So Remorseless a Havoc:

Whaling, Culture and Law Collide in the Arctic

“The…point is, whether Leviathan can long endure so wild a chase, and so

remorseless a havoc; whether he must not at last be exterminated from the waters,

and the last whale, like the last man, smoke his last pipe, and then himself

evaporate in the final puff.” – Herman Melville Moby Dick

Laci Gerhart

EVRN 720: Climate Change in Greenland and the Arctic

Profs Billings, Braaten, Nagel, and Van Der Veen

Gerhart 2

Abstract

Whaling in the Arctic Ocean is a complex web of cultural, biological and legal issues.

Though Inuit groups had harvested bowhead whales for centuries, commercial bowhead hunts by

North Americans and Europeans nearly exterminated the species (Stoett, 1997). Though still

endangered, bowhead populations in the Arctic are beginning to recover despite sustained Inuit

hunting (IWC, 2009). Current threats to bowhead whales, and Inuit communities, stem from

changes in the Arctic climatic due to natural variation and anthropogenic climate change (Tynan

and Demaster, 1997; IPCC, 2007; Lawrence et al, 2008; Sakakibara, 2008; Sakakibara, 2009).

This project incorporates four overlapping and interconnected research questions related to

bowhead whaling in the Arctic Ocean: 1) How have subsistence and commercial whaling been

regulated in the Arctic? 2) How did commercial whaling and the presence of western commercial

whalers impact the culture of the Inuit? 3) How will predicted changes in the Arctic climate affect

bowhead whales and the Inuit? And 4) What does the history of Arctic bowhead whaling tell us

about cultural conflicts over shared resources?

Commercial whaling in the Arctic began in the early 1600s, but was largely unregulated

until the 1930s, by which point bowhead whale populations were already commercially extinct

(Stoett, 1997). Since 1946, aboriginal subsistence whaling has been regulated by the International

Whaling Commission (IWC), a multi-national regulatory agency (Stoett, 1997). Commercial

bowhead whaling in the Arctic resulted in drastic changes in Inuit culture, including the

introduction of firearms and alcohol, intermarrying between whalers and Inuit women, and the shift

to a wage-earning economy (Bockstoce, 1986). Climatic change throughout the Arctic could

negatively impact the bowhead through increased shipping traffic (and increased shipping-related

pollution), changes in prey abundance and location, and loss of critical breeding or feeding habitat

(Tynan and DeMaster, 1997; Schell, 2000; Hovelsrud et al, 2008). The Inuit will be affected by

changes in availability of bowhead, and by changes in land conditions such as degradation of

permafrost and sea level rise, as well as increases in western presence via resource extraction and

ecotourism (USDC, 1977; Hall and Johnston, 1995; Lawrence et al, 2008; Sakakibara, 2009).

Current debates on the bowhead hunt reveal a dissonance between western and Inuit viewpoints on

whaling and the importance of whales. Western environmentalists stress complete protection of

whale populations without adequate regard for Inuit cultural needs and ecological sustainability. In

order to protect endangered whale populations and preserve a vital component of the Inuit culture,

these two viewpoints must be reconciled.

Gerhart 3

Introduction

“There have been many periods of American history that have been romanticized.

To this day most writers of the whaling industry have glorified or damned it

beyond reality: jingoism, xenophobia, missionary zeal, political and social

perceptions, environmental concern, and many other points of view have colored

their interpretations” J.R. Bockstoce Whales, Ice, Men 1986

Whaling has frequently either been romanticized (through novels such as Moby Dick) or

damned for its environmental and social ramifications (Bockstoce, 1986). The issues surrounding

the history and future of whaling are far too complex for such simple conclusions. During the 19th

century, bowhead whaling was primarily a competition between commercial whalers from North

America and Europe. While the Inuit of the Arctic did not play a major role in whale hunting during

this time, contact between Inuit and whalers affected the Inuit culture in many ways (Francis, 1984;

Bockstoce, 1986). Today, bowheads are protected from commercial hunting, and Inuit subsistence

whaling is the only hunting allowed in the region (Stoett, 1997). Current threats to the bowhead and

Inuit subsistence patterns result from environmental change due to natural variation and

anthropogenic climate change. Predictions of climate change indicate effects in the Arctic may be

more severe than in other regions (IPCC, 2007). In addition, decreased sea ice could lead to

increased human activities in the region, which could exacerbate negative effects of a changing

climate (Hovelsrud et al, 2008). For an endangered species such as the bowhead, these changes

could lead to extinction. For the Inuit, who rely heavily on the bowhead for food, supplies and

cultural identity, extinction of the bowhead could spell extinction for their culture as well.

In this paper, the historical, legal, cultural and biological aspects of bowhead hunting and

Inuit culture will be examined. Specifically, the following questions will be addressed:

1) How have subsistence and commercial whaling been regulated in the Arctic?

2) How did commercial whaling and the presence of western commercial whalers impact

the culture of the Inuit?

3) How will predicted changes in Arctic climate affect bowhead whales and the Inuit?

4) What does the history of Arctic bowhead whaling tell us about cultural conflicts over

shared resources?

The first three questions can be addressed mostly from peer-reviewed literature across numerous

fields. The fourth question combines the responses to the first three questions to address issues of

Gerhart 4

environmentalism and the exploitation of global resources in general. In order to address these

questions, I combined literature from the fields of sociology, anthropology, biology and law with

personal accounts of 19th century Arctic whalers, translated Inuit narratives and international

surveys on current attitudes towards whaling. Combined, these sources provide a detailed account

of the issues surrounding bowhead whale hunting in the Arctic, both on the history of whaling in

this region and the cultural debates that continue today. While this paper attempts to incorporate all

Arctic peoples, available information tends to emphasize the United States and Canada. Where

available, information on issues in Greenland and northern Russia will be included.

In the opening quote, the phrase “so remorseless a havoc” describes the impacts of

unregulated harvesting on whale populations, yet this phrase could also apply to the impacts of

western industry and law on the Inuit culture and the potential effects of anthropogenic climate

change on bowhead and Inuit populations. Though the havoc wreaked on the bowhead and Inuit

throughout history cannot be undone, western and Inuit cultures must cooperate to protect the

bowhead from extinction and the Inuit from cultural imperialism.

A Short History of Bowhead Whaling

“The history of whaling has been a sad record of overfishing of species after

species in region after region.” – Leonard Matthews The Whale

It is estimated that organized bowhead whaling by indigenous peoples began over 2,000

years ago (Freeman et al, 1998). Non-subsistence whaling started with the Basque of Spain who

began hunting bowhead whales off Greenland and Newfoundland in 1578 (Matthews, 1968; Stoett,

1997). While Basque hunting, with its long distance transport of goods, could be considered

commercial whaling, true commercial enterprises would not enter the Arctic until 1611 (Matthews,

1968), and were not regular or intense until 1719 (Francis, 1984). Dutch commercial whalers first

hunted in the Davis Strait between Greenland and Eastern Canada and spread north and west as

bowhead populations receded into the protection of ice-covered waters (Francis, 1984). Later,

European whalers joined the Dutch in the eastern Arctic while Canadians and Americans began

hunting bowhead in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas of the western Arctic between Alaska

and Russia (Francis, 1984). Major whaling operations were limited to wealthier countries since the

dangers of Arctic sailing and whale hunting required large investments of capital (Francis, 1984).

Gerhart 5

Though whale-hunting in the Arctic was hazardous, bowhead whales were especially

profitable and more than made up for the cost of outfitting ships and crew. Not only did the

bowhead provide large quantities of blubber and baleen, but they were also slower (and so easier to

catch and kill) and floated in the water once dead (Matthews, 1968). Consequently, bowhead whales

were termed the “right whale to kill” and are still known in some regions as the right whale

(Matthews, 1968). Under commercial whaling, only some parts of the whale were harvested for

industrial purposes; blubber was removed to be boiled down for oil, baleen (inaccurately termed

“whalebone”) was removed from the head and, occasionally, one small cut of tender meat was

removed near the tail and usually eaten on board the ship (Francis, 1984). All other parts of the

whale were thrown overboard and left to rot or be eaten by Arctic predators such as polar bears

(Francis, 1984). During the height of the commercial whaling industry, oil from blubber was used

for cleaning wool in the textile industry, lubricating machinery, and to fuel lights in homes and in

the streets (Francis, 1984). Baleen was used for corset stays, buggy whips, skirt hoops, umbrellas,

carriage wheels and springs, luggage and fishing rods (Francis, 1984). As whale oil was replaced by

alternate natural and synthetic sources, profits from whale oil began to decline and by 1900, most

whalers removed only the baleen and discarded the rest of the whale carcass (Francis, 1984).

Eventually, baleen was also replaced by synthetic materials such as steel and plastic, leading to the

collapse of the bowhead industry (Bockstoce, 1986).

Though bowhead populations had withstood hunting pressure from Arctic indigenous

peoples and even limited commercial whaling by the Basque for centuries, sustained intensive

hunting by Dutch, European, and North American commercial whalers nearly exterminated the

species (Matthews, 1968; Francis, 1984). Records show that from 1675 to 1721 (at the very

beginning of the bowhead industry), 33,000 bowhead whales were killed just by the Dutch (Francis,

1984). Between 1825 and 1834, at least 8,500 bowhead were killed (Francis, 1984). Early on,

commercial whalers would kill a whale, then tow it to shore for butchering and processing

(Bockstoce, 1986). As whale ships became more advanced and more of the processing could be

done at sea, each ship could take more and more whales before returning to land (Bockstoce, 1986).

By the 1890s, most ships could take 20 whales in a single day (Francis, 1984).

