ 2002ᒥ. ᐊᐃᓐᔅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᕐᖓᑕ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓯᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ’ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᙵᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (2002) ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᔅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᒫᓂ 21,231 COSEWIC 2004 ᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑦ (95% CI 10,985 ᓂᑦ 32,619ᓄᑦ) ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᙶᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ, ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐅᑭᐅᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᓲᖑᒻᒪᖔᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᙳᐊᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᖑᓂᒃᑕᐅᓇᓱᓐᓂᕆᓲᖏᑦ ( COSEWIC 2004). ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ, Peel Sound ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Barrow Strait 1996 ᒥ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ 1986ᒥ 1987ᒥᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᒐᑎᒃ’. ᓈᒻᒪᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᑎᒻᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ 100ᖏᓐᓂᑦ 200ᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ, ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᓇᔪᕋᔪᑉᐸᑦᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖃᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᕐᓯᒪᕕᒻᒥ ᑕᒫᓃᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᒃ 3.8 (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓕᐅᔭᖅᑐᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ 1991). ᑯᓴᓐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ (1991) ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᔨᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒧᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒪᑦ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ- ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᙱᒻᒪᑕ ᓯᑰᑉ ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003; ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2004 a), ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᓗᐊᙳᐊᐸᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᒋᑦ. ᓯᑯᐃᔭᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᑯᐃᔭᕐᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᑯᐃᔭᕐᓂᑯᒥᓂᕐᓂᑦ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᐅᓗᐊᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᔭᕆᐊᕐᒪᖔᒋᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᕐᓄᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐅᓚᕕᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᖅᑲᑕ ᐃᑎᔪᒦᒐᔪᓐᓂᕐᓴᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᓯᑲᑦᑕᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 2010), ᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᕐᐸᓯᕐᓃᒐᔪᒻᒪᑕ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐃᑎᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᐊᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᑉᐸᑕ (ᑐᐃᔾ ᐊᒻᒪ ᕕᓐᓕ 1993), ᐃᒪᐅᑉ ᕿᒫᓯᒪᕕᒋᒐᔪᑦᑐᒋᑦ (ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1994; ᑭᖕᔅᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᓱᕈᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ, ᓂᕆᖃᓗᐊᓕᕐᓂᖓ (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ 1990), 1994). ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᑕᒫᓃᑉᐸᒻᒪᑕ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 32 fidelity to seasonal habitats (Heide-Jørgensen et al. Potential threats to beluga in the area include 2003), visiting the same areas each year, and select increased disturbance from shipping (DFO 2010), habitat based on factors including ice bioaccumulation of contaminants (Doidge and concentrations and water depth (Barber et al Finley 1993), water pollution, noise pollution 2001). They are known to frequent warm water (Cosens and Dueck 1990), competition from estuaries that assist with the moulting process commercial fisheries (DFO 2010) in Baffin Bay, and (Watts et al. 1991; Smith et al. 1992; Smith and climate change (Tynan and DeMaster 1997, Laidre Martin 1994), and deep offshore areas and bays, et al. 2008). presumably for feeding, in the summer and fall seasons (Martin and Smith 1992; Smith and Cosens and Dueck (1990) suggest that any increase Martin 1994; Richard 1998). Major congregations in shipping traffic in Lancaster Sound should in the area have been observed in the following account for the presence of young early in the areas: Maxwell and Croker Bays on the south coast season as the potential effects of underwater noise of Devon Island; Elwin, Batty, Garnier, and on calves are unknown and may alter the ability of Creswell Bays as well as Cunningham Inlet on the mothers and calves to communicate. north and east sides of Somerset Island; an estuary north of Wadworth Island on the west side of Somerset Island in Peel Sound; Coningham, Willis Narwhal ( Monodon monoceros ) and Transition Bays on Prince of Whales Island in The narwhal is a medium-sized toothed whale Peel Sound; and a number of river estuaries on the with a semi-circumpolar distribution, inhabiting northern portion of the Brodeur Peninsula (Smith European and eastern Canadian Arctic waters north et al. 1985; Smith et al. 1992; Doidge and Finley of 60 o latitude. Based on geographic summering 1993; Smith and Martin 1994; Richard 2001). The locations, there are three narwhal populations Franklin Trench, in southern Peel Sound, has also globally. The most abundant, referred to as the been documented to be used daily by beluga in Baffin Bay population, is located in the High Arctic nearby Coningham Bay (Smith and Martin 1994; in waters neighboring Canada and Greenland. Richard 2001). According to Pond Inlet residents, Although currently managed as one population, some beluga summer in Eclipse Sound, Milne Inlet additional stock separation based on summering and Koluktoo Bay with calving occurring in the location, migration timing and wintering areas has latter two areas as well as the southern portion of been suggested for management purposes (Dietz et Navy Board Inlet (Stewart 2001) . al. 2008). The Baffin Bay population inhabits the eastern Canadian Arctic archipelago and waters off The most recent population estimate for the Baffin northwest Greenland in summer and Baffin Bay and Bay beluga was published in 2002. Innes et al. Davis Strait in winter (DFO 1998). This population (2002) estimated the population at 21,231 (95% CI was designated ‘Special Concern’ by COSEWIC in 10,985 to 32,619) animals derived from visual and 2004 due to uncertainty about population size, life photographic surveys in Prince Regent Inlet, Peel history parameters, and sustainable harvest levels Sound and Barrow Strait in 1996, corrected for (COSEWIC 2004). It was previously designated in observer and availability bias. Belugas have been 1986 and 1987 as ‘Not at Risk’. seen to travel in groups of one-to-two-hundred animals in the region with an average group size of Similar to the beluga, narwhal have high site fidelity 3.8 (Cosens and Dueck 1991). Cosens and Dueck and return to the same locations in the Arctic year (1991) noted that beluga group size varied with ice after year (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003; Laidre et al. type with the largest groups being seen later in 2004a), making high use areas important habitat. break up within cracks in the ice and pan ice. Although little is understood about specific habitat

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 33 ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ, , Barrow Strait, Peel ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒻᒥ ᓯᑎᐱᕆᒥ ᐅᑐᐱᕆᒥᓗ (ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2002), ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ (ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1994). ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑭᕐᒦᓲᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᓇᔪᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᖓᓅᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐅᑐᐱᕆᐅᑉ ᓄᙳᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᕕᐱᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐱᒋᐊᙵᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2002; Hᐊᑎ- 2002; Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓴᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003). ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᖃᖓᑦᑕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᓯᐅᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᙶᓲᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᓯᓈᖓᓂ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥ, ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒥ Melville Bay ᓇᓪᓕᐊᓐᓄᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᐃᒥ ᔫᓂᒥᓗ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003) ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᒋᐊᙵᕐᕕᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒫᕋᓛᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᐅᔭᓯᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᒪᐃ 27ᒥ (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ 1990). ᕕᓐᓕ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒋᕝ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ (ᑕᐃᑦᔅ (1982) ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᑯᓯᒪᓂᕋᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓲᖏᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᒋᐊᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᐅᑉ ᓯᓈᖓᓂ ᔫᓂᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᐊᑦᑐᐊᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᐅᖓ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᓵᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᒃᑰᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓄᑦ (ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ 1995). ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒍᑦ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᒨᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓯᑯᐃᔭᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ 3,000 km ᐊᕐᕌᒎᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᔪᕋᖅᑖᖅᑐᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒋᕝ 1982). ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ- ᑕᒫᓃᓲᑦ ᔪᓚᐃᒥ ᓯᑎᐱᕆᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᑦᑐᒍ (ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2002) ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2002). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒋᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒥᓲᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒻᒥᓗ (ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1994), ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥ ᖃᖓᑦᑕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖁᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒋᕝ 1982) ᐊᐅᔭᑐᖃᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᑎᓂᕐᐹᒧᑦ ᐊᖅᑲᐅᒪᓲᖑᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᓅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒥᓱᑲᓪᓚᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᔫᑕᓂᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᕐᓂᑦ, ᐊᖅᑲᐅᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᐃᑎᓂᕐᓴᒧᑦ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᐅᑉ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖏᓐᓂ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍᓗ, ᑎᑭᐅᑎᓲᑦ ᐃᑎᓂᓕᒻᒧᑦ 1,000 ᖁᓕᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᓪᓗ (15) ᑲᖏᖅᑐᓅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ m ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ (ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2001; Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᐅᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ ᐊᐅᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂ (ᕆᒻᓇᓐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑖᒪᔅ 1992 2001) ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᕐᐸᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂ. ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐃᖅᑯᓪᓕᐅᑎᒋᓯᒪᒻᒪᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᑕᓗ 2001). ᑲᑎᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᑎᔪᓂᑦ, ᐃᑎᓂᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᑎᑭᐅᒪᔪᓂᑦ 350 ᒦᑕᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ (ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ 1994). ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (1994) ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓇᓪᓕᑭᑕᖅᑐᑎᒃ, ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑎᔪᒦᒍᒪᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᒋᐊᕐᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᑎᔪᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᓇᔪᕐᐸᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ (ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008), ᑕᒫᓂ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐆᒐᑦ ( Arctogadus glacialis ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᖅᑭᓪᓗᐊᐸᓗᒻᒥᒃ (ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ 1980; ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᓇᑖᕐᓇᖏᑦ (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) , ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ 2008). ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓲᖏᓐᓂ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐊᕿᐊᕈᖏᓐᓂ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒋᕝ 1982). ᑲᖏᖅᓱᕐᒥ ᓂᒋᐊᒍᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᒎᓲᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ (ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008) ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᑎᓪᓗᒍᓕ, ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓯᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᒻᒥᑦ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ 60,000ᖏᓐᓃᒋᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᖑᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᒧᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᒍᑦ, ᑕᒪᐅᓈᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥ (ᕆᑦᓱᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2010). ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᓂᒋᐊᒍᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓲᖑᒋᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᑦ 2003). ᕿᓚᓗᒐᐃᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᓅᓲᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ 50ᓄᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖓᓲᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᒃ (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ 1991) ᐊᖅᑯᓵᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒃᑯᑦ, ᓂᒋᐊᒍᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐊᓘᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖓᓱᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᑉᐸᖏᑦ (ᒫᑰ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2009) ᐆᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒍᑦ, ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ (ᑕᐃᑦᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᖅᑐᒡᒍᑎᓂᑦ. ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᑐᑦ, ᑯᓴᓐᔅ 2001). ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ (1980) ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ (1991) ᑎᑎᕋᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑑᒑᓖᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥ 1974ᒥ, ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᒃᑯᑦ ᓅᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ ᓯᑰᑉ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒍ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᓲᑦ ᕿᖑᐊᓂᑦ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥᓗ ᓯᑎᐱᕆ 9ᒥ 11ᒥᓗ. ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᖑᓲᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᓯᑯᐃᔭᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐋᔪᕋᕐᓂᑦ ᓯᑯᒥ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ, ᕿᙳᐊᓂ Tay Sound ᒥᓗ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑯᓐᓈᕿᓲᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓪᓕᐊᑕ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑑᒑᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᕐᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ (ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ 1980). ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᔅᓴᔪᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᒐᓱᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᑉ ᓇᑖᕐᓇᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ1998; Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐅᑎᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᑦ ᓂᒋᐊᓄᑦ, ᒪᓃᓛᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᑯᒧᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ 2003; ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2004 b), ᓂᐱᖃᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᐅᓪᓗ ᐃᒪᖓᒍᑦ ᐅᓯᑲᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᐊᒃ 1993; ᑯᓴᓐᔅ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 34 needs, it is known that narwhals prefer deep water (Dietz et al. 2001). Koski and Davis (1980) noted in in both summer and winter. In summer, narwhals a survey taken in 1974, that fall migration out of range in coastal areas with both deep water and Milne Inlet and Eclipse Sound began between shelter (Richard et al. 1994; Kingsley et al. 1994). In September ninth and thirteenth. Highest densities the Lancaster region narwhals are present in the at this time of the year were observed in Pond areas of Prince Regent Inlet, Barrow Strait, Peel and Inlet, while Milne Inlet and Tay Sound were Eclipse Sounds and Admiralty Inlet (Richard et al. considered to have medium densities, and Navy 1994). Winter is spent farther offshore in Baffin Bay Board Inlet and Eclipse Sound showing low and Davis Strait (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002; densities (Koski and Davis 1980). Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). The return trip south, to the dense pack ice of Baffin Narwhals arrive from Baffin Bay at the Lancaster Bay and Davis Strait, through Lancaster and Eclipse Sound floe edge in May and June (Heide- Sounds occurs in September and October (Laidre et Jørgensen et al. 2003) with the earliest reported al. 2002), arriving in their winter range in late sighting of calves in Lancaster Sound on May 27 October to early November (Heide-Jørgensen et al. (Cosens and Dueck 1990). Finley and Gibb (1982) 2002; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). Analysis of noted narwhals feeding at the Pond Inlet ice edge satellite tracking studies have suggested that whales in June. Narwhals migrate through Pond Inlet into summering in Eclipse Sound, Admiralty Inlet and Eclipse Sound and through Lancaster Sound into Melville Bay have overlapping winter ranges in western regions as the ice breaks and leads form southern Baffin Bay and northern Davis Strait, (Finley and Gibb 1982). Narwhals stay in the area where as those summering in the Somerset Island from July through to September (Laidre et al. area winter further north in Baffin Bay (Dietz et al. 2002) and are noted to be abundant in Prince 2008). Wintering grounds have been documented to Regent and Admiralty Inlets (Richard et al. 1994), be associated with the continental slope in Baffin as well as Eclipse Sound (Finley and Gibb 1982) in Bay and Davis Strait (Dietz et al. 2001; Dietz and late summer. Studies have noted that narwhals Heide-Jørgensen 1995). Narwhals travel up to 3,000 visit more than the few fjords south of Eclipse km over the course of the year to and from seasonal Sound noted in the literature. They are known to grounds (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2002). visit all fifteen fjords south of Eclipse Sound on Baffin Island during the summer season (Remnant Satellite tracking studies in the Canadian and Thomas 1992 as cited by Dietz et al. 2001). archipelago have shown that the narwhal, one of the deepest diving cetaceans, increase their diving Migration out of the Canadian archipelago into depths between summer and fall, reaching depths Baffin Bay has been recorded to take place in in excess of 1,000 m (Dietz et al. 2001; Heide- stages, based on summering areas (Dietz et al Jørgensen et al. 2001) in their wintering grounds. 2008), over approximately a one month period Narwhals have been observed to congregate in deep (Koski and Davis 1980; Dietz et al 2008). Narwhals water zones, in depths exceeding 350 meters, in the tracked from summering grounds in Admiralty Lancaster region in the summer months (Richard et Inlet followed the south coast of Lancaster Sound al. 1994). Richard et al. (1994) suggests that their during migration (Dietz et al. 2008) whereas, preference for deep water may be linked to feeding. whales tagged near Somerset Island moved west Deep water fish, including polar cod ( Arctogadus on the north side of the Sound, following the south glacialis ) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius shore of Devon Island (Heide-Jørgensen et al. hippoglossoides) , have been found in analyses of 2003). Whales summering in the Eclipse Sound narwhal stomach contents (Finley and Gibb 1982). area migrate easterly through Pond Inlet, south of The narwhal Baffin Bay stock is estimated to be in Bylot Island and Lancaster Sound, into Baffin Bay excess of 60,000 with the largest groups present in

