Sport hunting is classified as consumptive wildlife tourism (Lovelock, Citation2008a) and several authors include it as a form of ecotourism for multiple interconnected reasons. First, it can be less environmentally destructive than other forms of tourism (Baker, Citation1997b); second, it is a form of sustainable development (Dietrich, Citation1992) and third, it can encourage conservation through economic incentives (Freese & Trauger, Citation2000; Lewis & Alpert, Citation1997; Rasker, Martin, & Johnson, Citation1992; Wilkie & Carpenter, Citation1999). Some may question the morality of hunting, and as Franklin Citation(2008) outlines, Western views are complex and change through time; but in terms of learning, respect and empathy Tremblay Citation(2001) did not find any difference between consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife tourism. Franklin Citation(2008) also highlights the important opportunity offered by hunting to engage with one's environment rather than merely viewing it, as in many tourism activities. Such engagement is obviously sought, and has a long history in Western society, not merely as an historic necessity for survival, but as a basis for conservation and a land ethic (Leopold, Citation1949). Sport hunting is not merely the killing of animals; it is a multifaceted activity involving the tourist, local people and the environment, and depending on its organisation, can be considered a form of ecotourism (Lovelock, Citation2008b).

This paper discusses the differences between Inuit traditional knowledge and western science views, and presents a perspective designed to bring these two world views together. This is believed to be a highly desirable approach for the successful conduct of research and resource management projects on Inuit lands. Each world view has something to contribute to the other. Distinctions between indigenous (including Inuit) traditional knowledge and western science are identified using examples from wildlife resource management. These examples pinpoint issues that have emerged from previous attempts to integrate indigenous traditional knowledge with western science. These examples also provide insight into the elements necessary to facilitate a constructive working relationship between indigenous people and western scientists. The perspective presented synthesizes these elements to suggest the means to achieve constructive working relationships between Inuit people and practitioners of western science. Résumé Le présent article met en relation les différences entre l'approche des connaissances traditionnelles inuit et celle des connaissances scientifiques de l'Occident et, on y décrit une proposition visant à intégrer ces deux modes de connaissance. Nous croyons qu'il s'agit d'une approche éminemment souhaitable et qui permettra de mener avec succès des projets de recherches et de gestion des ressources naturelles sur les terres inuit. Chacune de ces approches possè de des caractéristiques qui profitera à l'autre. Des différences entre le monde des connaissances traditionnelles indigènes (Inuit entre autres), et celui des connaissances scientifiques occidentales sont illustrées en s'appuyant sur des exemples dans le domaine de la gestion des ressources fauniques. Ces exemples permettent de mettre en lumière certains problèmes qui se sont manifestés lors de tentatives d'intégration antérieures des connaissances traditionnelles avec les connaissances scientifiques occidentales. L'étude de ces exemples permet également de faire ressortir les facteurs à considérer pour l'édification d'une relation constructive viable entre les peuples indigènes et les scientifiques. L'approche proposée donne une vue synoptique des facteurs à considérer en vue de l'établissement d'une relation constructive viable entre le peuple inuit et les scientifiques occidentaux.

Many co-management agreements have painfulbirths, arising out of intense conflict —sometimesfought in courts and government offices, sometimesfought on the land and sea, sometimes fought in themass media and in the hearts and minds of the widerpublic. Whatever the region, the resource, or the re-source-using population, conflict often plays a key rolein prompting the creation of co-management agree-ments. These conflicts include the struggle of indige-nous people to resist state and private resourceappropriation, to defend their locally based livelihoods,and to maintain their cultural identities. Non-aboriginalcommunities have experienced similar situations aswell. Sadly, such conflicts may involve substantial so-cial, economic, and personal costs for the involvedparties, including loss of life. Nonetheless, conflict is amajor factor in getting officials and other stakeholdersto negotiate co-management arrangements

Indigenous groups in Canada's Arctic (Inuit and Inuvialuit) have already experienced difficult socio-cultural, political, economic, and demographic changes in recent decades. Polar regions, including Canada's Arctic, are now also projected to experience significant temperature increases with implications for food security, transportation and human settlements (ACIA, 2005, IPCC, 2007). A seasonally ice-free Arctic is expected to catalyze additional resource development and further social and

Graphical Abstract

Bozeman, MT

measures taken here as far back as 1956 to protect the polar bear.

