PAIRING INUIT AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF ANADROMOUS ARCTIC
CHAR, IQALUKPIK, (SALVELINUS ALPINUS) ECOLOGY IN THE WESTERN
CANADIAN ARCTIC
by

Halena J. Scanlon
B.A., University of the Sunshine Coast, 2020
B.Sc. (Hons.), University of the Sunshine Coast, 2020

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

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
April 2025
© Halena J. Scanlon, 2025

Statement of Ownership
The knowledge shared in this thesis was derived from many sources, primarily the
people of Ulukhaktok. Ulukhaktomiut, in partnership with external researchers, defined
research priorities and shared their knowledge of Arctic char, Iqalukpik, (Salvelinus alpinus)
on the understanding that it would be used to accomplish the objectives of this project.
The collaborative process we undertook was governed by the Olokhaktomiut Hunters
and Trappers Committee (OHTC), which is responsible for ensuring that the knowledge
presented, and its use, is attributed to the appropriate knowledge holders. Any future interest
in using the information presented in this thesis must be directed to the OHTC.

ii

Pairing Inuit and Scientific Knowledge of Anadromous Arctic char, Iqalukpik
(Salvelinus alpinus) ecology in the western Canadian Arctic

Halena Scanlon
UNBC, 2025

Advisor: Tristan Pearce
Committee members: Colin Gallagher
Lisa Loseto
Neil Hanlon
Abstract

This research paired Inuit and scientific knowledge of sympatric populations of
anadromous Arctic char, Iqalukpik (Salvelinus alpinus) in the Amundsen Gulf in the western
Canadian Arctic to examine fish appearance, origin, movement, and health. Sixteen Elders
and fishers from Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories were engaged through semi-structured
interviews and workshops, during which they shared some of their knowledge of local
anadromous Arctic char populations and co-interpreted the results of morphometric,
telemetry, and health analyses on those same populations. Analysis of these discussions
revealed points of alignment and divergence between Inuit and scientific knowledge, and
gaps in our collective understanding of the species. Inuit participants confidently identified a
fish’s lake-of-origin based on appearance alone, indicating differences in Arctic char
morphology among lakes, contradicting the findings of scientific morphometric analysis.
Participants confirmed two primary marine migration pathways for Arctic char also
documented by telemetry, and a third pathway not captured by telemetry. Finally, a
comparison of body condition factors (weight-length ratio) and participants’ assessments of
fish health showed strong agreement, though participants employed a wider range of
indicators, including stamina, skin and flesh colour, girth, and gill condition. By pairing Inuit
and scientific knowledge, this research offers an enriched understanding of Arctic char,
which is crucial for the effective monitoring and co-management of this species of
significance to Inuit.

iii

Table of Contents
Statement of Ownership

ii

Abstract

iii

Table of Contents

iv

List of Tables

v

List of Figures

vi

Glossary

viii

List of Acronyms

x

Acknowledgements

xi

Author Statement

xiv

Chapter I:

Chapter II:

Introduction

1

1.1 Aim and Objectives

2

1.2 Thesis organisation

3

Literature review

4

2.1 Arctic char ecology in the Arctic

4

2.2 Climate change and Arctic char

10

Connecting statement
Chapter III:

Chapter IV:

17

Pairing Inuit and Scientific knowledge in fisheries and wildlife comanagement in Inuit Nunangat: a systematic review

21

3.1 Introduction

21

3.2 Materials and methods

23

3.3 Results

30

3.4 Discussion

38

3.5 Conclusion

43

Case study

44

4.1 Inuvialuit Settlement Region: Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories 44
Chapter V:

Chapter VI:

4.2 Arctic char fisheries co-management

46

Methodology

48

5.1 Research design

48

5.2 Research regulations

50

5.3 Methods

51

Results

63

6.1 Ulukhaktomiut knowledge of anadromous Arctic char

64

6.2 Pairing Inuit and scientific knowledge

83

iv

Chapter VII:

Chapter VIII:

Discussion

97

7.1 Arctic char ecology

97

7.2 Reflections on knowledge pairing

104

Conclusion

111

Literature Cited

113

Appendices

145

v

List of Tables
Table 1: Inclusion/Exclusion criteria
Table 2: Questionnaire
Table 3: Principles of knowledge pairing. Adapted from Norström et al. (2020) and Zurba
et al. (2022)
Table 4: Participant demographics
Table 5: Inuinnaqtun names for Arctic char
Table 6: Ulukhaktomiut description of associations between Arctic char body shapes and
River/Lake of origin
Table 7: Health indicators identified by Ulukhaktomiut to assess the condition of Arctic
char
Table 8: Sample mean and standard deviation of healthy and unhealthy groups
Table 9: Areas of complementarity between Indigenous knowledges and science for
environmental monitoring. Adapted from Moller et al. (2004)

v

List of Figures
Figure 1: General distribution of Arctic char in the Holarctic (Reist et al., 2013)
Figure 2: Simplified life cycle of Arctic char (Johnson, 1980; Power & Reist, 2017).
Figure 3: Examples of morphological diversity within Arctic char in North America (Reist
et al., 2013)
Figure 4: Document selection summary
Figure 5: Danielsen et al.'s (2009) classification of monitoring schemes
Figure 6: Usher's (2000) classification of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
Figure 7: Number of reviewed documents published per year
Figure 8: Number of reviewed documents per first author affiliation category
Figure 9: Number of grey and peer-reviewed documents reviewed
Figure 10: Number of case studies by Inuit region
Figure 11: Number of publications per species
Figure 12: Study location, Ulukhaktok, Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest
Territories, Canada
Figure 13: Research process
Figure 14: Summary of research activities conducted by Ulukhaktomiut and researchers in
and near Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada
Figure 15: NVivo themes used to code participant statements relating to Arctic char
appearance
Figure 16: NVivo themes used to code participant statements relating to Arctic char origin,
movement, and health
Figure 17: Generalised map of places discussed by participants
Figure 18: Generalised map of Fish Lake
Figure 19: Arctic Char identified by participants as ocean char. Pictures were taken during
the 2018 fish tagging project in Ulukhaktok
Figure 20: Photographs representing the three Arctic char morphotypes identified by
Burke et al. (2022)
Figure 21: Conceptual diagram showing general patterns of char migration and habitat-use
along the coast, as well as differences in habitat-use between Fish Lake and
Tahiryuak Lake char (Hollins et al., 2022)

vi

Figure 22: Boxplot comparing Fulton's Condition Factor (k) by health status (Healthy vs.
Unhealthy) for Arctic char

vii

Glossary
Anadromous: Fish born in freshwater that migrate to marine environments where they
reside for a period of time before returning to freshwater to spawn (Myers, 1949).
Amangiak: Inuinnaqtun name for capelin.
Aniak: Inuinnaqtun name for long, skinny Arctic char.
Co-management: “Governance systems that combine state control with local,
decentralised decision making and accountability and which, ideally, combine the strengths
and mitigate the weaknesses of each” (Singleton, 1998, p. 7).
Indigenous knowledges: “A cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving
by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission,
about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their
environment" (Berkes, 2018, p. 8). Within Indigenous knowledges are Indigenous sciences,
which “use the same methods as science, including: classifying, inferring, questioning,
observing, interpreting, predicting, monitoring, problem solving, and adapting” (Johnson et
al., 2016, p. 5).
Inuit Nunangat: The Inuit homeland of Canada, located in the Canadian Arctic.
Inuvialuit: Inuit from the Western Canadian Arctic.
Ikgalukpik: Inuinnaqtun for Arctic char that migrate to the ocean in spring.
Inuinnaqtun: Inuit language spoken in Ulukhaktok.
Iqalukpik: Inuinnaqtun for Arctic char.
Ivitagouk: Inuinnaqtun for spawning Arctic char.
Knowledge pairing (more commonly known as knowledge co-production): An “iterative
and collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to
produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future” (Norström
et al., 2020, p. 183).
Knowledge system: “The knowledge claims, values and standards, epistemologies, and
structures that shape knowledge use” (Wyborn et al., 2019, p. 325).
Mixed-methods research: “… research in which the inquirer or investigator collects and
analyses data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and
quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of study” (Given, 2008,
p. 527).
Piffi: Inuinnaqtun for “dried fish.”
Quaq: Inuinnaqtun for “frozen raw” meat.

viii

Scientific knowledge (specifically, knowledge acquired using western scientific methods):
Knowledge that is gathered through systematic investigation using empirical methods that
reduce complex systems to their intrinsic parts to study and understand them (Chalmers,
1994; Popper, 1959). It is informed by Eurocentric ideologies, worldviews, beliefs, and
value systems (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007).
Sympatric: The coexistence of distinct populations in the same geographic region (Coyne
& Orr, 2004).
Takgiukmaitak: Inuinnaqtun name for Arctic char that remain in the ocean over winter.
Ulukhaktomiut: Inuit living in Ulukhaktok.

ix

List of Acronyms
DFO: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
FJMC: Fisheries Joint Management Committee
HTC: Hunters and Trappers Committee
ISR: Inuvialuit Settlement Region
OHTC: Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee
SST: Sea Surface Temperature
TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge
WoS: Web of Science
NISR: National Inuit Strategy on Research
UCWG: Ulukhaktok Char Working Group

x

Acknowledgements
This research has been a collaborative effort, drawing on the wisdom, care, and
expertise of many people. I want to express my gratitude to mentors, colleagues, friends, and
family, whose support, patience, and understanding have made this journey both enjoyable
and enriching.
To the residents of Ulukhaktok I owe my deepest and most heartfelt gratitude. Koana,
thank you for welcoming me into your community and for sharing some of your knowledge
of Arctic char with me. My time in Ulukhaktok is something that I will carry with me for the
rest of my life. To Winnie Akhiatak, thank you for welcoming me into your home. When I
think about the Arctic, I think of you teaching me to drive a skidoo as we chased Arctic hares
and showing me how to jig at Uqpilik Lake. To Allen Pogotak, thank you for partnering in
this project and ensuring its success. To Rhea Klengenberg, thank you for not only helping
me in the early days of this research project as a research partner, but for also being a friend.
To Susie Memogana, Trent Kuptana, and Adam Kuptana, thank you for all your support and
for helping me organise the logistics of fieldwork amidst your own commitments.
To my supervisor, Dr. Tristan Pearce, words cannot express how grateful I am to you.
Thank you for your mentorship, continuous support, and for always having faith in me. I
would not be where I am today had I not taken Sustainability Problem Solving with you all
those years ago. To Dr. Neil Hanlon, roughly halfway through my masters program you told
me that I was not critically reflecting on my positionality if I did not feel some degree of
discomfort during this research. Thank you for this and your many other pieces of advice that
guided me as I developed my own approach to research. To Colin Gallagher, thank you for
all your guidance and patience during our many meetings and for teaching me about Arctic
char. They are officially my favourite fish. To Dr. Lisa Loseto, thank you for supporting this
research and for trusting me to be a part of it.

xi

Many people kindly gave their time and advice throughout the course of this research.
To Ellen Lea, thank you for being a sounding board while I worked through some of the
trickier elements of this project, for always finding time to provide feedback, and for sharing
some of your insights on conducting research in the Arctic as a woman. To Dr. Harri PettittWade, Dr. Jack Hollins, Teah Burke, and the co-authors of the Hollins et al. (2022) and
Burke et al. (2022) papers, thank you for sharing your research with me and for kindly
answering my many questions.
To my wonderful friends, Shaye, Madi, Lauren, Caleb, and Parker, the last few years
with you have been the happiest of my life. I love you all for more reasons than I can possibly
say here. To my lab mates, Annie, Yanik, Stephanie, James, Rubi, Mackenzie, Lenworth, and
Madeleine, I am so grateful to have worked and learned alongside such brilliant and kind
people. I would particularly like to thank my Azure family, Yanik and Stephanie. I think of
you both every time I craft.
To my parents, Kate and Russell, none of this would have been possible without your
love. Thank you for always supporting me as I pursue my dreams, even when they take me
far away from you. To my partner, Tyler, you joined me halfway through this journey, and I
am so grateful to see its end with you. Thank you for always being a calm and steadying
presence and for listening to me talk about knowledge pairing nearly nonstop. Lastly, I am
grateful to all the women who came before. You made the path easier to follow.
This research was supported by the following institutions and organisations:
ArcticNet Project 33: Using Co-Produced Knowledge to Understand and Manage Subsistence
Marine Harvests in a Changing Climate, the Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee
(OHTC), the Ulukhaktok Char Working Group (UCWG), the Fisheries Joint Management

xii

Committee (FJMC), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and the Canada
Research Chairs Program.

xiii

Author Statement
Growing up in Australia, the Arctic felt like the furthest place on earth from my
home. I knew very little about Inuit and had never even heard of Arctic char. Nevertheless,
when the opportunity to go to the Arctic was offered, I felt a thrill at the challenge it
represented, and pride in the potential to do meaningful work on the front lines of climate
change.
Working alongside Indigenous people to better understand the environment and our
place in it has long been a calling close to my heart. As a young child, I briefly spent time in
a remote Yolŋu community in the Crocodile Islands, Northern Territory, where my nanna
worked as a teacher. Having grown up in large cities, I was fascinated by the animals I saw
there and how people lived close to them, especially dangerous ones like the saltwater
crocodile. This and later experiences set my feet on a path I have scarcely deviated from
since.
At the University of the Sunshine Coast, I completed a double major in ecology and
development studies. With no real idea of how to link these two disciplines in my
professional life, I followed the simple advice of my family to do whatever brought me
meaning and joy. With that guidance in mind, I decided to extend my studies and undertook
an Honours in Science. During my program, I travelled to Fiji to document the ways iTaukei
(Indigenous Fijians) value and use their environment in a region under threat from climate
change and resource extraction. Through this experience, I fell in love with research and its
potential as a tool to empower communities, which led me to, once again, continue my
studies and enrol in a masters program at the University of Northern British Columbia.
The first time I went to the Arctic, it felt as if I had travelled to another planet. I had
no idea what to do, or what to wear, or where I should be. I was quickly filled with
uncertainty. “What do I, as a white Australian academic have to offer the community of
xiv

Ulukhaktok?”, I often asked myself. I am not a fisheries biologist, nor am I a fisher. What
knowledge and skills was I bringing to the process? However, I eventually realised that the
process I went through, with its struggles and small incremental wins, is representative of
knowledge pairing in action. We each bring something unique to the table and it is beyond
any one individual or group to have all the answers. While I undoubtedly learnt far more
from the people I met in Ulukhaktok than they ever learnt from me, I hope that my
contribution to this project has provided something of use to the community. I have done my
best to faithfully communicate the knowledge they shared with me.
Now nearing the end of my masters studies, I am more aware than ever of how much I
still do not know. There have been countless moments of doubt and a recurring bout of
imposter syndrome. Thankfully, I have been privileged in my personal and professional life
to learn from and be guided by many kind, patient, wise, capable, incredible people. In
particular, the opportunity to work alongside women who are highly skilled and respected
within their fields has helped me navigate the challenges of being a woman in research. It
would be an exaggeration to say that I no longer feel like a foreigner in the Arctic, but I
definitely know more about Arctic char than I ever thought I would!

xv

Chapter I: Introduction
Human influence is changing the natural world rapidly, with our collective future now
filled with unknowns. In light of this uncertainty, scientists have come to realise the limits of
their approaches and the knowledge garnered, creating opportunities to engage with other
ways of knowing and understanding our relationship with the natural world and how it is
changing (Roué & Nakashima, 2022).
Indigenous peoples and their knowledges are increasingly being engaged in
environmental monitoring and research in the Arctic. Rooted in generations of observation
and experiential learning, Indigenous knowledges tend to be holistic and deeply tied to place,
reflecting the intricate relationships between Indigenous peoples and their environments
(Furgal, 2006; Reid et al., 2021). Indigenous knowledges are often described as the antithesis
of scientific knowledge; however, this is a false dichotomy (Castleden et al., 2017).
Indigenous and scientific approaches are highly complementary, with each seeking to test
hypotheses through repeated observations, albeit at different spatial and temporal scales, and
for different purposes (Furgal, 2006; Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000). It is because of these
differences that pairing Indigenous and scientific knowledges is so powerful, as doing so
increases our understanding of environmental changes and our confidence in research
findings (Huntington et al., 2004; Moller et al., 2004). However, bringing these distinct
knowledge systems together can be difficult, with the process hampered by practical and
theoretical challenges (Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017; Zurba et al., 2022).
In the Canadian Arctic, there is a long history of Inuit and researchers co-managing
species of cultural and socioeconomic value, as mandated by land claims agreements for each
of the four Inuit regions: the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), Nunavut, Nunavik, and
Nunatsiavut. Not only is co-management important for the conservation of Arctic species, but
it also supports the continued generation and transmission of Inuit knowledge (Knopp et al.,
1

2012; Pearce et al., 2010). As climate change continues to transform the north, the role and
importance of pairing Inuit and scientific knowledge in monitoring and co-management is
paramount for better understanding changes in the Arctic environment and its wildlife, and
implications for Inuit (Johnson et al., 2020).
Inuit and scientists have been co-monitoring Arctic char, Iqalukpik (Salvelinus
alpinus) populations near Ulukhaktok since the 1980s, which has generated a considerable
amount of data on the species (Gallagher et al., 2021; Lea et al., 2023). Citing concerns about
the health of Arctic char populations and individual fish, Ulukhaktomiut (Inuit living in the
community of Ulukhaktok) representatives on co-management boards requested research to
investigate these changes. In 2018, a research project was co-developed by Inuit and
researchers to investigate changes affecting anadromous Arctic char drawing on Inuit
knowledge and scientific methods (acoustic telemetry and sampling). This thesis focuses on
pairing the data collected using both approaches to co-produce knowledge of anadromous
Arctic char ecology. The anticipated findings of this research are intended to inform Arctic
char monitoring and co-management efforts.
1.1

Aim and Objectives
This thesis pairs Inuit and scientific knowledge of sympatric populations anadromous

Arctic char ecology in the Amundsen Gulf in the western Canadian Arctic to examine how
fish appearance, lake-of-origin, spatial movement, and health can be determined by engaging
a combination of knowledges. The research has three objectives:
1. document Inuit knowledge of the appearance, origin and movement, and
health of anadromous Arctic char;

2

2. pair Inuit knowledge with scientific data collected through sampling,
morphometric analysis, and acoustic telemetry to identify types of Arctic char,
their origins and movement, and health indicators; and
3. identify areas of complementarity between Inuit and scientific knowledge.
1.2

Thesis organisation
This thesis is organised into eight chapters, starting with the introduction. Chapter two

reviews relevant literature on Arctic char ecology and the impacts of climate change on the
species. Chapter three systematically reviews knowledge pairing case studies in the Canadian
Arctic to evaluate how knowledge pairing is undertaken in practice. Chapter four provides the
regional and local context for the research. Chapter five details an overview of the research
methodology, design, and approach, and describes the methods used for data collection and
analysis. Chapter six presents the results of this study, which begins by documenting
Ulukhaktomiut knowledge of anadromous Arctic char, focusing on the appearance, origins,
and movement of stocks, as well as the indicators used by study participants to assess the
health of individual fish. The second section connects the information shared by participants
to telemetry and morphometric studies and unpublished health-related data on anadromous
Arctic char in the Amundsen Gulf. In chapter seven, the key findings of the research are
reflected upon and discussed in relation to the broader literature. Finally, chapter eight
summarises the key research findings and identifies possible areas of future research.

3

Chapter II: Literature review
This research engages with scholarship on Arctic char, Iqalukpik (Salvelinus alpinus)
and the implications of climate change for the species. This chapter reviews these bodies of
scholarship, providing context for this research.
2.1

Arctic char ecology in the Arctic
Belonging to the Salmonidae family, Arctic char are well adapted to the highly

dynamic Arctic marine environment, which is characterised by extreme seasonality and
variability (Power & Reist, 2017). Distributed throughout the Holarctic (Fig. 1), Arctic char
is the northern-most occurring freshwater fish species (Sawatzky & Reist, 2008), with a
latitudinal range in North America spanning from Ellesmere Island (83°N) to Newfoundland
(49°N) (Johnson, 1980). As a cold-adapted stenotherm, they can survive in temperatures
close to 0°C, with Power and Reist (2017, p. 286) noting “significant positive correlations
between growth and temperature up to 14°C.” Arctic char is also the most abundant of the
anadromous salmonids present in the Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic (Power & Reist, 2017).
As such, the species is incredibly important to commercial (Harris et al., 2016) and
subsistence fisheries (Knopp, 2010; Usher, 2002). In this section, the ecology of Arctic char
will be described, with particular focus on the species’ life histories, the migration of
anadromous Arctic char, and morphological diversity.

4

Figure 1 General distribution of Arctic char in the Holarctic. Dotted margins indicate uncertain distributional
limits. Source: Reist et al. (2013)

2.1.1 Life histories
Found in lakes, rivers, and coastal marine environments seasonally, Arctic char are
habitat generalists (Reist et al., 2013). Their adaptability is reflected in the diverse life
histories demonstrated by the species. Life history refers to the timing and allocation of an
individual’s resources toward survival, growth, and reproduction throughout their lifetime
(Alonzo & Kindsvater, 2008). Fitness – an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce – may
be optimised by life history traits (Stearns & Koella, 1986). However, life history traits are
limited by trade-offs, where allocating resources to one function, like reproduction, may be at
the expense of others, such as survival (Braendle et al., 2011; Stearns, 1989). Inherent
biological constraints, such as genetics, also restrict the range of possible traits, as an
organism cannot express a trait absent from its genetic makeup (Braendle et al., 2011). A
combination of trade-offs, constraints, and environmental conditions determines how life
history traits are expressed (Braendle et al., 2011).

5

Arctic char exhibit land-locked, resident, or anadromous life histories (Weinstein et
al., 2024). Land-locked Arctic char are unable to access marine environments due to physical
barriers (Johnston, 2002). Resident Arctic char occupy lacustrine or fluvial habitats, though
some populations have individuals that move between both (Power & Reist, 2017).
Anadromous Arctic char migrate in spring to nearshore marine environments to feed, and
return to freshwater in fall where they overwinter (Johnson, 1980).
Some Arctic char remain in freshwater despite being able to reach productive marine
environments, as the drawbacks of anadromy may outweigh the benefits (Johnston, 2002).
Anadromous individuals have access to richer, more abundant food sources in the marine
ecosystem, resulting in increased growth and fecundity (Jensen et al., 2019). However,
anadromy is energetically costly, and anadromous individuals have an increased risk of
mortality (Jensen et al., 2019). Sources of mortality for anadromous salmonids include
predation, increased physiological stress, and energy expenditure (Hendry et al., 2003).
Anadromous Arctic char occupy freshwater environments for the first several years of
their lives (Fig. 2; Johnson, 1980), after which they migrate to the sea during (Harwood &
Babaluk, 2014) or shortly before (Hammer, 2021) ice breakup each spring. This behaviour is
timed to coincide with a resource pulse that occurs in Arctic marine environments during the
warmer months, with factors such as migration distance and the presence of ice influencing
when migration commences (Hammer, 2021; Hollins et al., 2022).

6

Figure 2 Simplified life cycle of Arctic char (Johnson, 1980; Power & Reist, 2017).

2.1.2 Migration
Anadromous populations converge on marine foraging grounds during early summer,
capitalising on the Arctic marine resource pulse triggered by increased sunlight and warming
temperatures (Hammer, 2021). According to Gyselman (1984), mean weight gains of 42%
can occur in Arctic char during marine migration. As a result, anadromous fish are
significantly larger than their non-migratory counterparts (Johnson, 1980). Energy gained
during this period of intense feeding sustains anadromous Arctic char throughout the winter
months.
Arctic char are known opportunists and highly adaptive, with their diet varying
spatially and temporally (Johnson, 1980). Pettitt-Wade et al. (2023) found that Arctic char
exhibit shifts in diet and habitat as they grow, with their diet becoming increasingly more
varied. From an analysis of the stomach contents of anadromous Arctic char in Trembley
Sound, Hammer (2021) found that Arctic char consumed a variety of prey, the most common
being copepods, amphipods, krill, and other fish species. Other studies also identified
molluscs, annelids, crustaceans, insects, and worms as prey species of Arctic char (Dempson
7

et al., 2002). The species’ varied diet is indicative of their ability to adapt feeding behaviours
to suit a range of environmental conditions (Pettitt-Wade et al., 2023).
Marine residency lasts from 30 to 70 days, with variation among populations and
sizes (Power & Reist, 2017). Anadromous Arctic char move to deeper waters as the summer
progresses, with Harris et al. (2020) suggesting that they may do so to exploit Arctic marine
fish species such as capelin, Amangiak (Mallotus villosus). Arctic char are also thought to
actively seek out cooler waters to limit energy expenditure in the latter half of the marine
foraging period (Harris et al., 2020). As surface water temperatures cool, the resource pulse
subsides and cardiorespiratory performance of Arctic char decreases, after which Arctic char
return to overwintering freshwater sites (Gilbert et al., 2020; Hammer et al., 2022).
Arctic char typically spawn every 2 or more years (Dutil, 1986). During nonspawning years, individuals may stray to an alternate overwintering site (lake) with a lower
migratory cost (Moore et al., 2017). However, when individuals are spawning, they will
typically return to their natal system, limiting gene flow among populations and increasing
genetic differentiation over time (Moore et al., 2014).
2.1.3 Morphological diversity
The success of Artic char is largely attributed to their adaptability and opportunistic
nature, which has allowed the species to rapidly colonise habitats made newly accessible by
the retreat of glacial sheets in recent millennia (Power, 2002; Reist et al., 2013). For many of
the last 2.5 million years, fishes of genus Salvelinus have evolved in the narrow periglacial
zone adjacent to ice sheets, resulting in a range of adaptations that have enabled their survival
and supported their expansion during interglacial periods (Power, 2002).
Arctic char usually occupy recently deglaciated (<10,000 years) oligotrophic lakes
with limited resources and low species richness, leading to reduced inter-species competition
8

(Knudsen et al., 2006). In lacustrine (resident non-migratory) populations, intraspecific
competition over resources is also limited, with distinct forms occupying separate lake zones
and feeding on different prey (Jonsson & Jonsson, 2001; Power & Reist, 2017). These
distinct but sympatric forms are produced via non-genetic changes in morphology in response
to environmental conditions (Power & Reist, 2017). These changes are a product of
phenotypic plasticity, which is defined by DeWitt and Scheiner (2004, p. 2) as “the
environmentally sensitive production of alternative phenotypes by given genotypes.’ It is a
mechanism by which organisms can adapt to changing environmental conditions (DeWitt &
Scheiner, 2004). Arctic char are well known for this trait, with the species often characterised
as “complex” due to their extreme variability in morphology (Fig. 3; Conejeros et al., 2014;
Johnson, 1980; Skulason et al., 1992). Nordeng (1983) refers to this as the “char problem”,
which describes the frequent occurrence of sympatric populations with distinct morphotypes.

