Download pdf - Indigenous Land Claims and Environmental Livelihoodsyukonresearch.yukoncollege.yk.ca/resda/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/... · DRAFT GAP ANALYSIS REPORT #10 Indigenous Land Claims and

DRAFT GAP ANALYSIS REPORT #10

Indigenous Land Claims and Environmental Livelihoods

David Natcher, University of Saskatchewan

Contributions from Larry Felt, Andrea Procter, & Bethany Haalboom In Consultation with the Council of Athabaskan Tribal Governments,

Nunatsiavut Government, and the Little Red River Cree Nation

D. Natcher Indigenous Land Claims & Environmental Livelihoods

ReSDA Draft Gap Analysis Report #10 (2012) 2

Summary

Indigenous livelihoods across the North are diverse, complex, and socially differentiated, and are influenced by the economic, political, and institutional environments in which they are situated. Our knowledge of subsistence economies has been informed by a number of published and unpublished sources. However, these studies are difficult to compare due to a high degree of theoretical and methodological pluralism, and substantial variability in reporting. Missing from much of the existing literature are more in-depth, contextual, and comparative studies that use a common methodology that allow community\regional synthesis, comparison, and data quality controls.

Introduction

Academic interest in indigenous subsistence economies in the Arctic can be traced to a number of factors: 1) subsistence economies provide insight into other social processes, cultural configurations, and changes in individual behavior; 2) harvest studies can reveal some of the acute economic conditions facing many indigenous populations throughout the Arctic; and 3) subsistence data are uniquely qualified to address the emergence of wildlife conservation concerns. This existing literature can be divided into two general groupings - theoretical and applied studies. The latter refers primarily to close-range studies of food procurement in regions, communities, or for specific resources. The former, or more theoretical grouping, reflect studies that utilize subsistence data to advance social theory, for instance theories of acculturation and modernization as gleaned through the observance of food habits or local forms of economy. Collectively, subsistence studies provide effective starting points for investigating cultural, economic and political dynamics in the North. Within the two general grouping noted above (theoretical and applied), subsistence studies can be further organized into a number of themes (see below). It is important to note that many, if not most of the studies identified may overlap into other categories. However, for the purpose of this Gap Analysis, this type of organization offers a useful frame of reference to situate research trends, and serves as a conceptual starting point for the Gap Analysis and identification of problem areas in the sections that follow (the references listed below are only representative of a much larger body of literature that can be found in this area).



A. Studies of Subsistence with Primarily Descriptive, Empirical and/or Practical Emphasis

Types of Studies

1. Anthropological (Predominantly Descriptive)

This heading is used arbitrarily to organize studies that have a more or less cultural orientation. The studies that are included here span disciplinary boundaries.

• Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert J. Walker. 1987. Subsistence Economies in Alaska:

Productivity, Geography, and Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 24(2): 56-81.

• Wenzel, George, 2005. Canadian Inuk Subsistence and Economy. In Socio-Economic Research on Management Systems of Living Resources: Strategies, Recommendations and Examples. Proceedings of the Workshop on Social and Ecological Research Related to the Management of Marine Resources in West Greenland, L. Muller-Wille, M.C.S. Kingsley and S.S. Nielson (eds.). Nuuk: Greenland Institute of Natural Resources: 146-151.

• Ellanna, L. J. and G. K. Sherrod, 1984. The Role of Kinship Linkages in Subsistence Production: Some Implications for Community Organization. Technical Paper No.100. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau.

• Magdanz, J.S., Utermohle, C.J. and Wolfe, R.J. 2002. The Production and Distribution of Wild Food in Wales and Deering, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Technical Paper 259. Juneau, Alaska.

2. Sociological and Rural Economic Studies (Descriptive and Practical)

• Bisseit, D. 1974. Resource Harvests - Hunter-Trappers in the Mackenzie Valley. Task Force on Northern Oil Development, ReportNo.74-42. Ottawa: Information Canada. 208 p.

• Donaldson, J. 1984. 1982 Wildlife Harvest Statistics for the Baffin Region, N.W.T. Baffin Region Inuit Association, Technical Report No2, 64 p.