As demand for whale products decreased and whales became scarcer, commercial whaling

became less and less profitable. Technological improvements to weapons, such as shoulder guns

and exploding harpoons were developed in the 1870s; however, the rough seas of the Arctic limited

their effectiveness for bowhead hunting (Bockstoce, 1986). The addition of steam power to

Gerhart 6

commercial whaling ships in the 1880s allowed a temporary boom to the industry (Stoett, 1997).

Even with these advances, catching the few remaining bowhead required venturing deep into the

Arctic ocean, which led to numerous catastrophic losses of ships and crews during the 1870s and

80s (Stoett, 1997). As whale stocks fell, whaling crews would frequently supplement their catch

with walrus hunting (Bockstoce, 1986). Though less profitable than whales, walruses still supplied

some oil, as well as tusks, and provided some profit when whales were scarce (Bockstoce, 1986).

Despite these temporary extensions to the industry, European and Dutch operations began to retreat

in the late 1800s and the last American commercial whaler left the Arctic in 1907 (Bockstoce, 1986;

Stoett, 1997). In his 1984 book Arctic Chase, Daniel Francis summed up the end of the commercial

bowhead industry by saying:

“Such a slaughter could not continue indefinitely. Steam power extended the range

of the whaling fleet and new weapons increased the kill ratio, but in the end these

innovations were simply putting off the inevitable. Eventually, there would be

nothing left to kill.”

Though the commercial whaling industry had collapsed, indigenous whaling continued

throughout much of the Arctic. For more than 50 years Inuit in Alaska continued to catch about 20

bowhead whales each season (Bockstoce, 1986). International agreements to protect bowhead

whales were put in place in 1931, 1947 and 1972, though under each agreement Inuit were still

allowed to hunt bowhead for cultural and dietary reasons (NMFS, 1977). Despite a moratorium on

all whaling enacted by the IWC in 1986, Inuit communities continue to catch bowhead whales

under the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) exemption (IWC, 2009). ASW quotas put forth

by the IWC have received frequent scrutiny and criticism since the bowhead whale is still listed as

an endangered species (Stoett, 1997). Currently, the quota for the Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Seas

bowhead population (shared between the Inuit of Alaska and the Chukchi region of Russia) is set at

280 whales for the period 2008-2012, with no more than 67 whales struck in any year (IWC, 2009).

Greenland also has a bowhead quota of 2 whales annually from 2008-2012, as well as quotas for

other whales including fin and common minke (IWC, 2009). With a population size currently

estimated at around 11,000 and an annual increase of 3.2% (or over 350 whales), these quotas seem

unlikely to diminish current bowhead populations (IWC, 2009).

Gerhart 7

The Legal Environment

Historically, commercial whaling was a largely unregulated industry. The few regulations

that did exist focused mainly on the size of the ship itself and the number of crewmen (Jackson,

2008). Such regulations were not designed for conservation, but were implemented mainly for the

safety of the crew and for proper payment of crewmen upon return (Jackson, 2008). International

regulation of commercial whaling worldwide was attempted several times, through the League of

Nations in 1927, a cartel between whaling nations in 1932 and the adoption of a limited whaling

season and minimum size limits in 1937 (Smith, 1983). These measures met with much opposition

from countries in favor of unregulated whaling and, consequently, provided minimal protection for

declining whale populations worldwide. Also, since the bowhead commercial industry had

collapsed in 1907, these attempts at regulation had little effect on Arctic bowhead whaling.

The first successful international regulatory agreement came in the form of the International

Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) in 1946 (Smith, 1983). Representatives from 15

countries attended the ICRW and created the International Whaling Commission (Fig. 1;

Anonymous, 2009). Membership has changed over the last 60 years, with many countries leaving

and entering the IWC, which now consists of 88 countries worldwide (Anonymous, 2009).

The IWC was created to “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks, and thus

make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.” (IWC, 2009). The first and second

halves of this sentence seem to conflict, and

since its creation, the IWC has struggled

under the contradictory responsibility of

protecting whale stocks while simultaneously

promoting the development of the

commercial whaling industry. Since all

countries have an equal vote in IWC

decisions, the primary focus of the agency

(conservation versus industrial development) depends on the majority opinion of the members. At

the time of its creation, following World War II, there was a worldwide shortage of protein and the

IWC focused mainly on developing the whaling industry to provide adequate food for countries

devastated by the war (Stoett, 1997; Decker, 2006). Since then, the primary focus has shifted to one

not just of conservation, but in many cases, preservationist stances (Stoett, 1997).

Gerhart 8

Despite anti-whaling regulations, members of the IWC can continue whaling in a number of

ways. First, a country can obtain an aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) or small coastal whaling

(SCW) quota (Stoett, 1997). ASW quotas can be granted provided the representative country

demonstrates a dietary need for whale meat, or a historical reliance on whales in the aboriginal

culture (Stoett, 1997). SCW operations are considered commercial in nature, but small in scale and

more focused on economic subsistence than cultural or dietary need (Decker, 2006). Though this

class of whaling is officially recognized by the IWC, and despite the fact that SCW communities

only hunt whales capable of enduring sustained harvesting (ie. not endangered), no SCW quotas

have ever been granted (Decker, 2006). Second, countries can perform scientific whaling, which

was allowed in order to increase scientific knowledge of whale populations, migrations and ecology

(IWC, 2009). The scientific exception is highly controversial as non-whaling countries view this as

a loop-hole through which whaling countries are allowed to continue unregulated commercial

whaling (Stoett, 1997; Decker, 2006). Third, when a new regulation is adopted by the IWC, a

member country has 90 days to file an objection, effectively releasing that country from adherence

to the regulation (Smith, 1983; Stoett, 1997; Decker, 2006). Though still a member of the IWC,

Norway objected to the 1986 moratorium and currently practices legal commercial whaling of

minke (Decker, 2006). Japan also objected to the moratorium, but later withdrew its objection due

to economic pressure from the United States (Decker, 2006). Lastly, membership in the IWC is

completely voluntary and a country may leave at any time and no longer be subject to regulation by

the IWC (Stoett, 1997). Though originally in favor of the moratorium, Iceland left the IWC in 1992

due to frustration with IWC leadership (Decker, 2006). Iceland later rejoined in 2002, under the

condition that it could resume limited whaling (Decker, 2006). Notably, Canada left the IWC in

opposition to the 1986 moratorium, despite the fact that the Minister of Fisheries had banned

commercial whaling in 1972 (Francis, 1984; Goodman, 1996; Decker, 2006). Canadian whaling is

now regulated by the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975, the Inuvialuit Agreement of

1984 and the Nunavut Agreement of 1993 (Goodman, 1996). The Nunavut Agreement is unique in

that it specifically sets out a process for re-establishing the traditional bowhead hunt of the Inuit

(Goodman, 1996). A bowhead was legally taken in the western Canadian Arctic in 1991 after nearly

60 years of banned hunting (Goodman, 1996). In addition, a bowhead quota was granted in the

eastern Canadian Arctic in 1996 after nearly 20 years of banned hunting (Goodman, 1996).

With so many ways to avoid regulation, it is not surprising that IWC jurisdiction is

extremely limited. The 1986 moratorium may sound as if commercial whaling worldwide was

Gerhart 9

completely obliterated; however, by 1998 less than 5% of whales killed annually fell under IWC

oversight (Freeman et al, 1998). Even so, the IWC has been fighting to shut down what little

whaling it controls, which many people feel is simply “hastening its own demise” (Freeman et al,

1998).

In 1977, the IWC removed the aboriginal exemption for the subsistence harvest of bowhead

whales (USDC, 1977). As mentioned, previous regulation had always allowed for indigenous

hunting; however, pressure from the Scientific Committee to protect the endangered bowhead

population led the IWC to ban all bowhead hunting regardless of scale or cultural need (USDC,

1977). The United States government considered filing an objection to the new regulation in order

to allow subsistence hunting to continue and even published an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) on the potential effects of objecting or not objecting (USDC, 1977). Four days before the 90-

day deadline, the United States Secretary of State Cyrus Vance announced the U.S. would not

object to the new regulation, which gave the Alaskan Inuit little time to respond (Mason, 1977). A

suit was brought against Secretary Vance to force him to object on behalf of the Alaskan Inuit

population (Mason, 1977). In Adams v. Vance, the District Court of the District of Columbia ruled

in favor of the Alaskan Inuit and ordered Secretary Vance to object (Mason, 1977). Secretary Vance

appealed and the case reached the Supreme Court where the District Court’s decision was

overturned due to the vulnerability of the bowhead to extinction and the injury the United States

would sustain if an objection were filed (Adams v Vance, 1977). Injury to the United States would

have resulted from the weakening of U.S. conservation stances in the IWC and beyond (USDC,

1977). In the past, the United States had pressured other countries to not object to IWC regulations

despite economic and cultural hardship in order to achieve a higher goal of conservation (USDC,

1977). Objecting now, when the U.S. was threatened with hardship would be hypocritical and could

encourage other countries to also object, which would not only endanger whale populations, but

also weaken the effectiveness of the IWC as a regulatory agency (USDC, 1977). The EIS clearly

outlined the effect the ban would have on Inuit culture, diet and health, as well as damage to the

“trust responsibility” the U.S. government holds towards its indigenous people (USDC, 1977).