Figure 3 Examples of morphological diversity within Arctic char in North America: a) Anderson Lake, central
Canadian Arctic, anadromous male, 730 mm FL (fork length); b) North Lake, Cornwallis Island, central
Canadian Arctic, landlocked male cannibal, 590 mm FL; c) 12 Mile Lake, Cornwallis Island, landlocked dwarf,
350 mm FL; d) North Baffin Island resident, 248 mm FL. Illustrations by P Vescei. Source: Reist et al. (2013)

Morphotypes (morphological phenotypes) are variations in the physical expression of
genes, resulting in distinct morphologies across individuals of the same species (Skulason &
Smith, 1995; Zimmerman et al., 2006). Numerous studies have documented various
9

morphotypes of Arctic char within a single locality, with particular focus given to lacustrine
populations (e.g., Jonsson et al., 1988; Knudsen et al., 2006; Power et al., 2009; Reist et al.,
1995). Sympatric lake-dwelling Arctic char can exploit discrete zones and resources, thereby
occupying distinct ecological niches (Reist et al., 1995; Power et al., 2009). Skúlason et al.
(1992, p. 71) states that “[r]esource polymorphism represents diversifying evolution on a fine
scale” and is important to understanding population divergence and speciation. They argue
that phenotypic plasticity in behaviour, life history, and morphology supports the colonisation
of newly accessible environments (Skulason et al., 1992).
According to Johnson (1980), non-anadromous lacustrine populations of Arctic char
display greater phenotypic variability than their anadromous counterparts. However,
morphological variation in anadromous Arctic char has been documented. Burke et al. (2022)
identified three morphotypes in anadromous Arctic char in the Amundsen Gulf, Canada. The
reason for these morphotypes is uncertain, with the authors suggesting that this variation
could be the result of freshwater environmental conditions experienced by juvenile Arctic
char, feeding strategies that maximise consumption in the marine environment, or inherited
traits from ancestral lake populations (Burke et al., 2022).
2.2

Climate change and Arctic char
Arctic char has demonstrated strong adaptability to a range of environmental

conditions (Power, 2002). However, the rate and scale of environmental change in the Arctic
in recent decades may exceed the species’ ability to adapt (Power, 2002). The impacts of
climate change on Arctic fish species are not well understood (Reist et al., 2006). According
to Reist et al. (2006), effects will be indirect and direct, positive and negative, and differ
among species and populations. However, the complex nature of marine ecosystem processes
makes predicting how these effects will interact and influence each other difficult (Reist et

10

al., 2006). This section will explore both the potential and actual impacts of climate change
on Arctic char.
2.2.1 Air temperature and precipitation
In the last 20 years, the Arctic has experienced surface air temperature increases at a
rate more than twice that of the global average (Meredith et al., 2019). Causes of this
increased warming include a disruption of the albedo feedback mechanism, changes in
summer cloud cover, and increased water vapour content in the atmosphere above the Arctic
(Meredith et al., 2019). With increasing air temperatures also comes increasing precipitation,
as warmer air can hold more moisture (Trenberth, 2011). There will continue to be a shift
from precipitation falling as snow to rain during the summer and autumn months with
implications for the spring freshet, which is now occurring earlier (McCrystall et al., 2021;
Zhang et al., 2019). Zhang et al. (2019) project that precipitation will continue to increase in
northern Canada; however, there is some variability across emissions scenarios regarding the
severity of the increase.
The changes produced by increasing temperatures and precipitation on fishes will be
both direct and indirect (Reist et al., 2006). For example, productivity of freshwater
ecosystems in the Arctic is typically low due to limited nutrient inputs, cool temperatures, the
prolonged presence of ice, and brief summer periods (Prowse et al., 2006). However,
increases in temperature and precipitation are expected to improve lake productivity (Larsen
et al., 2011), which may influence the extent and frequency of migration for anadromous
species such as Arctic char. When projecting various emission scenarios, Finstad and Hein
(2012) found a negative correlation between migration distance and lake productivity, with
instances of the former decreasing with increases in the latter. They suggest that increased
lake productivity will result in reduced instances of anadromy in Arctic char populations, as

11

the benefits of migration will no longer outweigh the costs (Finstad & Hein, 2012). Altered
flow conditions may inhibit or promote anadromy, depending on local conditions, as they
will influence physiological (e.g., salinity tolerances or velocity barriers) and physical
barriers (e.g., waterfalls or non-connected drainage basins) (Reist et al., 2006).
2.2.2 Sea ice
Among the effects of climate change, the pan-Arctic loss of sea ice cover is perhaps
the most widely publicised. As the climate continues to warm and temperatures increase, ice
breakup is occurring earlier in the spring (Stroeve & Notz, 2018). According to Meredith et
al. (2019), sea ice extent has declined every month of the year since 1979, with the greatest
changes witnessed during summer. Overland and Wang (2013) estimate that the Arctic will
be nearly free of sea ice by 2050 at the latest during summer.
A reduction in sea ice cover is produced by increased air temperature, resulting in
greater light absorption in the water column thereby increasing water temperature and further
reducing sea ice cover – a cycle known as the sea ice albedo feedback mechanism (Perovich
& Polashenski, 2012). Sea ice melt precedes a brief resource pulse integral to the Arctic
marine ecosystem that is initiated by algal and phytoplankton blooms (Horner & Schrader,
1982). With break-up occurring earlier in summer months, the timing of these blooms are
expected to follow suit, which has significant implications for the primary production regime
of Arctic marine ecosystems (Leu et al., 2015; Meredith et al., 2019). Søreide et al. (2010)
state that the early onset of ice breakup will cause the resource pulse to occur earlier and out
of sync with the life cycle of key herbivores. This is supported by Meredith et al. (2019), who
also states that there will be increased larval or juvenile mortality of crucial fish and shellfish
species. As a result, energy transfer throughout the Arctic food web could be disrupted (Leu
et al., 2015). However, complex interactions between direct and indirect effects, as well as

12

limited seasonal data from the high Arctic, make the consequences of this disruption difficult
to determine (Leu et al., 2015; Post et al., 2013).
Ice has significantly influenced the evolution of Arctic char (Power, 2002). At no
other time is this more evident than during the annual migration of anadromous Arctic char,
during which individuals consume marine resources integral to their survival over winter.
How the species will respond to changing conditions in the Arctic marine environment, and a
reduction in sea ice extent and thickness specifically, remains uncertain. However, several
short- and long-term effects with both positive and negative influences have been postulated.
Many of these influences interact with other processes driven by climate change, such as
increased temperature and precipitation (Finstad & Hein, 2012). Effects include increased
growth and weight due to increased feeding opportunities as the timing and duration of Arctic
char migration shifts (Chavarie et al., 2019; Harwood, 2009), and changes in diet community
due to sea ice variability (Hammer, 2021).
2.2.3 Sea surface temperature
Sea surface temperature (SST) is a key driver of substantial sea ice loss (Meredith et
al., 2019; Yang et al., 2023), with significant implications for marine processes and
ecosystems (Loder & Wang, 2015). Between 1982-2022, mean SST showed warming trends
in most regions of the Arctic Ocean (Timmermans & Labe, 2022), which experienced 3-4
times greater warming than the northern hemisphere on average (Carvalho & Wang, 2020).
Arctic char are highly adapted to cold water (Johnson, 1980). However, they
experience substantial variations in temperature during the annual migration to and from
Arctic marine environments (Gilbert et al., 2020). As climate change continues to increase
temperatures in the Arctic, Gilbert et al. (2020) predicts that this will result in impaired
fitness by reducing cardio-respiratory performance and recoverability in Arctic char. As such,
13

the risk of migration failure increases with increased temperature as thermal barriers will
affect the survival of anadromous Arctic char (Gilbert et al., 2020). Gilbert et al. (2020)
suggest that Arctic char would have to alter migration timing and location to respond to
increasing temperatures. As discussed, some populations of anadromous Arctic char have
demonstrated earlier migration in response to earlier ice breakup in spring, showing that
migration timing can shift (Hammer et al., 2022). However, given that migration is timed to
coincide with the Arctic marine resource pulse, this could result in Arctic char populations
mistiming their arrival at marine feeding grounds, which substantial implications for Arctic
char productivity and the ecosystems and communities that rely upon it.
2.2.4 Arctic rivers and lakes
Climate change has substantial implications for the structure and function of Arctic
freshwater ecosystems (Prowse et al., 2009). However, the complexity of interacting
processes creates significant uncertainty regarding predicted impacts on aquatic ecosystems
and cascading effects on terrestrial ecosystems (Meredith et al., 2019). The source, timing,
and magnitude of inputs into Arctic freshwater ecosystems are crucial determinants of their
properties (Prowse et al., 2006). Wrona et al. (2016) state that these factors may be altered by
an intensified hydrological cycle and changes in the cryosphere. They identify several
affected ecosystem attributes and processes, including: changes in ecosystem productivity,
altered landscapes, the creation of new habitats, altered seasonality and phenological
mismatches between mutually dependent species, and gains or losses of species (Wrona et al.,
2016).
The effects of these changes on freshwater systems, and species such as Arctic char,
will vary with location (Reist et al., 2006). According to Larsen et al. (2014), changes in flow
magnitude and timing, decreased lake and river ice cover, thawing permafrost, and other

14

alterations affect the timing, growth, run size, and distribution of Arctic freshwater and
anadromous species.
Arctic char in Nulahugyuk Creek, Nunavut provide some insight into how decreases
in stream flow can affect migration patterns, with Gilbert et al. (2016) observing fish
migrating upstream as early as late June to early July. They attribute this to flow levels being
too low in August to permit the movement of returning fish. As a result, spawning fish may
migrate from their overwintering site to spawning grounds without feeding, while nonspawning individuals may stray to alternate overwintering sites that are less challenging to
reach (Gilbert et al., 2016).
Lake and river ice are also decreasing in the Arctic (Prowse & Brown, 2010). As
freshwater ice cover decreases, water temperature and light availability increases,
contributing to increased productivity (Prowse & Brown, 2010). As previously discussed,
increased productivity in typically oligotrophic freshwater systems may lead to shifts away
from anadromy for some populations (Finstad & Hein, 2012), with potential implications for
future fish yields (Prowse & Brown, 2010).
2.2.5 Responses to range-expanding salmon species
As the Arctic continues to warm, the ranges of southern fish species are anticipated to
expand northward (Reist et al., 2006). The expansion may result in increased interspecific
competition, which may have significant consequences for Arctic char (Bilous & Dunmall,
2020).
The range expansion of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) into the Arctic is evident (e.g., Bilous & Dunmall, 2020; Dunmall et al., 2018).
Community-based monitoring of Pacific salmon in the western Canadian Artic between 2013
and 2017 found that chum, pink, sockeye, and chinook salmon species are increasing in
15

abundance and distribution throughout the region (Dunmall et al., 2018). Dunmall et al.
(2024) suggest that the expansion of Pacific salmon into the western Canadian Arctic may be
facilitated by an intermittent thermal pathway connecting the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
Atlantic salmon share a similar life cycle and habitat preferences as Arctic char,
possibly increasing the likelihood of interaction between these species during several life
stages (Bilous & Dunmall, 2020). Given that Arctic char distribution is already limited to the
high north, additional pressure from range-expanding salmonids poses a significant threat to
the species (Isaak et al., 2015). The implications of reduced Arctic char for community
fisheries is also of concern, as Arctic char is important to the culture, subsistence, and
economies of northern communities (Knopp, 2010). When interviewing Inuit fishers, Smart
(2021) found that most feared the disappearance of Arctic char and a shift towards a greater
reliance on salmon.

16

Connecting statement
The previous chapter reviews key literature on the ecology of Arctic char and the
impacts of climate change on the species, providing readers with foundational knowledge and
setting the context for the research.
The next chapter presents a systematic review of case studies that link Inuit and
scientific knowledge for wildlife and fisheries co-management to assess how knowledge
pairing is undertaken in practice. This chapter is written in a manuscript style and can be read
as a standalone document. H. Scanlon collected and analysed the data and was the sole author
of the paper. To ensure clarity, key terms are first defined, establishing a common
understanding that will underpin the interpretation and analysis of the results.
Definitions
When discussing a topic as sensitive as the engagement of Indigenous knowledges,
the use of language is imbued with layers of meaning and tension. Often referred to as
Traditional Knowledge, the term Indigenous knowledges is increasingly being adopted, and
will be applied here when referring to Indigenous knowledges in general, in recognition of
the pluralistic and evolving nature of Indigenous knowledge systems. Early discourse on
engaging Indigenous knowledges often used terms such as “integration”, a reflection of
efforts to incorporate such knowledge into science, reinforcing the hegemony of the latter and
disempowering Indigenous communities by taking their knowledge out of place and context,
thereby concentrating it in “administrative centres, rather than in in the hands of [Indigenous]
people” (Nadasdy, 1999 p. 2). The terminology used to describe the process of pairing
scientific approaches and Indigenous knowledges is constantly evolving as academic
institutions seeks to decolonise research, language, and processes (Held, 2019; Kovach, 2021;
Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). This is largely a reflection of Indigenous scholars and community
leaders increasingly directing the conversation on what terminology should be used in
17

relation to them and their knowledges (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). Today, the discourse
predominantly centres around ideas of ‘linking’, ‘bridging’, or ‘pairing’ Indigenous
knowledges and scientific knowledge while respecting ontological, epistemological, and
axiological differences (Chapman & Schott, 2020; Reid et al., 2021; Riewe & Oakes, 2006).
The following terms are key concepts relevant to pairing scientific and Indigenous
knowledges.
There is no one universally agreed upon definition for Indigenous knowledges, with
Battiste and Henderson (2000) arguing that the urge to define the term stems from
Eurocentric thinking and is irrelevant. Nevertheless, there are several characteristics shared
by Indigenous knowledges. They are strongly tied to people and place (Reid et al., 2021).
Like all knowledge, they are constantly evolving and adapting to suit the current needs of
practitioners (Bartlett et al., 2012; Furgal, 2006). They can be empirically driven, but are
generally highly qualitative, leading to scepticism among some circles regarding their rigour
(Furgal, 2006). However, in the same way that scientists test hypotheses through observation
and experimentation, Indigenous peoples generate and evaluate their knowledge through
recurring observations, experiences and collective learning (Furgal, 2006; Johnson et al.,
2016). As such, Indigenous knowledges are “rooted in everyday experiences and success”,
supporting the continued health and wellbeing of knowledge holders and their communities
(Anderson & Anderson, 1996; Furgal, 2006 p. 10). Berkes (2018, p. 8) defines Indigenous
Knowledges, also called Traditional Knowledge or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK),
as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and
handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living
beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment.” TEK is typically
used in the ISR when discussing Inuvialuit knowledge.

18

Norström et al. (2020, p. 183) define knowledge co-production as an “iterative and
collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce
context-specific knowledge and pathways towards a sustainable future.” Political economist
Elinor Ostrom and colleagues (Ostrom et al., 1978; Parks et al., 1981) are credited with
coining the term ‘co-production’ in their work on the participation of citizens in the
production and consumption of public services. However, it was not until Osherenko (1988)
applied the term to fisheries co-management that it became associated with Indigenous
knowledges (Krupnik 2022).
According to Wyborn et al. (2019), the application of knowledge co-production in
sustainability science stemmed from a perceived need to change the ways in which science is
conducted. It evolved out of a series of independent but connected approaches, including
participatory action research and transdisciplinary research (Norström et al., 2020; Wyborn et
al., 2019). However, the concept is not without criticism, particularly concerning what some
perceive to be a failure to account for power imbalances between communities and
researchers (Turnhout et al., 2020). This raises important questions about “whose knowledge
is being co-produced—for which outcomes, to the benefit of whom, and who decides”
(Wyborn et al., 2019, p. 323). It is argued, therefore, that the term “co-production” can be
misleading, as new knowledge is not always collaboratively produced. Given this, we have
elected to use the term ‘knowledge pairing’ instead, as we feel it is more reflective of the
process we undertook.
In a social science context, a knowledge system is defined by Roling and Jiggins
(1998 p. 242) as a social construct that is both a “stable actor network” and a “coherent set of
cognitions, cosmologies and practices.” Roué and Nakashima (2022 p. 14) echo Roling and
Jiggins (1998) stating that “knowledge systems are rooted in unique cosmologies and
epistemologies, as well as their own social dynamics and ways of life.”
19

Scientific knowledge is gathered through systematic investigation using empirical
methods that reduce complex systems to their intrinsic parts to study and understand them
(Chalmers, 1994; Popper, 1959). It is informed by Eurocentric ideologies, worldviews,
beliefs, and value systems (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007). According to Chalmers (1994),
scientific knowledge is based on facts that have been produced through observation and
experimentation, not personal opinion. This definition is indicative of the disciplines’ origins
in positivist thought, which often characterises science as being objective and rigorous in its
search for universal ‘truths’ (Crotty, 1998). However, this characterisation has shifted
somewhat in response to the emergence of post-positivist and feminist perspectives that argue
it is impossible to be an all-knowing and objective observer removed from the system under
study (Crotty, 1998; Haraway, 1988).

20

Chapter III: Pairing Inuit and Scientific knowledge in fisheries and wildlife comanagement in Inuit Nunangat: a systematic review
Abstract
We systematically reviewed how knowledge pairing has been practiced in fisheries
and wildlife research within Inuit Nunangat through an analysis of 16 peer-reviewed case
studies. Knowledge pairing is an emerging approach that aims to bridge knowledge systems
and enhance our understanding of the environment. However, ambiguity persists regarding its
definition, process, and boundaries. Our analysis revealed themes and challenges related to:
(1) variability in how knowledge pairing was conducted; (2) differences in the extent to
which community organisations were included throughout the research process; (3) a
predominant focus on the categories of traditional knowledge related to factual/rational
knowledge about the environment and factual knowledge about past and current use of the
environment; and (4) the need to prioritise transformative goals such as capacity-building
alongside knowledge generation. By engaging Inuit knowledge holistically and striving for
equity in all stages of research processes, knowledge pairing can produce more effective,
locally relevant outcomes for fisheries and wildlife co-management in Inuit Nunangat.
Key words: knowledge pairing, knowledge co-production, Inuit knowledge, traditional
knowledge, TEK; science
3.1 Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that a diversity of perspectives and knowledges are needed
to understand and address the challenges of the twenty-first century. Additionally, there is
now an expectation that local and Indigenous communities be included in and empowered by
research of significance to them. These shifts within research culture, and society more
broadly, have given rise to the practice of knowledge pairing, or knowledge co-production as
it is more commonly known (Bandola-Gill et al., 2023). We have elected to use the term

21

knowledge pairing here, as it better reflects the iterative, collaborative process of bringing
two distinct knowledge systems together in genuine partnership.
In a social science context, a knowledge system is defined by Roling and Jiggins
(1998, p. 242) as a social construct that is both a “stable actor network” and a “coherent set of
cognitions, cosmologies and practices.” Roué and Nakashima (2022, p. 14) echo Roling and
Jiggins (1998), stating that “knowledge systems are rooted in unique cosmologies and
epistemologies, as well as their own social dynamics and ways of life.” This is true for both
scientific and Indigenous knowledge systems. Scientific knowledge has long been
characterised as being based solely on facts produced through unbiased repeat observation
and experimentation (Chalmers, 1994), while Indigenous knowledges have historically been
seen as less rigorous due to their highly qualitative nature (Furgal, 2006). Neither of these
characterisations are true of course, with Castleden et al. (2017) challenging the ‘dichotomy
discourse’. In the same way that scientists test hypotheses through observation and
experimentation, Indigenous people who continue to live in close association with their
ancestral lands generate and evaluate their knowledge through recurring observations,
experiences, and collective learning (Furgal, 2006). Each knowledge system has its strengths,
and both are highly complementary to the other (Furgal, 2006). In recognition of this, the
linking of these distinct knowledge systems is increasingly being undertaken through
knowledge pairing.
Knowledge pairing refers to a collaborative, reciprocal, and iterative process in which
knowledges are treated as distinct and equal, and the strengths of each are engaged to develop
a more holistic understanding of a problem or phenomenon (Chapman & Schott, 2020;
Norström et al., 2020). Such research aims to empower local communities and enrich
research findings through the inclusion of multiple perspectives, with the process being just
as important as the outputs (Chapman & Schott, 2020; Yua et al., 2022). In recent years, the
22

number of publications pertaining to knowledge pairing has increased substantially (Zurba et
al., 2022), but a lack of understanding and consensus regarding the definition, process, and
boundaries of knowledge pairing remains (Norström et al., 2020). Consequently, it is difficult
to determine whether knowledge pairing lives up to all that it promises and aspires to, with
real implications for communities and research produced through this process (Lemos et al.,
2018; Wyborn et al., 2019).
In Inuit Nunangat, wildlife and fisheries are co-managed by federal and provincial
governments, joint boards, and Inuit communities that rely on them for subsistence, economic
purposes, and for the continued transmission of their knowledge and culture. Under land
claims agreements for each Inuit region in Canada, it is mandated that Inuit Traditional
Knowledge, or Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as it is called in Nunavut, be included in decisions
concerning the management of fisheries and wildlife. In this study, we systematically review
research concerning fisheries and wildlife management in Inuit Nunangat that brought Inuit
and scientific knowledge together to evaluate how knowledge pairing research is being
undertaken in practice. The findings are intended to contribute to efforts to strengthen
knowledge pairing in co-management processes in Inuit Nunangat and beyond.
3.2 Materials and methods
A systematic literature review was undertaken to capture and analyse case studies on
pairing Inuit and scientific knowledge in wildlife or fisheries monitoring or management in
Inuit Nunangat. Through this process emergent themes relating to the practices and
approaches to knowledge pairing were identified and explored. With roots in the health
sciences (O’Brien & McGuckin, 2016), a systematic literature review seeks to answer a
research question through a targeted, methodical and repeatable analysis of relevant literature
(Gough et al., 2012). Our methods are consistent with the approach described by BerrangFord et al. (2011) and applied by Ford et al. (2012) and Pearce et al. (2018).
23

3.2.1 Document selection
Peer-reviewed and grey literature (non-peer-reviewed government and NGO reports,
university theses) published in English prior to January 2, 2024 were systematically searched
for using scholarly databases and Google Scholar.
A keyword search was carried out in the databases Scopus, Web of Science (WoS),
and ProQuest. These databases were selected due to, in part, their institutional accessibility.
According to Vera-Baceta et al. (2019), Scopus has a greater number of indexed documents
in all research areas (Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, and
Technology) save for the Arts and Humanities, for which WoS had marginally more
coverage. However, when comparing sources included for review from both databases, we
found that WoS provided no additional sources. Therefore, the decision was made to omit
WoS. ProQuest was also used as it captured many sources that Scopus did not, particularly
theses and dissertations.
A search string was used to identify relevant literature from Scopus or ProQuest.
Searches were restricted to the title, abstract and keywords of literature. Terms within the
string were tested to determine whether they were capturing additional sources. Including
“Inuit Qauijimajatuqangit”, “Nunatsiavut”, and “Labradormiut” in the search string did not
add additional articles. All unnecessary terms were removed, resulting in the following
simplified string:
(("Inuit" OR "Inuvialuit" OR "Nunavummiut") AND ("comanag*" OR "co-govern*"
OR "monitor*" OR "manag*") AND ("fish" OR "fisheries" OR "wildlife") AND "knowledge"
AND ("Canad*" OR "Arctic" OR "Nunavik" OR "Nunavut")).
With this search string 63 and 127 sources were captured in Scopus and ProQuest
respectively (Fig. 4).
24

Figure 4 Document selection summary

When searching Google Scholar, we used the keyword Inuit as a mandatory term that
could be accompanied by any of the following in a source’s title: TEK; knowledge; science;
Traditional Ecological Knowledge; Traditional Knowledge; co-govern; manage; managing;
monitor; fisheries; fish; wildlife. This search returned approximately 500 sources. Using a
method adapted from Furgal et al. (2010), the first 200 documents were captured after which
each document was recorded until 25 irrelevant sources occurred consecutively. We then
passed over 50 documents and assessed the relevance of the following five documents,
repeating this process until we reached the 500th source and ceased searching. This process
returned approximately 200 documents.
Literature captured from scholarly databases and Google Scholar were reviewed
against inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 1) to assess their relevance to the research
question. A two-step approach was adopted to achieve this. First, the abstract of each

25

document was reviewed with obviously irrelevant literature excluded. The remaining
documents were then reviewed in depth against our inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 1).
Table 1 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion
Full text available
English
Available via Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar
Peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book chapters,
working papers, theses or dissertations, or reports
Focus on Inuit Nunangat
Includes case studies on pairing Inuit Knowledge and
Science relating to fisheries or wildlife
management/monitoring

Exclusion
Full text not available
Non-English
Not available via Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar
Non-peer-reviewed journal articles, books, book
chapters, working papers, theses or dissertations, or
reports
Not specific to Inuit Nunangat
Does not include case studies on pairing Inuit
Knowledge and Science relating to fisheries or
wildlife management/monitoring

Of the documents originally captured from Scopus and ProQuest, 7 and 14, respectively,
were retained for review after being assessed against our inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Between Scopus and ProQuest, there were six duplicate documents. Therefore, from the
scholarly databases, 15 documents were included for review.
Of the original 200 documents captured in Google Scholar, only five were included
for review after being assessed against our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of those, four had
already been captured while searching scholarly databases. Therefore, Google Scholar
captured one additional document for review, bringing the total number of documents for
review to 16.
3.2.2 Document review
Of the near 400 documents captured, 16 were retained for review. These remaining
documents were assessed using a spreadsheet (Table 2) in Microsoft Excel that categorised
publication details and themes relating to knowledge pairing in Arctic fisheries and wildlife
management. General characteristics of the article such as publication year, first author
affiliation, document type and which region and community the research took place in were
26

identified. Quantitative aspects in the documents were isolated using descriptive and basic
inferential statistics. Remaining questions in the questionnaire focused on how knowledge
pairing was undertaken in each case study, with key themes predetermined prior to document
review.
Table 2 Questionnaire
Variable
Year published
Fisheries or wildlife management/monitoring (yes or no)
Inuit region (Nunavik, Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, or the Inuvialuit Settlement Region)
Inuit community
Study aim
Identified and applied a knowledge pairing framework? If so, what one?
Worked with community member (yes – sampler, yes - interpreter, yes - research assistant, yes - research
partner, no)
Stakeholders involved (e.g., hunters, fishers, Elders)
Knowledge pairing activities (e.g., semi-structured interviews, workshops, participatory mapping,
storytelling)
Level of community participation (Danielsen et al., 2009)
Type of knowledge sought (Usher, 2000)

We relied on the core principles of knowledge pairing (Table 3; Norström et al., 2020;
Zurba et al., 2022) to guide our evaluation, examining each document to determine if they
were embedded throughout all stages of the research. Key themes focused on how Inuit and
scientific knowledges were paired, the degree to which communities participated in and
drove the research process, whether their participation was sustained, and what category(s) of
traditional knowledge was captured in the study.
Table 3 Principles of knowledge pairing. Adapted from Norström et al. (2020) and Zurba et al. (2022)
Principle
Contextual Sensitivity

Empowerment and Equity
Inclusive and Early
Engagement

Definition
Emphasises that knowledge pairing should be tailored to specific social,
ecological, cultural, and institutional contexts, considering the unique needs
and constraints of each situation.
Prioritises equitable power distribution among all participants, especially
marginalised groups, giving them an active role in decision-making to foster
genuinely collaborative partnerships.
Recommends early and intentional involvement of diverse knowledge holders,
including Indigenous and local communities, respecting their expertise and
ensuring that the methods are culturally appropriate and mutually respectful.

27

Iterative and Interactive
Processes
Pluralistic Knowledge
Engagement
Shared Goals and
Understanding

Encourages ongoing, adaptive interactions, active engagement, and regular
communication to facilitate learning, accommodate evolving needs, and
strengthen relationships over time.
Recognises the importance of linking multiple knowledge systems—academic,
local, Indigenous—to enrich understanding, embrace diversity, and address
complex sustainability challenges holistically.
Advocates for establishing a clear, shared understanding of the goals and
values that guide the knowledge pairing process, ensuring alignment and
collaborative purpose among all stakeholders.

To assess community participation in the reviewed case studies, we referred to
Danielsen et al. (2009) who identified five broad monitoring categories, each with increasing
levels of community participation. These categories range from externally driven and
interpreted monitoring (category 1) to locally driven autonomous monitoring (category 5),
with communities holding increasing decision-making power, in the higher categories (Fig. 5;
Danielsen et al., 2009). We analysed and categorised each case study by asking the following
questions: 1) were community organisations (e.g., community hunters and trappers bodies)
involved in the study design; 2) to what extent were they engaged throughout the course of
the research; 4) did community members have a formal role in research activities (if so, were
they research partners, research assistants, interpreters, samplers?); and, 5) were they
included in data collection and analysis?

28

Figure 5 Danielsen et al.'s (2009) classification of monitoring schemes

To determine what type of knowledge researchers sought, we categorised each case
study using Usher’s (2000) classification of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK; Fig. 6).
To identify which category a case study belonged to, we referred to the aims and objectives
of each, as these revealed the type of knowledge researchers were seeking to engage with.
When a study appeared to engage with more than one type of knowledge, we classified it as
belonging to all evident categories.

Category 4
The knowledge
system itself
Category 3
Values about the
environment
Category 2
Knowledge about the
use of the
environment

Category 1
Knowledge about the
environment

Figure 6 Usher's (2000) classification of Traditional Ecological Knowledge

29

3.2.3 Search limitations
We recognise the limitations inherent in the search process and acknowledge the
biases that may have influenced document selection, review, and analysis. Due to the
constraints placed on the search, it is possible that relevant literature was excluded from this
review. Measures were taken to be objective and consistent (e.g., one person selected,
reviewed, and analysed the literature), but bias is inevitably present in the review process.
However, we are confident that we captured a substantial number of available literature on
pairing Inuit and scientific knowledge in fisheries and wildlife management.
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Publication details
In the last 16 years, the publication of case studies on knowledge pairing in fisheries
or wildlife management in Inuit Nunangat has been irregular, peaking in 2021 before
declining again (Fig. 7). However, there is a slight upward trend with the average number of
articles published per year increasing from 0.375 from 2008 to 2015 to 1.625 from 2016 to
2023.

Number of publications

4

3

2

1

0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Year
Figure 7 Number of reviewed documents published per year.

30

Case studies were published by first authors affiliated with universities, the Canadian
government, or a mix of both (Fig. 8). Of the 16 case studies reviewed, 13 (81%) were
produced by first authors affiliated with Canadian universities. One (6%) was authored by
Canadian government employees, and another two (13%) by first authors affiliated with both
universities and government. Given that our search focused on case studies in Inuit Nunangat,
it is not surprising that this is reflected in the authorship of reviewed documents.
14

Number of case studies

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
University

Government

Mix

First Author Affilliation
Figure 8 Number of reviewed documents per first author affiliation category: University, Government, or Mix
(first author is affiliated with government and university).

