INUIT KNOWLEDGE AND OBSERVATIONS OF CHANGES IN ARCTIC CHAR
(SALVELINUS ALPINUS) AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SUBSISTENCE LIVELIHOODS
IN ULUKHAKTOK, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, CANADA
by
Jessica Smart
B.A. Hon., Wilfrid Laurier University, 2019

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
October 2021
© Jessica Smart, 2021

ABSTRACT
This thesis documents and examines recent changes observed in anadromous Arctic char
(Iqalukpik) (Salvelinus alpinus) in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada, including how
these changes are being experienced and responded to by community members. Ulukhaktomiut
identified a need to document their knowledge and observations of Arctic char to help inform comanagement. The analysis of 20 semi-structured interviews with Ulukhaktomiut revealed six
main concerns about Arctic char linked to changes arising in the local environment: (1) presence
of salmon, (2) increasing temperature, (3) inconsistent sea and lake ice conditions, (4) changing
weather patterns, (5) fluctuating water levels, and (6) the recent presence of tunicates in the
ocean. Ulukhaktomiut respond to these changes at the individual and community levels,
including altering fishing practices and temporarily halting commercial fishing. The results show
that Ulukhaktomiut are astute observers of their local environment and are able to share highly
detailed knowledge and observations of Arctic char. Environmental changes are emerging
quickly, and there is a great deal of uncertainty among Ulukhaktomiut about why these changes
are occurring and what impact they may have on Arctic char. Fisheries management structures
will need to be flexible and responsive to ongoing local observations and the best available
science to sustain a viable Arctic char fishery now and into the future.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................. II
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................. VI
GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................................. VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................................... IX
POSITIONALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... XI
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 THESIS ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCTIC CHAR ................................................... 4
2.1.1 The Arctic Char, Iqalukpik, Salvelinus alpinus ........................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Surface Air Temperature & Precipitation ................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Sea Ice ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.4 Sea Surface Temperature .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.5 Arctic Rivers and Lakes ............................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.6 Wildlife Responses to Environmental Change .......................................................................................... 12
2.2 VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION ................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.1 Definitions and Conceptualizations .......................................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Frameworks and Approaches .................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 WILDLIFE CO-MANAGEMENT IN THE CANADIAN ARCTIC ............................................................................. 19
2.3.1 Concepts in Co-Management .................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.2 Resource Management in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region ...................................................................... 23
2.4. TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ............................................................................................................................ 25
2.4.1 Ways of Knowing ....................................................................................................................................... 25
2.4.2 Engaging with Traditional Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 29
2.4.3 Documenting Traditional Knowledge ....................................................................................................... 29
2.4.4 Knowledge Co-Production & Co-Management in the Arctic ................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 34
3.1 REFLECTING ON ADAPTING COMMUNITY -BASED RESEARCH IN A TIME OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC ........... 35
3.1.1 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................................................ 37
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH ..................................................................................................................................... 38
3.2.1 Early and Ongoing Communication: Pre-Research Consultation Visit ................................................... 38
3.2.2 Ethical and Practical Considerations and Research Regulations ............................................................ 40
3.2.3 Conceptual Framework: Vulnerability Approach ..................................................................................... 41
3.3 DESIGN : CASE STUDY ....................................................................................................................................... 42
3.3.1 Inuvialuit Settlement Region: Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories ............................................................ 42
3.3.2 Arctic Char in Ulukhaktok......................................................................................................................... 44
3.3.3 Fish Lake, “Tatiik Lake”........................................................................................................................... 45
3.3.4 Arctic Char Co-Management in Ulukhaktok ............................................................................................. 46
3.4 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................... 46
3.4.1 Local Research Assistant Recruitment ...................................................................................................... 46
3.4.2 Participant Selection ................................................................................................................................. 48
3.4.2 Data Collection: Semi-Structured Interviews ........................................................................................... 49
3.4.3 Qualitative Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 51

iii

3.4.4 Analysis of Secondary Sources of Information.......................................................................................... 52
3.5 PROJECT LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS........................................................................................................................................... 55
4.1 ULUKHAKTOMIUT KNOWLEDGE AND OBSERVATIONS OF ARCTIC CHAR ..................................................... 57
4.1.1 Ulukhaktomiut Relationship with Arctic Char .......................................................................................... 57
4.1.2 Fishing Efforts ........................................................................................................................................... 58
4.1.3 Uses of Arctic Char ................................................................................................................................... 62
4.1.4 Knowledge about Phenotypic in Arctic Char ............................................................................................ 64
4.2 EXPOSURE-SENSITIVITIES AFFECTING INUIT-ARCTIC CHAR INTERACTIONS .............................................. 68
4.2.1 Changes Observed in the Local Environment ........................................................................................... 70
4.2.2 Changes Observed in Arctic Char ............................................................................................................. 81
4.3 ADAPTIVE RESPONSES TO CHANGE ................................................................................................................. 87
4.3.1 Individual Level Responses ....................................................................................................................... 87
4.3.2 Community Level Responses ..................................................................................................................... 90
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 103
5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 103
5.2 SCHOLARLY CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 106
5.3 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 107
5.4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 108
REFERENCES CITED ........................................................................................................................................... 110
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... 120
APPENDIX I: UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL .............................. 120
APPENDIX II: AURORA RESEARCH INSTITUTE RESEARCH LICENSE ....................................................................... 121
APPENDIX III: JOB OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LOCAL RESEARCH ASSISTANT .............................................................. 122
APPENDIX IV: CALL FOR WORKERS POSTER DISPLAYED AROUND ULUKHAKTOK .................................................. 123
APPENDIX V: INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................................................................ 124
APPENDIX VI: OLOKHAKTOMIUT HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS COMMITTEE LETTER OF SUPPORT ............................. 126
APPENDIX VII: OLOKHAKTOMIUT HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS COMMITTEE INITIAL LETTER OF SUPPORT ............... 127
APPENDIX VIII: PACIFIC SALMON TRADED INTO THE ARCTIC SALMON PROGRAM BY HARVESTERS .................... 128
APPENDIX IX: ULUKHAKTOK MEAN TEMPERATURE UNDER LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH EMISSION SCENARIOS ....... 129
APPENDIX X: MAP OF ULUKHAKTOK: JACKS BAY, QUEENS BAY, KINGS BAY ..................................................... 130
APPENDIX XI: SAMPLE QUOTES EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE ACOUSTIC TAGGING PROGRAM...................... 131

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Traditional and scientific approaches to knowing. ....................................................................................... 28
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of 24 interview participants. .......................................................................... 49
Table 3: Interview guide highlighting key themes and example interview questions. ................................................. 50
Table 4: Seasonal harvest of Arctic char in the summer and fall in Ulukhaktok. ....................................................... 58
Table 5: Summary of Arctic char characteristics from key fishing locations.............................................................. 65
Table 6: Six changes observed in the local environment by participants.................................................................... 69
Table 7: Summary of local observations and instrumental measurements of change in and around Ulukhaktok...... 70
Table 8: Seven concerns about Arctic char discussed by participants ordered from highest to lowest...................... 81
Table 9: Individual level responses to recent environmental changes and changes observed in Arctic char. ........... 88

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Analytical framework for vulnerability assessment (Smit & Wandel, 2006). ............................................. 19
Figure 2: Key considerations for engaging with Arctic communities (Pearce et al., 2009) ....................................... 40
Figure 3: Study location, Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories ..................................................................................... 44
Figure 4: Radial Tree Chart Displaying Hierarchy of Interview Themes .................................................................. 52
Figure 5: System diagram displaying interview data.................................................................................................. 56
Figure 6: Piffi hanging to dry in Ulukhaktok. Photo: T. Pearce................................................................................. 63
Figure 7: Map of popular Arctic char fishing locations across western Victoria Island. .......................................... 68

v

LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACUNS

Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies

ARI

Aurora Research Institute

CBM

Community-Based Monitoring

DFO

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

FJMC

Fisheries Joint Management Committee

HTCs

Inuvialuit Hunters and Trappers Committees

IASSA

International Arctic Social Sciences Association

IFA

Inuvialuit Final Agreement

IGC

Inuvialuit Game Council

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISR

Inuvialuit Settlement Region

NT/NWT

Northwest Territories

OHTC

Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee

PAS

Prince Albert Sound

RCP

Representative Concentration Pathway

RNH

Risks and Natural Hazard

SES

Social-Ecological Systems

SST

Sea Surface Temperature

TEK

Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TK

Traditional Knowledge

UCWG

Ulukhaktok Char Working Group

vi

GLOSSARY
Adaptive Capacity: The ability of social actors or systems to cope with change or disturbance
and/or learn through uncertainty (Armitage et al., 2010).
Adaptive Co-Management: A process whereby institutional arrangements and ecological
knowledge are tested and revised in an ongoing, self-organized, and dynamic process of learningby-doing (Armitage et al., 2010).
Adaptive Management: A strategic learning-by-doing or quasi-experimental approach to the
management of natural resources encouraged by institutional flexibility (Armitage et al., 2010).
Anadromous: refers to migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea, returning to
freshwater to spawn (Kristofferson, 2003).
Co-Management: A resource management partnership in which local users and other
stakeholders share power and responsibility with government agencies (Armitage et al., 2010).
Ikgalukpik: Inuinnaqtun for char that migrate to the ocean in the Spring.
Inuinnaqtun: Inuit language spoken in Ulukhaktok.
Iqalukpik: Inuinnaqtun for “Arctic char.”
Ivittakguk: Inuinnaqtun for spawning fish returning to the lakes in the fall, also known as “the red
ones” or “red bellies.”
Knowledge Co-production: A collaborative process of bringing a plurality of knowledge sources
and types together to address a defined problem and build an integrated or systems-oriented
understanding of that problem (Armitage et al., 2011).
Knowledge System: Knowledge claims, values and standards, epistemologist, and structures that
shape knowledge use (Wyborn et al., 2019).
Piffi: Inuinnaqtun for “dried fish.”
Quaq: Inuinnaqtun for the consumption of “frozen raw” meat.
Resilience: The capacity to cope with stress and shocks by responding or reorganizing in ways
that maintain essential identity, function, and structures, as well as the capacity to navigate and
shape change, including transformational change. (Carson & Peterson, 2016, p. xvii).
Science: Knowledge and information derived from relevant facts (that can be seen, heard, and
touched) rather than personal opinion (Chalmers, 2013).

vii

Self-organization: In adaptive co-management, self-organization involves the emergence of
actors working in a collaborative and creative process, often drawing on a range of knowledge
sources and ideas, to resolve issues and move forward in response to disturbance (Armitage et al.,
2010).
Social-Ecological Systems: An integrated system that includes human societies and ecosystems.
The functions of such a system arise from the interactions and interdependence of the social and
ecological subsystems. The system’s structure is characterized by reciprocal feedbacks (Carson &
Peterson, 2016, p. xvii).
Social Learning: The collaborative or mutual development and sharing of knowledge by multiple
stakeholders through learning-by-doing (Armitage et al., 2010).
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (“TEK”): The system of experiential knowledge gained by
continual observation and transmitted among members of a community. It is a set framework that
encompasses both ecology and the interactions of humans and their environment on physical and
spiritual planes (Huntington, 1998).
Traditional Knowledge (“TK”): The cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and beliefs,
evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generated by cultural transmissions,
about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their
environment (Berkes, 1999).
Vulnerability: Vulnerability is “related to both the differential exposure and sensitivity of
communities to stimuli such as climate change and also to the particular adaptative capacities of
those communities to deal with the effects or risks associated with the exposures” (Smit &
Wandel, 2006).

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was made possible with the financial support from the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Research Chair Program, ArcticNet
Project “Knowledge Mobilization for Wildlife Co-Management in Inuit Nunangat,” and graduate
funding provided by the University of Northern British Columbia.
Importantly, this research would not have been possible without the involvement of the
community of Ulukhaktok, specifically the guidance provided by the Olokhaktomiut Hunters and
Trappers Committee (OHTC). Koana to the OHTC for welcoming me into their community in
2020 to co-design the project together, then helping navigate coronavirus travel restrictions in
2021. The guidance provided by the OHTC was critical in transitioning this once in-person
research project to be completed entirely remotely. Koana to Susie Memogana for contacting the
interview participants and organizing and facilitating all the interviews. Without these
individuals, remote research would not have been a success. Lastly, koana to all the interview
participants for sharing your knowledge and stories about Arctic char with me; I hope I captured
your intentions here.
I want to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Tristan Pearce, for the
constant encouragement, patience, and direction over these last two years. Thank you for taking
me on as a student in September 2019 and for the continuous support you have provided since.
Your endless pep talks, words of wisdom, and belief in me have been invaluable. You have
pushed me to achieve milestones and goals that I did not think were within my reach. Without
your guidance over UNBC’s faculty strike and coronavirus, this research likely would not have
continued.

ix

My sincerest thank you to my committee members, Dr. Gail Fondahl and Colin
Gallagher. Your insights, knowledge, and experience have been critical in shaping this thesis to
where it is today. The amount of time and energy you have both provided me during this process
has been instrumental and does not go unnoticed. Thank you so much for the support and
confidence you had in me throughout this journey.
This research was indeed a group effort. Not only were the community research partners
and committee actively involved since the beginning, but others such as Dr. Harri Pettitt-Wade
and Ellen Lea played notable roles in developing this thesis. Thank you, Harri and Ellen, for
graciously sharing your expertise and knowledge with me; it has been a pleasure working with
you both!
I would also like to acknowledge UNBC’s Environmental Change Research Group,
particularly Sarah Flisikowski and Stephanie Chan. I am forever grateful to you both for the
friendship and laughs you provided me while in Prince George and afterwards. Thank you both
for being a sounding board when I needed one, encouraging me to take a break from my work,
enjoy life, and make memories.
To my family and friends, thank you for reminding me to enjoy the process. Special
thanks to Jen Baker, Cyaira Kozak, Michelle Camirand, and Leyla Mains for their support and
encouragement along the way and for offering distractions when needed. And to my parents,
Lina and Don Smart, for pushing me to pursue my passions, although they have taken me far
away from home. I miss you both, and I am incredibly thankful. To my Nonna and Nonno,
grazie, for always making me smile and laugh when I needed it. Lastly, Mason, thank you so
much; words cannot express how appreciative I am that I had you by my side throughout this
journey.

x

POSITIONALITY
Declaring one’s subjectivity and inherent biases upfront has become routine for many
disciplines, especially cross-cultural studies (Hay, 2016). This requires one to critically reflect on
the choices made during the research process, ask themselves why they pursued this research in
the first place, and take note of aspects of their own identities (gender, background, education,
etc.) that may interfere with the research and its outcomes (Hay, 2016; Smith, 2010).
When I think about who I am in relation to this research, I think about the basic
characteristics of myself as a researcher and as a person: I am an early career researcher and a
novice, a graduate student, and someone new to qualitative, cross-cultural studies. But first and
foremost, I am a 24-year-old female from southern Ontario with a background of mixed
European ancestry. I was raised in a multicultural household that mainly spoke English and
received all my education and training from western scientific ways of knowing.
I have always had an interest in wildlife, conservation, and environmental policy. I
decided to pursue an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies & Geography at Wilfrid
Laurier University to learn more about these topics. My undergraduate degree provided me with
the foundation of the core concepts used throughout this thesis, such as vulnerability theory and
adaptation. During my undergraduate degree, I was given the opportunity to visit the Northwest
Territories to study the influence of permafrost degradation on communities in the territory. This
experience inspired me to continue my academic career and collaborate with individuals in the
Arctic to better understand how climate change impacts their lives and livelihoods. I pursued
graduate studies at the University of Northern British Columbia to continue this path. My
graduate research project involved working in close collaboration with the community of
Ulukhaktok to better understand changes observed in Arctic char. This research project allowed

xi

me to explore my interests further and provided me with the opportunity to work with a group of
people on an issue relevant to them and their daily lives. As a non-Inuit researcher working with
an Inuit community, I recognize that I do not live the same life as those with whom I worked
with. For instance, in southern Ontario, hunting and fishing are not a large part of life as they are
in Ulukhaktok. I have never participated in hunting or fishing activities, and I do not consume
meat products. Unlike (most) Ulukhaktomiut, my family does not rely or depend on hunting and
fishing for the basis of their diets and can easily acquire fresh, fair priced, store-bought foods at
our convenience. Therefore, my perception of animals (and food) vastly differs from
Ulukhaktomiut and the fisher people I collaborated with for this project.
I conducted a pre-research consultation visit to Ulukhaktok in February 2020 when I met
community members, experienced community life, and worked with local research partners to
co-develop the research design and approach. During this visit, I reflected on my positionality,
practiced cultural relativism, and remained open-minded to different ways to approach the
research question that reflected the needs and interests of the community (Vanner, 2015). I was
mindful that because I was not from the community, my interpretations of certain situations
relevant to the research may differ from a community member's perspective (Hay, 2016). To
partially address this concern, I worked with a local research partner who was able to guide the
research in recruiting participants, designing research questions, and determining when and how
interviews were conducted. By working with a local research partner, I was able to undertake the
research in ways that best fit the norms of the community. In doing so, participants were willing
to partake in the research, and the local research partner was able to put the knowledge and
observations that were shared into context.

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) is the most abundant anadromous salmonid in Arctic
Canada and is fished by Indigenous peoples. For many Inuit communities, Arctic char is central
to subsistence diets and local economies through commercial fisheries (Sawatzky & Reist, 2010).
As a keystone species, Arctic char hold significant cultural, ecological, and scientific value
(Paylor, 1998; Reist, 2018). Arctic char are the northernmost of all Salvelinus species and the
only freshwater fish with a circumpolar distribution (Klemetsen et al., 2003). They occupy
numerous aquatic habitats during their lifespan, such as lakes, streams, rivers, and marine
environments, making them habitat generalists (Reist et al., 2013). Since Arctic char’s visible
characteristics are highly influenced by environmental conditions, habitat usage, and food
consumption, they are also excellent indicators of environmental change (Chavarie et al., 2019).
In recent years, climate change has altered marine ecosystems in the Arctic with
implications for wildlife and Inuit who depend on it for their livelihoods (Archer et al., 2017;
Ford et al., 2019). Inuit from Ulukhaktok in the western Canadian Arctic have observed
fluctuations in Arctic char’s health (specifically fish growth), movement ecology, and meat
quality. These changes have been attributed to observed climate variability, including higher
seasonal temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, unpredictable wind conditions, and
increasing storm activity (Knopp et al., 2012). More recently, Inuit have expressed further
concerns about the health and abundance of Arctic char, calling upon researchers to work with
them to better understand climate change impacts on Arctic char and management options. This
thesis partially responds this complex issue by documenting Inuit knowledge and observations of
changes in Arctic char and investigating how these changes are being experienced and responded
to. The ultimate goal was to generate a baseline record of Inuit knowledge and observations of
1

changes in Arctic char and implications for subsistence to complement scientific studies of
Arctic char, inform co-management, and guide future research endeavours. This research draws
upon bodies of scholarship such as vulnerability theory, co-management in the Arctic, and
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).

1.1 Aim and Objectives
This research documented and examined recent changes observed in anadromous Arctic char in
Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, from the perspective of Ulukhaktomiut, including how these
changes are being experienced and responded to. Specific objectives included:
1. Document Inuit knowledge and observations of anadromous Arctic char.
-

Here, knowledge refers to the “information and values acquired through the
experiences, observations, from the land or from spiritual teachings, and handed
down from one generation to another” as outlined by Abele (1997).

2. Identify current exposure-sensitivities affecting Inuit-Arctic char interactions.
-

Exposure-sensitivities consider “community characteristics (location, livelihoods,
economy, infrastructure, etc.) and the characteristics of climate-related stimuli
(magnitude, frequency, spatial dispersion, duration, seep of onset, etc.) to understand
the susceptibility of people to variable conditions” as explained by Pearce et al. 2010.

2

3. Characterize the adaptive strategies employed to manage these conditions.
-

Adaptive strategies will be investigated at the autonomous, community, and comanagement levels. Conditions refer to the factors within the Arctic char fishery that
directly and indirectly affect the livelihoods of those in Ulukhaktok.

1.2 Thesis Organization
This thesis is organized into five chapters. This first chapter introduces the aims and
objectives of the research. Chapter 2 provides a synopsis of relevant literature, including Arctic
climate change, vulnerability and adaptation, co-management, and traditional knowledge
scholarships. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research methodology, design, approach, and
data collection and analysis methods. Since this thesis was completed throughout the coronavirus
pandemic, I reflect on the impact that pandemic restrictions had on the progression of this project.
Chapter 4 presents the results of this study. Lastly, Chapter 5 summarizes the key findings of this
study and discusses its scholarly and practical contributions and opportunities for future research.

3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This research engages with scholarship on climate change impacts in the Arctic and
implications for Arctic char, vulnerability and adaptation, wildlife co-management, and
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). This chapter reviews all four bodies of scholarship,
developing a conceptual and practical foundation for this research.

2.1 Climate Change in the Arctic and Implications for Arctic Char
It is well understood that the Arctic is rapidly changing in response to a warming climate,
having profound influences across natural and social systems, but the effects of changing
conditions are unevenly felt across the Arctic (Ford & Pearce, 2010; Larsen et al., 2014). This
environment is often characterized as a cold, nutrient-poor, dynamic, and unpredictable (Reist et
al., 2013). Therefore, organisms inhabiting these ecosystems must be resilient and adaptive to
change to maintain fitness potential. Arctic char’s flexibility and capacity to adapt to different
environments has made it a successful northern species (e.g., Reist, 2018; Reist et al., 2013).
However, with quickly shifting environmental conditions and the introduction of southern
species, it is unclear how Arctic char will adapt to new changes and the implications for Arctic
communities that depend on this resource (e.g., Gilbert, 2021; Harris et al., 2020). Due to Arctic
char’s high cultural, social, economic, and ecological value, investigating how they will be
impacted by changing environmental conditions becomes critical on multiple scales. This section
provides a brief overview of Arctic char and reviews scientific information and projections of
biophysical change in the Arctic and the documented impact these environmental changes have
on Arctic char.

4

2.1.1 The Arctic Char, Iqalukpik, Salvelinus alpinus
Arctic char belong to the Salmonidae family (Reist, 2018). Salmonids have adapted to
and colonized cold waters throughout the northern hemisphere (Isaak et al., 2015), making them
the most species-rich family in the Arctic (Reist et al., 2006, 2013). As the most abundant
anadromous salmonid in Arctic Canada, Arctic char have been a significant species for coastal
Inuit communities (Power & Reist, 2018). Arctic char are a central element in subsistence
livelihoods and an important economic resource for commercial fisheries (Sawatzky & Reist,
2010; Usher, 2002). For many Inuit communities, Arctic char represents self-sufficiency and the
traditional subsistence lifestyle (Reist, 2018). They play a key role in community sharing
networks and social relations (Condon & Ogina, 1996). In Inuit households, approximately 70%
of their diet consists of country foods, where Arctic char have been an essential component for
generations (Knopp et al., 2012). Families collect and harvest Arctic char in high numbers for
subsistence and either store for future consumption or prepare the fish (e.g., piffi, quaq) and
immediately consume or distribute to others (Stern & Gaden, 2015). Harvesters from the
community of Ulukhaktok have recently observed concerning fluctuations in Arctic char’s
growth and meat quality (e.g., Gallagher et al., 2021; Knopp et al., 2012). These changes have
been attributed to observed climate variability, including higher seasonal temperatures, changing
precipitation patterns, unpredictable wind conditions, and increasing storm activity (Knopp et al.,
2012).
As a keystone species, Arctic char hold significant ecological and scientific value (e.g.,
Reist, 2018). Arctic char are the northernmost of all Salvelinus species and the only freshwater
fish with a circumpolar distribution (Klemetsen et al., 2003). They can occupy numerous aquatic
habitats during their lifespan, such as lakes, streams, rivers, and marine environments, making

5

them habitat generalists (Reist et al., 2013). Because Arctic char’s visible characteristics are
highly influenced by environmental conditions, habitat usage, and food consumption, they are a
strong indicator of environmental change (Chavarie et al., 2019; Reist & Sawatzky, 2010).

Parity: Arctic char is an iteroparous (reproduce multiple times during their life) salmonid. They
will spawn numerous times throughout their lifespan during the fall months in freshwater
environments (Harwood et al., 2013; Klemetsen et al., 2003).

Anadromy: Anadromous (sea-run) fish are “individuals that hatched in freshwater and migrate
to the ocean” (Hendry et al., 2004). Typically, anadromous salmonids use their natal stream to
migrate to the ocean to feed during the summer months (Moore et al., 2016). Arctic char can be
anadromous or spend their entire life in freshwater environments (i.e., resident) (Reist et al.,
2013). Anadromous Arctic char spend their winter months in freshwater environments where
they reproduce and overwinter, then will migrate to the ocean at the end of spring when the river
ice breaks (Hamilton et al., 2019).

Diet: During the summer months, sea-run Arctic char migrate to the ocean and feed on nutrientrich marine food sources to increase their body condition and build energy reserves for growth,
reproduction, and overwintering (Harwood et al., 2013). In marine environments, they feed on
invertebrates such as amphipods; however, larger Arctic char will feed on fish species such as
sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), capelin (Mallotus villosus), or resident cod (Gadus spp.) (Power &
Reist, 2018). Arctic char are also known to display cannibalism when in single-species lakes
(Power & Reist, 2018). Reist et al. (2013) note cannibalism plays an important role in

6

maintaining population-size structure as only a few individuals will grow to reach a large size. In
contrast, the remaining individuals will only reach a moderate size due to limited food sources
and availability (Reist et al., 2013).

Colouration: Environmental conditions, diet, and sexual maturity can change char’s external and
internal pigmentation. For example, large spawning males may display red colouration as a
sexual characteristic, whereas non-spawners and juveniles will display silver tones and are often
referred to as “silvers” (DFO, 2016; Jonsson & Jonsson, 2001). Red colouration is common in
large females (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2001). A red belly is an indicator of spawning activity and
diet. For instance, the consumption of zooplankton in fish diet has been linked to red colouration
due to the high carotenoid content (red pigments) (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2001). Internal
pigmentation (flesh) will also change depending on diet. Like external coloration, the flesh can
change colour due to a build-up of carotenoids in the muscle (e.g., Rajasingh et al., 2007).

Habitat Use: As Arctic char travel between freshwater and marine ecosystems, their diet will
shift depending on their location, size and environment (Power & Reist, 2018). As a generalist
species, Arctic char display a high degree of flexibility in their habitat-use and diets (Reist et al.,
2013). They will overwinter in freshwater ecosystems (e.g., lakes and upstream rivers) to avoid
cold ocean temperatures and the high salinities of marine environments (Reist, 2018). Here,
Arctic char will utilize all habitat types, including pelagic, littoral, benthic and profundal zones
(Power & Reist, 2018; Reist & Sawatzky, 2010). Habitat-use will change depending on Arctic
char’s life stage, the presence of other species, and the time of year (Power & Reist, 2018; Reist
et al., 2013).

7

Ecophenotypes and Morphologies: As Arctic char occupy a range of habitats throughout their
lifetime, they display multiple ecophenotypes and morphologies, and are often used as an
indicator of environmental change (Knopp, 2010; Reist & Sawatzky, 2010). “Ecophenotype”
refers to the visible physical characteristics of a fish as a result of their interactions with
environmental conditions, whereas “morphology” refers to the size, colour, growth, and body
formation of fish (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2001; Reist & Sawatzky, 2010). Studies have documented
changes in Arctic char’s visible characteristics relative to changes in their environment. For
example, evidence indicates a strong relationship between the timing of spring sea ice retreat and
Arctic char body conditions, which has been attributed to the quality and quantity of food
sources available for Arctic char (Harwood et al., 2013; Steiner et al., 2019). Other studies argue
that spring precipitation and summer air temperatures are the most significant variables that
directly influence Arctic char’s ability to obtain energy and grow (Chavarie et al., 2019).
Although Arctic char’s flexibility and high capacity to adapt has made it a successful
northern species (e.g., Reist, 2018; Reist et al., 2013), it is unclear how Arctic char will respond
to future climatic stressors as Arctic ecosystems continue to change. The following section offers
a review of four key environmental variables and provides scientific evidence of change and a
brief projection of the future.
2.1.2 Surface Air Temperature & Precipitation
Air temperature and precipitation trends are among the most studied climate change
variables because they directly influence other climatic trends (Zhang et al., 2019). Between
1948-2012, there is evidence that the Canadian Arctic has experienced an estimated 2.3oC
increase, approximately three times greater than the global mean average (Zhang et al., 2019).
Researchers have linked the relationship between warming air temperatures and precipitation
8

patterns, which has been attributed to the atmosphere’s increased capacity to hold more moisture
(Zhang et al., 2019). During the same period, precipitation trends in northern Canada show a
30% increase, with precipitation rising in every season in the Arctic (Vincent et al., 2015). While
precipitation in northern Canada has increased, the majority is falling as rain rather than snow,
and this trend is expected to continue (Vincent et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2019).
Scientists generally accept that warming trends are influenced by human activities related
to greenhouse gas emissions (Bush et al., 2019). Emission levels are not expected to decrease in
the near future; therefore, temperature trends will continue to follow a similar pattern (Zhang et
al., 2019). Regardless of emissions scenario (low, medium, or high), Canada’s Arctic is expected
to continue to warm with the most substantial differences experienced in the winter months than
summer months (Zhang et al., 2019). Researchers expect that annual mean air temperature will
rise during every season in Canada and that annual mean precipitation will undergo extreme
variability in short- and long-term scenarios (Zhang et al., 2019). Some researchers describe the
direct impacts of temperature on fish, whereas precipitation can have indirect impacts (Reist et
al., 2006). For example, changes in the type and amount of precipitation can drastically alter the
aquatic ecosystem through altering productivity, flow regimes, fluctuating water levels, or
expanding or barricading migratory routes for anadromous Arctic char (Reist et al., 2006). In
freshwater, increased air temperatures will result in warmer surface and littoral zones in lakes,
which can strongly influence pre-smolt Arctic char growth as fish are poikilothermic (i.e., body
temperature is fully dependent on the temperature of their environment) (e.g., Jeppesen et al.,
2012; Jobling, 1983).