These impacts, however, were not deemed as important as the U.S. maintaining its stance as a

leading environmental nation; a feeling which was clearly upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court

(USDC, 1977; Adams v. Vance, 1977). In the end, a compromise was reached whereby the United

States petitioned the IWC for a limited bowhead quota, citing the importance of cultural

conservation as well as biological conservation (Mason, 1977). After heated debates from the

Gerhart 10

Scientific Committee and three votes from member nations, the IWC granted a quota of 18 whales

to the Alaskan Inuit (Mason, 1977). This decision, as well as similar later regulations, brought

criticism to the IWC for blatant disregard of the Scientific Committee’s recommendations (Decker,

2006). Even today, the IWC still struggles to balance biological goals of conservation with social

and political considerations.

Despite the victory for the Inuit in protecting their right to bowhead whales, heated debates

still surround ASW quotas. Pro-whaling nations dislike the allowance for aboriginal cultures to hunt

endangered whales, such as the bowhead, while hunting non-endangered whales is still banned

(Stoett, 1997). Those in favor of ASW quotas cite the fact that aboriginal cultures have been

whaling sustainably for centuries, and should not be punished for the unregulated ravaging of whale

populations by western cultures (Decker, 2006). Even if IWC member countries could agree on the

existence of ASW quotas, who qualifies for them is sometimes problematic. The original wording

by the IWC applied the exemption to

“whaling for the purposes of local aboriginal consumption carried out by or on

behalf of aboriginal, indigenous, or native peoples who share strong community,

familial, social and cultural ties related to a continuing traditional dependence on

whaling and the use of whales” (Decker, 2006).

Under this wording, it can be difficult to determine who qualifies for an ASW exemption. If whale

products are traded or sold to inland communities (a common practice throughout the Arctic;

Decker, 2006), is this no longer local consumption? In some cases, Inuit communities were caught

in a contradiction wherein “aboriginal, indigenous, or native peoples” were defined by their use of

traditional hunting methods and tools, yet environmental groups pressured the Inuit to adopt modern

hunting techniques to support humane killing of whales (Decker, 2006). In addition, the

classification of “aboriginal” can often lead to stereotypes and prejudice against whaling

communities (Shoemaker, 2005).

In addition to, and resulting from, the problems described above, the future of the IWC as a

whole is potentially unstable. A regulatory agency that bans what it was intended to regulate

eventually makes itself obsolete. If the moratorium on whaling is upheld in the future, countries in

favor of whaling may simply leave the organization and legally whale under no international

regulations (Stoett, 1997). If whale populations worldwide are to be protected, many argue the IWC

must lift the moratorium and allow limited commercial whaling on those species that can sustain

added hunting pressure (Decker, 2006). If the IWC maintains its stance against all commercial

Gerhart 11

whaling, despite its scale or sustainability, it may end up as little more than a club of anti-whaling

countries. Since the bowhead population is still commercially extinct, dissolution (or

ineffectiveness) of the IWC would be unlikely to largely impact this species. Still, a lack of

effective international regulation could be detrimental to whale populations worldwide and could

still impact Arctic bowhead, particularly if current conservation measures increase the bowhead

population to sizes that could potentially support commercial whaling.

The Social Impacts on the Inuit

“When [bowhead] hunting was banned, it seemed that our soul was killed

altogether… If there is no hunt we shall go down quickly, one after another. My

brother Yuggaq was the first to go and now he is calling to me.”

- Andrei Ankalin, boat captain from Chukotka (Russia); Yuggaq committeed

suicide in 1979, after the Soviet ban on bowhead hunting (Bogoslovskaya, 2003)

Long before the legal complications of the

IWC and whaling quotas, effects of commercial

whaling and the presence of whalers themselves

heavily impacted Inuit communities throughout the

Arctic. From the start, Inuit groups and western

commercial whalers had drastically different views of

the whale and the purpose of whaling. For commercial

whalers, the goal was obviously economical. Whale

products such as oil and baleen were used in ways that

made their origin obscure to the average buyer back

home. Few people contemplated the life of the

bowhead whale while burning its oil in their lamps or

lining their corsets with its baleen cut into strips of

uniform length and thickness. These products did not

look like whales and in no way represented a whale to

the consumer. In addition, most Europeans and Americans had no involvement in and little

knowledge of the hunting and processing of whales. The Inuit, on the other hand, viewed the whale

as an integral part of nearly every aspect of their culture. Whaling and eating maktak (whale skin

Gerhart 12

attached to about an inch of blubber) were how the Inuit became a “fully fledged” (Bogoslovskaya,

2003) or “real and whole” (Sakakibara, 2009) person. The entire community participated in the

butchering of the whale and the distribution of its meat and blubber (Fig 2; Turner, 1993). Though

the men physically hunted the whale, it was said that the whale captain’s wife “brought in the

whale” via her sexual attraction and virtue (Turner, 1993; Freeman et al, 1998) While whale

products were vital to their survival, the Inuit also respected the whale as a living entity.

Commercial whalers from Europe, Denmark and North America seemed to view the whale simply

as a repository of industrial goods. This difference of perspective is easily seen in quotes from

whaling journals and interviews with Inuit whalers:

“There is something extremely painful in the destruction of a whale…yet the

object of the adventure, the value of the prize, the joy of the capture, cannot be

sacrificed to feelings of compassion.”

- British Whaling Captain William Scoresby Jr. (Francis, 1984)

“Our relationship to the land is very important because the land is alive, the

animals and the sea itself; and you are interacting [with them]…Going to catch

a whale, the feeling that you get is never what you get going down to the store.

Going down to the store, you’re on dead ground: all the buildings are dead. All

the items are dead, there’s nothing alive….A whale gives of itself: it’s an animal

that you feel fully about, it’s something that gives itself up to you and that’s an

important thing in our beliefs, that’s still very strong.” – Simionie Akpalialuk

Nunavut whaler (Freeman et al, 1998)

In his journal, Captain Scoresby first shows remorse for whale hunting, but then reminds himself

that “the value of the prize” must not be forgotten. Akpalialuk, on the other hand, shows the

importance of feeling connected to the whale, that whaling is a way to interact with the sea and the

whales, not just a way to obtain products for survival.

Such differences in perspective would become the focal point of changes in Inuit culture in

response to western presence and commercial whaling. Early in the commercial whaling industry,

contact consisted mainly of trade between whalers and the Inuit (Francis, 1984). The fairness of

trade was sometimes in question, with several whalers reporting that Inuit items were traded at

much lower value than western goods (Francis, 1984; Bockstoce, 1986). One captain reported he

could get $100 worth of bowhead baleen for a bottle of rum that cost 40 cents back home

Gerhart 13

(Bockstoce, 1986). A member of Canada’s North West Mounted Police reported seeing a $10 rifle

traded for $750 worth of musk ox robes (Francis, 1984). Cheating occurred on both sides, however;

Inuit sewed tails to rabbit furs to pass them off as foxes, riveted broken walrus tusks with lead, and

hid iron bars in bundles of baleen to increase their weight (Bockstoce, 1986).

As the whaling industry grew, many commercial whale ships hired Inuit men for translating

services, as guides, or for additional labor, and many also hired women as seamstresses (Francis,

1984). Over time, Inuit communities began to manufacture Inuit products and harvest fur-bearing

animals for sale to whalers (Francis, 1984). Introducing wage-earning into what had previously

been a thoroughly subsistence-based economy changed power structures within Inuit communities

and created a reliance on outside sources of goods and money that had previously never been

present (Francis, 1984). For example, before contact with western commercial whalers, Inuit men

usually inherited whaleboats and other equipment from their captain after having proven their

effectiveness as a crewman (Cassell, 2003). Once wage earning was introduced, men could buy

whaleboats and whaling equipment, which distributed the material power base much more broadly

and, in some cases, nearly doubled the number of whale captains in a community (Cassell, 2003).

Over time, the Inuit became more reliant on limited wage-earning and western commercial goods,

and when the commercial industry collapsed, many Inuit communities were hard hit by the

elimination of access to these commodities (Chiropolos, 1994).

Cooperation, or lack thereof, between commercial whalers and Inuit varied drastically

throughout the Arctic. Some groups of Inuit were known for aggressive attacks on commercial

whalers, such as the Point Hope Inuit who reportedly “surrounded boats’ crews, pricked their

throats with knives, cut the buttons off their clothes, [and] stole tobacco from their pockets…”

(Bockstoce, 1984). In addition, incidences of Inuit threatening violence if they were not given rum

were later reported (Bockstoce, 1986). For example, in 1851, when the Armata of London ran

aground off the Chukchi Peninsula, allegedly drunken Inuit raided the ship for rum and then began

plundering the ship’s stores (Bockstoce, 1986). One sailor reportedly tried to intervene and was

stabbed by one of the Inuit (Bockstoce, 1986). A fight quickly broke out which resulted in the

deaths of one British sailor and eight Inuit (Bockstoce, 1986). Unfortunately, these altercations were

not uncommon and contributed to the stereotype that Inuit were “lazy, filthy, worthless, and

dishonest and require constant watching” (Bockstoce, 1986).

In contrast, numerous captains reported that Inuit communities were accommodating and

supportive to whalers (Bockstoce, 1986). For example, the Richmond also ran aground off the

Gerhart 14

Chukchi Peninsula in 1849, yet this ship met with care and support from the local Inuit for several

days until rescue arrived for the stranded whalers (Bockstoce, 1986). Another ship, the Citizen was

lost off the coast of New Bedford in 1852 and Inuit provided for the captain and crew for the entire

winter until commercial ships arrived the following season (Bockstoce, 1986).

Even when ships remained intact, whaling voyages were long, grueling trips and many

crewmen deserted (Francis, 1984). Desertion was especially common in Alaska during the Klondike

gold rush, which was near American whale-hunting grounds and shore stations (Francis, 1984).