• Finley, K.J., and Miller, G.W. 1980. Wildlife Harvest Statistics from Clyde River, Grise Fiord and Pond Inlet, 1979. Prepared for Petro-Canada Explorations by LGL Ltd., Toronto3. 7 p. Available from LGL Ltd., Box 457, King City, Ontario LOG 1KO.

• Gamble, R.L. 1984. A Preliminary Study of the Native Harvest of Wildlife in the Keewatin Region, Northwest Territories Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No 1: 48 p.

• McEachern, J. 1978. A survey of resource harvesting, Eskimo Point NWT, 1975-77. Prepared for Polar Gas Project, Quest Socio-Economic Consultants Inc., Delta, B.C. 2681A3v. Available at Polar Gas Project, Box 90, Commerce



Court West, Toronto, Ontario M5L 1H3. • Riewe, R.R. 1977. The Utilization of wildlife in the Jones Sound region by the

Grise Fiord Inuit. In: Bliss, L.E., ed. Truelove Lowland, Devon Island, Canada: A high Arctic ecosystem. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press: 623-64.

• Usher, P.J. 1982. Renewable Resources in the Future of Northern Labrador. Nain, Labrador: Labrador Inuit Association.

3. General Nutrition

This category includes a large number of studies on the food habits and nutrition of indigenous peoples in the North based on primary and secondary data sources.

• Wein, Eleanor E. and Milton M.R. Freeman, 1995. Frequency of Traditional Food Use by Three Yukon First Nations Living in Four Communities. Arctic, Vol. 48(2) 161-171.

• Mackey, M.G.A., and Orr, R.D. 1987. The Evaluation of Household Country Food Use in Makkovik, Labrador, July 1980-June 1981. Arctic 40: 60-65.

• Schuster, R.C., Wein, E.E., Dickson, C., Chan, H.M., 2011. Importance of traditional foods for the food security of two First Nations communities in the Yukon, Canada. Int. J., Circumpolar Health, Jun; 70(3): 286-300.

• Peace R, N Hidiroglou, P Jee, D Leggee and H Kuhnlein (2008) Levels of folate, pyridoxine, niacin and riboflavin in traditional foods of Canadian Arctic Indigenous Peoples. J. Food Compos. Anal. 21: 474-480.

• Egeland GM, G Charbonneau-Roberts, J Kuluguqtuq, J Kilabuk, L Okalik, R Soueida and HV Kuhnlein (2009) Back to the Future: Using Traditional Food and Knowledge to Promote a Healthy Future among Inuit. In: Kuhnlein HV, B Erasmus and D Spigelski. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: the Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

5. Wildlife Management (with emphasis on conservation)

• Sumida, V.A., and D.B. Anderson. 1990. Patterns of Fish and Wildlife Use for Subsistence in Fort Yukon, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 179, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division, Juneau.

• Caulfield, R.A. 1983. Subsistence Land Use in Upper Yukon-Porcupine Communities, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 16, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division, Juneau.

• Jingfors, K. 1986. Inuit harvesting levels of caribou in the Kitikmeot Region, Northwest Territories, Canada, 1982-1984. Rangifer , special issue no. 1:167-172.

• Byers, T. and D.L. Dickson, 2001 Spring Migration and Subsistence Hunting of King and Common Eiders at Holman, NWT, 1996-1998. Arctic, 54(2): 122-134.



• Nagy, John and Paul Fraser, 1993. Fort McPherson Caribou Harvest Study. Department of Renewable Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Inuvik, NWT.

6. TEK and Wildlife Harvesting

• Gilchrist, G., M. Mallory and F. Merkel 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society 10(1): 20. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art20/

• Ferguson, Michael and Francois Messier, 1997. Collection and Analysis of Traditional Ecological Knowledge about a Population of Arctic Tundra Caribou. Arctic, Vol. 50(1): 17-28.

7. Multidisciplinary

• Wolfe, Brent B. Murray M. Humphries, Michael F.J. Pisaric, Ann M. Balasubramaniam, Chris R. Burn, Laurie Chan, Dorothy Cooley, Duane G. Froese, Shel Graupe, Roland I. Hall, Trevor Lantz, Trevor J. Porter, Pascale Roy-Leveillee, Kevin W. Turner, Sonia D. Wesche and Megan Williams, 2011. Environmental Change and Traditional Use of the Old Crow Flats in Northern Canada: An IPY Opportunity to Meet the Challenges of the New Northern Research Paradigm. Arctic, Vol. 64(1): 127-135.