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 35 1995), ᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ (ᒥᐅᕐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1992; ᐅᐃᔾᒪᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒍᑦ, ᐊᖅᑯᓵᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᒍᑦ (ᑐᐊᒃ 1996), ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖏᑦ ᓱᕐᕋᑦᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2006) ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᒍᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᑕ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᑉ (Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003; ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2004 a), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᓯᑯᔪᐃᑦᑑᑉ ᐃᒪᐅᑉ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᓯᑯᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓯᑰᑉ ᐱᐅᓯᕆᓲᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003 b) ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒍ (ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓴᓐ 2005 a), ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑎᒍᑦ via Fury ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᒃᑲᓂᕐᔪᐊᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᑕ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕐᓯᐅᖅᑕᐅᓲᖑᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒥᓲᙱᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ (ᑐᐊᒃ ᐊᖏᓯᓪᓗ 2006). ᐊᐅᓪᓛᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕆᓲᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕐᓯᐅᓲᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ (ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2005 b), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᖓᑦᑕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᕆᐊᖃᓲᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᒃᑲᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐄᐳᕈᓪ 3ᒥ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᓲᖑᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᔪᓚᐃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᕐᓗᐃᑦ ( Hᐃᒡᑕᓐ 2007). 22ᒥ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓲᖏᓐᓅᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑐᐱᕆ 29ᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᓲᖏᓐᓅᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᓕᕐᓱᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ (ᑐᐊᒃ Bowhead ( Balaena mysticetus ) (ᐊᕐᕕᒃ) ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᕕᒃ ᐊᖏᓂᕐᐹᖑᖃᑕᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᑉ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᒪᕐᒦᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ. ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦ, ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᕐᕕᒋᒐᔪᓲᖑᓐᓂ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓅᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ (ᕇᕝᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1983), ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᐃᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒪᐅᓇ ᓂᒋᐊᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᓕᒫᐸᓗᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᕐᕕᑦᑕᖃᐅᖅᑐᓂ, ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᖏᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐅᑐᐱᕆᒥ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓴᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2006). ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᓛᓵᓂᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᕐᕕᑦᑕᖃᕋᓂ ( COSEWIC ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂᑦ 2009). ᒫᓐᓇ ᑎᓴᒪᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᑕᒫᓃᔅᓴᐃᓐᓈᖃᑎᒌᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᓂᒋᐊᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᒋᕐᒧᑦ ᑕᐅᕙᙵᑦ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ. ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ-ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᓂᑦ ( EC- ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᒃᑲᓂᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ WG) ᑕᒫᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᓐᓅᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ (ᑐᐊᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᒪᕐᕈᐃᖑᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᕙᑦᑐᒥ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓ-

ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓ-ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕆᓲᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓴᐃᓐᓇᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᔾᔪᓂᖓ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓇᑭᙶᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᓯᑰᑉ, ᐃᒪᐅᑉ ᐃᑎᓂᖓᓂᒃ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐃᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕆᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᔾᔭᐅᑉ ᐊᖑᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᐅᓂᖏᑦ ( Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖏᑦ ᕿᒫᕕᒋᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓲᖏᑦ (ᑐᐊᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008; ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓯᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ’ ᕘᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ, 2010; ᕕᓐᓕ 1990). ᕘᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (2010) ᑖᒃᑯᓇᙵᑦ COSEWIC 2009 ᒥ, ᑲᑕᑉᐹᓪᓕᖅᑐᑦ, ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓯᑯᒦᓕᒻᒦᒐᔪᓐᓂᕐᓴᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᕈᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᓯᑯᖃᙱᓂᕐᓴᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᒋᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ. ‘ᓄᖑᓕᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ’ 1980ᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑰᒐᓇᔪᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ‘ᓄᖑᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓛᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ’ 2005ᒥ ( COSEWIC 2009). ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖓ ᐊᕐᕕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂ (ᑐᐊᒃ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ-ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᖅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008), ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒐᓕᖅᑑᖅ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᓯᕕᑐᔪᒧᑦ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ (ᕕᓐᓕ 1990). ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ, ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ, ᓯᑯᖃᓗᐊᕐᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖓ, ᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᑕ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ, ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᕐᕕᐅᓪᓗᐊᑕᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ, ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥ, ᓇᕐᐸᐃᑦ, ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒃ, ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ, ᐊᕐᕚᕇᑦᑕᖃᓲᖑᓗᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᕐᕚᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ‘ᓂᕆᓇᓱᑎᑦᑎᕕᐅᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ’. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓱᓪᓗᐊᓗᒻᒦᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ, ᐹᖓᓂ ᑎᓄᔾᔨᕕᐅᑉ (ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕙᓚᐅ 2003). ᑲᖏᖅᓱᐊᓗᐊ), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓃᓛᑉ ᓯᓈᖓᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ

(ᑐᐊᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2006). ᓱᓪᓗᐊᓗᒃ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᓂᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᓕᓴᐅᓂᕐᐹᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓴᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᕐᕕᑦᑕᖃᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᔅᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ (ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2006). ᑲᓇᑕᒥ-ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐅᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᑕ 7,309 (95% CI = 3,161-16,900) ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᑰᑉ ᓈᒪᙱᒋᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᐊᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᐅᓂᖓᓂ ᑲᒪᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᒃ (ᐆᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ 2000). ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒃ (ᑯᓴᓐᔅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2005). ᐅᑉᐱᕆᔭᐅᒐᔪᒻᒪᑦ ᓯᑯᐃᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓅᓲᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒦᙶᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᒥᓪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ ᑕᒪᐅᓇ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 36 summer around Somerset Island and in Eclipse The EC-WG population has a broad summer Sound (Richard et al. 2010). Narwhals have been distribution and is known to summer in northern observed to travel in groups of one to fifty animals in Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin, along the eastern the region with an average of three (Cosens and coast of Baffin Island, and south of Lancaster Dueck 1991) to three and a half (Marcoux et al. Sound in Pond Inlet, Eclipse Sound, Navy Board 2009) animals per group. Similar to beluga whales, Inlet, Admiralty Inlet, Prince Regent Inlet, and the Cosens and Dueck (1991) noted that narwhal group Gulf of Boothia. This population is known to winter size varied with ice type with the largest groups in Hudson Strait (Koski et al. 2006), northern being seen later in break up within cracks in the ice. Hudson Bay, the mouth of Cumberland Sound, and along the pack ice edge in Davis Strait (Dueck et al. Potential threats to the Baffin Bay narwhal include 2006). Hudson Straight is thought to have the the commercial fishery for Greenland halibut in largest proportion of the population in winter (Koski Baffin Bay (DFO 1998; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003; et al. 2006). Laidre et al. 2004b), noise pollution and shipping traffic (Cosens and Dueck 1993; Cosens 1995), Bowhead whale migration is known to be closely contaminations (Muir et al. 1992; Wagemann et al. associated with changes in sea ice (NWMB 2000). 1996), climate change related to preferred habitat Bowheads follow the receding ice in spring and (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003; Laidre et al. 2004a), move into the Lancaster region from the east and ice entrapments related to changing ice conditions west side of Baffin Island either through Baffin Bay, (Laidre and Heide-Jørgensen 2005a), seasonal prey via the coast of Baffin Island (Dueck et al. 2006) or intake, small number of prey species (Laidre et al the west coast of Greenland and the North Water 2005b), and potential increase for predation by polynya (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003b) on the east, killer whales (Higdon 2007). or the Gulf of Boothia via Fury and Hecla Strait from northern Foxe Basin (Dueck et al. 2006). Migratory periods have been suggested by satellite Bowhead ( Balaena mysticetus ) tracking studies to centre around April 3 for spring The bowhead whale is the largest cetacean movements, July 22 to summering grounds and inhabiting Arctic waters. It has a broad October 29 for peak movement back to wintering distribution, similar to its pre-decimated historic grounds for animals tagged in Canadian Arctic range (Reeves et al. 1983), which is nearly (Dueck et al. 2008). Tracking studies originating in circumpolar in nature, with only portions of the West Greenland have seen similar migration timing Canadian and Russian Arctic not inhabited with animals heading northwest for Lancaster (COSEWIC 2009). There are currently four Sound in May and on route south along Baffin populations worldwide. The Eastern Canada-West Island in October (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2006). Greenland (EC-WG) population was previously Fall migrations occur in an easterly direction out of considered two separate stocks called the Davis Lancaster Sound following Baffin Island south and Strait-Baffin Bay stock and the Foxe Basin-Hudson in a southerly direction out of the Gulf of Boothia Bay stock, and is now considered one population via Fury and Hecla Strait toward winter grounds based on genetic data, tracking data, and age and (Dueck et al. 2008). sex distribution (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2008). This population was designated ‘Special Concern’ by Seasonal distribution of the bowhead may be based COSEWIC in 2009, a downgrade, or positive on a number of factors including ice thickness and update, from ‘Endangered’ in 1980 and ‘Threatened’ extent, bathymetry, prey distribution, predation, in 2005 (COSEWIC 2009). and costal features that provide shelter (Dueck et al,

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 37 ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑭᓪᓕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᔪᑦ COSEWIC 2008 ᒥ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ (ᐆᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ2000) ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᑯᓘᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒫᓂᔅᓴᐃᓐᓈᖃᑎᒌᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᙱᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᓂᑦ (ᕇᕝᔅ ᐊᒻᒪ Hᐊᐃᑎ-ᔪᐊᒐᓐᓴᓐ 1996). ᐆᒪᓂᕆᓲᖏᑕ ᑭᓪᓕᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓯᕆᓲᖏᑦ ( COSEWIC 2008).

ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ-ᐱᖓᓐᓇᒐᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᖃᖓᑦᑕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᕐᓘᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕕᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᐱᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒻᒥ ᐋᒡᒌᓯ 2009ᒥ ᑕᑯᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᔪᖅ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᖅᑲᑕ ᐊᑯᓚᐃᓐᓂᕐᓴᒥᓪᓗ ᓇᔪᖃᑦᑕᓲᕆᔭᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓅᑦᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᒪᐅᙵᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑲᑕ ᐅᒥᐊᕐᔪᐊᑦ, ᐃᑭᕐᒥ ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒻᒥ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᒑᓯᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ, ᐳᓚᕋᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᒥᐊᕋᓛᑦ ᓯᑎᐱᕆᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓂᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᒫᙵᑦ ᓯᑯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐃᖏᕐᕋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᓂᐱᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒪᐅᑉ ᓱᕈᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒎᖅᑐᑎᒃ, ᐅᑐᐱᕆᐅᑉ ᕿᑎᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ (ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓴᓃᑦ ᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᐊᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᔪᖅ ᓄᕕᐱᕆ ᕿᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᒪᐅᓇ the Azores, ᓂᕆᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖑᓂᒃᑕᐅᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᐊᕐᕙᒐᓱᕝᕕᐅᕙᑦᑐᒥᓂᖅ (ᒫᑎᐅᓯ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (COSEWIC 2009; ᕕᓐᓕ 2001). ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᖓ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯ ᑎᓯᐱᕆ 2010ᒥ). ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᒋᕙᑦᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᓯᑰᑉ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᓪᓚᕆᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒐᑎᒃ ᐊᑑᑎᓂᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᕗᖅ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ (ᕘᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2010), ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ, ᐃᒪᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᒃᑯᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᓕᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᑯᐃᕐᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓂᕆᓇᓱᒐᔅᓴᖃᖅᑎᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᓄᑦ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕆᔭᐅᕙᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᕕᓐᓕ 2001; ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕐᓯᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᕿᓚᓗᒐᕐᓂᑦ, ᑑᒑᓕᓐᓂᑦ, ᒥᑦᓱᓪ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕇᕝᔅ 1982). ᐊᕐᕚᖃᕐᕕᒋᓲᖏᑦ ᐊᕐᕕᓂᑦ ᓇᑦᑎᓂᓪᓗ (ᐅᐃᔅᑐᓪ2009; Hᐃᒡᑕᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᓗᐊᙳᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓯᑯᙱᓂᕐᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓂᑯ ᓄᕕᐱᕆ 2010ᒥ). ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ, ᓅᕝᕕᒋᓲᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ, ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᒡᒍᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᕐᕕᐅᕙᑦᑐᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᓇᕐᖓᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑑᒐᔪᙱᑦᑐᑦ (ᐅᐃᔅᑐᓪ 2009). ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᑦᑏᑦ ᐊᑐᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓯᕆᒐᔪᙱᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᔨᔪᔪᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᒐᔪᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐋᒡᒌᓯᒥ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓴᖑᑐᐃᓐᓇᔾᔮᖏᒻᒪᑕ (ᑐᐊᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕘᒐᓴᓐ 2008). ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓯᓈᖓᓂ ᔫᓂᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᔪᓚᐃᒥᓗ (ᐅᐃᔅᑐᓪ (Westdal 2010). ᐃᒃᐱᐊᕐᔪᒻᒥ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᑦᑏᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᓪᓗ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ Killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) (ᐋᕐᓗᒃ) ᐋᕐᓗᓂᑦ ᔪᓚᐃᒥ, ᐋᒡᒌᓯᒥ ᓯᑎᐱᕆᒥᓗ. ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᒐᔪᓲᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᔾᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᑯᔭᔅᓴᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᖏᖅᓲᑉ ᖃᓂᒋᔮᓂ ᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᒥ. 2008ᒥ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᕆᐅᓕᒫᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓯᕕᑐᓂᕐᐹᒥᒃ ᑕᑯᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓂ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐹᑦᑎᐊᒥ; ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᓂᕐᐹᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᓂᕐᐹᖑᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᒃᐱᐊᕐᔪᒻᒥ, Adams Sound ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕐᕚᖅᑑᑉ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᐊ (Hᐃᒡᑕᓐ 2007). ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᑑᓪᓗᑎᒃ (ᐅᐃᔅᑐᓪ2009). Hᐃᒡᑕᓐ (2007) ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᔨᔪᖅ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᑦ ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖓᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ (ᕗᐊᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᐊᐃᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᑦᑐᒍ ᑕᐅᕙᓂ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ 2007, COSEWIC 2008), ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᒥᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ, ᐊᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖓ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐅᓇᓂ ᐅᔾᔨᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐅᑯᐊ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᑉ ᐊᑖᓂᖔᖅ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ( Antarctic ) (ᐱᑦᒪᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒃ/ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐊᓗᒃ, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒃ. ᐃᐊᓐᓱ 2003). ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕋᔅᓴᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓇᑭᙶᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ, ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᐱᑕᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᓅᓐᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᕐᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᓪᓗ, (ᐅᐃᔅᑐᓪ 2009), ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᓐᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᐱᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᑦ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐅᖃᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᑯᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᕐᓗᓂᑦ (COSEWIC 2008). ᐃᓚᖓᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓃᒻᒪᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓕᖅᑐᖅ ( Hᐃᒡᑕᓐ 2007; ᐅᐃᔅᑐᓪ 2009). ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᖓᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᓗᐊᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᑯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᑕᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᑕᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ, ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑎᑭᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓯᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃ/ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓂᕐᓴᖅ (ᕘᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2010), ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᐅᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᑯᓇᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᒃᑲᓂᕐᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓯᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ’ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᙵᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᕈᒃᑲᓂᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ( Hᐃᒡᑕᓐ 2007). ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 38 2008; Ferguson et al., 2010; Finley 1990). Killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) Ferguson et al. (2010) found that bowhead whales The killer whale is found in all Canadian coastal prefer more ice in summer and less in winter based waters and all oceans globally, making it the mostly on seasonal ice availability. Prince Regent Inlet, widely distributed cetacean in the world (Higdon specifically south of Creswell Bay, is thought to be 2007). Killer whales are considered one species with a highly utilized area by bowhead in the summer separate populations (Forney and Wade 2007, season (Dueck et al. 2008), in addition to Isabella COSEWIC 2008), although subspecies have been Bay on the east coast of Baffin Island (Finley 1990). suggested for groups in the Antarctic (Pitman and In the spring, areas with heavy ice, relatively Ensor 2003). There are currently five Designatable shallow waters and oceanographic features that Units (DUs) of killer whales recognized in Canada provide a consistent food supply have been found based on genetics, movements and distribution, to contain a large number of calves and cows and feeding behavior, and acoustic studies (COSEWIC have been deemed calf ‘nurseries’. Such areas have 2008). One of these DU’s is the Northwestern Atlantic been found in northern Foxe Basin (Cosens and and Eastern Arctic. Although little scientific data is Blouw 2003). available on the presence of killer whales in the Canadian Arctic, the Northwest Atlantic/Eastern The most recent population estimate for the Arctic population is known to be found in the Eastern Canada-West Greenland population is Canadian Arctic in the summer season. This 7,309 (95% CI = 3,161-16,900) but is considered population was designated ‘Special Concern’ by imprecise as only a portion of known summer range COSEWIC in 2008 due to its perceived small was covered in one season (Cosens et al. 2005). It population size, life history parameters and social is a commonly held belief within Nunavut characteristics (COSEWIC 2008). communities that the bowhead whale population is increasing due to hunting restrictions (NWMB Satellite tracking studies of two whales tagged in 2000) however, this is not a shared conviction in Admiralty Inlet in August of 2009 showed Greenland (Reeves and Heide-Jørgensen 1996). summering and potential wintering grounds. The killer whales were tracked moving from Admiralty Threats to the EC-WG population include Inlet into Prince Regent Inlet and the Gulf of Boothia anthropogenic disturbance such as increases in in September and movement out of the region as the frequency and distribution of large ships, offshore oil ice began to form, via Lancaster Sound, in mid and gas development, tourism and small boat October. One killer whale was tracked into mid activity, noise and water pollution (including debris November off the Azores, a historic whaling ground that can be ingested by skim feeding) and hunting (Matthews et al. Accepted December 2010). (COSEWIC 2009; Finley 2001). Change in seasonal ice cover due to climate change is also a real threat Historic and recent sightings, and photographs, it to the bowhead whale with unknown effects on is known that killer whales frequent waters of the distribution (Ferguson et al. 2010), potential for Eastern Arctic, during the ice free season, where increased ice entrapment in winter, and potential prey are plentiful. Killer whales are known to prey increase in predation by killer whales in winter and on belugas, narwhals, bowheads and seals summer (Finley 2001; Mitchell and Reeves 1982). (Westdal 2009; Higdon et al. Accepted November Calving grounds are particularly at risk with 2010). Killer whales are seen throughout the decreases in ice concentrations compared to other Lancaster region, generally in small pods and seasonal locations, movements and activities due to rarely solo (Westdal 2009). In Pond Inlet hunters the likelihood that they are traditional and less have noted that killer whales are seen mainly in flexible (Dueck and Ferguson 2008). August, but have been seen at the floe edge in