Deserters would seek aid from, or even raid, Inuit settlements in order to survive the harsh

conditions (Francis, 1984). Even when deserters were not violent, housing and caring for them put

the Inuit in an uncomfortable position with the captains of the deserted ships who later came in

search of their missing crewmen (Francis, 1984).

More detrimental to Inuit communities than deserters were the diseases many whalers

carried with them. The community of Saglermuit in Hudson Bay had only sporadic contact with

whalemen until a Scottish steamer landed in 1899 to establish a shore-based whaling and trading

station (Francis, 1984). In the summer of 1902, a customary visit from a whale ship to the shore

station spread an unknown disease, possibly typhus, to the Saglermuit Inuit (Francis, 1984). The

only survivors were one woman and her four children, who were relocated to Repulse Bay (Francis,

1984). The mother soon died as well, and her children were adopted into the Repulse Bay

community (Francis, 1984). The Mackenzie Inuit, spread along the Arctic coast from Alaska to

Cape Bathurst, were almost totally wiped out in 1902 through the spread of measles (Francis, 1984).

The few survivors of the original 2,500 inhabitants moved and intermarried with communities

farther inland and the Mackenzie culture was lost (Francis, 1984; Freeman et al, 1998). Around

1910, a Yankee whaler spread measles to Inuit attending a coastal trading celebration (Wohlforth,

2004). Though gravely ill, the Inuit believed they would recover if they could get back to their

community farther inland (Wohlforth, 2004). Unfortunately, “the villagers perished one by one on a

desperate trek upriver, the bodies of men, women and children scattered along the riverbanks with

the gifts they had received at the celebration and their empty boats” (Wohlforth, 2004). This

epidemic exterminated the last interior Inupiat village in Alaska (Wohlforth, 2004).

Sexually transmitted diseases also arose in Inuit communities due to fraternization between

Inuit women and whalers. Prostitution arose in some regions not long after whalers arrived. In

addition, western items were sometimes traded for sexual favors from Inuit women (Bockstoce,

1986). Such practices were disruptive to the social and familial fabric of the Inuit communities and

Gerhart 15

led to the spread of STDs (Bockstoce, 1986). By 1890, it was estimated that half the Inuit

population at Point Barrow, Alaska was infected with secondary or tertiary syphilis (Bockstoce,

1986). Some whaling captains took Inuit “wives” for the whaling season, though this practice varied

from long-term and voluntary relationships, to seasonal and exploitative prostitution (Francis, 1984;

Bockstoce, 1986). In some cases, children produced from these relationships were brought back to

the United States for schooling, thought it is not reported if this practice was supported by the

children’s mothers (Bockstoce, 1986). Some captains were famous for their exploits. One in

particular, Captain E.W. Newth, was known as the “kindergarten captain” due to his proclivity for

filling his ship with native girls in their pre-teens (Bockstoce, 1986). Captain Newth’s ship usually

carried at least five girls between the ages of 11 and 15, many of whom had been rented from their

families for the whaling season (Bockstoce, 1986).

Not surprisingly, once word of the alcohol, fighting and sex in the far north reached home,

missionaries came to the Arctic. Reverend Isaac Stringer and his wife Sadie from the Anglican

Church of Canada built the first church on Herschel Island, near the Alaskan border, in 1893

(Bockstoce, 1986). Reverend Stringer succeeded in convincing the whaling captains to cease trade

of alcohol with the Inuit, but his attempts at imposing western morality on the Inuit were largely

unsuccessful (Bockstoce, 1986). The harsh conditions of the Arctic and the Inuit disinterest in

Christianity resulted in few long-term missions and little success of the missionaries (Bockstoce,

1986). Even so, some impacts from missionization can still be seen today. In a study on Point Hope,

Alaska whaling festivals, Larson (2003) found that the only major change over the last century was

a deemphasis on mourning, accompanied by the loss of graveside visits. Larson attributed this

change to the impact of missionaries who disapproved of the practice (Larson, 2003). In addition,

though Inuit cemeteries often still contain traditional whalebone headstones and whalebone fences,

many of them are now adorned with Christian crosses (Fig 3; Sakakibara, 2008). Also, many Inuit

now celebrate Christmas and Thanksgiving, which missionaries introduced to replace the whale

bladder feast held in the fall to celebrate the bowhead soul (Sakakibara, 2009).

Gerhart 16

As attention by whalers, traders and missionaries focused on the far north, governments

began to take notice as well and the Inuit were quickly tied up in geopolitical battles over land and

leadership. When the Bolsheviks took over

the Russian Chukchi Peninsula in the

1920s, the coast was sealed off from use

(Boackstoce, 1986). Though some foreign

traders were allowed to operate on the

Siberian shore, Chukchi Inuit were largely

cut off from their whaling grounds and

required to sell all trade goods to the state

(Bockstoce, 1986). Since the Chukchi Inuit

had previously been very active in trade

and social contact with the Alaskan Inuit,

this new political barrier was disastrous for

trade as well as community relationships

(Bockstoce, 1986).

As American whaling interests expanded, the Canada government was particularly worried

about American expansion from Alaska across the Arctic Canadian coast and increased military and

community presence in order to protect Canadian land from American influence (Francis, 1984;

Anderson, 2009). Canada officially took control of the northern archipelago in the 1880s, yet had

little governmental presence for several decades (Francis, 1984). In the meantime, whalers and

explorers from the United States, Norway and Scotland were all using northern Canadian grounds

for staging points (Francis, 1984). Though Norway and Scotland were of little threat, the

government was much more worried about American inhabitance:

“They [Americans] are south of us for the entire width of our country; they block

our natural and best possible outlet to the Atlantic; they skirt us for hundreds of

miles on the Pacific and control the entrance to a vast portion of our territory, and

the next move if we do not look sharply after our interests, will be to surround us

on the North.” – Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, 1903 (Francis, 1984)

Instead of making an overt announcement of expansion to their shore, which might have prompted

U.S. action, the Canadian government instead opted to “quietly assume jurisdiction in all

directions” by installing outposts and expanding police presence throughout the north (Francis,

Gerhart 17

1984). These outposts, erected around the turn of the 20th century, maintained order between the

Inuit, trappers and traders, missionaries, prospectors and scientists even after the collapse of the

bowhead commercial industry (Francis, 1984).

While Arctic governments were expanding their spheres of influence, bowhead whale

populations were falling. When whales were scarce, commercial whalers frequently supplemented

their catch with walrus (Bockstoce, 1986). It was quickly learned that a little stealth was all that was

required for a sizeable walrus take. If hunters startled the herd, the entire group would flee to the

safety of the water. If, instead, a hunter shot a single walrus in the head, the rest of the herd would

awake at the noise, but with no obvious cause for alarm, would soon go back to resting (Bockstoce,

1986). Once two or three had been killed, the herd generally became accustomed to the sound of the

gun and would hardly react at all (Bockstoce, 1986). One captain reported killing 250 walrus in a

single day using this method (Bockstoce, 1986). Unfortunately, the Inuit also relied on walrus for

much of their diet and used walrus skins for lining boats and houses (Bockstoce, 1986). For Inuit

communities that had no terrestrial food source, such as caribou, on which to fall back, loss of

walrus herds could mean starvation (Bockstoce, 1986). In the 1878-79 hunting season, Captain J.J.

Nye reported that inhabitants of three Inuit settlements on St. Lawrence Island (off the coast of

Alaska) had all died of starvation due to scarce walrus and whales, and unforgiving southerly winds

that kept ice packed against the shore (Bockstoce, 1986). Captain Ebenezer Nye reported on the

situation in a letter to the editor of the New Bedford Standard on August 2, 1879 saying:

“Fully one-third of the population south of St. Lawrence Bay perished the past

winter for want of food, and half the natives of St. Lawrence Island died, one

village of 200 inhabitants all died excepting one man… The people have eaten

their walrus skin houses and walrus skin boats; this old skin poisoned them and

made them sick, and many died from that. They also eat about all of their dogs,

and there are but three boats and three dogs left at what was once the largest

settlement of Plover Bay” (Bockstoce, 1986).

It was not until 1881 that the full extent of the disaster was realized (Bockstoce, 1986). A final

report by Edward William Nelson, an ethnographer traveling aboard the whaleship Corwin,

indicated the extinction or abandonment of at least six Inuit villages on St. Lawrence Island

(Bockstoce, 1986). In one village, Nelson discovered over 200 bodies:

“The bodies of the people were found everywhere in the village as well as

scattered along a line toward the graveyard for half a mile inland…In one instance

Gerhart 18

a body lay outstretched upon a sled, while behind it, prone upon his face, with

arms outstretched and almost touching the sled runners, lay the body of a man who

had died while pushing the sled bearing the body of his friend or relative”

(Bockstoce, 1986).

Such tragedies convinced some captains to abstain from walrus hunting in order to protect the

species from extinction and the Inuit from starvation (Bockstoce, 1986). Even so, walrusing was not

entirely abandoned until the whaling industry collapsed in the early 1900s (Bockstoce, 1986). Since

the cessation of commercial walrus hunting, Inuit have continued the hunt, in some cases only for

ivory; still, walrus populations have recovered to numbers greater than before commercial hunting

began (Bockstoce, 1986).

Even during the height of the commercial whaling industry, whaling captains and

government officials were aware of some of the impacts they were having on Inuit life and culture.

Statements from official reports and whaling journals show some of the opinions on this impact:

“Since their association with the whalers our coast natives have never lived or

dressed so well… Every family has a bath at least once a week and every Sunday

appear in clean clothes. They take plenty of exercise and are very fond of

football.” - Inspector G.L. Jennings 1910 (Francis, 1984)

“During the voyage of the Gjoa we came into contact with ten different Eskimo

tribes in all… And I must state it as my firm conviction that the latter, the Eskimo

living absolutely isolated from civilization of any kind, are undoubtedly the

happiest, healthiest, most honourable and most contented of them.”

