The Continued Importance of Hunting for Future Inuit Food Security

40 | Solutions | July-August 2016 | www.thesolutionsjournal.org

Feature

The Continued Importance of Hunting for Future Inuit Food Security

by Carie Hoover, Sonja Ostertag, Claire Hornby, Colleen Parker, Kayla Hansen-Craik, Lisa Loseto, and Tristan Pearce

In BriefInuit living in the Canadian Arctic have undergone rapid societal changes in the last half century, including moving into permanent settlements, the introduction of formal education, participation in the wage-economy, mechanization of hunting and travel, and increased consumption of store-bought foods. Despite these changes, country foods—locally harvested fish and wildlife—continue to be important in the lives of many Inuit for food security. However, fewer people are hunting full-time and some households are without an active hunter, limiting their access to country foods. This shift has increased reliance on processed foods purchased at the store to meet their daily food needs. These foods are often expensive, less nutritious, highly processed to endure long shelf lives, and less desirable than country foods. An entry point to strengthen Inuit food security is to support the acquisition of culturally-appropriate country foods through subsistence hunting and fishing. This entails supporting the transmission of environmental knowledge and land skills important for subsistence among generations, providing harvesters with necessary resources, and securing reliable cold storage in communities (e.g. community freezers) to preserve country foods during increasingly warmer summer months.

Hoover, C., S. Ostertag, C. Hornby, C. Parker, K. Hansen-Craik, L.L. Loseto, and T. Pearce. (2016).

The Importance of Hunting for Future Inuit Food Security. Solutions 7(4): 40–51.

https://thesolutionsjournal.com/article/the-importance-of-hunting-for-future-inuit-food-security/

Mike Beauregard The heads of two harvested bowhead whales at the entrance of a harbor in Repulse Bay, Nunavut.

www.thesolutionsjournal.org | July-August 2016 | Solutions | 41

Inuit, the Indigenous People inhabiting the Arctic regions of Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and

the Russian Far East, have adapted to living in the harsh Arctic conditions for thousands of years. In Canada, there are more than 50 Inuit commu-nities across the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories), Nunavut, Nunatsiavut (Labrador), and Nunavik (Quebec), with many located above or near the Arctic Circle (66º30’N), and nearly all of which are in remote locations accessible only by airplanes. Communities across the Arctic range in population size from 110 (Sachs Harbour, NT) to 6,254 (Iqaluit, NU), with up to 97 percent of each community identifying as Inuit.1 While summer temperatures can reach upwards of 35°C, winter temperatures can drop below -60°C when factoring in wind chill effects, with wind speeds ranging from 50 to 80 km/h, and temperatures remain-ing below freezing for up to eight months of the year.2 In high-latitude Canadian communities, polar nights (24-hour period with no sunrise) last up to four to five months, and 24-hour daylight can last over five months.3 The resulting short growing season combined with extensive permafrost (soil frozen throughout the year) limits agricultural approaches to food production. Historically, Inuit have relied heavily on wild populations of terrestrial and marine species for food, warm clothing, and tools, with the his-torical movement of Inuit centered on seasonal food availability (e.g., caribou, whales, and fish).4

Food security is a growing chal-lenge for many Inuit living in the Canadian Arctic and requires diverse, locally relevant solutions.5 Food security exists when people can acquire safe, nutritionally adequate, and culturally acceptable foods in a manner that maintains human dignity at all times.6,7 However, Inuit living in the Canadian Arctic aged 15 and over experience higher rates

of food insecurity than in southern Canada (41 percent compared with eight percent).8,9 Where food security relates to physical and economic access to food, food sovereignty includes the ability to shape one’s own diet, “including production,

distribution and consumption of food with respect to their own cultures and their own systems of managing natural resources.”10,11 Food security is a precondition of food sovereignty, however, sovereignty includes the ability to shape one’s own diet in a way consistent with one’s culture,

includes local food systems and food distribution, and enhances commu-nity independence.12 It is increasingly difficult to find ways to support local food systems contributing to both food security and food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is not always explic-itly stated as a goal within Arctic communities, however, ideas relating to food sovereignty are noted in com-munity’s food security goals, with the ability to access traditional foods as a high priority.13

Historically, subsistence hunting and fishing were the primary sources of food production for Inuit in the Arctic. Today subsistence continues to be important in the lives of many Inuit, even though Inuit society has undergone profound changes in the last half century, placing new pres-sures on the subsistence food system. These changes include, but are not limited to, moving into permanent settlements, increasing populations, attendance in formal education, the rise of the wage economy, and the increasing cost of hunting. Unlike their parents or grandparents, younger Inuit generally spend less time involved in subsistence activities, but comparatively more time in formal education, wage employment, and community socialization (e.g. sports, Internet, and television). Formal schooling and employment limit the amount of time youth and hunters can spend on the land, resulting in less hands-on training of hunting and land skills. As a result, many younger Inuit do not possess the skills and knowledge necessary to participate in subsistence harvesting activities, in addition to the high costs associated with harvesting of country foods (i.e., foods that have been hunted, fished, or gathered locally).14,15

Research shows that households with active hunters are more food secure.16 It is unrealistic, however, to expect that the ecosystem and subsis-tence economy can fully meet the food needs of a growing Inuit population.