9

2.1.3 Sea Ice
The reduction of sea ice extent and thickness coupled with warming temperatures is
likely the most recognized consequence of climate change (Derksen et al., 2018; HoeghGuldberg et al., 2018). Perennial sea ice is becoming increasingly thinner, and multi-year ice has
declined approximately 5-20% per decade since 1968 across various Arctic regions (Derksen et
al., 2018), with some of the most significant declines observed in the Beaufort Sea (Meredith et
al., 2019). Between 1979-2012, the Beaufort Sea experienced substantial ice retreat, affecting ice
edges and polynyas, impacting marine and terrestrial species ability to travel, hunt, and mate
(Steele et al., 2015). Since 2015, Arctic winter sea ice has reached record lows, with an estimated
75% decline since 1979 (AMAP, 2019). Using climatic model simulators under high emission
scenarios, researchers anticipate the majority of Canada’s Arctic will be ice-free during most
summer months by 2050 (Derksen et al., 2018), especially at the projected 2oC increase (HoeghGuldberg et al., 2018). However, minimal changes are expected during the winter months
(Niederdrenk & Notz, 2018). Variations in sea ice (extent, coverage, etc.) between years have
been connected to the quality and quantity of prey available for Arctic char and linked to Arctic
char’s population biological characteristics (Chavarie et al., 2019). For example, Dunmall et al.
(2013) describe the relationship between sea ice reduction and phytoplankton blooms. These
blooms can lead to an increase in productivity for upper trophic level species.
2.1.4 Sea Surface Temperature
While the decline in sea ice is a globally recognized consequence of a warming climate,
changing sea surface temperatures (SST) is arguably the most important variable in Arctic
climate change (Loder & Wang, 2015). Substantially warmer SST in the Arctic has been
reported between 1982-2018 (Timmermans & Ladd, 2019), which have been associated with
10

incoming solar radiation, increased air temperature, and reductions in sea ice (Greenan et al.,
2018). In the Beaufort Sea, there is considerable evidence demonstrating sea ice reduction
linkages to warming SST. Since 1970, this region has experienced significantly warmer sea
surface temperatures (Bindoff et al., 2013), and the August 2019 average SSTs were roughly 17°C warmer than the 1982-2010 average (Timmermans & Ladd, 2019).
According to current climate models, all oceans surrounding Canada will continue to
warm in response to past and future emissions associated with the rise of global air temperatures
(Greenan et al., 2018; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018). Under both medium and high emissions
scenarios, future SST trends are predicted to be consistent with the projected trends in air
temperature, and considerable seasonal and spatial variability are expected (Greenan et al.,
2018). Researchers project that winters in the Canadian Arctic will undergo minimal SST
changes; however, the summer months will likely increase roughly 4oC in regions where sea ice
extent has drastically declined, such as the Beaufort Sea (Greenan et al., 2018).
2.1.5 Arctic Rivers and Lakes
Changes in Arctic freshwater ecosystems translate to changes in biogeochemical,
biological, and ecological processes in both terrestrial and aquatic systems (Bring et al., 2016;
Wrona et al., 2016). Numerous studies have investigated the hydrological and ecological changes
in Arctic freshwater ecosystems and the cascading effects, including the interactions between
land-ocean environments. Larsen et al. (2014) explain that fluctuations in these connected
systems will lead to shifting water levels and changes in total discharge, in turn influencing
Arctic anadromous fish distribution, body conditions, and migration. More recently, Griffiths et
al. (2017) argue that the fluctuations in High-Arctic freshwater ice conditions are the primary
driver of significant ecological transformations. For example, shifting runoff patterns into the
11

ocean from freshwater sources have been linked to changes in ocean properties, including
temperature, circulation, and salinity (Meredith et al., 2019).
Few studies have projected future trajectories of Arctic freshwater systems. With a
predicted increase in runoff, it is expected that future nutrient concentrations in Arctic freshwater
bodies will increase, along with nutrient loading from permafrost thaw, affecting algal and
biologic communities (Wrona et al., 2016). Comparable to sea ice, lake ice is also a critical
element of the cryosphere and is being impacted by warming air and precipitation temperatures
(Brown & Duguay, 2010). It is anticipated that lake ice cover, thickness (10-50 cm), and
duration (15-50 days) in the Arctic will decrease during a 2040-2079 timeframe, according to
model simulations (Bring et al., 2016). These changes will likely alter lake productivity, which
may influence Arctic char’s anadromy in the future (Finstad and Hein, 2012).
2.1.6 Wildlife Responses to Environmental Change
Wildlife responses to environmental change have been well documented in Arctic
regions. It has been observed that species movements are shifting, along with fluctuations in
population dynamics and health (e.g., Archer et al., 2017; Meredith et al., 2019). In the context
of this research, “shifting” refers to changes in migration routes and timing of movement,
distance travelled, spawning location and timing, and movements between different habitats
(e.g., Lucas & Baras, 2000; Moore et al., 2016). “Health” is applied in a broad sense, perceived
as the exposure of wildlife to harm and disease, as well as an individual’s body conditions and
the species population demographics and trends in the local area (e.g., Tomaselli et al., 2018).

12

2.1.6.1 Migration Patterns and Species Distribution: Increasing Prevalence of Salmon
As warming trends continue, the likelihood of Arctic and subarctic species to expand
their range northward is high as they search for new habitat that meets their ecological needs
(Bilous & Dunmall, 2020). Changing migration patterns can induce competitive pressures and
predation (Moore & Reeves, 2018), and increase the probability of infectious diseases,
population mixing and reduce genetic differentiation (Post et al., 2013). New habitat pressures
have been proven to influence behavioural responses such as changing migration routes and
timing of movements (e.g., Kovacs et al., 2011). Climate-related marine mammal migration has
already been well-documented in the Canadian Arctic, especially for species such as whales,
polar bears, and ringed seals. However, less is known about fish species and how they respond to
shifting environmental conditions (e.g., Bilous & Dunmall, 2020).
Salmonids have adapted and colonized cold waters throughout the northern hemisphere
(Isaak et al., 2015). With warming water temperatures, changes in the movement, migration, and
habitat occupancy have been observed in these salmonids (Reist et al., 2006b). Shifting endemic
salmonid distribution and abundance in Arctic regions have been attributed to the emergence of
non-endemic species invading their habitat and habitat degradation (Isaak et al., 2015). In
particular, the increasing prevalence of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) in Arctic waters have raised concerns for the health of endemic species and has
been well documented in the literature (Bilous & Dunmall, 2020; Dunmall et al., 2018). Chum
(Oncorhynchus keta) and pink (O. gorbuscha) salmon have a historical presence in the Arctic
(Dunmall et al., 2013), due to their high tolerance of cold waters (Babaluk et al., 2000).
However, all species of Pacific salmon (excluding coho) have recently been reported in the
western Canadian Arctic (Dunmall et al., 2018). The growing prevalence of salmon has been

13

linked to significantly warmer water temperatures, earlier onsets of spring, and an increase in
prey preferences due to sea ice reductions (Dunmall et al., 2013). As conditions become more
favourable in the Canadian Arctic for southern species such as Pacific and Atlantic salmon to
extend their ranges northward, the impacts on endemic salmonids (e.g., Arctic char) are currently
unknown (Bilous & Dunmall, 2020). Sympatric populations of Atlantic salmon and Arctic char
have been documented in lakes and rivers in Iceland, Norway, and Russia (Bilous & Dunmall,
2020). The only known overlapping location in Canada’s North is in the rivers of Ungava Bay
and the Nastapoka River (Bilous & Dunmall, 2020).

2.2 Vulnerability and Adaptation
Inuit have always adjusted their lives around variability in local ecosystems (Ford et al.,
2006). Although Inuit have displayed significant social-ecological resilience in the past (Berkes
& Jolly, 2002), these individuals and their culture are often perceived as highly vulnerable to the
effects of climate change (Durkalec et al., 2015; Ford & Smit, 2004). Vulnerability theory and
practice originate from Risks and Natural Hazard (RNH) literature, concentrating on how
biophysical impacts from extraordinary or hazardous events translate to adverse effects on
human societies (e.g., Adger, 1999; Füssel, 2004). Within the context of climate change research,
vulnerability theory has evolved and builds upon RNH literature. This section reviews
vulnerability concepts within the context of climate change research and common frameworks
for assessing community vulnerability, including the impact-based approach and vulnerability
approach.

14

2.2.1 Definitions and Conceptualizations
Vulnerability is influenced, facilitated, or constrained by a community’s relationship with
environmental and social conditions (Smit & Wandel, 2006), institutional and economic
dynamics (Ford & Smit, 2004), and the availability of resources and entitlement to use when
needed (Adger & Kelly, 1999). While interpretations vary and the term is conceptualized
differently among disciplines (Füssel, 2007), there is a general agreement that vulnerability
refers to the susceptibility of a system to experience harm (Adger, 2006). Vulnerability does not
exist in isolation and is frequently conceptualized as a function of exposure to climatic and/or
social stresses and the ability to adapt or cope with these pressures (Ford & Smit, 2004; Kelly &
Adger, 2000).
Exposure-sensitivity is a joint property that considers the interactions between the
climatic stimulus and the system in question (Smit & Wandel, 2006). The level of exposuresensitivity is determined based on climatic attributes and social characteristics. Climate attributes
include the frequency, duration, spatial and temporal conditions of the climatic stress (Ford et al.,
2006). In comparison, the social characteristics include the location of the community and their
livelihood conditions (Ford et al., 2006). A system’s exposure-sensitivity is highly dynamic and
continually shifts as the community responds to climatic conditions and environmental change
risks (Ford et al., 2006).
Adaptive capacity, the final component of vulnerability, is recognized as a system’s
ability to effectively address, respond, or adapt to harmful exposure (Adger & Kelly, 1999; Ford
& Smit, 2004), and the necessary adjustments in a system’s behaviour required to manage
external stress (Smit & Wandel, 2006). Adaptive capacity is highly context-specific and varies
between and within communities (Pearce et al., 2010). At a local level, adaptive capacity is

15

reflective of the characteristics of the human system, including cultural practices, behavioural
and technological innovations, and social institutions and networks, along with previous
experience of climatic risks, availability of resources and equity to access them (Ford & Smit,
2004; Ford et al., 2006; Smit & Wandel, 2006). Government institutions and related
organizations (e.g., co-management bodies) play a critical role in a community’s ability to
respond to climatic risks. Institutions can improve or worsen the effects of climate-related risks
by determining how resources are utilized and distributed within a community and who can and
cannot access them (Dilling et al., 2015). In contrast, co-management organizations can increase
the resilience of a system by improving multiscale communication between the government and
local resource users and enhance the sharing and learning capacity between stakeholders (e.g.,
Berkes & Jolly, 2002).
Another term associated with vulnerability theory is resilience. The concept of resilience
is rooted in understanding the structure and behaviour of ecosystem dynamics (Holling, 1978).
Holling (1978) recognizes the similarities between social and ecological systems ability to
respond to change and uncertainty. Holling (1978) argues that because ecological disasters
cannot be eliminated, it is imperative to design our social institutions to cope with their
occurrence and uncertainty. The concept of social-ecological systems (SES) grew from the idea
that humans cannot be separated from nature, and any distinction between these two systems
would be arbitrary (Adger, 2006). In the context of SES, scholars refer to resilience as the
magnitude of change that the system can absorb before entering into a new state and the system’s
capacity to self-organize after experiencing change (Adger, 2006; Engle, 2011; Pearce et al.,
2015). The Arctic Resilience Report defines resilience as “the capacity to buffer and adapt to
stress and shocks, and thus navigate and even shape change” (Carson & Peterson, 2016, p. ix).

16

Berkes & Jolly (2002) outline three defining characteristics that resilience measures, they include
(1) the amount of change the system experiences while still preserving the same controls on
function and structure, (2) the ability of the system to self-organize, and (3) the system (e.g., a
community) ability to build and increase its capacity for learning and adaptation. Resilience is
based on the effectiveness of a community to self-organize by coming together to identify and
resolve challenges collectively and their ability to learn from prior crises (Carson & Peterson,
2016).
2.2.2 Frameworks and Approaches
To understand how human communities have experienced and responded to climate
change, literature often draws upon vulnerability theory and practice using different frameworks
from biophysical and social perspectives (Ford & Smit, 2004). Two common approaches to
assess environmental changes include the impact-based approach and the vulnerability approach.
2.2.2.1 Impact-Based Approach
Also referred to as the ‘scenario-based’ approach, impact studies have emerged from
RNH literature (Cutter et al., 2008; Füssel & Klein, 2006). This approach is a standard method
applied by many climate change studies in the Arctic to investigate the implications of changing
environmental conditions from a biophysical perspective (Ford & Smit, 2004). Such studies are
often completed at large scales and are based on the long-term trends observed and measured in
climatic conditions to determine the net impact of climate change and predict future scenarios
(Pearce et al., 2010).
The impact-based approach to studying vulnerability is often referred to as “end-point” or
“top-down” within the literature (e.g., Ford et al., 2010; Smit & Wandel, 2006). End-point

17

focuses on biophysical vulnerability and considers the residual effects of climate change after
adaptation strategies are employed as the determinant of that system’s level of vulnerability
(Kelly & Adger, 2000; O’Brien et al., 2004). Top-down approaches quantify environmental
change using climatic models and often make assumptions about what conditions are relevant to
human communities and the potential impacts of ecological changes (Armitage, 2005; Ford et
al., 2019). These studies have significantly contributed to our understandings of the drivers and
consequences of ecosystem changes. However, this approach lacks a social component, such as
the human dimensions of climate change, includes little involvement with stakeholders, does not
consider human agency, and the non-climatic drivers that influence social systems are missing
(Füssel & Klein, 2006).
2.2.2.2 The Vulnerability Approach
The frameworks applied to study and assess social responses to biophysical change have
evolved within the climate change literature (Ford & Smit, 2004) and have significantly
contributed to our general understandings of the human dimensions of climate change (Pearce et
al., 2010). There is a growing recognition that we cannot understand climate change impacts
solely from a biophysical perspective and that social and economic influences are equally
important (e.g., Ford et al., 2019). The vulnerability approach is employed to evaluate how
changes in the physical environment translate to human sensitivities (Kelly & Adger, 2000) and
goes beyond the biophysical studies of change to emphasize the human experience (Adger &
Kelly, 1999; Ford & Smit, 2004).
Through a “bottom-up” approach, this framework does not pre-determine a focus of
study but allows the community in question to identify conditions relevant to them (Archer et al.,
2017; Smit & Wandel, 2006). Smit & Wandel (2006) note that this approach to assessing
18

community vulnerability is highly context-specific. It is not designed to be scaled up because
local vulnerabilities are not consistent with regional ones. Moreover, both are dynamic and
constantly shifting as the community responds to climatic (or non-climatic) conditions and risks
(Smit & Wandel, 2006). This assessment includes two phases. The first stage identifies and
understands existing vulnerabilities and current adaptive strategies applied to manage these
conditions. The second stage evaluates future climate change scenarios based on biophysical
projections and the required adaptive strategies to effectively cope with the outcomes and
expected future exposure-sensitivities (see Figure 1) (Ford & Smit, 2004).
Figure 1: Analytical framework for vulnerability assessment (Smit & Wandel, 2006).

2.3 Wildlife Co-Management in the Canadian Arctic
Inuit have always lived and continue to live in harmony with the natural world (e.g.,
Watt-Cloutier, 2015). Their culture, societal practices, traditional lifestyle, food security,
knowledge transmission, and overall well-being are all rooted in their local environment;
therefore, their actions and conservation are inseparable (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). Historically, Inuit

19

have practiced sustainability to maintain this relationship with their environment (Kafarowski,
2005). More recently, formal management structures from outside organizations, including the
federal and territorial governments, have been developed to respond to environmental change
and uncertainty and manage natural resources (Kafarowski, 2005). These formal management
systems have evolved immensely since their development and continue to evolve (Kendrick,
2013). Initially, there was little collaboration with Inuit (Kendrick & Manseau, 2008). Today,
Inuit are (legally) equal partners in the decision-making and co-managing of natural resources
through the signing of final agreements such as the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) signed in
1984 (IFA, 1984). This section reviews joint environmental management narratives, including
co-management and adaptive management. Scholars recognize a reinvention of resource
management; adaptive co-management may be more applicable when addressing socialecological uncertainty and complexity of change (Nadasdy, 2007). A review of these concepts
and the challenges and benefits associated with their application are discussed below.
2.3.1 Concepts in Co-Management
Co-management, or collaborative management, is a formal management strategy between
local communities and government structures (Armitage et al., 2010). A formal agreement is
made between resource users and government parties to share power when problem-solving and
decision-making (Berkes et al., 1991). The joint-management of common-pool resources can
foster an opportunity where multiple parties can learn from one another through their distinct
ways of knowing (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005; Kofinas, 2009). A successful collaborative
management system will improve the following tasks: (1) data gathering, (2) logistical decisions
(e.g., harvesting regulations), (3) decision allocation, (4) protection of resources from

20

environmental damage, (5) regulation enforcement, (6) enhancement of long-term planning, and
(7) more inclusive decision-making (Pinkerton, 1989).
Adaptive management employs a learning-by-doing tactic that utilizes a scientific
approach to address environmental uncertainty (Armitage et al., 2010). This concept, originating
from Holling (1978), suggests that resource management is comparable to experiments in which
management can learn to handle change by experiencing change. Adaptive management involves
the collaboration between multiple actors and the integration of their diverse knowledge systems
(Armitage et al., 2010) to develop a robustly functioning management system that can adapt to
complex and uncertain conditions (Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2010).
Integrating the sharing of rights and responsibilities from co-management and the
dynamic learning process from adaptive management, the second narrative, adaptive comanagement, was created (Ayles et al., 2007; Nadasdy, 2007). This concept emerged from the
recognition that management structures need to evolve with the constant changes happening in
local SES (Armitage et al., 2009). Adaptive co-management is rooted in trust-building and
meaningful communication between stakeholders and perceives local knowledge as equally
relevant to expert knowledge (Armitage et al., 2010; Dale & Armitage, 2011). Several
definitions can be found in the literature. It is a long-term structure facilitating a shared
responsibility to manage natural resources (Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 2001) and provides an
opportunity to learn from experience (Nadasdy, 2007). This management structure involves
flexible, community-based management that is tailored to specific locations and circumstances
(Armitage et al., 2010) and engages with different ways of knowing (Olsson et al., 2004).
Adaptive co-management differs from co-management and adaptive management because it

21

emphasizes the need for flexibility and social learning between multiple levels of governance
and resource users (Armitage et al., 2008).
2.3.1.1 Challenges with Co-Management
Joint management systems foster learning between stakeholders and can enhance
adaptive capacity for resource users; however, implementing such practices can be challenging
(e.g., Nadasdy, 2003). In the Arctic, these approaches have established scientific networks within
and between Inuit communities and researchers. These partnerships often require researchers and
local resource users to travel in and out of the relevant community for meetings (Nadasdy, 1999).
When outside partners, such as researchers, enter a community to hold resource management
meetings, they are usually carried out using a southern-based approach (Berkes & Armitage,
2010). A primary issue identified by Nadasdy (1999) is that these outsiders meet in a
“comfortable” space for them, such as a boardroom or conference room, which is a potentially
unfamiliar location for Indigenous peoples (Nadasdy, 1999).
Aside from meeting location, collaborative management involves including different
ways of knowing. Engaging with TK within a highly westernized management system can be
problematic due to the inherent differences between expert and traditional knowledge (Armitage
et al., 2011). Manipulating TK and observations to fit within this scientific system often leads to
misuse and misinterpretation of information (Nadasdy, 2003, 2005). Nadasdy (2005) outlines the
challenges associated with the integration of TEK into a westernized management process,
explaining issues such as: how to properly collect TEK, appropriate techniques for engaging with
TEK from a scientific viewpoint, the potential to introduce state power into a community rather
than empowering local peoples, and recognizing intellectual property rights during the process.

22

2.3.1.2 Opportunities with Co-Management
Nadasdy (2005) outlines two central benefits offered by co-management. The first is the
potential to improve wildlife management through the engagement of traditional and expert
knowledge. The second benefit focuses on the ability of co-management to foster empowerment
through knowledge usage. Similarly, Armitage et al. (2011) considers the role of co-management
as a learning process between participants, making note of three overarching benefits: (1)
enhance economic and social development; (2) disperse resource management decisions; and (3)
can reduce conflict through democracy. If an honest partnership is established between the
proponents, the management process can overcome unequal power relations (Dale & Armitage,
2011). Furthermore, a partnership will foster meaningful interactions between stakeholders
(Armitage et al., 2010) and empower local communities (Nadasdy, 2005).
2.3.2 Resource Management in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region
The Inuvialuit (Western Canadian Arctic Inuit) signed the Inuvialuit Final Agreement
(IFA) in 1984 to recover autonomy and to regain occupancy of their traditional lands (Kendrick,
2013). The IFA recognizes six Inuvialuit communities – Ulukhaktok, Aklavik, Inuvik, Paulatuk,
Sachs Harbour and Tuktoyaktuk, which are collectively recognized as the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region (ISR) (IFA, 1984; Ford & Pearce, 2010). In the ISR, collaborative management of
natural resources emerged from the concern regarding the health and stability of ecosystems and
wildlife to better address social vulnerability associated with changes in these systems (e.g.,
Ayles et al., 2016). The IFA recognizes Inuvialuit’s exclusive harvesting and hunting rights to
certain species, their responsibility to co-manage natural resources, and ownership of
approximately 30% of traditional lands (IFA, 1984; Usher, 2002). A fundamental goal is to

23

ensure the involvement of Inuvialuit in the management of the ISR’s natural resources, to protect
Arctic wildlife, and like other claim agreements, recover self-determination (IFA, 1984).
From the Agreement, several co-management boards were created (IFA, 1984; Berkes
and Armitage, 2010). Section 14 of the IFA, Wildlife Harvesting and Management, identifies the
rights and responsibilities of appointed wildlife co-management boards, including the Wildlife
Management Advisory Council (NWT), Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC),
Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC), and Inuvialuit Hunters and Trappers Committees (HTCs) (IFA,
1984). These wildlife boards clearly state that community participation in marine and wildlife
management is mandatory, and local committee members are equal partners in the decisionmaking and problem-solving (IFA, 1984). Also, it explicitly mentions the rights of Inuit to
harvest wildlife and natural resources, and their responsibility as an equally governing party and
are viewed as partners in the management of wildlife and natural resources (IFA, 1984;
Kendrick, 2013).
The evolution of collaborative management in the ISR has been documented by many
(e.g., Ayles et al., 2007; Fast et al., 2001; Kocho-Schellenberg & Berkes, 2015). As comanagement in the Arctic progressed, community-based participatory research (CBPR) followed
(e.g., Berkes & Jolly, 2002). These practices continue to evolve for greater inclusion of Inuit
participation and knowledge today (e.g., Dale & Armitage, 2011; Galappaththi et al., 2019). The
importance, benefits, and challenges associated with these practices are also displayed within the
literature (e.g., Armitage et al., 2011; Berkes & Armitage, 2010; Nadasdy, 2005). Similarly, the
development and structure of Arctic management systems at different levels of governance have
also been well documented (e.g., Armitage, 2005; Ayles et al., 2016; Fast et al., 2005). However,

24

the linkages between different levels of governance, particularly the role of local-scale
management and the voices of local community members in decision-making, are not as clear.
2.3.2.1 Fisheries Management
Before the signing of the IFA in 1984, the federal government, through the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), had exclusive authority over fisheries management (Ayles et al.,
2016). From the IFA, the Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC) was established as a
co-management body that is responsible for fisheries co-management, including the development
of fishing plans and regulations and harvest and stock assessments. It holds decision-making
power and can recommend subsistence quotas among the six ISR communities (IFA, 1984). Fish
and marine mammal resources in the Canadian Beaufort Sea are jointly managed by the
Government of Canada through the DFO and Inuvialuit through the FJMC (Manseau et al.,
2005).