- Roald Amundsen 1908 (Francis, 1984)

These statements show that even at the time, opinions were divided on whether or not contact with

western culture was a boon for progress or a harbinger of disaster for Inuit communities.

Regardless, this contact would continue long after the collapse of the whaling industry. Cultural

impact from western sources continues today due to geopolitical considerations such as strategic

missile defense and resource exploitation as well as scientific research and ecotourism.

Climate Change in the Arctic

“[The Inuit] were skeptical of climate change, or at least worried it could be

exaggerated. The changes they had seen were real, but they were conservative

Gerhart 19

interpreters of nature and the new Arctic science was still primitive… The weather

was warmer, but maybe it would get colder again… the men around the table

talked with half an eye on me, joking about the dubious evidence of climate

change. I didn’t really believe them. They sounded like they were trying to

convince themselves, as bluff as kids passing a graveyard.” – C. Wohlforth The

Whale and the Supercomputer, 2004

Though commercial hunting was disastrous for bowhead populations and nearly caused

extinction of the species, current threats to the bowhead whale come from an entirely different,

albeit still anthropogenic, source. Predictions of future climatic changes indicate that warming and

its effects may be accentuated in the Arctic and the rate of change in this region may be rapid

(IPCC, 2007). In fact, warming in the Arctic has been 2-3 times greater than that observed globally

over the last 150 years (IPC, 2007). Due to

increased temperatures, the extent of sea ice has

declined by 45,000 km2/yr over the past 30

years (Parkinson and Cavalieri, 2008). The

waters surrounding Baffin Island on the eastern

coast of Canada have seen reductions of 10-

20% every decade since 1979 (Moore, 2006).

From 1953 to 2006, sea ice declined even faster

than models had predicted (Fig 4., Stroeve et al,

2007). Also, ice is breaking up 3 weeks earlier

in the spring (compared to 30 years ago) and

freezing later (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006).

Natural variability such as changes in the

strength and location of the Beaufort Gyre and

characteristics of the Transpolar Drift Stream are certainly affecting sea ice characteristics of the

Arctic, yet models show that observed changes are the result of a combination of natural variation

and growing radiative forcing associated with increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

(Serreze et al, 2007). For example, some models show that natural variation accounts for less than

0.1% of the observed changes in sea ice thickness and extent over the last 40-50 years (Vinnikov et

al, 1999). In addition, these changes result in a positive feedback system where increasing

Gerhart 20

temperatures increase open water, which absorbs more of the sun’s energy and thereby continues to

increase temperatures (Lindsay and Zhang, 2006). Though models disagree on when the Arctic may

be completely ice-free, it is clear that warming is increasing and the extent and thickness of Arctic

sea ice is decreasing (Serreze et al, 2007).

Implications for Bowhead Whales

“The rules [for whale hunting] change season to season anyway, but this

[climate change] would be a bigger shift. Things that were true for fathers won’t

be true for sons, and so it will always be experiencing something new…”

– Richard Glenn, Inupiat whaler at Barrow, Alaska (Wohlforth, 2004)

Changes in ocean temperatures and sea ice cover in the Arctic could have direct effects on

the seasonal distribution, geographic range, migration pattern, nutritional status, reproductive

success, and (for endangered species, in particular) the persistence of species throughout the Arctic

(Tynan and DeMaster, 1997). In addition, decreases in sea ice would likely increase human activity

in the arctic including shipping through the Northwest Passage, oil and gas drilling, and ecotourism

(Hovelsrud et al, 2008). The ability of a given species to withstand these changes depends not just

on the speed of change, but also on the adaptability and resilience of the species in question (Moore

and Huntington, 2008). Though there is evidence that the bowhead whale has adapted its pattern of

habitat use in response to environmental changes throughout the last 11,000 years, the question now

is how quickly the bowhead will be able to respond to current changes caused not just by natural

environmental variation, but also by anthropogenic activities (Simmonds and Isaac, 2007).

For the bowhead, which does not directly require ice for survival, changes in sea ice and

temperature are most likely to impact the bowhead through availability of prey (Tynan and

DeMaster, 1997). Bowhead migration patterns have been shown to change in respond to food

availability and sea ice and thickness as well as leads and polynyas in the ice (Dixon, 2004).

Already, there is evidence that environmental changes in the Arctic have begun to impact the

availability of bowhead prey. A study of bowhead baleen plates, which record characteristics of the

whale’s prey and feeding habits, showed a 30-40% decline in seasonal productivity since 1966

(Schell, 2000). In addition, analysis of archaeological baleen samples dating to 2,200 yr B.P.

showed higher levels of Arctic productivity than any time over the last 50 years (Schell, 2000).

Gerhart 21

Decreased productivity in the Arctic means less prey is available to predators like the bowhead

whale, which lowers the population size the environment can sustainably support (Schell, 2000).

Increased human activity in the Arctic could also heavily impact the bowhead. Reductions in

sea ice extent would allow for increased shipping through the Northern Sea Route and the

Northwest Passage (Hovelsrud et al, 2008). In addition, exploration for and exploitation of natural

resources such as oil and gas would likely increase as access to resource beds increases (Hovelsrud

et al, 2008). Increased tanker traffic and resource utilization could increase pollutants in the water

and bowhead exposure to toxicants (Burek et al, 2008; Hovelsurd et al, 2008). Already, an average

10-15 thousand metric tons of petroleum enter the marine environment each day; and the National

Academy of Sciences estimates 3.2 million metric tons of oil enter the ocean every year (Neff,

1990). U.S. waters alone see over 10,000 oil spill incidents every year (Neff, 1990). Tanker

accidents are not the only problem – the principle source of oil release during marine transport

comes from the discharge of ballast and tank-washing water (Neff, 1990). These sources are

regulated; however, ballast treatment centers can still release dangerous compounds to the ocean

(Neff, 1990). In the first two years of operation, a ballast treatment center in Valdez, Alaska

released 33.4 billion liters of treated ballast water containing over 130 metric tons of particulate oil

and 170 metric tons of volatile hydrocarbons (Neff, 1990). Marine organisms can come in contact

with these compounds during numerous activities such as breathing, feeding, resting, and grooming

(Fig 5; Neff, 1990). Bowhead whales are especially vulnerable to oil slicks due to their restricted

habitats, surface feeding behavior and low population size (Neff, 1990). In particular, the baleen

plates may be susceptible to contamination from oil and related compounds. Only one example of

baleen fouled with oil has been documented; however, researchers conclude it is safe to assume that

“any substance in seawater which alters the characteristics of the plates, the integrity of the hairs, or

the porosity of the sieve may jeopardize the nutritional well-being of the animal” (Geraci, 1990).

Still, the direct effects of oil on marine mammals in general, and bowhead in particular, require

continued study. Though dolphins will avoid oil spills in a research tank, bowhead whales have

been observed in oil slicks in the wild, seemingly unharmed (Geraci, 1990; Wursig, 1990). At this

point, it is difficult to say how or if contact with oil will severely harm bowhead whales, still

researchers argue that increased toxic compounds in the Arctic Ocean should be avoided even if the

impacts are not yet fully understood (Geraci, 1990; Neff, 1990).

Gerhart 22

Industrial noises of resource exploration and extraction can also directly impact bowhead

populations (Evans and Raga, 2001). Events as simple as a fast-moving vessel approaching a pod of

whales can cause the animals to scatter, creating a panic that can last for several hours (Evans and

Raga, 2001). In addition, loud industrial noises can cause shorter surfacings for air, shorter dives,

fewer respirations while at the surface and overall higher respiration rates in whales (Evans and

Raga, 2001). Inuit hunters have even reported bowhead will divert their path at the sound of a

cooler being slammed at the ice camp (Wohlforth, 2004). Behavioral reactions vary drastically

depending on the activity of the animal (feeding, migrating, socializing, resting, etc); however,

these impacts could disrupt important factors of the bowhead lifestyle including breeding behavior

and migration patterns and timings (Evans and Raga, 2001).

Open sea routes in the far north could also increase ecotourism traffic throughout the Arctic

(Hovelsrud et al, 2008). Though air- and land-borne tourism are unlikely to drastically impact the

marine environment, cruise ships in the Arctic could have negative impacts (Hall and Johnston,

1995). This form of tourism has been increasing. For example, in Alaska, cruise tourism first began

in 1957 with around 2,500 tourists; by 1995 the number of passengers had increased to 250,000

each year (Hall and Johnston, 1995). Pollution from cruise ships can come in the form of oil spills,

and release of sewage and grey water (Hall and Johnson, 1995; Marsh and Staple, 1995).

Shipwrecks can also be problematic as navigational charts are not always accurate and weather

conditions can be challenging (Marsh and Staple, 1995). It is still not known what impact increased

Gerhart 23

cruise traffic through the Arctic may have on marine species, still tourism in the area needs to be

closely watched and regulated to avoid any negative impacts (Johnston and Madunic, 1995; Marsh

and Staple, 1995).

Increasing contact with humans through any of these venues, combined with changes in sea

ice cover, could alter the timing and location of bowhead whales (Fig 6; Hovelsrud et al, 2008).