Improved collection and use of InuitQaujimajatuqangit (IQ) and increased Inuit participation in all aspects of managementare central to the goals of this plan.

have not had access to the same services, opportunities, and standards of living as those enjoyed by other Canadians.

To summarize, after seven years ofwork the Peel Watershed Planning Commission pro-duced a plan in 2011 that was unacceptable to theYukon government because of the high degree ofprotection recommended within the watershed. Thegovernment’s response was to unilaterally alter theplanning process to produce a plan with much lessprotected land area, starkly failing to reconcile thedifferent perspectives and values expressed withinthe planning process (Staples et al., 2014). That gov-ernmental action became the subject of legal actionby multiple First Nations and environmental organi-zations, and in 2014 the Yukon Supreme Court ruledin their favour. This decision was appealed and in2015 the Yukon Court of Appeal partially reversedthe Yukon Supreme Court’s decision. That seconddecision was in turn appealed to the Supreme Courtof Canada, which is scheduled to hear the case inMarch 2017

we identify the following four factors as key impediments to the broader adoption of co-management approaches across Canada: (1) antiquated and incomplete legislative arrangements; (2) a co-management policy vacuum that has not grappled with emerging expectations for co-governance; (3) absence of the knowledge co-production systems needed to create the precursors for successful co-management initiatives; and (4) financial and human resource capacity limitations.

The Waka-Taurua framework provides a means for developing marine management systems which recognise Indigenous worldviews, values, tools, actions and approaches, equitably with EBM, rather than attempting to integrate Indigenous worlds into EBM approaches.

On the two recent occasions at which proposals have been put forward - in 2010 and 2013 - a rich and very intense debate amongst Parties and all stakeholders ensued but it did not result in a consensus being reached and was followed by a vote of CITES Parties.   On each occasion the CITES CoP decided that the criteria for inclusion of the polar bear in Appendix I under CITES were not met at the present time.

support cross-cultural collaboration across three Inuit regions, elevate Inuit leadership, knowledge, and decision-making, and advance knowledge co-production, shared understandings, and strong co-management.

A similar 2013 statement of cooperation included the Wabanaki Tribes of Maine, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. The May 26 signing will amend that original statement of cooperation to include the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik (New Brunswick), the Maine Department of Marine Resources, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service.

As a result of caribou declines due to increased predation, the Nations, under the advisory of Elders, voluntarily stopped hunting caribou in the early 1970s (Muir & Booth, 2012). This cessation of caribou hunting followed traditional laws that instructed hunters not to harvest animals when populations were struggling (Muir & Booth, 2012). However, the Province of British Columbia allowed non-Indigenous Peoples to hunt these caribou until 2003, almost 30 years after the Nations ceased harvest (Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, 2002). Such asymmetry in the detection of population concerns for these caribou highlights one difference between stewardship by Indigenous Peoples frequently observing the landscape and western science approaches, which relied on population surveys and collaring that did not occur consistently until 2002 (McNay et al., 2022).

Strategies for assertion of conservation and local management rights: A Haida Gwaii herring story

About this journalThe International Journal of the Commons is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed open-access journal, dedicated to furthering the understanding of institutions for use and management of resources that are (or could be) enjoyed collectively.These resources may be part of the natural world (e.g. forests, climate systems, or the oceans) or they may be created (e.g. infrastructures such as irrigation systems, the internet or (scientific) knowledge, for example of the sort that is published in open-access journals).The IJC is an initiative of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC).Our aim is to promote inclusion, diversity and equity on this platform. To that purpose (and to the extent that we can), we offer support to majority-country scholars, for example through offering waivers, mentorships, and extra review rounds to authors from low and middle income countries affiliated with institutes from low and middle income countries. Contact us to see what we may be able to do for you.