2.4. Traditional Knowledge
This section provides a review of different ways of knowing and engaging with dissimilar
worldviews. “Traditional” and “scientific” knowledge will be examined, including their
components and definitions found within the literature. Examples of how non-Indigenous
researchers have typically engaged and documented TK will be provided and critiqued, and the
growing role of knowledge co-production will be discussed.
2.4.1 Ways of Knowing
Indigenous epistemology is rooted in the interrelationships between humans, the cosmos,
other beings, and the natural world (Cajete, 2004). TK is acquired from the interactions among
these elements and the continual harmonization of one’s body, mind, soul, and spirit with Nature
25

(Cajete, 2004). This knowledge is passed down to generations through mythology, ritual,
experience, constant observation, art, food preparation, oral stories, and traditions (Cajete, 1994).
TK is also recognized as the accumulation of values and observations obtained through lived
experience (Wenzel, 1999), is rooted in complex social networks (Nadasdy, 1999), is dynamic
and constantly evolving (White, 2006), and is highly localized within a particular region (Houde,
2007). Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is a subset of this larger knowledge system.
Here, knowledge systems refer to the knowledge claims, values and standards, epistemologies,
and structures that shape knowledge use (Wyborn et al., 2019). TEK is viewed as a dynamic
relationship between people and their cultural and physical environments (Wenzel, 1999). TEK
is a knowledge system including, but not limited to, the continual observations and experiences
imperative for hunting and survival (Huntington et al., 1999), repeated personal observations of
the local environment (Usher, 2000), the land skills required for subsistence living (Pearce et al.,
2011), and a deep understanding of human-environment relations (Nakashima et al., 2012).
Scholars have characterized different aspects of this knowledge system. Usher (2000)
notes key characteristics to consider when engaging TK within non-Indigenous approaches,
reminding us that TK is not bounded by genetics or the heritage of Indigenous peoples, is not
uniformly distributed within an Indigenous community and is highly localized. Similarly, Houde
(2007) identifies six “faces” of TEK, including factual observations, management systems, past
and current land uses, ethics and values, and culture and identity, which are all held together by
cosmology. Berkes and Berkes (2009) view TK as a process of “knowledge-practice-belief,”
which encompasses the process of knowing and the knowledge itself. The term “traditional” is
often used interchangeably with “Indigenous” and “local” knowledge (Berkes, 1999; Collings et
al., 2017). Some researchers prefer the use of “local” in place of “traditional” because it specifies

26

that the knowledge is highly context-specific and limited to a geographic area (Dale & Armitage,
2011). Aside from definition and nomenclature inconsistencies, “traditional” is often removed
from the term entirely because it holds negative connotations by some non-Indigenous
researchers (Dale & Armitage, 2011). “Traditional” can suggest a cultural practice or knowledge
that is stagnant (Nadasdy, 1999; Pearce, 2018). This perception allows the knowledge to be
discredited, as it is considered to have little relevance to present-day research (Pearce et al.,
2015).
The literature often contrasts TK with what various scholars refer to as the “dominant
discourse” (e.g., Currenti et al., 2019), scientific knowledge (Usher, 2000), formal science
(Wenzel, 1999), Western knowledge (Little Bear, 2012), or expert knowledge (Tomaselli et al.,
2018). Within the literature, science is described as knowledge, which has been derived from
relevant facts, rather than personal opinion (Chalmers, 2013). The facts which science is derived
from are assumed to be claims or observations about the world that can be seen, heard, or
touched; however, these observations must be carried out in an objective way (Chalmers, 2013).
Scientific methods are often recognized as non-political, value-free, hold merit, reliable, and
completed using attentive, neutral use of the senses (Chalmers, 1982).
Within the context of this work, this knowledge paradigm will be referred to as the
scientific approach. Here, the scientific approach is recognized as understanding the environment
through multiple sources rooted in evidence, repeatability, and quantification (Berkes & Berkes,
2009; Kovach, 2009). Cajete (1994) argues that the fundamental difference between knowledge
transfer in Indigenous contexts versus scientific approaches is that the latter often separates the
body of stories from which science originates and transforms it into data, description, theory, and
formula. Similarly, Little Bear (2012) suggests Western knowledge is linear with singular views

27

and perceives humans distinct from nature, whereas TK is cyclical and perceives humans as part
of nature.
Table 1: Traditional and scientific approaches to knowing.
Traditional Knowledge
Ideological
underpinning

Scientific Approach

Holistic

Source

Reductionist

Wenzel, 1999

Positivist (“Neutrality”)

Kovach, 2009

Compartmentalization

Armitage et al.,
2011

Cyclical

Linear, singular view

Accumulated observations shared
among community members (no
explicit methods for compilation)

Explicit methods with
verification and review
procedures

Huntington, 1999

Culturally based science

“Truly objective study of
natural reality”

Cajete, 1994

Intentions

Supports people in surviving and
thriving in an environment by
understanding their surroundings

Produce results which can be
achieved again by another
researcher

Huntington et al.,
2004

Observations and
procedures

No simple test for evaluating the
information derived from TEK

Testable

Usher, 2000

Approaches to
knowing/
Epistemology

“Complete knowledge system”

“Incomplete”

Heuristic, hands-on leaning

Heuristic, hands-on leaning

Small number of variables
quantitatively

Large number of variables
qualitatively

Based on observations of the
environment

Based on observations of the
environment

Create order out of disorder to deal
with complexity

Create order out of disorder to
deal with complexity

Rules regarding process of
knowing rooted in culture

Rules regarding process of
knowing rooted in evidence,
repeatability, quantification

Methods

Variables
Process of
knowing

Little Bear, 2012

Huntington, 1999

28

Houde, 2007

Berkes & Berkes,
2009

2.4.2 Engaging with Traditional Knowledge
With varying definitions and tensions between traditional and scientific approaches,
challenges may arise when drawing on these two distinct ways of knowing (see Table 1).
Engaging knowledges that differ can be problematic, especially if those systems are not in
agreement. No formal guidelines for navigating this problem can be found within the literature
(Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2006). Within the six “faces” of TEK, Houde (2007) identifies
specific challenges associated with co-management and accommodating multiple worldviews.
He notes that three faces (factual observation, management systems, past and current uses of
resources) can be easily understood by non-Indigenous resource managers because scientific
approaches already rely on understanding these three realms before making decisions. The last
three faces of TEK (ethics and values, culture and identity, and cosmology) are not as easily
understood by non-Indigenous resource managers because these faces are not typically drawn
upon within scientific approaches and decision-making. Therefore, this disconnect can add
complexity when tackling co-management and research issues between Indigenous and nonIndigenous partners. Houde identifies the key difference between Indigenous and nonIndigenous approaches: Indigenous peoples apply all six faces when understanding their
environment and making decisions regarding natural resources, whereas non-Indigenous
managers typically draw on the first three faces.
2.4.3 Documenting Traditional Knowledge
A considerable amount of research in the Arctic has followed standard ethnographic
methods to bring Inuit and scientific knowledge together. In particular, using semi-structured
interviews with open-ended questions has become a popular method applied to document TK in
the Arctic and used by many non-Indigenous researchers (e.g., Condon et al., 1995; Ford et al.,
29

2006; Huntington et al., 1999; Pearce et al., 2009). However, the manipulation, misuse, and
misinterpretation of this knowledge by researchers is a concern, which has been well addressed
in the literature (e.g., Nadasdy, 2003; Wenzel, 1999). Standardized methodologies and
approaches have been identified as critical to avoiding biases (e.g., Tomaselli et al., 2018; Usher,
2000). Few researchers address the issues associated with “scientizing” TK and manipulating the
information into a usable form, often assigning the information provided with a different
meaning than intended by the sharer (Pearce, 2018; Wenzel, 1999). Tomaselli et al. (2018)
identified “key ingredients for success” when documenting TK. These ingredients include (1)
identify local experts through purposeful sampling; (2) triangulation of results through individual
and group interviews; (3) interpret qualitative and quantitative data together; and (4) review
written notes with interview participants to ensure misinterpretation did not occur. To avoid
misunderstandings, initial transcripts or draft reports that include field notes, audiotapes, or any
other materials collected, should be shared with interview participants to review and make the
necessary corrections (Condon et al., 1995; Huntington et al., 1999). This step in the interview
process provides both parties with an opportunity to clarify the information shared.
2.4.4 Knowledge Co-Production & Co-Management in the Arctic
Knowledge co-production has gained particular attention in climate change scholarship
because this approach promises to increase the relevance and usability of research for society by
being grounded in local needs (Brunet et al., 2014; Djenontin & Meadow, 2018). Knowledge coproduction has evolved within many disciplines, and it is not an unfamiliar concept. However,
there continues to be a disagreement about what it looks like in practice and standardized
frameworks or strategies for its application are lacking (Djenontin & Meadow, 2018). Due to
these gaps, a wide range of definitions, applications, and frameworks can be found within the
30

literature. Elements of co-production are evident in co-management and policy (Armitage et al.,
2011), community-based resource monitoring (Johnson et al., 2015), and place-based problem
solving (Robards et al., 2018). These practices focus on learning to adapt to rapid change and
sharing knowledge between diverse groups of people to make the most informed decisions.
Armitage et al. (2011) examine the role of knowledge co-production in three comanagement cases in the Canadian Arctic to determine if co-management actors can “learn to
learn, or learn to be adaptive.” This study highlights: (1) co-management cannot solve all issues
associated with a rapidly changing Arctic, and learning from co-management is only a small step
towards adaptation; (2) knowledge co-production in co-management institutions will likely be
more advanced in regions established earlier (e.g., Inuvialuit Final Agreement, 1984) than newer
Agreements (e.g., Nunatsiavut Land Claims Agreement, 2005); and (3) the process of knowledge
co-production may not be able to respond quickly enough to rapidly changing social-ecological
systems, but it is useful to address the role of power and achieve a shared understanding. Using a
case study of narwhal co-management in Nunavut, Dale and Armitage (2011) investigate the role
of knowledge in building adaptive capacity and facilitating learning between actors and the
challenges associated with this process. They identify five interrelated dimensions of coproduction, including knowledge gathering, sharing, integration, interpretation, and application.
Idrobo and Berkes (2012) and the community of Pangnirtung apply concepts of co-production to
better understand the Greenland shark, a species that is less studied in the literature and rarely
encountered by Inuit. This article concludes that because the Greenland shark is a species with
little to no economic, cultural, or practical value for Pangnirtung Inuit, the knowledge of the
species is incomplete. Johnson et al. (2015) discuss the parallels between community-based
monitoring (CBM) and collaborative research practices such as co-production. A key

31

consideration that Johnson et al. (2015) note is that co-production can develop novel insights
informed by TK and observations, and decision-makers can easily apply the data derived from
this process at different scales. More recently, Robards et al. (2018) explore seven case studies
from Alaska to assess how well scholarship on knowledge co-production can address these cases
and what information is missing in regards to co-production in practice. Robards et al. (2018)
aim to determine what exactly contributes to effective co-production, steps to achieve successful
management, and how to enhance local responses and adaptation to change. Robards et al.
(2018) identify five elements important to co-production, the first three consistent with what is
found in the literature, including (1) evolving communities of practice, (2) iterative processes for
defining problems and solutions, and (3) the presence of boundary organizations, such as a
government agency, university, or co-management council. However, the last two elements are
not as recognized in the literature; yet Robards et al. (2018) identify them as critical to
incorporate: (4) the consistent provision of sufficient funds and labour that may transcend any
one specific project goal or funding cycle, and (5) long temporal scales (sometimes decades) for
achieving the co-production of actionable knowledge.
In the context of this research, knowledge co-production is defined as a “collaborative
process of bringing a plurality of knowledge sources and types together to address a defined
problem and build an integrated or systems-oriented understanding of that problem,” as
explained by Armitage et al. (2011). The engagement between researchers, policymakers, and
society is considered the foundation for co-production (Djenontin & Meadow, 2018). Young et
al. (2016) argue that a primary barrier to successful co-production (including knowledge
exchange and mobilization) within academic realms is the failure of researchers to understand
the uses for the created knowledge. Other scholars recognize the difficulty of managing the

32

relationships between science-policy-society interface to generate salient, credible, and
legitimate knowledge for all parties (Cash et al., 2006). The partnership between academic and
non-academic partners involves sharing values, rights, and responsibilities (Cash et al., 2006;
Lang et al., 2012) and requires mutual respect with no hierarchy of knowledge forms (Campbell
et al., 2016a). Rist and Dahdouh-Guebas (2006) suggest that the process of knowledge coproduction replaces the need for the hegemony of one knowledge system over the other. It is
necessary to acknowledge various ontologies beyond the researcher’s academic background
because co-production often occurs within cross-cultural contexts (Rist & Dahdouh-Guebas,
2006; Weiss et al., 2013). The knowledge created here should be academically insightful and
practically actionable (Campbell et al., 2016a).

33

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This research was part of a larger network of ongoing projects facilitated by principal
investigators from the University of Northern British Columbia, University of Windsor,
University of Manitoba, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, all having preexisting and long-standing relationships with Ulukhaktomiut in some way. My graduate research
was a part of the ArcticNet project “WM03-Knowledge Mobilization for Wildlife Comanagement in Inuit Nunangat” and directly addressed community research priorities. It is
important to mention that my supervisor’s long-term relationship with this community was
critical for this project. Tristan’s pre-existing relationship with Ulukhaktomiut not only provided
me with a direct connection to the community and quickly identified important individuals for
me to engage with, but those individuals quickly trusted me due to the respect they have for
Tristan. In February 2019, a pilot study was completed by Tristan Pearce and Colin Gallagher
with key knowledge holders in Ulukhaktok who expressed interest in further investigating
changes happening in Arctic char and the char fishery. From these conversations, this graduate
project was developed.
I begin this chapter with a discussion of the impact coronavirus (COVID-19) had on this
once in-person, participatory project. Working in collaboration with community research
partners, we adapted the project to be completed virtually. Next, I outline the research approach,
including key considerations for engaging with Arctic communities and a pre-research
consultation visit I conducted in February 2020. This is followed with a case study description
and the methods used. I end this chapter by outlining project limitations.

34

3.1 Reflecting on Adapting Community-Based Research in a Time of a Global
Pandemic
The Arctic is a hub for studying climate change. Whether it is the impacts on biophysical
environments, responses of Arctic wildlife to environmental change, the human dimensions of
change, or the system as a whole, the Arctic is undoubtedly a hotspot for researchers around the
globe to congregate and collaborate with Arctic communities to learn about the vast effects of
climate change. The rise of coronavirus (COVID-19) halted most community-based Arctic
research. Some researchers used this pause as an opportunity to reflect (e.g., Petrov et al., 2020);
others used it as an opportunity to build research capacity in the North (e.g., Tranter, 2020),
while others went forward with virtual means of data collection. However, for graduate students
such as myself, COVID-19 posed significant challenges. Graduate studies are already bounded
by time and funding limitations; COVID-19 exacerbated these constraints. Here I reflect on my
graduate journey, while challenging, was never dull. I will briefly discuss the importance of early
communication, patience and flexibility and some key lessons learned. I end this section and
chapter by outlining noteworthy project limitations.
I had intended to spend a significant amount of time in Ulukhaktok over the summer of
2020. I was looking forward to listening and engaging with people, observing fishing techniques
and behaviour, learning about life in Ulukhaktok, establishing relations, especially with those
whom I hoped to interview, collaborating with fishery biologists, and eventually conducting
qualitative interviews in person. As COVID-19 quickly spread throughout Canada, Arctic
fieldwork was cancelled for the summer of 2020. As a graduate student who had envisioned a
project revolving around close collaboration and spending time with people, I faced serious
complications in the progression of this research. The Northwest Territories officially closed the

35

border in March 2020, and shortly after our research network announced that all summer Arctic
fieldwork would be cancelled, my supervisor and I discussed two options for this project.
First, we considered remote data collection. Other students in affiliated lab groups
decided to move forward with virtual data collection methods. Although these individuals were
not working with the community of Ulukhaktok, they demonstrated that remote research with an
Arctic community was possible. After considering the logistics, remote research did not seem
feasible for numerous reasons. Firstly, and most notably, the summer is a busy time for
Ulukhaktomiut. Residents do not spend much time in the community and are often out on the
land for much of the summer. Most people would not be interested in spending time on the
phone or computer, as they have other priorities. Second, the sharing of knowledge is personal
and can be challenging for people to open up over the phone with somebody they have never met
before. We did not feel comfortable asking people to do this. Lastly, an important component of
the original research design was to conduct several participatory mapping exercises. These
exercises were designed for interaction and collaboration among a group of individuals and the
sharing of research materials. The mapping exercises were intended to be another approach used
to document Inuit knowledge and bring multiple knowledge systems together. Doing this
exercise through virtual methods was not possible due to technological limitations, and the
OHTC was not comfortable supporting multiple residents to gather to conduct the participatory
mapping exercises.
Our second option, which seemed to be the most appealing, was to wait. When Arctic
field research halted in March 2020, this was a very uncertain time for many. We were hopeful
conditions would be better by the fall. We wanted to complete the project we originally

36

envisioned and co-designed with our research partners. We planned to wait and re-evaluate the
conditions come September 2020.
By September 2020, not much had changed in Canada. Thankfully, we continued to be in
contact with the OHTC throughout the process; they were supportive of continuing with the
project through remote means of data collection (see Appendix VI-VII). The OHTC’s continual
guidance was critical when planning and organizing remote data collection. They suggested
hiring a local research partner to assist with this stage of the project and hired Susie Memogana,
who was instrumental in the organization and facilitation of all semi-structured phone interviews.
This is further explained in Section 3.4.1. Without the support from the OHTC and Susie, remote
research would not have been a success.
3.1.1 Lessons Learned
Early and ongoing communication is critical: Visiting Ulukhaktok and observing the
Ulukhaktok Char Working Group (UCWG) meeting in February 2020 has proven invaluable.
The people I met and relationships made continue to be important today. A few weeks after I
returned home, much of the world essentially shut down. I was fortunate enough that the OHTC
was supportive of continuing the research we had discussed and co-designed. I am not sure if the
research would have succeeded had I not completed this pre-research consultation visit.
Flexibility and Patience: Flexibility and patience turned out to be essential when conducting
research during this global pandemic. Originally, I planned to collaborate with fishery biologists
to bring the results of their tagging program and the semi-structured interviews together. This
exercise would be completed with key knowledge through participatory mapping workshops.
Unfortunately, this was no longer possible due to travel restrictions. We hoped to conduct several

37

mapping exercises and co-produce knowledge to identify and address gaps in both knowledges.
Although these pieces are not included in this thesis, I intend to finish the work and partake in
these workshops once it is safe to return to Ulukhaktok.

3.2 Research Approach
The vulnerability approach described by Ford & Smit (2004) and Smit & Wandel (2006)
guided this project. Many Arctic researchers have applied the vulnerability approach to identify
and understand environmental conditions relevant to different communities, rather than predetermining conditions assumed to be important by the researcher. However, understanding
these concerns necessitates working in close collaboration and spending a significant time with
people. For these reasons, I also applied the key considerations for engaging with Arctic
communities outlined by Pearce et al. (2009), which includes (1) early and ongoing
communication, (2) community involvement in research design and development, (3) develop
opportunities for local employment, and (4) dissemination of results (Figure 2).
3.2.1 Early and Ongoing Communication: Pre-Research Consultation Visit
Engaging with community members and partners and taking the time to learn from them
aids in developing an understanding of ‘insider knowledge,’ which is critical to building rapport,
establishing trust, asking informed questions, and fully understanding the community culture
(Collings, 2009). Pearce et al. (2009) argue that early and ongoing communication throughout
one’s research project is fundamental to developing a strong community-researcher relationship.
Preliminary consultation visits, along with open communication and willingness to learn (from
both parties) can offer opportunities to enhance the research design, develop appropriate and
relevant research foci, provide guidance on an appropriate time of year to collect data, and most

38

importantly, establish relationships between the researcher and community (Gearheard &
Shirley, 2007; Pearce et al., 2009). For these reasons, I completed a pre-research consultation
visit from February 14th-21st, 2020, before commencing data collection.
The pre-research consultation visit was a critical step in my research process. I visited
Ulukhaktok to meet with project partners and to discuss my initial research ideas with the OHTC
and Ulukhaktok Char Working Group (UCWG or “Working Group”). At these meetings, we codesigned the project together. For instance, we translated community priorities into the research
aim and objectives; we finalized the research approach and methods; and planned an appropriate
time and length of time for me to revisit Ulukhaktok for data collection. The OHTC was most
interested in having Ulukhaktomiut’s knowledge of Arctic char documented in a way that could
be useful for co-management in the future. This included documenting their holistic knowledge
of Arctic char, and current knowledge and observations as changes are happening rapidly.
By spending time with people in the community and local co-management bodies, I
learned about specific community priorities and better understood how my research could be
situated within them. It is important to note that one meeting between the researcher and the
community is not sufficient and cannot adequately solve problems, make connections, or build
trust between parties. Ongoing communication, preferably face-to-face, is critical (DavidsonHunt & O’Flaherty, 2007).

39

Figure 2: Key considerations for engaging with Arctic communities (Pearce et al., 2009)

3.2.2 Ethical and Practical Considerations and Research Regulations
Ethics approval was acquired from the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
on February 27 th, 2020 (Appendix I). Before commencing virtual data collection, a Scientific
Research License was obtained through the Aurora Research Institute (ARI) on January 21st,
2021 (Appendix II). This project adhered to guidelines set by both UNBC and ARI. The research
was also guided by the principles set by the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern
Studies (ACUNS) (e.g., Graham & McDonald, 2003) and the International Arctic Social
Sciences Association (IASSA). ACUNS and IASSA have created guidelines to ensure
meaningful consultation and partnership between researchers and northerners take place. Key
principles that were followed included familiarizing myself and respecting local traditions and
cultural practices, providing accessible plain language summaries when applicable, and
respecting participant privacy.

40

3.2.3 Conceptual Framework: Vulnerability Approach
The vulnerability approach, a conceptual model described by Ford & Smit (2004), has
been employed by many researchers to investigate community-relevant vulnerabilities to climate
change in Arctic regions (e.g., Archer et al., 2017; Ford & Pearce, 2010; Ford et al., 2006). This
framework considers climate change vulnerability as a function of exposure-sensitivity and
adaptive capacity (Ford & Smit, 2004; Kelly & Adger, 2000), as explained in Section 2.2 (see
Figure 1). There are two phases: current exposure-sensitivities and adaptive strategies and future
exposure-sensitivities and adaptive strategies.
Current Exposure-Sensitivities and Adaptive Strategies: The first phase identifies and
evaluates past and present experiences and responses to climate change to assess the system’s
current vulnerability (Ford & Smit, 2004; Ford et al., 2008). To address this phase, I asked
questions such as have you seen any changes in the environment or Arctic char that concern you,
how many fish would you hope to catch in a season and has this changed, and do these changes
impact your ability to go fishing?
Future Exposure-Sensitivities and Adaptive Strategies: The second phase evaluates future
climate change scenarios based on biophysical projections and the required adaptive strategies
needed to manage changing conditions (Ford & Smit, 2004). To address this phase, I examined
secondary sources of information relevant to the exposure-sensitivities that participants
expressed concerns about (e.g., sea ice, temperature, etc.). By identifying variables of interest to
the community (e.g., exposure-sensitivities), projections can be found and further investigated
within the scientific literature. Lastly, to address the second portion of this phase, I asked
questions such as if the changes you have described continue, what will that mean for you and
your family, or do you think more could be done to manage the char fishery?

41

3.3 Design: Case Study
The project was designed as an exploratory case study focusing on the community of
Ulukhaktok in the ISR. Exploratory research involves examining a phenomenon within a specific
context in detail (e.g., Castleden et al., 2012). An exploratory case study was beneficial in
understanding the challenges presented by climate change on Ulukhaktomiut, the influence of
changing conditions on Arctic char, and how the community has been adapting to these
challenges.
3.3.1 Inuvialuit Settlement Region: Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories
The research was completed in the hamlet of Ulukhaktok (formerly Holman), located
within the ISR (Figure 3). Ulukhaktok is a small Inuit community situated at the mouth of Prince
Albert Sound (PAS) on the west coast of Victoria Island in the Northwest Territories (70°45’42”
N, 117°48’20” W) with a population of approximately 476 people (NWT Bureau of Statistics,
2019). HIstoircally, the region was home to the Northern Copper Inuit, individuals known for
their seasonal migratory hunting and nomadic lifestyles (Condon & Ogina, 1996). According to a
community survey conducted in 2019, 79% of residents participate in traditional hunting and
fishing activities, and 67% of their diet consists of country foods (NWT Bureau of Statistics,
2019).
The settlement was established in 1939 after the emerging presence of the Hudson Bay
Company and Roman Catholic missionaries, which initiated the relocation of individuals from
Minto Inlet, PAS, and King’s Bay area, to where Ulukhaktok is currently (Collings, 2009;
Condon & Ogina, 1996). Between the 1930s and the 1950s, the majority of the population
remained dispersed throughout the area while participating in subsistence activities such as
hunting, fishing, and trapping and only visited Holman (now Ulukhaktok) to trade or socialize
42

(Collings et al., 1998; Condon et al., 1995). It was not until the late 1950s that Inuit began to live
in the settlement permanently (Collings, 2009). Slowly, modern conveniences, such as
technology and wage-based jobs began to enter the settlement. These conveniences arrived in the
late 1950s and early 1960s to develop the arts and crafting industry, government employment,
provide family allowances, and other forms of social assistance (Condon & Ogina, 1996). While
these amenities further developed the community, they also fostered a dependence by Inuit on
outside factors, later leading to the decrease in subsistence activities and the erosion of key land
skills, particularly for younger generations (Pearce et al., 2011). Although subsistence living
remains a central component of Inuit livelihoods today, reliance on modernized hunting
technology and external markets for income are now prevalent (Condon et al., 1995; Fawcett et
al., 2018). A mixed economy began in Ulukhaktok in the mid-1960s, including subsistence
living supplemented by seasonal employment and wages (Collings, 2009). Despite the
emergence of modern conveniences and dependence on them, along with the development of a
mixed economy, subsistence continues to be a valued way of living and priority today (Collings,
2009; Condon & Ogina, 1996; Fawcett et al., 2018). Numerous social challenges pose problems
for traditional lifestyles, exacerbated most recently by climate change.
Spending time on the land, subsistence activities, country food, and an ethic of sharing
continue to be important for Ulukhaktomiut. The interactions, rituals, and taboos shared between
Inuit and their environment, and the harvesting, sharing, and consuming of country foods are just
as important as they have always been (Condon & Ogina, 1996; Lokken et al., 2019). These
practices provide sufficient nutrients for health and well-being (Wesche & Chan, 2010), hold
economic value (Condon et al., 1995), is an essential component of community sharing networks
(Ford et al., 2012), and is the basis of Inuit livelihoods (e.g., Archer et al., 2017). Similarly, the

43

sharing of country food is just as important (e.g., Pearce et al., 2010). Sharing networks have key
social and psychological significance in Inuit communities: they act as generalized or balanced
reciprocity between relatives and friends (Condon et al., 1995), preserve or foster Inuit social
relations and interdependence between families (Condon & Ogina, 1996), uphold community
well-being (Collings et al., 1998), and can also be a coping mechanism for communities when
country foods are less abundant or difficult to acquire (Pearce et al., 2010). Both the sharing and
consumption of country foods are recognized as a fundamental component in the definition of
Inuit identity (Condon & Ogina, 1996).
Figure 3: Study location, Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories. Source: ISR boundary shapefile
provided by NWT Centre for Geomatics.

Greenland

Inuvialuit
Settlement
Region
c
Ar
tic

Ci

rc
l

e

US

A

Ulukhaktok
Victoria
Island

YK

NT

NU

3.3.2 Arctic Char in Ulukhaktok
For many coastal communities such as Ulukhaktok, marine resources form the foundation
of the traditional diet (Falardeau & Bennett, 2019). Fish such as Arctic char are species of high
importance (Ayles et al., 2007). As the most abundant salmonid in Arctic Canada, Arctic char
44

are a significant species for coastal Inuit communities (Knopp, 2010; Power & Reist, 2018).
They are a central element in subsistence livelihoods and an important economic resource for
commercial fisheries across the Canadian Arctic (Bilous & Dunmall, 2020; Sawatzky & Reist,
2010; Usher, 2002). In Inuit households, where approximately 70% of the diet consists of
country foods, Arctic char have been a central component for generations (e.g., Paylor, 1998).
Ulukhaktomiut harvest char in high numbers for subsistence, and store the fish for future
consumption, or prepare it (e.g., dried (piffi), frozen raw (quaq), smoked) and then immediately
consume or distribute to other community members (Stern & Gaden, 2015). For many, char
represents self-sufficiency and the traditional subsistence lifestyle (Reist, 2018) and a key role in
community sharing networks and social relations (Condon & Ogina, 1996).
3.3.3 Fish Lake, “Tatiik Lake”
Ulukhaktomiut go to Tatiik Lake (locally known as Fish Lake) in early winter mainly to
harvest Arctic char. Fish Lake is 60 kilometres northwest of Ulukhaktok and holds special
importance. Fish Lake soon became “the only destination for all Ulukhaktok families in the
months of October and November” (Collignon, 2006). Today, people continue to regularly travel
to Fish Lake in late October to set nets under the ice.
Fish Lake is a part of the Kuujjua River system and is recognized as a primary spawning
and over-wintering habitat for the Kuujjua River Arctic char population by residents and
researchers (Harwood et al., 2013; Paylor, 1998). The Kuujjua River system flows into Minto
Inlet, which is roughly 80 km northwest of Ulukhaktok. This river is long, with its headwaters
being 240 km to the community’s east (Harwood et al., 2013). The Kuujjua River and
specifically Fish Lake have traditionally been the main source of winter Arctic char for
Ulukhaktomiut and continue to be important today (Harwood et al., 2013; Paylor, 1998).
45

3.3.4 Arctic Char Co-Management in Ulukhaktok
As early as 1987, the hamlet of Ulukhaktok noticed a decline in the size and abundance
of local Arctic char stocks, specifically the Kuujjua River stock (Ayles et al., 2007; Holman Char
Working Group, 2004). Due to stock depletion in the late 1990s, the community voluntarily
closed Fish Lake to all fishing between 1993 to 1995 (DFO, 2016). In response to this concern,
Ulukhaktomiut, DFO, FJMC, and Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee (OHTC)
created a Working Group to monitor these changes and offer suggestions to resource managers.
The Ulukhaktok Char Working Group was developed in 1996 as a resource co-manager.
They are responsible for developing fishery regulations in consultation with co-managers;
providing guidance for researchers on community priorities; allocating harvest quotas and
monitors fish harvests by residents; participating in research design and projects; and reporting
all pertinent information back to the DFO, FJMC, and HTC at the regional level to inform
decision-making (Holman Char Working Group, 2004). Co-managers meet annually to discuss
community-relevant research needs, provide updates on Arctic char status, and discuss other
information to strategize ways to move forward (Holman Char Working Group, 2004).

3.4 Methods
3.4.1 Local Research Assistant Recruitment
The OHTC suggested hiring a local research assistant to provide in-person support
throughout the interview process. The OHTC asked that I create a “call for workers” poster, and
they would distribute it to inform the community about the position (see Appendix III). This
poster was published on a popular online platform in Ulukhaktok (Facebook), and interested
residents contacted the OHTC. Susie Memogana was hired as the local research assistant because
she was deemed the most qualified for the role by the OHTC. Susie was responsible for
46

reviewing the interview guide and providing feedback, contacting interested participants,
scheduling and participating in the interviews, and identifying potential future participants if
necessary.
Susie and I developed a method to conduct phone interviews with her in person and me
being remote. She contacted the participants ahead of time and scheduled a date and time that
worked best for them. Afterwards, she would meet the participant at a place of their choosing.
Upon arrival, she would outline the project’s aim and objectives and answer any questions they
had. Once they were both ready, Susie would call me on speaker using her personal cell phone. I
led the discussion using our interview guide; however, Susie was equally involved in each
conversation and was given the opportunity to provide clarification to the participant when
needed, translate, or ask questions she deemed necessary. At the end of each interview, I asked
Susie if there was anything else she would like to add, and often she was content and did not
have any further questions.
Initially, we developed this method with Susie being present for all phone interviews;
however, due to unforeseen circumstances, she was only able to carry out seven interviews in
person. Susie and I then adapted the procedure accordingly. She contacted the participants and
provided any information needed before the interview and scheduled a date and time for them.
She would inform the individual(s) that I would call them at that given time, and I would conduct
the interview over the phone. Susie was not present for these interviews. For interviews
completed without Susie, I informed her before calling the participant and followed up with her
afterwards. Upon my reflection of all interviews, there did not appear to be a difference in the
behaviours of participants or characteristics of the interviews, whether Susie was present or not.