B. Studies with Small-Scale Theoretical Framework or Implied Theory

8. Anthropological (including Modernization/Acculturation Studies)

Again, this heading is used arbitrarily to organize studies that have a more or less cultural orientation. The studies that are included here span disciplinary boundaries.

• Chabot, Marcelle, 2003. Economic Changes, Household Strategies, and Social Relations of Contemporary Nunavik Inuit. Polar Record, Vol. 39(208): 19-34.

• Dombrowski, Kirk, 2007. Lifestyle and Livelihood: Culture Politics and Alaska Native Subsistence. Anthropologica, 49(2): 211-230.

• Chance Norman, 1987. Subsistence Research in Alaska: Premises, Practices and Prospects. Human Organization, 46(1): 85-89.

• Duhaime Gerard and Nick Bernard, 2008. Arctic Food Security. Canadian Circumpolar Press. Edmonton, Alberta.

• Gombay, Nicole, 2010. Making a Living: Place, Food, and Economy in an Inuit Community. Purich Publishing: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

• Wenzel George, 1981. Clyde Inuit Adaption and Ecology: The Organization of Subsistence. National Museum of Canada: Ottawa, ON.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art20/



C. Studies Associated with Indigenous Land Claims

The roots of contemporary harvesting studies in Alaska can in many ways be traced to the 1971 settlement of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and subsequent signing of the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which served as the federal subsistence law and led to the establishment of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. The mandate of the Division of Subsistence was to “compile existing data and conduct studies to gather information, including data from subsistence users, on all aspects of the role of subsistence hunting and fishing in the lives of the residents of the state” (Fall, nd). Since that time the Division of Subsistence has conducted subsistence research on the “who, what, when, where, how, and how much” of wildlife harvesting (Fall, nd). This information is now used to support the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game in developing subsistence regulations consistent with sustained yield management. In Canada, one of the earliest studies was conducted in Nunavik. In September 1975, the Northern Quebec Inuit Association initiated a seven-year study entitled Research to Establish Present Levels of Native Harvesting. The study set out to determine the extent of Inuit harvesting; information that would then be used to establish a “best estimate” of harvest levels by species and community (JBNQRMC, 1988: v). The objective of the harvest study was to provide data needed to negotiate and establish guaranteed levels of harvesting for the Inuit populations covered by the JBNQA. The Inuvialuit Harvest Study was conducted from 1988 to 1997. The object of the IHS was to obtain a continuous, long-term record of Inuvialuit harvest levels for each of the six regional communities (Joint Secretariat, 2003: 2-3). Harvest data were to be used by co-management boards and other wildlife and fisheries agencies to determine and recommend subsistence quotas. Environmental screening and impact review boards also use harvest information to fulfill their role in dealing with resource development and for determining compensation in cases of loss or damage [13(2), 13(8) and for remedies 13(18)(b)] (Joint Secretariat 2003). The Gwich’in Harvest Study (GHS) was a requirement of the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992) (Section 12.5.6). The objective of the GHS was to record the number of animals, fish and birds harvested by Gwich’in within the Settlement Area. These harvest levels would then be used to calculate Gwich’in Minimum Need Levels and would inform the management efforts of the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board (GRRB) and other government partners.