Key Concepts

• Canadian Inuit experience higher levels of food insecurity than the average Canadian, with the high cost of store-bought foods being a contributing factor.

• Changes in the subsistence food system have increased reliance on store-bought foods, however, households with active hunters are more food secure and allow access to culturally-relevant and nutritious foods.

• To encourage greater involvement in harvesting activities, opportunities must be created for Inuit to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for participation in subsistence harvesting.

• Hunters often travel long distances in harsh climates in order to secure food, yet the high cost of equipment, gas, and maintenance prevents many Inuit from hunting. Increased access to hunter support programs will allow more Inuit the opportunity to secure their own food.

• More reliable long-term food storage solutions, such as community freezer programs, are needed so families can store and share harvested foods. This is especially important as many families have limited personal freezer space, and increasing Arctic temperatures result in increased food spoilage.


Inuit now live in permanent settle-ments and hunt more intensively in nearby areas, raising questions about environmental limitations of species important for subsistence. Superimposed on these challenges are changes brought on by a warming Arctic that includes alterations to the local ecosystem influencing access, availability, and abundance of tradi-tionally harvested foods.17 To some degree, most Inuit depend on imported foods, which tend to be nutrient-poor and expensive to purchase.18,19 This shift away from a subsistence-based diet consisting mainly of country foods (primarily fish, caribou, seals, whales, muskox, and birds) to a diet high in store-bought foods (lower nutritional value, no cultural relevance, and high in preservatives) has been identified as a key issue for food security in terms of the ability to access nutritionally adequate and culturally acceptable foods.20,21

Current research on food security in the Arctic suggests that opportuni-ties to support Inuit food security must be driven by communities with involvement from regional and national stakeholders,22 thereby contributing to food sovereignty. For example, the Nunavut Food Security Coalition, an organization addressing food security in the Nunavut portion of the Canadian Arctic, has identified six key themes for improving food security: country food, store-bought food, local food production, life skills, programs and community initiatives, and policy and legislation.23 As part of this food strategy, the Coalition aims to increase awareness of food prices across communities and empower communities to produce food locally. Programs across the Arctic, such as community greenhouses, have strived to promote local food production.24 In addition, initiatives such as country food markets, whereby hunters can sell local foods through a market to improve food security and share country foods, have been successful

in other Arctic countries such as Greenland. While this remains a long-term goal for Canada, with some initiatives in place (Project Nunavut),25 regulatory issues sur-rounding the commercialization of country foods remain a hurdle to implementing country food markets.26

While this multi-faceted food strat-egy includes a variety of initiatives, here we elect to discuss some general, Inuit-identified starting points to support food sovereignty, specifically focusing on the subsistence hunting and fishing aspect of the Inuit food system: enhancing opportunities for the transmission of knowledge and skills for subsistence among generations, supporting harvesters by providing access to equipment and

supplies, and improving food storage options. These solutions focus on ways to improve food sovereignty by allowing culturally relevant options for improving food security within the local food system. They alone do not cover all possible points to support Inuit food security, but rather represent starting points to an increas-ingly important discussion on food security that must establish Inuit as key decision makers.27 Improvements to food security have occurred through increased availability of foods within numerous programs such as green-house initiatives and the Nutrition North subsidy.28,29 Yet, the cultural relevance of food is important to Inuit across the Arctic, and approaches should be focused on the consumption of food with respect to Inuit culture.

Rosemary Gilliat / Library and Archives Canada A young girl carries a bag of sugar in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in 1960. The last half century has seen Inuit communities become increasingly reliant upon imported food products.