Of the 16 documents reviewed, 12 (75%) were peer-reviewed journal articles, with
the remaining four (25%) being theses (Fig. 9). These theses focused on topics ranging from
engaging TEK in non-invasive polar bear (Ursus maritimus) monitoring to linking Inuit and
scientific knowledge to better understand Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) community
monitoring.

31

Number of reviewed documents

14
12
10
8
6
4

2
0

Grey literature

Peer-reviewed
Document type

Figure 9 Number of grey and peer-reviewed documents reviewed

3.3.2 Geographic focus of research
Reviewed studies took place in either Nunavut, Nunavik, or the Inuvialuit Settlement
Region (ISR; Fig. 10). Half of the case studies reviewed took place in Nunavut (n = 8, 50%),
with four (25%) studies located in the ISR and Nunavik each. None of the reviewed studies
occurred in Nunatsiavut. Research within Nunavut was spread throughout 15 of the region’s
25 communities (60%) including Naujaat, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Arviat, and Pond
Inlet. However, it must be noted that one study accounted for seven of those communities.
Similarly, research took place within 10 of Nunavik’s 14 communities (71%) (e.g., Quaqtaq,
Ungava Bay, Kangiqsualujjuaq, Kuujjuaq, etc.), with five of those communities engaged
during one study. Five out of six communities were engaged (83%) within the ISR. Two of
the four studies were situated in Ulukhaktok, with others occurring in Inuvik, Paulatuk,
Tuktoyaktuk, and Sachs Harbour. Aklavik was the only community within the ISR not
engaged by the studies reviewed here.

32

Figure 10 Number of case studies by Inuit region

3.3.3 Species of interest
All the species studied are of interest to Inuit people, either because of their
subsistence, cultural or economic value, or because of their status as invasive species (beaver
and pelagic tunicates). The documents reviewed covered a diverse range of species, such as
polar bear (Ursus maritimus), muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), killer whale (Orcinus orca),
narwhal (Monodon monoceros), and Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus; Fig. 11).
However, research effort was marginally concentrated on Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and
beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) with three studies each. Two studies did not focus on
specific species, instead looking at fish or cetaceans more broadly. There was an

33

overwhelming focus on marine species, with nine of the 12 species discussed in the reviewed
case studies belonging to this group.

Figure 11 Number of publications per species

3.3.4 Application of a knowledge pairing framework
Of all the case studies reviewed, only one (6%) noted using a knowledge pairing
framework. The knowledge pairing framework was one that the authors had developed
themselves. No other papers claimed to draw inspiration or guidance from a knowledge
pairing framework in the design and approach of their research.
3.3.5 Community participation in the research process
Levels of community participation in the research process varied among publications.
Just over half (n = 10, 63%) noted responding to community desire, need, or concern.
However, the motivations behind research projects were not always clear, with the remaining
six studies under-reporting on this. Most (n = 15, 94%) began with consultation with
community organisations (e.g., hunters and trappers bodies) prior to data collection. The
purpose of these meetings included identifying community interests or concerns, defining
34

research aims and objectives, discussing and seeking approval for research design, and
identifying potential research participants. The one study that did not note formally meeting
with community organisations worked closely with a member of the local Hunters and
Trappers Committee throughout the research.
The extent to which community organisations were engaged once research activities
formally began differed greatly. Some studies maintained regular (e.g., quarterly or biannually) contact with these bodies to report on project updates and receive feedback. Others
communicated on a less regular basis—typically during key project milestones, such as data
validation or dissemination, when the research team was already communicating with study
participants and/or the wider community.
All studies engaged community members, who worked as either research partners,
research assistants, interpreters, or samplers. Some studies worked with community members
with multiple roles (e.g., a case study had both interpreters and samplers). Research partners
were engaged in the decision-making process throughout the lifetime of a project and may
have participated in data collection, validation, and/or dissemination. Only two (13%) of the
16 case studies claimed to have a community research partner. Seven (44%) studies worked
with research assistants – community members who participated in specific aspects of a
project, such as organising, conducting and translating interviews, and validating transcripts.
In one of these case studies, community members were hired by a regional caribou
management board to conduct interviews and validation workshops. However, the exact
allocation of duties and how much influence these community members had is unclear. Eight
(50%) of the case studies used interpreters to translate during interviews, workshops, and
other engagement activities. These individuals differed from research assistants, who may
have also acted as interpreters, in that they did not perform any other role save for translating.
Four (25%) case studies worked with samplers to gather biological material. One case study
35

noted working with community members but did not disclose their specific role. Only one
(6%) of the case studies reviewed here disclosed including community members in data
analysis. However, most studies (n = 10, 63%) undertook validation activities, likely to
account for this.
Few (n = 5, 31%) of the reviewed case studies noted providing training to community
members. Those that did, provided training on quantitative data collection, such as biological
sampling, and the theory and practice of qualitative research, such as conducting interviews,
transcribing, and presenting results.
The extent to which researchers engaged with community organisations, the roles of
community members in the research, and if they were included in data collection and analysis
informed our classification of case studies using Danielsen et al.’s (2009) five categories
defining community participation in natural resource monitoring. None of the 16 case studies
reviewed were classified as category 1, with all engaging community organisations in some
capacity. Four (25%) were deemed to fall within category 2, which utilised community
members in data collection only and minimal decision-making rested with community
organisations regarding study design. Eleven (69%) case studies were considered to fall
within category 3, which captured studies with a more collaborative relationship between
external researchers and communities. However, community members are still excluded from
data analysis under this category. Of the 10 studies, five were considered high category 3s,
most of which provided training in research techniques to community members who had
substantive roles (i.e., research assistant, research partner), and worked closely in
consultation with local organisations. One was classified as a low category 3 as it was unclear
whether the research was in response to a community-identified need and no training was
provided, but the study was developed in consultation with local organisations and
community members were still included in data collection. It is only under category 4 that
36

community members are included in the analysis phase of a project, ensuring that local
perspectives are present in the interpretation of results. Only one (6%) of the case studies
reviewed here met these requirements. None of the case studies met the requirements of
category 5, which describes autonomous research undertaken by a community with minimal
external input.
3.3.6 Participant engagement activities
Researchers collected data using a limited number of methods. All studies undertook
some form of interview, be they semi- or unstructured. Half (n = 8, 50%) supported
interviews with participatory mapping exercises. Ten (63%) of the case studies followed
interviews with workshops or focus groups to dive deeper into the research topic and validate
information shared during interviews. Scientific and Inuit knowledge systems were often
engaged in isolation, and only linked during the interpretation of results by external
researchers.
3.3.7 Type(s) of knowledge actively engaged
Usher (2000) describes four categories of Traditional Knowledge for the purpose of
environmental assessment: (1). knowledge about the environment; (2). knowledge about the
use of the environment; (3). values about the environment; and (4) the knowledge system
itself. Half (n = 8, 50%) of case studies focused on engaging category 1 knowledge –
knowledge about the environment. These studies were interested gaining a more holistic or
comprehensive understanding of the ecology of a species, without considering the intricate
socio-ecological relationships between humans and a particular species. Five (31%) case
studies engaged with both category 1 and category 2 knowledge. Category 2 knowledge
pertains to knowledge about past and current use of the environment. These case studies were
not only interested in the ecology of a species, but also how it is used by Inuit communities
37

and managed by resource management bodies. Two (13%) case studies sought knowledge
from categories 1, 2, and 3, with a focus on the ecology and use of a species, as well as the
social values and norms surrounding its harvesting. Only one (6%) case study aimed to
engage with all 4 categories of knowledge, as it wanted to understand not just the ecology,
use, and human behaviours and values in relation to a species, but also how observations of
the species were explained. This last category encompasses the cosmology, or the structure
and organisation, of Inuit knowledge, which underpins Usher’s (2000) other three categories.
Given this, it is likely that other case studies reviewed did engage with this fourth category,
but they did not actively do so.
3.4 Discussion
Within Inuit Nunangat there is a strong mandate that the co-management of fisheries
and wildlife be informed by scientific and Inuit knowledge. The National Inuit Strategy on
Research (NISR) also identifies a need for research that responds to Inuit priorities and
supports Inuit self-determination (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2018). However, knowledge
pairing remains an ambiguous process (Bandola-Gill et al., 2023). From a systematic review
of 16 case studies, it quickly became evident that it is difficult to identify what exactly does
and does not qualify as knowledge pairing, with many in the literature claiming to do it in a
myriad of ways and to varying degrees. This lack of clarity may have significant
implications, not only for the quality of research, but also for Inuit and other co-managers
who use the results of these studies in decision-making.
3.4.1 Knowledge pairing in practice
Knowledge pairing is an emerging theme, with many Inuit communities engaged in
the case studies reviewed here. One explanation for this is that scientists recognise the
limitations of their approaches and resulting knowledge and are seeking other ways of

38

knowing in a period of rapid change in the Arctic. Its prevalence in Inuit Nunangat is also
reflective of rights enshrined under land claims agreements for each Inuit region that stipulate
the inclusion of Inuit and their knowledge in decision-making concerning fisheries and
wildlife. However, moving beyond incorporating Inuit knowledge, and Indigenous
knowledges more broadly, into scientific research and instead engaging both knowledge
systems in an equitable partnership remains a significant hurdle in the practical application of
knowledge pairing (Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). Looking at the authors and affiliated
institutions that produced the case studies reviewed here is evidence of this.
All studies were led by university or government researchers. Although, it is
important to mention that all studies noted engagement with community organisations, many
of which had influence over study design. Some case studies collaborated closely with
communities and built long-term relationships that strengthened project outcomes. However,
the level of community involvement in research activities varied among studies and often
shifted over time, with some demonstrating strong engagement in early phases, such as
research design, but decreasing participation in later research stages. This was particularly
evident during the analysis phase, which was predominantly undertaken by external
researchers. It was partly due to this that the majority of reviewed case studies were classified
under Danielsen et al.’s (2009) third category, collaborative monitoring with external data
interpretation. This category is especially relevant in situations where communities have
limited capacity to undertake research but still hold decision-making authority. This is in part
why knowledge pairing research is undertaken – it brings different ways of acquiring
information together to engage the strengths of each. However, a lack of collaborative
participation during this phase has implications for the distribution of power within
researcher-community relationships, as only external researchers typically possess the
technical skills and equipment required to conduct complicated analysis (Lauter, 2023;
39

Wyborn et al., 2019). This issue is also noted in the NISR, which identified a need to enhance
the capacity of Inuit to collect, verify, analyse, and disseminate data relating to them, thereby
advancing Inuit self-determination (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2018).
Capacity-building should be an inherent outcome of knowledge pairing (Chapman &
Schott, 2020; Norström et al., 2020; Wheeler et al., 2020). However, less than half of the
reviewed case studies noted providing training to community researchers. According to
Danielsen et al. (2005), monitoring driven by communities can produce results that are more
relevant to the local context and just as rigorous as those generated by professional
researchers. In order for this to take place, local communities must first be equipped with the
skills and knowledge required, but this takes substantial time and resources to develop –
things that are often in limited supply in research and perhaps secondary to achieving
research aims (Jagannathan et al., 2020).
The reviewed case studies aimed to pair Inuit and scientific knowledge to improve
understanding of Arctic species. Some also wanted to understand the implications of
environmental change for studied species, as well as the social values and norms relating to
harvesting and consumption. Many have remarked on the benefits of engaging both
Indigenous and scientific knowledge, which include enhancing co-management, increasing
community ownership and trust in outcomes, and confidence in research findings (Furgal,
2006; Huntington et al., 2004; Moller et al., 2004). However, the extent to which each fully
engaged with the deeper transformative goals of equitable knowledge pairing is less clear,
with studies typically under-reporting on this.
Most case studies sought to actively engage with knowledge about the environment
(category 1) and past and current use of it (category 2), with fewer studies focusing on
categories 3 (values about the environment) and 4 (the knowledge system itself). The focus

40

on Usher’s (2000) first two categories is to be expected given that selected case studies
concerned fisheries and wildlife co-management. However, it may also be indicative of a
focus on aspects of Inuit knowledge external researchers can measure and understand,
perhaps suggesting external researchers trained in scientific methods were predominantly
leading the execution of research. While Usher (2000) does categorise TEK into distinct
parts, they also acknowledge the risks of only engaging with elements of TEK and not
considering it holistically. Actively engaging the first two categories reduces TEK to
observable, quantifiable facts, and misses the culturally significant factors that influence how
Inuit, and Indigenous people more broadly, interact with, value, and understand their
environments (Usher, 2000). As a result, there is a risk that methods and research findings
may not be inclusive of Inuit worldviews and values, a risk that may be further exacerbated
by the exclusion of Inuit from data analysis and interpretation (Lauter, 2023; Wheeler et al.,
2020).
Most of the reviewed case studies used a mixed-methods approach that included semistructured interviews, participatory mapping, and workshops. These methods are commonly
used to document Indigenous knowledges (Bryan, 2015; Huntington, 1998, 2000).
Additionally, most studies undertook biological sampling supported by community
researchers to collect data for scientific analysis, with some also utilising satellite telemetry
and aerial surveys. However, it was interesting to note that when it came to pairing Inuit and
scientific knowledge, few studies noted actively doing so with research participants. Instead,
knowledge systems were typically engaged in isolation and only linked during the
interpretation of results by external researchers. This represents a missed opportunity for
collaborative and iterative co-learning, which Cooke et al. (2021) states can only be truly
achieved when done throughout the research process. It also raises the important question as
to whether studies that bring knowledges together without the inclusion of community
41

knowledge holders can truly be considered knowledge pairing, as they do not live up to the
principles that guide the process.
3.4.2 Outstanding questions
Throughout the course of this review, two main questions emerged. First, what is
needed to ensure that both the process and outcomes of knowledge pairing research can be
critically evaluated? Analysing each case study with certainty was challenging due to
substantial inconsistencies in the depth of reporting. Most did not thoroughly disclose
information on the methodological process they undertook throughout the life of a research
project, instead focusing primarily on tangible, measurable products of the process (e.g., new
insights on a species). One potential way to address this inconsistency and lack of
transparency could be through academic journals. Developing standardised reporting
guidelines could provide researchers with clearer frameworks for documenting collaborative
research with communities in publication submissions. Second, how can researchers fulfill
the transformative principles of knowledge pairing amidst the current realities of conducting
research in Inuit Nunangat? Our review shows that some studies already are, with researchers
committing to sustained, iterative collaboration with Inuit communities founded on principles
of reciprocity and equity to produce research of relevance to Inuit. These studies placed just
as much emphasis on the knowledge pairing process as they did the resulting product.
However, a substantial investment in resources is required, with Henri et al. (2020, p. 200)
stating that “this approach to research is resource intensive, requiring significant financial and
capacity commitments from partner and funding organizations” if knowledge pairing research
is to support the furthering of Inuit self-determination. This is the challenge and the call that
all researchers must respond to. The NISR identifies several starting points.

42

3.5 Conclusion
This systematic literature review examined how knowledge pairing research in
fisheries and wildlife research is undertaken in Inuit Nunangat. While widespread throughout
Inuit Nunangat, our findings reveal variation in the extent to which communities are included
throughout the research process. Although Inuit were clearly involved in the initial
development of research projects, their participation typically diminished during later critical
stages including data analysis and interpretation. This suggests that, despite the principles and
aspirations at the heart of knowledge pairing, much of the research effort often remains
driven by external researchers.
While the primary goal of knowledge pairing is to generate knowledge, our results
show that intangible goals such as relationship- and capacity-building are essential to the
research design. That there was an overwhelming focus on quantifiable elements of Inuit
TEK is indicative of the need for increased involvement of Inuit, whose knowledge includes
a strong qualitative element, across all stages of knowledge pairing projects. Such an
approach not only works towards addressing systemic power imbalances in research, but also
strengthens research processes and outputs that may better reflect Inuit epistemologies.
This review highlights the need to embed transformative goals within knowledge
pairing research. Long-term institutional support from governments, universities, and funding
bodies is critical to ensuring that communities have the resources, training, and capacity
necessary to co-lead and even initiate research projects. By engaging Inuit knowledge
holistically and striving for equity in all stages of research processes, knowledge pairing can
support co-management efforts and yield outcomes that are both effective and locally
relevant for fisheries and wildlife management in Inuit Nunangat.

43

Chapter IV: Case study
This research adopted an exploratory mixed-methods approach, utilising qualitative
data and quantitative data from secondary sources. Exploratory research relies on inductive
reasoning to develop hypotheses and avenues of further inquiry when the subject under study
is not well-researched, defined, or understood (Given, 2008; Stebbins, 2001; Yin, 2018).
Given the nature of exploratory research, this approach strongly aligned with the aims and
objectives of this research.
4.1

Inuvialuit Settlement Region: Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories
This research took place in Ulukhaktok (formerly Holman), situated within the ISR

(Fig. 12). Ulukhaktok is an Inuit community of approximately 500 people (NWT Bureau of
Statistics, 2019) on the west coast of Victoria Island in the Northwest Territories (70°45’42”
N, 117°48’20” W). Ulukhaktok has a young population with a high birth rate and a
concentration of individuals aged between 25 and 34 (NWT Bureau of Statistics, 2021).

Figure 12 Study location: Ulukhaktok, Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Northwest Territories, Canada

44

The Ulukhaktomiut are Copper Inuit, a Western designation referring to their
historical use of copper to craft tools (Condon & Ogina, 1996). Established in the late 1930s
by Roman Catholic missionaries and the Hudson Bay Company, Inuvialuit (western Inuit)
did not begin permanently residing in Ulukhaktok until the 1950s (Collings, 2009). The
arrival of modern technologies and wage-based employment rapidly transformed the
community, leading to a reduction in subsistence activities, which impacted the transmission
of knowledge and skills to younger generations (Condon & Ogina, 1996; Fawcett et al.,
2018). However, these activities remain an integral part of life in Ulukhaktok (Lea et al.,
2023). Ulukhaktomiut employ a mixed economy strategy, relying on seasonal employment
and wages in addition to subsistence activities (Collings, 2009).
Hunting, fishing, and the consumption of country food are fundamental aspects of
Inuit identity (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). Country food, meaning wild animals and plant varieties
(Kendrick, 2013) harvested from terrestrial and marine environments, make up a significant
portion of residents’ diet and contributes to the mixed economy in Ulukhaktok. A total of
47% of households source 75% of their meat and fish through traditional harvesting activities
(NWT Bureau of Statistics, 2019). In a region where the cost of goods at the local store is
prohibitive, hunting and fishing provide healthy foods, furs, and other resources (Condon &
Ogina, 1996; Knopp et al., 2012).
Arctic char plays an important role in maintaining Ulukhaktok’s resilience to change,
as it is the most abundant fish species harvested in the region during summer (Joint
Secretariat, 2003). Women and men both participate in fishing activities, with neither gender
restricted to a specific role or fishing method. However, roles may change with age. Children
may learn from their elders by observing and listening, gradually taking on more
responsibility in providing for their families and community as they grow up. For Elders who
are unable to fish, relatives and community char monitors provide them with Arctic char, out
45

of respect for their status in the community. Therefore, fishing activities support the
continued transmission of cultural knowledge and the maintenance of food-sharing networks
(Pearce et al., 2010), which are key to ensuring communities’ cultural, social, and economic
well-being (Knopp et al., 2012).
Ulukhaktomiut fish for Arctic char throughout much of the year (Lea et al., 2023).
During spring, Ulukhaktomiut travel to nearby freshwater lakes to jig for landlocked char.
Jigging is a fishing technique whereby small upward flicking motions of a rod lift the lure
vertically through the water column to attract fish. During summer, fishing activities are
concentrated along the coastline, as people set gill nets perpendicular from shore to capture
anadromous Arctic char. In the fall, fishing occurs at the mouths of rivers to catch fish
coming back from the sea, while in winter nets are set under the ice of lakes to harvest
overwintering anadromous Arctic char. These shifting activities follow the rhythm of the
Arctic, as ice and snow retreat and return with the seasons, and are of deep significance to the
Ulukhaktok community (Smart, 2021). However, this rhythm has been disrupted by
environmental changes in the Arctic, leading to concerns among Ulukhaktomiut about the
impacts on subsistence species like Arctic char.
4.2

Arctic char fisheries co-management
Inuvialuit have substantial harvesting rights within the ISR and are active members in

a network of agencies concerned with the co-management and conservation of fish and
wildlife (Government of Canada, 1984). Co-management, as defined by Singleton (1998 p.7),
refers to “governance systems that combine state control with local, decentralised decision
making and accountability and which, ideally, combine the strengths and mitigate the
weaknesses of each”. It is a continuous process of negotiation, co-learning, and problem
solving to govern common resources effectively (Carlsson & Berkes, 2005).

46

Fisheries co-management in the ISR involves a partnership between the Fisheries
Joint Management Committee (FJMC), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO), and community-based Hunters and Trappers Committees (HTC; Ayles et al., 2007).
In the case of Arctic char, the development of a fisheries management plan is undertaken by
working groups comprised of members from HTC, DFO, and the FJMC (C. Gallagher, pers.
comm., 02 March 2023). Currently, Ulukhaktok is one of only two Inuit communities in the
ISR with a char working group, the other being Paulatuk (Ayles et al., 2007).
As early as 1987, Ulukhaktok residents observed a decrease in both the size and
abundance of Arctic char harvested from the Kuujjua River system (UCWG, 2006). This
eventually led to the formation of the Ulukhaktok Char Working Group (UCWG) in 1996,
with the working group’s primary role being the management of Arctic char fisheries (Ayles
et al., 2007). In the decades since, DFO scientists, university researchers, and Ulukhaktomiut
knowledge holders have worked in partnership to provide a more holistic understanding of
Arctic char and co-manage local char fisheries.
This research is a part of a larger project, ArcticNet Project 33, which focuses on coproducing knowledge of the movement of Arctic marine species. It builds on previous
research undertaken by Hollins et al. (2022), Burke et al. (2022), (see Appendix A for a
summary of research methods and key findings) and others on the ecology of Arctic char. By
drawing on past research and pairing it with Ulukhaktomiut knowledge, this project
contributes to the long history of Arctic char research with this community and situates
Ulukhaktomiut voices and concerns at the core of efforts to protect the species for future
generations.

47

Chapter V: Methodology
This research applied a pairing approach that engaged Ulukhaktomiut and scientific
knowledge to provide a more holistic understanding of anadromous Arctic char in the
Amundsen Gulf, Canada (Fig. 13). It builds on a longstanding, collaborative partnership
between the Ulukhaktok community, the FJMC, and researchers from academic institutions
and DFO.

Preliminary
meetings

Community
approval

Inteviews

Validation

Dissemination

Figure 13 Research process: This research began in preliminary meetings with Ulukhaktok representatives in
2018 and 2019 during which possible research questions, methods, and species of interest were discussed. In
2023, I attended the annual UCWG meeting to formally request community approval for the next phase of the
research, which was granted. Interviews with Ulukhaktomiut knowledge holders took place in the summer of
2023. In 2024, I returned to Ulukhaktok for the next UCWG meeting to update the community on research
progress and facilitate a validation workshop and interviews. The next phase, dissemination, has yet to take
place, but will require returning to the community again to formally return the research.

5.1

Research design
The origins of this research started with meetings between the FJMC and DFO.

During these meetings, Ulukhaktomiut representatives indicated their interest in having
research undertaken in their region, as there were growing concerns within the community
regarding changes in the Arctic marine environment and implications for subsistence fishing
48

and hunting activities. Meetings took place between DFO scientists, university researchers,
the UCWG, and the Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee (OHTC) in Ulukhaktok
in 2018 and 2019. Discussions concerned possible research questions, methods, and species
of interest. Arctic char was identified by Ulukhaktomiut as a research priority due to the
species’ significant cultural, economic, and subsistence value and importance within the
arctic marine food web.
In the summer of 2018, a fish tagging project was undertaken in coastal regions close
to Ulukhaktok (Fig. 14). Researchers and two experienced Ulukhaktomiut community
members acoustically tagged fish and deployed an acoustic receiver array within the study
location (Pettitt-Wade et al., 2023). Fish movement data, photographs, and biological samples
were collected for analysis. With this data researchers assessed the morphology (Burke et al.,
2022) and movement (Hollins et al., 2022) of anadromous Arctic char.

Figure 14 Summary of research activities conducted by Ulukhaktomiut and researchers in and near
Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. A) Researchers Harri Pettitt-Wade and community member Isaac
Inuktalik deploying receivers in Safety Channel, B) Arctic char were sampled and photographed; C) researchers
and community members working together to determine areas suitable for deploying receivers in Safety
Channel; D) community members Mary Kudlak (left) and Mary Akoaksion (right) participating in interviews
with myself and research partner Rhea Klengenberg to document Ulukhaktomiut knowledge of Arctic char and
link it with scientific insights on the species; E) Gibson (right) and Mary Kudlak (centre) and Anon01 (not
pictured) participating in the validation workshop with myself and Allen Pogotak (not pictured) to clarify
information from previous interview sessions with the support of a participatory mapping exercise.

49

Despite the continuous involvement of Ulukhaktomiut in the many iterations of this
research, their knowledge has yet to be linked with the insights gathered using scientific
methods. Therefore, we presented the findings of Burke et al. (2022) and Hollins et al.
(2022), while also documenting Ulukhaktomiut knowledge of anadromous Arctic char during
interviews and one workshop held in Ulukhaktok in 2023 and 2024. This research was
conducted in partnership with the Ulukhaktok community. As such, this research is often
referred to as “ours” in recognition of the central role of Ulukhaktomiut knowledge holders in
shaping and conducting this research.
5.2

Research regulations
Human research ethics approval was obtained from the UNBC Research Ethics Board

(Appendix B). To ensure that this research was relevant to the community and had its
support, I met with the UCWG in February 2023 to discuss the proposal and obtain their
approval prior to commencing the research. All research in the Northwest Territories requires
a NT scientific research license issued by the Aurora Research Institute (#17237). With the
support of the UCWG and OHTC, an application for a research license was submitted to ARI
and granted (Appendix C).
The Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (ACUNS) provides
guidance on the ethical principles of conducting research in Northern Canada. These include
the need for free and prior informed consent (Appendices D and E), appropriate community
consultation, incorporating local needs in research, respecting local customs, laws and
protocols, and ongoing communication with the community (ACUNS, 2003). These
principles guided the development of the research approach and my relationships with the
Ulukhaktok community.

50

5.3 Methods
The following section outlines the methods used to document Ulukhaktomiut
knowledge of anadromous Arctic char. These methods were designed to engage
Ulukhaktomiut knowledge holders and pair their knowledge with scientific research to
provide a holistic understanding of the species and local stocks.
5.3.1 Recruitment
Davis and Wagner (2003) stress the importance of correctly identifying “knowledge
experts” when engaging Local Ecological Knowledge, with this warning also relevant to the
documentation of Inuit knowledge. Using purposive sampling, “char experts” were identified
in collaboration with research partners, the OHTC, and my supervisor, Dr. Pearce, before we
began formal data collection. In particular, we sought to speak with Elders and experienced
Arctic char fishers. Research partners assisted in contacting individuals and organising
interviews with those who wanted to participate in the research. Occasionally, participants
would suggest individuals we had not identified, who would then be invited to participate in
the research.
5.3.2 Data collection
Data was gathered over two field seasons using a combination of qualitative
techniques, including participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and one workshop.
Participant observation
Participant observation occurs when researchers participate in and observe practices
of interest and record their observations as qualitative data (Hay & Cope, 2021). According to
Collings (2009), a willingness to devote time and energy to build rapport and acquire cultural
competence is vital to obtaining detailed information about the topic of interest. I lived in
Ulukhaktok from late May to early July 2023, as this coincided with the start of the annual
51

Arctic char coastal migration. During this period, I participated in fishing activities and the
social life of the community. I recorded my observations in a field diary to capture
descriptions of not just what happened but the context in which things happened (Hay &
Cope, 2021). These experiences informed my interview strategy and the analysis and
interpretation of the data we collected.
Semi-structured interviews
Interview data was collected from May to July, 2023, and in February 2024. We
engaged 16 knowledge holders (Table 4; Appendix F) through semi-structured interviews, a
popular method for documenting Inuit knowledge (Huntington, 1998). While still prompted
by an interview protocol, semi-structured interviews are far more flexible and organic than
structured approaches, making them responsive to the information participants share (Hay &
Cope, 2021). Huntington (1998) states that they also allow participants to direct the
interview, allowing for associations previously not considered by the researcher to emerge.
Table 4 Participant demographics
Category
Age

Sex

Number of Participants
55-64
65-74
75-84

5
7
4

Female

7

Male

9

Interviews took place in locations that were most comfortable and convenient for
participants, including their homes, the OHTC boardroom, and researcher accommodations.
Interviews typically lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. All participants were asked for verbal
consent to audio record their interviews, which one declined to give. In this instance, notes
were taken throughout the interview. Verbal consent was also obtained to quote participants
and include their name in research outputs. Only one participant requested anonymity.