47

For example, I was unable to detect any differences between openness, length of the interview,
or the level of detail provided.
3.4.2 Participant Selection
Purposive sampling was used to identify individuals most knowledgeable about Arctic
char. To identify these individuals, the OHTC published job posters (see Appendix IV) on
Facebook and the position was also broadcasted over Ulukhaktok’s local radio station on
February 19th, 2020. After individuals expressed interest in the position, the OHTC selected
those whom they deemed were key informants. Key informants included those who are most
knowledgeable about the subject and can easily speak about the information in which the
research team is interested in gathering (Bernard, 2006). This intended sample included Elders
and avid fishers in the community. After receiving all applications, the OHTC developed a list of
about 20-25 interviewees. The list considered representation across age and gender, including
those once active in the Arctic char fishery and those who are currently active (see Table 2).
Interviewees were also recruited opportunistically through the existing relationships of both
Susie’s and my supervisor.
Although my supervisor and I intended to interview exclusively key knowledge holders,
the finalized list of participants reflected both experienced and novice fishers. Due to the
numerous challenges associated with interviewing people over the phone, several Elders were
excluded from this sample by me due to the language barrier or inability to hear well over the
phone. In addition to these challenges, many skilled fishers were out of town and were not
included in the sample. Despite the challenges of remote research, Susie and I were able to speak
with a range of people from different age groups, genders, and levels of fishing experience.

48

Table 2: Demographic characteristics of 24 interview participants.
Characteristics
Gender
Age

Occupation

Demographics
Male

Sample
12

Female

12

Young Adult (18-34)

0

Adult (35-49)

7

Elder (50-74)

14

Oldest Elder (75+)

3

Casual Worker

5

Full Time Harvester

5

Full Time Worker

4

Retired

10

3.4.2 Data Collection: Semi-Structured Interviews
Between February 16th and March 11th, 2021, 20 semi-structured interviews were
completed. Four of the interviews were conducted in pairs, therefore a total of 24 individuals
were involved. Participants were given the option to complete the interview in either English or
Inuinnaqtun. All interviews were conducted in English. Semi-structured interviews have been a
popular method utilized to document traditional ecological knowledge in the Arctic (e.g., Ford et
al., 2006; Huntington, 1998). As described by Huntington (2000), they allow for the direction
and scope of the interview to be guided by the participant. For flexibility, interviews were
conversation-style with open-ended questions, allowing the participants to freely speak about
topics and concerns important to them (Condon et al., 1995; Hay, 2016). A list of topics, themes,
and questions were used as a reference guide (Huntington, 1998). Since this project is a small
piece of a larger ongoing research project, the interview guide was a collaborative effort between
all research partners. Representatives from DFO and FJMC, and academics from UNBC, the
University of Windsor and the University of Manitoba contributed to developing the interview
49

guide (Appendix V). The OHTC and Susie both reviewed the interview guide before conducting
our first interview and provided feedback. The questions concentrated on themes including
knowledge of Arctic char, changes in Arctic char, and the individual’s experiences with and
responses to change (Table 3).
Prior to conducting the interview, participants were asked if they would like their identity
to be confidential, if they were comfortable having the interview recorded, and if they were
comfortable being quoted. All participants were comfortable with the conversation being
recorded; however, seven preferred to remain anonymous. Those who remained anonymous
were still comfortable with the interview being recorded but did not want their name public.
These individuals’ names have been removed. Each interview varied in time, with the shortest
being 14 minutes and 37 seconds and the longest being 1 hour and 37 minutes.
Table 3: Interview guide highlighting key themes and example interview questions.
Theme

Example Questions

Knowledge of Arctic char

Can you describe a healthy-looking Arctic char?
Could you walk me through a typical day of char fishing from start to
finish?
Are there different types of char (within and among populations)? How
do they differ? What are the Inuinnaqtun words for the different types
of char?

Changes observed

Have you seen any changes in sea-run char in recent years (within the
last 5 years) that concern you? Can you describe these changes?
Have you noticed any changes in the environment (freshwater, the
land, coastal environment) within the last 5 years?

Responding to change

Can you describe how these changes have affected you and your
family?
Are you doing anything different because of these changes?

Future management and
research

Do you think more could be done to manage the char fishery? Are
there any changes you’d like to see happen?
Is there any research you’d like to see in the future?

50

Concluding questions

Is there anything that we haven’t talked about that you think is
important to share?
Do you have any questions for me?

3.4.3 Qualitative Data Analysis
I digitally transcribed and analyzed the interview data using thematic analysis, which
allowed me to identify reoccurring themes and emerging patterns. First, manifest content analysis
was used to sort and code the information into categories through a phenomenological description
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). This involved exploring the interview data with little
interpretation by understanding what the informants explicitly said (Cash & Snider, 2014). Next,
latent content analysis was used. In contrast to manifest, this approach is more implicit and
involves hermeneutic interpretation (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004) by reading between the lines
of what participants shared and identifying the underlying meanings of what was said (Erlingsson
& Brysiewicz, 2017). Both manifest and latent content analysis were beneficial when identifying
reoccurring themes among the interview transcripts.
NVivo 12 allowed me to easily identify these themes and quantify the number of times
they occurred (Hay, 2016). Overarching themes included “knowledge and experiences,”
“changes,” “adaptive responses,” and “future.” As shown in Figure 4, most interview discussions
focused on the changes theme. Each of these themes were broken down several subcategories.
For example, the knowledges and experiences theme was further broken down into subcategories
of uses of Arctic char, types of Arctic char, relationship with fishing, stressors, fishing locations,
and fishing activities. Organizing the interview data into these themes allowed me to explore the
data further and develop comparisons between themes and subcategories.

51

dg
e

&

Ex
p

ve Re

ow
le

er
ie

Adap
ti

Kn

spon
ses

Figure 4: Radial Tree Chart Displaying Hierarchy of Interview Themes

nc
es

t
Fu

e
ur

Ch

an
ge
s

3.4.4 Analysis of Secondary Sources of Information
To answer the question of “how does local environmental change impact Arctic char,”
and in turn, impact Ulukhaktomiut, it is imperative to consider all possible sources of
information. For this reason, biophysical variables were examined using secondary sources to
better understand the potential underlying drivers influencing the changes Ulukhaktomiut are
observing in Arctic char. In Section 4.2.1, I examine published articles, climate change seminal
documents, and data from the Government of Canada. The scientific evidence associated with
the environmental variables of concern noted by the interview participants are reported there.

3.5 Project Limitations
Sample: Conducting phone interviews was challenging. The sample my supervisor and I
originally envisioned was not achievable for several reasons. Many residents we intended to
speak with have trouble hearing, so having a phone on speaker would not be possible as they
52

would not have been able to hear me asking the questions properly. Additionally, those we were
hoping to speak with (harvesters and fish monitors) do not spend much time in the community
during the summer; therefore, it was difficult to schedule an interview with them. Similarly,
some key individuals on the OHTC’s list had either recently left the community or just returned
from medical leave and were not available for an interview. For these reasons, we expanded our
sample criteria to include those who are also novice fishers. It is important to recognize that not
all participants hold the same knowledge. As Susie and I were completing the interviews, it was
evident who has spent a significant amount of time fishing for Arctic char. These individuals
were able to share a high level of detail with us, compared to relatively new fishers. Due to the
differences among participants, most emphasis during the data analysis was placed on the
interviews where thorough details were provided.
Time: If I had been able to do the interviews in person, I would have spent as much time as
possible with each participant before conducting an interview. Spending time with someone
would have provided us with an opportunity to get to know each other. This would allow me to
modify specific questions to each interviewee individually if needed.
Relationships: Relationships are critical, especially when the sharing of knowledge is involved.
Throughout the interviews, it often felt that some participants were holding back information.
Participants could withhold information for several reasons. For example, they could have just
been shy, felt uncomfortable, or did not know if they could trust me. Completing qualitative
interviews over the phone is not as informative as doing so in-person when one can read body
language and gauge how the interviewee responds to the questions and adjust accordingly.

53

Technology: Zoom and Skype might have been useful for conducting remote interviews to allow
for the interviewer and interviewee to read each other’s body language; however, in the case of
Ulukhaktok, this was not an option due to technological limitations. Internet access in
Ulukhaktok is limited, and not everybody has access to a computer with a webcam. For these
reasons, the OHTC suggested communicating with people over the phone, as most residents have
access to a cell phone or home phone.
Before COVID-19, this project was heavily rooted in community-based collaborative
methods. More specifically, the research team (academics and community partners) was
planning to complete a series of participatory mapping exercises, as mentioned. After
transitioning the project from in-person to remote methods due to COVID-19, the OHTC
recommended we halt the mapping exercises for now due to technological limitations. Although
the pandemic has posed challenges, the results presented in this thesis provide a starting point to
an important conversation. Because environmental change in the Arctic is ongoing, this requires
that documentation of community knowledge be ongoing as well.

54

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Chapter 4 presents the findings from the analysis of 20 semi-structured interviews,
supplemented with secondary sources of information when relevant and available (e.g.,
published research, Government of Canada data, and seminal climate change reports). Figure 5
displays the topics and concerns identified by interview participants with arrow sizes indicating
the number of times the themes were discussed during the interview process. This chapter
focuses on these themes and is divided into three sections consistent with the research objectives:
(1) Ulukhaktomiut knowledge and observations of Arctic char; (2) exposure-sensitivities
affecting Inuit-Arctic char interactions; and (3) the adaptive strategies employed to manage
changes.

55

Figure 5: System diagram displaying interview data. The green outline represents environmental
changes noted by participants, yellow outline displays concerns about Arctic char expressed by
participants, blue outline denotes how residents are impacted by these changes, and red outline
shows how residents are experiencing and responding to changes. The arrow sizes show the
relative number of times these topics were discussed throughout the interview process. Dashed
lines represent probable connections that were not explicitly made during the interview process.
Rivers drying

Struggle migrating
to/from the ocean

Rivers overflowing

Hazardous when
travelling on the
land

Fluctuating water
levels

Unpredictable
weather conditions

Frequent and
stronger wave
activity

Challenges setting
and checking nets

People do not
catch as
much char

Take nets
out sooner

Frequent and
stronger wind
activity

Change fishing
locations

Less snow on
the ice
Warmer air
temperatures

Shifting
Environmental
Conditions

Fish at different
times of the year

Alter fishing
activities

Ice thaws sooner

Ice freezes later

Duration of travel

Southern species
migrate North

Increasing
prevalence
of salmon

Stress on char
populations

Char dying
sooner in nets

Tunicates

Less char
around

Warmer ocean
temperatures

Nets become
clogged

Low Abundance

Changes Observed
in Arctic Char

Growth and sores
(inside and outside)

Pursue other
species

Less char caught

Quota systems
in place
Community
concern increases

OHTC/UCWG
get involved
Monitoring efforts
increase

Taste

Pausing
commercial fishing

Skin and meat
changing colours

Probable connection

Size

Environmental Change
Impact on Arctic Char
Impact on Residents
Responses/Outcomes

56

0-10%
10-40%
40-80%
80-100%

4.1 Ulukhaktomiut Knowledge and Observations of Arctic Char
Subsistence harvesting continues to be an important way of life in Ulukhaktok, where
Arctic char is a significant country food. Arctic char provide important vitamins and nutrients,
including Iron, Zinc, Omega-3 fatty acids, Vitamin C and D and others (Caughey et al., 2013).
Since they are caught in high numbers and can be easily preserved and stored for months
afterwards, Arctic char is an important food source for many Inuit throughout the year. This
section focuses on describing this relationship, including fishing efforts and behaviours, uses of
char, and knowledge of char.
4.1.1 Ulukhaktomiut Relationship with Arctic Char
Ulukhaktomiut learn how to fish at a very young age, typically from their parents.
Fishing is habitual in the community. When asked, “do you remember the first time you went
fishing,” participants often laughed and explained they have been “fishing their entire lives.” All
participants spoke highly about their experiences fishing for Arctic char. They often shared fond
memories, such as their favourite time of year to go fishing, the story of the first time they went
fishing on their own, when their child caught their first char and how proud they felt, or stories
told to them by their Elders that they still carry with them. One Elder reminisced:
In May, it starts getting a lot warmer. I just love sitting there and jigging
through the ice, you know? Just being out there at the lakes, especially
when the geese arrive and just listening to the geese and cranes and other
birds that are starting to come back up North for the spring and the summer.
– Anonymous
Participants reflected on the importance of char to them: “it supplies our winter food
supply, and we live off char” (Anonymous), “I grew up eating char all the time” (Anonymous),
or the social value of spending time with friends and family while fishing for char. When asked

57

why residents prefer Arctic char, participants often mentioned either the cultural or nutritional
value. For example:
The char are delicious! They are our traditional culture from growing up as
we were young and we love to do netting, and fish rodding for char. –
Gilbert Alikamik, Adult, F
4.1.2 Fishing Efforts
4.1.2.1 Seasonal Harvest of Arctic Char
Arctic char are harvested seasonally for subsistence and commercial purposes during the
summer and fall in Ulukhaktok. Residents harvest sea-run Arctic char in the ocean during
summer months or in lakes during fall months while char over-winter after returning from their
ocean migration. Table 4 summarizes the summer and winter fishing seasons according to
interview participants, including char activities, Ulukhaktomiut fishing activities, and usage of
char.
Table 4: Seasonal harvest of Arctic char in the summer and fall in Ulukhaktok.
Summer: Coastal Fishery

Fall: Under-Ice Fishery

Fish
migration:

Sea-run Arctic char migrate to the ocean at
the end of June-early July, and they are
known as Ikgalukpik.

Arctic char migrate from the ocean back to the
lakes in September, and these fish are known as
Ivittakguk (“the red ones”).

Fish
characteristics:

Ikgalukpik move quickly to the ocean from
the lakes. Typically, the larger fish are the
first to enter the ocean, followed by the
smaller Arctic char.

As fish migrate back to lakes to overwinter,
they often return as red spawners or Ivittakguk.
Oftentimes large spawning males will display
bright red spawning colouration (Jonsson &
Jonsson, 2001). Although this would be the
time of year to catch a red spawner, most fish
caught are mainly silver in colour rather than
red.

Skinny fish, scarred from the ice early in
the open-water season (spring). By mid- to
late-summer these fish become plump after
feeding on ocean resources.

Fatty fish, red bellies (not all have red bellies).

58

Fish
behaviour:

Feeding on ocean resources

Mature fish spawn in October in freshwater
environments.

Time for
fishing:

Typically, the first fish is caught in Kijjivik
in late June/ early July coming from Minto
Inlet.

By October, the lakes are frozen and ready for
under-ice netting until early November.

Most residents wait until July to set their
nets because they are waiting for the
“second run,” which consists mostly of the
medium and smaller sized fish, a preference
for many.
People fish in September as the char
migrate back to the lakes before the ice
freezes.
Fishing
locations:

Residents set nets along the shores of Kings
Bay, Queens Bay, and Jacks Bay in the
community. Those with access to a boat
and/or ATV will travel farther distances
such as PAS, Safety Channel, and Minto
Inlet.

Most residents travel to Tatik Lake, some travel
to other inland lakes near the community or
into PAS. However, it is becoming less
common for people to travel into PAS.

Char
preparation:

Piffi (see Section 4.1.3.1)

Due to their large size and fatty meat, these fish
are tastiest when prepared into quaq (see
Section 4.1.3.2)

4.1.2.2 Fishing Behaviour
In Ulukhaktok, fishing behaviour varied considerably among participants. When asked
what a typical day of fishing looks like, responses depended on the person’s age and the number
of fish they were hoping to catch. The younger participants (35-49 age group) appeared more
laid-back about fishing. They often explained that they set nets along the shore of the bays in the
community and check their nets on nice days or twice a day if the ocean is rough. It is also
commonplace for people to fish using fishing rods along the shores of the bays in the
community. These participants described the social aspect of fishing, mentioning they enjoy
being out with their friends or family. In contrast, older participants appeared more methodical

59

about their fishing practices; they schedule their days around fishing. One participant explained
if they are getting a lot of fish in their nets, they will check them up to three times a day.
However, if they are not getting many, they will only check their nets every second day, or move
onto another location. An Elder explained the process of checking nets during the summer
months:
I usually set my net out mid-June through the tidal cracks and keep them out
there all summer until about September… I am lucky that I keep my nets close
to town right in Kings Bay here. And I can check them several times a day. So,
during the day I check before work, lunch time, at supper time, and once I’ve
eaten, I usually go again. A minimum of four times a day I will go check them.”
– Gibson Kudlak, Elder, M
Regularly checking one’s net in summer is important for several reasons. When waters
are rough, the nets can become tangled or wash away depending on how strong the wave activity
is. If the net remains intact during a period of rough water, it can easily become clogged with
seaweed or “slime.” More recently, residents have been experiencing increasing episodes of fish
dying in nets if left too long (see Section 4.2.2.2) or damaged catches of fish because nets
remained in rough ocean conditions for too long. People often watch their nets closely to
mitigate such scenarios and avoid catching sizes of char they are not targeting or unwanted
species (e.g., Pacific salmon). Specifically, some harvesters release large Arctic char (~3-4 feet)
from their nets as they prefer the taste of medium-sized Arctic char compared to large fish. Some
residents remove large fish from their nets because they want them to spawn and maintain the
population. Therefore, releasing these larger individuals is a way they can help manage the
Arctic char fishery. However, this custom is not practiced by everyone because large fish are
highly sought for the commercial fishery as they have more meat on them and can be better to
sell (Anonymous).

60

Additionally, there are traditional and cultural taboos related to net checking and setting
nets. One Elder (Anonymous) shared a story about a net that had not been checked for about four
or five days. This Elder set their nets along the coast near the community and observed a
different net in a nearby channel but did not notice anyone check it for several days. It is not
culturally appropriate to tamper with other people’s belongings or tell them what to do; however,
after five days had gone by, they decided it was time to pull it from the water. The net was full of
rotting fish, four maliriq (loon) and one nattiaq (seal pup). They were able to rescue one maliriq
but nothing else. After discovering whose net this belonged to, this individual unapologetically
shared their opinion with that person. The Elder told me this story to express the importance of
regularly checking nets and not wasting food.
Another Elder shared a story with me about a fishing trip to Kuuk River. This story
displays the importance of not only passing along knowledge and stories, but how different
people view fishing. He said:
I was told “you never, ever set nets right across the river, because if you
do, the char is never going to come up again, so you need to set them
away from the river.” When we got there, there was nets right in the river.
So, I actually told the person, “You are not supposed to do that, or the
char will not come back up.” They got really mad at me. But I just said to
them “This is a teaching from a person older than me and I am just
passing it along.” They actually took their nets out of the river. And I told
them where the Elders told me where to go and where I set my nets. Some
teachings you try to keep going and passing along so they won’t stop and
so the char keep coming. – Jack Akhiatak, Elder, M
4.1.2.3 Personal Subsistence Requirement
Residents usually have a personal subsistence need or requirement that they aim for each
season. In contrast to management quotas discussed below (see Section 4.3.2.1.1), which are topdown allocations implemented to manage a population, a personal subsistence requirement is
used and determined by an individual to ensure they obtain enough fish to eat for a few months
61

at a time, and enough to share with others if needed. Personal subsistence requirements certainly
influence fishing efforts. For example, if an individual knows 50 char are enough to last them
and their family a season and have spare fish to share with others, they will fish until they reach
this goal. When participants discussed how many char they expect to catch in a season, they
often reflected on their personal subsistence requirement. One participant explained:
To get my 70 char, I use one net, sometimes I borrow another net to get my
catch. Sometimes I take a couple of trips up to the lake and stay up there
until I get what I need. I also help Elders up there that are trying to do some
fishing for themselves. It goes both ways. Sometimes I leave my catch with
the Elders because they didn’t get anything. – Allen Pogotak, Elder, M
4.1.3 Uses of Arctic Char
The preparation of Arctic char varies between summer and winter. To get the most out of
a fish, every bit is used. Participants explained they often prepare Arctic char by baking, frying,
boiling, or preparing soup or fish cakes; however, the most common preparations are piffi and
quaq.
4.1.3.1. Piffi
In the summer, residents make piffi, otherwise known as dried fish (Figure 6). Most of a
catch is often made into piffi which preserves the meat to be consumed for months afterwards.
This process allows Inuit to build up a char supply that can be consumed throughout the winter
months if needed and does not require spending money on electricity for freezer storage.
Although any sized fish can be made into piffi, some participants described that medium-sized
fish (2-2½ feet) are ideal because they are not too fatty or oily compared to larger fish, which
makes them tastier. To make piffi, the first step is to fillet the fish and slice the meat but not
remove the skin. Then the fish are hung outside on a drying rack for several days. It is important

62

to know the ideal conditions when making piffi as the weather, air temperature and sun all play a
role in how long fish are hung outside. If the meat is too dry, it will not taste as good to eat.
Figure 6: Piffi hanging to dry in Ulukhaktok. Photo: T. Pearce

4.1.3.2 Quaq
Quaq (frozen raw meat) is common in the winter. Upon returning home after netting
under the lake ice, residents store their fish outside during the winter months in secured crates.
Due to the cold temperatures, these crates act as freezers. When they want char, Ulukhaktomiut
will thaw the number of fish needed, then prepare it in a variety of different ways (stir-fry, boil,
fish cake, etc.), or consume it as quaq by cutting the frozen fish it into small pieces using an ulu
and consume raw.

63

4.1.3.3 Sharing
Sharing remains a critical component of Inuit identity and is guided by complex rules.
Collings and colleagues (Collings et al., 1998; Collings, 2011; Collings et al., 2016) have
documented sharing networks in Ulukhaktok, and more recently have addressed the contested
spaces where cash has emerged as a component of food sharing (Collings 2019). As a mixed
economy emerged, the necessity of cash grew (e.g., Fawcett et al., 2018). Not only does cash
now play a role in community sharing networks (e.g., Ready & Power, 2018), but it influences
social relations between fellow residents and wildlife (e.g., Natcher, 2009).
There is extensive literature about the importance of sharing in the Canadian Arctic (e.g.,
Ready, 2018; Watt-Cloutier, 2015). When participants were asked, “if you catch a lot of fish in
your net, what do you do with it?” the responses varied. Most individuals described different
preparations of Arctic char, such as piffi and quaq, while others expressed the importance of
sharing. It was not surprising that people spoke about Arctic char’s role in sharing networks,
specifically the importance of sharing with those who cannot fish due to advanced age or lack of
necessary equipment. Although food sharing networks have evolved in Ulukhaktok (e.g.,
Collings et al., 2016), sharing continues to be a customary practice and way of life. Participants
explained they will catch as much char, often a few hundred fish if possible, and distribute their
catch to members of the community. First, they will share with their immediate family, extended
family, Elders, other residents, and then keep what is left. One participant stated, “almost every
catch we get, we share” (Anonymous).
4.1.4 Knowledge about Phenotypic in Arctic Char
Multiple populations of Arctic char inhabit the west coast of Victoria Island. According
to several participants, fish from Minto Inlet, Mayoklihok, Kuujjua River/Fish Lake, PAS, Kuuk
64

River/Tahiryuaq Lake, and Kingua all slightly differ from one another in their appearance, taste,
and size. Not everybody distinguishes among char, however. For example, when participants
were asked to describe the different types of Arctic char around Ulukhaktok, some explained that
“char is char” (Gibson Kudlak, Elder, M), suggesting they are all the same, while others
disagreed. A few participants described in detail how char from specific fishing locations differ
and why. They often prefaced this by reminding me that they like all Arctic char but recognize
slight differences. Table 5 displays a summary of this information; Figure 7 displays the
locations. Though places such as Kagloryuak River and Naloagyok River are important fishing
spots, they were not specifically discussed by participants; rather, they were grouped and
discussed together as “the end of Prince Albert Sound.” Similarly, other important locations such
as Kagluk River to Qunnguq Lake were not discussed in detail.
Table 5: Summary of Arctic char characteristics from key fishing locations.
Location
Minto Inlet
(summer
coastal)

Mayoklihok
(winter
under-ice)

Summary

Example Quotes

Arctic char from Minto Inlet are darker in
colour, often silver with thick skin. These fish
are usually medium sized with a mixture of red
and white meat. The difference in colour
between Minto char and other locations has
been attributed to two environmental factors:
(1) the ocean is just “different,” and (2) the
location of the sun.

“I asked an Elder one time why they were
different, and they just told me it is because of
where the sun comes up. From the east side of
us that land is lower, and Minto got a lot of
cliffs and hills, and the lakes are kinda in the
shadow when the sun comes up early in the
morning. And then they finally get sunshine
[Minto] maybe about now, the afternoon.
That’s the way, that part was explained to me
by an Elder. And when they told me I was
really surprised.” – Jack Akhiatak, Elder, M

The char found at the end of Minto Inlet in
Mayoklihok (Lake) were characterized as some
of the biggest char near Ulukhaktok, with an
estimated average size of approximately 3 feet.
These fish were often described by participants
as “very healthy,” fatty, and usually reddish
flesh colour. It appeared that fish from
Mayoklihok were hard to describe, as everyone
continued to say how rich in taste they were.
These differences were attributed to the river
system that Mayoklihok is on. One participant

“When we have Mayoklihok char, we noticed
it is different. It is way fattier and more, well
their meat is... oh my, it is so tasty!” – Gilbert
Alikamik, Adult, F

65

explained that the river is very short, and there
is not much of a watershed here. Additionally,
the terrain consists of many cliffs and hills and
is a muddy environment.

Kuujjua
River to
Fish Lake
(winter
under-ice)

Arctic char found throughout this river system
are often lighter in colour. These fish are
recognized to stay in the river and do not often
travel to the ocean, otherwise known as
landlocked. Since this is a sandy environment,
the colours and taste of the fish change with the
sand and gravel, giving the fish an almost gritty
taste.
Fish lake was the most popular winter fishing
location people spoke about. The participants
described char here as “blue-skinned fish, with
a pale pink meat colour” (David Kuptana,
Elder, M). This was another location where it
seemed challenging for the participants to put
into words, often saying, “Fish Lake one are…
you can just tell the difference in size or from
their taste that they are Fish Lake char”
(Gibson Kudlak, Elder, M). These differences
have also been attributed to the extremely long
Kuujjua River system that Fish Lake is on,
which has many tributaries.

Prince
Albert
Sound
(summer
coastal)

Like the Kuujjua char, PAS Arctic char is also
gritty-tasting and lighter in skin colour, often a
combination of a light grey with a green tint.
These fish typically have white meat with little
fat on them, especially when compared to char
from Fish Lake. Two participants explained
that when the meat is white, there is no fat
present, but it is also common to catch char
with “really red” meat, which are the “red
spawners.” All participants spoke highly about
fish from PAS often referring to the meat as
“rich” in flavour.
Fish found at the end of PAS, likely within the
Kagloryuak and Naloagyok rivers, were
described as smaller fish (about 1½ feet) and
not much larger when compared to Minto char.
Fish caught at the end of the Sound were
described as “some of the best char you can
have.”

66

“The ones from Kuujjua taste more like sand
and they are lighter coloured because the
rivers and freshwater. The ones in Kuujjua
stay in the river and don’t really stay in the
ocean. There is mostly sand over there and not
much gravel, so the colour of the fish
changes” – Allen Pogotak, Elder, M
“They are always smaller. When my husband
did sampling on char, they were always a bit
smaller. They were like mini big char, or mini
small char, whatever you call it. But they had
a really beautiful smooth shape.”–
Anonymous

“…We went fishing in Prince Albert Sound
because it is where char taste a little different
and richer in the flavor of the char than the
one you get at Fish Lake.”– Anonymous
“The char there is one of the best char you can
have. It is totally different from the fish you
get from Fish Lake here. That was the best
char you could get because they… they are
just different! I think they are different
species, the char in the end of PAS. People
would come and flock to us when we’d get
home from Prince Albert Sound with two
sleds of fish, they would. Everybody wanted
one because they knew Prince Albert Sound
char was the best to eat and it is how come
they really liked it. Since we are getting older,
we don’t go that way anymore, that is why we
don’t go fishing that much anymore except for
the summertime.” – Anonymous

Kuuk River
to Tahiryuaq
Lake
(summer)

Kingua
(summer)

Participants mentioned they can tell the
difference between Kuuk River fish and others
simply due to their size. These fish were
described as “giant,” often reaching 3 feet long.
Tahiryuaq Lake was characterized as a
spawning lake, and for that reason, participants
David Kuptana and Gibson Kudlak referred to
these Kuuk fish as ikgalukpik (those that come
down to the ocean in the Spring) and ivittakguk
(red spawners that come up to the lakes in the
Fall). Gibson specifically mentioned the meat
colour of ikgalukpik from the Kuuk, describing
it as “paler in colour and the meat isn’t so red”;
however, the ikgalukpik are often longer and
skinner when they are travelling to the ocean.
One participant has observed noticeable low
waters in the Kuuk River over the last few
years.