Current Approaches to Supporting Food Security in the ArcticNutrition North is the largest national food subsidy available in the Canadian Arctic. It offers air freight subsidies directly to northern retailers in remote communities to help lower the costs of “healthy” foods (i.e. produce, dairy, cereals, meats, etc.).29 However, lack of transparency within the system does not confirm whether all subsidies make it to the consumer.30 Furthermore, discounts only apply to certain items, which may be less cul-turally appropriate, while the cost of other food items and grocery products remains high (see Box 1). Nutrition North helps alleviate costs for some food items, but taken alone it can best

be described as a “band-aid” solution. Rather, a greater regional focus needs to be placed on people and cultures to better understand their food requirements and adjust subsidies accordingly.31

New Approaches to Supporting Food Security in the ArcticWhile federal and regional govern-ments have a clear responsibility to ensure their citizens have access to appropriate and adequate foods, how these programs are administered is critical to their success. In Canada, a number of specific government initiatives impact nutrition and food security. Most of the initiatives are federal programs that are delivered

in the provinces and territories; there is limited evidence of territorial or provincial programs that deal com-prehensively with the issue of food security.32 Given the cultural diversity within each territory, it is important that a regional or local approach is used to ensure an effective design that supports community needs. We recognize that addressing food secu-rity in the Arctic is complex, and that interventions are likely to be highly localized in order to work within the diversity of governance structures under different land claims. Here, we recommend that federally-derived funding should include bottom-up initiatives rather than the current top-down approach. The 2016 Canadian Federal budget has allocated CAD$8.4

Claire Hornby Beluga muktuk is processed after harvest. Muktuk (or muktaaq) is the layer of skin with blubber attached, and is an important cultural food across the Arctic.


billion over the next five years, “to improve the socio-economic condi-tions of Indigenous peoples and their communities, and, bring about trans-formational change.”33 While food security is not mentioned explicitly, numerous programs within the federal budget support education and training and could be adapted to include the proposed solutions. In addition, new approaches are needed that engage community members throughout the decision-making process, including program design, implementation, monitoring, and review.34

Enhance Opportunities to Transmit Knowledge and Skills across GenerationsHistorically, traditional knowledge and skills related to subsistence were passed down from one generation to the next through a process of cultural transmission, generally involving hands-on training and practice.35 Residential schools in Canada removed Aboriginal children (includ-ing Inuit) from their families, in part to weaken their culture and replace it with the culture of the Euro-Christian Canadian society.36 These schools existed for more than 100 years in Canada, with successive generations of children attending. Given that subsistence involves the transmission

of social norms and cultural values,37,38 the destruction of Aboriginal culture associated with the residential school system also negatively impacted subsistence activities. The legacy of the residential school system, together with other societal changes, has resulted in some younger Inuit not learning the knowledge and skills important for safe and successful hunt-ing.35,39 Knowledge sharing within and among Arctic communities provides an important opportunity for spread-ing knowledge about harvesting and food preparation, especially in cases where new species become avail-able due to changes in migration or abundance. Subsistence skills, such as navigation, hunting, and meat preparation, are important factors in determining one’s ability to partici-pate in hunting and subsequently in their ability to contribute to country food production.40 Hunting plays an important domestic economic role, but also allows for the continuation of traditional practices and supports the re-establishment of ties with the land.41 In addition, promoting country foods at a young age (in daycares and elementary schools) encourages an appreciation for cultural knowledge and subsistence living.21,42 Hunting and food preparation programs need to receive consistent and universal

support in Inuit communities to foster inter-generational and inter-community knowledge transmission regarding the harvest and preparation of local foods.

Existing on-the-land programs have been developed to support knowledge sharing within communities, to ensure this knowledge is passed down to the younger generation to support subsistence harvesting activities.43 Programs in the Northwest Territories (NT) such as “Take your kid trapping and harvesting,” community hunts, and other harvesting programs teach youth skills and knowledge about trapping, fishing, hunting, outdoor survival, boating skills, gun skills, on-the-land skills, and preparation of food and animal skins.40,44 However, even with available programs, not all chil-dren and youth in the area have access to the same level of skills development and training. Furthermore, adequate training in the preparation of country foods is necessary to ensure foods are safe for consumption.45 Therefore, on-the-land programs should also be linked to classroom programs that teach hands-on skills necessary for country food harvesting and prepara-tion. Examples of such programs include nutrition education classes occurring in smaller Nunavut com-munities (led by the Nunavut Food

Jeff W. Higdon On the left, maqtaaq, or the skin and outer blubber layer, from a narwhal prior to being packaged (at right) for return to the community (Admiralty Inlet, NU, August 2008).


Security Coalition) and pilot programs in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR), NT that bring elders and hunters into the classroom.