52

A total of 18 interviews were conducted, with two of these being revisits to confirm
participant statements or expand on information shared during their initial interview. Fifteen
of these interviews were held with only the participant present, one had the participant and
their spouse present, and two had two or more additional people present at any given time.
All participants initially received a monetary compensation of $50 per session which was
later increased to $80 per session in response to feedback from the OHTC. Research partners
received $50 per session.
An interview protocol (Appendix G) and supporting documentation were utilised by
myself and research partners to facilitate discussion during interviews. Supporting
documentation included a 1:250,000 map of the region surrounding Ulukhaktok. According
to Kourantidou et al. (2020), maps serve as boundary objects that support the translation and
communication of knowledge across knowledge systems, supporting knowledge sharing and
collaboration. The use of maps during interviews prompted participants to mark off key
movement areas using placenames while also provoking additional information that may not
have been prompted without the visual aid.
Interview questions were crafted to elicit information on participants’ personal
experiences and anecdotal knowledge of fishing for Arctic char, the species’ ecology,
knowledge gaps and areas of further research. The interview comprised of multiple stages, as
outlined below:
1. First, we described the purpose of the research and explained participants’ rights
regarding consent and confidentiality before collecting basic demographic data.
Participants were then asked general questions about Arctic char fishing activities, such
as where they typically fished and why at those locations. Participants were also asked if
they had observed any differences between individuals from different regions and lakes

53

in terms of their appearance and/or health, and what they think may cause these
differences. We also asked participants if they had observed any changes in Arctic char
condition or behaviour and linked these discussions with broader environmental changes
in the region.
2. Photographs of sampled char were then presented to participants who were asked to
group them without any other information to allow an independent visual assessment of
whether the fish form groups and why based on participant knowledge. The number of
photographs presented varied between 10 and 26, depending on the available space and
what felt appropriate. If participants grouped the photographs by origin, they were asked
to elaborate on which lake or region the Arctic char was thought to originate from and
what indicators participants were looking for to make this determination. If photographs
were grouped by how healthy individuals appeared, participants were asked what a
healthy char looked like and what specifically made them appear healthier. If participants
grouped photographs by neither origin or health, they were prompted to explain how they
grouped sampled individuals before being asked questions relating to the origin,
movement, and health of char. The photographs provided were also used by Burke et al.
(2022) in their analysis of Arctic char morphology.
3. Results from Burke et al. (2022) and Hollins et al. (2022) on the morphology and
movement of anadromous Arctic char in the Amundsen Gulf were shared with
participants, who were invited to discuss those findings. Together we sought to identify
areas of complementarity and divergence, and gaps in our collective understanding of the
species. By drawing on insights gained from secondary scientific sources and
Ulukhaktomiut knowledge of Arctic char, a process of linking distinct pieces of
information, while also identifying knowledge gaps, was undertaken in collaboration
with knowledge holders.

54

4. For the last step, participants and researchers discussed potential avenues for future
research and environmental monitoring. Participants were then invited to provide
feedback on the interview.
Validation workshop
In February 2024, during the week of the annual UCWG meeting, I returned to
Ulukhaktok and reconnected with participants, research partners, and the UCWG. While
there, I shared project updates with the UCWG and community members and validated and
expanded on information we had heard the previous summer.
Knowledge holders that participated in initial interviews and were identified as
particularly knowledgeable of Arctic char were invited to participate in a validation workshop
facilitated by myself and research partner, Allen Pogotak. Three participants and Allen
attended the workshop, which was held in the OHTC boardroom on the 24 February, 2024.
The workshop lasted approximately 80 minutes. Three participants could not attend the
workshop but still wished to participate. Therefore, individual interviews were arranged for
them.
The sessions were conducted as casual discussions, enabling participants to share
information and expand on each other’s responses. We asked participants follow-up questions
and clarified information shared in prior sessions. Participants also provided additional
information that was either missed or absent from previous sessions. Using a 1:250,000 map
of Ulukhaktok fishing areas, participants participated in a participatory mapping exercise to
identify important locations and migration pathways for anadromous Arctic char. This
exercise was supported by photographs of fish taken during the Ulukhaktok Fish Tagging
Project so that participants could provide detailed descriptions what Arctic char look like at
various locations.

55

At the conclusion of the interviews and workshop, areas of future research were
discussed, with participants identifying areas of interest and/or concern to the community.
Knowledge holders were also asked what practical outputs from this research would benefit
the community, so that research findings are returned in a more useful medium. All
participants and research partners received a monetary compensation of $100 per session.
5.3.3 Data analysis
Analysis of information shared by Ulukhaktomiut
Qualitative data gathered from interviews were digitally transcribed by myself using
the transcription software Otter.ai (Otter.ai, 2024), and coded using NVivo, a qualitative data
analysis software (QSR International, 2024). Participant statements were coded under predetermined themes, which were drawn from the research objectives: appearance (Fig. 15),
origin and movement, and health (Fig. 16). Participants’ comments were then further
categorised into sub-themes that emerged organically throughout the coding process.
Within the ‘appearance’ theme, participant statements about Arctic char appearance
were first grouped based on similarity in descriptions. This process revealed four body
categories: small head and small, round body; big head and big body; long, thin body
(Aniak); and ocean char (Takgiukmaitak). Additionally, to determine how participants
differentiated between each body category, statements were coded by the physical
characteristics they referred to (size, girth, skin and flesh colour, skin thickness, and taste).
To assess whether each body shape was specific to a geographic area, participant statements
that clearly mentioned a place or broader region and described the appearance of Arctic char
there were grouped by location using Microsoft Excel.
Participant comments concerning aspects of spatio-temporal movements of anadromous
Arctic char were coded under the ‘origin and movement’ theme. Participant statements
56

regarding the movement of anadromous Arctic char were first grouped by geographic region
(Prince Albert Sound (Kangiryuak), Minto Inlet (Kagiyotihok), or overlap). ‘Overlap’
captured participant comments on the convergence of Minto Inlet and Prince Albert Sound
Arctic char in Safety Channel (Tahuyak). Within each region, statements were further sorted
by migration timing (summer or fall) and migration stage (e.g., leaving the river, migrating
west). Comments concerning movements into deeper waters or bays were then further
categorised to capture feeding movement behaviours of anadromous Arctic char throughout
the summer migration.
Two subthemes emerged under the ‘health’ theme. The first subtheme concerned the
overall health of Arctic char in the region. Participant statements indicating that Arctic char
are generally healthy were coded as ‘stable,’ while those suggesting a decline in health were
coded as ‘declining.’ This distinction helped assess participants’ perceptions of overall Arctic
char health and whether it has changed over time. The second subtheme focused on what
made a fish healthy or unhealthy to identify the specific indicators used by participants to
assess the condition of an individual fish.
There was not always consensus among participant statements, as teachings and
practices may differ between knowledge holders. While we did not deliberately seek to
identify points of disagreement during coding, we could not ignore them either, as doing so
would risk prioritising one participant’s views over another’s. Furthermore, it is not our role
to assess the validity of Ulukhaktomiut knowledge. Therefore, we chose to present all
perspectives as equally valid when communicating our results.
Additional information that contextualised participant statements, such as
environmental conditions at different locations or past and current fishing practices, were

57

coded into a separate group of themes that emerged organically throughout the coding
process.

Small head and
small, round
body
Big head and big
body

Body shapes
Long, thin body
(Aniak)
Ocean char
(Takgiukmaitak)
Appearance

Flesh colour

Size and girth
Morphometric
indicators

Skin colour

Skin thickness

Taste

Figure 15 NVivo themes used to code participant statements relating to Arctic char appearance

58

Fall run

Migrating East

Prince Albert
Sound
Summer run

Migrating
West
Entering the
River

Feeding in
bays
Moving into
deeper waters

Migrating up
River

Origin and
Movement

Fall run
Overwintering

Spawning

Minto Inlet

Leaving the
river

Overlap
Summer run
Skin and flesh
Colour

Migrating
North
Migrating
South

Feeding in
bays
Moving into
deeper waters

Girth

Gill condition
Health
indicators

Taste

Wounds or
sickness
Prarasites or
physical
abnormalities

Health

Stamina

Stable
Arctic char
health
Declining
Figure 16 NVivo themes used to code participant statements relating to origin, movement, and health

59

Pairing Ulukhaktomiut knowledge and scientific research
Insights from secondary scientific sources were interpreted alongside the information
collected from participants. Inuit knowledge holders and scientists approach and interpret
phenomena from different perspectives and analyse different indicators (Huntington et al.,
2004). Therefore, they each provide different information on a feature of interest, with the cointerpretation of this information creating a more holistic picture. For data concerning the
appearance, origin. and movement of anadromous char, findings from Burke et al. (2022) and
Hollins et al. (2022) were considered alongside Ulukhaktomiut knowledge. For data on the
health of anadromous Arctic char, participants commented on up to 26 photographs of Arctic
char caught, tagged, and released in the Amundsen Gulf in 2018. Their comments were then
linked with quantitative data on the condition (Fulton’s condition factor (Fulton, 1904)) of
those 26 fish, which was provided by Teah Burke. This process enabled us to identify areas
of complementarity, points of difference, and gaps in our collective understanding of Arctic
char.
5.3.4 Limitations
Despite efforts to minimise their impact, certain inherent limitations were unavoidable
in this research. This section outlines the key limitations of the research, focusing on
challenges relating to positionality and collaborative research, representative sampling, and
the complexities of pairing distinct knowledge systems.
First, limited involvement of Ulukhaktomiut and fisheries biologists in data analysis
may have influenced the interpretation of our data and findings. Knowledge pairing research
emphasises the inclusion of all stakeholders throughout all phases of a project, something that
our limited resources and capacity made challenging to maintain. The absence of community
researchers and fisheries biologists was particularly evident during data analysis, which was

60

conducted solely by myself. As I am neither Inuit nor a fisheries biologist, my interpretation
of information shared by participants and the work of Burke et al. (2022) and Hollins et al.
(2022) would have largely been influenced by my background as a qualitative researcher. The
lack of collaboration at this stage, particularly with community researchers, may have
influenced the interpretation of our data and findings. To account for this, we validated our
results with Ulukhaktomiut participants, giving them the opportunity to amend any
information if they wished to do so. Additionally, Colin Gallagher, a fisheries biologist with
extensive knowledge of Arctic char, served on my masters committee to provide guidance
when needed.
Second, the study had a small sample size, with only sixteen participants interviewed. While
this is a small sample size, it was appropriate as we used purposive sampling in consultation
with the OHTC to identify and recruit participants with substantial knowledge of Arctic char.
This approach reduced the number of participants required to reach saturation.
Third, participants were asked to assess sampled Arctic char using photographs only.
Typically, Inuit fishers would physically interact with a fish, using all their senses along with
where and how a fish was caught to provide them with information about that Arctic char.
This is not possible with a photograph, which reduces not only the amount but also the
quality of information. Therefore, participants would have been working with far less
information during the photograph exercise than normal. This may have impacted
participants’ assessments of photographed Arctic char.
Fourth, epistemological differences between scientific methods and Ulukhaktomiut
knowledge presented challenges when attempting to pair insights from the two knowledge
systems. Throughout this research we sought to respect the distinct characteristics of both
Ulukhaktomiut and scientific knowledge systems. During interviews, participants were asked

61

to group photographs of anadromous Arctic char, with some choosing to categorise them
based on appearance and most grouping them by health (i.e., healthy or unhealthy), sex
(female or male), or lake-of-origin or region (Minto Inlet or Prince Albert Sound). We then
attempted to compare participant groupings with Burke et al.’s (2022) categorisations
(slender body and slim head, small and short head with a small mouth, and elongated head
shape with large mouth) of individual fish to determine whether they matched. However, this
approach raised concerns about oversimplifying interviewee comments to fit into predefined
body shape categories identified by Burke et al. (2022). Therefore, a direct one-to-one
comparison was not possible.
Attempts to pair both knowledge sources in this way felt forced and risked taking
Ulukhaktomiut knowledge out of context. These knowledges are distinct, and one should not
be modified so that it may be viewed through the lens of the other. Therefore, instead of
simplifying and categorising interviewee comments for direct comparison and quantification,
we chose to treat both as the unique knowledge sources they are and focused instead on
identifying points of complementarity and divergence.

62

Chapter VI: Results
The results are reported in two sections. The first section documents Ulukhaktomiut
knowledge of anadromous Arctic char, specifically focusing on local populations’
appearance, origin, movement, and health. The second section links participant knowledge
with insights sourced from Burke et al. (2022), Hollins et al. (2022), and unpublished
condition data on Arctic char in the Amundsen Gulf, Canada. There are numerous lakes
occupied by anadromous and landlocked Arctic char in the region surrounding Ulukhaktok,
of which only a few are regularly fished. Anadromous Arctic char originating from these
lakes were the focus of interviews (Fig. 17).

Figure 17 Generalised map of places discussed by participants.

63

6.1

Ulukhaktomiut knowledge of anadromous Arctic char

6.1.1 Appearance
It became apparent during discussions with Ulukhaktomiut that everyone has their
preferred Arctic char, sourced from specific lakes and coastal regions at certain times of the
year. The appearance and taste of Arctic char varies greatly depending on where a fish is
from, with some participants able to confidently identify a char’s lake of origin. They draw
on a suite of identifiers to do this, including, but not limited to, skin and flesh colour, head
size, length, girth, and taste, all of which are influenced by environmental conditions and the
natal lake. Different names in Inuinnaqtun, some of which are reported in Table 5,
differentiate among different looking Arctic char. Four categories based on body shape were
identified by participants (Table 6): (1) Arctic char with small, round bodies and small heads;
(2) Arctic char with big bodies and heads; (3) ocean char; and (4) Arctic char with long, thin
bodies.
Table 5 Inuinnaqtun names for Arctic char
Inuinnaqtun
Aniak
Humiutak
Ivitagouk
Takgiukmaitak

Description
Char with long, skinny bodies and white bland flesh.
Char that migrate to marine feeding grounds in the summer
and return to overwintering lakes in the fall.
Spawning char with bright red bellies and, in the case of
males, large, hooked jaws.
Char that remain in the ocean over winter where they grow
large and healthy.

64

Table 6 Ulukhaktomiut descriptions of associations between Arctic char body shapes and River/Lake of origin. Numbers assigned to comments are participant identifiers.
Region

Minto Inlet

River/Lake

Body Shape

Fish Lake

Small head and small, round body

Mayoklihok Lake

Small head and small, round body

Non-river/lake specific comments

Small head and small, round body

65

Comment
"Fish are smaller and fatter" – 04
"…. they’ll be smaller in size compared
to the ones at Mayoklihok" – 06
"...the ones from Fish Lake are so fat so
I can't eat too much of them." – 16
"...I find it less fat, but smaller and
probably tastier." – 16
"Mayoklihok fish are smaller and they
taste different from the ones at Fish
Lake." – 10
"...they come from Fish Lake and
Mayoklihok. They've got small heads."
– 15
"Fish are darker in Fish Lake and
Mayoklihok" – 04

Tahiryuak Lake and Kuuk River

Big head and body
Long, thin body (Aniak)

Kugluk

Small head and small, round body

Kagloryuak River and other Tahiryuak
Lake

Small head and small, round body

Non-river/lake specific comments

Big head and body

Prince Albert Sound

66

"[In] Tahiryuak they're bigger compared
to Minto." – 08
"… these ones are way brighter colour.
Greenish on the back, maybe because of
the sand when they go up to Tahiryuak
or these big lakes..." – 09
"Bigger fish. 28-30 inches. Dark green.
Rich and fat.” – Workshop notes
"…char from around Kuuk River, most
of them got big heads and they're huge.
And people don't really care for them
too much." – 15
" Kuuk and those tend to be large fish
for like big body size, big heads and big
body." – 06
"Those are Aniak. They go down early
from the lake from Kuuk River." – 04
"… Kuuk River… the shape is skinny
and long ." – 13
“…those fish there are very nice, small
fish. And very, very tasty.” - 04
"Thin skin and smaller. Tastes like
sand. Sweeter meat. Brighter skin that
Minto Inlet" – 13
"Those seem to be comparable to Fish
Lake size. I'm not sure why there's a
difference in sizes. They're all in the
same freshwater but just different
lakes." – 06
"The ones coming from this side, they
are much larger..." – 01
"Prince Albert ones are always green."
– 09

Non-region specific

Non-river/lake specific

Ocean Char (Takgiukmaitak)

67

"The ones from that side are light
coloured and very greasy…" – A.
Pogotak, pers. comm., 27 June 2023
"… some of the char like to spend their
winter in the ocean. That's how come
they get really red meat." – 10
"About Kuuk size… and they're kind of
darker blue, blueish." – 06
"… they taste a little bit different. They
taste softer. The salt makes the rich or
softer. More tender." – 14
"… they're the ones that they're so huge,
they're just like young seals… bigger
than young seals." – 15

Arctic char with small bodies and heads
According to participants, small-bodied Arctic char predominantly originate from
Fish (Tatik) Lake and Mayoklihok Lake in the Minto Inlet region. These Arctic char are
greatly preferred due to their rich taste and the relative proximity to Ulukhaktok. When
asked what distinguishes Arctic char from either lake, participants typically referred to an
individual’s small “football” shaped body (Participant 06, 04, 15, 01), darker back, silver
sides and belly (04, 14), and fatty taste (16, 04). Participants attributed the darker colouration
of Arctic char from this region to the presence of dark rocks, mud and silt substrate in both
lakes (06, 10). However, while participants grouped small-bodied char together, they did
note subtle differences in Arctic char between Mayoklihok and Fish lakes.
The most notable difference between Arctic char from both lakes was their taste. Fish
Lake is an important fall fishing location for Ulukhaktomiut, who have been going to this
location since long before Ulukhaktok was established. However, despite being a less
popular fishing location than Fish Lake, some participants greatly preferred Arctic char from
Mayoklihok Lake, which were described as having a rich but less fatty taste (16, 04). Arctic
char from Fish Lake are known for their fatty taste (06, 16, 04), which some (02) like while
others find it too much (16). Allen Pogotak, community research partner to this project,
stated that "when you eat too much fish from Fish Lake, you go to sleep right away," due to
the fatty taste (A. Pogotak, pers. comm., 21 Feb. 2024).
Participants (01, 06, 13) agreed that Arctic char in Mayoklihok Lake and Fish Lake,
averaging approximately 24 inches (610 mm) in length, are smaller than those in other
locations. However, when comparing fish sizes between Mayoklihok Lake and Fish Lake,

68

some (10, 16) stated that fish in Mayoklihok Lake were smaller compared to Fish Lake.
Others (06, 04, 08) felt the opposite to be true.
Participants shared that the size of Arctic char within Fish Lake varies, with different
sized fish congregating in different areas of the lake during winter (Fig. 17). According to
one participant (06), smaller individuals are found in Aimauqattahuk, which is a shallower
area of the lake, while larger individuals gather in deeper Tahiluak.

Figure 18 Map of Fish Lake with shallow and deep areas of the lake delineated based on harvester
observations.

A few participants mentioned Kagloryuak River and a nearby lake, also named
Tahiryuak—but distinct from the Tahiryuak Lake that flows into Kuuk River—as other
places where small Arctic char are found. Whether this other Tahiryuak Lake is connected to
Kagloryuak River was unclear, as the lake’s exact location could not be verified. Arctic char
69

from these locations were noted for their thin, bright, silver skin and delicious, sweet taste
(06, 13, 07). The colouration and taste of fish from this area was attributed to the sandy
substrate in Prince Albert Sound.
Arctic char with big bodies and heads
Participants associated Arctic char with large bodies and heads with Tahiryuak Lake,
which is the headwaters of the Kuuk River, and Prince Albert Sound more broadly.
Tahiryuak Lake and Kuuk River are not fished as often as other lakes and rivers closer to
town, such as Fish Lake. Therefore, fewer participants could provide first-hand observations
of Arctic char from this location. However, some participants harvested at Tahiryuak Lake
and Kuuk River in fall when the caribou are migrating across the ice in Prince Albert Sound.
Arctic char from Tahiruak Lake and Kuuk River were described as “big, rich char”
(04). One participant (06) commented that Kuuk River fish are easily identifiable because of
their large bodies and heads, estimated to average approximately 28 to 30 inches (711 – 762
mm) in length. This was echoed by another participant (15), who stated, “chars from around
Kuuk River, most of them [have] got big heads and they're huge.” The larger size of Arctic
char in the Prince Albert Sound region was attributed to warmer marine water temperatures
(A. Pogotak, pers. comm., 20 Feb. 2024).
Arctic char in these locations were also noted for their green backs and bright silver
sides (06, 08). One participant (09) explained that “Prince Albert ones are always green”,
making them easy to identify. The sandy substrate of the Prince Albert Sound region was
believed to be the source of the lighter colouring of Arctic char from this area.

70

Ocean char
Participants described a type of Arctic char that does not return to the lakes every
winter, calling them ocean char or Takgiukmaitak in Inuinnaqtun (02, 15). These Arctic char
are as large if not larger than Kuuk River char (06) and “chubby” (12) with blue backs (04)
and deep red flesh (10). The taste of ocean char was described by one participant (14) as
“tender and rich”, which was attributed to the increased amount of time spent in saltwater.
Others described ocean char as “tough” (A. Pogotak, pers. comm., 27 June 2023) with salty
flesh (04). Participants emphasised that ocean char are not the same as those from Kuuk
River. When asked during the photograph exercise if any pictures of ocean char were
present, the majority said no, but one participant selected ARCH16_2018 and
ARCH23_2018, while another selected ARCH54_2018 (Fig. 18).

71

Figure 19 Arctic char identified by participants as ocean char. Pictures were taken during the 2018 fish
acoustic tagging project in Ulukhaktok.

Some participants shared stories of catching ocean char in nets during summer. When
fishing with nets in Safety Channel two participants (02, 15) caught what they initially
thought to be a young seal, but, upon checking the nets, realised was an ocean char. One
participant (09) was fishing at Kotoikvik Point and had a similar experience, explaining that
the floats of the net were submerged from the weight of the fish, which they described as “…
a monster. It was really fat.” These stories were echoed by other residents of Ulukhaktok, the
details of which were similar.

72

Several participants shared childhood memories of catching ocean char and teachings
from Elders. During their childhood, one participant (07) saw people placing nets in the
cracks in the ice during June and remembers them catching “huge char” that they believe
were ocean char. Another participant (16) also heard a similar story from her husband’s
family of fishing through cracks in Prince Albert Sound in the spring. Elders taught one
participant (08) that ocean char can be caught by jigging at the mouth of the Kuujjua
(Kakiuk) River in deep winter, as they are able to exit and enter the river. Similarly, another
participant (15) shared a story of their Elders fishing for ocean char through seal holes.
“Long ago, people tell stories of fishing for them in the wintertime, maybe in March and
April, through seal hole[s]. They make lines with caribou sinew and then fish way down.
And they used to get some and my uncle Morris, he knew about that, so he went out there in
Minto Inlet area… and they fish using fishing rod and finished the whole spool without
touching the bottom yet, and he gets one of those giant char.” – 15
Crack fishing and fishing through seal holes are rarely practiced today, with one participant
(15) stating that young people do not do it because “… that information is almost untold
now.”
Arctic char with long, thin bodies
Participants described Arctic char with long, thin bodies, or Aniak as they are called
in Inuinnaqtun. These Arctic char were often associated with Kuuk River and Safety
Channel during mapping exercises. However, some participants stated that Aniak can
originate from any lake (08, 12, 13). They may be individuals that spawned the previous fall
as evident by their scarred bodies, run-down condition, and fading spawning colours (06,

73

08). Other participants said Aniak spawn the following fall, because they have begun to
develop the characteristic hooked lower jaw (04) and are the first to leave the lakes every
summer (08). One participant (01) shared teachings from their ancestors, who said that Aniak
are fish entering the ocean for the very first time where they will remain for up to four years
before returning to the lakes to spawn.
Aniak are less preferred than Arctic char from the other two body shape categories,
typically being used to make piffi or to feed sled dogs in years past. The texture of their flesh
was described as “sticky” (01) and “tough” (04), with whiter flesh (06, 05, 08). Aniak Arctic
char do not taste rich like those from the other body shape categories, with one participant
(07) stating
“the ones that have more of a whiter meat, I used to hear Elders say… Aniak. But I always
prefer the one[s] with the darker red meat… It was just… tastier, more like char. Whereas
the whiter meat tastes… more bland.”
Another participant (08) made similar comments, describing the taste of Aniak as “stale”. It
is for these reasons, one participant (09) explained, that they will not give Aniak char to
Elders, instead reserving the smaller, fatter char that are better tasting.
6.1.2 Lake of origin and movement
Every summer, anadromous Arctic char generally leave the lakes they reside in over
winter and migrate to coastal waters, growing fat on abundant marine resources before
returning to the lakes in the fall. This annual migration is mirrored by the seasonal activities
of Inuit people, who follow the fish throughout their migration to and from their summer
feeding grounds. As such, Inuit possess an intimate understanding of the movements of
74

Arctic char, with this familiarity evident in discussions shared with Ulukhaktomiut
throughout the course of this research.
Leaving freshwater
The breakup of sea ice marks the beginning of the summer Arctic char run. One
participant (03) shared teachings from their father, who told them to keep watch for “… the
signs of the ocean, the ice, the hotness of the weather…” that tell them the Arctic char are
coming soon to Jacks Bay. Arctic char from Prince Albert Sound were reported to begin
their migration earlier in the season than those from Minto Inlet migrating from Tahiryuak
Lake to their feeding grounds in Safety Channel (04). This earlier departure is possible
because the ice in Prince Albert Sound recedes more quickly than in Minto Inlet, with
participants attributing this to the Sound being shallower and therefore warmer.
Arctic char leave the lakes and travel down river, occasionally coming into contact
with remnant ice, leaving them grazed but otherwise unharmed (04, 13). These out-migrating
fish are hungry, having not eaten all winter, making them easy to catch with baited hooks
(07, 04). However, fishers know to only catch a few, as soon there will be fatter, tastier
Arctic char once they have fed (09).
At the confluence of the river and ocean (estuary) the Arctic char pause, allowing
their bodies to acclimate to changes in salinity and temperature, as freshwater mixes with
salt (04, 14, 10). According to one participant (13), this brief respite also allows Arctic char
to recover their energy before entering the ocean. Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas),
predators of Arctic char, know the fish congregate at the river mouth. One participant (09)
once saw a pod at the mouth of the Kuujjua River early in the spring run. They believed the

75

whales were waiting for the Arctic char, keeping the fish in the shallows where they are
easier to catch.
Once the Arctic char are ready and the ice has cleared, they will leave the river in
small schools, to begin their journey along the coast. For the Minto Inlet stocks, many fish
migrate south towards Ulukhaktok from lakes such as Fish Lake and Mayoklihok Lake.
However, some participants believed that Arctic char from these stocks also go north past
Berkley Point (Nuuvik), with one participant (07) sharing that she and her husband caught
Arctic char there. According to one participant (15), Arctic char from Fish and Mayoklihok
lakes migrate north every four or five years, while others (06 and 04) believed it to be an
annual occurrence.
Marine migration
By as early as mid-June to the beginning of July Arctic char have left the rivers and
are making their way along the coastline towards their summer feeding grounds (04).
Participants (08) shared that they set their nets along the coast in mid-June in recent years up to two weeks earlier than normal. The earlier migration timing of anadromous Arctic char
was attributed to warmer temperatures as a result of climate change. Throughout their
migration, they enter small bays, with one participant (13) sharing that Arctic char “… have
resting places that they know where to stop and hang around and keep going.” Niaqurnahuk
is a popular fishing location for this reason. One participant (02) explained that fishers
“quad from one end all around this way with [a] really long rope and just put your nets
across. And then when you want to check them, after you set all the nets, we have another
extra long rope this way to pull them out this way, and then get all your fish out.”

