Mammal distribution in Nunavut: Inuit harvest data and COSEWIC's species at risk assessment process

Ecology and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Kowalchuk, Karen A ^a   Kuhn, Richard G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aboriginal traditional knowledge; Arctic wildlife; Area of occupancy; ATK; Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada; COSEWIC; Extent of occurrence; Geographic distribution; Harvest data; Inuit knowledge; Nunavut; Species at risk

Indexed keywords

ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT; CONSERVATION STATUS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; MAMMAL; NATURE CONSERVATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPATIAL DATA; TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

CANADA; NUNAVUT;

MAMMALIA;

EID: 84867120334     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17083087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5751/ES-04893-170304     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26:413-439.
2. Armitage, D. R. 2005. Community-based narwhal management in Nunavut, Canada: change, uncertainty, and adaptation. Society & Natural Resources 18:715-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920591005124
3. Bala, A., and G. G. Joseph. 2007. Indigenous knowledge and western science: the possibility of dialogue. Race & Class 49 (1):39-61.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306396807080067
4. Berkes, F., M. K. Berkes, and H. Fast. 2007. Collaborative integrated management in Canada's north: the role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring. Coastal Management 35:143-162.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920750600970487
5. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10(5):1251-1262.http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2
6. Boitani, L., I. Sinibaldi, F. Corsi, A. De Biase, I. d'Inzillo Carranza, M. Ravagli, G. Reggiani, C. Rondinini, and P. Trapenese. 2008. Distribution of medium- to large-sized African mammals based on habitat suitability models. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:605-621.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9285-0
7. Brook, R. K., and S. M. McLachlan. 2005. Qn using expert- based science to "test" local ecological knowledge. Ecology and Society 10(2): r3. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/resp3/
8. Collingham, Y. C., R. A. Wadsworth, B. Huntley, and P. E. Hulme. 2000. Predicting the spatial distribution of non- indigenous riparian weeds: issues of spatial scale and extent. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:13-27.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00556.x
9. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (CQSEWIC). 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. CQSEWIC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtualsara/files/cosewic/srwoodland cariboue.pdf
10. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (CQSEWIC). 2004a. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in Canada. CQSEWIC, Qttawa, Qntario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_beluga_whale_e.pdf
11. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (CQSEWIC). 2004b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the narwhal Monodon monoceros in Canada. CQSEWIC, Qttawa, Qntario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtualsara/files/cosewic/srnarwhale.pdf
12. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (CQSEWIC). 2004c. COSEWIC Assessment and update status report on the Peary caribou Rangifer tarandus pearyi and the barren-ground caribou Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus Dolphin and Union population in Canada. CQSEWIC, Qttawa, Qntario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtualsara/files/cosewic/srearycariboue.pdf
13. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (CQSEWIC). 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Atlantic walrus Qdobenus rosmarus rosmarus in Canada. CQSEWIC, Qttawa, Qntario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtualsara/files/cosewic/sr atlantic walrus e.pdf
14. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (CQSEWIC). 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear Ursus maritimus in Canada. COSEWIC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtualsara/files/cosewic/srpolarbear0808e.pdf
15. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010a. COSEWIC's assessment process and criteria. (Approved April 2010). COSEWIC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/assessmentprocesse.pdf
16. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010b. COSEWIC Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) process and protocols guidelines. (updated December 2010). [online] URL: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/ppge.cfm
17. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2010c. Guidelines for use of the index of area of occupancy (IAO) in COSEWIC assessments. (Approved April 2009). [online] URL: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct27e.cfm
18. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2011b. Guidelines for recognizing designatable units. (Approved November 2011). COSEWIC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct25e.cfm
19. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2011a. Instructions for the preparation of COSEWIC status reports. (Updated November 2011). COSEWIC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/Instructionse.pdf
20. Dowsley, M. 2009. Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapid environmental change. Polar Research 28:43-59.http://dx.do i.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2008.00093.x
21. Duerden, F., and R. G. Kuhn. 1998. Scale, context, and application of traditional knowledge of the Canadian north. Polar Record 34(188):31-38.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0032247400014959
22. Ellis, S. C. 2005. Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in environmental decision making. Arctic 58(1):66-77.
23. Gaston, K. J. 1994. Measuring geographic range sizes. Ecography 17:198-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1994.tb00094.x
24. Gaston, K. J., and R. A. Fuller. 2009. The sizes of species' geographic ranges. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1-9.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01596.x
25. Gilchrist, G., and M. L. Mallory. 2007. Comparing expert- based science with local ecological knowledge: what are we afraid of? Ecology and Society 12(1): r1. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/resp1/