Knowledge exchange between communities has occurred for the beluga harvest in the ISR following changes in beluga migration routes, making beluga available to new communities. This exchange provides necessary insight about how to successfully harvest new species for which traditional knowledge does not exist in an area. In the case of beluga,

where migration changes led to an increase in access for certain commu-nities (Paulatuk, NT 1980s; Kugluktuk, Nunavut 2000s; Ulukhaktok, NT 2014), inter-community hunter exchanges and community meetings are important methods for teaching hunting techniques and meat prepara-tion to less experienced hunters. Currently, costs and logistics are gener-ally shared between federal, territorial, and local governments, depending on the program. However, universal programs and funds have not been

established to support the transmis-sion of knowledge within and between communities. Changes in animal distribution and populations associ-ated with climate change may increase the need to support inter-community knowledge transmission.

Non-traditional avenues such as social media and technology to sup-port the transmission of knowledge already play a role in the Arctic. Electronic platforms such as the Inuit siku (sea ice) Atlas was developed, in part to respond to Inuit Elders’ and hunters’ expressions of interest in sharing their knowledge with youth.46 Many components of the Atlas were incorporated into the school cur-riculum for Nunavut schools through a partnership with the Government of Nunavut and the Department of Education. Social media is also used to communicate about harvesting activities and observations (e.g. the Facebook group NT Hunting stories of the day), and may play a role in sup-porting inter-community knowledge transmission.47 Greater accessibility and diversity of programs is necessary in order to re-instill the skills and knowledge necessary to participate in harvesting activities.

Support Harvester Access to Equipment and SuppliesLack of access to harvesting equip-ment and/or supplies due to financial constraints is a barrier to hunting for many Inuit.39,48,49 Country foods are expensive to acquire relative to store-bought foods, with gear being a large investment. The high cost of equip-ment is not only a limitation, but often means that acquiring country foods is not profitable, potentially costing the hunter more money than purchasing equivalent foods at the store.49 This cost discrepancy is made worse by the fact that store-bought foods receive fed-eral subsidies divided among national taxpayers, while country foods costs

Tristan Pearce Arctic char, a traditional country food, is hung to dry as an alternative to freezing the fish.

Continued on Page 46


fall only on the individual hunter, or immediate family. This willingness to pay for country foods is due to the cul-tural importance of hunting activities and consuming country foods.50,51 Even when hunters have access to equip-ment, repair costs and high prices of fuel (gas, oil, and naptha) often prevent hunting trips.51 Programs such as the Nunavut Harvester Support Program (Nunavut) and the Community

Harvester Assistance Program (ISR, NT) operate at territorial scales and provide some applicants with finan-cial support to purchase both large (snowmobiles, boats, ATVs, motors, etc.) and small equipment (GPS, fish nets, sleeping bags, sewing machines, etc.).52,53 However, even with programs available, not all community members qualify for programs, and navigation through current programs can be dif-ficult, resulting in less participation in harvesting.54

Increased funding support to hunter assistance programs is an important factor in reducing the high costs to individual hunters in order to allow participation in subsistence harvesting. Currently, funding resources determine the number of hunters supported, with some being denied funding. In addi-tion, lack of knowledge regarding programs combined with difficulty navigating the system prevents qualified hunters from applying.52

Nutrition North is currently the larg-est national subsidy available in the Canadian Arctic. It offers airfreight subsidies directly to northern retailers in remote communities in order to lower the costs of healthy foods (i.e. produce, dairy, cereals, meats, etc).29 While the current subsidy works to reduce transportation costs to the retailer, it is unclear how much of these discounts are passed on to the consumer. Proposed changes to the program include showing discounts on customer receipts. However, as food prices continue to rise in the Arctic, major retailers, such as the North West Company (controlling NorthMart and Northern grocery stores in the Arctic), report large profits (CAD$15 million net profits during the fourth quarter of 2015).61 The estimated cost to feed a family of four is CAD$360–$450 weekly for northern residents, but the same foods would cost $200–$250 for southern Canadian residents.29 The following gro-cery items show prices in the Canadian Arctic vs. southern Canada, and include food items that may be receiving current Nutrition North Subsidies.

Nutrition North and Arctic Food Prices:

Continued from Page 45

Item SizeNunavut Average

(CAD$)Canada Average

(CAD$)Nunavut-Canada

Ratio

Milk, 2% 1L 3.16 2.34 1.35Butter, Salted 454g 7.20 4.59 1.57Eggs Dozen, Large 3.94 3.34 1.18Frozen French Fries 650g-1kg 6.66 2.66 2.50Evaporated Milk 385ml 3.33 1.88 1.77Instant Coffee 200g 12.30 6.52 1.89Tea Bags 72x227g 8.22 4.47 1.84Soda Crackers 450g 7.09 2.80 2.53Canned Baked Beans 398ml 4.30 1.30 3.31Canned Tomatoes 796ml 5.29 1.62 3.27Macaroni 500g 4.39 1.57 2.80Cooking Oil 942ml-1L 9.17 4.18 2.19Flour, All Purpose White 2.5kg 13.58 5.03 2.70Sugar, White 2kg 8.72 2.81 3.10Orange Juice 1L 5.57 2.07 2.69Tomato Juice 1.36L 9.16 2.48 3.70White Bread 675g 5.01 2.81 1.78Bananas per kg 4.61 1.73 2.66Oranges per kg 7.94 3.28 2.42Carrots per kg 6.17 1.98 3.12Celery per kg 9.26 2.57 3.60Onions per kg 4.12 1.68 2.45Potatoes 4.54kg 12.15 5.56 2.19Sirloin Steak per kg 32.06 21.86 1.47Stewing Beef per kg 29.17 15.99 1.82Whole Chicken per kg 10.36 7.42 1.40Sliced Bacon 500g 12.13 6.75 1.80

Table 1. Comparison of select grocery prices in Nunavut compared to the Canadian average as provided by Statistics Canada.62


Improving and expanding existing programs by increasing awareness of the program and its application processes, simplifying that process, and increasing funding will help to reduce barriers to program participation.55

Improve Food Storage OptionsMost harvesting activities take place in the spring and summer, with country foods being stored in freezers to last the rest of the year. During the cold winter months, food may be stored outside or on the porch, so individual household freezers may be unplugged to save on high electricity costs. However, in warmer months, limitations on freezer space can lead to food waste or the need to give food away to other families to make room for newly harvested foods. As seasons are becoming warmer and temperatures fluctuate more, the period that freezer storage is required is becoming longer, leading to increased household energy costs and limited ability to stock country foods for the less active winter months. This may be addressed through vari-ous food preparation techniques such as drying, smoking, or fermenting meats, but cultural preferences also emphasize access to fresh (including raw) meats throughout the year.

“Yeah. Freezer space. Icehouse, walk-in freezer, it’s a big issue. It was so nice to be able to get seals in the summer, freeze them whole in the walk-in freezer, in the icehouse without skinning them and then pick them up around Christmas during your family suppers and stuff, and bring them in and skin it and it’s not freezer burnt, it’s like new because you froze it whole. It’s so nice to be able to do that for the winter months.”

—Emily Kudlak, Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories56

As an alternative to household freezers and preservation, community freezers have been built in a number of communities (as a preferred choice over traditional icehouses, which are melting along with the permafrost in which they are encased).57 Community freezer programs exist in select com-munities across the Arctic, whereby harvesters supply country foods to the freezer for access by the greater community. The viability of com-munity freezers generally depends on a variety of factors including cost of operation, management structure, availability of country food, willing participants (hunters), and compensa-tion for participants (i.e. equipment,

money).5,57 The costs of powering a community freezer is a key deterrent for many communities, and prevents programs from being established, even when identified as a priority by com-munity decision makers. These costs may be addressed through renewable energy alternatives (e.g. solar or wind power), thereby reducing operational costs and reliance on diesel generators. Although alternative power sources have high implementation costs, successful wind power programs are running in remote polar locations such as Kotzebue, Alaska and the Jang Bogo Station in the Antarctic.58,59

Though community freezers are increasing across communities, they are not universal and require greater support for awareness and manage-ment. Community freezers may also be more culturally appropriate than family freezers (which were widely distributed in the ISR when territorial

funding was cut to community freezer programs), due to their role in facilitating food sharing and pro-moting country food consumption.5 Whereas household freezers require family members and friends to ask for country food when they are in need, community freezers allow users to access country food without embar-rassment, serving to strengthen and perpetuate a cultural ethic of shar-ing.60 Overall, food storage through culturally appropriate mechanisms, such as community freezers, is an essential component in preserving harvested country foods for future use and facilitating food-sharing.

Final ThoughtsInuit are highly adaptable and continue to thrive in a challenging environment that is undergoing rapid change. Due to Inuit reliance on subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping, this food system is sensitive to changing environmental conditions. Taken together with socio-economic and political changes, such as population growth and the rise of the wage economy, the Inuit food system is in a time of flux and many Inuit are described as being food insecure. We argue that subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping will continue to play a vital role in Inuit food security. If culturally-relevant solutions in the subsistence sector are driven by Inuit, they have the potential to also improve food sovereignty for Arctic Inuit com-munities. We propose re-evaluating current top-down subsidies in favor of locally-supported, culturally-relevant opportunities to promote the

Given the cultural diversity within each territory, it is important that a regional or local approach is used to ensure an effective design that supports community needs.


transmission of knowledge and skills important for subsistence among gen-erations, to increase harvesters’ access to hunting equipment and supplies, and improve food storage options in communities.