The Sahtu Settlement Harvest Study was required under the Sahtu Land Claim Agreement (1993). Administered by the Sahtu Renewable Resource Board, the Study recorded the total number of fish and wildlife harvested by Sahtu Dene and Métis between 1998 and 2003. Those harvest estimates were then used to establish the ‘minimum need levels’ of Sahtu Dene and Métis and used for wildlife management purposes in the Sahtu. The Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study (NWHS) was mandated by the Nunavut Lands Claim Agreement (NLCA) and carried out under the direction of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB). Harvest data were collected monthly from Inuit hunters between June 1996 and May 2001. The purposes of the Harvest Study were to determine current harvesting levels and patterns of Inuit use of wildlife resources, aid in the management of wildlife resources of Nunavut, and to establish ‘basic needs levels’ (BNLs). With the settlement of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (LILCA - 2005), Inuit of Nunatsiavut secured clearly defined rights to a 72,500km2 land-base and a 48,690km2 of coastal zone. Within the settlement region, Inuit residents have the right to harvest wildlife resources in order to meet their domestic needs or Inuit Domestic Harvest Limits. Domestic need is defined as the amount of resources necessary to satisfy individual non-commercial use as well as fulfill social and ceremonial purposes. Levels of domestic need are based on historic harvesting levels derived from available data (i.e., harvest studies). The use of domestic harvest levels as a basis for wildlife harvesting policy was promoted by the federal and provincial governments for its ability to set clearly defined harvest limits and facilitate effective monitoring and enforcement capabilities. Since its settlement, the Nunatsiavut Government has implemented a community harvest study program that is establishing IDHLs for 138 different species and resources used by Inuit residing within the Nunatsiavut Settlement Region (study is ongoing). Gap Analysis Across the North wildlife harvesting takes place within a socio-ecological context that is broadly defined by: biophysical conditions; demographic change; cultural preferences; political and market-related factors; mandates of government agencies; and by the involvement of various external actors and interests groups (i.e., animal rights organizations). These contextual factors, as well as internal household dynamics, influence how households utilize environmental resources (Natcher, 2009). Failing to appreciate the complexity and the context in which subsistence harvesting is situated, data interpretation is at best speculative.



If one is interested only in the number of a certain species harvested during a defined period of time then quantitative surveys may be sufficient. However, quantitative surveys alone do not uncover how people’s livelihood choices are embedded in culture and history, as well as within the economic and political settings at which they occur (Cundill et al. 2011: 72). In our opinion this has been one of the major shortcoming of previous subsistence studies in that they have often failed to fully acknowledge the structural barriers and opportunities that influence the options available to community harvesters (Nelson et al., 2005) or the formal and informal institutions that influence resource use (Wenzel, 1981, 1991, 2005). Inquiring about locally informed rules governing access to different resources is therefore a critical step in collecting contextual information and is necessary to account for the relative heterogeneity of indigenous communities (Natcher et al, 2012). In the context of this Gap Analysis we are particularly interested in how land claims and the associated regulatory regimes have affected harvesting, processing, and distribution of wild foods. Have land claims created greater or lesser-perceived certainty in relation to wildlife harvesting? Do regulations facilitate or frustrate cooperation among households? Are patterns of harvest or distribution different for strictly regulated species like caribou or beluga? In the absence of ‘formal’ institutions arising from the land claims (i.e., HSP), what ‘informal’, traditional, or local institutions have emerged to help facilitate access to wildlife resources? As noted by John Bennett (1946: 568) more than 60 years ago, subsistence ‘data’ have very little meaning unless they relate to wider horizons of society and culture.” Viewed in this way, subsistence studies can hardly constitute a significant field of inquiry and should rather be treated simply as entry points to problems of great depth. Using harvest studies to establish minimal need levels, as in the case in all land claim initiated studies, may also be problematic. While satisfying the interests of federal, territorial and provincial managers, this approach to wildlife management (more accurately, people management) may prove disadvantageous to harvesters. First, due to the lack of longitudinal data, domestic harvest levels are based on harvest ‘snapshots’ that may fail to reflect the complexity and variability of indigenous resource use overtime. Second, setting domestic harvest levels or quotas may conflict with the customary rules used by indigenous communities for harvesting wildlife species – rules based on respect and reciprocity between hunter(s) and prey. For countless generations, indigenous peoples across the North have lived and thrived in an environment best characterized by variability and change. Responding to the presence or scarcity of wildlife resources, indigenous peoples have learned to adapt their land use patterns, stewardship practices, and harvesting strategies in response to an ever-changing environment (Natcher et al.,