Changes in migration and herding behaviors would not only affect the Inuit subsistence hunt, but

could also increase the transmission and severity of pathogens between individuals (Burek et al,

2008). While the impact of environmental and human-induced changes in bowhead habitat are not

at all certain, any one of these negative consequences of drastic and rapid change could be

detrimental for a species already classified as endangered. Traditional conservation measures, such

Gerhart 24

as hunting restrictions and habitat protection, may not adequately address physical changes in the

Arctic environment (Ragen et al, 2008). In fact, measures aimed at preventing climate change in

general (and not specifically addressing an individual species) may be the only effective strategy for

long-term protection of Arctic bowhead whales (Ragen et al, 2008).

Implications for Inuit Culture

“To survive our long winter, there are two things we must have: whale meat and

good stories.” – Lloyd, Point Hope resident (Sakakibara, 2008)

Climate-induced changes in bowhead abundance, migration and health will greatly affect

Inuit subsistence through access to a culturally and nutritionally vital dietary source. The field of

ecology has long been familiar with the idea of an ecosystem keystone species - a species that

shows an inordinately strong effect on its environment compared to its abundance (Paine, 1969).

Recently, this term has been expanded to include cultural keystone species, which are highly

represented in language, ceremony and narratives of a given culture (Garibaldi and Turner, 2004).

The bowhead whale could easily be described as a keystone species for Inuit groups throughout the

Arctic. Bowhead whales and whale hunting make up an immense part of song, celebration and

storytelling in many Inuit cultures (Sapir et al, 2003; Sakakibara, 2008; Sakakibara, 2009).

In addition to the cultural importance of whales, maktak and whale meat are an important

source of nutrition (Matthews, 1968; USDC, 1977; Freeman et al, 1998). Marine mammal fats in

general are low in saturated fats and high in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, which protects

against cardiovascular disease (Freeman et al, 1998). In fact, the low rates of heart disease in

Greenland Inuit, despite having a diet high in fat, led to the discovery of the benefits of fatty acids

(Freeman et al, 1998). Bowhead maktak is also a major source of antioxidants, which keep arteries

healthy, and selenium, which protects against heavy metals such as mercury (Freeman et al, 1998).

In addition, maktak and pickled whale entrails protect against scurvy (Matthews, 1968; Freeman et

al, 1998).

Should environmental or political barriers limit Inuit access to whale meat, an adequate

replacement for the Inuit diet will be difficult to find (USDC, 1977; Freeman et al, 1998). The US

Department of Commerce acknowledged this problem in the 1977 Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) concerning the IWC deletion of Inuit bowhead hunting (USDC, 1977). The EIS discussed

numerous options for replacement of whale meat including meat from other marine mammals (gray

Gerhart 25

whales and seals), land mammals (polar bear, grizzly/brown bear, caribou, Dall sheep, moose and

small game), fish and waterfowl (USDC, 1977). Each potential replacement species evoked new

problems of inaccessibility, unpalatable taste and texture, nutritional deficit or inability to withstand

increased hunting pressure (USDC, 1977). If commercially available foods such as beef (also

nutritionally inferior) were used as replacements, transport of large quantities of meat to remote

areas would likely be more expensive than many Inuit communities could sustain (USDC, 1977). If

a nutritionally and economically suitable alternative is not found, Inuit communities would likely

become more susceptible to “diseases of civilization” which include heart disease, strokes, gall

bladder disease, diabetes and obesity (Freeman et al, 1998). Such predictions are not idle scare

tactics. Climate-induced changes in bowhead migration patterns along the northern Canadian coast

may have caused the demise of the Thule culture more than 500 years ago (Tynan and DeMaster,

1997). Natural and human-induced changes in the Arctic environment today may pose a similar

threat to modern Inuit communities.

Changing environmental characteristics may not only affect the accessibility of Inuit to

bowhead whales, but may also affect their homeland itself through increased warming and changes

in ice and snow cover (IPCC, 2007). Climate models show that rapid sea ice loss results in 3.5 times

greater warming of land (Lawrence et al, 2008). Under conditions of decreasing sea ice, permafrost

up to 1500 km inland may be vulnerable to degradation (Lawrence et al, 2008). Already, permafrost

warming and thawing has been documented throughout extensive areas of Alaska (Dixon, 2003).

Many Inuit families use sigluaqs (ice cellars dug into the permafrost) to store meat (Sakakibara,

2008). In addition to being a natural refrigerator, sigluaqs represent the whale’s home on land – it is

said, “the whale will not give itself to [the Inuit] unless it has a clean place to rest” (Sakakibara,

2008). Siqluaq cellars in many communities are structurally supported by whalebones, such that “it

almost looks like we store the meat inside a whale’s stomach” (Sakakibara, 2008). Melting sigluaqs

mean Inuit communities must find new methods for preserving food, and also indicate the loss of an

important cultural connection to the land and to the whale (Sakakibara, 2008).

Changing conditions have already altered the access of Inuit to traditional hunting grounds,

and required that indigenous knowledge on whale harvesting and ice conditions be supplemented

with modern technology to ensure the safety of the hunters on unpredictable and hazardous ice

(Hovelsrud et al, 2008). As shore ice retreats, the remaining shoreline is increasingly vulnerable to

erosion by waves, especially if storm frequency or intensity increases (Sakakibara, 2008). For these

reasons, some communities are in threat of extinction altogether, such as the community at Point

Gerhart 26

Hope, Alaska, which was relocated in the late 1970s (Sakakibara, 2008). The Point Hope Inuit now

reside at New Town, 2 miles inland from their original location, now termed Old Town

(Sakakibara, 2008). Homes in Old Town were structurally supported by bowhead whalebones such

that many Point Hope Inuit felt they were “living in the belly of a whale” (Sakakibara, 2008).

Homes in New Town are western style – frame built and arranged in an “impersonal, rectilinear

grid” (Sakakibara, 2008). Continual storms, flooding, coastal erosion and sea-level rise have left

much of Old Town under water, including the sacred sites specific to each clan in the community

(termed qalgi) only two of which now survive (Sakakibara, 2008).

Sakakibara (2008) studied how storytelling in Point Hope has changed to incorporate the

relocation and the loss of Old Town. Storytelling is not only a form of entertainment, but also a way

to understand past experiences and adapt to future changes; changes in the style of storytelling can

reflect changes in cultural understandings (Sakakibara, 2008). Stories in the Point Hope community

reflect the impact of environmental changes on the Inuit as well as the supernatural spirit beings

with whom they interact (Sakakibara, 2008). As the Inuit moved to New Town, many of the spirit

beings living out in the wilderness are said to have migrated to inhabit the abandoned buildings at

Old Town, caring for the homes in the Inuit’s absence (Sakakibara, 2008). Some types of spirit

beings have been more affected by environmental changes than others. Little People (mischievous

spirits who play pranks on humans and perform miracles) were not common before the relocation,

but now are frequently active around Old Town (Sakakibara, 2008). Trolls, described as the “old

[men] of the mountain,” are nearly extinct, to which one Point Hope resident commented “It’s

survival of the fittest, isn’t it? (Sakakibara, 2008). Lastly, dragons have reportedly gone extinct due

to the drainage and coastal erosion of their habitat of Arctic lakes (Sakakibara, 2008). These

changes reflect connectivity between Inuit stories and changes in the Arctic environment, which

Sakakibara (2008) attributed to “a new immediacy of the people’s fear of losing Old Town and all it

stands for.” Though the threat of climate change to Old Town is obvious and immediate, many Inuit

communities throughout the Arctic may face similar threats to their homeland, sense of place, and

kinship with the environment (Sakakibara, 2008).

As with storytelling, changes in music making can reflect changing relationships between

the Inuit and the environment (Sakakibara, 2009). For the Inuit in Barrow, Alaska, the bowhead not

only provides the inspiration and nourishment for festivals, but also the musical instruments for

song and dance (Sakakibara, 2009). Drums made of whale skin are used in many ceremonies during

the whaling festivals and are kept intact by pouring water over them, much as a captain’s wife

Gerhart 27

ceremonially feeds fresh water to a captured whale after the hunt (Sakakibara, 2009). In this way,

the whale, though it gives up its life, gains immortality through the life of the drum (Sakakibara,

2009). Though the drum represents the whale’s eternal spirit, it also represents the Inuit spirit,

described by the metaphor that “drumbeat is the Inupiat heartbeat” (Sakakibara, 2009). In this way,

drumming, and the song and dance that accompany it, connect the Inuit to the bowhead in a visible

and audible way (Sakakibara, 2009).

Climate change has impacted music making by limiting the ability of the Inuit to create

bowhead skin drums (Sakakibara, 2009). A limited quota, and an even more limited ability to fulfill

the quota, leaves the Barrow community with limited supplies for drum making (Sakakibara, 2009).

Recent years have been especially difficult due to unpredictable ice conditions (Sakakibara, 2009).

“The insufficient whale harvest [of 2006] made the villagers hungrier than ever; it was a starvation

at emotional and spiritual levels” (Sakakibara, 2009). Increasing difficulty in obtaining materials for

drum making have turned some of the Barrow Inuit to turn to synthetic alternatives (Sakakibara,

2009). Plastic membranes produce a noticeably different sound, yet allow for festivals and music

making to continue in the absence of whale-skin drums (Sakakibara, 2009). Historically, drum

dances were held only after whales were caught; in the event of a whale-less year, no music would

be made (Sakakibara, 2009). Some of the Barrow community wish to adapt the historical view to

endow the drumbeat with new strength to call in the whales, so that music making can continue

even though bowhead whales are scarce (Sakakibara, 2009). Those supporting the new meaning of

music have come into strong opposition from those supporting the traditional interpretation,

increasing the tension and anxiety at Barrow over how to respond and adapt to observed changes in

climate and their effects on Inuit culture (Sakakibara, 2009).