Acknowledgements:The authors would like to acknowl-edge ArcticNet for project funding (1.8 Knowledge Co-Production). In addition, we thank additional funding source and project partners: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, W. Garfield Weston Foundation, Fisheries Joint Management Committee, Arctic Science Partnership, Northern

Scientific Training Program, Environmental Studies Research Funds, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (OceanCanada Partnership). Thank you to our research partners from the communi-ties of Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvik, Paulatuk, and Ulukhaktok (specifically Emily Kudlak, Adam Kudlak, Phylicia Kagyut, Susie Malgokak, Harold Wright, and Winnie Akhiatak), who are the source of many of the insights shared in this paper. Finally, we would like to thank Kate Snow, John Iacozza, and reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

References1. Statistics Canada. NHS Aboriginal Population

Profile 2011 [online] (2011). http://www12.

statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/aprof/index.

cfm?Lang=E&fpv=10000.

2. Government of Canada. Canadian Climate

Normals 1981–2010 Station Data [online] (2015).

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/

results_1981_2010_e.html?stnID=1789&lang=e&pr

ovince=NT&provSubmit=go&dCode=0.

3. National Research Council Canada. Sunrise/Sunset

Calculator [online] (2015). http://www.nrc-cnrc.

gc.ca/eng/services/sunrise/index.html.

4. Canada’s First People: The Inuit [online] (2007).

http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_groups/

fp_inuit4.html.

5. Council of Canadian Academies. Aboriginal Food

Security in Northern Canada: An assessment

on the state of knowledge (Council of Canadian

Academies, Ottawa, 2014).

6. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN. The

Jeff W. Higdon Selection of equipment needed for successful hunting, clockwise from top left: a harpoon being used during a walrus hunt (Foxe Basin, NU, July 2007); a boat and motors used during a successful narwhal hunt (Admiralty Inlet, NU, August 2008); a scoped rifle in use during a bearded seal hunt (Foxe Basin, NU, July 2009); a seal hook, or niksik in Inuktitut (Foxe Basin, NU, July 2009).


State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. (Food

and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2002).

7. Gregory, PJ, Ingram, JS & Brklacich, MJ. Climate

change and food security. Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society B 360, 2139–2148 (2005).

8. Huet, C, Rosol, R & Egeland, GM. The Prevalence of

Food Insecurity Is High and the Diet Quality Poor in

Inuit Communities. Journal of Nutrition 142: 541–47

(2012).

9. Wallace, S. Inuit Health: Selected Findings from

the 2012 Aboriginal Peoples Survey 1-26 (Statistics

Canada, 2014).

10. Meakin, S & Kurvits, T. Assessing the Impacts of

Climate Change on Food Security in the Canadian

Arctic. Grid-Arendal for Northern Affairs Canada

(2009).

11. Declaration of Atitlán, Guatemala. Indigenous

Peoples’ Global Consultation on the Right to Food,

Atitlán, Sololá, Guatemala [online] (2002).

http://cdn5.iitc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/

FINAL_Atitlan-Declaration-Food-Security_Apr25_

ENGL.pdf.

12. Socha, T, Zahaf, M, Chambers, L, Abraham, R &

Fiddler, T. Food Security in a Northern First Nations

Community: An Exploratory Study on Food

Availability and Accessibility. Journal of Aboriginal

Health, 5–15 (2012).

13. Skinner, K, Hanning, RM, Desjardins, E, & Tsuji,

LJS. Giving voice to food insecurity in a remote

indigenous community in subarctic Ontario,

Canada: traditional ways, ways to cope, ways

forward. BMC Public Health 13: 427 (2013).

14. Pearce, T et al. Transmission of environmental

knowledge and land skills among Inuit men in

Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Human

Ecology 39, 271–288 (2011).

15. Pearce, T, Ford, J, Cunsolo-Willox, A & Smit, B. Inuit

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Subsistence

Hunting and Adaptation to Climate Change in the

Canadian Arctic. Arctic 68, 233–245 (2015).




(2012).

17. The Sea Ice is Our Highway: An Inuit perspective

on transportation in the Arctic (Inuit Circumpolar

Council Canada, 2008).

18. Pearce, T et al. Inuit Vulnerability and Adaptive

Capacity to Climate Change in Ulukhaktok,

Northwest Territories, Canada. Polar Record 46,

157–177 (2010).

19. Kinlock, D, Kuhnlein, H & Muir, DCG. Inuit Foods and

Diet: A Preliminary Assessment of Benefits and Risks.

The Science of the Total Environment 122, 247–278 (1992).