2009). Unencumbered by government intervention, indigenous peoples relied on their own norms, values and institutions to mediate their relationship with the land and animals. Yet over the past fifty years the situation has changed dramatically as governments, often in the name of conservation, have assumed principal roles in wildlife management. In the place of traditional knowledge as the relational basis for Aboriginal engagement with the environment, government scientists and managers now stress the need to calculate resource population levels against human demand. Once sufficient information becomes available, probability statistics, replete with their confidence intervals and other factors of probability, are used to chart population dynamics for any given species in order to allocate harvesting rights to various groups. Today, wildlife harvesting studies have became common practice across the north. The seeming legitimacy of this process has been so compelling that indigenous governments, who continue their struggle to regain control over their lands, agree to participate, if not fully embrace this approach, even though they often times struggle with how such approaches can co-exist with their own values. There is also a very fundamental difference in what ‘subsistence’ means to indigenous harvesters versus government wildlife managers. For example, in Labrador, Inuit economies have been driven by the changing positions of government – in some cases promoting Inuit self-sufficiency as harvesters and in other times calling upon Inuit to adapt to the ‘modern’ world by abandoning their subsistence harvesting altogether. As the debate between these choices developed during the 20th Century, policy-makers often relied on a simplified (and ill-informed) understanding of Inuit subsistence – that being the means to support oneself and family at a minimum or basic level through the harvest of wildlife resources – and in direct contrast with commercial economic practices, such as wage labour, and other means of participation in the cash economy. When the land claims negotiation process began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the position of the federal and territorial governments was to recognize Inuit harvesting in a polemic and simplified context. Inuit negotiators were at pains to convey a more accurate understanding of the complex nature of subsistence harvesting, one that was imbued with cultural meaning. For Inuit, as well as other indigenous peoples in the North, subsistence is as much an economic pursuit as it is an expression and perpetuation of cultural values. As noted by Williamson (1997, p. iv) for Inuit of Nunatsiavut, wildlife harvesting is not simply an economic activity, but rather only a facet, albeit a central one, of a way of life laden with values that bind and bond Inuit to each other and to place. For Inuit, ‘subsistence’ does not imply poverty, rather its practice indicates wealth, freedom, and wholeness (Williamson 1997, p. iv).



In staunch contrast, and despite the best efforts of Inuit negotiators, subsistence in Nunatsiavut was ultimately defined in the LILCA as “hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering Wildlife and Plants as the primary, non-commercial means of providing food and fuel for the immediate household of an individual carrying out the hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering activity” (LILCA 2004: 161). While this definition was ultimately agreed to by Inuit negotiators, and ratified by Inuit themselves, the definition nonetheless fails to capture the equally important social and cultural dimensions of wildlife harvesting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a considerable literature exists that underscores the importance of wildlife harvesting in achieving food security and well-being in northern Aboriginal communities (Chabot, 2003; Duhaime and Bernard, 2008; Gombay, 2010). This same body of research also acknowledges the critical role of Aboriginal land rights in securing access to natural resources (Usher, 1983; Scott and Feit, 1992; Usher et al., 1992; Theriault et al., 2008). While the research that quantifies the contribution of environmental resources in the livelihoods of Aboriginal communities is slowly increasing, it has yet to be widely acknowledged in policy circles. The general shortage of representative studies, coupled with the diversity in the quality and methods used, leave key questions unanswered. Yet answers to these questions are essential in designing more effective policies, particularly as the North experiences increasing pressure from changes in climate and industrial development in the future.

Cited and other Relevant Literature

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 1980. United States of America: Washington, DC.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 1971 (P.L. 92-203). United States of America: Washington, DC.

Bennett, John W. 1946. An Interpretation of the Scope and Implications of Social Scientific Research in Human Subsistence. American Anthropologists, Vol. 48: 553-573.

Bisseit, D. 1974. Resource Harvests - Hunter-Trappers in the Mackenzie Valley. Task Force

on Northern Oil Development, ReportNo.74-42. Ottawa: Information Canada. 208 p. Byers, T. and D.L. Dickson, 2001 Spring Migration and Subsistence Hunting of King and

Common Eiders at Holman, NWT, 1996-1998. Arctic, 54(2): 122-134.



Case, David, 1998. Will Federal or State Management Afford Alaska Natives a More Effective Voice? Cultural Survival. Source URL: http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/will-federal-or-state-management-afford-alaska-natives-a-more-effective-

Case, David. 1989. Subsistence and Self-Determination: Can Alaska Natives Have a More Effective Voice? Colorado Law Review, Vol. 60(4): 1009-35.

Caulfield, R.A. 1983. Subsistence Land Use in Upper Yukon-Porcupine Communities, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 16, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division, Juneau.

Chabot, Marcelle, 2003. Economic Changes, Household Strategies, and Social Relations of Contemporary Nunavik Inuit. Polar Record, Vol. 39(208): 19-34.