76

This method stretches the net across the mouth of the bay, trapping fish inside and thereby
forcing them into the net as they try to swim out.
Whether Arctic char travel back and forth along the coast or continuously move
towards their feeding grounds is uncertain. One participant (06) explained that they
determine a fish’s direction of travel by looking at which side of the net they entered. They
added that while it is typical to see Arctic char enter a net from one side or the other, they
occasionally catch char on both sides of the net at the same time. This suggests to them that
char do move back and forth looking for food. However, other participants (12, 13) disagree,
stating, “they never talk[ed] about that, our grandparents and the people that [we] grew up to.
They don't talk about after they go for a while and go back, I don't think so. Unless it's time
for going up the rivers.”
By the end of July, Arctic char move away from the shore into deeper waters (04),
feeding on smaller fish such as sand lance (Ammodytes sp.) and capelin, Amangiak (Mallotus
villosus) (06). The exact timing when Arctic char do this varies slightly by year, as it is
determined by the presence or absence of sea ice, and, to a lesser extent, the intensity of the
swells (08). If ice remains, Arctic char will follow the shoreline, as the water is cool enough
for them to tolerate (04). However, as one participant (04) explained, “If the ice goes out
early… and there's no more ice, or the waters warm, they'll go out, way out too.” This was
echoed by Anon01, who observed that
“It seems when there is ice around, there’s more char. Where ice has virtually disappeared,
then all the char disappear for a while until fall time. The ancestors say, when the ice has

77

disappeared, char go out into the ocean to go feed so they stay out there until fall time until
it's time to go back to the lakes, rivers and they come rushing back to the shore.”
Arctic char from Minto Inlet and Prince Albert Sound can converge spatially in
Safety Channel (15, 04, 06). Kotoikvik, located within Safety Channel, is a popular fishing
location for this reason (04, 06). One participant (06) explained that when ice is present
around Holman Island (Keketayuak), Mahouyak, Koagoutkat, and Nauyaat, Arctic char from
Minto Inlet skirt this area, staying in deeper waters before coming into Kotoikvik. However,
whether Arctic char travel along the seaward side of the Albert Islands is uncertain, as
participants did not typically fish in those areas.
Returning to freshwater
Arctic char begin migrating towards their overwintering lakes by the end of August,
with fish belonging to the Prince Albert Sound stocks leaving earlier than those from Minto
Inlet (04). Arctic char do not always return to the same lake every year (06). Some will go to
different lakes, while others remain in the ocean over winter.
Arctic char are harder to catch on the return journey, uninterested in “bit[ing] the
hook, because they’re already filled up” (04). Nor do they rest and feed in bays, as they did
on the way to Safety Channel, instead going from “point to point”, making the return journey
far more expeditious (04, 14, 06). At the mouth of the river, Arctic char will pause again,
allowing their bodies to re-adjust to the freshwater (03).
Once they reach the river, fish must swim against the current to in order to enter the
lake they will overwinter in. However, as the snowpack decreases each year and the freshet
flow with it, Arctic char are struggling to make it to the lakes (10, 04). One participant (10)
78

explained that when this happens, fish will migrate to other lakes where the water remains
high. Conversely, in seasons when the flow of rivers are high, Arctic char entering Kuujjua
River are believed to journey past Fish Lake, with numbers in Fish dropping as a result (15,
06).
Spawning usually occurs around mid- to late October (06). Ulukhaktomiut call
spawning Arctic char Ivitagouk (red spawners or red belly char) in reference to their bright
red bellies and hooked jaws. Spawning Arctic char will move to shallow water such as that
in Okhogivik (Red Belly Lake) and deposit their eggs in stone beds (06). One participant
(06) shared teachings from their late grandfather who told them that you can always tell
Arctic char are spawning because “the lake will be really murky and cloudy from all the char
stirring [it] up”.
As the lakes ice over and the temperature drops, Arctic char will move to deeper
sections, with different size classes congregating in separate areas of the lakes (16, 06). In
Fish Lake there are two regions: Aimauqattahuk (Little Lake), and Tahiluak (Big Lake). As
its name suggests, Aimauqattahuk is shallower and smaller than Tahiluak. Once Fish Lake
freezes over, smaller char stay in Aimauqattahuk, but larger individuals are forced into the
deeper Tahiluak. They will remain there until next spring.
6.1.3

Health
When asked why one Arctic char was preferable to another, participants would often

exclaim, “it’s good eating!”, as if the answer was obvious. However, Ulukhaktomiut draw on
a wide range of indicators (Table 7) to assess the condition of an Arctic char and fitness for
human consumption.
79

Table 7 Health indicators identified by Ulukhaktomiut to assess the condition of Arctic char
Indicator
Skin and flesh colour
Girth
Gill condition
Taste

Wounds or sickness

Parasites or physical
abnormalities

Stamina

Description
The colour of a char’s skin and flesh. Participants identified Arctic char with
bright, shiny skin and vibrant coloured flesh as healthy.
The fatness of a char. Arctic char that were “round like a football” were
considered healthier than thinner fish, which may be the result of parasites or
wounds.
The visibility of bone-like structures beneath the gills (i.e., gill arch). Fish with
gills through which these structures were clearly visible were deemed unhealthy.
How “rich” an Arctic char tastes. Fish with a rich or “wild” taste were preferred
to those with a “stale” flavour, which was associated with skinnier individuals
with whiter coloured flesh.
The presence of wounds or signs of sickness on or beneath the skin. Fish with
wounds extending beneath the skin into the flesh were considered unsafe for
human consumption. Some participants would still eat Arctic char with wounds
present on just the skin, cutting out affected areas, but most would not.
The presence of parasites or growths in the flesh. Arctic char with parasites (e.g.,
worms) or physical abnormalities (e.g., “bubbles”) were considered unhealthy
and unsafe for human consumption.
The energy displayed by an Arctic char. Individuals that appeared lethargic
while caught in nets were considered less healthy. Fish that were dead for a long
time in nets were generally not eaten, out of concern that the flesh was no longer
good to eat, and the flesh had gone soft.

Skin and flesh colour
The colour of the skin and flesh were identified by six (38%) participants as
important to assessing the health of an Arctic char. Individuals with shiny, bright coloured
skin and vibrant red or pinky-orange flesh were considered healthier and greatly preferred by
participants. When asked what specifically they were looking for regarding the colour, one
participant (03) stated, “Colour and size really help to know that the char is healthy. Has a
nice, beautiful silver colour… and the blue on top… Even inside, when you see the flesh
inside looks really red… we know it's good.” Arctic char with dull skin and whiter coloured
flesh were considered less healthy, with these characteristics often linked to skinnier
individuals that were less preferred.

80

Girth
Six (38%) participants discussed the girth or fatness of a fish, with fatter individuals
considered to be healthier than skinnier ones. During the photograph exercise, some
participants hypothesized that skinnier char may be infected with parasites or sick from
wounds, with an participant (08) sharing that they have caught “skinny [char] that look like
[they’re] starving or infested inside… with sores and seal bites.” These potentially infected
individuals are not eaten, and are instead discarded for other animals to find. However, it is
important to note that otherwise healthy Arctic char can be skinnier at certain times of the
year, especially at the beginning of the summer run when they have not yet had an
opportunity to feed after fasting all winter. Therefore, while skinnier individuals are
considered less healthy and less preferred by many Ulukhaktomiut, people will still eat them.
Gill condition
Two (13%) participants mentioned using gill condition to assess the health of an
Arctic char. This was discussed in association with the girth of a fish. One participant (14)
reported seeing skinny char with “… gills [that] are just about finished, like [a] skeleton.”
Through the gill filaments of those individuals, they reported seeing “… mostly the bone”.
When asked if those individuals could still be eaten, they stated that they “… never eat[s]
them.” Another participant (07) also described lifting up the gills of Arctic char up to assess
the colour of the flesh. They described looking for flesh that is “nice and red”, as those fish
are healthier and tastier.
Taste
Three (19%) participants mentioned relying on the taste of a fish to determine if it
was healthy. This was only done when all other indicators suggested a fish was safe to eat.
81

When asked what a healthy fish tasted like, one participant (02) described it as “rich”.
Skinnier and less healthy Arctic char were described as tasting “stale” (08). However, these
individuals are still eaten and typically used to make piffi (dried fish).
Wounds and sickness
The presence of wounds or other signs of sickness, such as rashes, were identified as
a health indicator by eight (50%) participants. Wounds could be present on the skin of a fish
or extended further into the flesh. Most participants would not eat a wounded or sick fish,
with one participant (07) stating that they “… open the guts and leave them by the shore for
the animals to eat.” Others cut out affected areas if a wound does not extend too far into the
flesh. Healed injuries, specifically those caused by ice, were not considered something to be
concerned about “as long as the inside is good” (A. Pogotak, pers. comm., 27 June 2023).
However, fish with a lot of healed injuries were avoided by some participants (07) out of
concern there was something wrong with the fish.
Parasites or physical abnormalities
The presence of parasites or abnormalities was a sign of poor health according to
participants. Four (25%) participants shared that they had caught Arctic char with parasites
or growths. One participant (08) reported catching Arctic char infested with worms in the
gills and mouth. Similarly, another participant (05) spoke of finding “noodles” in the flesh of
Arctic char. One participant (02) described cutting open fish to find “bubbles” inside. Arctic
char with parasites or physical abnormalities are never eaten. Although, when asked if Arctic
char with parasites and physical abnormalities were a common occurrence, participants
typically said no.

82

Stamina
Until recently, char would survive for several hours in nets until they were removed.
Two (13%) participants mentioned that Arctic char now die more quickly in the nets than
they once did. One participant (01) stated that within “… a few hours to a couple of hours
and they just stop going and [have] virtually no more energy.” Arctic char that die while
caught in the nets are generally not eaten out of concern that the flesh has gone soft or is no
longer fit for human consumption.
6.2

Pairing Inuit and scientific knowledge

By pairing Inuit and scientific knowledge, we hope to gain a better understanding of Arctic
char. In this section, we link these two knowledges, drawing on Ulukhaktomiut knowledge
documented in the previous section and the works of Hollins et al. (2022), Burke et al.
(2022), and unpublished fish condition data to provide greater insights into the appearance,
origin and movement, and health of Arctic char.
6.2.1 Appearance
There were areas of complementarity between Ulukhaktomiut knowledge and the
findings of Burke et al. (2022). However, attempts to link these two knowledge sources did
not come easily, with each relying on different criteria assessed over different spatial and
temporal scales.
Three body shapes were identified by Burke et al. (2022): a slender body and slim
head, a small and short head with a small mouth; and an elongated head shape with a large
mouth (Fig. 19). According to the authors, each of the body shapes occurred in both Fish and
Tahiryuak lakes with no distinction (Burke et al., 2022). The cause of these morphotypes
83

remains unclear, but the authors propose that this variation may stem from environmental
conditions encountered during juvenile development in freshwater, feeding strategies that
optimise resource consumption in the marine environment, or inherited traits from ancestral
lake populations (Burke et al., 2022). There were some limitations to the data used by Burke
et al. (2022). Primarily, photographed fish were only surveyed from west Safety Channel
and the coastal region near Ulukhaktok during summer, limiting the study’s spatial and
temporal coverage. As a result, the study may not have captured the full potential spectrum
of morphologies across locations, seasons, and populations.
A

B

C

Figure 20 Photographs representing the three Arctic char morphotypes identified by Burke et al. (2022): (a)
slender body and slim head; (b) small and short head with a small mouth; (c) elongated head shape with large
mouth.

During discussions of Burke et al.’s (2022) findings, most participants strongly
disagreed with their conclusion that anadromous Arctic char look the same in all lakes. As
84

discussed in the previous section, participants typically associated body shapes with specific
lakes or broader regions. Arctic char with small heads and bodies were from Fish and
Mayoklihok lakes, or Minto Inlet more broadly. Prince Albert Sound and Tahiryuak Lake
specifically were where fish with big heads and bodies originated from. The origins of Aniak
Arctic char (i.e., fish with long and thin bodies) was less clear and varied among
participants. Some said they were found in all lakes while others associated them with
Anialik, Kuuk River, and Safety Channel.
Participants described examples of Arctic char that match the body shapes identified
by Burke et al. (2022). However, Burke et al. (2022) focused on identifying differences
based on landmarks on the mouth, head, and body. In contrast, participants typically
undertook an assessment that included body shape, head size, length, girth, colour, and taste.
Participants used photographs of Arctic char to showcase how fish look in different
locations. We attempted to compare participant information about individual fish with their
respective body shape class, as assigned by Burke et al. (2022), but they were not directly
comparable from the information shared by participants. However, participants firmly
believe that Arctic char do look different among lakes. If this is the case, then one possible
reason for why Burke et al. (2022) did not find a difference in fish appearance at sampled
lakes could be because the landmarks placed on the body for morphometric analysis are too
simplistic or not relevant to determining the lake of origin of an Arctic char.
When asked if any body shape categories were missing, a small number of
participants noted the absence of ocean char, which may or may not be a fourth body shape.
As discussed in the previous section, ocean char were described as being as big if not bigger

85

than Arctic char from Tahiryuak Lake and Kuuk River, with blue backs, and rich red flesh.
Whether ocean char are a separate body category of their own or a different migration tactic
for the big head and big body category is unclear. Burke et al.’s (2022) analysis did not focus
on colour, which is an indicator used by Ulukhaktomiut for ocean char (e.g., blue back). It is
also possible that there were no ocean char amongst the photographs used by ourselves and
Burke et al. (2022), as most participants stated that this type of fish was not present in the
photographs.
When asked why Arctic char look different, many participants attributed it to the
conditions in a fish’s environment. For example, it was explained that Arctic char in the
western region of the Diamond Jenness Peninsula are darker in colouration to blend in with
the rocky substrate of lakes in that area. This differed from the green colouring of Arctic
char from the east, which is believed to result from the sandier substrate of rivers and lakes
such as Kagloryuak River and Tahiryuak Lake. Arctic char from Tahiryuak Lake were also
larger than those from Mayoklihok Lake and Fish Lake because it is far deeper. Ocean char
may also be larger because they reportedly spend consecutive years in the sea where food is
more abundant compared to lakes and rivers. Similarly, Burke et al. (2022) suggests that
conditions experienced by a fish during juvenile residency in freshwater environments could
be one possible source of the different morphotypes they identified. A definitive answer will
require further research.
6.2.2 Origin and movement
Ulukhaktomiut knowledge and the work of Hollins et al. (2022) on the origin and
movement of Arctic char in the Amundsen Gulf were interpreted together, revealing a high

86

degree of alignment between both knowledge sources. However, there were notable
differences. Additionally, linking both knowledge sources revealed gaps that will require
further research.
Migration pathways
Hollins et al. (2022) explored the migratory patterns of Arctic char in the Amundsen
Gulf. They identified two primary marine migration pathways and distinct patterns of habitat
use among Arctic char from Prince Albert Sound and Minto Inlet (Fig. 20). It is important to
note that the data used by Hollins et al. (2022) has limitations, as the timing and location of
tag deployment, along with the deployment and retrieval of acoustic receivers, influenced
their findings.
According to Hollins et al. (2022), tagged Arctic char from Tahiryuak Lake used the
Safety Channel area during their marine residency phase and were frequently detected in its
western region, indicating that this area is a significant feeding ground for that population
(Hollins et al., 2022). The importance of western Safety Channel was also reflected in the
responses of participants (15, 02, 04, 06, 01, 07, 10) who also identified that area, and
Kotoikvik in particular, as important fishing locations for Arctic char.

87

Figure 21 Conceptual diagram showing general patterns of Arctic char migration and habitat-use along the
coast, as well as differences in habitat-use between fish from Fish and Tahiryuak lakes. The top panel shows
marine dispersal and early residency phases, while the bottom panel shows late residency phases and the return
migration to freshwater. Shape colour indicates the timing of char arrival at specific sites, while shape thickness
is proportional to the amount of time char spent in these respective habitats. Source: Hollins et al. (2022)

88

“… there’s quite a few more [char] where there’s current at the end of Safety
Channel. They seem to be their feeding ground there. It seems like these ones (Minto Inlet
char) are coming here to feed over here at the mouth of Safety Channel, at Kotoikvik. It
seems like that’s the main feeding area for them there. It’s probably three or four miles by
about two miles, that big bay, this one on the other side of Pitutak… From Nauyaat up. It
seems like, when I’m boating there and its calm, the fish [are] anywhere in there, schools of
fish swimming around and feeding.” – 06
Hollins et al. (2022) also found that Arctic char from Fish Lake were detected more
frequently in Minto Inlet and the Ulukhaktok region and were less likely to be found in
Safety Channel compared to fish from Tahiryuak Lake. Only a small number of Arctic char
tagged in the ULU (25 km section of coastline adjacent to Ulukhaktok) section of the coastal
array were later detected in Safety Channel (Hollins et al., 2022). Additionally, while they
did not identify a marine residency site for Fish Lake fish, Hollins et al. (2022) note return
visits and low dispersal rates along the M1-3 (three receivers northwest of Kijjivik towards
the Kuujjua River) and ULU array sections, indicating that this region may be a feeding
ground for Minto Inlet Arctic char. Therefore, Hollins et al. (2022) concluded that Arctic
char from Fish and Tahiryuak lakes typically forage in different regions of the Amundsen
Gulf. However, when asked if Arctic char from Minto Inlet journey into Safety Channel,
participants (04, 06) stated they regularly do.
“…we've caught fish that we know in Anialik or this area here that obviously come from
Minto. And also Kuuk River fish - when I set nets in Kings Bay, I know the size of the fish,
the big ones, and they're caught on that side, that direction [and] we know that… they come
from that way.” – 06
89

Some participants (15, 06, 04) also discussed a third pathway in the ocean travelled
by Arctic char going north past Berkley Point from Fish and Mayoklihok lakes. This route
was not identified by Hollins et al. (2022) because the acoustic array did not encompass this
area. However, they did note three individuals that went undetected after leaving Kuujjua
River in the beginning of the 2019 summer migration. While Hollins et al. (2022)
acknowledge the removal of receivers at the mouth of the Kuujjua River and along the
coastline towards Ulukhaktok was likely responsible for the lack of detections, they also
suggest that those individuals may have journeyed to areas where no receivers were
deployed.
When sharing the map produced by Hollins et al. (2022), participants often expressed
confusion. “Why does it only show char coming from these two lakes?”, they asked,
referring to Fish and Tahiryuak lakes. That the map only showed the lakes where the
majority of tagged Arctic char overwintered did not make sense to participants that know
fish also migrate from other lakes such as Mayoklihok Lake. They felt that the map was
missing key information and therefore needed to be updated to include the other lakes that
contribute to the Minto Inlet and Prince Albert Sound stocks. Hollins et al.’s (2022) study
was limited to three lakes (Fish, Mayoklihok, and Tahiryuak lakes) where tagged Arctic char
were detected and sufficient data collected. Given the limitation of not being able to
investigate a multitude of lakes for overwintering tagged fish, among other reasons in the
study design, their interpretation of movements were going to be inherently constrained,
which limits a comprehensive comparison and pairing with Ulukhaktomiut knowledge. This
is indicative of the fact that pairing knowledges is particularly sensitive to study design, as

90

methodological constraints shaped the extent to which scientific findings could be linked
with Ulukhaktomiut observations.
Influence of overwintering lake on timing of marine migration
Arctic char from Tahiryuak and Fish lakes enter and leave the marine environment at
different times. Participants shared that Arctic char from Tahiryuak Lake begin the migration
to their marine feeding grounds earlier than those from lakes draining in Minto Inlet (04).
This was also noted by Hollins et al. (2022), who found that fish depart Tahiryuak Lake/
Kuuk River as early as May, while those from Fish Lake begin migrating towards the sea in
June, as they have a shorter distance to travel to reach their feeding grounds.
Hollins et al. (2022) found that Arctic char travelling to Tahiryuak Lake initiated
their return migration from Safety Channel to the lake eleven days earlier on average
compared to fish from Fish Lake. The mean departure dates were August 2 and August 13
for Tahiryuak and Fish Lake, respectively. This aligned with the information shared by
participants, with one participant (04) stating that Tahiryuak Arctic char go “…[a] little
earlier than these ones (Minto Inlet Arctic char) going up because they [have] got a distance
to go in Prince Albert Sound.”
Dispersal rates along the coast
Arctic char exhibit two migration strategies - direct, rapid movements during
migration phases and more static residency during foraging phases. Insights from Hollins et
al. (2022) and information shared by participants largely agree on this. Hollins et al. (2022)
found that dispersal rates are higher in transition areas and lower in primary foraging
grounds, suggesting focused foraging activity is occurring in specific areas. In 2018, Arctic

91

char leaving their feeding grounds in west Safety Channel for Tahiryuak moved quickly
through mid and east Safety Channel, after which they were not detected there again,
indicating that they entered Prince Albert Sound (Hollins et al., 2022). Minto Inlet Arctic
char behaved similarly, rapidly moving up the coast towards Kuujjua River before entering
the river (Hollins et al., 2022).
According to participants (13, 06, 04), Arctic char feed and rest in bays as they
migrate towards their feeding grounds, which takes longer than the return journey back to
their overwintering lake. According to one participant (06), the difference in timing is
because fish returning “… got one thing in mind - go home and make kids.” Because Arctic
char returning to their overwintering lakes are well-fed, this is thought to contribute to their
rapid movement towards freshwater, with one participant (04) stating that “… in August,
they don't bite hooks anymore cause they feed out here and they're all get full and they get
fat and they don't bite the hooks anymore. When they're going back, they don't usually go by
the bays. They go point to point.” Hollins et al. (2022) analysis of dispersal rates shows that
Arctic char moved quickly through non-residency sections of the array. However, they did
not discuss differences in journey duration to and from marine feedings grounds within a
population.
Hollins et al. (2022) found that Arctic char reach their marine feeding grounds by late
July and remained until mid August. Participants identified late July as the time when Arctic
char transition from coastal areas to deeper waters, with several participants (04, 01, 08, 06,
16) reporting seeing fish far away from the coastline while boating.

92

“I’ve seen them feeding, whatever they’re feeding on. All the bubbles and their fins, out in
the middle of the ocean, out in the middle. So, they do go deep here.” – 01
“There's char all over. They go out, way out in the ocean. When I'm going caribou hunting
from here to across Prince Albert Sound, you could even see them in the middle.” – 04
However this movement away from the coast would not have been detected by receivers as
they were not placed far offshore (Hollins et al., 2022).
Interestingly, Arctic char coming from Fish Lake at the beginning of the 2019
summer migration were detected by receivers for several days at the mouth of Kuujjua River
before beginning their journey along the coast (Hollins et al., 2022). This pause was also
described by participants (04, 14, 10, 13), who believed the fish were adjusting to changes in
temperature and salinity, and avoiding predation from beluga whales (09). They also noted
that Arctic char do this on their return to the Kuujjua River. However, participants did not
describe this behaviour for Arctic char leaving or returning to Kuuk River, and receivers
were not deployed as close to the river mouth as they were at Kuujjua River (Hollins et al.,
2022). Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain if this behaviour occurs for both rivers, which
may have provided further insight into why Arctic char may pause at these locations.
6.2.3 Health
Ulukhaktomiut employ a holistic assessment of an individual Arctic char’s health
that looks beyond plumpness. Skinny fish are not always unhealthy, with participants
explaining that a fish’s girth fluctuates seasonally. It is with this caveat in mind that we must
interpret the following results, which rely on a far more simplistic view of health (i.e., is the

93

fish skinny or fat?). Whether Ulukhaktomiut categorised a fish as healthy or unhealthy, and
how that compared against that individual’s k value revealed interesting insights.
Of the fifteen fish categorised as healthy, thirteen were described as such by 100% of
participants. It is evident from this that there was a high degree of certainty and near
unanimous agreement among participants when identifying healthy Arctic char. In contrast,
this consensus was not observed for the fish classified as unhealthy. Only three of the eleven
Arctic char in this category were described as unhealthy by 100% of participants. However,
there was a high degree of alignment between k values and participants’ categorisations of
the 26 tagged char; participants generally identified fish with higher k values as healthier and
those with lower k values as unhealthy. The mean k value for char identified as healthy was
1.16, well above that of those categorised as unhealthy, which had a mean of 0.95 (Table 8).
Furthermore, a student t-test revealed significant differences in the means of both groups
(t(24) = 3.17, p = 0.0041).
Table 8 Sample mean and standard deviation of healthy and unhealthy groups

SAMPLE MEAN
SAMPLE STD. DEV
N

HEALTHY

UNHEALTHY

1.16
0.16
15

0.95
0.17
11

The standard deviation for both healthy (0.16) and unhealthy (0.17) Arctic char
indicates that the variability in k values is low within each group. However, the variance is
slightly higher for unhealthy fish (0.0284) than for healthy fish (0.0250), indicating a slightly
wider range of k values among unhealthy fish. The overlap between both groups shows that
some fish with lower condition factors were still considered healthy, while some with higher

94

condition factors were considered unhealthy (Fig. 21). For instance, ARCH46_2018 had a k
value of 1.29 but was still classified as unhealthy by an participant, which underscores that
participants used criteria other than plumpness to assess the health of an Arctic char.

Figure 22 Boxplot comparing Fulton's Condition Factor (k) of Arctic char by health status (Healthy vs.
Unhealthy, as assessed by Inuit participants).

A threshold appears to exist between k values of 0.96 and 1.09, where the division
between healthy and unhealthy Arctic char emerges. Fishes with a k value of 1.01 or below
were predominantly categorised as unhealthy, with a small number of participants describing
these fish as healthy. ARCH28_2018 provides an example of a borderline Arctic char. With
a k value of 0.97, there was a 50/50 split amongst participants regarding this individual’s

95

health status. Above the 1.01 threshold, there was greater agreement among participants,
with the majority of Arctic char being identified as healthy.
Overall, the data suggests that Fulton condition values and participants’ health
assessments generally align, with higher k values more likely to be described as healthy by
participants. However, there were instances where the k value and participant assessments
did not perfectly correlate, indicating other possible influencing factors in determining the
healthiness of a fish.

96

Chapter VII: Discussion
This research sought to provide greater insight on the ecology of anadromous Arctic
char by engaging Inuit and scientific knowledge. Our results demonstrate that, while
scientific and Ulukhaktomiut knowledge are not always directly comparable, pairing these
approaches to acquiring information provides a deeper understanding of Arctic char and
generates new hypotheses for problem solving. In this chapter, we situate our findings within
the broader scholarship on Arctic char ecology. We also reflect on the research process itself
and how our work may contribute to the theory and practice of knowledge pairing.
7.1

Arctic char ecology

7.1.1 Appearance
Ulukhaktomiut and Burke et al. (2022) identified the same three body shapes of
anadromous Arctic char in the coastal marine region of the Diamond Jenness Peninsula.
Arctic char are well known for their phenotypic plasticity, with other studies also
documenting sympatric morphotypes (e.g., Nordeng, 1983; Reist et al., 1995; Skoglund et
al., 2015; Young et al., 2021). Burke et al. (2022) suggests that these morphotypes may
represent adaptations to juvenile feeding and movement behaviours in freshwater systems,
facilitate the exploitation of marine resources, or are remnants of ancestral traits.
Ulukhaktomiut attributed the occurrence of different morphotypes to the environmental
conditions at each lake. This aligns with Gíslason et al. (1999), who proposed that
adaptations to ecological factors such as diet and habitat may play a significant role in the
development of distinct morphologies, with resource polymorphism serving as an
intermediate stage in speciation. Additionally, Hollins et al. (2022) did not find a high
occurrence of straying, which may suggest limited gene flow between Arctic char
97

populations in Tahiryuak and Fish lakes. That said, it is important to acknowledge that data
collection was limited to two incomplete migrations, as receivers were deployed after the
migration had begun in July 2018 and removed before it fully concluded between 8 July and
23 August 2019. Despite these limitations, Hollins et al.’s (2022) findings are consistent
with the current scientific understanding in the literature, which states that Arctic char
typically return to their natal lake in spawning years, but may migrate to alternative
freshwater systems that are less energetically costly to reach when not spawning (Keefer &
Caudill, 2014; Moore et al., 2014). However, Harris et al. (2016) found evidence of high
gene flow among anadromous Arctic char populations in Cambridge Bay, which, like
Ulukhaktok, is located on Victoria Island. Given the genetic similarity of Arctic char across
this region, a high degree of straying may also be possible in the Ulukhaktok region.
Determining the frequency of straying for anadromous Arctic char in the Ulukhaktok region
will require an analysis of the genetic structure of fish from contributing river systems, with
Ulukhaktomiut knowledge holders playing a key role in identifying those systems (DFO,
2016). Such analyses could inform fisheries management strategies and clarify whether a
regional or river-specific approach is most appropriate (Moore et al., 2014).
Ulukhaktomiut shared observations and stories about “ocean char”, which they
believe remain in the ocean for multiple years. Similar accounts of Arctic char with
distinctive blue backs have been shared by Inuit in Paulatuk, another community in the ISR
(C. Gallagher, pers. comm., 14 July 2023). The prevailing understanding of anadromous
Arctic char is that they migrate annually between freshwater and marine environments
(Johnson, 1980). However, ocean char may represent a distinct migration tactic that has
rarely been discussed in the literature (see Pearce et al., 2024). As Klemetsen (2010, p. 50)
98

notes, Arctic char exhibits “extreme life history diversity at the species, population and even
individual levels.” This diversity may be driven, in part, by diet and feeding ecology, as
remaining in the ocean may provide sustained access to marine resources. Evidence of ocean
char is supported by research from Smith et al. (2022) who recorded four Arctic char in the
marine environment during winter while studying their movements in the Coppermine River,
Nunavut. Three of these fish returned to freshwater before ice-off, while the fourth stayed in
range of the same receiver until they were detected elsewhere in the marine environment
during the summer migration. The authors hypothesise that low salinity and temperatures
near 0ºC at the water surface may have enabled those fish to survive in the marine
environment. Furthermore, Spares et al. (2012) found that, while larger Arctic char can
tolerate prolonged periods in colder saltwater than smaller fish, they were still detected in
warmer, brackish water with lower salinity, possibly to support osmoregulation.
Ulukhaktomiut made similar observations of ocean char caught at the mouth of the Kuujjua
River in winter. Further research is needed to systematically document these observations,
conduct scientific analyses—such as otolith sampling to measure strontium levels among
annuli and reconstruct lifetime migration histories—and explore the potential significance of
ocean char within the broader diversity of the species.
7.1.2 Origins and movement
Leaving freshwater
Both Ulukhaktomiut and Hollins et al. (2022) observed a pause in the migration of
anadromous Arctic char at the mouth of the Kuujjua River at the beginning of their
migration. Hollins et al. (2022) suggest this pause may be due to physical barriers, such as
ice blocking the movement of fish, or it may allow Arctic char to adjust to changes in
99

salinity before entering the marine environment. Ulukhaktomiut largely echoed these
explanations, adding that a pause may provide Arctic char with the chance to rest before
continuing their migration. According to Finstad et al. (1989), anadromous Arctic char
develop an increased hypo-osmoregulatory capacity during summer, suggesting they may
not require an adjustment period in brackish water before entering the sea. However, other
studies, such as those by Bégout Anras et al. (1999) and Spares et al. (2015), have found that
anadromous Arctic char spend considerable time in brackish estuarine environments,
perhaps to support osmoregulation and feeding. Osmoregulatory capacity may be influenced
by fish size and water temperature, with Dempson (1993) finding that individuals smaller
than 120 mm may require time in brackish or freshwater to survive over summer.
Additionally, Spares et al. (2015) reported an increase in detections within the estuarine
environment in the last fifteen days of the migration, leading them to suggest that
anadromous Arctic char may also require a transition phase before returning to freshwater.
At the mouth of the Kuujjua River, a temperature change was recorded by the
receiver, after which most of the waiting Arctic char departed. Hollins et al. (2022) suggest
that retreating sea ice, indicated by rising temperatures, may have cleared from the fishes
route, allowing them to continue their migration. However, the prolonged presence of one
Arctic char in the KUJ section of the array after others had departed casts doubt on this
theory, with Hollins et al. (2022) concluding that ice-off may not be the sole catalyst for
movement along the coast. Supporting this, Hammer et al. (2022) found that Arctic char
entered Tremblay Sound before ice-off and the subsequent resource pulse, possibly to time
their arrival at key feeding locations with its onset.