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 39 ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᕐᒥ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃᒥ/ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᔪᓄᑦ. ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ (1980) ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᓕᒫᐸᓗᒃ ᐋᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ( COSEWIC 2008) ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᔭᖕ ᓅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒫᓂ ᐅᑐᐱᕆᐅᑉ-ᕿᑎᖓᓂ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ( In Press ) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ 53ᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ; ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐃᓱᐊᓂ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᙳᐊᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᓕᓴᐃᑦ. ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᒥᓗ ᐃᓱᐊᓂ Jones Sound (Cardigan Strait-Fram Sound and around Dundas Island), ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᐊᓂ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᕐᓗᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒪᐅᑉ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ (ᓂᒋᐊᓂ Grinnell ᓱᕈᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ, ᓯᑯᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᐊᖑᓇᓱᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, Penninsula), ᓯᓈᖓᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Jones and Sounds, ᓂᐱᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐃᒫᓂ ᓯᑯᔪᐃᑦᑐᒥ (ᕗᐊᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1995). ᐅᓯᑲᑦᑕᖅᑐᖃᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᓴᐅᓕᖅᑲᑦ ( COSEWIC 2008). ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃᕕᕐᓄᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐳᔪᕐᓗᒃ ᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, ᓇᔪᒐᔅᓴᖃᕈᓐᓃᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᑯ, ᐃᖃᓗᒐᓱᓐᓂᖅ Walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus ) (ᐊᐃᕕᖅ) ᐊᑦᑐᐃᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓂᕿᒋᕙᑦᑕᖏᑕ ᓇᔪᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᓂᐱᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐃᕕᖅ ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᐆᒪᔫᖃᑕᐅᕗᖅ ᓂᕿᑐᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᓂᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᓂᖅ. ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᑕᓕᕈᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᓯᖅᑯᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᔅᓴᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᒡᓕᕕᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᖑᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ, ᐸᓯᕕᒃᒥ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃᒥᓗ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᕝᕕᒋᓲᖏᓐᓂᓗ. ᐊᑑᑎᓂᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐃᕖᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃᒥᐅᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖏᓐᓃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ, ᐱᑕᖃᓗᐊᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᑕᖃᙱᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᑉ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓯᕙᓪᐸᑦ ᑲᖏᐊᓂ ( NAMMCO 2004). ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃᒥ ᐃᓂᔅᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᙱᑲᐃᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᔅᓴᐅᔪᑦ, ᐅᐃᒻᒪᐅᖅᑲᑎᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᑎᓴᒪᐅᔪᖅᑑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᕐᓯᒪᐅᕐᐸᑦᑐᑦ (ᕗᐊᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᑐᖁᔪᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂ (ᕗᐊᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1995) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 2001) ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᕿᒪᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᒡᓕᕕᒋᓲᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᒫᓂᔅᓴᐃᓐᓈᖃᑎᒌᑉᐸᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᓕᕈᑎᒃ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 2002). ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᐅᓂᕐᓴᐅᔭᕆᐊᖏᑕ (ᐊᐅᑦᕆᔾ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2003; ᓯᑑᐊᑦ 2008). ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖓᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ Polar Bear ( Ursus maritimus ) (ᓇᓄᖅ) ᐱᖓᓱᐃᖑᔮᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᑕᒫᓂ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ, ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦ, ᓇᔪᒐᖃᕐᐸᑦᑐᑎᒃ Jones Sound, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᐅᑉ-ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᓇᒥᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᕙᑎᑲᓴᐃᑦ (19) ᐊᑐᓂᑦ (ᓯᑑᐊᑦ 2008). ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃᒥ ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᕐᓯᒪᐅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᖃᑎᒌᑉᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ’ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᙵᑦ COSEWIC 2006 ᒥ ᖁᓕᓂᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᓪᓗ (13) ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᓪᓗᑭᐊᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒦᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᙱᓗᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ (ᑏᒪᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᑐᒡᒍᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒥᓲᒐᑎᒃ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᕐᐊᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᒥ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒫᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇ, ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᖑᓂᑦᑕᐅᒐᓱᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ( COSEWIC ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ; ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᑏᒪᓐ 2006). ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔫᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᒪᕐᕈᐃᖑᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (2008) ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᙱᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂ’ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᐄᐳᕈᓪ 1987ᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᐃ 2000ᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᑎᒍᑦ ᓱᑯᑦᑎᐊᓃᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᕐᒥ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃᒥ ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᑭᙶᕐᓯᒪᓂᖏᓪᓗ. ᐃᓱᒪᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ‘ᓄᖑᑕᐅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖏᑕ’ ᐄᐳᕈᓪ 1987 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᐃ 2000ᒥ. ᓴᐳᑎᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᑐᙱᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒐᓂᓗ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᒐᔪᓲᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᐅᑉ-ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓂ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᒡᓕᕕᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᓕᒫᒥ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᓪᓗ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒃᑲᑦᑐᓂᑦ (100 m ᐃᑎᓂᓕᒻᒥᒃ) ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᑦᑎᐊᖁᓪᓗᒍ. ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᓯᐅᕐᕕᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖓᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᖓᓂ (ᐊᐅᑦᕆᔾ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ’ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᙵᑦ COSEWIC 2002 ᒥ 2003). ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᐅᖓᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐳᔪᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᓱᕈᕐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ, ᐅᑎᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᐅᒡᓕᕕᒋᓲᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᕝᕕᒋᓲᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᕿᑐᕐᖏᐅᕐᓇᓵᓲᖑᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᓇᓐᓄᒐᓱᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᕆᓲᖏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 2002). ᐊᖑᓂᒃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ( COSEWIC 2002). ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᕗᖅ ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᒐᑎᒃ’ ᐄᐳᕈᓪ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ, ᕿᙳᐊᓂ, ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒻᒥᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕈᓕᖅᑭ, and 1986ᒥ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᑎᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒋᓪᓗᑎᒃ ‘ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕐᓯᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ’ Jones Sound ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᐅᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ (ᐳᕇᔅᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ 1991ᒥ, 1999ᒥ. ᐊᓱ 2004). ᒥᓗᕐ (1955) ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᕕᓕᐊᓘᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓ. ᐊᐃᕖᑦ ᑕᒫᙵᑦ ᓅᓲᑦ ᓯᑯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᑐᐊᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓ ᓇᔪᒐᓪᓚᕆᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖓ ᓯᑯᖓᓗ. ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓅᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᒪᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᑯᓄᑦ ᑎᓯᖃᕐᕕᖃᓲᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᐅᑉ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᕙᑖᓂ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 40 June and July (Westdal 2010). In Arctic Bay 2003; Stewart 2008). Walrus inhabiting Lancaster hunters and community members see killer whales Sound may be considered a separate stock as the in July, August and September. Killer whales are Baffin Bay stock appears to be three discreet stocks most often seen on the west side of Admiralty Inlet consisting of Baffin Bay, West Jones Sound, and near Kakiak Point. In 2008 community members Penny Strait-Lancaster Sound (Stewart 2008). The saw killer whales relatively close to the community Atlantic walrus was designated ‘Special Concern’ by for the first time; in Arctic Bay, Adams Sound and COSEWIC in 2006 due to the lack of information on Strathcona Sound (Westdal 2009). Higdon (2007) individual populations, small population size in notes that the highest number of killer whale some areas, and sustainability of the current hunt sightings to date are from southwest Greenland and (COSEWIC 2006). It was previously examined as Lancaster Sound, with notable areas in the two populations with the Eastern Arctic designated Lancaster region being in the Pond Inlet/Bylot as ‘Not at Risk’ in April 1987 and May 2000 and the Island area, Lancaster Sound, and Admiralty Inlet. Northwest Atlantic population designated as ‘Extirpated’ in April 1987 and May 2000. Killer whales have a historic presence in the eastern Arctic (Westdal 2009), but Inuit around Baffin Walrus are generally found in near-shore areas in Island and in Hudson Bay have reported sighting summer that provide haul out locations and killer whales more frequently (Higdon 2007; shallow waters (less than 100 m in depth) suitable Westdal 2009). It has been suggested that this for providing access to preferred prey items on the could be due to changes in sea ice extent making ocean floor (Outridge et al. 2003). Walrus are areas more accessible for longer periods of time thought to return to the same haul out and feeding (Ferguson et al. 2010), as well as increased sighting sites each year (DFO 2002). From harvest records it effort and or a population increase (Higdon 2007). is known that walrus inhabit the areas of Pond, The number of individuals in the Northwest Milne, and Admiralty Inlets, Bathurst and Atlantic/Eastern Arctic population is not known at Cornwallis Islands, and Jones Sound in the this time (COSEWIC 2008) however, Young et al. ( In Lancaster area in summer (Priest and Usher 2004). Press ) have identified fifty three individuals from Miller (1955) reported walrus being abundant recent photographs. throughout Lancaster Sound. Walrus depart the area as the ice begins to form in the fall and head Threats to this killer whale population include to areas with open water and mobile ice. Koski and contaminants and water pollution, ice entrapments, Davis (1980) observed the majority of migration hunting, and noise and disturbance associated with activity to occur in mid-October. They are known to increases in Arctic shipping (COSEWIC 2008). winter in a number of places in the Lancaster region; the east and west ends of Jones Sound (Cardigan Strait-Fram Sound and around Dundas Walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus ) Island), the west end of Devon Island (south of The walrus is a long-lived species of the order Grinnell Penninsula), the floe edge of Lancaster and pinnipedia. There are currently considered to be Jones and Sounds, and the North Water polynya two subspecies globally, the Pacific and Atlantic (Born et al. 1995). walrus, with the latter inhabiting coastal waters off Canada, Greenland and Svalbard (NAMMCO 2004). Threats to walrus in the area include pollution, loss The Atlantic walrus is further broken down into of habitat including sea ice, fisheries that may eight sub-populations (Born et al. 2001) with affect prey habitat, noise disturbance, and physical research suggesting that the subpopulations disturbance. Walrus are especially sensitive to contain smaller discreet stocks (Outridge et al. disturbance at haul out and feeding sites. Effects of

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 41 ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ, ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕐᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᑎᑭᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ Jones Sound ( ᓯᑏᕙᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖏᑕ, ᕿᑐᕐᖏᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑎᖅᑕᖅᑖᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓪᓗ, Hᐊᑦᐅᐃᒡ 2010) ᐊᕐᓇᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᕗᓂᔅᓴᖅ (ᓯᑑᓕᖕ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑎᕉᓴ ᐃᕐᓂᐅᕐᕕᖃᕆᐊᖅᑐᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᕐᓇᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᑎᖅᑕᖅᑖᕋᑖᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ 1993; ᑕᐃᓇᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑎᒫᔅᑕ 1997; ᑎᕉᓴ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2004; ᓚᐃᑕ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᑲᖏᖅ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008; ᐅᐄᒡ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008; ᒧᓪᓇᕐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2010). ᐊᑯᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐊᓗᒻᒥ (ᓯᐅᐃᓐᔅᕘᒡ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1980). ᓚᐃᑕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (2008) ᐃᓱᒪᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᓐᓂᕐᐹᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᔪᒪᓲᖏᑦ ᐊᖑᔾᔪᐊᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑎᖅᑕᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᓇᕐᓗᐃᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓃᒻᒪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᓗᐊᕐᐸᒻᒪᑕ ᓯᑯᒥᒃ ᑐᕙᒻᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐆᒪᓂᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓕᐊᕐᕕᐅᒐᔪᒻᒪᑦ (ᐅᐃᓪᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1992; ᓯᐅᐃᓐᔅᐳᒡ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕐᓯᐅᕐᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1982) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᑦᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ (ᑭᖕᔅᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1985). ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᔾᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ (ᓯᐅᐃᓐᔅᕘᒡ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1980). Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) (ᖃᐃᕈᓕᒃ) ᖃᖓᑦᑕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᔅᓴᑦ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐃᕈᓕᒃ ᐊᑯᓐᓈᕿᔪᖅ ᓇᑦᑎᖅ ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓘᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑐᕌᕐᕕᖃᕋᔪᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕐᓯᐅᖅᑐᑎᒃ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐆᒐᕐᓂᑦ. ᓯᑯᕋᑖᕐᒥᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᑯᑐᖃᕐᓄᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐃᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᑐᒡᒍᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᑯᓪᓗ ᓯᑯᖃᓗᐊᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ (ᕘᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2000). ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓵᖓᓂ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᑕ ᓂᐅᕙᓐᓛᓐ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᓇᕗᐃᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᓛᐸᑐᐊᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ ᓴᐃᓐᑦ ᓗᐊᕋᓐᔅ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓅᒋᐊᖃᓕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᑯᑐᖃᕐᒧᑦ ( COSEWIC (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 2000). ᖃᐃᕈᓖᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ 2002) ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᑐᕙᓕᓐᓄᑦ (ᓯᐅᐃᓐᔅᕘᒡ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ COSEWIC. 1982) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ ᓯᑯᐃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᕘᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (2000) ᖃᐅᔨᔪᔪᑦ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᑦ ᑐᕙᖓᓃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐃᕈᓖᑦ ᑎᑭᖃᑦᑕᓲᑦ ᖃᑦᑏᓐᓇᒡᒍᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᔫᓂᐅᑉ- ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᑕ ᓴᓂᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᕿᑎᖏᓐᓂ, ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓘᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᔪᓚᐃᒥ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓃᓛᕐᒦᒐᔪᓐᓂᕐᓴᐅᔮᖅᑐᓪᓕ. ᓯᐅᐃᓐᔅᕘᒡ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓖ (1982) ᓯᑯᐃᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᑐᕙᒻᒥᒃ ᑕᑉᐸᐅᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᒦᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓄᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᒐᓴᓐᓄᑦ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1990). ᐊᐅᓪᓛᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᕘᒐᓴᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (2000) ᐃᓱᒪᓯᒪᔫᒃ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓲᖓ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᕐᐸᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᓯᑯᒥᒃ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᒎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖏᑕ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᑦᑎᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᒍᑦ, ᑕᒪᐅᓇ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᕋᔭᓲᖑᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓂ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂᓗ ᓯᔾᔭᖏᑕ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 1982). ᐱᑕᖃᓗᐊᕐᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖓ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ, ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᖏᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᑕᒫᓂ Jones Sound, ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓ, ᐊᑯᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅ, Borden Peninsula, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐊᓗᒻᒥ. ᓇᓪᓗᐊᑕ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ, ᑕᓯᐅᔭᖅ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᓪᓗ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐅᓄᖓ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᖏᖅ ᐊᑯᓕᐊᖃᑦᑕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᕗᐊᓂ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᖓᓄᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 1994). ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᔪᖅᑕᐅᓲᖑᒋᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᑐᖃᐅᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᖃᖓᑕᓲᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᓇᖅᑐᑦ (ᓯᐅᐃᓐᔅᕘᒡ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1980; (ᓯᐅᐃᓐᔅᕘᒡ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1982). ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᖑᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᐃᕈᓖᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᐅᓱᐃᑦᑑᑉ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᒻᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ (ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᓄᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᕗᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ 1983). ᐊᖑᓇᓱᑦᑏᑦ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ ᐅᖃᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓇᓐᓄᒐᓱᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ ᖃᐃᕈᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᓇᓪᓗᐊᑕ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᑕ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1990). ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᑦᑕ ᓱᕈᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᐊᑎᐊᓗᒻᒥ 1954ᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᐃᕈᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᓂᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑑᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᑎᓕᒻᒥ ᐃᒫᒃ Guys Bight ( ᑐᑭᐊᓂ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᐅᑉ) ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᑕ ( COSEWIC 2002; ᑏᒪᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 2008). ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐃᓱᐊᓂ ᓇᓪᓗᐊᑕ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ. ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑑᑎᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᓲᖑᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒥᓲᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᐅᖓ ᑕᐃ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᕐᓄᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ, ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓄᑦ ( Tay Sound), ᓂᒋᐊᓄᑦ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᐅᑉ, ᓇᓪᓗᐊᑕ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᓄᐃᑦ. ᐊᑑᑎᒐᔭᙳᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᔪᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒧᑦ (ᒥᓗᕐ 1955). ᖃᐃᕈᓖᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᖁᑦᑎᑦᑐᒦᓲᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒫᓂ 100ᓂᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᓂᑦ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᓴᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᔪᒪᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1990).