21. Pearce, T et al. Inuit Vulnerability and Adaptive

Capacity to Climate Change in Ulukhaktok,

Northwest Territories, Canada. Polar Record 46,

157–177 (2010).





Colleen Parker The Ulukhaktok community freezer, closed since 2004 following funding cuts to the program across the ISR.


23. Nunavut Food Security Strategy and Action Plan

2014–16 (Nunavut Food Security Coalition, 2014).

24. Going Forward: Small scale foods program

community garden initiative 2009/2010 annual

report (Northwest Territories Industry, Tourism and

Investment, 2010).

25. Project Nunavut [online] (2013). http://www.

projectnunavut.com.

26. Ford, JD, Macdonald, JP, Huet, C, Statham, S &

MacRury, A. Food policy in the Canadian North: Is

there a role for country food markets? Social Science

& Medicine 152, 35–40 (2016).

27. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami & Inuit Circumpolar

Council Canada. Inuit and the Right to Food:

Submission to the United Nations Special

Rapporteur on the Right to Food for the

Official Country Mission to Canada [online]

(2014). http://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/

uploads/3/0/5/4/30542564/icc.itk.inuit_and_the_

right_to_food-for_un_rapporteur_on_the_right_

to_food.pdf.

28. Going Forward: Small scale foods program

community garden initiative 2009/2010 annual

report (Northwest Territories Industry, Tourism and

Investment, 2010).

29. Nutrition North [online] (2014). http://www.

nutritionnorthcanada.gc.ca/eng/1415548276694/14

15548329309.

30. Galloway, T. Is the Nutrition North Canada Retail

Subsidy Program Meeting the Goal of Making

Nutritious and Perishable Food More Accessible and

Affordable in the North? Canadian Journal of Public

Health 105, e395–e397 (2014).

31. Sanchez, PA. A Smarter Way to Combat Hunger.

Nature 458, 148 (2009).

32. Boult, D. Hunger in the Arctic: food (in)security in

Inuit communities. National Aboriginal Health

Organization, 1–11 (2004).

33. Government of Canada. Budget 2016: Growing the

Middle Class [online] (2016). http://www.budget.

gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/ch3-en.html.




(2012).




Ecology 39, 271–288 (2011).

36. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of

Canada. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for

the Future [online] (2015). http://www.trc.ca/

websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Honouring_

the_Truth_Reconciling_for_the_Future_

July_23_2015.pdf.

37. Marks, SA. Hunting behavior and strategies of the

Valley Bisa in Zambia. Human Ecology 5, 1–36 (1997).

38. Natcher, DC. Subsistence and the Social Economy of

Canada’s Aboriginal North. The Northern Review 30,

83–98 (2009).

39. Aarluk Consulting Incorporated. A Consultation-

Based Review of the Harvester Support Programs

of the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut

Tunngavik Inc. Iqualit, Nunavut: Government of

Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated

(2008).

40. Pearce, T, Ford, J, Cunsolo-Willox, A & Smit, B.

Inuit Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

Subsistence Hunting and Adaptation to Climate

Change in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 68, 233–245

(2015).

41. Condon, RG, Collings, P & Wenzel, G. The Best

Part of Life: Subsistence Hunting, Ethnicity, and

Economic Adaptation among Young Adult Inuit

Males. Arctic 48, 31–46 (1995).

42. Collings, P, Wenzel, G & Condon, R. Modern Food

Sharing Networks and Community Integration in the

Central Canadian Arctic. Arctic 51, 301–314 (1998).




Ecology 39, 271–288 (2011).

44. Guide to Government of the Northwest Territories

Grants and Contributions Programs, 1-108

(Government of the Northwest Territories,

Yellowknife, NT, 2014).




Ecology 39, 271–288 (2011).

46. Inuit siku (sea ice) Atlas [online]. http://sikuatlas.ca/

index.html.

47. NT Hunting Stories of the Day [online]. https://

www.facebook.com/groups/106580212846258/?fref

=ts.

48. Ford, J, Smit, B & Wandel, J. Vulnerability to Climate

Change in the Arctic: A Case Study from Arctic Bay,

Canada. Global Environmental Change 16, 145–60,

(2006).

49. Hoover, C, Bailey, M, Higdon, J, Ferguson, S &

Sumaila, R. Estimating the Economic Value of

Narwhal and Beluga Hunts in Hudson Bay, Nunavut.

Arctic 66, 1–16 (2013).

50. Freeman, MMR. ‘Just One More Time before I

Die’. Securing the Relationship between Inuit and

Whales in the Arctic Regions. Senri Ethnological

Studies 67, 59–76 (2005).