100

Neither Hollins et al. (2022) nor participating Ulukhaktomiut could confirm if Arctic
char pause at the mouth of the Kuuk River before migrating along Prince Albert Sound.
Determining if this is the case may shed light on why Arctic char at from the Kuujjua River
do so. If this behaviour is unique to Kuujjua River, then perhaps some unidentified
physiological trait or environmental conditions specific to that location may influence fish to
pause there (Gilbert et al., 2016, 2020). Determining whether Arctic char pause to acclimate
to changes in salinity, to wait for migration routes to clear of ice, or for some other reason
will require further research using acoustic telemetry and temperature monitoring with the
support and inclusion of the Ulukhaktok community (Hammer, 2021; Hollins et al., 2022).
At the very least, pairing Hollins et al.’s (2022) research with Ulukhaktomiut observations
confirms that Arctic char pausing at the mouth of the Kuujjua River is a recurring
phenomenon.
Marine migration
Anadromous Arctic char enter the marine environment in mid-to-late June, with the
summer char migration occurring up to two weeks earlier in recent years according to
Ulukhaktomiut. They attribute this shift to earlier ice-off driven by climate change. Other
research has also discussed the potential for summer Arctic char runs to commence earlier,
with implications for the exploitation of the marine resource pulse (e.g., Hammer et al.,
2022; Harris et al., 2022). Harwood (2009) recorded that changes in the timing and duration
of the summer migration for Arctic char from the Hornaday River, which may have resulted
in increased growth and weight due to maximised feeding opportunities in the marine
environment. While increased feeding opportunities undoubtedly benefit anadromous Arctic
char in the near future, Søreide et al. (2010) note that a shift in the timing of the resource
101

pulse may result in a cascade of effects that could disrupt energy transfer throughout the
Arctic marine food web.
West Safety Channel is a significant location for anadromous Arctic char from Minto
Inlet and Prince Albert Sound, indicating that the area is highly productive. However, as the
summer progresses and sea ice extent is reduced, Ulukhaktomiut increasingly see fish in
deeper waters. This shift may occur as fish pursue prey species or to limit the effects of
temperature on cardio-respiratory performance (Gilbert et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2020).
Rising temperatures may reduce the abundance of Arctic char in the shallow nearshore
region and the coastal fishery as a result, with fish moving into cooler waters. Increased
temperatures may also have implications for the reproductive success of Arctic char, as
increased energy expenditure during migration leaves less energy for spawning (Fenkes et
al., 2016). Should marine environments, and Arctic aquatic systems more broadly, continue
to warm as they are expected to (Meredith et al., 2019), these changes could significantly
impact the subsistence fishery and the continued practice and transmission of Ulukhaktomiut
knowledge.
Returning to freshwater
Ulukhaktomiut shared that the return migration of anadromous Arctic char to
freshwater is faster than their outward migration to marine feeding grounds. Hollins et al.
(2022) did not discuss difference in migration duration to and from marine feeding grounds.
However, Gulseth and Nilssen (2000) found that in the Dieset River, Svalbard, larger Arctic
char began their return migration upstream before smaller individuals. Their earlier departure
from the marine environment may have been due to a reduced tolerance for saltwater, as
larger, mature fish were likely spawning that fall (Gulseth & Nilssen, 2000). These findings
102

align with Ulukhaktomiut observations, with participants stating that spawning anadromous
Arctic char quickly return to their respective overwintering lakes.
7.1.3 Health
Ulukhaktomiut use a broad range of health indicators, including stamina, skin and
flesh colour, and gill condition, that are highly complementary to scientific health
assessments. The ability to rapidly assess the condition of an animal is invaluable to
subsistence hunters and has significant potential for the monitoring of wildlife in remote
regions such as the high Arctic (Berkes et al., 2007; Di Francesco et al., 2022; Ostertag et al.,
2018). For example, flesh colour provides insights into a fish’s diet and nutrient content,
with Lin et al. (2024) finding a positive correlation between dietary fat and pigmentation.
Considering this, it is unsurprising that Ulukhaktomiut generally prefer plump fish with
redder flesh, which they associate with good health and vitality.
Decreased stamina of some fish caught in gill nets may be indicative of changes in
the marine environment. Many Ulukhaktomiut shared observations of warmer water
temperatures. Arctic char have adapted to a thermal range that reflects typical environmental
conditions, which can vary slightly by location (Gilbert et al., 2020). As previously
discussed, temperature affects cardio-respiratory function; thus, warmer waters may affect
the ability of Arctic char to recover from strenuous activity, such as what would be exhibited
while caught in a net (Gilbert et al., 2020). However, that only some fish with less energy
after spending hours in a net were observed by Ulukhaktomiut could suggest that some other
unidentified factor may be the cause of this change. This example highlights the potential for

103

changes in the health and condition of Arctic char to serve as an early warning, alerting
communities and researchers to possible environmental changes.
7.2

Reflections on knowledge pairing
Knowledge pairing is an emerging approach that seeks to bring distinct ways of

knowing together to better understand a problem or phenomenon (Zurba et al., 2022). It
developed from the realisation that scientific approaches have their limitations and other
ways of knowing are essential for understanding and addressing the challenges of the
twenty-first century (Ogar et al., 2020). According to Furgal (2006, p. xv), Indigenous
knowledges “have the potential to provide missing context surrounding quantitative studies
on the same subject or in the same location.” This potential was in part why this research
was carried out – while we had an understanding of aspects of Arctic char movement and
biology from a scientific perspective, we had yet to document Inuit knowledge and link it
with scientific research.
Numerous frameworks exist to guide researchers engaging in knowledge pairing
(e.g., Bartlett, 2006; Chapman & Schott, 2020; Pohl et al., 2010; Tengö et al., 2014; Yua et
al., 2022). These frameworks share common themes that encapsulate the core principles of
knowledge pairing, including contextual sensitivity, empowerment and equity, inclusive and
sustained engagement, and shared goals and understanding (Norström et al., 2020; Zurba et
al., 2022). While we did not adopt a specific framework, this research, and the larger project
it is a part of, sought to adhere to - or, at the very least, draw inspiration from - the principles
of knowledge pairing.

104

Throughout the course of this research, we have reflected on the nature of coproduced research and whether this research met its aspirations and principles. Others, such
as Bandola-Gill et al. (2023), have similarly questioned at what point research becomes coproduced. This research was designed and executed in collaboration with Inuit in
Ulukhaktok. Bi-annual communication with the OHTC was maintained and we worked
closely with community research partners, particularly during the collection of data. We also
returned to Ulukhaktok and discussed our analysis and findings with participants. However,
according to Norström et al. (2020, p. 183), co-produced research should “develop capacity,
build networks, foster social capital, and implement actions that contribute to sustainability.”
Achieving these aspirations proved challenging within the constraints of conducting research
as a masters student with limited resources, making it difficult to collaborate with
community representatives throughout all stages of the research process. This was
particularly evident during data analysis, which was undertaken independently of community
research partners.
For these reasons, use of the term 'knowledge co-production' felt misleading, as it
implies an equitable partnership between knowledge systems by which new knowledge is
generated. While our collective understanding of Arctic char deepened as Ulukhaktomiut
shared some of their knowledge with non-Inuit researchers (and vice versa), no entirely new
knowledge—previously unknown to both Inuit and scientists—was created. Therefore, we
instead elected to use the term 'knowledge pairing’, as it more accurately reflects the process
we undertook, which was primarily executed by external researchers who engaged
Ulukhaktomiut and scientific knowledge.

105

Ulukhaktomiut possess an intimate understanding of Arctic char. This is hardly
surprising given the significance of the species to Inuit. From a survey of Ulukhaktomiut
households, Paylor et al. (1998) found that the majority of households consumed Arctic char
at least once a week. The high consumption of Arctic char was also noted by Collings et al.
(2016) who stated that Arctic char is a favourite type of country food for many Inuit. Inuit
eat Arctic char in a variety of ways including as piffi, quaq or cooked in soups, fish cakes,
etc. (Smart, 2021). The importance of Arctic char to Inuit extends beyond their subsistence
value, with the species intricately connected to an entire way of life (Smart, 2021). However,
not everyone in the community is an Arctic char expert and there was not always agreement
amongst participants, as was the case here, with some basing their understanding of Arctic
char on teachings, stories, and observations that differed from others. For example, some
participants knew Minto Inlet really well, while others were more familiar with Prince
Albert Sound due to where their families were from.
While scientific and Ulukhaktomiut knowledge were not always directly comparable,
they together provided a more holistic understanding of Arctic char. Many have commented
on the complementarity of scientific and Indigenous knowledges (Table 9). Moller et al.
(2004) asserts that utilising scientific and Indigenous monitoring methods enhances comanagement and increases community ownership and trust in outcomes. Similarly,
Huntington et al. (2004) states that engaging Indigenous and scientific knowledges increases
confidence in findings, with each using different approaches to acquiring information.
Science adopts a reductive perspective and relies on objective, empirical data generated over
a relatively short time frame, focusing on averages to establish cause-and-effect
relationships. In contrast, Indigenous knowledges are rooted in long-term, descriptive, place106

based observations, integrating relational, spiritual, and ethical dimensions to provide a more
holistic understanding (Anderson & Anderson, 1996; Furgal, 2006; Usher, 2002). The
different characteristics of these knowledges are what makes their combination so powerful
when seeking to understand complex species, as evident from the insights we gained through
the pairing of Ulukhaktomiut and scientific knowledge.
Table 9 Areas of complementarity between Indigenous knowledges and science for environmental monitoring.
Adapted from Moller et al. (2004)
Principle
Complementary spatial and
temporal scales

Explanation
Science relies on short-term, largescale data collection, while
Indigenous knowledges provide
long-term, small-scale, place-based
observations.

Citation
Huntington et al., 2004; Moller
et al., 2004

Contrasting focus on averages and
extremes

Science often focuses on statistical
averages to identify general trends,
while Indigenous knowledges excel
at recognising extremes and
anomalies through lived experience,
oral history, contextual
understanding, and long-term
observation.

Anderson & Anderson, 1996;
Berkes, 2018; Huntington et al.,
2004; Moller et al., 2004

Blending descriptive and empirical
insights

Science provides empirical, datadriven insights, while Indigenous
knowledges contribute descriptive,
narrative-based insights.

Anderson & Anderson, 1996;
Furgal, 2006; Huntington et al.,
2004

Complementing objectivity with
subjectivity

Science prioritises objectivity,
focusing on empirical data and
minimising bias, while Indigenous
knowledges embrace subjectivity,
integrating relational, spiritual, and
ethical dimensions into
understanding and decision-making.

Anderson & Anderson, 1996;
Berkes, 2018;
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani &
Giardina, 2016; Little Bear,
2012; Moller et al., 2004

Engaging holistic and reductionist
perspectives

Indigenous knowledges emphasise
interconnectedness and relationality
in understanding the world,
contrasting with the reductionist
perspective of science.

Kealiikanakaoleohaililani &
Giardina, 2016; Little Bear,
2012

107

Burke et al. (2022) analysed the shape of tagged anadromous Arctic char using
geometric morphometrics. This method relies on landmark coordinates corrected for size
discrepancies to describe and compare shapes across specimens (Adams et al., 2004; Slice,
2007). However, Ulukhaktomiut rely on indicators not included in morphometric analysis to
determine an Arctic char’s lake of origin, such as skin and flesh colour, which they
associated with environmental conditions at each sampled lake. Burke et al. (2022) found
that each identified morphotype was present in both Fish and Tahiryuak lakes, which
underscores the limitations of geometric morphometrics alone, as factors other than shape
may be important to determining the lake of origin of a fish. The inclusion of descriptive
indicators of morphology, such as colour, may provide additional insights on morphological
categories than what is currently possible with purely quantitative assessments of shape
(Chan, 2024). The divergence between the findings of Burke et al. (2022) and participant
knowledge highlights the challenges of attempting to directly compare insights from
different knowledge systems in a like-for-like manner. While it would be far more satisfying
were a direct comparison possible in this case, these knowledge systems are not always
directly comparable nor the outcomes quantifiable.
The movement of anadromous Arctic char was better understood when linking
insights from both knowledge systems. Participants and Hollins et al. (2022) both identified
Safety Channel as a key marine feeding ground for anadromous Arctic char. However,
participants asserted that the location is significant for fish from both Minto Inlet and Prince
Albert Sound, rather than just Prince Albert Sound as found by Hollins et al. (2022). This,
and the documentation of a northern pathway originating in Minto Inlet that was not
captured by acoustic telemetry (due to the design of the acoustic array) highlights the
108

importance of including community observations, as Ulukhaktomiut and scientists relied on
data gathered over different spatial and temporal scales. Ulukhaktomiut drew on knowledge
accumulated over generations and across a larger area, whereas scientist acquired short-term
data over a limited area. Acoustic telemetry also allowed researchers to track individual fish,
while Ulukhaktomiut know that Arctic char from Fish and Tahiryuak lakes have different
appearances even when feeding in the ocean. Together, they provided a more comprehensive
picture than either could have produced individually. Other studies have also noted similar
benefits when engaging both scientific and Indigenous knowledges (e.g., Anadón et al.,
2009; Service et al., 2014).
Engaging Indigenous knowledge of wildlife can provide a more comprehensive
understanding of a species or population, as both descriptive and empirical data are included
in monitoring (Di Francesco et al., 2022; Tomaselli et al., 2018). Assessing the health of a
fish using holistic indicators demonstrates this. Our results show that Ulukhaktomiut and
scientific assessments of fish health are highly complementary, with both typically
identifying the same fish as either healthy or unhealthy. However, Ulukhaktomiut consider
factors other than plumpness, which is not always reflective of good health, to rapidly
ascertain an Arctic char’s condition and whether it is safe to eat. The speed and minimal
invasiveness of Ulukhaktomiut assessments makes their application in the field highly
useful. Engaging Indigenous knowledges can be a more cost-effective, but just as reliable,
method of environmental monitoring that is more likely to be supported by knowledge
holders (Anadón et al., 2009; Service et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2020). This point is
particularly relevant to this research, as discussions with some community members revealed
concerns about the Ulukhaktok fish tagging project.
109

According to Usher (2000), the ways in which Indigenous people understand, use,
and value their environment, and situate themselves within it, is informed by how they
interpret and organise observations to create information. When discussing the fish tagging
project with Ulukhaktomiut, they saw a clear connection between the deployment of acoustic
receivers in the coastal marine region surrounding Ulukhaktok and the sudden disappearance
of wildlife like ringed seals and beluga whales. Conversely, researchers, relying on empirical
studies, were confident that any signal emitted by acoustic transmitters and detected by the
receivers were inaudible to wildlife. Their reliance on studies from elsewhere seemed
illogical to community members, who felt that their first-hand observations were more
relevant. Berkes (2018, p. 16) also notes the scepticism of Indigenous knowledge holders
towards external researchers, stating that researcher knowledge may “not be considered
legitimate unless it [is] specific to the area, obtained largely first-hand, and in apprenticeship
with a local knowledge holder.”
It was also evident that external researchers and Ulukhaktomiut possessed different
values regarding how fish should be handled. For researchers, tagging was a routine
procedure that caused little harm to fish, but for Ulukhaktomiut it seemed extremely invasive
and risked fish health. Handling of the fish also raised concerns about food safety, with
community members discomforted by the thought of consuming fish that had been handled
and tampered with by others. The use of Inuit indicators in fish condition assessments may
minimise such concerns, as some of them are based on visual assessments that are less
invasive. Future research should consider how a holistic health assessment tool may be
developed and implemented in collaboration with Inuit fishers.

110

Chapter VIII: Conclusion
This thesis sought to bridge different ways of knowing and understanding Arctic char
by engaging with both scientific and Inuit knowledge systems. Specifically, the aim of this
research was to examine the appearance, origin, movement, and health of anadromous Arctic
char using Inuit and scientific knowledge. This was accomplished through a mixed-methods
approach that included semi-structured interviews and participatory mapping with Inuit
knowledge holders, participant observation, and an analysis of secondary sources (i.e., Burke
et al., 2022; Hollins et al., 2022). The research responded to an Inuit-identified research
need, to investigate changes in anadromous Arctic char and the health of individual fish, and
was guided by the principles of community collaborative research.
The findings highlight the complexity of Arctic char and the value of engaging
diverse perspectives and approaches, particularly in remote and understudied regions such as
the Canadian Arctic. While scientific and Inuit knowledge were not always directly
comparable, they were often complementary, and they together provided insights into Arctic
char ecology that neither could achieve alone. Inuit knowledge holders utilise indicators not
included in morphometric analysis to determine a fish’s lake of origin, challenging the
findings of Burke et al. (2022). If Arctic char morphology does differ across lakes, then this
may have significant implications for the management of Arctic char fisheries in the
Ulukhaktok region. Additionally, participants shared some of their knowledge of ocean char,
which may represent a distinct migration tactic that has been little discussed in the literature.
Further research is needed to systematically document Inuit observations of ocean char and
explore their potential significance within the broader diversity of the species.

111

Both knowledge systems operate at different temporal and spatial scales. The
published acoustic telemetry captured short-term data over a limited area, while Inuit
knowledge reflects observations accumulated over generations and across a larger
geographical area. Participants confirmed two primary marine migration pathways also
documented by acoustic telemetry and identified an undocumented third pathway originating
in Minto Inlet and going north past Berkley Point. Pairing these two approaches to acquiring
information not only provided a more complete picture of anadromous Arctic char
movement, but also revealed key knowledge gaps, such as whether anadromous Arctic char
pause before leaving and re-entering freshwater systems and why.
Inuit have an intimate understanding of Arctic char, as evident by their use of several
criteria to holistically assess fish condition. As the Arctic continues to change, the need for
rapid on-the-ground monitoring will become increasingly important. Future research should
explore how a health assessment tool that is inclusive of Inuit knowledge and can be used by
fishers could be developed and implemented.
This research contributes to efforts to co-produce knowledge that is relevant to the
lives and livelihoods of Inuit. It demonstrates how a knowledge pairing approach can
address knowledge gaps, test hypotheses, and support adaptive fisheries co-management
decision-making that is grounded in Inuit and scientific knowledge. By continuing to build
on this collaborative framework, we can strengthen efforts to safeguard Arctic char
populations and Inuit fisheries in an era of rapid climate change.

112

Literature Cited
Adams, D. C., Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. E. (2004). Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of
progress following the ‘revolution.’ Italian Journal of Zoology, 71(1), 5–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/11250000409356545
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 539–620.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8
Alonzo, S. H., & Kindsvater, H. K. (2008). Life-History Patterns. In S. E. Jørgensen & B. D.
Fath (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ecology (pp. 2175–2180). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00856-9
Anadón, J. D., Giménez, A., Ballestar, R., & Pérez, I. (2009). Evaluation of Local Ecological
Knowledge as a Method for Collecting Extensive Data on Animal Abundance.
Conservation Biology, 23(3), 617–625.
Anderson, E. N., Jr., & Anderson, E. N. (1996). Ecologies of the Heart: Emotion, Belief, and
the Environment. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies (ACUNS). (2003). Ethical
principles for the conduct of research in the north. 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900025340
Ayles, B. G., Bell, R., & Hoyt, A. (2007). Adaptive Fisheries Co-Management in the
Western Canadian Arctic. In D. Armitage, F. Berkes, & N. C. Doubleday, Adaptive
co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance (pp. 125–150).
UBC Press.
113

Bandola-Gill, J., Arthur, M., & Leng, R. I. (2023). What is co-production? Conceptualising
and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical
perspectives. Evidence & Policy, 19(2), 275–298.
https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16420955772641
Bartlett, C. M. (2006). Knowledge Inclusivity: “Two-Eyed Seeing” for Science for the 21st
Century Knowledge inclusivity. In M. Wiber & J. Kearney (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Workshop on Learning Communities as a Tool for Resource Management (pp. 70–
76). http:// www.integrativescience.ca/uploads/articles/2005NovemberBartlett-textIntegrative-Science-Two-Eyed-Seeing-Aboriginallearning-communities.pdf.
Bartlett, C. M., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons
learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream
knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences,
2(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8
Battiste, M. A., & Henderson, J. Y. (2000). Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage:
A global challenge. Purich Publishing.
Bégout Anras, M. L., Gyselman, E. C., Jorgenson, J. K., Kristofferson, A. H., & Anras, L.
(1999). Habitat preferences and residence time for the freshwater to ocean transition
stage in Arctic charr. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United
Kingdom, 79(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315498000174
Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred Ecology (Fourth edition). Routledge.

114

Berkes, F., Berkes, M. K., & Fast, H. (2007). Collaborative integrated management in
Canada’s North: The role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based
monitoring. Coastal Management, 35(1), 143–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750600970487
Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., & Paterson, J. (2011). Are we adapting to climate change?
Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 25–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.012
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
Braendle, C., Heyland, A., & Flatt, T. (2011). Integrating mechanistic and evolutionary
analysis of life history variation. In T. Flatt & A. Heyland (Eds.), Mechanisms of Life
History Evolution (pp. 3–10). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568765.003.0001
Bryan, J. (2015). Participatory Mapping. In T. Perreault, G. Bridge, & J. McCarthy (Eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology (pp. 249–262). Routledge. https://webp-ebscohostcom.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzEwMDQ1MTFfX0FO0
?sid=e86e9a71-fd71-403e-b19e-dcbee99aeb5a@redis&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1
Burke, T. G., Pettitt‐Wade, H., Hollins, J. P. W., Gallagher, C., Lea, E., Loseto, L., &
Hussey, N. E. (2022). Evidence for three morphotypes among anadromous Arctic

115

char (Salvelinus alpinus) sampled in the marine environment. Journal of Fish
Biology, 101(6), 1441–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.15214
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
Carvalho, K. S., & Wang, S. (2020). Sea surface temperature variability in the Arctic Ocean
and its marginal seas in a changing climate: Patterns and mechanisms. Global and
Planetary Change, 193, 103265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2020.103265
Castleden, H., Hart, C., Cunsolo, A., Harper, S. L., & Martin, D. (2017). Reconciliation and
Relationality in Water and Research and Management in Canada: Implementing
Indigenous Ontologies, Epistemologies, and Methodologies. In S. Renzetti & D. P.
Dupont (Eds.), Water Policy and Governance in Canada (Vol. 17, pp. 69–95).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42806-2
Chalmers, A. F. (1994). What is this thing called Science? An assessment of the nature and
status of science and its methods (2nd ed). Hackett Pub. Co.
Chan, S. (2024). Linking Inuit and scientific knowledge in coastal marine research:
Advancing our understanding of Greenland cod, Ogac (Gadus Ogac) near
Ulukhaktok Northwest Territories under a changing climate. University of Northern
British Columbia.
Chapman, J. M., & Schott, S. (2020). Knowledge coevolution: Generating new
understanding through bridging and strengthening distinct knowledge systems and

116

empowering local knowledge holders. Sustainability Science, 15(3), 931–943.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00781-2
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
Collings, P. (2009). Participant Observation and Phased Assertion as Research Strategies in
the Canadian Arctic. Field Methods, 21(2), 133–153.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08330260
Collings, P., Marten, M. G., Pearce, T., & Young, A. G. (2016). Country food sharing
networks, household 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
Condon, R. G., & Ogina, J. (1996). The northern Copper Inuit: A history. University of
Toronto Press.
Conejeros, P., Phan, A., Power, M., O’Connell, M., Alekseyev, S., Salinas, I., & Dixon, B.
(2014). Differentiation of Sympatric Arctic Char Morphotypes Using Major
Histocompatibility Class II Genes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,
143(3), 586–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2014.880734
Cooke, S. J., Nguyen, V. M., Chapman, J. M., Reid, A. J., Landsman, S. J., Young, N.,
Hinch, S. G., Schott, S., Mandrak, N. E., & Semeniuk, C. A. D. (2021). Knowledge

117

co‐production: A pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and
governance. Fisheries, 46(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10512
Coyne, J. A., & Orr, H. A. (2004). Speciation. Sinauer Associates; WorldCat.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research. SAGE Publications Ltd.
https://www.perlego.com/book/2800990/the-foundations-of-social-researchmeaning-and-perspective-in-the-research-process-pdf
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., & Balmford, A. (2005). Monitoring Matters: Examining the
Potential of Locally-based Approaches. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(11), 2507–
2542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-8375-0
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Funder, M., Jones, J. P. G.,
Alviola, P., Balete, D. S., Blomley, T., Brashares, J., Child, B., Enghoff, M., Fjeldså,
J., Holt, S., Hübertz, H., Jensen, A. E., Jensen, P. M., Massao, J., Mendoza, M. M.,
… Yonten, D. (2009). Local Participation in Natural Resource Monitoring: A
Characterization of Approaches. Conservation Biology, 23(1), 31–42.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01063.x
Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying
“Experts” When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology, 31(3),
463–489. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025075923297
Dempson, J. B. (1993). Salinity tolerance of freshwater acclimated, small‐sized Arctic charr,
Salvelinus alpinus from northern Labrador. Journal of Fish Biology, 43(3), 451–462.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1993.tb00580.x

118

Dempson, J. B., Shears, M., & Bloom, M. (2002). Spatial and temporal variability in the diet
of anadromous Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, in northern Labrador. In P. Magnan,
C. Audet, H. Glémet, M. Legault, M. A. Rodríguez, & E. B. Taylor (Eds.), Ecology,
behaviour and conservation of the charrs, genus Salvelinus (pp. 49–62). Springer
Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1352-8_4
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2016). Assessment of Arctic Char
(Salvelinus alpinus) in the Ulukhaktok area of the Northwest Territories (pp. 1–12).
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.
DeWitt, T. J., & Scheiner, S. M. (2004). Phenotypic Variation from Single Genotypes: A
Primer. In T. J. DeWitt & S. M. Scheiner (Eds.), Phenotypic Plasticity: Functional
and Conceptual Approaches (pp. 1–9). Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unbc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=279817
Di Francesco, J., Hanke, A., Milton, T., Leclerc, L.-M., Association, K. A., Gerlach, C., &
Kutz, S. (2022). Documenting Indigenous Knowledge to Identify and Understand the
Stressors of Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in Nunavut, Canada. ARCTIC, 74(4),
418–436. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic73853
Dunmall, K. M., Langan, J. A., Cunningham, C. J., Reist, J. D., Melling, H., Aklavik
Hunters and Trappers Committee, Olokhaktomiut Hunters and Trappers Committee,
Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, Sachs Harbour Hunters and Trappers
Committee, Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, & Kugluktuk Hunters
and Trappers Organization. (2024). Pacific salmon in the Canadian Arctic highlight a

119

range-expansion pathway for sub-Arctic fishes. Global Change Biology, 30(6),
e17353. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17353
Dunmall, K., Reist, J., & McNicholl, D. G. (2018). Community-based Monitoring
Demonstrates Increasing Occurrences and Abundances of Pacific Salmon in the
Canadian Arctic from 2000 to 2017. Technical Report, 11.
https://doi.org/10.23849/npafctr11/87.90
Dutil, J.-D. (1986). Energetic Constraints and Spawning Interval in the Anadromous Arctic
Charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Copeia, 1986(4), 945–955.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1445291
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
Fenkes, M., Shiels, H. A., Fitzpatrick, J. L., & Nudds, R. L. (2016). The potential impacts of
migratory difficulty, including warmer waters and altered flow conditions, on the
reproductive success of salmonid fishes. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 193, 11–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2015.11.012
Finstad, A. G., & Hein, C. L. (2012). Migrate or stay: Terrestrial primary productivity and
climate drive anadromy in Arctic char. Global Change Biology, 18(8), 2487–2497.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02717.x

120

Finstad, B., Nilssen, K. J., & Arnesen, A. M. (1989). Seasonal changes in sea-water
tolerance of Arctic charr (Savelinus alpinus). Journal of Comparative Physiology B,
159, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00692408
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), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4217
Fulton, T. W. (1904). The rate and growth of fishes (22nd Annual Report of the Fishery
Board for Scotland 1904, pp. 141–241).
Furgal, C. M. (2006). Ways of knowing and understanding: Towards the convergence of
traditional and scientific knowledge of climate change in the Canadian North.
Environment Canada.
https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM866483&R=866483
Furgal, C. M., Garvin, T. D., & Jardine, C. G. (2010). Trends in the study of Aboriginal
health risks in Canada. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 69(4), 322–
332. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v69i4.17672
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 longterm subsistence harvest monitoring program in Tatik Lake (Kuujjua River),
Northwest Territories (pp. 1–33). Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

121

Gilbert, M. J. H., Donadt, C. R., Swanson, H. K., & Tierney, K. B. (2016). Low Annual
Fidelity and Early Upstream Migration of Anadromous Arctic Char in a Variable
Environment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 145(5), 931–942.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2016.1173095
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 investigation using a remote mobile
laboratory. Conservation Physiology, 8(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coaa036
Gíslason, D., Ferguson, M. M., Skúlason, S., & Snorrason, S. S. (1999). Rapid and coupled
phenotypic and genetic divergence in Icelandic Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus).
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56(12), 2229–2234.
https://doi.org/10.1139/f99-245
Given, L. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE
Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.
Government of Canada. (1984). The Western Arctic Claim: The Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Gulseth, O., & Nilssen, K. (2000). The Brief Period of Spring Migration, Short Marine
Residence, and High Return Rate of a Northern Svalbard Population of Arctic Char.