“I think there’s all kinds of char, some are
river char, some lake char, some ocean char,
there might be all kinda of fish, but the char
tastes a little different from Kuuk river and
Kuujjua. Kuuk river they are always giant
fish.” - Allen Pogotak, Elder, M

Kingua was characterized as a spawning area
for char. According to participants, these fish
are comparable to Kuuk char in their taste and
size. Participants explained that these fish
usually do not exceed two feet in size, and
although they are thin, their meat is very tasty.
The region is characterized as muddy and flat
with rolling hills, similar to Mayoklihok.
Although these fish are excellent for eating,
travelling to Kingua is a challenge due to its
distance from town and not many people make
the trip each year.

“Fish from Kingua, down the Prince Albert
Sound, they are smaller and thinner, but they
are tastier.” – Laverna Klengenberg, Adult, F

67

“In our language, we call them, the ones that
go down the Kuuk river, they are called
ikgalukpik are the ones that the big fish that
goes down to the ocean and in fall time, they
go back up to spawn to be red spawners. Two
kinds. They are called ikgalukpik when they
go down and then when they come up, they
are Ivittakguk.” – David Kuptana, Elder, M

Figure 7: Map of popular Arctic char fishing locations across western Victoria Island.
Source: ESRI Base map. ISR boundary shapefile provided by NWT Centre for Geomatics.

4.2 Exposure-Sensitivities Affecting Inuit-Arctic Char Interactions
In Ulukhaktok, recent changes in the local environment are affecting Inuit’s relationship
with Arctic char. Some individuals expressed great concern about these changes, while others
only mentioned having witnessed these changes directly or overheard conversations from others
around the community. As shown in Table 6, some participants spoke broadly about temperature,
such as “the temperature is warming,” but did not specify whether they were talking about air or
water temperature. These responses were grouped together, which accounted for 67% of
participants. In contrast, some individuals were more specific and stated, “the ocean is warmer
now” or “the air is much warmer,” these responses were grouped in their own subcategory. The
same can be seen in the “Weather” and “Ice” categories. Table 7 offers a brief description of

68

these environmental conditions along with a sample quote from participants. This table does not
intend to compare or verify the information shared by participants with scientific results from
instrumental measurements; it was designed to be complementary. Although interview
participants provided a considerable amount of detail in their observations and experiences with
local environmental change, spatial and temporal scales were missing in some instances. For this
reason, we have turned to quantitative evidence from scientific studies to further support the
information gathered from the interview process. The spatial scale within the “instrumental
measurements” category is not consistent due to the limited availability of data or data being
non-existent. Information that is publicly available at a scale closest to Ulukhaktok has been
reported.
Table 6: Six changes observed in the local environment by participants.
Concern
Salmon
Temperature
Water Temperature
Air Temperature
Ice Conditions
Sea Ice
Lake Ice
Weather
Wind
Waves
Precipitation

Percentage
100%
67%
75%
31%
17%
46%
21%
56.5%
52%
30%
13%

Water Levels
Tunicates, “Slime”

56%
47%

69

Water
Air

Temperature

Increasing
prevalence of
Salmon

Environmental
Concern
An increase of Pacific salmon harvests is likely due
to warming trends and increased productivity in
Arctic regions (Dunmall et al., 2013), making these
habitats more favourable (Dunmall et al., 2018). In
2000, the Pacific Salmon Collection Program began
to address concerns about the increasing occurrence
of salmon across the Canadian Arctic. This program
allows subsistence harvesters to report observations
of salmon or voluntarily provide their catch to the
Collection Program to be assessed by Fisheries and
Oceans Canada. Although salmon are not new in
the Arctic, the notable rise is a cause for concern
for native species such as Arctic char (Bilous &
Dunmall, 2020). Between 2013 and 2017, the
amount of Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and
Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) drastically
increased from near 0 observations in 2013 to 500600 observations in 2017 (see Appendix VIII)
(Dunmall et al., 2018).
Water (Sea Surface Temperature):

Over the last 3 years, the presence of salmon has
grown considerably in Ulukhaktok and across the
ISR. Residents are concerned about the reasons
behind this increase in salmon and they are also
concerned about the potential implications this
will have for Arctic char. In 2018 and 2019,
Ulukhaktomiut noticed a significant abundance of
salmon; however, in 2020 the numbers appeared
to drop (nearly to zero). Currently, it is unclear
whether salmon are spawning in streams in the
Ulukhaktok area and if their young would be able
to survive cold arctic water temperatures.
However, some residents commented they believe
salmon are spawning as they have caught several
salmon with eggs (e.g., Gilbert Alikamik, Adult,
F) and other participants have noticed spawning
colours emerge in some fish (e.g., David Kuptana,
Elder, M).

Participants expressed concern about warming
SST and air temperatures. These individuals often
associated warming conditions to changes
observed in other environmental variables, such
as sea ice and the presence of salmon.

70

The dramatic increase in sea ice retreat has been
linked to significantly warmer sea surface
temperatures (SST) across the Arctic (Steele &
Dickinson, 2016). Specifically, Beaufort Sea SST is
on an upward trend. According to NOAA’s Arctic
Report Card 2019, August average SST in 2019

Instrumental
Measurements

Observed
Change

“I noticed a difference when
there is sea ice around and the
ocean temperature is colder. It
was once cold on the hands even
in the summertime after handling
the nets for a few minutes. When
the water is colder it seems to be
little to no salmon around, but
then when the ocean water

“We used to never get salmon!
Now we are starting to get a lot
of salmon. For us, it is a
problem. People always say,
“when there is a lot of salmon,
there’s not much char.” and I
believe that. All that salmon
probably puts our char away
too… The salmon have been
around a while. But it was only a
few numbers. Just one caught a
year or so. The summer before
this one we got 200, so that is a
really big jump. They are all
over the ISR.” – David Kuptana,
Elder, M

Sample
Quote(s)

Table 7: Summary of local observations and instrumental measurements of environmental change in and around Ulukhaktok.

4.2.1 Changes Observed in the Local Environment

Sea Ice

In the Amundsen Gulf, ice is thawing sooner and
freezing later, with break-up beginning in late
March-early April and freeze-up occurring in late
September-early October. Once the ice freezes, it
is not as thick as expected. Residents normally
expect the sea ice to be anywhere between 7-8
feet thick, in recent years, the now ranges
between 4-5 feet. Participants often noted the lack
of snow on both the sea ice and lake ice. Some
noted the snow should be 1-2 feet deep; however,
seeing glare ice is becoming a common
occurrence.

71

Arctic sea ice extent varies yearly; however, it is on
a downward trend (AMAP, 2019). “Extent” is
recognized as an area covered by ice or not and
represented in square kilometers (National Snow &
Ice Data Center, 2021). Between 1981-2015, the
Canadian Arctic saw a decline in sea ice extent in
all seasons (Derksen et al., 2019). Specifically, the
Beaufort Sea saw a record-low sea ice extent in
2012 and another notably low event in the winter of
2016 (Derksen et al., 2019). The Beaufort Sea has
been recognized to have one of the fastest rates of
sea ice decline in the Arctic (Zhang et al., 2018).
Over the last four decades, sea ice thickness has
also significantly decreased in the Beaufort Sea,
specifically during the summer months between
1997-2015 (Planck et al., 2020). NOAA’s Arctic
Report Card 2020 reports that Beaufort Sea’s ice
thickness was above average in April 2020;
however, the rate of season ice loss was reported to
decrease faster than expected (Perovich et al.,
2019). Another concern is the lack of multiyear sea

Between 1948-2016, the Canadian Arctic
experienced an estimated increase in air
temperature of 2.3°C, with a 1.5°C increase in the
summer months and a 3.3°C increase in the winter
months (Derksen et al., 2019). According to
Canadian Centre for Climate Services Climate
Data, Ulukhaktok’s average annual temperature
between 1951-1980 was -12.9oC and increased
slightly to -11.3oC between 1981-2010. Researchers
predict this value will increase to -9 oC between
2021-2050 and to -3.4oC by the end of the century
(see Appendix IX).

Air Temperature:

was 1-7°C warmer than the 1982-2010 average
(Timmermans & Ladd, 2019).

“Sea ice has been a lot thinner
than it normally use to be. Even
now we have open leads out
there and young ice which could
be solid. Even in the bays here,
we probably looking at 4 or 5
feet when it should be 7 or 8
feet. Our ocean ice doesn’t last
as long, it breaks up a lot earlier
because it is a lot thinner. When
I was a kid, we use to be driving
snow mobile on the ice until
mid-July. Now we are lucky to
see early June sometimes.” –
Gibson Kudlak, Elder, M

warms up, the salmon come
around.” – Gibson Kudlak,
Elder, M

Wind

Weather

Lake Ice

Analysis of long-term datasets between 1958-2010
and 1900-2010 demonstrate that Canada’s Arctic
has experienced an increase in storm frequency and
severity (Greenan et al., 2018). Increased wave

Participants noticed an increase in the frequency
and strength of both winds and wave activity
during the summer months, and less precipitation
during the winter months. Not only are these

72

Several environmental factors influence the
presence or absence of lake ice, such as albedo,
lake size, air temperature, and precipitation
(Robinson et al., 2021). For example, Lehnherr et
al. (2018) describe how increasing air temperature
has resulted in an ice cover decline on Lake Hazen,
located on northern Ellesmere Island. In this region,
earlier onsets of ice break-up, ice-off periods, and
decreasing summer lake ice cover can be observed
(Lehnherr et al., 2018). These trends can be seen
elsewhere in the Canadian Arctic. For example, in a
Pan-Arctic study, Dauginis & Brown (2021) report
the onset of lake ice freeze and continuous ice
cover to be on a downward trend.

21% of participants expressed concerns about
lake ice. These individuals mentioned
observations of lake ice forming later in the year
than expected and often forming layer by layer.
This layering was explained to cause
“jaggedness” in the ice, which makes creating a
hole to set a net slightly more challenging than if
the ice was one solid layer. Additionally, two
participants discussed observations of freeze-thaw
cycles in the fall months of 2020. They explained
that the temperature continued to fluctuate and
caused the top layer of lake ice to thaw into slush,
then freeze again once the temperature dropped.
This happened several times over the fall months.
These participants mentioned the temperature was
so mild they thought the lakes were going to
“come back to water” (Anonymous).

ice (MYI) (which persist more than one summer).
The Canadian Arctic has experienced a decline in
MYI of 60% since the 1960s (Overland et al.,
2019). Between 1969-2016, the summer sea ice
area has declined roughly 5-20% per decade
compared to a winter sea ice area decline of 7.6%
per decade (Derksen et al., 2019). The most
significant MYI declines have been reported in the
Canadian Arctic Archipelago (estimated 9% per
decade) and the Beaufort Sea (estimated 7% per
decade) (Derksen et al., 2019). Harwood et al.
(2020) investigate the influence of changing sea ice
on ringed seal body condition and reproduction in
Ulukhaktok. This study describes that the trends in
the sea ice clearance date has been minimal since
1971 in the region.

“Most of the time it is just
weather. It gets too windy too
fast. The swells come up, seem
to come up faster. Usually you

“Long ago we would have to
really, really work to make a
hole in the ice. Right now, it is
like you grab an auger, drill a
hole, and you are done. That was
long ago, when you would go
fishing to the lakes and you
would have to drill 6 ½ - 7 feet
of ice. And just last week, my
mother went fishing and she said
she chiselled through the ice, and
it was not even 4 feet thick. It
should be thicker right now. I
was surprised when she told me
that the lake was not that thick.”
– Jack Akhiatak, Elder, M

Water Levels

Waves
Precipitation

The relative sea level for the Beaufort Sea is
projected to increase between 50-75 cm by 2100;
however, Ulukhaktok’s projected relative sea-level
rise is between -25 to 0 cm by 2100 (Greenan et al.,
2018). Participants did not discuss sea level rise or
coastal erosion observations but mentioned visible
fluctuations in nearby lakes and rivers. Arctic lakes
are expected to change in response to warming air
temperatures and increased permafrost thaw,
altering drainage networks (Greenan et al., 2018).

Interview participants connected changes in water
levels to the changes observed in summer and
winter precipitation. Some individuals mentioned
their concern about rivers drying, while others
have noticed recent flooding of rivers. Due to the
extreme differences experienced year to year, it is
possible that one year a river is drying and the
next it is overflowing. One participant
commented that like sea ice, rivers are thawing
earlier than they normally would, and connected

73

activity and wind speed follow this same trend and
have been linked to changes in sea ice retreat (e.g.,
Wang et al., 2015). For example, Canada’s
Changing Climate Report notes that since 1970,
surface wave heights and wave activity in Canada’s
Arctic have increased and will continue to increase
in the future (Greenan et al., 2018). More
specifically, the Beaufort Sea saw a 3%-8%
increase in wave height per decade (between JulySeptember) between 1970-2013 (Greenan et al.,
2018), along with a significant increase in wave
periods during the month of September between
1992-2013 (Wang et al., 2015). Similarly, surface
wind speeds are projected to increase in the
Canadian Arctic by 2081-2100 (Casas-Prat et al.,
2018). Between 1948-2012, precipitation trends in
the Canadian Arctic have increased (X. Zhang et
al., 2019). However, climate models project that
most precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow
(Bintanja & Andry, 2017). According to Canadian
Centre for Climate Services Climate Data,
Ulukhaktok’s average annual precipitation between
1951-1980 was 168 mm, and under high emission
scenarios (RCP8.5, otherwise known as businessas-usual), this value will increase 14% between
2021-2050, growing to 30% between 2051-2080,
and projected to reach 42% by the end of the
century.

changes occurring, but participants expressed
their concern that rapid changes in weather make
it challenging to predict the conditions while on
the land which can lead to harmful consequences
if not careful.

“Last year in the river, the
waters were kinda low. We
didn’t have very much rain, or
very much snow last year. It
might be different now because
lots of snow, and rivers are kinda
high right now, they got ice on
them. Last year, the rivers were
so low you could walk across the

can wait them out, but it gets
pretty scary if you try and come
home if you have been out there
too long, or if you don’t realize
there is rough water here.” –
Anonymous

Tunicates, “Slime”

In the summer of 2019, the eastern Amundsen Gulf
experienced a large bloom of appendicularian
larvaceans (Oikopleura spp., pelagic tunicates) near
Ulukhaktok (Pettitt-Wade et al., 2020). Although
larvaceans are not uncommon in the Arctic (e.g.,
Raskoff et al., 2005), this is the first time they have
been observed by Ulukhaktomiut (Pettitt-Wade et
al., 2020). Pettitt-Wade et al. (2020) reports their
presence roughly 3-5 km off the coast of
Ulukhaktok and reaching depths of approximately
1-2 m.

In 2019, residents noticed an unusual substance
off the shores of Ulukhaktok, referring to the
substance as “slime.” The slime was especially
present in the summers of 2018 and 2019;
however, the summer of 2020 it was manageable.
After investigations in 2019, the slime was
identified as tunicates. When the ocean was
covered in slime, residents noticed marine
mammals and fish seemed to move away from the
area. Residents became fearful of the slime
because they had never seen it before and were
concerned about potentially getting sick from it.

74

Scholars have also projected changes to river
systems in Arctic regions and associated impacts on
migratory species. For example, Golden et al.
(2021) discuss the physical barrier that river dry
zones present for migratory fish species, and
Larranaga et al. (2018) mention the impact of
drying rivers on fish behaviour, particularly the
timing of fish movement and habitat usage.
Obtaining information on the drying or flooding of
these waterbodies on Victoria Island is challenging
due to the lack of available data and requires further
investigation.

this change to the observed overflowing events.
They also noticed that these changes are not
consistent year to year. Some participants
discussed the impacts of fluctuating water levels
on the summer char run.

“…. It was all over the ocean. It
was getting in our nets and
leaving a brown slime. And it
seemed like stayed until freeze
up. It started happening until
freeze up, as soon as we had ice
out at the open water flow edge,
started noticing them then. And
then they stayed around all
summer…. They were all over
the place, from the shore out to
the deep. Further I went was
about 10-15 miles straight out
from town and they were all over
the place. Along the shore, 20-30
feet of water, you could barely
see the bottom just from the
infestation of them.” – Gibson
Kudlak, Elder, M

rivers, no water.” – Allen
Pogotak, Elder, M

4.2.1.1 Implications of Environmental Change for Arctic Char and Ulukhaktomiut
This section provides the same list of environmental concerns described above but
elaborates how changes in these variables impact Arctic char and Ulukhaktomiut according to
participants.
4.2.1.1.1 Increasing Prevalence of Pacific Salmon
Impacts on Arctic char: While some participants admitted they do not know enough about
salmon to comment on whether their presence impacts Arctic char or not, other residents
confidently affirmed that salmon appear to be a more aggressive and territorial fish chasing
Arctic char out of their spawning lakes. Although 100% of participants expressed concern about
salmon and mentioned the potential impact of their presence on Arctic char, it is unclear whether
this is an observation or an assumption. Participants did not clearly define whether this was
something they have witnessed first-hand or not. However, two participants mentioned they
know salmon are more aggressive than Arctic char because they have been told this by the
“fishery people that come from the South” (Robert Kuptana, Oldest Elder, M). Another group of
participants mentioned they have heard from other residents that salmon are more aggressive
than Arctic char, but they “do not know what that will mean in the future” (Laverna
Klengenberg, Adult, F).
Impacts on Residents: The increasing occurrence of salmon was undeniably one of the most
controversial topics discussed. Some residents (21%) enjoy the taste of salmon and will consume
it opportunistically, whereas others were not as open to the thought of salmon. Even those who
admitted they enjoy the taste emphasized that Arctic char was their preference. One participant
explained that in 2020 (did not specify what season), she temporarily “gave up” fishing until

75

Arctic char come back because she does not want salmon. This individual also participated in the
commercial fishery and explained she limited her fishing efforts in 2019 due to the number of
salmon she was catching (Anonymous).
Similarly, another participant explained that he would only use salmon as a “substitute”
once his cache runs low. The thought of Arctic char leaving Ulukhaktok is a fear for most. They
are especially concerned that their children and grandchildren will become salmon eaters and no
longer consume Arctic char in the future.
4.2.1.1.2 Temperature (Water, Air)
Impacts on Arctic char: Warming ocean temperatures were directly linked to changes observed
in anadromous Arctic char during the summer months. Some participants (36%) expressed
concern that it is becoming common for fish to die shortly after getting caught in gillnets and
attributed this to warming water temperatures. When asked how long they think Arctic char
could survive after being caught, participants often explained that it depends on the temperature.
For example, when the waters are cold, Arctic char could survive overnight, but they might only
last a few hours when the waters are slightly warmer. Although participants did not discuss the
role of stress, fish dying in the nets can also be attributed to the combination of pressures, such as
warming temperatures and the increasing prevalence of salmon and tunicates.
Impacts on Residents: Participants described the indirect effects associated with fluctuating air
and water temperatures. For example, warming temperatures have been linked to changes in
other environmental variables such as sea ice and permafrost thaw and changes observed in
Arctic char, including their movement patterns and fish dying in the nets. Roughly over the last
decade, residents have noticed significant shifts in fish health, growth, flesh quality (e.g., Knopp

76

et al., 2012), and they are recently beginning to observe fish dying more quickly in the nets.
These changes have been associated with warming ocean temperatures. Now, fishers need to
check their nets more regularly and cannot leave them out overnight, like they once did.
However, some residents take the chance and leave their nets overnight if they believe the water
conditions are ideal. Although some residents find themselves checking their nets more
frequently (several times a day), they still end up with dead fish in their nets. Inedible fish were
characterized as “mushy” or “soft” and would get thrown away or fed to the dogs, whereas fish
that had only been dead a short period of time and were “normal” would be considered edible.
Similarly, when people are fishing, their harvest can become “cooked from the inside out” due to
the strong summer sun (Anonymous).
4.2.1.1.3 Ice
Impacts on Arctic char: Fluctuations in sea ice, specifically the earlier onset of spring thaw, has
been linked to changes in Arctic char’s movement and body condition by participants. For
example, in 2016, the Beaufort Sea began to break up by mid-April, roughly six weeks earlier
than expected (National Snow & Ice Data Center, 2016). Events like this can allow migratory
fish such as Arctic char to migrate towards the ocean sooner. 13% of participants mentioned that
rivers are beginning to thaw earlier than usual, impacting the char run. One participant explained
that with the earlier break up and earlier thaw, the rivers also break up sooner, allowing Arctic
char to access the ocean faster than usual. This individual further explained they had noticed
Arctic char two to three weeks earlier than expected. Although it is not uncommon to see
harvested Arctic char with scars or scrapes on their skin, the increased prevalence of scars was a
concern to three participants. Four participants mentioned scarring of Arctic char could happen
when fish fight or when a fish is being preyed upon; however, most attributed scars to river ice.

77

They explained that scarring could occur when Arctic char migrate downstream from the river to
the ocean too early, and considerable ice is present. Participants noted that scarred fish are
usually the large ones because they are the fish that migrate downstream first.
Impacts on Residents: Annual fluctuations in sea ice significantly impact some people’s ability
to travel and fish at certain lakes due to unstable conditions, influencing how and where they set
nets. For example, fewer Ulukhaktomiut travel to PAS in the fall because freeze-up is happening
later in the year. Usually, people travel to PAS to go fishing in the early fall, around late October,
or early November, once the sea ice is frozen and there is still enough daylight. However, in fall
2020, the ice was not safe for travel and by the time PAS was frozen, there was not enough
daylight to get any work done.
Ice thickness can determine how and where people fish. During the fall months, residents
travel to nearby lakes such as Fish Lake to set nets under the ice. Comparable to sea ice, some
lake ice is not stable enough to travel on or set nets under. Some participants explained that
under-ice netting conditions are ideal when the ice is thick and the water is deep; however, in
recent years, ice thickness is reportedly fluctuating substantially. 21% of participants mentioned
the continual freezing and thawing of lakes due to mild air temperatures during the fall of 2020.
One participant explained that for Fish Lake:
We heard lots from the guys that work at Fish Lake when they come back
from Fish Lake. We didn’t bother going up because people were saying it
was low char. Mind you, part of the area where they net sets had jagged ice
below the ice, you can’t put nets in that type of ice. - Colin Okhenna, Elder,
M

78

4.2.1.1.4 Weather (Wind, Waves, Precipitation)
Impacts on Arctic char: No participants connected changes in the weather, specifically wind
and wave activity, to changes observed in Arctic char.
Impacts on Residents: According to participants, Ulukhaktok has experienced more frequent
and stronger wind and wave activity in recent years. Whether people stay in the community or
travel farther away, the weather is becoming a growing barrier for fishing. When people stay in
the community to fish, they set their nets along the shore of Ulukhaktok and leave them in the
water for weeks at a time, checking regularly. In just a few days, nets can easily become tangled,
dirty, or full of slime. One participant described that the water has been so rough recently that
they cannot put their nets in the ocean because of strong wave activity. Due to this frustration,
they “pulled them out and kept them out” (Anonymous) for the remainder of the season.
Similarly, when people travel farther away from the community, the weather plays a
critical role in where people can go, and the distance travelled. Some fishing locations are not
safe to travel to at certain times of the year due to the fear of getting stuck in a storm. For
example, fewer people travel to PAS due to unstable ice conditions in the fall and rough waters
in the summer months.
4.2.1.1.5 River Water Levels
Impacts on Arctic char: Anadromous Arctic char travel to and from the ocean using river
systems. Participants have reported drying of some major rivers and flooding of others.
However, few said that important freshwater migration corridors such as the Kuuk and Kagluk
had low water conditions in recent years. The drying of rivers introduces new challenges for fish
returning to the lakes in the fall to spawn or travel to the ocean in the summer to feed. One

79

participant stated that the water has been so low that only small fish can make this travel, further
explaining that this change forces Arctic char to detour to other rivers when travelling.
Impacts on Residents: Although more research is needed on this topic, few participants believe
some fish might not make it back to the ocean or the lakes due to changing water levels. In
addition to Arctic char using rivers to travel, residents also use the rivers during their travels.
Two participants expressed concerns about flooding river conditions and the possibility of
getting stuck in “slush” during the fall. These individuals did not specify their method of travel;
it can be assumed they were travelling by snow machine due to the time of year they described.
4.2.1.1.6 Tunicates, “Slime”
Impacts on Arctic char: To date, no evidence suggests tunicates impact Arctic char; however,
35% of participants reported that when tunicates were in the ocean, Arctic char and other marine
species were displaced.
Impacts on Residents: Over the last two summers, the presence of tunicates have posed
significant challenges for setting gillnets along the coast (e.g., Pettitt-Wade et al., 2020).
Interview participants reported the lack of marine wildlife while the tunicates were present, most
notably, seals. However, Arctic char were reported to move elsewhere during this time.
Interview participants commented that marine wildlife stayed away until the slime was gone. In
addition to minimal wildlife, the tunicates often clogged fishing nets making it almost impossible
to catch fish or other species during those summer months. For example, several individuals
mentioned that when they pulled out their nets, it was covered in slime with no fish. One
individual said, “there was little to no fish. They seemed to notice the nets right away with all

80

that stuff caught in it and just swim around it” (Gibson Kudlak, Elder, M). Pulling the nets out of
the ocean was also a challenge, as the slime made the nets extremely heavy and difficult to clean.
4.2.2 Changes Observed in Arctic Char
In addition to the recent environmental changes described above, participants have
expressed concern over several changes observed in Arctic char, including their abundance,
health, movement, appearance, taste, size, and diet. Table 8 lists seven concerns about Arctic
char and the percentage of participants that spoke of these concerns. Some individuals expressed
their concern about these changes, while others just mentioned that they have observed or heard
from other residents. This section will summarize these changes based on information provided
by the interview participants.
Table 8: Seven concerns about Arctic char discussed by participants ordered from highest to
lowest.
Concern
Abundance
Health
Movement Patterns
Appearance
Taste
Size
Diet

Percentage
88%
70%
54%
58%
30%
21%
4%

4.2.2.1 Abundance
Interview participants reported poor fishing for coastal (summer) and under-ice (fall)
fisheries, particularly over the last five years. Participants did not specify whether the low
abundance was for sea-run or landlocked Arctic char, but it appears that all numbers are down.
Two participants mentioned they did not bother going char fishing this past summer since
“people with nets weren’t catching much” (Anonymous). In the under-ice fishery, participants

81

noted significantly less Arctic char, particularly at Fish Lake. However, one individual stated
there had been an “extraordinary decline” in other lakes as well (Colin Okhenna, Elder, M). Due
to the lack of fish present at Fish Lake, frequent visitors have decided to pursue fishing at other
lakes to reach their personal subsistence requirements. While abundance in some lakes has
dropped significantly, other areas near the community have experienced an increase in Arctic
char. For example, in Uyughaktok Lake there was once never char found, but the numbers have
grown over the last two years, and it is slowly becoming a familiar fishing spot since it is so
close to the community. Several participants described how surprised they were to find Arctic
char in this lake and how excited they were to set their nets for the first time. One individual
explained that the community is slowly learning more about this lake as more people visit each
year. In contrast to Fish Lake, where people are catching about 5 Arctic char a day, one Elder
caught 20 Arctic char from Uyughaktok with under-ice fishing in one day during the fall of 2020
(David Kuptana, Elder, M).
4.2.2.2 Inuit Observations of Fish Health
When participants were asked if they think Arctic char are healthy, some replied they
think fish are healthy, just not abundant, whereas others mentioned concerns about an increase in
sores and scars, and fish dying in the nets.
Sores and scars: Scars are common on Arctic char, especially fish that migrate to and from the
ocean. However, respondents mentioned they are seeing more scarring than usual. In addition to
scarring, some char are being caught with unusual spots on their skin, and sores with pus on the
meat, this is not as common as scarring. Some individuals will eat the fish with scars by
removing those pieces of meat. However, fish with spots or sores on the meat are not consumed