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 42 disturbance range from little to no effect, to however, have been seen along both coasts of temporary displacement, stampedes with assumed Lancaster Sound in winter (Schweinsburg et al. deaths (Born et al. 1995) and abandoning sites 1980). Satellite tracking studies have shown that completely if continuously disturbed (DFO 2002). polar bears in the archipelago and in Baffin Bay select first year ice in winter and multiyear ice in spring and fall during minimum ice extent Polar Bear ( Ursus maritimus ) (Ferguson et al. 2000). Polar bears have a circumpolar distribution, inhabiting all parts of the Arctic. Currently there In spring and summer, bears in Lancaster Sound are nineteen subpopulations worldwide with are forced to move from east to west onto thirteen partially or completely in Canadian multiyear ice (COSEWIC 2002) or into bays with territory (Thiemann et al. 2008). The Lancaster land fast ice (Schweinsburg et al. 1982) and onto Sound population inhabits the Lancaster region land as the ice recedes. Ferguson et al. (2000) year round. Currently, the Canadian polar bear found that bears in the archipelago used land population is managed as one unit; however, fast ice in spring and summer more than Baffin Thiemann et al. (2008) suggest that polar bears can Bay bears, which seem to prefer pack ice. be considered in five separate designative units, Schweinsburg and Lee (1982) had similar based on geography and genetics. They suggest that findings for bears tracked in Lancaster Sound. bears do not all share the same conservation needs Ferguson et al. (2000) suggest that spring and nor face the same threats throughout the Arctic and summer preferred ice habitat is related to seal therefore, should be managed to reflect this. The pupping in both areas. Summer areas of use in polar bear was designated ‘Special Concern’ in the Lancaster region include the south and east Canada by COSEWIC in 2002 due to pollution coasts of Devon Island, the east side of the concerns, slow reproductive rate, sustainability of Brodeur Peninsula, Borden Peninsula, and Bylot the hunt, and climate change (COSEWIC 2002). Island. The west side of the Brodeur Peninsula The polar bear was previously designated as ‘Not at and the tip of Somerset Island are suspected to Risk’ in April 1986 but downgraded to ‘Special also be summering areas (Schweinsburg et al. Concern’ in 1991, 1999. 1980; Schweinsburg et al. 1982).

In winter the Lancaster Sound region provides Threats to the polar bear include management of a important habitat on shore and ice. Denning sites sustainable harvest in the face of other changes, occur near the coast in the Lancaster area around prey availability, environmental contaminants, Devon Island, on the north side of Lancaster Sound human disturbance, and effects of climate change and the south side of Jones Sound (Stephenson and (COSEWIC 2002; Thiemann et al. 2008). Many Hartwig 2010) with female bears exhibiting site papers have been written on the potential effects of fidelity to these areas. Females with newborn cubs climate change on marine mammals, including have also been seen along the south coast of polar bears. Potential effects include change in Lancaster Sound on the Brodeur Peninsula and distribution, increased energy output to travel to Bylot Island (Schweinsburg et al. 1980). Preferred preferred habitat and locate prey, access and winter habitat for males and solo female polar bears availability of prey, reproduction rate and success, in Lancaster Sound is in the western portion which and ultimately population size and future (Stirling is known to have high biological productivity (Welch and Derocher 1993; Tynan and DeMaster 1997; et al 1992; Schweinsburg et al. 1982) and a higher Derocher et al. 2004; Laidre et al. 2008; Wiig et al. density of ringed seals (Kingsley et al. 1985). Bears 2008; Molnar et al. 2010). Laidre et al. (2008)

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 43 ᐊᐅᓪᓛᓯᓲᑦ ᓂᒋᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑐᐱᕆᒥ ᓯᑯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐆᒪᔫᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓯᑯᒦᒐᔪᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖃᓪᓚᕆᓲᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ. 1990; ᒥᓗᕐ 1955). ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ (1980) ᐃᕐᓂᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᓇᑦᑎᐊᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᒪᒫᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓯᒪᔫᒃ ᖃᐃᕈᓖᑦ ᐅᑭᐊᔅᓵᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓛᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᖃᐃᕐᓯᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ, ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᑯᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓂᒋᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᐸᓯᕐᒧᑦ. ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᐅᑉ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᓃᓲᑦ (COSEWIC 2002). ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑕᒫᓂ ᓄᓕᐅᓲᑦ, ᐃᕐᓂᐅᓲᑦ, ᒪᒫᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᒪᓃᓛᕐᒥ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᓂᐱᓕᓐᓄᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1990). ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓂᐱᖃᓲᖑᖏᓐᓄᑦ (ᓯᒥᔅ 1981) ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐃᕈᓕᕐᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ/ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐆᒐᖅᑕᖃᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᓪᓗ, ᐃᑭᕐᒥ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᓂᕆᓇᓱᕝᕕᒋᓲᖏᓐᓂ (ᓯᒥᔅ 1981; Hᐋᕗᑦ 2001). ᓂᕿᔅᓴᖃᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑑᓂᖏᑦ ᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᓯᑯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᖓ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ Ringed Seal ( Phoca hispida ) 1990; Hᐋᕗᑦ 2001). (ᓇᑦᑎᖅ) ᓇᑦᑎᖅ ᓇᑦᑎᕋᓛᑯᓗᒃ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ 50 o ᓴᓂᒧᑦ (ᕇᕝᔅ 1998; NAMMCO 2002). ᓇᑭᙶᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus ) ( ᐅᒡᔪᒃ) ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᙱᒻᒪᑦ ᐅᒡᔪᐃᑦ ᐱᑕᓕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᓱᓪᓗᐊᓗᒻᒥ, ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᑉ ᐅᖃᕈᑎᔅᓴᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᐊᑐᓃᓕᖓᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑕ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓴᓂᕋᔭᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᕋᓴᖓᓂ. ᐱᑕᖃᐅᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃ ᑕᕆᐅᕐᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᒐᓴᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓲᖑᒐᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ (ᕕᓐᓕ 1983; ᓯᒥᔅ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ ( NAMMCO) ᐃᓕᓴᕐᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖓᓱᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ 1981), ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᒥ (ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᐃᓚᖓᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓃᑦᑐᓂ 1985). ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᒥ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᓃᓲᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᔫᓂᒥ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ. ᐅᑐᐱᕆᒧᑦ (ᕕᓐᓕ 1983). ᐱᑕᖃᓗᐊᙳᐊᖅᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐃᓱᖏᓐᓂ ᑰᒐᓇᔫᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ, ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᖓᑕ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᓱᒻᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓪᓗᐊᑕ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ (ᐃᒪᕐᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᓪᓗ (ᒥᓗᕐ 1955), ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ 1994). ᑭᖕᔅᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ (1985) ᐃᓱᒪᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᒡᔪᐃᑦ ᒪᑯᓂᖓ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂ ᓇᑦᑎᕐᓂᒃ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᐅᑉ ᓴᓂᐊᓂ ᐃᓂᖃᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᒐᔪᒻᒪᑕ ᓯᑯᓂᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᒃᑳᓂᕐᓂᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᒐᓴᓐᓂ (ᑭᖕᔅᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1985). ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕋᔪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᒃᑲᓂᑦ. ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᓯᑯᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒫᓂ ᐃᑎᓂᓕᒻᒥᒃ ᑲᑎᙵᐅᖅᑐᒡᒍᑎᐊᓘᓗᑎᒃ (ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ 1985) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 100 m ᑐᖔᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᕆᔭᐅᒐᔪᓲᑦ ᖃᖓᑕᓲ$ᑯᑦ ᑕᑯᔾᔪᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᖓᓯᑦᑐᐊᓗᒻᒨᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ (ᑭᖕᔅᓕ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1985). ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᑳᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖓᓂ ᓂᕆᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ (1980) ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒧᑦ (ᑲᐱᓪ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1998; ᐃᓱᒪᓯᒪᔫᒃ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᓲᖑᔭᕆᐊᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐃᒪᐅᑉ ᑏᔪᓪᒪᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1999) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐃᒫᓂ ᓯᑯᔪᐃᑦᑐᒥ ᐃᑎᓂᖏᓐᓂ. ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᐃᑦ 1946ᒥ 1954ᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᖓᓐᓇᖓᑕ ᐃᓱᐊᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐅᓄᖓ ᐅᒡᔪᐃᑦ ᑕᓯᐅᔭᐅᑉ ᓯᑯᖓᑕ ᓯᓈᖓᓅᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓯᑯᐃᔭᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒻᒥ (ᑏᔪᓪᒪᓐ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ 1999). (ᐱᖓᓲᔪᖅᑐᑦ ᖁᓕᐅᙱᒐᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᑦ) ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᐃᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᐃᑦ ᑐᖔᓂ (ᒥᓗᕐ 1955). ᓯᑎᐱᕆᒥ, ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑐᕙᕐᒦᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᓃᓛᕐᒥᓗ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ, ᑕᓯᐅᔭᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓪᓗᐊᑕ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᓯᑯᕙᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ, ᑕᕆᐅᖓᓂ, ᖃᐅᔨᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᖏᖅᖢᕈᓗᒻᒥ ᕿᙳᐊᓂᓗ ᓯᑯᓯᒪᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᓂᒃ, ᓄᓇᒨᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐃᒃᑲᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᓂᑦ (ᑭᖕᔅᓕ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᕐᐹᖑᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᒡᔪᐃᑦ (ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᑦ 1980). 1985). ᑳᔅᑭ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᕕᔅ (1980) ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᔨᓯᒪᔫᒃ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᓯᑯᖃᙱᓐᓂᖓᓂ ᐃᒪᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐋᒡᒌᓯᒥ ᓯᑎᐱᕆᒥᓗ, ᐊᒥᓱᕈᒃᑲᓂᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᓯᑎᐱᕆᐅᑉ ᓄᙳᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᒡᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᔾᔭᖓᓃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ (ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔨᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ 1985). ᐅᒡᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᑯᕋᑖᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᑕᐃᒫᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᑦ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᒻᒥ ᑕᒫᙵᑦ ᓅᓲᑦ ᓯᑯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᑐᐱᕆᐅᑉ-ᕿᑎᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᒪᓃᓛᕈᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᓂ. ᐅᒡᔪᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᑲᖏᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ, ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᑕᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᒫᓂ ᓯᑯᔪᐃᑦᑐᒥ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᒥᓲᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᑦ (ᕕᓐᓕ ᐋᔪᕋᖃᕋᔪᑦᑐᓪᓗ ᐊᐃᓐᓂᖃᕋᔪᑦᑐᓪᓗ, ᓂᕿᔅᓴᓯᐅᕐᕕᖃᓲᖑᓂᕐᓴᐃᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕆᓈᑦ 1980). ᓇᑦᑎᓕᐊᓘᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ (ᕘᕐᒍᓪ2002). ᓇᑦᑎᐊᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᓯᔾᔭᒧᑦ ᖃᓂᑦᑐᒥ, ᓯᑯᓯᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥ (ᓯᑏᕙᓐᓴᓐ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Hᐋᑦᐅᐃᒡ 2010) ᒫᑦᓯᐅᑉ ᓄᙳᖏᓐᓂ ᐄᐳᕈᓪᒥᓗᑭᐊᖅ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 44 suggest that polar bears are one of the most migration out of Lancaster Sound in both a sensitive marine mammals to climate change due to southeast and northeast direction. Winter is spent their reliance on sea ice and feeding habits. off the east coast of Canada where breeding, whelping, and molting takes place on pack ice (Finley et al. 1990) . Harp seal ( Phoca groenlandica ) The harp seal is a medium-sized seal with a large Threats to the harp seal population include population that migrates seasonally in pursuit of changes in cod abundance and distribution, prey, namely cod. There are three populations competition for food sources, and reduction in globally with the northwest Atlantic population seasonal sea ice (Finley et al. 1990; Harwood 2001). inhabiting the Arctic and the Lancaster Sound area in the summer season and off the coast of northern Newfoundland and southern Labrador Bearded Seal ( Erignathus barbatus ) ) and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the winter Bearded seals are abundant in Hudson Strait, (DFO 2000). The harp seal is not listed as a northern Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin. They are species of concern with COSEWIC. found throughout the Arctic archipelago in small numbers in summer (Finley 1983; Smith 1981), but Harp seals arrive in small groups in the Arctic in are widely distributed in the Lancaster region (INAC early to mid-June, with large numbers appearing 1985). In the Lancaster region they inhabit fjords in in July, and follow the receding fast ice edges the summer months, mainly June through October into the Canadian archipelago (Finley et al. (Finley 1983). High density areas are Lancaster 1990). Migration route north from wintering Sound and the northern ends of Prince Regent, grounds is thought to be along the east side of Admiralty and Navy Board Inlets (DFO 1994). Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, following the coast of Kingsley et al. (1985) suggest that bearded seals Greenland (DFO 1982). High density areas are prefer broken ice and rotten annual ice within large known to be in Jones Sound, Lancaster Sound, floes. Moderate ice cover and waters of 100 m or less Navy Board, Eclipse and Pond Inlets, and down were also inferred as preferred habitat from aerial the east coast of Baffin Island (DFO 1994). Late survey analysis (Kingsley et al. 1985). As bottom summer aerial surveys indicate that the largest feeders, Koski and Davis (1980) suggest that numbers of harp seals in the archipelago are distribution is partially based on water depths. Data found along the coasts of Devon and Ellesmere from 1946 to 1954 shows bearded seals arriving at Islands (INAC 1983). Hunters from Pond Inlet the Eclipse Sound ice edge prior to break up (six of indicate that harvesting of harp seals occurs in the nine years) or within five days (Miller 1955). In the fjords along Navy Board Inlet and Eclipse September, surveys of Pond Inlet, Eclipse Sound and Sound (Finley et al. 1990). Surveys of the Bylot the Navy Board Inlet areas, found that Oliver Sound Island area in 1954 found harp seals in large and Milne Inlet had the highest numbers of bearded numbers at Guys Bight (at the mouth of Pond seals (Koski and David 1980). During the ice free Inlet) and the north end of Navy Board Inlet. periods, namely August and September, bearded Seals are known to migrate in large numbers into seals are found along the coast (INAC 1985). Bearded Tay Sound, south of Eclipse Sound, from Navy seals leave the area as fast ice begins to form to areas Board Inlet and Pond Inlet (Miller 1955). Harp with moving pack ice. Bearded seals have been seals stay in the high Arctic in summer for spotted in the North Water polynya in winter, but not approximately 100 days (Finley et al. 1990). in any large numbers (Finley and Renaud 1980).