Increased traffic through the Arctic for resource exploration, tourism and scientific study

will also impact Inuit communities. Though scientific and natural resource operations have long

been present in the Arctic, they will likely increase as areas become more accessible (Anderson,

2009). Increased exploitation of oil, gas and mineral reserves could provide a much-needed

economic boost and some financial independence to many Inuit communities in the Arctic

(Anderson, 2009). Many Greenland and Nunavut Inuit see mineral, oil, gas and marine resources as

their ticket to independence from western influence (Anderson, 2009). In the U.S., oil exploration

will be heavily affected by a number of factors, including political pressure from environmental

groups, the development of alternative energy sources and changes in energy policy (Anderson,

2009). In Russia, environmental opposition is much more limited and onshore development is

Gerhart 28

already increasing (Anderson, 2009). In both countries, oil and gas operations have experienced

catastrophic accidents that contaminated land and damaged ecosystems (Anderson, 2009). Though

such exploration may be financially beneficial for many Inuit, the environmental consequences may

be detrimental (Anderson, 2009).

Increased ecotourism in the Arctic could also provide an economic boon to Inuit

communities, however the benefits of tourism may be outweighed by the disadvantages. Ecotourism

is becoming increasingly popular throughout the world and the Arctic offers unique experiences

with nature and local residents (Hall and Johnston, 1995). Still, increased tourism in the remote

Arctic would require additional roads,

buildings and other infrastructure and

could negatively impact wildlife, Inuit

communities and archaeological and

historical sites (Hall and Johnston, 1995).

Statistics on Arctic tourism are difficult

to obtain for numerous regions, however,

tremendous growth has been documented

in some areas; for example, Canada’s

Northwest Territories reported 600

tourists in 1959 and nearly 48,000 in

1992 (Fig 7; Hall and Johnston, 1995). While cruise ships are more likely to impact the bowhead

whale directly, land-based tourist operations will have a stronger effect on Inuit communities in the

North. Problems from ecotourism include additional roads and other development, increases in

garbage and litter and cultural conflicts between visitors and the Inuit (Hall and Johnston, 1995).

Johnston (1995) illustrates some of the cultural conflicts that have already been observed:

“…a potential conflict exists between how visitors and local people view wildlife.

There are a number of stories circulating which illustrate this…. They all hinge on

the sighting of some animal (e.g. a narwhal or a seal) during a wildlife viewing

tour or a traditional lifestyles tour…The visitors immediately start snapping

photographs; the Inuit, after a suitable amount of time for photo-taking, shoot the

animal in question.”

Though this description is somewhat humorous, such differences in viewpoints toward nature and

animals can cause serious problems. In northern Russia, one wealthy tourist paid US$30,000 for

Gerhart 29

exclusive rights for an entire season to a particularly plentiful salmon river on the Kola Peninsula –

an agreement that legally expropriated the subsistence fishing rights of the local indigenous people

(Johnston, 1995). Similarly, in the Canadian eastern Arctic, any polar bear shot by a tourist (usually

in self-defense) counts towards the indigenous subsistence quota (Johnston, 1995). In addition,

indigenous culture can be exploited by parent nations in order to boost tourism. Canada in particular

has long used images and descriptions of Inuit in tourism promotions (Hinch, 1995). Finland

provided tours of indigenous culture led by non-indigenous people (Johnston, 1995). In a

particularly unfortunate example, the Sami culture of Finland was represented by non-Sami guides

who dressed and acted as a ‘Sami’ for the entertainment of the tourists (Johnston, 1995).

Considering these stories, it is not surprising that some Inuit communities have limited

tourism and resource extraction in an attempt to avoid such an invasion into their community

(Marsh and Staple, 1995). Still, the Inuit cannot fend off such impacts forever. Even if some

communities are able to resist or regulate tourism and resource management, biological effects of a

changing climate on the Inuit directly and on the bowhead whale may have serious detrimental

consequences for Inuit cultures.

Environmentalism and Cultural Imperialism

“The greatest peril of life lies in the fact that human food consists entirely of

souls.” Aua, Lyon Inlet Inuit (Freeman et al, 1998)

Implications for Cultural and Dietary Uses of Whales

Though European and North American countries used numerous whale-based products,

western culture did not heavily incorporate whale meat or blubber into the human diet (Shoemaker,

2005). Most commercial whalers did not even harvest any meat from the whale; though Norwegian

ships occasionally took some whale meat, which was usually ground up for use as fertilizer or in

animal feed (Shoemaker, 2005). Though whalers would occasionally eat whale meat, and despite

reports that it was “surprisingly palatable,” whale meat was never part of a regular diet (Shoemaker,

2005). Henry David Thoreau wrote of an incident on Cape Cod where residents drove a pod of pilot

whales ashore to obtain their oil (Shoemaker, 2005). Though residents reported they preferred

blubber to pork scraps and preferred fresh whale meat to beef, Thoreau still described whale meat as

being eaten only “by the poor” (Shoemaker, 2005). Though appetizing, whale meat was foreign and

associated with poverty and so, generally avoided by American whalers and the public (Shoemaker,

Gerhart 30

2005). Contact commercial whalers had with whale-eating Inuit, and stories that were brought home

to the public, reinforced prejudices against whale meat and its association with primitive, poverty-

stricken communities often referred to as savage or barbaric (Shoemaker, 2005). In the mid 1800s,

Arctic explorer Charles Francis Hall reported commercial whalers sharing whale meat of a captured

whale with Inuit:

“We of the white race were proud of our victory over such a monster of the deep,

and they of the darker skin were rejoiced at having aided in the capture of what

would very soon give them an immense quantity of ‘black skin’ and ‘krang’ for

food.” (Shoemaker, 2005)

The contrast in this description between the white goal of conquering the whale and the “darker

skin” goal of eating the whale shows the prejudice that such meats were only for the uncivilized

(Shoemaker, 2005). His prejudices remained despite the fact that Hall himself had participated in

eating whale meat:

“Any one fresh from civilization, if entering this igloo with me, would see a

company of what he would call a dirty set of human beings, mixed up among

masses of nasty, uneatable flesh, skins, blood and bones, scattered all about the

igloo…He would see men, women, and children – my humble self included –

engaged in devouring the contents of that kettle, and he would pity the human

beings who could be reduced to such necessity as to eat the horrid stuff.”

(Shoemaker, 2005)

Other observers shared these feelings and some reported that a meal spent with the Inuit could be

“trying on a Caucasian’s olfactory nerves” (Shoemaker, 2005). In a 1911 National Geographic

article, whale-eating peoples were referred to as “too poor to buy beef” (Shoemaker, 2005). Such

comments only served to further American sentiments against whale meat and classify it as only fit

for the poor and uncivilized (Shoemaker, 2005). Later, these ethnocentric views would be mocked

in popular venues such as The New Yorker, however, these prejudices survived and when American

environmentalism exploded in the 1970s, whales were an easy target for focused conservation (Fig

8; Shoemaker, 2005).

As compassion for whales grew in America, the view of whales as food saw increasing

pressure. “Whale eaters, like smokers loitering outside of office buildings, increasingly found

themselves in a defensive position” (Shoemaker, 2005). The classifications used to justify Inuit

whaling only increased these ethnocentric perceptions – “whale hunting was either commercial or

Gerhart 31

for subsistence, industrial or aboriginal, implicitly either civilized or primitive” (Shoemaker, 2005).

Aboriginal whalers could still have their rights protected, but only by conforming to western ideas

on what constituted aboriginality (Shoemaker, 2005). Even today, an Inuit community requesting an

ASW quota must rely on western government officials to petition their interests to the IWC, which

can renew issues of colonialism, misrepresentation and exploitation of native peoples (Chiropolos,

1994; Gillespie, 2001). Definitions

within the IWC keep the Inuit in

such stereotyped roles –

“’Aboriginal’ whale eating is

contingent on aboriginals’

separation from the world

economy, and if they ever moved

out of the category of ‘subsistence,’

with its connotations of poverty and

marginality, then they would

presumably eat the same meats as

everybody else” (Shoemaker,

2005). Recently, Japan, in

particular, has been very vocal in

denouncing these prejudices as

“culinary Imperialism,” “Anglo-

Saxon ethnocentrism,” and “racial discrimination” whereby the United States is attempting to

“make cow-eating appear more humane than whale-eating” (Shoemaker, 2005).