82

because the fish is considered unhealthy. Since minimizing waste is an important value in this
community, when people find Arctic char with unusual conditions, they often leave the fish on
the shore for other animals to consume or feed it to their dogs.
Dying in the nets: As explained in Section 4.2.1.1, “Temperature,” Arctic char dying sooner
after being caught in the nets is becoming a common occurrence. However, there is no trend of
which char die and which are still alive when the net is checked. This phenomenon is happening
exclusively in the coastal environment. When participants spoke about this concern, they also
assured me they check their nets regularly, often three or four times a day, and they still end up
with dead fish. Nearly all participants attributed this change to significantly warmer water
temperatures. However, one participant mentioned the potential role of oxygen content as water
temperatures fluctuate (Anonymous). They suspected that as the sea ice thaws rapidly, it leaves a
layer of freshwater on the surface, which can be 5 to 6 feet thick in some areas, or a thin layer in
other areas. They explained that the wind causes the water to mix, which can quickly alter the
oxygen content of the water, adding another stress on Arctic char when caught in the net.
4.2.2.3 Movement Patterns
When participants were asked if they think Arctic char’s movement or migrations have
changed, the responses varied substantially. Some participants believed that Arctic char have not
changed, or their movements are changing, while some believed char are moving elsewhere.
Arctic char spatial movements have not changed: Of the 54% of participants that
discussed movement, 31% of participants were not concerned that char’s movement or
migrations have changed. When asked to elaborate on char movement, they often discussed
changes in the environment, such as fluctuating water levels in rivers or early spring thaw, which

83

could impact chars’ movements. However, they were not worried that char might be leaving the
Ulukhaktok area.
Arctic char spatial movements have changed: According to 69% of these participants, not
only has the timing of the spring Arctic char run (fish coming to the community) shifted but so
has the behaviour of fish. These individuals explained that char’s movements and/or migrations
are changing. More specifically, the char run is happening earlier than expected, and Arctic char
are coming to the ocean one by one and travelling through the open ocean rather than along the
shoreline. One Elder explained that he is now setting his nets two to three weeks earlier than
usual due to earlier spring thaw and ice break-up, which allow char to reach the ocean quicker
than usual. Although these changes are being observed, 29% of participants mentioned they are
not overly concerned about char movement because change is a part of the cycle for all wildlife,
and it will “work its own way out to replenish itself” (Anonymous). One participant explained:
From what traditional knowledge has taught me and from what Elders have passed
down, yeah it changes [char migration] every few, quite a few years, every couple of
decades, three to four decades. Animals change their migrations and make it hard for
a while, and eventually make their way back. So, I don’t know. – Laverna
Klengenberg, Adult, F
Arctic char are moving elsewhere: Of the 54%, 23% of participants mentioned char might be
moving elsewhere. Three of these individuals described a theory that the Arctic char
Ulukhaktomiut are accustomed to have left the western side of Victoria Island and moved
elsewhere, and they are now beginning to see new Arctic char. This idea is based on the
differences observed in the new appearance and taste of char. Some believe that Ulukhaktok
Arctic char have moved to other places, such as Banks Island because residents of Sachs Harbour
have recently begun catching char in their nets, which is considered unusual. Similarly, some

84

believe they are seeing Arctic char from other parts of Victoria Island such as Cambridge Bay
and Kugluktuk (See “Taste”).
An Elder shared another interesting story on the topic of change in spatial distribution
based on a very recent observation. In the summer of 2020, her family travelled to Berkeley
Point where her husband was born and raised before the community of Ulukhaktok was
established. They spent a week at Berkeley Point visiting his homeland. While there, their
children began fishing in hopes of catching some Arctic char, which was described as amusing
since there is not Arctic char in those waters. This Elder was stunned to see that their children
caught over 20 Arctic char! They described:
We spent a week there and after we set up camp, the kids started trying to fish
with the fishing rods and I yelled to them “there’s no fish here!” Because we
never ever got fish there. After we first got married, we use to spend our
summer, spring, and winter there, but we never really got fish from the ocean.
So, I was yelling at them there was no fish. And they got over 20! Yeah, that
was funny *laughs*… It was just the regular kind of char we get at home. That
is when I started saying “I wonder if these fish got turned around.” It was weird.
It was the biggest story my husband and I told the rest of the family after we
got back from being over there. – Anonymous
4.2.2.4 Appearance and Taste
When asked if they have seen any recent changes that concern them about Arctic char,
participants often discussed Arctic char’s appearance and taste. Some participants noted the meat
has transitioned from a dark pink, red-orange colour to a white-pale pink. Only a few individuals
(13%) commented that the taste has changed. The idea that Cambridge Bay Arctic char have
made their way to Ulukhaktok was brought up again as two participants explained they could tell
by the taste that Arctic char came from somewhere else. These individuals explained that no
matter how you cook the fish, whether you boil or fry it, you cannot remove the muddy taste,
indicating that it is from Cambridge Bay or Kugluktuk. In contrast to these responses, several

85

participants do not think the taste of Arctic char has changed at all, stating “they taste good”
(Anonymous) or “I think char taste the same” (Allen Pogotak, Elder, M).
4.2.2.5 Size
All participants that discussed changes observed in the fish size agreed that
Ulukhaktomiut are seeing fewer smaller fish, a phenomenon that has been ongoing for decades.
Although this is not new to Ulukhaktomiut, it is still a concern for many because different sized
Arctic char are used and preferred for various reasons. The large fish (~3-4 feet) are sought after
for the commercial fishery because they are fatty, making them the best to sell, whereas the
medium fish (~2-2½ feet) are ideal for making piffi, and the small fish (~1- 2 feet) are the most
preferred because they are considered the tastiest.
4.2.2.6 Diet
Only one participant spoke about fish diet. About ten years ago, sand lance started
entering the waters around Ulukhaktok, and Arctic char’s diet shifted from mainly small cod to
sand lance, which was described as a less nutritious fish (Gibson Kudlak, Elder, M). Now,
residents are primarily finding sand lance in the stomachs of Arctic char in the summertime.
When asked if they noticed others changes after Arctic char’s diet seemed to change, Gibson
explained that Arctic char “seem not as big and not as healthy.” He further explained that fish
girth should be about the size of a small football during the fall char run, but rarely are they
reaching this size nowadays. Gibson’s observation of fish not being as large or healthy stands in
contrast to what 21% of participants described: they see fewer smaller fish and mostly large fish.
I believe Gibson was only referring to the fish that are returning to freshwater environments at
the end of the summer. During this time, residents would expect to see large, fatty, healthy fish

86

after spending the summer months feeding on ocean resources – these fish are not reaching the
anticipated sizes anymore.
4.3 Adaptive Responses to Change
Autonomous adaptation is a response to a stressor that has already occurred. In contrast,
planned adaptation involves anticipating potential future stressors and taking the necessary steps
in the present to mitigate that stress (Engle, 2011). It is evident that Ulukhaktomiut practice both
autonomous and planned adaptation at both the individual and community levels. This section
describes these adaptations and responses to the changes described in Section 4.2.
4.3.1 Individual Level Responses
Ulukhaktomiut are all exposed to changes in the local environment and changes observed
in Arctic char; however, they are not all equally sensitive. Table 9 presents various responses and
outcomes to the environmental variables and Arctic char variables explained in Section 4.2.
Residents have multiple perspectives on these changes and how they are experiencing and
responding to them (Table 9). As shown in the “abundance” category, some residents have taken
proactive steps to address the challenges presented by low Arctic char abundance, such as
travelling farther away from the community, spending more time out on the land, and taking
more frequent trips. Other individuals have taken a more indifferent approach, where they accept
what they can catch and are satisfied with it. These responses and adaptive strategies vary among
people. For example, someone motivated to spend more time on the land to reach their personal
subsistence requirement is likely doing so because they share a large amount of Arctic char with
their family and others.
In contrast, some might take a flexible approach to fishing because they are only catching
Arctic char for themselves, do not have a large family to feed, or they equally enjoy the taste of

87

salmon and are happy to catch them. It is important to note that these responses are not allencompassing and vary considerably throughout the community and between families. This table
only intends to display an example of how people might be experiencing recent changes they
observe in the environment and Arctic char.
Table 9: Individual level responses to recent environmental changes and changes observed in
Arctic char.
Changes
Environmental

Responses or Outcomes
Rough
Ocean
Water

(Increased
wave
activity)

When ocean fishing, some people are placing their nets in alternative locations
sheltered away from wave activity.
Some are fishing in freshwater environments during the summertime to avoid
the ocean during periods of rough water.
Some participants mentioned that nets cannot be left unattended for long
periods due to wave activity that causes the nets to become severely tangled or
potentially washed away.
Residents find they often need to take their nets out sooner than expected.
It is important to monitor the weather channel to see if a storm is coming and
remove nets from the ocean before the conditions become too dangerous.
Due to stronger wave activity, fewer people have travelled to PAS in the
summer (~200 km depending on where they travel).

Stronger
Wind
Activity

Fluctuating
Ice
Conditions

It is extremely important to monitor the weather channel to see if a storm is
coming before travelling.
Because the weather changes so rapidly, it is critical to be prepared to get
stuck in a storm and plan for the worst. Every trip, bring enough food and gas
to last an extra week in camp if needed. Knowing the safe places that you can
go to if an unexpected storm comes.
Sea Ice:
Participants stressed the importance of using caution when travelling,
explaining it is critical to know what unsafe ice conditions look like and how
to be prepared to address the situation if needed.
Due to late freeze-up and unsafe conditions for travel, fewer people have been
travelling to PAS in the fall time.
“Rough ice” makes travel challenging. Because of this, people might need to
take alternate route or travel a bit farther than expected to reach their end
destination.

88

Lake Ice:
Some fishers often wait later in the season to do under-ice netting; however,
this means they might be working and travelling in the darkness.

Presence of
Salmon

Some residents enjoy the taste of salmon and will eat it opportunistically. One
individual explained that they will take whatever they can get and will not be
picky because the land is supplying them with food.
Two participants temporarily stopped fishing during the summer of 2020
because they were catching more salmon than char in their nets.
Others often use salmon as a substitute or back-up when their char cache runs
low.
Some individuals believe that in the future, the number of salmon is going to
increase, and they will need to accept salmon. One Elder explained she is
concerned that her children and grandchildren are going to become “salmon
eaters” and no longer char eaters.

Tunicates,
“Slime”

It was nearly impossible to do any coastal fishing because the nets would
become clogged with slime, and no fish were caught.
Some individuals found spots along the coast with clearer water and less
slime; however, most people began fishing in freshwater environments, where
there was no slime present.
Those who set nets in the ocean often needed help from others to remove their
nets because they were too heavy for one person due to the slime.

Arctic char

Abundance

Fewer families are travelling to Fish Lake for fall fishing because a) there are
less char present, and b) they do not want to take all the char out of the lake.
More people are travelling farther away to other locations such as Mayoklihok
where the char abundance is considered high. Some people might travel to
other sources of char such as Kingua and Kuuk; however, these are farther
away and require travel through PAS.
Residents often take more frequent trips or stay out longer and go farther to
reach their personal subsistence requirement. One individual explained he will
travel three times as far just to get char if needed and if they have access to
gas.
Interview participants mentioned they closely monitor and salvage their char
cache until they can go fishing again.
People are discouraged about the lack of char around and struggling to
reaching their personal subsistence requirement. Some have temporarily taken
a break from char fishing, consider it to be a waste of time, or did not even try
to fish after discovering other people struggled so much.
Some individuals are pursuing other marine and terrestrial species including
cod, muskox, or whatever else is available.

89

Char Health

Char with spots on the liver:
- It is advised to discard theses fish and wash your hands thoroughly
with hot water immediately.
Char that die in the nets:
- If the char are soft: Throw them away, leave along the shore for other
animals, or feed them to the dogs.
- If the char are firm: They are still safe to eat but inspect them for other
health concerns first.
Char with scars:
- First, inspect the fish to see if there is anything else wrong with it.
Depending on its condition, some residents will remove the scars by
cutting the flesh around the scar and still consume it. If there are other
concerns, people will either put the fish back in the water or feed it to
their dogs.

Other

Sharing of
Knowledge
and
Information
with Others

The yearly fluctuations in the environment are so extreme, making it critical
to always being mindful and observant when travelling on the land.
Ensuring the younger generation knows which trails to travel on, what to do,
and where to go in the case they are stuck in a storm.
Listening to other people and their experiences. If people were not catching a
lot of fish at Fish Lake, many residents decided it was not worth it to take the
trip.
Be prepared to travel farther than you originally intended.
If you see somebody’s net that is full of slime, it is important to tell them right
away so they can address it.
If you are catching a lot of sick fish from a specific lake or location, it is
important to tell people, so they know and do not consume the fish from there
or monitor closely.
If you experience unsafe conditions while travelling, it is critical to tell others,
so they can avoid travelling to those location.

4.3.2 Community Level Responses
In addition to individual responses, the community has also taken several measures to
address these concerns and mitigate unwanted future scenarios, mainly through co-management
and research. This section outlines what the community is currently doing to address the
challenges associated with environmental change and concerns about Arctic char through
management, monitoring, and research. Lastly, this section describes what is missing regarding

90

management and monitoring opportunities and research needs based on responses from interview
participants.
4.3.2.1 Current Conditions
4.3.2.1.1 Management of Arctic Char
Arctic char in Ulukhaktok have been collaboratively managed since 1984. However,
concerns about Arctic char rose in 1987, after Ulukhaktomiut began noticing changes in local
stocks. More specifically, residents were concerned about the decline in the size and abundance
of char caught from the Kuujjua river system, notably Fish Lake (e.g., Harwood et al., 2013). In
response to these changes, collaborative scientific assessments were completed by the DFO
through a series of weirs in four river systems (Kuuk, Kagluk, Naloagyok, Kagloryuak) and
tagging program (e.g., Ayles et al., 2007; Paylor, 1998). These programs initiated a discussion
about developing an Arctic Char Fishing Plan and Working Group to collaboratively address
these changes, develop a long-term record of life history for these stocks, and standardize
fisheries information (e.g., Holman Char Working Group, 2006). Additionally, the community
decided to voluntarily close all fishing at Fish Lake from 1993 to 1995. In 1996, Fish Lake
reopened with a voluntary harvest quota of 25 fish per household. Residents reported fishing
quality to be “good” or “very good” after the closure ended (Paylor, 1998). In 2014, a voluntary
harvest guideline of 1,000 fish annually from Fish Lake was established (DFO, 2016). Since
fewer families were travelling to Fish Lake, the quota of 25 char per household was then raised
to 70 char per household in 2014 (DFO, 2016).
In July 1996, the Ulukhaktok Char Working Group (UCWG or “Working Group”) was
established to ensure community priorities and concerns would be reflected in the planning and
management of Arctic char. This group is comprised of representatives from the OHTC,

91

Fisheries Joint Management Committee (FJMC), and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO). In addition to nominating the chair, the OHTC also appoints three members and
three alternates to sit on the Working Group. FJMC and DFO select one member and one
alternate (Ulukhaktok Char Working Group Terms of Reference, unpublished). Other individuals
such as advisors, scientists, local harvest monitors, or other experts may be invited to observe
and participate in the meeting, but they cannot officially vote on motions (Ulukhaktok Char
Working Group Terms of Reference, unpublished).
The UCWG collaboratively makes decisions by consensus regarding the harvest of Arctic
char and provides advice on char management by bringing various knowledge systems together.
The Working Group meets annually to report pertinent information to one another, such as
research results from previous years, reported harvest numbers, outcomes from the year’s
monitoring programs, the status of char stocks in the community, and general updates. In
addition to the committee meeting, the UCWG also holds a public meeting to receive feedback
from residents and provide an opportunity for residents to voice their questions or concerns.
Some key responsibilities of the UCWG include completing an annual assessment of issues
related to the conservation and usage of char; documenting pertinent traditional knowledge to be
used for management; evaluating the community-based fisheries monitoring programs and
identifying areas for improvement; revisiting the Ulukhaktok Arctic Char Management Plan and
making revisions where needed; ensuring residents are informed about UCWG research,
monitoring, management programs; and consulting with residents to bring their interests and
concerns to the attention of the Working Group (Ulukhaktok Char Working Group Terms of
Reference, unpublished). Here, I outline an example of this collaboration in practice and the
outcomes of a 2-day meeting in February 2020 in Ulukhaktok, which I was invited to observe.

92

The meetings were attended by 18 participants (10 voting members) at the UCWG meeting and
approximately 50 residents at the UCWG public community meeting held that same night.
UCWG Meeting: Feb 17th, 2020
As the Working Group participants entered the Ulukhaktok Community Corporation
(UCC) boardroom on their first day of meetings, it felt as though I had just walked into a family
reunion. There were many hugs and laughs. Everyone seemed genuinely excited to see one
another. After saying their hellos, we quickly got into the meeting. All OHTC, FJMC, and DFO
representatives sat at the board table, and everyone else sat around them.
The meeting began by reviewing the agenda for the next two days, which needed to be
approved before moving forward. Next, the group went over the meeting minutes from the 2019
meeting to ensure that all information in the document was accurate and the Inuinnaqtun spelling
was correct. Revisions happened immediately.
On the first day of meetings, the group discussed topics such as the harvest monitoring
programs for the coastal and Fish Lake fishery, commercial fishing, salmon updates and
concerns, and revisions needed to update the Arctic Char Management Plan (2006-2007). Each
of these topics were discussed in detail before moving to the next. The group needed to ensure
they were on the same page before hosting a public community meeting held that same night.
Below I will describe some of the primary discussions.
Commercial fishing was reviewed early in the meeting. One of the DFO representatives
presented information on the number of commercial fishing tags allocated, used, and returned in
2019. A total of 497 tags were used, 203 tags were unused, and one tag was returned due to
damage (one tag is used for one Arctic char). There was some discussion about whether to keep
the commercial fishing quota at 700 fish (the same as in 2019) or continue with the commercial

93

fishery. The Working Group agreed it was best to consult with the community at the public
meeting before making any decisions.
Along with tags, the group also discussed implementing commercial fishing zones. One
member recommended that there should be location restrictions and that commercial fishers
should have to go farther away from the community. This would provide subsistence fishers with
a better chance at catching fish and reaching their personal subsistence requirements. The
suggestion brought up other concerns, such as the risks associated with travelling far on summer
days. One member explained that when you travel farther away, you put yourself at risk of
getting stuck due to high winds, and the chances of the fish getting “cooked from the inside out”
from the summer sun are high (Anonymous). After some discussion, the group did not develop
restriction zones but agreed that 700 tags could be allocated.
Next, they discussed the harvest survey program and community harvest levels. This
includes setting voluntary harvest levels for Arctic char caught from popular fishing locations,
such as Fish Lake and Red Belly Lake. After some discussion, the group agreed to maintain the
guidelines for Fish Lake at 70 Arctic char per household and 15 Arctic char per household from
Red Belly Lake. All the harvest surveys are conducted by a local resident whose role is to collect
information on the number of fish harvested per species, location of harvest, and other health
characteristics of harvested fish. The group explored different ways to improve the harvest
surveys, so the harvest numbers are more accurate.
Another important topic of discussion was the Char Management Plan. The last version
was from 2006-2007, and the group wanted to update it with new information, considering the
recent changes in the local environment. For the next iteration, the UCWG and community are
particularly interested in seeing the following included: TK and observations of Arctic char,
community concerns and priorities, harvest data, and community fishing (and net) guidelines.
94

The UCWG ended on a positive note, and everyone seemed to be looking forward to the public
community gathering held that night.
Public Community Meeting: February 17 th, 2020
Each year, the UCWG holds a public community meeting to provide the opportunity for
residents to vocalize their concerns and make collective decisions regarding the management of
Arctic char. Everyone gathered in the community hall for dinner before the meeting started.
Large pots of Arctic char soup, muskox soup, and bannock were served for the communal
supper.
At this meeting, the UCWG went over the meeting agenda and provided a brief synopsis
of what was discussed during the Working Group meeting and the decisions made. For example,
the UCWG provided an update on the status of Fish Lake Arctic char and current monitoring
efforts. They also discussed concerns from the previous summer, including slime and salmon and
would like to see more investigation of these species and whether they will impact Arctic char or
not.
When it came time to discuss commercial fishing, the UCWG turned to the community for
guidance on how to proceed with the 2020 commercial fishery, including the number of tags and
if specific commercial fishing zones should be identified. The Working Group explained that the
quota could remain at 700 (the same as in 2019) and solicited opinions on whether the
commercial fishery should proceed this year. Residents had diverse perspectives. Some
expressed concerns about the Fish Lake population. As a proactive conservation approach, one
resident asked, “can we reduce commercial tags or take them away?” It was not long until more
residents vocalized their concerns. For example, one individual asked if they could remove
commercial fishing near the community because it limits residents’ ability to catch Arctic char.

95

After some dialogue between residents and the Working Group, they agreed that commercial
fishing would be paused from 2020-2024.
Commercial Fishing
The small-scale community-based commercial fishery began in Ulukhaktok in 2000, with
a quota of 500 fish (Gallagher et al., 2021). Each year, several residents participate in the
commercial fishery and are allocated a specific number of tags by the OHTC from the annual
total. The allocation among residents may vary. These fish can be sold locally and within the
territory. In February 2020, the UCWG, after consultation with the community, put a hold on
commercial fishing for the next five years to alleviate some harvesting pressure on the Fish Lake
char population. In February 2021, a year after the decision was made, interview participants had
a lot to say about commercial fishing, as 79% of the responses favoured the hold, whereas 8%
were against it. Although many participants vocalized their thoughts about commercial fishing,
whether they were in favour of the decision or not, for 13% of participants, this was the first time
they had heard of the pause on commercial fishing.
Those who were supportive of the decision described how thrilled they were and
mentioned they have been asking the UCWG for years to halt commercial fishing. Although the
commercial fishery is restricted to the Ulukhaktok coastal fishery during the summer only
(mixed-stock), some participants explained that commercial fishing is hard on the char
populations and residents who struggle to reach their personal subsistence needs. For instance,
commercial fishers often fish for subsistence simultaneously. It is not uncommon for these
individuals to set nets in Jacks, Queens, and Kings Bay near the community where many
residents also fish during the summer months for subsistence (see Appendix X). As mentioned
earlier, those who do not have access to transportation (e.g., boats, quads, etc.) rely on fishing in

96

the bays to reach their subsistence needs. Therefore, commercial fishing could potentially add
another layer of difficulty for these individuals if they are harvesting in the same locations where
commercial nets are set, especially if stocks are already low. Some explained that the pause on
commercial fishing will not only benefit the Arctic char populations, but also the community.
For example:
“We are thankful for that decision because people were not getting much char for
themselves or for their households. People doing the commercial fishing were
putting nets all over, so you know, this gives people a chance to get char. It really
helps the community. Whoever got more fish than the other would share with the
rest of the community and that is really great.” – Anonymous
Interview participants against the decision described that commercial fishing is a source of
income for some residents and removing this income could pose hardship. One participant
explained that commercial fishing provides their family with enough income to purchase gas,
necessary hunting supplies, and “puts food in the fridge and pays the bills” (Anonymous). Jack
Akhiatak is a commercial fisher as well as a board member on the OHTC and the UCWG. He
recalled when the decision was made in February 2020, explaining:
“I was there, and I was the one who was the most upset! I didn’t want our people
to suffer because you know, that’s our food! But I still, you know, to me, I
thought about our people, but at the same time I was thinking about the future,
they might not see it. We might not have no more char. That is how I start
thinking. And I thought, “it is okay they shut it down…… It really bothered me
at first and then I started thinking, I still could go close by to go fishing and I was
not really relying on making money on fish. But once in a while I use char to
make money off, and it never really bothered me that part. I just kinda thought,
you know, for the other people that needed it to keep them going.” - Jack
Akhiatak, Elder,
4.3.2.1.2 Monitoring Efforts
Participants appeared satisfied with the OHTC’s and UCWG’s current monitoring efforts
(e.g., Harvest Monitoring Program). When asked if there was anything more co-managers could
do, participants often stated, “there probably is, but I don’t know what exactly” (Anonymous).

97

Most participants believe co-managers are doing all they can to best address the recent changes
and challenges related to Arctic char; however, some stressed the importance of monitoring and
recording as much information as possible. One Elder explained that as time goes by, the
documented information will be valuable, especially as Ulukhaktomiut and researchers discover
new things in the future (Anonymous). She further explained that people should continue
conducting household surveys and collecting information by talking with residents and
harvesters.
4.3.2.1.3 Research Programs: Arctic Char Acoustic Tagging Program
To better understand recent changes observed in Arctic char, researchers from the
University of Windsor (N. Hussey, H. Pettitt-Wade) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(L. Loseto, C. Gallagher, E. Lea) are using acoustic telemetry to monitor Arctic char’s
movement patterns. The tagging program received support from the UCWG, OHTC, and FJMC
and consulted with local experts on where to deploy receivers before conducting the research. In
collaboration with local technicians Isaac Inuktalik and Ross Klengenberg, 98 Arctic char were
tagged off the coast of Ulukhaktok near Safety Channel, and the bays between 2018 and 2019
and receivers were deployed (Pettitt-Wade, 2020).
Although the community approved the tagging program before commencing the research,
it is almost as controversial as commercial fishing. When participants were asked if there was
any research they would like to see in the future or their thoughts on current research programs,
the responses varied. Only 8% of participants were clearly in favour of the tagging program, 4%
expressed concern about the tagging program, and 21% were indifferent. Appendix XI presents
some of these explanations. Those who were supportive of the tagging program are curious to

98

learn more about the specific movements of Arctic char in hopes of better understanding where
fish are going and how healthy the populations are.
In contrast, those against the tagging program are extremely concerned about Arctic char
abundance and believe the instruments deployed (submerged buoy attached to an acoustic
receiver) deter fish from popular fishing locations. However, most individuals commented on not
being able to make an informed opinion because they do not know enough about the tagging
program or the potential effects on Arctic char. Allen Pogotak and Laverna Klengenberg
expressed this concern. Allen alluded to the importance of researchers sharing information on the
instruments before putting them in the water or consulting with the community on ideal locations
to place the buoys before installing them. Other responses also focused on consultation where
Robert Kuptana explained that fish could be travelling to farther places from the “old-time
stories,” so it might be informative to investigate those places too, not only locations near the
community.
4.3.2.2 Future Conditions
Many participants agreed that co-managers are doing their best to manage Arctic char
with the information available, whereas others believe more proactive steps could be taken.
When people were asked if there was anything more resource co-managers could do, responses
varied from management opportunities to monitoring efforts to research needs, as outlined
below.
4.3.2.2.1 Management Opportunities
Participants appeared satisfied with the current management of Arctic char. When
discussing their perspectives on future management opportunities, participants often explained
the importance of a quota system. The community voluntarily sets subsistence quotas.

99

Participants would preface their opinions by describing the positive impact the quota system has
had on Fish Lake. Currently, Fish Lake has a voluntary subsistence harvest level of 1,000 Arctic
char per year, which is approximately 70 Arctic char per household (DFO, 2016). Initially, Fish
Lake’s quota was 25 Arctic char per household in 1996, and in 2014 the quota was raised to 70.
Some (33%) mentioned the benefit of the Fish Lake quota system to the Arctic char population,
and 21% said they have struggled to reach the allowable take of 70 Arctic char from Fish Lake
over the last three years and often struggle to obtain half. In addition to the reported low numbers
at Fish Lake, residents are experiencing low abundance in other lakes. Due to this low
abundance, some participants proposed lowering the quota again or suggested putting a quota
system in place for all Arctic char.
4.3.2.2.2 Monitoring Efforts
As mentioned, participants believe more monitoring (scientific and community-based) is
needed. In addition to documenting knowledge and observations about recent changes, several
participants mentioned the value of investigating Arctic char from different lakes. For instance,
the fishery at Fish Lake has been closely monitored since the early 1990s due to this lake’s high
importance and the many changes observed here. Residents Isaac Inuktalik and Roland Notaina
are responsible for documenting catch information from harvesters and collecting biological data
from the catch. Although several participants recognized the Fish Lake monitoring program as
successful and an important source of information, other lakes and river systems farther away
from town should also be monitored, including Mayoklihok (Gibson Kudlak, Elder, M).
Additionally, some individuals commented on improving the Arctic char Harvest Monitoring
program in general, such as refining the program to ensure all fish harvested are documented.
However, systematically documenting this information is a challenge due to the high number of

100

Arctic char harvested in Ulukhaktok, which the UCWG plans to address in the future (discussed
at the 2020 meeting).
4.3.2.2.3 Research Needs
Interview participants provided recommendations on research studies they would like to
see in the future, such as a series of weirs, salmon investigations, and more research on Arctic
char (see Section 5.4 Opportunities for Future Research). Regardless of the research project,
participants emphasized the importance of reoccurring consultation and collaboration.
Many are happy to see the community working together with researchers and comanagers to address challenges presented by these recent changes; however, 17% alluded to the
need for improved or continued communication. Several past and current UCWG members, such
as David Kuptana and Gibson Kudlak explained the importance of making collective decisions.
For instance, the UCWG already consults with the community before making decisions, and this
communication must continue. One participant explained they were out of town when biologists
came and spoke about the scientific instruments that were placed in the waters around
Ulukhaktok. This individual further described that he would have liked to learn about these
instruments, what they are capable of, the potential effects on marine species, and where the
researchers are planning to deploy them. They explained that since they were not present for this
information session, they could not make an informed decision on whether the “buoys” are
something they want to see continue in the future. It is clear that holding several of these
information sessions and telemetry workshops is critical for knowledge sharing and easing
residents' concerns.
Some participants ended the phone interview by thanking Susie and me for documenting
this information so it can be used for their children and grandchildren in the future. Many

101

individuals were eager to have the phone call recorded to be stored and filed away in case the
information will be needed in the future. These participants expressed the importance of sharing
information and knowledge with researchers and residents to make informed decisions regarding
the use and management of Arctic char.