Chance Norman, 1987. Subsistence Research in Alaska: Premises, Practices and Prospects. Human Organization, 46(1): 85-89.

Dombrowski, Kirk, 2007. Lifestyle and Livelihood: Culture Politics and Alaska Native Subsistence.” Anthropologica, 49(2): 211-230.

Donaldson, J. 1984. 1982 Wildlife Harvest Statistics for the Baffin Region, N.W.T. Baffin Region Inuit Association, Technical Report No2, 64 p.

Doubleday, Nancy C. 1989. Co-Management Provisions of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

In Evelyn Pinkerton (ed.), New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, British Columbia: 74-93.

Duhaime Gerard and Nick Bernard, 2008. Arctic Food Security. Canadian Circumpolar Press. Edmonton, Alberta.

Duhaime, Gerard, Marcelle Chabot and Marco Gaudreault, 2002. Food Consumption Patterns and Socio Economic Factors Among the Inuit of Nunavik. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Vol. 41(2): 91-118.

Egeland GM, G Charbonneau-Roberts, J Kuluguqtuq, J Kilabuk, L Okalik, R Soueida and HV Kuhnlein (2009) Back to the Future: Using Traditional Food and Knowledge to Promote a Healthy Future among Inuit. In: Kuhnlein HV, B Erasmus and D Spigelski. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: the Many Dimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Ellanna, L. J. and G. K. Sherrod, 1984. The Role of Kinship Linkages in Subsistence Production: Some Implications for Community Organization. Technical Paper No.100. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau.

Fall, James, nd. Why There is a Division of Subsistence at ADF&G. Alaska Fish and Wildlife

Management News (391(65): http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=391&issue_id=65

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/will-federal-or-state-management-afford-alaska-natives-a-more-effective-

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/will-federal-or-state-management-afford-alaska-natives-a-more-effective-

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=391&issue_id=65

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=391&issue_id=65



Ferguson, Michael and Francois Messier, 1997. Collection and Analysis of Traditional Ecological Knowledge about a Population of Arctic Tundra Caribou. Arctic, Vol. 50(1): 17-28.

Finley, K.J., and Miller, G.W. 1980. Wildlife Harvest Statistics from Clyde River, Grise Fiord

and Pond Inlet, 1979. Prepared for Petro-Canada Explorations by LGL Ltd., Toronto3. 7 p. Available from LGL Ltd., Box 457, King City, Ontario LOG 1KO.

Gamble, R.L. 1984. A Preliminary Study of the Native Harvest of Wildlife in the Keewatin Region, Northwest Territories Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No 1: 48 p.

Gilchrist, G., M. Mallory and F. Merkel 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to

wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society 10(1): 20. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art20/

Gombay, Nicole, 2010. Making a Living: Place, Food, and Economy in an Inuit Community.

Purich Publishing: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement, 1975. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Jingfors, K. 1986. Inuit harvesting levels of caribou in the Kitikmeot Region, Northwest Territories, Canada, 1982-1984. Rangifer , special issue no. 1:167-172.

Joint Secretariat. 2003. Inuvialuit Harvest Study, Data and Methods Report 1988 – 1997,

Inuvik: Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat.

Langdon, Steven J. 1986. Contemporary Alaskan Native Economies. New York: University Press of America.

Mackey, M.G.A., and Orr, R.D. 1987. The Evaluation of Household Country Food Use in Makkovik, Labrador, July 1980-June 1981. Arctic 40: 60-65.

Magdanz, J.S., Utermohle, C.J. and Wolfe, R.J. 2002. The Production and Distribution of

Wild Food in Wales and Deering, Alaska. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Technical Paper 259. Juneau, Alaska.

Martin, Thibault. 2003. De la banquise au congélateur: mondialisation et culture au

Nunavik. Québec: Les Presses de l'Université Laval. McEachern, J. 1978. A survey of resource harvesting, Eskimo Point NWT, 1975-77.

Prepared for Polar Gas Project, Quest Socio-Economic Consultants Inc., Delta, B.C. 2681A3v. Available at Polar Gas Project, Box 90, Commerce Court West, Toronto, Ontario M5L 1H3.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art20/



Morehouse, Thomas A., 1987. Native Claims and Political Development: A Comparative

Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Kona, Hawaii, February 19.