122

Transactions of The American Fisheries Society - TRANS AMER FISH SOC, 129,
782–796. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(2000)129<0782:TBPOSM>2.3.CO;2
Gyselman, E. C. (1984). The seasonal movements of anadromous Arctic charr at Nauyuk
Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada. In L. Johnson & B. R. Burns (Eds.), Biology of
the Arctic Charr (pp. 575–578). https://uofmpress.ca/books/biology-of-the-arcticcharr
Hammer, L. J. (2021). Movements and Feeding of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) Relative
to Summer Ice-Off in an Arctic Embayment. University of New Hampshire.
Hammer, L. J., Hussey, N. E., Marcoux, M., Pettitt-Wade, H., Hedges, K., Tallman, R., &
Furey, N. B. (2022). Arctic char enter the marine environment before annual ice
breakup in the high Arctic. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 105(12), 2017–2025.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-021-01099-3
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Harris, L. N., Moore, J.-S., Bajno, R., & Tallman, R. F. (2016). Genetic Stock Structure of
Anadromous Arctic Char in Canada’s Central Arctic: Potential Implications for the
Management of Canada’s Largest Arctic Char Commercial Fishery. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management, 36(6), 1473–1488.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2016.1227399

123

Harris, L. N., Moore, J.-S., Dunmall, K., Evans, M., Falardeau, M., Gallagher, C. P., Gilbert,
M., Kenny, T.-A., McNicholl, D. G., Mike, N., Lyall, G., & Kringayark, L. (2022).
Arctic char in a rapidly changing North, Polar Knowledge: Aqhaliat Report, Volume
4 (pp. 34–57). Polar Knowledge Canada.
Harris, L., Yurkowski, D., Gilbert, M., Else, B., Duke, P., Ahmed, M., Tallman, R., Fisk, A.,
& 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, 175–197.
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13195
Harwood, L. A. (2009). Status of anadromous Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) of the
Hornaday River, Northwest Territories, as assessed through harvest-based sampling
of the subsistence fishery, August-September 1990-2007 (pp. 1–33). Canadian
Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2890.
Harwood, L. A., & Babaluk, J. A. (2014). Spawning, Overwintering and Summer Feeding
Habitats Used by Anadromous Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus) of the Hornaday
River, Northwest Territories, Canada. ARCTIC, 67(4), 449.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4422
Hay, I., & Cope, M. (2021). Qualitative research methods in human geography (Fifth).
Oxford University Press. https://go.exlibris.link/2hMd6H0d
Held, M. B. E. (2019). Decolonizing Research Paradigms in the Context of Settler
Colonialism: An Unsettling, Mutual, and Collaborative Effort. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918821574
124

Hendry, A. P., Bohlin, T., Jonsson, B., & Berg, O. K. (2003). To Sea or Not to Sea?
Anadromy Versus Non-Anadromy in Salmon ids. In A. P. Hendry & S. C. Stearns
(Eds.), Evolution Illuminated: Salmon and their relatives (pp. 92–125). Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195143850.003.0004
Henri, D. A., Carter, N. A., Irkok, A., Nipisar, S., Emiktaut, L., Saviakjuk, B., Salliq Project
Management Committee, Arviat Project Management Committee, Ljubicic, G. J.,
Smith, P. A., & Johnston, V. (2020). Qanuq ukua kanguit sunialiqpitigu? (What
should we do with all of these geese?) Collaborative research to support wildlife comanagement and Inuit self-determination. Arctic Science, 6(3), 173–207.
https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2019-0015
Hollins, J., Pettitt-Wade, H., Gallagher, C. P., Lea, E. V., Loseto, L. L., & Hussey, N. E.
(2022). Distinct freshwater migratory pathways in Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus)
coincide with separate patterns of marine spatial habitat-use across a large coastal
landscape. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 79(9), 1447–1464.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2021-0291
Horner, R., & Schrader, G. C. (1982). Relative Contributions of Ice Algae, Phytoplankton,
and Benthic Microalgae to Primary Production in Nearshore Regions of the Beaufort
Sea. ARCTIC, 35(4), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic2356
Huntington, H. P. (1998). Observations on the Utility of the Semi-Directive Interview for
Documenting Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Arctic, 51(3), 237–242.
https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1065

125

Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and
Applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270–1274.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2641282
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, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/0044-7447-33.sp13.18
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2018). National Inuit Strategy on Research. Inuit Tapiriit
Kanatami. https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ITK_NISRReport_English_low_res.pdf
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
Jagannathan, K., Arnott, J. C., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Mach, K. J., Moss, R. H., & Sjostrom,
K. D. (2020). Great expectations? Reconciling the aspiration, outcome, and
possibility of co-production | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 42, 22–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.010
Jensen, A. J., Finstad, B., & Fiske, P. (2019). The cost of anadromy: Marine and freshwater
mortality rates in anadromous Arctic char and brown trout in the Arctic region of
Norway. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76(12), 2408–2417.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0428
126

Johnson, J. T., Howitt, R., Cajete, G., Berkes, F., Louis, R. P., & Kliskey, A. (2016).
Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods.
Sustainability Science, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x
Johnson, L. (1980). Chapter 1: The arctic charr. In E. K. Balon (Ed.), Charrs, salmonid
fishes of the genus Salvelinus (pp. 18–92). W. Junk ; Kluwer Boston.
Johnson, N., Pearce, T., Breton-Honeyman, K., Etiendem, D. N., & Loseto, L. L. (2020).
Knowledge co-production and co-management of Arctic wildlife. Arctic Science,
6(3), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2020-0028
Johnston, G. (2002). Arctic charr aquaculture. Fishing News Books.
Joint Secretariat. (2003). The Inuvialuit Harvest Study: Data and methods report 1988–1997
(p. v + 202 p.). Joint Secretariat.
Jonsson, B., & Jonsson, N. (2001). Polymorphism and speciation in Arctic charr. Journal of
Fish Biology, 58(3), 605–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb00518.x
Jonsson, B., Skúlason, S., Snorrason, S. S., Sandlund, O. T., Malmquist, H. J., Jónasson, P.
M., Cydemo, R., & Lindem, T. (1988). Life History Variation of Polymorphic Arctic
Charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 45(9), 1537–1547. https://doi.org/10.1139/f88-182
Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., & Giardina, C. P. (2016). Embracing the sacred: An
indigenous framework for tomorrow’s sustainability science. Sustainability Science,
11(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0343-3

127

Keefer, M. L., & Caudill, C. C. (2014). Homing and straying by anadromous salmonids: A
review of mechanisms and rates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 24(1), 333–
368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-013-9334-6
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
Klemetsen, A. (2010). The Charr Problem Revisited: Exceptional Phenotypic Plasticity
Promotes Ecological Speciation in Postglacial Lakes. Freshwater Reviews, 3(1), 49–
74. https://doi.org/10.1608/FRJ-3.1.3
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
Knopp, J. A., Furgal, C. M., Reist, J. D., Babaluk, J. A., Sachs Harbour Hunters and
Trappers Committee, & Olokhaktomuit Hunters and Trappers Committee. (2012).
Indigenous and Ecological Knowledge for Understanding Arctic Char Growth. In C.
Carothers, K. R. Criddle, C. P. Chambers, P. J. Cullenberg, J. A. Fall, J. P. Johnsen,
N. S. Kimball, & C. R. Menzies (Eds.), Fishing People of the North: Cultures,
Economies, and Management Responding to Change (pp. 177–191). Alaska Sea
Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks. https://doi.org/10.4027/fpncemrc.2012.14
Knudsen, R., Klemetsen, A., Amundsen, P.-A., & Hermansen, B. (2006). Incipient
speciation through niche expansion: An example from the Arctic charr in a subarctic

128

lake. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1599), 2291–
2298. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3582
Kourantidou, M., Hoover, C., & Bailey, M. (2020). Conceptualizing indicators as boundary
objects in integrating Inuit knowledge and western science for marine resource
management. Arctic Science, 6(3), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2019-0013
Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts
(2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press. https://books-scholarsportalinfo.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/en/read?id=/ebooks/ebooks6/upress6/2021-0805/1/9781487537418
Larsen, J. N., Anisimov, O. A., Constable, A., Hollowed, A. B., Maynard, N., Prestrud, P.,
Prowse, T. D., & Stone, J. M. R. (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, 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.
Larsen, S., Andersen, T., & Hessen, D. O. (2011). Climate change predicted to cause severe
increase of organic carbon in lakes. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 1186–1192.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02257.x

129

Lauter, O. (2023). Challenges in combining Indigenous and scientific knowledge in the
Arctic. Polar Geography, 46(1), 62–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2023.2233578
Lea, E., Olokhaktomuit Hunters and Trappers Committee, & Harwood, L. (2023). Fish and
Marine Mammals Harvested near Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, with a focus on
Anadromous Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus). DFO Canadian Science Advisory
Secretariat, iv + 23 p.
Lemos, M. C., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., Baja, K., Bednarek, A. T., Dewulf, A., Fieseler,
C., Goodrich, K. A., Jagannathan, K., Klenk, N., Mach, K. J., Meadow, A. M.,
Meyer, R., Moss, R., Nichols, L., Sjostrom, K. D., Stults, M., Turnhout, E., Vaughan,
C., … Wyborn, C. (2018). To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nature Sustainability,
1(12), 722–724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0191-0
Leu, E., Mundy, C. J., Assmy, P., Campbell, K., Gabrielsen, T. M., Gosselin, M., JuulPedersen, T., & Gradinger, R. (2015). Arctic spring awakening – Steering principles
behind the phenology of vernal ice algal blooms. Progress in Oceanography, 139,
151–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.012
Lin, S., Hossain, A., & Shahidi, F. (2024). Dietary lipid and astaxanthin contents affect the
pigmentation of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Food Production, Processing and
Nutrition, 6(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43014-024-00254-4
Little Bear, L. (2012). Traditional Knowledge and Humanities: A Perspective by a
Blackfoot. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 39(4), 518–527.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2012.01742.x
130

Loder, J. W., & Wang, Z. (2015). Trends and Variability of Sea Surface Temperature in the
Northwest Atlantic from Three Historical Gridded Datasets. Atmosphere-Ocean,
53(5), 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2015.1071237
Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Jardine, T. D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A. P.,
Fresque-Baxter, J., Kelly, E., Somers, G., Doig, L. E., Jones, P. D., &
Lindenschmidt, K.-E. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess
cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International,
102, 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.008
McCrystall, M. R., Stroeve, J., Serreze, M., Forbes, B. C., & Screen, J. A. (2021). New
climate models reveal faster and larger increases in Arctic precipitation than
previously projected. Nature Communications, 12(1), 6765.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27031-y
Meredith, M., Sommerkom, M., Cassotta, S., Dereksen, 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). Polar Regions. In IPPC: Special Report
on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. (pp. 203–320). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964
Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining Science and
Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-Management.
Ecology and Society, 9(3). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267682
Moore, J., Harris, L. N., Le Luyer, J., Sutherland, B. J. G., Rougemont, Q., Tallman, R. F.,
Fisk, A. T., & Bernatchez, L. (2017). Genomics and telemetry suggest a role for
131

migration harshness in determining overwintering habitat choice, but not gene flow,
in anadromous Arctic Char. Molecular Ecology, 26(24), 6784–6800.
https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14393
Moore, J.-S., Harris, L. N., & Tallman, R. F. (2014). A review of anadromous Arctic char
(Salvelinus alpinus) migratory behavior: Implications for genetic population
structure and fisheries management. Fisheries and Oeans Canada.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4043.0240
Myers, G. S. (1949). Usage of Anadromous, Catadromous and Allied Terms for Migratory
Fishes. Copeia, 1949(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1438482
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The Politics of Tek: Power and the “Integration” of Knowledge. Arctic
Anthropology, 36(1/2), 1–18.
Nordeng, H. (1983). Solution to the “Char Problem” based on Arctic Char (Salvelinus
alpinus) in Norway. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 40(9),
1372–1387. https://doi.org/10.1139/f83-159
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek,
A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G.,
Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B.,
Leach, M., … Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in
sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182–190.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

132

NWT Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Ulukhaktok 2019 community survey. Government of
Northwest Territories. https://www.statsnwt.ca/communitydata/CommunityInfographics/community%20-%20Ulukhaktok.pdf
NWT Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Age and Gender by Community, 2021, Northwest
Territories. https://www.statsnwt.ca/census/2021/age-pyramid/index.html
O’Brien, A. M., & McGuckin, C. (2016). The Systematic Literature Review Method: Trials
and Tribulations of Electronic Database Searching at Doctoral Level. SAGE
Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305015595381
Ogar, E., Pecl, G., & Mustonen, T. (2020). Science Must Embrace Traditional and
Indigenous Knowledge to Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis. One Earth, 3(2), 162–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006
Osherenko, G. (1988). Can Co-management Save Arctic Wildlife? (Cover story).
Environment, 30(6), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1988.9930887
Ostertag, S. K., Loseto, L. L., Snow, K., Lam, J., Hynes, K., & Gillman, D. V. (2018).
“That’s how we know they’re healthy”: The inclusion of traditional ecological
knowledge in beluga health monitoring in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Arctic
Science, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2017-0050
Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Percy, S. L. (1978). The Public Service
Production Process: A Framework for Analyzing Police Services. Policy Studies
Journal, 7, 381–389. https://doi-org.prxy.lib.unbc.ca/10.1111/j.15410072.1978.tb01782.x

133

Otter.ai. (2024). Otter.ai. https://otter.ai/
Overland, J. E., & Wang, M. (2013). When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?
Geophysical Research Letters, 40(10), 2097–2101. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50316
Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L.,
Vandivort, M. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Wilson, R. (1981). Consumers as Coproducers
of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations. Policy Studies
Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x
Paylor, A. D., Papst, M. H., & Harwood, L. A. (1998). Community Household Survey on the
Holman Subsistence Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus) Fishery Priorities, Needs and
Traditions (Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2234, pp.
iv–16).
Pearce, T. D., Gallagher, C. P., Lea, E. V., Kudlak, G., Kuptana, D., Pettitt-Wade, H., Smart,
J., Memogana, S., Scanlon, H., & Loseto, L. (2024). Inuit Traditional Ecological
Knowledge of Anadromous Arctic Char, iqalukpik (Salvelinus alpinus) Under
Changing Climatic Conditions in the Amundsen Gulf, Western Canadian Arctic.
ARCTIC. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic79391
Pearce, T., Rodríguez, E., Fawcett, D., & Ford, J. (2018). How Is Australia Adapting to
Climate Change Based on a Systematic Review? Sustainability, 10(9), 3280.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093280
Pearce, T., Smit, B., Duerden, F., Ford, J. D., Goose, A., & Kataoyak, F. (2010). Inuit
vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change in Ulukhaktok, Northwest

134

Territories, Canada. Polar Record, 46(2), 157–177.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247409008602
Perovich, D. K., & Polashenski, C. (2012). Albedo evolution of seasonal Arctic sea ice.
Geophysical Research Letters, 39(8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051432
Pettitt-Wade, H., Hussey, N. E., Gallagher, C. P., Lea, E. V., Orrell, D. L., & Loseto, L. L.
(2023). Contrasting intra-individual variation in size-based trophic and habitat shifts
for two coastal Arctic fish species. Oecologia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-02305423-9
Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge: The Third Alternative
(Commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2641289
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C. I.,
Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hadorn, G. H., & Wiesmann, U. (2010).
Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability
research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4),
267–281. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X496628
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
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(6145), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235225

135

Power, G. (2002). Charrs, Glaciations and Seasonal Ice. Environmental Biology of Fishes,
64, 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016066519418
Power, M., Power, G., Reist, J. D., & Bajno, R. (2009). Ecological and genetic
differentiation among the Arctic charr of Lake Aigneau, Northern Québec. Ecology
of Freshwater Fish, 18(3), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.16000633.2009.00362.x
Power, M., & Reist, J. D. (2017). Salvelinus alpinus. In B. W. Coad & J. D. Reist (Eds.),
Marine fishes of Arctic Canada (pp. 283–289). University of Toronto Press.
Prowse, T. D., & Brown, K. (2010). Hydro-ecological effects of changing Arctic river and
lake ice covers: A review. Hydrology Research, 41(6), 454–461.
https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2010.142
Prowse, T. D., Furgal, C. M., Wrona, F. J., & Reist, J. D. (2009). Implications of Climate
Change for Northern Canada: Freshwater, Marine, and Terrestrial Ecosystems.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 38(5), 282–289.
https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.5.282
Prowse, T. D., Wrona, F. J., Reist, J. D., Hobbie, J. E., Lévesque, L. M. J., & Vincent, W. F.
(2006). General Features of the Arctic Relevant to Climate Change in Freshwater
Ecosystems. Ambio, 35(7), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1579/00447447(2006)35[330:gfotar]2.0.co;2
QSR International. (2024). About NVivo. https://helpnv.qsrinternational.com/20/win/Content/about-nvivo/about-nvivo.htm

136

Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T., Cooke, S. J.,
Ban, N. C., & Marshall, A. (2021). “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework
to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22(2), 243–261.
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516
Reist, J. D., Gyselman, E., Babaluk, J. A., Johnson, J. D., & Wissink, R. (1995). Evidence
for Two Morphotypes of Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)) from Lake Hazen,
Ellesmere Island, Northwest Territories, Canada". Nordic Journal of Freshwater
Research, 71, 396–410.
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
Reist, J. D., Wrona, F. J., Prowse, T. D., Power, M., Dempson, J. B., King, J. R., & Beamish,
R. J. (2006). An Overview of Effects of Climate Change on Selected Arctic
Freshwater and Anadromous Fishes. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment,
35(7), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1579/00447447(2006)35[381:AOOEOC]2.0.CO;2
Riewe, R., & Oakes, J. (Eds.). (2006). Climate Change: Linking Traditional and Scientific
Knowledge. Aboriginal Issues Press.
https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/environment/aip/climatechange.html

137

Roling, N., & Jiggins, J. (1998). The Ecological Knowledge System. In N. Roling & J.
Jiggins, Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture (pp. 283–311). Cambridge University
Press.
Roué, M., & Nakashima, D. (2022). Co-production between Indigenous Knowledge and
Science: Introducing a Decolonized Approach. In M. Roué, D. Nakashima, & I.
Krupnik (Eds.), Resilience through Knowledge Co-Production: Indigenous
Knowledge, Science, and Global Environmental Change (pp. 3–23). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108974349
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.
Service, C. N., Adams, M. S., Artelle, K. A., Paquet, P., Grant, L. V., & Darimont, C. T.
(2014). Indigenous Knowledge and Science Unite to Reveal Spatial and Temporal
Dimensions of Distributional Shift in Wildlife of Conservation Concern. PLOS ONE,
9(7), e101595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101595
Singleton, S. (1998). Constructing cooperation: The evolution of institutions of
comanagement. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.14466
Skoglund, S., Siwertsson, A., Amundsen, P.-A., & Knudsen, R. (2015). Morphological
divergence between three Arctic charr morphs – the significance of the deep-water
environment. Ecology and Evolution, 5(15), 3114–3129.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1573

138

Skulason, S., & Smith, T. B. (1995). Resource polymorphisms in vertebrates. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 10(9), 366–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01695347(00)89135-1
Skulason, S., Snorrason, S. S., & Jónsson, B. (1992). Sympatric morphs, populations and
speciation in freshwater fish with emphasis on arctic charr. In A. E. Magurran & R.
M. May (Eds.), Evolution of Biological Diversity (pp. 70–92). Oxford University
PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198503057.003.0004
Slice, D. E. (2007). Geometric Morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 261–
281. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120613
Smart, J. (2021). Inuit knowledge and observations of changes in Arctic char (Salvelinus
alpinus) and implications for subsistence livelihoods in Ulukhaktok, Northwest
Territories, Canada [University of Northern British Columbia].
https://doi.org/10.24124/2021/59209
Smith, R., Hitkolok, E., Loewen, T., Dumond, A., Kristensen, K., & Swanson, H. (2022).
Overwintering ecology and movement of anadromous Arctic char (Salvelinus
alpinus) in a large, ice‐covered river in the Canadian Arctic. Journal of Fish Biology,
100(6), 1432–1446. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.15054
Søreide, J. E., Leu, E., Berge, J., Graeve, M., & Falk-Petersen, S. (2010). Timing of blooms,
algal food quality and Calanus glacialis reproduction and growth in a changing
Arctic. Global Change Biology, no-no. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652486.2010.02175.x

139

Spares, A. D., Stokesbury, M. J. W., Dadswell, M. J., O’Dor, R. K., & Dick, T. A. (2015).
Residency and movement patterns of Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus relative to major
estuaries. Journal of Fish Biology, 86(6), 1754–1780.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12683
Spares, A. D., Stokesbury, M. J. W., O’Dor, R. K., & Dick, T. A. (2012). Temperature,
salinity and prey availability shape the marine migration of Arctic char, Salvelinus
alpinus, in a macrotidal estuary. Marine Biology, 159(8), 1633–1646.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-012-1949-y
Stearns, S. C. (1989). Trade-Offs in Life-History Evolution. Functional Ecology, 3(3), 259.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2389364
Stearns, S. C., & Koella, J. C. (1986). The Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity in Life-History
Traits: Predictions of Reaction Norms for Age and Size at Maturity. Evolution, 40(5),
893–913. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408752
Stebbins, R. (2001). Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. In R. Stebbins (Ed.), What
is exploration? SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984249
Stroeve, J., & Notz, D. (2018). Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons.
Environmental Research Letters, 13(10), 103001. https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/aade56
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014).
Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The
Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579–591.

140

Thompson, K.-L., Lantz, T., & Ban, N. (2020). A review of Indigenous knowledge and
participation in environmental monitoring. Ecology and Society, 25(2).
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11503-250210
Timmermans, M. L., & Labe, Z. (2022). Sea Surface Temperature. In M. L. Druckenmiller,
R. L. Thoman, & T. L. Moon (Eds.), Arctic Report Card 2022 (pp. 49–54). NOAA.
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/48544
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, 337–348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.010
Trenberth, K. (2011). Changes in precipitation with climate change. Climate Research,
47(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00953
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.
Zed Books Ltd.
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., & Louder, E. (2020). The politics of coproduction: Participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 42, 15–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
Ulukhaktok Char Working Group (UCWG). (2006). Holman Char Fishing Plan 2004-2006.
Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Environmental Assessment and
Management. Arctic, 53(2), 183–193.
141

Usher, P. J. (2002). Inuvialuit Use of the Beaufort Sea and Its Resources, 1960-2000. Arctic,
55, 18–28.
Vera-Baceta, M.-A., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2019). Web of Science and Scopus
language coverage. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1803–1813.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z
Watt-Cloutier, S. (2015). The right to be cold: One woman’s story of protecting her culture,
the Arctic and the whole planet. Allen Lane.
Weinstein, S. Y., Gallagher, C. P., Hale, M. C., Loewen, T. N., Power, M., Reist, J. D., &
Swanson, H. K. (2024). An updated review of the post-glacial history, ecology, and
diversity of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and Dolly Varden (S. malma).
Environmental Biology of Fishes, 107(1), 121–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641023-01492-0
Wheeler, H. C., Danielsen, F., Fidel, M., Hausner, V., Horstkotte, T., Johnson, N., Lee, O.,
Mukherjee, N., Amos, A., Ashthorn, H., Ballari, Ø., Behe, C., Breton-Honeyman, K.,
Retter, G.-B., Buschman, V., Jakobsen, P., Johnson, F., Lyberth, B., Parrott, J. A., …
Vronski, N. (2020). The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous
knowledge along with science for environmental decision-making in the Arctic.
People and Nature, 2(3), 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10131
Wrona, F. J., Johansson, M., Culp, J. M., Jenkins, A., Mård, J., 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(3), 650–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003133
142

Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., Miller, C., & van
Kerkhoff, L. (2019). Co-Producing 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
Yang, M., Qiu, Y., Huang, L., Cheng, M., Chen, J., Cheng, B., & Jiang, Z. (2023). Changes
in Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Concentration in the Arctic Ocean over the
Past Two Decades. Remote Sensing, 15(4), Article 4.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15041095
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA.
https://cjpe.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/cjpe/index.php/cjpe/article/view/257
Young, A. L., Tallman, R. F., & Ogle, D. H. (2021). Life history variation in Arctic charr
(Salvelinus alpinus) and the effects of diet and migration on the growth, condition,
and body morphology of two Arctic charr populations in Cumberland Sound,
Nunavut, Canada. Arctic Science, 7(2), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-20190036
Yua, E., Raymond-Yakoubian, J., Daniel, R. A., & Behe, C. (2022). A framework for coproduction of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecology and Society,
27(1), art34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12960-270134
Zhang, X., Flato, G., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Vincent, L., Wan, H., Wang, X., Rong, R.,
Fyfe, J., Li, G., & Kharin, V. V. (2019). Chapter 4: Temperature and Precipitation

143

Across Canada. In E. Bush & D. S. Lemmen (Eds.), Canada’s Changing Climate
Report (pp. 112–193). Government of Canada.
Zimmerman, M. S., Krueger, C. C., & Eshenroder, R. L. (2006). Phenotypic Diversity of
Lake Trout in Great Slave Lake: Differences in Morphology, Buoyancy, and Habitat
Depth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135(4), 1056–1067.
https://doi.org/10.1577/T05-237.1
Zurba, M., Petriello, M. A., Madge, C., McCarney, P., Bishop, B., McBeth, S., Denniston,
M., Bodwitch, H., & Bailey, M. (2022). Learning from knowledge co‑production
research and practice.pdf. Sustainability Science, 17, 449–467.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00996-x

144

Appendices
Appendix A. Excerpts from Hollins et al. (2022) and Burke et al. (2022) describing their
study design and findings
Hollins et al. (2022) - Distinct freshwater migratory pathways in Arctic char (Salvelinus
alpinus) coincide with separate patterns of marine spatial habitat-use across a large
coastal landscape
Hollins et al. (2022) investigated the migratory behaviour and marine habitat use of
Arctic char in the Amundsen Gulf region. The study aimed to (1) identify residency sites and
overwintering lakes used by tagged Arctic char along the Diamond Jenness Peninsula, (2)
determine the pattern and timing of movement phases of Arctic char, with respect to their (i)
marine dispersal migration, (ii) marine foraging residency, and (iii) marine return migration,
and (3) test whether populations of Arctic char inhabiting distinct overwintering lakes that
differ markedly in freshwater migration distance exhibit distinct patterns and timing of
spatial movements during the marine phase.
Methods
The study used a combination of acoustic telemetry and winter lake surveys,
informed by TEK shared during planning meetings with the UCWG and OHTC.
Experienced Elders and fishers identified potential areas of high Arctic char abundance,
residency, and migration during the open water period in the marine environment, mouths of
rivers used by Arctic char to enter/exit the ocean, and overwintering lakes, informing where
acoustic receivers were deployed in the marine environment during summer and which lakes
were surveyed with portable acoustic receivers during winter and spring.