102

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
This research examined recent changes observed in anadromous Arctic char in
Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, from the perspective of Ulukhaktomiut, including how these
changes are being experienced and responded to. This final chapter is divided into four sections.
The first section outlines the key findings. Next, I discuss the scholarly contributions of the
research in the context of the broader field of climate change impacts in the Arctic and Inuit
subsistence. This is followed by a discussion of the practical contributions made to fisheries
management in the ISR. Lastly, the chapter concludes by suggesting future research
opportunities.

5.1 Summary of Key Findings
Arctic char continue to be valued by Ulukhaktomiut. This finding is to be expected
given the documented evidence about the continued importance of subsistence to Inuit (e.g.,
Condon et al., 1995; Pearce et al., 2015) and the importance of Arctic char throughout Inuit
Nunangat (e.g., Knopp et al., 2012; Kristofferson & Berkes, 2005; Paylor, 1998). For instance,
among Ulukhaktomiut households, 79% of residents participate in traditional hunting and fishing
practices, and 67% of residents’ diet consists mainly of country foods (NWT Bureau of
Statistics, 2019), where Arctic char have been a central component for generations. When a
small-scale community-based commercial fishery began in 1979, with an annual quota of 600 kg
(Lewis et al., 1989), Arctic char’s value also evolved to hold direct cash value. Because Arctic
char is a common-pool resource, it can be vulnerable to overexploitation by its users (Kofinas,
2009). Since selling country foods can be culturally taboo (e.g., Searles, 2016), the commercial
fishery remains controversial today as 21% of participants expressed that commercialization
profoundly influenced community culture. For instance, some participants felt that community

103

perception and value of Arctic char shifted from sharing to self-interest. The recent pause of
commercial fishing is an example of resource managers taking a precautionary approach by
alleviating one pressure on Arctic char. This is an example of the UCWG working as it should:
receiving input from the community and making a decision that best reflects the needs and
priorities of the community.
This research reported changes observed by Inuit for Arctic char that have not been
documented while supporting and expanding upon findings from previous studies (e.g.,
Harwood et al., 2013; Knopp et al., 2012; Paylor, 1998). For instance, research has
documented changes in the quality of Arctic char meat in Sachs Harbour and Ulukhaktok
(Knopp, 2010) and changes in the colour and taste of char caught elsewhere in the Amundsen
Gulf (Steiner et al., 2019). Other studies completed in the ISR have reported recent declines in
Arctic char populations, such as Paulatuk (Lede et al., 2021) and changes to fish growth in the
Hornaday River (Chavarie et al., 2019). Similar phenomena are observed in Nunavut, where fish
are much larger than expected, often being caught with pale pink flesh, and are beginning to taste
different (Zerehi, 2016). In Kugluktuk (Smith, 2020) and Cambridge Bay (Gilbert et al., 2020),
warming water temperatures may be affecting migration patterns and timing. This research
corroborated existing studies and discussed how these changes affect Inuit’s relationship with
Arctic char and fishing.
Additionally, this research presented new findings with currently little to no
documentation in the literature, such as fish health according to Inuit, including an increase in
sores, pus, fish rapidly dying in nets, and the sun’s role when preparing fish. Similarly, because
salmon is a relatively new phenomenon in the Canadian Arctic, there is minimal literature on
Inuit’s perception of salmon. However, research recently completed by University of Victoria
graduate student, Zander Chila, contributes to this gap by exploring salmon traditional
104

knowledge in the ISR. As shown in the Ulukhaktok Arctic char case study, there are diverse
opinions, including the consumption of salmon and whether they will impact Arctic char in the
future or not. Despite the amount of research completed on Arctic char, it remains unclear how
char will respond in the longer term to these environmental changes (e.g., Gilbert, 2021; Harris
et al., 2020) and what this will mean for Inuit.
Some changes presented in this research are direct observations by participants,
whereas other changes are inferences made by participants. The topic of Pacific salmon is a
key example. The increasing occurrence of salmon is a direct observation made by most
participants; however, the idea that salmon negatively impacts Arctic char is currently based on
speculation. Most participants believed that salmon will impact Arctic char, although they have
not observed these fish interact. Other studies suggest that Atlantic salmon and char do not
compete in Arctic environments (e.g., Bilous & Dunmall, 2020). However, the salmon observed
in Ulukhaktok are Pacific salmon and the implications of their presence on Arctic char has yet to
be determined.
Changes in the local environment and Arctic char have implications for Inuit
fishing. This research reports several biophysical variables that impact Arctic char, whether by
direct observation or inferences made by participants, in addition to environmental parameters
that influence residents’ fishing activities. For example, fluctuating water levels and ice
conditions directly influence Arctic char movement, and in turn, affect residents’ fishing
activities. In contrast, changes such as stronger wave activity or a tunicate bloom might not
impact Arctic char, but they certainly influence Ulukhaktomiut’s ability to go fishing. Some of
these changes are documented in the literature; however, the social-ecological system as a whole
is less captured.

105

Adaptive co-management enables flexible management of Arctic char resources and
promotes the inclusion of local knowledge and scientific information in decision-making.
This research displays the importance of: 1) the need for dynamic and flexible management
organizations and 2) documenting Inuit observations of change to inform decisions. The case
study of the UCWG demonstrates the process and value of adaptive co-management and the
importance of community voices in decision-making. Using the Working Group, Ulukhaktomiut
voices and knowledge are captured in decision-making related to Arctic char in two ways. The
first is through appointed residents sitting on the UCWG, and the second is through community
consultation meetings held annually. During the interview process, three participants explained
they had urged the Working Group to halt commercial fishing in the past, and were pleased to
see they have finally made the decision. The public meeting hosted by the UCWG provided an
opportunity for residents to hear results from the scientific community-based research programs,
ask questions, provide recommendations to the Working Group, vocalize their concerns, and
make collective decisions. This case study demonstrates the importance of community
consultation and incorporating community voices in the decision-making process but it is an
example of resource users showing restraint in an effort to promote conservation.

5.2 Scholarly Contributions
This research builds on the current scholarly understanding of climate change impacts on
Arctic char in the Canadian Arctic and has documented new insights about changes in char from
the perspective of Ulukhaktomiut. It provides two scholarly contributions. Firstly, it advances
knowledge of changes in Arctic char in the ISR by documenting observations and inferences
made by Inuit and how changing conditions impact them. Secondly, it provides insights into how
resource users respond to change in real-time, including the documentation of resource users

106

showing restraint. Additionally, this project contributes to the documentation of traditional
knowledge of Arctic char, including knowledge of fish and different types of char, the value and
usage of Arctic char, preparation of char, and fishing/cultural taboos. The findings support and
build upon existing scholarship that highlights the importance of holistically investigating
climate change impacts through a partnership with those directly impacted by the effects of
shifting environmental conditions. Lastly, the research displays the value of engaging with TK to
generate new information that can be co-produced among multiple parties to best address a
common problem. The next step of this research would be to co-produce knowledge to address
the gaps identified in this study and others.

5.3 Practical Contributions
In addition to scholarly contributions, this research offers three practical contributions.
Firstly, it responded to community interests and needs, specifically through the documentation of
Inuit knowledge of char, as requested by the OHTC (Objective 1). Although this study did not
encompass all TK within the community, it displays that Inuit hold extensive knowledge of the
species, and consultation with them on any study regarding char in the future is imperative.
Secondly, the documentation and dissemination of knowledge on changes in Arctic char and
experiences of Ulukhaktomiut to such changes could be incorporated into a future iteration of the
Ulukhaktok Char Management Plan. This information is useful for Ulukhaktok and fisheries comanagement throughout ISR, as other communities are experiencing similar changes and
challenges. Lastly, these TK interviews are a valuable piece to be incorporated into the Arctic
char telemetry study. This research has set the foundation in which fishery biologists can begin
to co-interpret the TK interviews with their study to identify parallels, gaps in knowledge, and
areas for future improvement.

107

5.4 Opportunities for Future Research
Future research in Ulukhaktok should address community priorities and needs. According to
participants, they recommend researchers install a series of weirs, conduct salmon investigations,
and more Arctic char research:
Weir Study: Participants suggest installing weirs in known Arctic char habitats. In the past,
weirs have been used around Ulukhaktok to enumerate migration (DFO, 2016). For example,
from 1986 to 1992, a series of weirs were placed around Ulukhaktok through a collaborative
effort between the OHTC and the DFO, which was funded by the FJMC (Ayles et al., 2007).
Weirs were installed at Kuuk, Kagluk, Naloagyok, and Kagloryuak to estimate char population
(Ayles et al., 2007). The results from this study indicated that 50% of the coastal fish harvested
near the community came from the Kuujjua River stock (Ayles et al., 2007). Although
participants recognized it is both laborious and costly, weirs could provide valuable information
at a critical time. For example, Fish Lake and Uyughaktok Lake could be ideal locations, as Fish
Lake numbers appear to be dropping, and char are appearing more common at Uyughaktok.
Salmon Research: All participants spoke about an increasing prevalence of salmon, but 50%
explicitly mentioned the need for a salmon research program in Ulukhaktok. Participants are
looking for answers to the following questions: Why are salmon coming? Are salmon
successfully spawning? Are Arctic char and salmon spawning at the same times and locations?
Are salmon chasing Arctic char out of their habitat? And where are the salmon coming from, and
where are they going? Dunmall and colleagues (e.g., Bilous & Dunmall, 2020; Dunmall et al.,
2013) are investigating these questions and others through the Arctic Salmon program
(https://www.facebook.com/arcticsalmon/). Since the increase in salmon is a relatively new

108

phenomenon in the Canadian Arctic, any research in the region would be beneficial to
Ulukhaktomiut and those across the ISR.
Arctic Char Research: Due to the numerous changes observed in Arctic char, participants
would like more research and collaboration to address the following questions: Why are Arctic
char different now than they used to be? Why is their skin and meat changing colours? Why are
they dying in the nets? What is causing some of the Arctic char to look sick? Are Ulukhaktok
Arctic char moving elsewhere and Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay Arctic char migrating to
Ulukhaktok? Are Arctic char moving to other spots on the Island from the “old-time stories?”
Answering these questions will not only benefit Ulukhaktomiut but shed light on how an
important subsistence species might be impacted by shifting environmental conditions in the
future.

109

REFERENCES CITED
Abele, F. (1997). Traditional Knowledge In Practice. Arctic, 50(4). https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1110
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (1999). Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and the Architecture of Entitlements.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, 253–266.
AMAP. (2019). Arctic Climate Change Update 2019: An Update to Key Findings of Snow, Water, Ice and
Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017.
Archer, L., Ford, J. D., Pearce, T., Kowal, S., Gough, W. A., & Allurut, M. (2017). Longitudinal assessment of
climate vulnerability: a case study from the Canadian Arctic. Sustainability Science, 12(1), 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0401-5
Armitage, D. R., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (2010a). Introduction: Moving Beyond Co-Management. In N.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday (Ed.), Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, Learning, and MultiLevel Governance (pp. 1–15). UBC Press.
Armitage, D. R. (2005). Community-based Narwhal management in Nunavut, Canada: Change, uncertainty, and
adaptation. Society and Natural Resources, 18(8), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920591005124
Armitage, D. R., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the coproduction of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 995–
1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006
Armitage, D. R., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (2010b). Adaptive co-management: collaboration; learning; and
multi-level governance. UBC Press.
Armitage, D. R., Marschke, M., & Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning.
Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002
Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Diduck, A. P.,
Doubleday, N. C., Johnson, D. S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E. W., & Wollenberg, E. K.
(2009). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
7(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089
Ayles, B.R., Porta, L., & Clarke, R. M. V. (2016). Development of an integrated fisheries co-management
framework for new and emerging commercial fisheries in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine Policy, 72, 246–
254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.032
Ayles, B. R., Bell, B. R., & Hoyt, A. (2007). Adaptive fisheries co-management in the Western Arctic . In . ed .
Armitage , Adaptive Fisheries Co-Management in the Western Canadian Arctic. Adaptive Co-Management:
Collaboratio, Learning , and Multi-Level Governance.
Babaluk, J. A., Reist, J. D., Johnson, J. D., & Johnson, L. (2000). First records of sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka)
and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha) from Banks Island and other records of Pacific salmon in Northwest
Territories, Canada. Arctic, 53(2), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic846
Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor &
Francis.
Berkes, F., & Armitage, D. (2010). Co-management institutions, knowledge, and learning: Adapting to change in the
Arctic. Études/Inuit/Studies, 34(1), 109–131.
Berkes, F., & Berkes, M. K. (2009). Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and holism in indigenous knowledge.
Futures, 41(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.003
Berkes, F., George, P., & Preston, R. J. (1991). Co-management: The Evolution in Theory and Practice of the Joint
Administration of Living Resources. Alternatives Inc., 18(2), 12–18.
Berkes, F., & Jolly, D. (2002). Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western arctic
community. Ecology and Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00342-050218
Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th ed.).
Altamira Pr.
Bilous, M., & Dunmall, K. (2020). Atlantic salmon in the Canadian Arctic: potential dispersal, establishment, and
interaction with Arctic char. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 30(3), 463–483.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09610-2
Bindoff, N. L., Stott, P. A., AchutaRao, K. M., Allen, M. R., Gillett, N., Gutzler, D., Hansingo, K., Hegerl, G., Hu,
Y., Jain, S., Mokhov, I. I., Overland, J., Perlwitz, J., Sebbari, R., & Zhang, X. (2013). Detection and
attribution of climate change: From global to regional. In Climate Change 2013 the Physical Science Basis:

110

Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (Vol. 9781107057999, pp. 867–952). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.022
Bintanja, R., & Andry, O. (2017). Towards a rain-dominated Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 7(4), 263–267.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3240
Bring, A., Fedorova, I., Dibike, Y., Hinzman, L., Mård, J., Mernild, S. H., Prowse, T., Semenova, O., Stuefer, S. L.,
& Woo, M. K. (2016). Arctic terrestrial hydrology: A synthesis of processes, regional effects, and research
challenges. Journal of Geophysical Research G: Biogeosciences, 121(3), 621–649.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003131
Brown, L. C., & Duguay, C. R. (2010). The response and role of ice cover in lake-climate interactions. Progress in
Physical Geography. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133310375653
Brunet, N. D., Hickey, G. M., & Humphries, M. M. (2014). The evolution of local participation and the mode of
knowledge production in Arctic research. Ecology and Society, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06641190269
Bush, E., Gillett, N., Watson, E., Fyfe, J., Vogel, F., & Swart, N. (2019). Understanding Observed Global Climate
Change; Chapter 2 in Canada’s Changing Climate Report, (ed.) E. Bush and D.S. Lemmen.
Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. In American Indian Culture and
Research Journal (First). Kivaki Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Cajete, G. (2004). Philosophy of Native Science. In American Indian Thought (pp. 45–57).
Campbell, H., Vanderhoven, D., Chatterton, P., Dyson, A., Irvine, A., Lupton, R., Pain, R., Shaffi, W., Askins, K.,
Banks, S., Cartwright, J., Cook, T., Crawford, G., Crookes, L., Dymski, G., Heslop, J., Holden, A., Houston,
M., Jeffes, J., … Stewart, C. (2016). N8/ESRC Research Programme Knowledge That Matters: Realising the
Potential of Co-Production.
Canadian Centre for Climate Services (CCCS). (n.d.). Climate Data, Ulukhaktok. Retrieved May 24, 2021, from
https://climatedata.ca/explore/location/?loc=LCAVX&location-select-temperature=tx_max&location-selectprecipitation=rx1day&location-select-other=frost_days
Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of
Environmental Management, 75(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008
Carson, M., & Peterson, G. (Eds.). (2016). Arctic Resilience Report. In Stockholm Environment Institute and the
Stockholm Resilience Centre. http://www.arctic-council.org/arr
Casas-Prat, M., Wang, X. L., & Swart, N. (2018). CMIP5-based global wave climate projections including the entire
Arctic Ocean. Ocean Modelling, 123(January), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2017.12.003
Cash, D. W., Borck, J. C., & Patt, A. G. (2006). Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and
decision making: Comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Science
Technology and Human Values, 31(4), 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906287547
Cash, P., & Snider, C. (2014). Investigating design: A comparison of manifest and latent approaches. Design
Studies, 35(5), 441–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.005
Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Lamb, C. (2012). “i spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian
university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples.
Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00432.x
Caughey, A., Killulark, J., Webb, L., Kilabuk, P., Ogina, J., Guyot, M., & Hamilton, S. (2013). Nutrition Fact Sheet
Series: Inuit Traditional Foods.
Chalmers, A. F. (1982). Epidemiology and the scientific method. International Journal of Health Services, 12(4),
659–666.
Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? Hackett Publishing.
Chavarie, L., Reist, J. D., Guzzo, M. M., Harwood, L., & Power, M. (2019). Influences of environmental variation
on anadromous Arctic charr from the Hornaday River, NWT. Hydrobiologia, 840(1), 157–172.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-018-3828-0
Collignon, B. (2006). Vignette: Tatiik – Chronicle of a Fall Camp. In Knowing Places: The Inuinnait, Landscapes
and the Environment (pp. 9–19). Circumpolar Research Series No. 10 Canadian Circumpolar Institute (CCI)
Press.
Collings, P. (2009). Participant Observation and Phased Assertion as Research Strategies in the Canadian Arctic.
Field Methods, 21(2), 133–153.
Collings, P. (2011). Economic strategies, community, and food networks in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories,
Canada. Arctic, 207–219.
Collings, P., Marten, M. G., Pearce, T., & Young, A. G. (2016). Country food sharing networks, household

111

structure, and implications for understanding food insecurity in Arctic Canada. Ecology of Food and Nutrition,
55(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2015.1072812
Collings, P., Pearce, T., & Kann, J. (2017). “We Don’t Know anything about Whales:” Ecological Knowledge and
Ways of Knowing in Ulukhaktok, NT, Canada. Arctic Science, 241(November 2017), 223–241.
https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2017-0030
Collings, P., Wenzel, G., & Condon, R. G. (1998). Modem food sharing networks and community integration in the
Central Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 51(4), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1073
Condon, R. G., Collings, P., & Wenzel, G. (1995). The best part of life: subsistence hunting, ethnicity, and
economic adaptation among young adult Inuit males. Arctic, 48(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1222
Condon, R. G., & Ogina, J. (1996). The Northern Copper Inuit: A History. University of Toronto Press.
Currenti, R., Pearce, T., Salabogi, T., Vuli, L., Salabogi, K., Doran, B., Kitson, R., & Ford, J. (2019). Adaptation to
Climate Change in an Interior Pacific Island Village: a Case Study of Nawairuku, Ra, Fiji. Human Ecology,
47(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0049-8
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for
understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598–606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
Dale, A., & Armitage, D. (2011). Marine mammal co-management in Canada’s Arctic: Knowledge co-production
for learning and adaptive capacity. Marine Policy, 35(4), 440–449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.10.019
Dauginis, A., & Brown, L. (2021). Recent changes in Pan-Arctic sea ice, lake ice, and snow on/off timing. The
Cryosphere Discussions, February, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2021-52
Davidson-Hunt, I. J., & O’Flaherty, R. M. (2007). Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-based learning
communities. Society and Natural Resources, 20(4), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920601161312
Derksen, C., Burgess, D., Duguay, C., Howell, S., Mudryk, L., Smith, S., Thackeray, C., & Kirchmeier-Young, M.
(2019). Changes in snow, ice, and permafrost across Canada. In E. Bush & D. S. Lemmen (Eds.), Canada’s
Changing Climate Report (pp. 194–260). Government of Canada.
Derksen, C., Burgess, D., Duguay, C., Howell, S., Mudryk, L., Smith, S., Thackeray, C., & Megan, K. Y. (2018).
Changes in Snow, Ice, and Permafrost Across Canada. In E. B. and D. S. Lemmen (Ed.), Canada’s Changing
Climate Report (pp. 194–260).
Descamps, A., Aars, J. O. N., Fuglei, E. V. A., Kovacs, K. I. T. M., & Eb, S. (2017). Climate change impacts on
wildlife in a High Arctic archipelago – Svalbard , Norway. Global Change Biology, 23, 490–502.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13381
DFO. (2016). Proceedings of the regional peer review of the assessment of Arctic Char in the Ulukhaktok area of
the Northwest Territories.
Dilling, L., Daly, M. E., Travis, W. R., Wilhelmi, O. V., & Klein, R. A. (2015). The dynamics of vulnerability: why
adapting to climate variability will not always prepare us for climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Climate Change, 6(4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.341
Djenontin, I. N. S., & Meadow, A. M. (2018). The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and
management: lessons from international practice. Environmental Management, 61(6), 885–903.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3
Dunmall, K. M., Mcnicholl, D. G., & Reist, J. D. (2018). Community-based Monitoring Demonstrates Increasing
Occurrences and Abundances of Pacific Salmon in the Canadian Arctic from 2000 to 2017. Technical Report,
11, 8–12. https://doi.org/10.23849/npafctr11/87.90
Dunmall, K. M., Reist, J. D., Carmack, E. C., Babaluk, J. A., Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., & Docker, M. F. (2013).
Pacific Salmon in the Arctic: Harbingers of Change. In F. J. Mueter, D. M. S. Dickson, H. P. Huntington, J. R.
Irvine, E.A.Logerwell, S. A. MacLean, L. T. Quakenbush, & C. Rosa (Eds.), Responses of Arctic Marine
Ecosystems to Climate Change. University of Alaska Fairbanks. https://doi.org/10.4027/ramecc.2013.07
Durkalec, A., Furgal, C., Skinner, M. W., & Sheldon, T. (2015). Climate change influences on environment as a
determinant of Indigenous health: Relationships to place, sea ice, and health in anInuit community. Social
Science and Medicine, 136–137, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.026
Engle, N. L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 647–656.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019
Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency
Medicine, 7(3), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001
Falardeau, M., & Bennett, E. M. (2019). Towards integrated knowledge of climate change in Arctic marine systems:
a systematic literature review of multidisciplinary research. Arctic Science, 6(1), 1-23.

112

Fast, H., Mathias, J., & Banias, O. (2001). Directions toward marine conservation in Canada’s Western Arctic.
Ocean and Coastal Management, 44(3–4), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(00)00074-0
Fast, H., Chiperzak, D., Cott, K., & Elliott, G. . (2005). Integrated Management Planning in Canada’s Western
Arctic: An Adaptive Consultation Process. In Breaking ice: renewable resource and ocean management in the
Canadian north (pp. 95–117). University.
Fawcett, D., Pearce, T., Notaina, R., Ford, J. D., & Collings, P. (2018). Inuit adaptability to changing environmental
conditions over an 11-year period in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories. Polar Record, 54(2), 119–132.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003224741800027X
Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Huntington, H. P., & Frost, K. J. (2006). Integration or co-optation? Traditional
knowledge and science in the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. Environmental Conservation, 33(4), 306–
315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906003420
Finstad, A. G., & Hein, C. L. (2012). Migrate or stay: Terrestrial primary productivity and climate drive anadromy
in Arctic char. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02717.x
FJMC. (2020). Fisheries Joint Management Committee DFO Central & Arctic Program Development Meeting
January 20-24, 2020, Winnipeg, Manitoba (Issue 867).
Ford, J. D., & Pearce, T. (2010). What we know, do not know, and need to know about climate change vulnerability
in the western Canadian Arctic: A systematic literature review. Environmental Research Letters, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014008
Ford, J. D., & Smit, B. (2004). A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability of Communities in the Canadian Arctic
to Risks Associated with Climate Change. Arctic, 57(4), 389–400.
Ford, J. D., Bolton, K. C., Shirley, J., Pearce, T., Ford, J. D., Bolton, K. C., Shirley, J., Pearce, T., Tremblay, M., &
Westlake, M. (2012). Research on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change in Nunavut , Nunavik , and
Nunatsiavut : A Literature Review and Gap Analysis. Arctic, 65(3), 289–304.
Ford, J. D., Clark, D., Pearce, T., Berrang-Ford, L., Copland, L., Dawson, J., New, M., & Harper, S. L. (2019).
Changing access to ice, land and water in Arctic communities. Nature Climate Change, 9(4).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0435-7
Ford, J. D., Keskitalo, E. C. H., Smith, T., Pearce, T., Berrang-Ford, L., Duerden, F., & Smit, B. (2010). Case study
and analogue methodologies in climate change vulnerability research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Climate Change, 1(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.48
Ford, J. D., Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: A case study from Arctic
Bay, Canada. Global Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.11.007
Ford, J. D., Smit, B., Wandel, J., Allurut, M., Shappa, K., Ittusarjuat, H., & Qrunnut, K. (2008). Climate change in
the Arctic: Current and future vulnerability in two Inuit communities in Canada. Geographical Journal,
174(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00249.x
Ford, J. D., Smit, B., Wandel, J., & MacDonald, J. (2006). Vulnerability to climate change in Igloolik, Nunavut:
What we can learn from the past and present. Polar Record, 42(2), 127–138.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247406005122
Füssel, H.-M. (2004). Coevolution of the Political and Conceptual Frameworks for Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessments. Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental
Change “Knowledge for the Sustainability Transition. The Challenge for Social Science,” 302–320.
Füssel, H. M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research.
Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002
Füssel, H. M., & Klein, R. J. T. (2006). Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual
thinking. Climatic Change, 75(3), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3
Galappaththi, E. K., Ford, J. D., Bennett, E. M., & Berkes, F. (2019). Climate change and community fisheries in the
arctic: A case study from Pangnirtung, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, 250(September),
109534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109534
Gallagher, C. P., Howland, K. L., Papst, M., & Harwood, L. (2021). Harvest, catch-effort, and biological
information of Arctic Char, Salvelinus alpinus, collected from a long-term subsistence harvest monitoring
program in Tatik Lake (Kuujjua River), Northwest Territories.
Gearheard, S., & Shirley, J. (2007). Challenges in community-research relationships: Learning from natural science
in Nunavut. Arctic, 60(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic266
Gilbert, M. (2021). How will Arctic Char Respond to Rising Temperatures? Arctic Focus.
https://www.arcticfocus.org/stories/how-will-arctic-char-respond-rising-temperatures/
Gilbert, M. J. H., Harris, L. N., Malley, B. K., Schimnowski, A., Moore, J.-S., & Farrell, A. P. (2020). The thermal
limits of cardiorespiratory performance in anadromous Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus): a field-based