Nagy, John and Paul Fraser, 1993. Fort McPherson Caribou Harvest Study. Department of Renewable Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Inuvik, NWT.

Nettheim, Garth, Gary D. Meyers and Donna Craig, 2002. Indigenous Peoples and Governance Structures: A Comparative Analysis of Land and Resource management Rights. Aboriginal Studies Press: Canberra, Australia.

Peace R, N Hidiroglou, P Jee, D Leggee and H Kuhnlein (2008) Levels of folate, pyridoxine, niacin and riboflavin in traditional foods of Canadian Arctic Indigenous Peoples. J. Food Compos. Anal. 21: 474-480.

Riewe, R.R. 1977. The Utilization of wildlife in the Jones Sound region by the Grise Fiord Inuit. In: Bliss, L.E., ed. Truelove Lowland, Devon Island, Canada: A high Arctic ecosystem. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press: 623-64.

Schuster, R.C., Wein, E.E., Dickson, C., Chan, H.M., 2011. Importance of traditional foods

for the food security of two First Nations communities in the Yukon, Canada. Int. J., Circumpolar Health, Jun; 70(3): 286-300.

Scott, Colin and Harvey Feit, 1992. Income Security for Cree Hunters: Ecological, Social and Economic Effects. Montreal: McGill Program in the Anthropology of Development Monograph Series.

Sumida, V.A., and D.B. Anderson. 1990. Patterns of Fish and Wildlife Use for Subsistence in Fort Yukon, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 179, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division, Juneau.

Theriault, Sophie, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime and Christopher Furgal, 2008. The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of Food Security for the Inuit of Alaska. In Gerard

Thornton, Thomas, 2007. Alaska Native Corporations and Subsistence: Paradoxical Forces in the making of Sustainable Communities. In Carl A. Maida (ed.), Sustainability and Communities of Place. New York: Berghahn Books: 41-62.

Thornton, Thomas, 2001. Subsistence in Northern Communities: Lessons from Alaska. The Northern Review, 23: 82-102.

Thomas, F. and T. Thornton, 1998. Alaska Native Subsistence: A Matter of Cultural Survival. Cultural Survival 22: Source URL: http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/alaska-native-subsistence-a-matter-cultural-survival

Usher, P.J. 1982. Renewable Resources in the Future of Northern Labrador. Nain,

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/alaska-native-subsistence-a-matter-cultural-survival

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/alaska-native-subsistence-a-matter-cultural-survival



Labrador: Labrador Inuit Association. Usher, Peter 1983. Property Rights: The Basis of Wildlife Management in National and

Regional Interests in the North. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa: 389-415.

Usher, Peter J., Frank J. Tough and Robert M. Galois, 1992. Reclaiming the Land: Aboriginal Title, Treaty Rights and Land Claims in Canada. Applied Geography, 12:109-132

Wein, Eleanor E. and Milton M.R. Freeman, 1995. Frequency of Traditional Food Use by Three Yukon First Nations Living in Four Communities. Arctic, Vol. 48(2) 161-171.

Wenzel, George 1981. Clyde Inuit Adaption and Ecology: The Organization of Subsistence. National Museum of Canada: Ottawa, ON.

Wenzel, George 2005. Canadian Inuk Subsistence and Economy. In Socio-Economic Research on Management Systems of Living Resources: Strategies, Recommendations and Examples. Proceedings of the Workshop on Social and Ecological Research Related to the Management of Marine Resources in West Greenland, L. Muller-Wille, M.C.S. Kingsley and S.S. Nielson (eds.). Nuuk: Greenland Institute of Natural Resources: 146-151.

Wolfe, Brent B. Murray M. Humphries, Michael F.J. Pisaric, Ann M. Balasubramaniam, Chris R. Burn, Laurie Chan, Dorothy Cooley, Duane G. Froese, Shel Graupe, Roland I. Hall, Trevor Lantz, Trevor J. Porter, Pascale Roy-Leveillee, Kevin W. Turner, Sonia D. Wesche and Megan Williams, 2011. Environmental Change and Traditional Use of the Old Crow Flats in Northern Canada: An IPY Opportunity to Meet the Challenges of the New Northern Research Paradigm. Arctic, Vol. 64(1): 127-135.

Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert J. Walker. 1987. Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 24(2): 56-81.