26. Gilchrist, G., M. Mallory, and F. Merkel. 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society 10(1): 20. [online] URL: http://www.ecologvandsocietv.org/vol10/iss1/art20/
27. Goehring, D. M., G. C. Daily, S. Dasgupta, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2007. Range occupancy and endangerment: a test with a butterfly community. American Midland Naturalist 157:106-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2007)157 [106:RQAEAT]2.0.CQ;2
28. Government of Canada. 1993. Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (S.C. 1993, c. 29). Department of Justice, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
29. Government of Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29). Department of Justice, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
30. Hobbs, R. C., K. L. Laidre, D. J. Vos, B. A. Mahoney, and M. Eagleton. 2005. Movements and area use of belugas Delphinapterus leucas, in a subarctic Alaskan estuary. Arctic 58(4)331-340.
31. Houde, N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian comanagement arrangements. Ecology and Society 12(2): 34. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art34/
32. Hurlbert, A. H., and W. Jetz. 2007. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:13384-13389.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704469104
33. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2001. IUCN red list categories and criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
34. Jetz, W., C. H. Sekercioglu, and J. E. M. Watson. 2007. Ecological correlates and conservation implications of overestimating species geographic ranges. Conservation Biology 22:110-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00847.x
35. Keith, D. A., T. D. Auld, M. K. J. Ooi, and B. D. E. Mackenzie. 2000. Sensitivity analyses of decision rules in World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria using Australian plants. Biological Conservation 94:311-319.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00194-9
36. Kruse, J., D. Klein, S. Braund, L. Moorehead, and B. Simeone. 1998. Co-management of natural resources: a comparison of two caribou management systems. Human Organization 57 (4):447-458.
37. Kuhn, R. G., and F. Duerden. 1996. A review of traditional environmental knowledge: an interdisciplinary Canadian perspective. Culture XVI(1):71-84.
38. Lukey, J. R., and S. S. Crawford. 2009. Consistency of CQSEWIC species at risk designations: freshwater fishes as a case study. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66(6):959-971.http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/F09-054
39. Mace G. M. 1999. IUCN criterion review: report of the range areas and uncertainty workshop. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. [online] URL:http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/CriteriaReviewRangeAreasUncertaintyWorkshop.pdf
40. Manseau, M., B. Parlee, and G. B. Ayles. 2005. A place for traditional ecological knowledge in resource management. Pages 141-164 in F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, and A. Diduck, editors. Breaking ice: renewable resource and ocean management in the Canadian north. University of Calgary Press and Arctic Institute of North America, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
41. Moller, H., F. Berkes, P. Q. Lyver, and M. Kislalioglu. 2004. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society 9(3): 2. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2
42. Nadasdy, P. 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the integration of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology 36 (1/2):1-18.
43. Nadasdy, P. 2005. The anti-politics of TEK: the institutionalization of co-management discourse and practice. Anthropologica 47(2):215-232.
44. Natcher, D. C., S. Davis, and C. G. Hickey. 2005. Comanagement: managing relationships, not resources. Human Organization 64(3):240-250.
45. Paetkau, D., S. C. Amstrup, E. W. Born, W. Calvert, A. E. Derocher, G. W. Garner, F. Messier, I. Stirling, M. K. Taylor, O. Wiig, and C. Strobeck. 1999. Genetic structure of the world's polar bear populations. Molecular Ecology (8):1571-1584.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00733.x
46. Qmura, K. 2005. Science against modern sciencee: the sociopolitical construction of otherness in Inuit TEK (Traditional Ecological Knowledge). Senri Ethnological Studies (67):323-344.
47. Priest, H., and P. Usher. 2004. Nunavut wildlife harvest study. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada.
48. Reynolds, P. E. 1991. Seasonal differences in the distribution and movements of muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in northeastern Alaska. Rangifer 12(3):171-172.
49. Riba, M., A. Rodrigo, B. Colas, and J. Retana. 2002. Fire and species range in Mediterranean landscapes: an experimental comparison of seed and seedling performance among Centaurea taxa. Journal of Biogeography 29:135-146.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00652.x
50. Simpson, L. 2001a. Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: decolonizing our processes. Canadian Journal of Native Studies XXI,1(2001):137-148.
51. Simpson, L. 2001b. Traditional ecological knowledge: marginalization, appropriation and continued disillusion. Indigenous Knowledge Conference, University of Saskatchewan, May 28-30. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. [online] URL: http://datalib.usask.ca/iportal/2007.10.17/IKC-2001/IKC-papers.pdf#page=135
52. Simpson, L. R. 2004. Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of indigenous knowledge. American Indian Quarterly 28(3&4):373-384.http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0107
53. Thiemann, G. W., A. E. Derocher, and I. Stirling. 2008. Polar bear Ursus maritimus conservation in Canada: an ecological basis for identifying designatable units. Oryx 42(4):514-515.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308001877
54. Tobias, T. N. 2009. Living proof: the essential data-collection guide for indigenous use-and-occupancy map surveys. Ecotrust Canada and Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
55. Usher, P. J. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment management. Arctic 53(2):183-193.
56. Van der Veken, S., J. Bellemare, K. Verheyen, and M. Hermy. 2007. Life history traits are correlated with geographical distribution patterns of western European forest herb species. Journal of Biogeography 34:1723-1735.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01738.x
57. Wenzel, G. W. 1999. Traditional ecological knowledge and Inuit: reflections on TEK and ethics. Arctic 52(2):113-124.