Migration south occurs in October as the ice As a species that is heavily dependent on ice for begins to form (Finley et al. 1990; Miller 1955). critical activities such as whelping, nursing, molting Koski and Davis (1980) observed harp seal fall and resting, changes in sea ice due to climate

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound . 45 (NAMMCO 2002). ᕗᕌᑦᓯᑐᕇᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ. (1982) ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᓪᓗ, ᖃᓯᒋᐊᑦ ᐃᒪᖅᐱᖕᒦᒐᔪᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓲᖑᕗᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᔨᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᕋᑖᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓯᓈᓃᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ. ᐊᒡᓗᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᙱᑉᐳᑦ ᓯᑯᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓂ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ 24 ᑭᓛᒥᑕᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒦᒐᔪᙱᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᒃᑯᑦ. ᑐᖔᓂ ᓯᓈᖓᑕ, ᐅᖓᓯᓐᓂᕐᓴᒥᐅᙱᑦᑐᖅ.

Hooded Seal ( Cystophora cristata ) ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᑦᑏᑦ ᐊᒥᓲᓂᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᓐᓇᕐᒦᑦᑐᑦ (ᓇᑦᑎᕙᒃ) ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᐊᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓂ 1.2 ᓇᑦᑎᕙᒃ ᐊᖏᔾᔫᒥᔪᖅ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᕐᓇᕈᑎᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᒥᓕᐊᓐᓂᑦ 1.3 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᓄᑦ (ᑭᖕᔅᓕ 1998; NAMMCO 2002). ᐊᖑᓴᓪᓗᐃᑦ ᕿᖓᖓ ᐳᕕᓲᖑᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ. ᓇᑦᑎᕙᐃᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᓲᖑᕗᑦ ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᒡᒐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᒥᓱᓂᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓅᕙᓐᓛᓐ ᓛᐸᑐᐊᓗ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔭᑦ ᐊᐳᑎᐅᑉ ᐊᑖᓃᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᕆᐅᑉ ᐊᑭᐊᓅᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᑕᓐᒫᒃ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᑉ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᓯᑯᒦᓲᖑᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓂᑦ ( DFO 1985 ). ᓯᑰᑉ ᖄᖓᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᓇᑦᑎᕙᐃᑦ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᑲᓴᒃ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᖅᐳᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᓅᕙᓐᓛᓐ ᓛᐸᑐᐊᓗ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑯᑭᑦᑑᓪᓗ ᓂᒋᓇᓄᑦ

ᐃᓱᒫᓗᓇᕋᔭᙳᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᑦᑎᕐᓄᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᕗᑦ ᐅᓚᕕᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓇᒫᒃᒨᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐅᓄᖏᑦᑐᑯᓗᐃᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖏᑕ ᐃᑭᕐᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᓄᑦ ᐅᓯᑲᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄᓪᓗ, ᓅᖔᓲᖑᒋᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᓪᓗ ᐃᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᓇᒧᑐᐃᓐᓈᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᓂᕿᔅᓴᐅᓗᑎᒃ, (INAC 1983 ). ᓇᑦᑎᕙᐃᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᐅᓪᓗ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᓯᑯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖓᑕ ᓯᕕᑐᓂᖓᓗ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓃᒐᔪᙱᑉᐳᑦ ( Koski 1980; Koski and Davis 1979 ). (Hᐋᑦᕗᑦ 2001; NAMMCO 2002). ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᖕᒥ ᖃᐅᓐᓇᒥᓗ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᒥᓗ ( Miller 1955 ) ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᐃᑦ ᐅᖓᑖᓂᐅᙱᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᔪᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. ᓇᑦᑎᕙᐃᑦ ᐃᑎᔪᒥᐅᑕᓂ Harbour Seal ( Phoca Vitulina ) (ᖃᓯᒋᐊᑦ) ᓂᕆᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᐃᒪᖅᐱᖕᒦᒍᒪᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ ᖃᓯᒋᐊᑦ, ᓇᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᕙᒻᒥᔪᑦ, ᒥᑭᑦᑑᓪᓗᓂ ᑕᓕᕈᓖᖕᓂᑦ ᓴᓐᓂᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ( Stephensen and Hartwig 2010 ). ᓇᒥᑐᐃᓐᓈᖅᐸᒃᖢᓂ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᑉ ᖁᓛᓃᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ (Mansfield 1967 ). ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓂᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᐊᕐᔪᖕᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᓄᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᑐᒦᓲᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᙱᑉᐳᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᖃᓲᖅ, ᐊᑦᓛᓐᑎᒃ ᓂᒋᖓᓐᓃᖔᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᕐᓂᔭᖅᑐᕐᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᐃᑭᖓᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒦᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᓇᓚᐅᑦᑖᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ 10,000ᓂᑦ ᐃᕐᓂᐊᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ( DFO 1985 ).

ᖃᓯᒋᐊᑦ ᓇᒦᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᓗᐊᙱᑦᑐᖅ. ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᐃᒪᖏᓐᓃᒐᔪᐃᑦᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᑲᓇᖕᓇᖓᒍᓪᓗ ( Stephenson and Hartwig 2010 ). ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐆᒪᔪᓕᕆᔨᕐᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓯᒪᔭᖓᒍᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑕᒫᓃᒐᔪᐃᑦᑑᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᒐᑎᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ ᑲᓇᖕᓇᖏᓃᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ (Priest and Usher 2004 ). ᖃᓯᒋᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓚᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑎᒻᒥᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑲᓇᖕᓇᖓᒍᑦ 1978 ᐊᒻᒪ 1979ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ( INAC 1983 ), ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐊᖑᓇᓱᒃᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᒃᐱᐊᕐᔫᑉ ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᐅᓪᓗ ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓃᑦᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ (Mansfield 1967 ). ᖃᓯᒋᐊᑦ ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᓅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᐱᐊᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᒨᖅᖢᑎᒃ ( Mansfield 1967 ).

ᐅᐱᕐᖔᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᕐᓇᓪᓗᐃᑦ ᑲᑎᓲᖑᒋᐊᖏᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᖕᒥᔪᑦ ᓯᓈᒎᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐃᕐᓂᔭᖅᑐᖅᖢᑎᒃ ( Mansfield 1967; Boness et al 2006 ). ᖃᓯᒋᐊᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐃᕐᓂᔭᖅᑐᒐᔪᓲᖑᓂᕋᖅᑕᐃᑦ (Härkönen and Harding 2001 ) ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑑᑎᓂᑦ ᓇᔪᒐᖃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔭᖅᑲᐃᑦ ᓇᓛᒍᑦ ᒪᕐᕋᐅᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ. ᐊᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ

ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓ ᐃᓄᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᕈᑎᐅᑉ ᑕᕆᐅᖓᑕ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ 46 change may be a threat (COSEWIC 2002). Other are known to have high densities of seals (Furgal threats to this species include physical or noise 2002). Pupping is known to occur close to shore, disruption due to their wide spread but sparse on stable ice (Stephenson and Hartwig 2010) in distribution and vocalizations (Smith 1981) and late March or April (NAMMCO 2002). Bradstreet removal and/or disturbance to offshore areas where et al. (1982) noted in spring and early summer the seals are feeding (Smith 1981; Harwood 2001). surveys in the Lancaster region that seals were in significantly higher densities within twenty four kilometers of the ice edge, rather than Ringed Seal ( Phoca hispida ) further away. The ringed seal is a small seal with a widespread o distribution in the Arctic north of 50 latitude A rough estimate of the ringed seal population in (Reeves 1998; NAMMCO 2002). There is no genetic the eastern Canadian Arctic and north Atlantic or tracking data to conclude that the global waters is 1.2 to 1.3 million (Kingsley 1998; population is comprised of individual stocks, NAMMCO 2002). Estimates are difficult due to a however, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal number of factors including birthing lairs under Commission (NAMMCO) recognizes three stocks snow, and an unknown proportion of time spent on based on distribution, one of which is in the Baffin the ice or near the surface for detection. Bay area which includes Lancaster Sound.

Potential threats to the ringed seal include Ringed seals are commonly distributed throughout disruption to habitat by offshore activity and the Lancaster region in summer and winter (Miller shipping, distribution and availability of prey, along 1955), although the western portion of the with predicted changes in sea ice distribution and Lancaster Sound region is known to have a higher extent (Harwood 2001; NAMMCO 2002). density of ringed seals than further west into the archipelago (Kingsley et al. 1985). Ringed seals rarely occur in large clusters (INAC 1985) and Harbour Seal ( Phoca Vitulina ) have been shown to move large distances. They The harbour seal, also referred to as the common have been recorded crossing Baffin Bay from seal, is a small pinniped with a wide ranging Greenland into the Eastern Arctic (Kapel et al., distribution in the northern hemisphere (Mansfield 1998; Teilmann et al. 1999) and from the North 1967). There are five recognized subspecies of the Water polynya into the west end of Lancaster harbour seal, with the western Atlantic subspecies Sound and down the east side of Baffin Island present in the Arctic year round and found in the (Teilmann et al. 1999). Lancaster Sound region.