145

An acoustic receiver array comprising of 51 receivers was deployed along 300 km of
coastline between Prince Albert Sound and Minto Inlet between July 2018 and September
2019 (Fig. 1). The overall array was formed of nine individual sections within three core
regions based on community sites of interest: (1) Safety Channel, which was divided into
EAST, MID, and WEST sections; (2) West of the Kuuk River two receivers formed the PAS
array section; and (3) Northwards between Ulukhaktok (three receivers (ULU) in proximity
to Ulukhaktok), along the coastline (three receivers (M1-3)) towards the Kuujjua River
(KUJ). No receivers were deployed in north Minto Inlet, or in south Prince Albert Sound,
and >1 km offshore, meaning movements in these areas could not be tracked.

Figure 1 Map of the study location and large-scale acoustic receiver array deployed to monitor char
movements along the Diamond Jenness Peninsula, Northwest Territories. Coloured points represent the sites of
specific receivers, with point colour corresponding to the array sections outlined in the “Materials and
methods” section. The location of the community of Ulukhaktok is indicated by the white diamond. Potential
char overwintering lakes, as informed by traditional ecological knowledge, are shown by the individually
labelled black circles. Fish tagging near Ulukhaktok (ULU) occurred on the coast adjacent to the community
(Jack’s Bay, Queen’s Bay), while fish tagging in Safety Channel (SC) occurred within the WEST array section.
Coordinate system: WGS 84. Base map credits: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, Garmin. [Colour online.]
Source: Hollins et al. (2022)

146

To track individual fish movements, researchers surgically implanted acoustic
transmitters in 110 Arctic char during the summers of 2018 and 2019. Fish were tagged in
the coastal marine environment near Ulukhaktok (8-12 August 2018; 12-14 July 2019) and
west Safety Channel (16 July to 3 August 2018; 18 July to 5 August 2019). In addition to
tagging, fish were also weighed, measured, and photographed.
The 2018 cohort of tagged fish were recorded in the array for 1 year, capturing the
end of the 2018 marine foraging residency phase and return migration to freshwater, and the
2019 marine dispersal migration and beginning of the marine foraging residency phase. The
data from the 2019 cohort of tagged fish was not used, as the retrieval of acoustic receivers
in 2019 provided limited opportunity to record their movements.
Researchers conducted winter lake surveys using portable acoustic receivers during
spring (4–5, 21–22, and 25 May) and winter (11 November, 26–27 November, 12
December) 2019, and spring (30 May, 7–9 June) of 2020. 2019 surveys targeted the 2018
tagged cohort and the 2020 surveys targeted both 2018 and 2019 tagged cohorts. Holes were
drilled through the ice and a hydrophone was lowered into seven potential overwintering
lakes (Fish, Second, Red Belly, Tahiryuak, Halahikvik, Uyagaktok, and Mayoklihok lakes).
This method allowed the researchers to identify the overwintering lake of tagged fish.
However, survey effort was unequal among overwintering lakes due to the inaccessibility of
some locations. This, in addition to differences in survey timing, resulted in researchers
being unable to use data to determine the timing of freshwater entry or the duration of
overwintering.

147

Key Findings
The study found that most Arctic char overwintered in either Fish or Tahiryuak lakes,
with fish from each lake following distinct marine migratory routes (Fig. 2).
•

Fish Lake fish were primarily detected in Minto Inlet.

•

Tahiryuak Lake fish and those with no lake were mostly detected in Safety
Channel, particularly in the west.

•

Fish from Tahiryuak Lake initiated their return migration 11 days earlier than
Fish Lake fish, reflecting differences in migration distance.

During the marine phase, Arctic char displayed three distinct movement stages:
1.

Marine dispersal migration, characterised by rapid movement away from
freshwater.

2.

Marine foraging residency, where fish remained in key areas for extended
periods.

3.

Marine return migration, marked by directed movement back to
overwintering lakes.

After overwintering in freshwater, the 2018 cohort was detected in similar areas in
2019 to those in 2018, indicating that individual fish revisited the same marine habitats. The
WEST section of Safety Channel was identified as a potentially important marine residency
site for Tahiryuak and no lake fish. In contrast, a clear marine residency site for Fish Lake
fish was not identified, but detections suggested potential use of Minto Inlet and coastal
areas near Ulukhaktok.

148

Figure 2 Conceptual diagram showing general patterns of char migration and habitat-use along the coast, as
well as differences in habitat-use between Fish Lake and Tahiryuak Lake char. The top panel shows marine
dispersal and early residency phases, while the bottom panel shows late residency phases and the return
migration to freshwater. Shape colour indicates the timing of char arrival at specific sites, while shape thickness
is proportional to the amount of time char spent in these respective habitats. [Colour online.] Source: Hollins et
al. (2022)

149

Study Limitations
1.

Spatial gaps in receiver coverage
•

No receivers were placed in northern Minto Inlet, southern Prince Albert
Sound, or >1 km offshore meaning any fish in these areas went undetected.

•
2.

As a result, marine movements beyond the array’s range remain unknown.

Data constraints on the 2019 cohort
•

Receiver retrieval in late 2019 meant that the 2019 tagged fish could not be
fully tracked, preventing comparison of their complete movement patterns.

3.

Unequal winter survey effort
•

Accessibility to lakes was limited, leading to unequal sampling effort. As a
result, data could not be used to determine the timing of freshwater entry or
the duration of overwintering

•

Tagged Arctic char were only detected in three overwintering lakes –
Tahiryuak, Mayoklihok, and Fish lakes.

4.

Acoustic receiver and tagging locations
•

The conclusion that most fish overwintered in Fish or Tahiryuak lakes may
have been influenced by where fish were tagged and where receivers were
placed.

•

This finding does not mean all Arctic char in the broader Ulukhaktok region
follow the same migratory patterns.

•

Fish using different routes or overwintering in other lakes would not have
been detected.

150

Burke et al. (2022) - Evidence for three morphotypes among anadromous Arctic char
(Salvelinus alpinus) sampled in the marine environment
Burke et al. (2022) investigated morphological variation among anadromous Arctic
char in the marine environment near Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories. The study aimed to
assess the extent of morphological diversity during the summer marine migration period,
when Arctic char are harvested in a mixed-stock coastal fishery. Researchers sought to
determine whether distinct morphotypes existed and whether they were associated with
specific overwintering lakes.
Methods
110 Arctic char were surveyed in the coastal marine environment near Ulukhaktok
(8-12 August 2018; 12-14 July 2019) and west Safety Channel (16 July to 3 August 2018; 18
July to 5 August 2019). Fish were captured using angling and gill nets, with each individual
being measured for fork length and weight before being photographed under standardised
conditions. After photographs were taken, fish were surgically implanted with acoustic
transmitters and released to track their movement and habitat use.
To examine body shape variation, 103 of the original 110 fish were analysed using
morphometric techniques. Researchers placed 23 morphological landmarks on each fish
image and recorded nine linear body and head measurements. These measurements were
analysed using Principal Component Analysis and K-means clustering, which identified
three morphotypes (Fig. 3) among the surveyed Arctic char: (1) a slender body with a slim
head, (2) a small and short head with a small mouth, and (3) an elongated head with a large
mouth.

151

Figure 3 Photographs of the three defined Arctic char morphotypes sampled in the marine environment

determined from principal component analysis (PCA) and K means clustering analysis. (a) Cluster one fish
[slender body with relatively small body depth anterior (BDA), body depth posterior (BDP) and caudal
peduncle (CP)], (b) cluster two fish [small head traits; head depth (HD), head length (HL) and snout length
(SL), with a small mouth (ML)], (c) cluster three fish [elongated head traits; HD, HL and SL, with a large
mouth (ML)] Source: Burke et al. (2022)

To investigate whether these morphotypes were linked to specific overwintering
lakes, researchers conducted winter lake surveys using portable acoustic receivers during
spring (4–5, 21–22, and 25 May) and winter (11 November, 26–27 November, 12
December) 2019, and spring (30 May, 7–9 June) of 2020. 2019 surveys targeted the 2018
tagged cohort and the 2020 surveys targeted both 2018 and 2019 tagged cohorts. Holes were
drilled through the ice and a hydrophone was lowered into seven potential overwintering
lakes (Fish, Second, Red Belly, Tahiryuak, Halahikvik, Uyagaktok, and Mayoklihok lakes).
This method allowed the researchers to identify the overwintering lake of tagged fish.

152

However, survey effort was unequal among overwintering lakes due to the inaccessibility of
some locations.
Key findings
Acoustic telemetry data showed that all three morphotypes were detected across the
two primary overwintering lakes (Tahiryuak and Fish lakes), suggesting that morphological
differences were not strictly tied to distinct overwintering populations. Instead, the variations
in body shape could be the result of freshwater environmental conditions experienced by
juvenile Arctic char, feeding strategies maximise consumption in the marine environment, or
inherited traits from ancestral lake populations (Burke et al., 2022).
Study Limitations
1.

Limited spatial and temporal coverage of morphological survey
•

Fish were photographed only at specific locations and during specific times of the
year, meaning not all possible morphological variations across different seasons,
locations, or populations would have been captured.

2.

Acoustic receiver and tagging locations
•

The study’s ability to link morphotypes to overwintering lakes was limited by the
locations where fish were tagged and where receivers were deployed.

3.

Unequal winter survey effort
•

Survey effort varied among the seven overwintering lakes due to differences in
accessibility and logistical constraints, making it difficult to fully assess whether
all morphotypes were present across all overwintering locations.

153

Appendix B. Confirmation of UNBC Ethics Approval

RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD

MEMORANDUM
To:

Tristan Pearce

From: Isobel Hartley, Research Ethics
Officer, Research Ethics Board
Date: January 30, 2023
Re:

E2019.0820.050.03(a)
Knowledge Co-Production of Arctic Marine Species in a Changing Climate

Thank you for submitting a request for renewal and amendments to the Research Ethics
Board (REB) regarding the above-noted proposal. Your request has been approved.
We are pleased to issue renewal approval for the above-named study for a period of 12
months from the date of this letter. Continuation beyond that date will require further
review and renewal of REB approval. Any further changes or amendments to the protocol
or supporting documents must be approved by the REB.
Please refer to the Chair Bulletins found on the REB webpage for updates on in-person
interactions with participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. If questions remain,
please do not hesitate to email reb@unbc.ca.
Good luck with continuation of your
research. Sincerely,

Isobel Hartley, Research Ethics Officer,
Research Ethics Board
154

Appendix C. NT scientific research license issued by the Aurora Research Institute

155

Appendix D. Consent form

Consent Form
Date: May-July 2023

Knowledge Co-Production of Arctic Marine Species in a Changing Climate
Research Team:
Dr. Tristan Pearce
Department of Global & International Studies
University of Northern British Columbia
Email: Tristan.Pearce@unbc.ca
Phone: 250-301-5439

Dr. Harri Pettit-Wade
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Windsor
Email: hpettitt@uwindsor.
Phone: 519-253-3000 Ext4865
Stephanie Chan MSc Student

Halena Scanlon MSc Student
Natural Resources & Environmental Studies
University of Northern British Columbia
Email: scanlon@unbc.ca

Natural Resources & Environmental

Project Sponsor:
ArcticNet: a network of centres of excellence of Canada

Studies

University of Northern British
Purpose of Project
This project will use a platform of knowledge co-productionColumbia
that includes Inuit knowledge and scientific
knowledge to understand ecosystem dynamics in terms of movement ecology of key subsistence fish species,
and implications for Inuit subsistence.
Email: schan@unbc.ca
You are being recruited to participate in this research because of your knowledge of the Arctic marine
environment. Please note that your participation is voluntary, and if you choose to participate you can refuse
to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable or upset. If you wish to withdraw from the study,
you can do so at any time without giving a reason.
What will happen during the project?
If you choose to participate in this study, Dr. Tristan Pearce, Dr. Harri Pettit-Wade and/or Halena Scanlon or
Stephanie Chan will meet at your house (or another location that you choose) with a local research partner to
ask you questions about the Arctic marine environment and fish important for subsistence. The research
team will bring a map of the land around the community and photos of fish to help with the interview. It is
expected that the questions will take about 30 minutes.
You can conduct the interview in English, Inuinnaqtun or Inuvialuktun. The local research partner/interpreter
will be (someone from the community) and will have signed a confidentiality agreement to ensure that your
information is kept confidential unless you give permission to share it. You have the right to decline the

156

interpreter and/or request a different interpreter from the community. If you ask for a different interpreter,
they will be chosen between the research team and yourself from a list of people provided by the OHTC.
Risks to participating in the project
While answering some of the questions during the interview you may recall memories or experiences that
make you feel sad or upset. If this happens please tell the interviewer and they will discuss these feelings with
you or provide you with a contact at the Ulukhaktok Health Centre if you would like counselling. You can stop
the interview, skip a question, or withdraw your participation at any time without giving a reason or any
consequences.
In the unlikely case of data privacy being breached or released, there may be risk that others in the
community may disagree with your opinions on certain questions. To avoid this risk, it is best to share only
what you would feel comfortable sharing in a public setting.
Benefits to participating in the project
Your contribution to this study will help generate information to guide the management and conservation of
arctic marine species important to Inuit subsistence.
Confidentiality, Anonymity and Data Storage
If you choose to keep your identity confidential, all personal identifiers (your name, for example) will be
removed from the data and replaced with a code (random letters and numbers). This will connect to a master
list that will be stored separately from the information you provide in the interview. All data, including
confidential information in the master list, will only be accessed by the research team members.
The research team will keep your identity confidential, and will not connect it to anything you say unless you
give permission to do so. Your identity will remain confidential to the extent allowed by law. The researcher
has a duty to report to authorities any information about a child at risk of abuse. The researcher may be
required by subpoena (required by government or a court as evidence) to release information gathered
during this project.
During the project, the master list of confidential personal identifiers will be stored on the research teams’
encrypted computers and external hard-drives. At the end of the project (December 31, 2024), the
confidential list linking your information to your personal identifiers will be deleted. All data (voice recordings
or interview transcripts, and personal identifiers you don’t want kept confidential) will be stored on the
research teams’ encrypted laptop computers and encrypted external hard-drives until the end of the project,
and on Dr. Tristan Pearce’s encrypted external hard-drive for up to 5 years. These computers and external
hard-drives are locked and encrypted to make sure that all data remains secure. Data collected for the project
will also be transferred to the Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat's database. The data will be owned, stored and
utilized by Inuvialuit. Finally, because of the size of your community, if the interview is taking place at your
house there is a chance that others in the community may know that you have participated or are connected
to this study.
Compensation:
At the end the interview you will receive $50 for your participation in the project.
Study Results
Research findings will be shared in the community through a plain-language summary report, community
presentation, and on the local radio. You will receive a copy of the plain-language summary report. The
findings will also be prepared as a manuscript and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Aggregate data
(overall key themes and findings) will be reported in research findings. However, some direct quotations may
also be used to highlight key points. Your own direct quotations will only be used if you give permission to use

157

them. If one of your direct quotations is used, names or other information that may identify you will only be
included if you give consent to use your name in connection with the information you provide.
Questions, Concerns or Complaints about the project
If you have any questions about what we are asking of you, you are free to contact Dr. Tristan Pearce, Dr.
Harri Pettit-Wade, Stephanie Chan or Halena Scanlon at the phone number(s) and/or email(s) listed above.
If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences
while participating in this study, contact the UNBC Office of Research at 250-960-6735 or by e-mail at
reb@unbc.ca.
Withdrawal:
Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you
decide to take part, you may choose to pull out of the study at any time up until the project report is
completed without giving a reason and without any negative impact to you. If you choose to withdraw from
the study your information will be withdrawn and securely destroyed.
Consent:
I have read or been described the information presented in the information letter about the project and I
have been given a copy of this form.
YES

NO

I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this project and to receive additional
details I requested.
YES

NO

I understand that if I agree to participate in this project, I may withdraw from the project at any time up until
the report completion, without giving a reason and with no consequences.
YES

NO

I agree to be recorded.
YES

NO

I give permission for a copy of the audio recording to be left securely in the community.
YES

NO

I agree that my name can be used in association with this project.
YES

NO

I give permission for direct quotations that I give to be used in publications/research findings.
YES

NO

158

As a part of this study, the research team may seek to re-contact and/or re-visit you in order to review and
clarify your responses. The research team will also return to the community at some point to go through
interpretations of the responses, and the research findings. Do you give your permission to be re-contacted
and/or re-visited by the research team in order to review and clarify your interview data, and to go over the
results of the study?
YES

NO

Signature: ________________________________

Date: ________________

NAME (please print): ______________________________

Signature of witness: ____________________________

Date: ________________

NAME (please print): ______________________________

159

Appendix E. Participant information letter
Knowledge Co-Production of Arctic Marine Species in a Changing Climate
This study is being undertaken by Dr. Tristan Pearce, Dr. Harri Pettitt-Wade, Stephanie Chan and Halena Scanlon
(the “Principal Investigator(s)”) at the University of Northern British Columbia (“UNBC”). Data from this study will
be used to help guide the management and conservation of marine arctic species important for Inuit subsistence in
the Ulukhaktok region. The study has 5 objectives:
1. enhance the co-design approach for telemetry studies among Inuit, researchers and co-management
partners;
2. document Inuit knowledge and observations of species movement in context with ecosystem parameters;
3. use telemetry, aerial survey, and Inuit knowledge as a venue to bring together knowledge holders for
knowledge co-production;
4. produce guidance on the implementation of co-produced knowledge of key species at local and regional
scales; and
5. ensure Inuit access, ownership and control over data to support its use and application in management,
including marine spatial planning and conservation efforts.
I, ___________________ (the “Recipient”), agree as follows:
1.

To keep all the research information shared with me confidential by not discussing or sharing the research
information in any form or format (e.g., disks, tapes, transcripts) with anyone other than the Principal
Investigator(s);

2.

To keep all research information in any form or format secure while it is in my possession;

3.

I will not use the research information for any purpose other than my duties and responsibilities as a
research partner on project;

4.

To return all research information in any form or format to the Principal Investigator(s) when I have
completed the research tasks;

5.

After consulting with the Principal Investigator(s), erase or destroy all research information in any form or
format regarding this research project that is not returnable to the Principal Investigator(s) (e.g.,
information stored on computer hard drive).

Recipient

(Print name)

(Signature)

(Date)

(Signature)

(Date)

Principal Investigator:

(Print name)

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact:
Dr. Tristan Pearce
250-301-5439
Tristan.Pearce@unbc.ca

Dr. Harri Pettit-Wade
519-253-3000 Ext4865
hpettitt@uwindsor.ca

Halena Scanlon
778-675-4098
scanlon@unbc.ca

160

Stephanie Chan
514-895-2497
schan@unbc.ca

Appendix F. Participant demographics
ID
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Name
Anon01
Agnes Kuptana
Annie Inuktalik
David Kuptana
Donald Inuktalik
Gibson Kudlak
Helen Kitekudlak
Isaac Inuktalik
Jack Akhiatak
John Alikamik
Kate Inuktalik
Mary Akoaksion
Mary Kudlak
Peter Alikamik
Robert Kuptana
Susie Malgokak

Age
55-64
65-74
65-74
65-74
65-74
55-64
65-74
55-64
55-64
75-84
65-74
75-84
75-84
55-64
75-84
65-74

161

Gender
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female

Appendix G. Arctic char interview protocol
The goal of this exercise is to conduct interviews to document Ulukhaktomiut
knowledge of sea-run Iqalukpik and co-interpret that knowledge alongside scientific data.
Questions will be geared towards the appearance, movement and origin, and health of
Iqalukpik. A 1:250,000 scale map of Victoria Island that includes all Ulukhaktok fishing
areas will be laid out to encourage participants to share information. Participants are familiar
and comfortable working with the 1:250,000 map.
1. Introduction, purpose, and consent
Hello _________, my name is Halena. I am a student at the University of Northern
British Columbia working with Tristan Pearce.
The purpose of this conversation today is to learn about Iqalukpik in and around
Ulukhaktok. There is a lot that we do not know about Ikalukpik, so we would like to hear
about your knowledge and experiences fishing sea-run Iqalukpik, and any changes you may
have noticed taking place in the marine environment that may affect Iqalukpik. This will be
done in three parts. In part 1, we will ask you some simple questions related to sea-run
Iqalukpik. In part 2, we will look at photographs of sea-run Iqalukpik collected by Harri
Pettit-Wade and Issiac Inuktalik and Ross Klengenberg in 2019 and work together to
interpret some research findings. In part 3, we will discuss everything together, drawing on
both Inuit and scientific knowledge to improve our understanding of Iqalukpik.
All the information you share with us today will be kept confidential unless you give
us permission to share it. The local research partner or interpreter signed a confidentiality
agreement to ensure that the information you share is kept confidential.
I am going to ask you a few questions, answer with a yes or no. If you have any
questions or need clarification, please let me know.
•

Would you like to have your identity confidential? Yes or no

•

Do you give us permission to quote you? Yes or no

•

Do you give us consent to audio record this conversation? Yes or no

•

The research team may contact you at a later date if they have follow-up questions or
need clarification about your responses. Do you give your permission to be recontacted? Yes or no

•

Do you have any questions for me before we get started?
162

2. Demographics
1. Participant ID:
2. Name (if consent given):
3. Date:
4. Location:
5. Age Group (youth, adult, elder):
6. Gender:
7. Occupation:
8. Contextual Notes:

3. Semi-Structured Interview

The following is a set of questions about fish species important for Inuit subsistence.
Because it is a semi-structured interview, the responses are expected to be open-ended, and
we may ask additional but related questions as part of probing or following up on what our
respondents may say.

A. General Questions:
*Setup 1:250,000 map of Victoria Island
•

Where do you like to fish for sea-run char? What time of year do you go there? How
do you fish for sea-run char? Have you always fished like that? If not, when did you
make the change? Why is that a good place? Can you tell me about the environmental
conditions there?

•

Are there different types of sea-run char? Are their names different in your language?

163

o

Do you notice any differences in the fish depending on where you fish for searun char? How are they different?

o

Are there differences in the appearance of sea-run char between lakes draining
into Minto versus Prince Albert sound? Why do you think they look different?

o

Would you say there are differences in the appearance of sea-run char among
the lakes? Why do you think they are different? Are the conditions in these
lakes different?

•

What does a healthy sea-run char look like? Can you tell if some sea-run char are
healthier than others?
o

•

Has the condition of char changed in recent years? How so?

Has the timing of the char run changed? Are sea-run char travelling in different areas?
Transition Statement
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiences on sea-run char. Before we

move to the next section, is there anything else that you’d like to add or discuss that we
haven’t already talked about? Was there anything you discussed with us today that you won’t
feel comfortable sharing with others [information they want us to remove from the
transcript]? Do you have any questions for us?
B. Appearance, Health, and Origin and Movement:
The goal of this exercise if to work together amongst researchers and local
Knowledge Holders, to better understand the origins and movement, health, and appearance
of sea-run char using different knowledge systems. Prior to this exercise, data was collected
on the appearance and movement of Iqalukpik sampled near Ulukhaktok, Northwest
Territories. Significantly different looking char were found in all lakes sampled (Fish Lake,
Second Lake, Red Belly Lake, Tahiryuak Lake, Lake, Uyagaktok Lake and Mayoklihok
Lake). Different groups were found to occupy distinct marine foraging grounds and
overwintering sites.
Photographs of sampled sea-run char will first be presented to interview participants
without any other information to allow an independent visual assessment of whether the fish
form groups and why based on their knowledge. For the next step, information on the
photographed fish morphology and telemetry results will be shared with interview
participants who will be given the opportunity to build on their previous answers to the same
questions given the added information and research context. For the last step, interview
164

participants and researchers will discuss the responses to questions with the primary aims of
identifying major knowledge gaps, potential avenues for future research and fisheries or
coastal ecosystem monitoring.
A random sample of photographs from each group of sea-run char will be provided to
interview participants. Photos will be laid out on a table on top of a 1:250,000 scale map of
Victoria Island that includes all Ulukhaktok fishing areas. Participants are familiar and
comfortable working with the 1:250,000 map. Approximately 1-3 participants will be
included per session.
Step 1:
•

Looking at these photographs, can you see any differences or similarities between
these fish?

•

Could you put these photographs of sea-run char into groups?
o

What are your reasons for having these fish in these groups? How confident
are you with these groups, on a scale of 1-10?

o

If they defined the groups by origin, ask:
▪

Where do you think the fish came from? i.e., what specific lake or
river, what type of lake or river (could be small coastal lakes,

or
large inland lakes with long rivers), or from either Minto Inlet or
Prince Albert Sound? Record the sample IDs for each group. How do
you know?
▪

Do you catch at different times of year in these locations?

▪

Do you notice any difference in their taste depending on where you
catch them?

o

If they defined by health/perceived nutritional value:
▪ Why would you choose these fish?
▪

Do fish from a particular group look healthier? Can you rank them on a
scale of 1-10? What are you looking for when you rank them?

▪
o

Is there a particular group that is better for eating? How do you decide?

If neither, ask specifically:
▪

Can you recognise the direction fish are going?

165

▪

Would you be able to identify location/direction of movement for any
of these fish?

▪

Are any of these fish better than others for eating? Why?

▪

What features are you looking at to make your decision on different
groups?

Step 2:
Appearance
Participants will be shown photographs of sea-run char representative of the different
body-shapes. Morphological groups and their distinct characteristics will be shared.

a) Body shape 1: slender body with relatively small body depth anterior, body depth
posterior, and causal peduncle.
b) Body shape 2: small head traits, head depth, head length and snout length, with a
small mouth.
c) Body shape 3: elongated head traits, head depth, head length, and snout length, with a
large mouth
Tagged individuals of the three body-shapes occupied all lakes (Fish Lake, Second
Lake, Red Belly Lake, Tahiryuak Lake, Halahikvik Lake, Uyagaktok Lake and Mayoklihok
Lake) with no distinction observed. The three Arctic char body shapes detected could
represent adaptation to movement related to what they eat potentially tied to juvenile
residency in freshwater systems, efficient exploitation of the marine prey pulse, or are relicts
from ancestral types.

166

•

Do you agree with these
groups? Are there other
shapes that are missing?

•

Are there different names for
char in your language
depending on how they look
or where they are from?

•

We know these body shapes
are found in Minto Inlet,
Prince Albert Sound, Fish
Lake, etc, but we don’t know
why they look different. Why
do you think these different
shapes exist? Associate
shapes with different habitat,
harvest timing.

•

Do you think there are any differences in the movement of these three body shapes?

Open ended question where participants are invited to pick any picture they wish and
comment on what they think their appearance would indicate about their movements. Then
see if this jives in any way with the telemetry data.

167

Origin and Movement
Sea-run char tagged in the ocean
migrated to two main overwintering lakes,
Fish Lake and Tahiryuak Lake,
corresponding to distinct migration
corridors and separate patterns of marine
habitat-use.

•

Do you agree with these findings?

•

Do char from these two stocks go

anywhere else?

Step 3:
Participants and researchers will discuss what information might be missing that
could help fill knowledge gaps. Recommendations for future research and fisheries
monitoring.
•

Is there any other information you think we should consider to help us understand
these fish and how they might respond to changes in the ecosystem?

•

Is there any other information related to sea-run char that you would be interested in
knowing?

•

Are there any sea-run char, fish or coastal monitoring programs that you would
hope to see?

•

Do you have any comments/recommendations on how this workshop was run?

168

4. Closing statement:
Koana, thank you for participating in this exercise. Is there anything else that you
would like to add or discuss that we haven’t already talked about? Was there anything you
discussed with us today that you won’t feel comfortable sharing with others? Do you have
any questions for me?
Would you be interested in follow up interviews, workshops or to hear about research
findings?

169