51. Condon, RG, Collings, P & Wenzel, G. The Best

Part of Life: Subsistence Hunting, Ethnicity, and

Economic Adaptation among Young Adult Inuit

Males. Arctic 48, 31–46 (1995).

52. Aarluk Consulting Incorporated. A Consultation-

Based Review of the Harvester Support Programs

of the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut

Tunngavik Inc. Iqualit, Nunavut: Government of

Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated

(2008).

53. Guide to Government of the Northwest Territories

Grants and Contributions Programs, 1-108

(Government of the Northwest Territories,

Yellowknife, NT, 2014).

54. Hunters Need One-Stop Hunting Shop.

Nunatsiaq News [online] (2006). http://www.

nunatsiaqonline.ca/archives/60331/news/

nunavut/60331_09.html.

55. Pearce, T et al. in From Science to Policy in the

Western and Central Canadian Arctic: An Integrated

Regional Impact Study (IRIS) of Climate Change

and Modernization (Stern, G & Gaden, A, eds) Ch. 10

(ArcticNet, Quebec City, 2015).

56. Parker, C. Assessing Inuit Food Security in Light

of Climate Change and Examining Adaptation

Options: A Case Study of Ulukhaktok, NT. MSc.

University of Guelph (2016).

57. Organ, J, Castleden, H, Furgal, C, Sheldon, T &

Hart, C. Contemporary Programs in Support of

Traditional Ways: Inuit Perspectives on Community

Freezers as a Mechanism to Alleviate Pressures of

Wild Food Access in Nain, Nunatsiavut. Health &

Place 30, 251–59 (2014).

58. New Korean Antarctic Base Features Windside

Turbines [online] http://www.windside.com/

company/news/kopri_-_jang_bogo_station.

59. A renewable energy success story above the Arctic

Circle [online] (2015). http://www.eenews.net/

stories/1060026559.

60. Searles, E. Food and the making of modern Inuit

identities. Food and Foodways 10, 55–78 (2002).

61. North West Company Earns $1.5 Million Profit in

4th Quarter. CBC News [online] (2015). http://www.

cbc.ca/news/canada/north/north-west-company-

earns-15m-profit-in-4th-quarter-1.2992562.

62. 2015 Nunavut Food Price Survey. Nunavut Bureau of

Statistics [online] (2016). http://www.stats.gov.nu.ca/

en/Economic prices.aspx.

Whereas household freezers require family members and friends to ask for country food when they are in need, community freezers allow users to access country food without embarrassment, serving to strengthen and perpetuate a cultural ethic of sharing.


Traditional qayaqs are making a resurgence in the Inuvialuit community of Inuvik in the Northwest Territories, Canada, due to an interest in returning to traditional harvest methods. For Inuit, the qayaq is a symbol of resiliency, ingenuity, and connection to the natural world.

The building of a qayaq requires the expertise of an entire community, from the carpentry to build the frame to the sewing of the skins to make the cover, with these skills passed down from one generation to the next. Advances in technology have allowed hunters access to modern boats and equipment for hunting activities. With this change, traditional knowledge of qayaqs has decreased. As a traditional qayaq maker, I interpret available traditional knowledge to design qayaqs for individually prescribed uses. Through the construction of qayaqs, paddles, and harpoons, I have had to learn to use traditional materials, find sources to incorporate into builds, and have witnessed communities come together in the process.

With the opportunity to harvest in a tra-ditional manner, many Inuit are re-examining modern hunting skill sets and considering the benefits of traditional approaches. For example, qayaqs are quieter than modern boats, enabling hunters to get closer to prey species, where they are within range to use harpoons rather than guns. This can result in increased harvests of fish, birds, seals, and even caribou. In addition, qayaqs allow greater access to hard-to-reach areas, as they can be dragged over ice. This allows hunters earlier access to harvesting areas or seasonal species. Increasing range and access to spe-cies means a greater harvesting capacity.

When these harvesters return from a hunt, they are met by a community that comes together to share in the processing of food. Through community qayaq builds, generations of Inuit are brought together to re-learn traditional building techniques and become stronger threads in the fabric of the community.

The Center for Wooden Boats has featured more accounts of Inuvialuit qayaq projects on their website.1

References1. Reuten, M. Inuvialuit Qayaq Project. The Center

for Wooden Boats [online] (2011). https://cwb.

org/2011/07/01/inuvialuit-qayaq-project/.

Traditional Qayaqs are Symbols of Community, Culture,and Food Security for Inuitby Kevin Floyd

Kevin Floyd Inuvialuit qayaq frame.

Jen Lam Inuvialuit qayaq gliding through water.

Documents

The Continued Importance of Hunting for Future Inuit Food Security