Ringed seals are known to inhabit land fast and Harbour seal distribution in the Lancaster Sound pack ice in the winter with preferred habitat that area is not well known. Their presence is considered includes annual ice, with high ice cover, that is to be rare in Lancaster region and along the east fast to the land over shallow waters (Kingsley coast of Baffin Island (Stephenson and Hartwig 1985). Koski and Davis (1980) noted that ringed 2010). The Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study provides seal densities increased in Lancaster Sound in further indication of their absence in the region late September with the formation of new ice. with no record of a harbour seal harvest north of Similar observations were made for Pond Inlet in eastern Baffin communities (Priest and Usher mid-October. Areas, including many fjords in the 2004). No harbour seals were recorded during aerial region, with seasonal and continual cracks, that surveys of eastern Lancaster in 1978 and 1979 have potential for a higher abundance of prey, (INAC 1983), however, they have been recorded

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 47 near Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet by hunters and off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador (Mansfield 1967). Harbour seals are known to travel and summers in waters off the coasts of Denmark, in summer into estuaries and up rivers into fresh Greenland and Canada (DFO 1985). water (Mansfield 1967). Most hooded seals migrate from Davis Strait and the In the spring, females are known to form clusters Newfoundland/Labrador coast to west Greenland along the shore where they have their pups and Denmark in the summer, however, a small (Mansfield 1967; Boness et al 2006). Harbour seals number is known to migrate north to Baffin Bay and exhibit a high degree of site fidelity to pupping sites Lancaster Sound (INAC 1983). The hooded seal is (Härkönen and Harding 2001) and are known to considered uncommon in the Lancaster and north use a wide variety of habitats ranging from rocky Baffin Bay region (Koski 1980; Koski and Davis shores to mudflats. In summer and winter, harbour 1979). They have been seen in Pond Inlet and seals prefer open water and the edge of the fast ice. Eclipse Sound, however Miller (1955) reports that no They do not make breathing holes in the ice and more than three have been seen in a year. The thus are sparse throughout much of the Arctic hooded seal is known to feed in deep water and to archipelago in winter . prefer the open water and depths of Baffin Bay in summer (Stephensen and Hartwig 2010) . Hooded Seal ( Cystophora cristata ) The hooded seal is a large migratory seal The total population that summers in the Arctic is recognizable by its inflatable proboscis present in not known, but a spring survey of the whelping patch adult males. The hooded seal winters in Davis Strait in Davis Strait estimated 10,000 pups (DFO 1985).

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 48 Appendix D: References

Aarluk. 7-Year Independent Evaluation of the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq and Sirmilik National Parks, Prepared for Parks Canada and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. July 28 th , 2010.

Barber, D.G., Saczuk, E., and Richard, P.R. 2001. Examination of beluga-habitat relationships through the use of telemetry and a geographic information system. Arctic 54(3): 305-316.

Boness, D.J., Bowen, D., Buhleier, M. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mating tactics and mating system of an aquatic-mating pinniped: the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina . Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:119–130.

Born, E. W., Gjertz, I. and Reeves, R. R. 1995. Population assessment of the Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus L .). Norsk Polarinstitutt Meddelelser Nr. 138. 100 pp.

Born, E. W., Andersen, L. W., Gjertz, I. and Wiig, Ø. 2001. A review of the genetic relationships of Atlantic walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus ) east and west of Greenland. Polar Biology 24:713-718.

Bowen, W.D. 1982. The harp seal. Underwater world, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 5 p.

Cleator, H.J. 1996. The status of the bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus , in Canada. Can . Field-Nat. 110(3): 501-510.

Cosens, S. 1995. The impact of ship noise and disturbance on the behavior of narwhals and belugas. SWG/WP95-10.

Cosens, S.E., and Blouw, A. 2003. Size and age class segregation of bowhead whales summering in northern Foxe Basin: A photogrammetric analysis. Mar. Mamm. Sci.19: 284-296.

Cosens, S.E., Cleator, H. and Richard, P. 2005. Results of aerial surveys of bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ) in the eastern Canadian Arctic in 2002, 2003, and 2004. DFO Canadian Scientific Advisory Research Document 2005/2006.

Cosens, S.E. and Dueck, L.P. 1990. Spring sightings of narwhal and beluga calves in Lancaster Sound, N.W.T. Arctic 43 (2): 127-128.

Cosens,S. E., and Dueck, L.P. 1991. Group size and activity patterns of belugas ( Delphinapterus leucas ) and narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) during spring migration in Lancaster Sound. Can. J. Zool. 69: 1630-1635.

Cosens, S.E. and Dueck, L.P. 1993. Icebreaker noise in Lancaster Sound, N.W.T., Canada: Implications for marine mammal behavior. Marine Mammal Science 9: 285-300.

COSEWIC [Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada]. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear Ursus maritimus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 29 pp.

COSEWIC [Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada]. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 50 pp.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 49 COSEWIC [Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada]. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 70 pp.

COSEWIC [Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada]. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Atlantic walrus Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 65 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

COSEWIC [Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada]. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Killer Whale Orcinus orca , Southern Resident population, Northern Resident population, West Coast Transient population, Offshore population and Northwest Atlantic/Eastern Arctic population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 65 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

COSEWIC [Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada]. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Bowhead Whale Balaena mysticetus , Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population and Eastern Canada-West Greenland population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 49 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). de March, B. G. E., Maiers, L. D. and Friesen, M. K. 2002. An overview of genetic relationships of Canadian and adjacent populations of belugas ( Delphinapterus leucas ) with emphasis on Baffin Bay and Canadian eastern Arctic populations. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 4: 17-38.

Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., and Stirling, I. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate Integrative and Comparative Biology 44(2):163-176.

DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada]. 1982. The harp seal. DFO Science: Underwater World. 5 p.

DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada]. 1982. The hooded seal. DFO Science: Underwater World. 5 p.

DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada]. 1998. Baffin Bay narwhal. DFO Science Stock Status Report E5-43 .

DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada]. 2000. Northwest Atlantic harp seals. DFO Science Stock Status Report E1-01.

DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada]. 2002. Atlantic walrus. DFO Science Stock Status Report E5-17.

DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada]. 2004. Arctic marine workshop proceedings: Freshwater Institute Winnipeg, Manitoba March 1-2, 1994.

DFO [Fisheries and Oceans Canada]. 2010. The Beluga Whale. Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Species at Risk, Aquatic Species at Risk pamphlet available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/mpo-dfo/Fs114-20-2010-eng.pdf.

Dietz, R. and Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. 1995. Movements and swimming speed of narwhals, Monodon monoceros , equipped with satellite transmitters in Melville Bay, northwest Greenland. Can. J. Zool. 73(11): 2106-2119.

Dietz, R., Heide-Jorgensen, M.P., Richard, P.R., and Acquarone, M. 2001. Summer and fall movements of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) from northeastern Baffin Island towards northern Davis Strait. Arctic 54 (3): 244-261.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 50 Dietz, R., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Richard, P.R.,Orr, J., Laidre, K.L., and Schmidt, H.C. 2008. Movement of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) from Admiralty Inlet monitored by satellite telemetry. Polar Biology 31: 1295-1306.

Dirschl, H.J. 1982. Green Paper. The Lancaster Sound Region: 1980-2000. Issues and Options on the Use and Management of the Region.Published under the authority of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Northern Development.

Doidge, D.W. and Finley, K.J. 1993. Status of the Baffin Bay population of beluga, Delphinapterus leucas . Can Field Nat. 107(4): 533-546.

Dueck, L. 1998. Proceedings of the resource assessment process meeting on Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay narwhal. Canadian stock assessment proceedings series 98/11, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Dueck, L., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Jensen, M.V., and Postma, L.D. 2006. Update on investigations of bowhead whale ( Balaena mysticetus ) movements in the eastern Arctic, 2003- 2005, based on satellite- linked telemetry. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2006/050. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Science.

Dueck, L. and Ferguson, S.H. 2008. Habitat use by bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ) of the eastern Canadian Arctic. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2008/082. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Science.

Ferguson, S.H., Taylor, M.K., and Messier, F. 2000. Influences of sea ice dynamics on habitat selection by polar bears. Ecology 81(3): 761-772.

Ferguson, S.H., Dueck, L., Loseto, L.L., and Luque, S.P. 2010. Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus seasonal selection of sea ice. Mar Ecol Prog Series 411: 285–297.

Ferguson, S.H., Higdon, J.W., and Chmelnitsky, E.G. 2010. The Rise of Killer Whales as a Major Arctic Predator. In S.H. Ferguson, L.L. Loseto & M.L. Mallory (eds.): A little less Arctic: top predators in the world’s largest northern inland sea, Hudson Bay. Springer, 117-136.

Finley, K.J. and Gibb, E.J. 1982. Summer diet of the narwhal ( Monodon monoceros ) in Pond Inlet, northern Baffin Island. Can. J. Zool. 60(12): 3353-3363.

Finley, K.J. 1990. Isabella Bay, Baffin Island: An Important Historical and Present-day Concentration Area for the Endangered Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus ) of the Eastern Canadian Arctic. Arctic 43(2): 137-152.

Finley, K.J., Bradstreet, M.S.W., and Miller, G.W. 1990. Summer Feeding Ecology of Harp Seals (Phoca groenlandica) in Relation to Arctic Cod (Boreogadus saida) in the Canadian High Arctic. Polar Biology 10: 609- 618.

Finley, K.J. 2001. Natural History and Conservation of the Greenland Whale, or Bowhead, in the Northwest Atlantic. Arctic 51(1): 55-76.

Finley, K.J. and Evans, C.R. 1983. Summer diet of the bearded seal (Erignuthus burbutus) in the Canadian high Arctic. Arctic 36(1): 82-89.

Forney, K.A. and Wade, P. 2007. World-wide abundance and density of killer whales. In: J.E. Estes, D.P. DeMaster, D.F. Doak, T.M. Williams, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. (eds.). Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems. University of California Press. 418 p.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 51 Furgal, C.M., Innes, S., and Kovacs, K.M. 2002. Inuit spring hunting techniques and local knowledge of the ringed seal in Arctic Bay (Ikpiarjuk), Nunavut. Polar Research 21(1): 1-16.

Härkönen, T. and Harding, K.C. 2001. Spatial structure of harbour seal populations and the implications thereof. Can. J. Zool. 79: 2115–2127.

Harper. J., Reimer, D., Drinnan, W. 1986. Final Report. A Biologival, Geological Study of the Lancaster/Eclipse Sound Region for the Purpose of Potential Marine Park Boundary Delineation. Prepared for Parks Canada.

Harwood, J. 2001. Marine mammals and their environment in the twenty first century. Journal of Mammalogy 82(3): 630–640.

Heide-Jorgensen, M.P, Dietz, R, and Leatherwood, S. 1994. A note on the diet of narwhal ( Monodon monoceros ) in Inglefield Bredning (NW Greenland). Meddr Gronland, Biosci. 39: 213-216.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Richard, P.R., and Rosing-Asvid, A. 1998. Dive patterns of belugas (Delphinapterus leucas ) in waters near eastern Devon Island. Arctic 51(1): 17-26.

Heide-Jorgensen, M.P, Dietz, R, Laidre, K.L., and Richard, P.R. 2002. Autumn movements, home ranges, and winter density of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) tagged in Tremblay Sound, Baffin Island. Polar Biology 25: 331-341.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Dietz, R., Laidre, K.L., Richard, P.R., Orr, J., and Schmidt, H.C. 2003. The migratory behaviour of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ). Can. J. Zool. 81: 1298-1305.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Laidre, K.L., Wiig, O., Jensen, M.V., Dueck, L., Maiers, L.D., Schmidt, H.C., and Hobbs, R.C. 2003b. From Greenland to Canada in 10 days: Tracks of Bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus , across Baffin Bay. Arctic 56(1): 21-31.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Richard, P., Dietz, R., Laidre, K.L., Orr, J., and Schmidt, H.C. 2003. An estimate of the fraction of belugas ( Delphinapterus leucas ) in the Canadian high Arctic that winter in West Greenland. Polar Biology 26: 318-326.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Laidre, K.L., Jensen, M.V., Dueck, L., and Postma, L.D. 2006. Dissolving stock discreetness with satellite tracking: bowhead whales in Baffin Bay. Marine Mammal Science 22(1): 34-45.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Cosens, S.E., Dueck, L., Laidre, K.L., and Postma, L. 2008. Baffin Bay-Davis Strait and Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin bowhead whales: A reassessment of the two-stock hypothesis. SC/60/BRG20.

Higdon, J. 2007. Status of knowledge on killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2007/048. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Science.

Higdon, J.W., Hauser, D.D.W., and Ferguson, S.H. Accepted November 2010. Killer whales in the Canadian Arctic: distribution, prey items, group sizes, and seasonality. Arctic.