113

investigation using a remote mobile laboratory. Conservation Physiology, 8.
Golden, H. E., Holsinger, K. E., Deegan, L. A., MacKenzie, C. J. A., & Urban, M. C. (2021). River drying
influences genetic variation and population structure in an Arctic freshwater fish. Conservation Genetics,
February. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-021-01339-0
Graham, A., & McDonald, J. (2003). Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Research in the North.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures
and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Greenan, B., James, T., Loder, J., Pepin, P., Axetsu-Scott, K., Ianson, D., Hamme, R. C., Gilbert, D., Tremblay, J.E., Wang, X. L., & Perrie, W. (2018). Changes in Oceans Surrounding Canada; Chapter 7 in (eds.) Bush and
Lemmen, Canada’s Changing Climate Report.
Griffiths, K., Michelutti, N., Sugar, M., Douglas, M. S. V., & Smol, J. P. (2017). Ice-cover is the principal driver of
ecological change in High Arctic lakes and ponds. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172989
Hamilton, E. F., Element, G., van Coeverden de Groot, P., Engel, K., Neufeld, J. D., Shah, V., & Walker, V. K.
(2019). Anadromous arctic char microbiomes: Bioprospecting in the high arctic. Frontiers in Bioengineering
and Biotechnology, 7(FEB), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00032
Harris, L. N., Yurkowski, D. J., Gilbert, M. J. H., Else, B. G. T., Duke, P. J., Ahmed, M. M. M., Tallman, R. F.,
Fisk, A. T., & Moore, J. S. (2020). Depth and temperature preference of anadromous Arctic char Salvelinus
alpinus in the Kitikmeot Sea, a shallow and low-salinity area of the Canadian Arctic. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 634(May), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13195
Harwood, L. A., Smith, T. G., Alikamik, J., Alikamik, E., Lea, E. V., Stirling, I., Wright, H., Melling, H., & Zhu, X.
(2020). Long-term, harvest-based monitoring of ringed seal body condition and reproduction in Canada’s
Western Arctic: An update through 2019. Arctic, 73(2), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic70428
Harwood, L.A, Sandstrom, S., Papst, M., & Melling, H. (2013). Kuujjua River Arctic Char: Monitoring Stock
Trends Using Catches from an Under-Ice Subsistence Fishery, Victoria Island, Northwest Territories, Canada,
1991 – 2009. Arctic, 66(3), 291–300.
Hay, I. (2016). Qualitative Research Methods In Human Geography (4th ed.). Oxford University Press Canada.
Hendry, A. P., Bohlin, T., Jonsson, B., & Berg, O. K. (2004). To sea or not to sea? Anadromy versus residency in
salmonids. In A. P. Hendry & S. C. Stearns (Eds.), Evolution illuminated: salmon and their relatives (pp. 92–
125). Oxford University Press.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jacob, D., Taylor, M., Bindi, M., Brown, S., Camilloni, I., Diedhiou, A., Djalante, R., Ebi, K.
L., Engelbrecht, F., Guiot, J., Hijioka, Y., Mehrotra, S., Payne, A., Seneviratne, S. I., Thomas, A., Warren, R.,
& Zhou, G. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of
1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,.
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (C. S. Holling (Ed.)). John Wiley &
Sons.
Holman Char Working Group. (2006). Holman Char Fishing Plan 2004-2006.
Houde, N. (2007). The Six Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge : Challenges and Opportunities for Canadian
Co-Management Arrangements. 12(2).
Huntington, H. P. (1998). Observations on the Utility of the Semi-Directive Interview for Documenting Traditional
Ecological Knowledge. Arctic, 51(3), 237–242.
Huntington, H.P., Callaghan, T., Fox, S., & Krupnik, I. (2004). Matching traditional and scientific observations to
detect environmental change: A discussion on arctic terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio, 33(SPEC. ISS. 13), 18–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0044-7447-33.sp13.18
Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications.
Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270–1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/10510761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2
Huntington, H. P., & The Communities of Buckland, Elm, Koyuk, Point Lay, and S. (1999). Traditional knowledge
of the ecology of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the Northern Bering Sea, Chukotka, Russia. Arctic,
52(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic910
IASSA. (2020). IASSA Principles and Guidelines for Conducting Ethical Research in the Arctic.
https://iassa.org/about-iassa/research-principles
Idrobo, C. J., & Berkes, F. (2012). Pangnirtung Inuit and the Greenland Shark: Co-producing Knowledge of a Little
Discussed Species. Human Ecology, 40(3), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9490-7
IFA. (1984). The Western Arctic Claim: The Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

114

Isaak, D. J., Young, M. K., Nagel, D. E., Horan, D. L., & Groce, M. C. (2015). The cold-water climate shield:
Delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes through the 21st century. Global Change Biology, 21(7),
2540–2553. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12879
Jeppesen, E., Mehner, T., Winfield, I. J., Kangur, K. ¨lli, Sarvala, J., Gerdeaux, D., Rask, M., Malmquist, H. J.,
Holmgren, K., Volta, P., Romo, S., Eckmann, R., Sandstro, A., Blanco, S., Kangur, A., Stabo, H. R.,
Tarvainen, M., Ventela, A.-M., Søndergaard, M., … Meerhoff, M. (2012). Impacts of climate warming on the
long-term dynamics of key fish species in 24 European lakes. Hydrobiologia, 694(1), 1–39.
Jobling, M. (1983). Influence of body weight and temperature on growth rates of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus
(L.). Journal of Fish Biology, 22(4), 471–475.
Johnson, N., Alessa, L., Behe, C., Danielsen, F., Gearheard, S., Gofman-wallingford, V., Kliskey, A., Krümmel, E.,
Lynch, A., Johnson, N., Alessa, L., Behe, C., Danielsen, F., Gearheard, S., Gofman-wallingford, V., Kliskey,
A., Krümmel, E., Lynch, A., Mustonen, T., … Svoboda, M. (2015). The Contributions of Community-Based
Monitoring and Traditional Knowledge to Arctic Observing Networks: Reflections on the State of the Field.
Arctic, 68(May), 1–13.
Jonsson, B., & Jonsson, N. (2001). Polymorphism and speciation in Arctic charr. Journal of Fish Biology, 58, 605–
638.
Kafarowski, J. (2005). “Everyone Should Have a Voice, Everyone’s Equal”: Gender, Decision-Making and
Environmental Policy in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Woman Studies, 24(4).
Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and
facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005627828199
Kendrick, A. (2013). Canadian Inuit sustainable use and management of Arctic species. International Journal of
Environmental Studies, 70(3), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.801176
Kendrick, A., & Manseau, M. (2008). Representing Traditional Knowledge Resource Management and Inuit
Knowledge of Barren Ground Caribou. Society and Natural Resources, 21(5), 404–418.
Klemetsen, A., Amundsen, P. A., Dempson, J. B., Jonsson, B., Jonsson, N., O’connell, M. F., & Mortensen, E.
(2003). Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.): a
review of aspects of their life histories. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 12(1), 1–59.
Knopp, J. A., Furgal, C. M., Reist, J. D., Babaluk, J. A., Committee, S. H. H. and T., & Committee, O. H. and T.
(2012). Indigenous and Ecological Knowledge for Understanding Arctic Char Growth. In Fishing People of
the North: Cultures, Economies, and Management Responding to Change. Alaska Sea Grant, University of
Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. (pp. 177–203). https://doi.org/10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.14
Knopp, J. A. (2010). Investigating the effects of environmental change on Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) growth
using scientific and inuit traditional knowledge. Arctic, 63(4), 493–497. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic3348
Kocho-Schellenberg, J. E., & Berkes, F. (2015). Tracking the development of co-management: Using network
analysis in a case from the Canadian Arctic. Polar Record, 51(4), 422–431.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247414000436
Kofinas, G. P. (2009). Adaptive co-management in social-ecological governance. In Principles of ecosystem
stewardship (pp. 77–101). Springer.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. University of
Toronto Press.
Kovacs, K. M., Lydersen, C., Overland, J. E., & Moore, S. E. (2011). Impacts of changing sea-ice conditions on
Arctic marine mammals. Marine Biodiversity, 41(1), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-010-0061-0
Kristofferson, A. H. (2003). Identification of Arctic char stocks in the Cambridge Bay area, Nunavut Territory, and
evidence of stock mixing during overwintering. Manitoba.
Kristofferson, Allan H., & Berkes, F. (2005). Adaptive Co-Management of Arctic Char in Nunavut Territory. In
Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North (pp. 249–268).
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6gqvp5.19
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012).
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability
Science, 7(SUPPL. 1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Larranaga, N., Valdimarsson, S. K., Linnansaari, T., & Steingrímsson, S. Ó. (2018). Diel activity and foraging mode
of juvenile Arctic charr in fluctuating water flow. River Research and Applications, 34(4), 348–356.
Larsen, J. N., Anisimov, O. A., Constable, A., Hollowed, A. B., Maynard, N., Prestrud, P., Prowse, T. D., Stone, J.
M. R., Fretwell, P., & Hodgson, D. (2014). Polar regions. In V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D.
Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S.
Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts,

115

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1567–1612). Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Lede, E., Pearce, T., Furgal, C., Wolki, M., Ashford, G., & Ford, J. D. (2021). The role of multiple stressors in
adaptation to climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Regional Environmental Change, 21(2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01769-z
Lehnherr, I., St Louis, V. L., Sharp, M., Gardner, A. S., Smol, J. P., Schiff, S. L., Muir, D. C. G., Mortimer, C. A.,
Michelutti, N., Tarnocai, C., St Pierre, K. A., Emmerton, C. A., Wiklund, J. A., Köck, G., Lamoureux, S. F., &
Talbot, C. H. (2018). The world’s largest High Arctic lake responds rapidly to climate warming. Nature
Communications, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03685-z
Lewis, P. N. B., Kristofferson, A. H., & Dowler, D. H. (1989). Data from Fisheries for Arctic Charr, Kuujjua River
and Holman Areas, Victoria Island, Northwest Territories, 1966-87.
Little Bear, L. (2012). Traditional Knowledge and Humanities: A Perspective by a Blackfoot. Journal of Chinese
Philosophy.
Loder, J. W., & Wang, Z. (2015). Trends and Variability of Sea Surface Temperature in the Northwest Atlantic from
Three Historical Gridded Datasets. Atmosphere - Ocean. https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2015.1071237
Lokken, N. A. A., Clark, D. A., Broderstad, E. G., & Hausner, V. H. (2019). Inuit attitudes towards co-managing
wildlife in three communities in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut, Canada. Arctic, 72(1), 58–70.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic67868
Lucas, M. C., & Baras, E. (2000). Methods for studying spatial behaviour of freshwater fishes in the natural
environment. Fish and Fisheries, 1(4), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2000.00028.x
Manseau, M., Parlee, B., & Ayles, G. B. (2005). A Place for Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Resource
Management. In Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North (pp. 141–
164). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6gqvp5.14
Meredith, M., Sommerkorn, M., Cassotta, S., Derksen, C., Ekaykin, A., Hollowed, A., Kofinas, G., Mackintosh, A.,
Melbourne-Thomas, J., Muelbert, M. M. C., Ottersen, G., Pritchard, H., & Schuur, E. A. G. (2019). Chapter 3:
Polar Regions. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (Vol. 5).
Moore, J.-S., Harris, L. N., Kessel, S. T., Bernatchez, L., Tallman, R. F., & Fisk, and A. T. (2016). Preference for
nearshore and estuarine habitats in anadromous Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) from the Canadian high Arctic
(Victoria Island, Nunavut) revealed by acoustic telemetry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 73(9), 1434–1445.
Moore, S. E., & Reeves, R. R. (2018). Tracking arctic marine mammal resilience in an era of rapid ecosystem
alteration. PLoS Biology, 16(10), e2006708. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006708
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1–2),
1–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/40316502
Nadasdy, P. (2003). Reevaluating the Co-Management Success Story. Arctic, 56(4), 367–380.
Nadasdy, P. (2005). The Anti-Politics of TEK: The Institutionalization of Co-Management Discourse and Practice.
Anthropologica, 47(2), 215–232.
Nadasdy, P. (2007). Adaptive co-management and the gospel of resilience. In D. Armitage, F. Berkes, & N.
Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive Co-management: Collaboration, Learning and Multilevel Governance. (pp. 208–
227).
Nakashima, D. J., Galloway McLean, K., Thulstrup, H. D., Ramos Castillo, A., & Rubis, J. T. (2012). Weathering
Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. In Book.
Natcher, D. C. (2009). Subsistence and the Social Economy of Canada’s Aboriginal North. Northern Review,
30(30), 83–98.
National Snow & Ice Data Center. (2021). https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/data/terminology.html
Neil Adger, W. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World
Development, 27(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00136-3
Niederdrenk, A. L., & Notz, D. (2018). Arctic Sea Ice in a 1.5°C Warmer World. Geophysical Research Letters,
45(4), 1963–1971. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl076159
NWT Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Ulukhaktok - Statistical Profile. https://www.statsnwt.ca/community-data/ProfilePDF/Ulukhaktok.pdf
O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Schjolen, A., & Nygaard, L. (2004). What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of
vulnerability in climate change research. CICERO Working Paper., 04.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological
systems. Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7

116

Overland, J., Dunlea, E., Box, J. E., Corell, R., Forsius, M., Kattsov, V., Skovgård, M., Janet, O., Reiersen, P., &
Wan, M. (2019). The urgency of Arctic change. Polar Science, 21, 6–13.
Paylor, A. D. (1998). Community-based fisheries management and monitoring development and evaluation.
University of Manitoba.
Pearce, T., Ford, J. D., Laidler, G. J., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Allarut, M., Andrachuk, M., Baryluk, S., Dialla, A.,
Elee, P., Goose, A., Ikummaq, T., Joamie, E., Kataoyak, F., Loring, E., Meakin, S., Nickels, S., Shappa, K.,
Shirley, J., & Wandel, J. (2009). Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian
Arctic. Polar Research, 28(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2008.00094.x
Pearce, Tristan., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Ford, J. D., Goose, A., & Kataoyak, F. (2010). Inuit vulnerability and
adaptive capacity to climate change in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Polar Record, 46(2), 157–
177. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247409008602
Pearce, Tristan. (2018). Incorporating Indigenous knowledge in research. Routledge Handbook of Environmental
Displacement and Migration, 15192, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315638843-10
Pearce, Tristan, Ford, J., Willox, A. C., & Smit, B. (2015). Inuit traditional ecological knowledge (TEK),
subsistence hunting and adaptation to climate change in the Canadian arctic. Arctic, 68(2), 233–245.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4475
Pearce, Tristan, Wright, H., Notaina, R., Kudlak, A., Smit, B., Ford, J., & Furgal, C. (2011). Transmission of
Environmental Knowledge and Land Skills among Inuit Men in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada.
Human Ecology, 39(3), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9403-1
Perovich, D., Meier, W., Tschudi, M., Hendricks, S., Petty, A. A., Divine, D., Farrell, S., Gerland, S., Haas, C.,
Kaleschke, L., Pavlova, O., Ricker, R., Tian-Kunze, X., Webster, M., & Wood, K. (2019). Sea ice. In and M.
J. J. Richter-Menge, M. L. Druckenmiller (Ed.), Arctic Report Card 2019 (pp. 179–198). NOAA.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58490-0_7
Petrov, A. N., Degai, T. S., Hinzman, L. D., Kullerud, L., Holmberg, L., Pope, A., & Ye, A. (2020). Building
resilient Arctic science amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19923-2
Pettitt-Wade, H. (2020). Community driven research tracking the movements of coastal fish in the western Canadian
Arctic. Arctic Focus. https://www.arcticfocus.org/stories/community-driven-research-tracking-movementscoastal-fish-western-canadian-arctic/
Pettitt-Wade, H., Pearce, T., Kuptana, D., Gallagher, C., Scharffenberg, K., Lea, E., Hussey, N. ., & Loseto, L. .
(2020). Inuit observations of a Tunicata bloom unusual for the Amundsen Gulf, western Canadian Arctic.
Arctic Science, 6(3), 340–351.
Pinkerton, E. w. (1989). Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management
and Community Development. UBC Press.
Planck, C. J., Perovich, D. K., & Light, B. (2020). A Synthesis of Observations and Models to Assess the Time
Series of Sea Ice Mass Balance in the Beaufort Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 125(11), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015833
Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2010). Connecting Adaptive Co-Management, Social Learning, and Social Captial
through Theory and Practice. In Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level
Governance (pp. 38–61). UBC Press.
Post, E., Bhatt, U. S., Bitz, C. M., Brodie, J. F., Fulton, T. L., Hebblewhite, M., Kerby, J., Kutz, S. J., Stirling, I., &
Walker, D. A. (2013). Ecological Consequences of Sea-Ice Decline. Science, 341(August), 519–525.
Power, M., & Reist, J. D. (2018). Salvelinus alpinus. In Marine fishes of Arctic Canada (pp. 283–289). University of
Toronto Press.
Rajasingh, H., Våge, D. I., Pavey, S. A., & Omholt, S. W. (2007). Why are salmonids pink? Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64(11), 1614–1627.
Raskoff, K. A., Purcell, J. E., & Hopcroft, R. R. (2005). Gelatinous zooplankton of the Arctic Ocean: in situ
observations under the ice. Polar Biology, 28(3), 207–217.
Ready, E. (2018). Sharing-based social capital associated with harvest production and wealth in the canadian arctic.
PLoS ONE, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193759
Ready, E., & Power, E. A. (2018). Why wage earners hunt: food sharing, social structure, and influence in an Arctic
mixed economy. Current Anthropology, 59(1), 74–97.
Reist, J. D. (2018). Family Salmonidae: Trouts and Salmons. In B. W. Coad & J. D. Reist (Eds.), Marine fishes of
Arctic Canada (pp. 283–289). University of Toronto Press.
Reist, J. D., Power, M., & Dempson, J. B. (2013). Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus): a case study of the importance
of understanding biodiversity and taxonomic issues in northern fishes. Biodiversity, 14(1), 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2012.725338

117

Reist, J. D., & Sawatzky, C. D. (2010). Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 - Selected indicators of change: Indicator
#06 Arctic char.
Reist, J. D., Wrona, F. J., Prowse, T. D., Power, M., Dempson, J. B., Beamish, T. J., King, J. R., Carmichael, T. J.,
& Sawatzky, C. D. (2006). General effects of climate change on Arctic fishes and fish populations. AMBIO: A
Journal of the Human Environment, 35(7), 370–380.
Rist, S., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2006). Ethnosciences - A step towards the integration of scientific and indigenous
forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for the future. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 8(4), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9050-7
Robards, M. D., Huntington, H. P., Druckenmiller, M., Lefevre, J., Moses, S. K., Stevenson, Z., Watson, A., &
Williams, M. (2018). Understanding and adapting to observed changes in the Alaskan Arctic: Actionable
knowledge co-production with Alaska Native communities. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in
Oceanography, 152(February), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2018.02.008
Robinson, A. L., Ariano, S. S., & Brown, L. C. (2021). The influence of snow and ice albedo towards improved lake
ice simulations. Hydrology, 8(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8010011
Ruitenbeek, J., & Cartier, C. M. (2001). The invisible wand: adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in
complex bio-economic systems (Vol. 34). CIFOR.
Sawatzky, C. D., & Reist, J. D. (2010). The state of char in the arctic. Changes in the Arctic: Background and
Issues, December 2008, 120–125.
Searles, E. (2016). To sell or not to sell: Country food markets and Inuit identity in Nunavut. Food and Goodways,
24(3–4), 194–212.
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change,
16(3), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
Smith, F. (2010). Working in Different Cultures. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G. Valentine (Eds.), Key Methods in
Geography (second, pp. 157–172). Sage Publication.
Smith, R. (2020). Migration timing and overwintering habitat of anadromous Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus) near
Kugluktuk , Nunavut. University of Waterloo.
Steele, M., & Dickinson, S. (2016). The phenology of Arctic Ocean surface warming. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Oceans, 121(8), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012089.Received
Steele, M., Dickinson, S., Zhang, J., & W. Lindsay, R. (2015). Seasonal ice loss in the Beaufort Sea: Toward
synchrony and prediction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010247
Steiner, N. S., Cheung, W. W. L., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Drost, H., Hayashida, H., Hoover, C., Lam, J., Sou,
T., Sumaila, U. R., Suprenand, P., Tai, T. C., & VanderZwaag, D. L. (2019). Impacts of the changing oceansea ice system on the key forage fish arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) and subsistence fisheries in the Western
Canadian arctic-evaluating linked climate, ecosystem and economic (CEE) models. Frontiers in Marine
Science, 6, 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00179
Stern, G. A., & Gaden, A. (2015). From Science to Policy in the Western and Central Canadian Arctic: An
Integrated Regional Impact Study (IRIS) of Climate Change and Modernization. ArcticNet.
Timmermans, M.-L., & Ladd, C. (2019). Sea Surface Temperature. In J. Richter-Menge, M. L. Druckenmiller, & M.
Jeffries (Eds.), Arctic Report Card 2019. NOAA. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card.
Tomaselli, M., Kutz, S., Gerlach, C., & Checkley, S. (2018). Local knowledge to enhance wildlife population health
surveillance: Conserving muskoxen and caribou in the Canadian Arctic. Biological Conservation, 217(August
2017), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.010
Tranter, E. (2020). “A better job than we’ve ever done:” Nunavut researchers turn to citizen scientists.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/a-better-job-than-we-ve-ever-done-nunavut-researchers-turn-to-citizenscientists-1.5245397?cache=%2F7.370834%3FclipId%3D104062
Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic, 53(2),
183–193. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic849
Usher, P. J. (2002). Inuvialuit Use of the Beaufort Sea and its Resources , 1960 – 2000. Arctic, 55, 18–28.
Vanner, C. (2015). Positionality at the Center. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4),
160940691561809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915618094
Vincent, L. A., Zhang, X., Brown, R. D., Feng, Y., Mekis, E., Milewska, E. J., Wan, H., & Wang, X. L. (2015).
Observed trends in Canada’s climate and influence of low-frequency variability modes. Journal of Climate.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00697.1
Wang, X. L., Feng, Y., Swail, V. R., & Cox, A. (2015). Historical changes in the Beaufort-Chukchi-Bering Seas
surface winds and waves, 1971-2013. Journal of Climate, 28(19), 7457–7469. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D15-0190.1

118

Watt-Cloutier, S. (2015). The right to be cold: one woman’s story of protecting her culture, the Arctic and the whole
planet. Penguin Canada.
Weiss, K., Hamann, M., & Marsh, H. (2013). Bridging Knowledges: Understanding and Applying Indigenous and
Western Scientific Knowledge for Marine Wildlife Management. Society and Natural Resources, 26(3), 285–
302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.690065
Wenzel, G. W. (1999). Traditional ecological knowledge and Inuit: Reflections on TEK research and ethics. Arctic,
52(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic916
Wesche, S. D., & Chan, H. M. (2010). Adapting to the impacts of climate change on food security among inuit in
the Western Canadian Arctic. EcoHealth, 7(3), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-010-0344-8
White, G. (2006). Cultures in collision: Traditional knowledge and Euro-Canadian governance processes in northern
land-claim boards. Arctic, 59(4), 401–414.
Wrona, F. J., Johansson, M., Culp, J. M., Jenkins, A., Johanna, M., Myers-smith, I. H., Prowse, T. D., Vincent, W.
F., & Wookey, P. A. (2016). Transitions in Arctic ecosystems: Ecological implications of a changing
hydrological regime. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences, 121, 650–674.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003133
Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., Miller, C., & van Kerkhoff, L. (2019). CoProducing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 44(1), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103
Young, N., Nguyen, V. M., Corriveau, M., Cooke, S. J., & Hinch, S. G. (2016). Knowledge users’ perspectives and
advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery.
Environmental Science and Policy, 66, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.002
Zerehi, S. S. (2016). Odd colouring in Nunavut’s Arctic char leaves fishermen stumped. CBC.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-char-changes-1.3725161
Zhang, J., Stegall, S. T., & Zhang, X. (2018). Wind–sea surface temperature–sea ice relationship in the Chukchi–
Beaufort Seas during autumn. Environmental Research Letters, 13.
Zhang, X., Flato, G., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Vincent, L., Wan, H., Wang, X., Rong, R., Fyfe, J., Li, G., & Kharin,
V. V. (2019). Changes in Temperature and Precipitation Across Canada; Chapter 4 in Bush, E. and Lemmen,
D.S. (Eds.) Canada’s Changing Climate Report.

119

APPENDICES
Appendix I: University of Northern British Columbia Research Ethics Approval

120

Appendix II: Aurora Research Institute Research License

121

Appendix III: Job opportunity for the local research assistant position posted around
Ulukhaktok.

122

Appendix IV: Call for workers poster displayed around Ulukhaktok to participate in the
char project

123

Appendix V: Interview Guide
Domain 1: Questions about Arctic char behaviour, ecology, and knowledge
1. Can you tell me what you know about char? What kind of things do they eat? Where do they go and at
what times of the year?
1a. Describe a healthy-looking Arctic char.
1b. If they mention body shape, colouration, etc.…ask: follow-up questions.
2. Could you walk me through a typical day of char fishing from start to finish?
2a. When you go fishing, how do you usually catch char? Where do you usually catch them?
Why are these good places/habitats for catching char?
2b. Do you keep all of the fish captured in your net? Do you choose which fish to keep? How do
you choose?
2c. If they aren’t comfortable discussing exact fishing locations… ask: What types of habitat do
char like? (e.g., certain water temperatures, substrate types, etc.)
2d. If they mention multiple fisheries (summer (coastal), fall and winter (under ice))…ask:
follow-up questions.
3. Are there different types of char (within and among populations)? How do they differ? What are the
Inuinnaqtun words for the different types of char?
3a. What kind of personalities do they have? For example, do different types of char behave or
act differently than others?
3b. Do the different types of char go to different places (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, marine
coast)? Do the places they go to change within or between years?
3c. Is there a type of Arctic char you prefer to eat? (size, colour, location [Kuuk, Kuujjua], etc.).
Why? Have you been catching more or less of [their preferred type of char]?
4. After catching char in the summer/fall/winter, what do you do with it? (example: How do you prepare
it (cook immediately, dry for future use)? Do you trade, sell [selling is very sensitive topic], or share with
others outside of your household? etc.).
a. If they mention sharing…ask: Do friends or family share char they caught with you and
your family?
Domain 2: Questions about changes in Arctic char
5. Have you seen any changes in searun char that concern you? Can you describe these changes?
5a. When did you see these changes?
5b. Have their numbers changed? Has the health of the fish changed?
5c. Do they look or taste different? Has their migration changed, where they go and when
5d. Are these changes different for different populations?
5e. Is there something going on with char that you see, and nobody is talking about?
7. Have you noticed any changes in the environment (freshwater, the land, coastal environment) that
concern you?
7a. Do you think those changes have affected char?
7b. Have these changes affected how you fish?
7. Describe a normal char season. When would the char normally run?

124

8. How many fish would you hope to catch in a season?
9. Is your yearly catch enough to meet your family’s needs? If no, why not? OR Do you ever worry about
not having enough char to eat?
9a. What are the most important factors (environmental/ economic/ social) that influence your
ability to harvest enough char?
10. Have you ever caught salmon before? How many? When? Do you like to eat salmon?
10a. What do think about the salmon situation? Do you think salmon are a problem?
10b. Do you think salmon affect char? Do you think other marine mammals will eat salmon?
10c. If they mention increasing numbers…ask: Why are there more salmon now than before? Did
you parents or grandparents ever catch salmon here?
Domain 3: Questions about adapting to changes
11. You mentioned a lot of changes about (char, environment, etc.), can you describe how these changes
have affected you and your family? Are you doing anything different because of these changes? – Where
you fish; how you fish; when you fish; other species. Do you make these decisions on your own or do you
learn from someone else (e.g., OHTC, Elder, etc.)?
i. Fishing behaviour / efforts / activities
ii. Time of year
iii. Locations (if they do not feel comfortable discussing specific locations… ask:
what type of places?)
iv. Fishing a different population/area to fish for char
v. Harvesting other fish species or wildlife more
vi. Stopped fishing / reduced fishing efforts
12. Do you think more could be done to manage the char fishery? Are there any changes you’d like to see
happen?
10 a. If they mention research…ask: What research would you like to see happen in the future?
10 b. Would you be interested in collaborating with the fishery biologists to communicate their
research back to the community?
13. Have you participated in the community commercial fishery in the past? When and for how long?
About how many tags did you get?
13a. How important was this to your household income? Do you fish differently for the
commercial fishery compared to when you fish for yourself and your family? [e.g., targeting
different char stocks/individuals]
13b. in Feb 2020, the UCWG decided to put a hold on commercial fishing for next 5 years…Do
you think char will respond positively to the hold on commercial fishing?
13c. If they seem comfortable discussing commercial fishing… ask: How do you feel about the
hold on commercial fishing?

125

Appendix VI: Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee letter supporting remote
research

126

Appendix VII: Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee initial letter of support

127

Appendix VIII: Pacific Salmon Traded into the Arctic Salmon Program by Harvesters
across the Canadian Arctic reported in Dunmall et al. (2018)

128

Appendix IX: Ulukhaktok mean temperature under low, medium, and high emission
scenarios. Data source and image: Canadian Centre for Climate Services Climate Data.

129

Appendix X: Map of Ulukhaktok: Jacks Bay, Queens Bay, Kings Bay

130

Appendix XI: Sample quotes by participants expressing opinions about the acoustic
tagging program.
Tagging
Program
For
8%

Sample Quotes
It will give us more information. Where do they go? And are they coming back to the same
lake? Or are they going around Victoria Island? Year after year, are they going in circles? I
think the tagging will give us a lot of information. – Anonymous
Are the fish staying in the lake when it is time to go spawn? When it is time to go to the ocean?
How do we know that all char are going to the ocean? How do we know that they are not just
going lake to lake or something like that? What if they are getting stuck because the rivers are
dry? Maybe they are populating the lakes? – Kathy Inuktalik, Young Elder, F

Against
4%

Indifferent
21%

We have some monitors out there, about 50 buoys out there to check to see where the fish are
swimming and travelling by. Those monitors send a high frequency or signal to the animals
swimming by. That is what I do not like to see, for me. I told that to the OHTC and I told that to
the Elders and they agree with me, but the scientists and the people that are working want to
find out where the fish are travelling……. We used to have big schools of fish, now, they
moved to where there aren’t any to the other side of Minto. That is what I do not like to see,
except, I cannot stop it……. I want them out of the water. A lot of people want to see that. –
David Kuptana, Elder, M
I think they let some people know. But I didn’t know anything. I was probably out of town.
When I asked the researchers about those sonars those guys that were here, they said it doesn’t
bother the animals but then why are there no more seals close by? They didn’t give me an
answer……it would be nice to show the people what the instruments are and what they are
capable of doing. – Allen Pogotak, Elder, M
Some people are saying maybe the buoys are the reason char numbers are down, other people
are saying maybe their migrations are changing. I really don’t know myself. – Laverna
Klengenberg, Adult, F

131