INAC [Indian and Northern Affairs Canada]. 1983. Biological environment of eastern Lancaster Sound and western Baffin Bay: components and important processes. LGL Limited. Environmental Studies No. 30, Ottawa, 288 p.

Innes, S., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Laake, J.L., Laidre, K.L., Cleator, H.J., Richard, P. and Stewart, R.E.A. Surveys of belugas and narwhals in the Canadian High Arctic in 1996. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 4: 169-190.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 52 Milton Freeman Research Limited. 1973. Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project. Prepared under contract with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Ottawa.

Jacobs, P. 1981. Perspectives on the Use and management of the Lancaster Sound Region. Published under the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Jacobs, P. 1983. The Lancaster Sound Regional Study. Public Review: Public Prospect.

Jefferson, T.A., Karczmarski, L., Laidre, K., O’Corry-Crowe, G., Reeves, R.R., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y. and Zhou, K. 2008. Monodon monoceros . In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 09 December 2010.

Kapel, F.O., Christiansen, J., Heide-Jorgensen, M.P., Harkonen, T., Born, E.W., Knutsen, L.O., Riget, F., and Teilmann, J. 1998. Netting and conventional tagging used for studying movements of ringed seals (Phoca hispida ) in Greenland. In Ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ) in the North Atlantic. Edited by M.P. Heide- Jorgensen and C. Lydersen. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) Scientific Publication No. 1. pp.211-228.

Kingsley, M.C.S., Stirling, I., and Calvert, W. 1985. The distribution and abundance of seals in the Canadian high Arctic, 1980-82. Can. J . Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 1189-1216.

Kingsley, M.C.S., Cleator, H.J., and Ramsay, M.A. 1994. Summer distribution and movements of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) in Eclipse Sound and adjacent waters, North Baffin Island, N.W.T. Meddr Gronland, Biosci. 39: 163-174.

Koski, W.R. 1980. Distribution of marine mammals in the Canadian central high Arctic, July - September 1979. Prep. By LGL Ltd., Toronto, Ontario for Petro-Canada Exploration Inc, Calgary, Alberta. 117 p.

Koski, W.R. and Davis, R.A. 1980. Studies of late summer distribution and fall migration of marine mammals in NW Baffin Bay and E Lancaster Sound, 1979. Prep. By LGL Ltd., Toronto, Ontario for Petro- Canada Exploration Inc, Calgary, Alberta. 214 p.

Koski, W.R., and Davis, R.A. 1979. Distribution of marine mammals in northwest Baffin Bay and adjacent waters, May-October 1978. Prep. By LGL Ltd., Toronto, Ontario for Petro-Canada Exploration Inc, Calgary, Alberta. 305 p.

Koski, W.R., and Davis, R.A. 1994. Distribution and numbers of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. Meddr Gronland, Biosci. 39: 15-40.

Koski, W.R., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., and Laidre, K.L. 2006. Winter abundance of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus , in the Hudson Strait, March 1981. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8(2): 139–144.

Laidre, K.L., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., and Dietz, R. 2002. Diving behaviour of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) at two coastal localities in the Canadian high Arctic. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 624-635.

Laidre, K.L., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Logdson, M.L., Hobbs, R.C., Geagerty, P., Dietz, R. , Jørgensen, O.A., and Treble, M.A. 2004a. Seasonal narwhal habitat associations in the high Arctic. Marine Biology 145: 821-831.

Laidre, K.L., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Jørgensen, O.A., and Treble, M.A. 2004b. Deep-ocean predation by a high Arctic cetacean. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61: 430-440.

Laidre, K.L. and Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. 2005. Arctic sea ice trends and narwhal vulnerability. Biological Conservation 121: 509–517.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 53 Laidre, K.L. and Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. 2005b. Winter feeding intensity of narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ). Marine Mammal Science 21(1): 45-57.

Laidre, K.L., Stirling, I., Lowry, L.F., Wiig, O., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., and Ferguson, S.H. 2008. Quantifying the sensitivity of Arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change. Ecological Applications 18(2): Supplement S97–S125.

Mansfield, A.W. 1967. Distribution of the harbour seal, Phoca Vitulina Linnaeus , in Canadian Arctic waters. Journal of Mammalogy 48(2): 249-257.

Marcoux, M., Auger-Methe, M., and Humphries, M.M. 2009. Encounter frequencies and grouping patterns of narwhals in Koluktoo Bay, Baffin Island. Polar Biology 32: 1705-1716.

Martin, A. R., and Smith, T.G. 1992. Deep diving in wild, free-ranging beluga whales, Delphinapterers leucas . Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 462-466.

Matthews, C. J.D., Luque, S.P., Peterson, S.D., Andrews, R.D., and Ferguson, S.H. Accepted December 2010. Satellite tracking of a killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) in the eastern Canadian Arctic documents ice avoidance and rapid, long-distance movement into the North Atlantic. Polar Biology.

Miller, R.S. 1955. A survey of the marine mammals of Bylot Island, Northwest Territories. Arctic 8: 167-176.

Mitchell, E.D. and Reeves, R.R. 1982. Factors affecting abundance of bowhead whales Balaena Mysticetus in the Eastern Arctic of North America, 1915-1980. Biological Conservation 22: 59-78.

Molnar, P.K., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., and Lewis, M.A. 2010. Predicting survival, reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change. Biological Conservation 1443: 1612-1622.

NAMMCO [North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission]. 2002. Status of marine mammals in the north Atlantic: The ringed seal. NAMMCO species report available at: http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/653.pdf.

NAMMCO [North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission]. 2004. Status of marine mammals in the north Atlantic: The Atlantic walrus. NAMMCO species report available at: http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/654.pdf.

NAMMCO [North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission]. 2005. Status of marine mammals in the north Atlantic: The beluga whale. NAMMCO species report available at: http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/667.pdf.

Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. 2000. Final report of the Inuit bowhead knowledge study. Iqaluit, Nunavut: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. Retrieved December 21, 2010, from www.nwmb.com/english/resources/Bowheadreport1.

Outridge, P.M., Davis, W.J., Stewart, R.E.A., and Born E.W. 2003. Investigation of the stock structure of Atlantic walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus ) in Canada and Greenland using dental Pb isotopes derived from local geochemical environments. Arctic 56(1): 82-90.

Pitman, R. L. and P. Ensor. 2003. Three forms of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Antarctic waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 5(2): 131–139.

Priest, H. and Usher, P. 2004. The Nunavut wildlife harvest study August 2004, final report. Iqaluit: Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 54 Reeves, R.R. 1998. Distribution, abundance and biology of ringed seals ( Phoca hispida ): an overview. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 1:9-45.

Reeves, R.R. and Heide-Jørgensen, M.P. 1996. Recent status of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus , in the wintering grounds off West Greenland. Polar Research 15: 115–125.

Reeves, R., Mitchell, E., Mansfield, A., and McLaughlin, M. 1983. Distribution and migration of the bowhead whale, Baluenu mysticetus, in the Eastern North American Arctic. Arctic 36(1): 5-64.

Richard, P., Weaver, P., Dueck, L., and Barber, D. 1994. Distribution and numbers of Canadian high Arctic narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in August 1984. Bioscience 39: 41-50.

Richard, P., Orr, J., Dietz, R., and Dueck, L. 1998. Sightings of belugas and other marine mammals in the North Water, late March 1993. Arctic 51(1): 1-4.

Richard, P., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., and St.Aubin, D. 1998. Fall movements of belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) with satellite-linked transmitters in Lancaster Sound, Jones Sound, and northern Baffin Bay. Arctic 51(1): 5-16.

Richard, P., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Orr, J., Dietz, R., and Smith, T.G. 2001. Summer and autumn movements and habitat use by belugas in the high Arctic and adjacent areas. Arctic 54(3): 207-222.

Richard, P.R., Laake, J.L., Hobbs, R.C., Heide-Jorgensen, M.P., Asselin, N.C., and Cleator, H. 2010. Baffin Bay narwhal population distribution and numbers: aerial surveys in the Canadian high Arctic, 2002–04 . Arctic 63 (1): 85-99.

Schweinsburg, R.E., Lee, J., and Latour, P. 1980. Polar bear studies in eastern Lancaster Sound and Baffin Bay. Northwest Territories Wildlife Service Report, No. 6, 92 pp.

Schweinsburg, R.E., and Lee, J. 1982. Movement of four satellite-monitored polar bears in Lancaster Sound, Northwest Territories. Arctic 35(4): 504-511.

Schweinsburg, R.E., Lee, J., and Latour, P. 1982. Distribution, movement and abundance of polar bears in Lancaster Sound, Northwest Territories. Arctic 35(1): 159-169.

Smith, D.R., Gowan, R.J., McComb, M. 1989. Geology and Resource Potential of a Proposed National Marine Park, Lancaster Sound, Northwest Territories. Resource Evaluation Branch - Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration, Natural Resources and Economic Development Branch - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, National Parks Directorate, Environment Canada.

Smith, T.G. 1981. Notes on the bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus, in the Canadian Arctic. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1042: v + 49 p.

Smith, T.G. and Hammill, M.O., Burrage, D.J., and Sleno, G.A. 1985. Distribution and abundance of belugas, ( Delphinapterus leucas ) and narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) in the Canadian high Arctic. Can. J Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 674-484.

Smith, T.G., St.Aubin, J. and Hammill, M. 1992. Rubbing behaviour of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas , in a high Arctic estuary. Can. J. Zool. 70: 2405-2409.

Smith, T.G., Hammill, M.O., and Martin, A.R. 1994. Herd composition and behavior of white whales (Delphinapterus leucas ) in two Canadian Arctic estuaries. Meddr Gronland, Biosci. 39: 175-184.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 55 Smith, T.G.and Martin, A.R. 1994. Distribution and movements of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in the Canadian high Arctic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 1653-1663.

Stephenson, S.A., and L. Hartwig. 2010. The Arctic marine workshop: Freshwater Institute Winnipeg, Manitoba, February 16-17, 2010. Can. Manuscript Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2934: vi + 67p.

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.

Stewart, R.E.A. 2008. Redefining walrus stocks in Canada. Arctic 61(3): 292-308. Stirling, I., and Derocher, A.E. 1993. Possible impacts of climate warming on polar bears. Arctic 46(3): 240-245.

Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2008. Mark-recapture and stochastic population models for polar bears of the High Arctic. Arctic 61(2): 143-152.

Teilmann, J., Born, E.W., and Acquarone, M. 1999. Behaviour of ringed seals tagged with satellite transmitters in the North Water polynya during fast-ice formation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1934-1946.

Thiemann, G.W., Derocher, A.E., and Stirling, I. 2008. Polar bear Ursus maritimus conservation in Canada: an ecological basis for identifying designatable units. Oryx 42(4): 504-515.

Tynan, Cynthia T and DeMaster, Douglas P. 1997. Observations and predictions of Arctic climatic change: potential effects on marine mammals. Arctic 50(4): 308-322.

Watts, P.D., Draper, B.A., and Henrico, J. 1991. Preferential use of warm water habitat by adult beluga whales. J. Therm. Biol. 16(1): 57-60.

Welch, H.E., Bergmann, M.A., Siferd, T.D., Martin, K.A., Curtis, M.F., Crawford, R.E., Conover, R.J., and Hop, H. 1992. Energy flow through the marine ecosystem of the Lancaster Sound region, Arctic Canada. Arctic 45(4): 343-357.

Westdal, K. 2009. Inuit traditional ecological knowledge of killer whales: community responses at a glance. Unpublished report prepared for Steve Ferguson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Available from Steve Ferguson.

Westdal, K. 2009. Inuit traditional ecological knowledge of killer whales: Arctic Bay, Nunavut. Unpublished report prepared for Steve Ferguson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Available from Steve Ferguson.

Westdal, K. 2010. Inuit traditional ecological knowledge of killer whales: Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Unpublished report prepared for Steve Ferguson, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Available from Steve Ferguson.

Wiig, O., Aars, J. and Born E.W. 2008. Effects of climate change on polar bears. Science Progress 91(2): 151-173.

Young, B.G., Higdon J.W., and Ferguson, S.H. In Press. Killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) photo-identification in the eastern Canadian Arctic.

Tallurutiup Tariunga Inulik Inuit Participation in Determining the Future of Lancaster Sound 56

ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ Qikiqtani Inuit Association www.qia.ca

This report was made possible with the assistance of Oceans North P.O. Box 1340 Canada (www.oceansnorth.ca) which provided support for the Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Qikiqtani Inuit Association's consultation efforts and applied use of Phone: 867.975.8400 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for Lancaster Sound National Marine Toll-free: 1.800.667.2742 Conservation Area planning." Fax: 867.979.3238