Many groups argue that by upholding the moratorium on whaling, the IWC is promoting a

Eurocentric view (supported most strongly by the United States) and is taking a questionable

management stance which contradicts the ICRW and the Law of the Sea, both of which promote

sustainable use of renewable resources (Freeman et al, 1998). As these groups see it, “the record of

the past several years makes questionable the ability of the IWC to act with fairness, honesty, and

integrity, when the interests of whalers is being decided by those rigidly opposed to the catching

and eating of whales” (Freeman et al, 1998). Environmentalists worry about a slippery slope where

whaling will return to the utterly disastrous havoc on whale populations that was seen during the

18th and 19th centuries, yet limited global markets for whale products, numerous bans against

Gerhart 32

imported whale products, and the potential enactment of effective regulations would prevent such

tragedies from occurring again (Freeman et al, 1998). The irony of arguing against the killing of a

few whales, when countries like the United States slaughter millions of mammals for food each year

is not lost on the observer:

“Nations without an interest in whaling have an easy time pontificating about

whales, while their citizens consume hamburgers and drive polluting vehicles to

work in their resource-consuming modern cities, no doubt with ‘Save the Whale’

bumper stickers above the exhaust pipe.” –Peter J. Stoett The International Politics

of Whaling, 1997

In addition, anti-whaling environmentalists forget the environmental costs of banning the

whale hunt; whaling reduces pressure on other food populations (particularly fish), does not require

chemical additives, does not contribute to loss of habitat, soil erosion or ground-water pollution (as

many concentrated animal feed operations do) and does not require heavy government subsidies

common in other operations (Freeman et al, 1998). In addition, whaling is more environmentally

friendly than many other fishing operations – individuals can be targeted by size, sex or species and

there are no problems with bycatch of untargeted species (Freeman et al, 1998). Still, animal rights

groups seem insistent upon not just protecting whale species, but, in some cases, protecting each

individual whale (Freeman et al, 1998). Such arguments are not scientifically valid and come from

subjective, cultural foundations (Freeman et al, 1998). In addition, environmental and animal rights

operations are often very large with impressive financial and political power; Inuit communities are

small in size, few in number and often financially and politically marginalized (Freeman et al,

1998). This dichotomy presents a situation where “those directing these animal protection

campaigns demonstrate a decidedly ethnocentric and limiting view of the world, together with a

total disregard, if not disdain, for people whose culture, lifestyle and occupational choices are

different from their own” (Freeman et al, 1998). Animal welfare groups often do not understand the

cultural, social, economic and health consequences of their campaigns, which makes the need for

public information even stronger (Freeman et al, 1998). For example, well meaning, but misguided,

fights against clubbing baby seals created a ban on the import of all seal products, including adult

pelts, in many countries, which not only shut down the economy of Greenlandic villages who relied

on this income, but also insulted their traditional way of life (Anderson, 2009).

Gerhart 33

“It is no mystery that campaigns to ‘Save the Whale,’ ‘Save the Seal,’ and various

other animal protection causes originated in the urban centres of the industrialized

world. In such centres, where nature has been pushed aside and then reintroduced

in repackaged ways that cause no offence to urbanites’ sensibilities, and where the

realities of making a living in remote rural communities are beyond most people’s

comprehension, campaigns against the killing of noble and defenseless animals

have succeeded to a remarkable degree” (Freeman et al, 1998).

Such western, urban-based, animal-protectionist ideologies make up the majority position of the

IWC and heavily influence whale management regulations worldwide (Stoett, 1997; Freeman et al,

1998). This majority opinion promotes the idea that there is only one valid perspective – the

viewpoint of western industrialized society – which only “perpetuates a colonial mindset and fosters

a form of cultural imperialism that is both objectionable and exceedingly unhelpful in the search for

international solutions to important global questions” (Freeman et al, 1998).

Public surveys have shown that popular opinions on whales and whaling support these

ethnocentric views quite heavily (Kellert, 1979; Freeman and Kellert, 1992). Many American

respondents in the late 1970s reported that American Indian hunters should not have greater wildlife

hunting rights than other Americans, despite what rights may have been granted in past treaties (Fig.

9A; Kellert, 1979). In addition, Americans believed that Inuit should not be allowed to hunt the

bowhead due to its endangered status, despite the fact that the Inuit had relied on the species for

Gerhart 34

centuries (Fig 9B; Kellert, 1979). Not surprisingly, these responses were opposite those reported by

Americans of native descent or residents of Alaska (Figs 9A and 9B; Kellert, 1979). In addition,

multinational surveys have shown that respondents from countries generally against whaling are

less informed on whaling issues than countries in favor of whaling (Freeman and Kellert, 1992).

Factual questions were troublesome for all respondents, with only 40% correct answers on average,

but countries generally against whaling scored significantly worse than those in favor of whaling

(Freeman and Kellert, 1992). For instance, compared to the pro-whaling countries of Japan and

Norway, a significantly larger proportion of respondents from the anti-whaling countries of

Australia, England, Germany and the United States incorrectly believed that “all large whale species

are currently in danger of extinction” (Freeman and Kellert, 1992). About 80% of respondents from

anti-whaling countries also incorrectly believed that “some whale species have become extinct in

modern industrial times” (Freeman and Kellert, 1992). Nearly 70% of respondents from anti-

whaling countries also believed incorrectly that “some countries continue to kill more than a

thousand whales every year for scientific research” (Freeman and Kellert, 1992). Though Japan

currently takes over a thousand whales each year under the scientific exemption of the IWC, at the

time of the survey, no more than 425 whales had been taken in any year by Japan and Norway

combined since the 1986 moratorium (IWC, 2009). If these statements had been true, drastic

protection measures would certainly be needed to protect whale species from extinction. Not

surprisingly, anti-whaling countries also showed strong preferences against whaling for any reason.

In the 1992 survey, majority respondents from the anti-whaling countries agreed they “can’t

imagine why anyone would kill anything as intelligent as whales” (Fig 10; Freeman and Kellert,

1992). These same respondents were opposed to whale hunting under any circumstances and

strongly disagreed with the statement “there is nothing wrong with whaling if it is properly

regulated” (Freeman and Kellert, 1992). The surveys were not able to determine why respondents

were misinformed or why cultural rights to natural resources were so easily dismissed in favor of a

preservationist ideology. Even so, such responses illuminate the general opinions underlying current

debates on whaling issues worldwide.

For these reasons, some suggest that regional management regimes may be more effective at

managing commercial whaling regulations than a single global entity subject to such disparate

cultural viewpoints (Freeman et al, 1998). The current preservationist stance of the IWC majority

may lead the commission to become nothing more than a club of anti-whaling nations, particularly

if pro-whaling nations leave the IWC in favor of internal or regional management regimes (Stoett,

Gerhart 35

1997). Regardless, if the IWC cannot find ways to compromise the ethnocentric, preservationist

viewpoints of non-whaling countries with the cultural and dietary needs of whaling countries

worldwide, whale populations, the future of the IWC and international relations may all be at risk.

Implications for Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Inuit communities throughout the Arctic have been fighting not just for the legitimacy of

eating whale meat and continued whale hunting, but also for the validity of indigenous knowledge

of the environment (Bogoslovskaya, 2003). Throughout history, whalers, explorers and scientists

acknowledged that surviving the harsh climate was much easier if Inuit clothing and knowledge

were incorporated (Bockstoce, 1986). Due to the Chukchi Peninsula hunters’ knowledge of an

additional western route for the spring bowhead migration, a new and specialized type of bowhead

whale was identified and described (Bogoslovskaya, 2003). In the mid 1990s, a joint Russian-

American research program in Chukotka recruited Inuit hunters as trained observers

(Bogoslovskaya, 2003). When Alaskan Inuit fought for an increased bowhead quota from the IWC

in 2002, they argued the bowhead population size was higher than scientists currently estimated

(Wohlforth, 2007). After a $10 million research endeavor, scientists admitted the bowhead

population was larger than previously estimated and capable of sustaining an increased Inuit hunt

(Wohlforth, 2007). To the Inuit, this seemed an expensive way to prove something they already

knew to be true; however, it was also an important lesson for the scientists – such validation proved

there is more than one way to learn about the environment. As one researcher put it, “the Inupiat

Gerhart 36

were able to draw broad, useful conclusions in near real time, something hypothesis-based science

couldn’t come close to doing” (Wohlforth, 2007). John Craighead George, a member of the Naval

Arctic Research Laboratory at Barrow, described the Inuit environmental knowledge as advanced as

western technology: “It’s a bit of a black box to me. There’s conversation, conversation,

conversation back and forth and then there’s this statement that comes out: ‘We know this.’ They’re

taking in massive amounts of data and processing it like a super computer” (Wohlforth, 2007).

Though Inuit knowledge is gaining respect in scientific circles, the relationship between

scientists and Arctic indigenous peoples has not always been good. Many Alaska Natives still view

archeologists as “takers of objects, knowledge and dignity,” who took Inuit remains and artifacts for

display in western museums and put living Inuit on display as objects (Wohlforth, 2007). Modern

scientists are not always more ethical. Recently, one Barrow Inuit spoke openly with scientists

about the location of ancient whale-bones in the village, which lined routes through town so that

roads could be seen even in deep snow (Wohlforth, 2007). The scientists removed the bones without

permission, not only stealing ancient artifacts, but also removing the identification of safe travel

routes for the villagers (Wohlforth, 2007). It is not surprising then that many Inuit are reluctant to

share their knowledge with researchers. One community that has been under heavy study went so

far as to claim its cultural information as intellectual property and required scientists to sign waivers

before speaking with elders (Wohlforth, 2007).

In order to incorporate Inuit knowledge, comanagement arrangements have been tested in

some areas, which combine government management schemes with traditional ecological

knowledge (Freeman et al, 1998). In some cases, these arrangements work well, however, western

domination in the decision-making process can still be present:

“True comanagement should not use our traditional ecological knowledge for its

own validation. Indigenous peoples are not content to ‘cooperate’ while wildlife

managers, biologists and bureaucrats ‘manage.’ True comanagement can only

exist when our proven systems of local knowledge and management, in their

entirety, are considered equally with scientific knowledge and in resource

decision-making. Then, and only then, will we be true partners in comanagement.”

Kuptana, Inuit Circumpolar Conference President (Freeman et al, 1998)

As Inuit throughout the Arctic gain more political control over their lives and their land,

incorporating Inuit knowledge into management regimes should increase. Currently, about one half

of the Arctic rim is now under some form of Inuit governmental control (Anderson, 2009). The

Gerhart 37

creation of the new Canadian territory Nunavut put a large portion of the Canadian Arctic under

limited Inuit control, though negotiating sovereignty was fraught with cultural misunderstanding:

“I remember the first time we sat down with them [the Canadian government], all

they wanted to do was to talk about hunting and fishing, and soapstone quarrying.

We wanted to talk about regaining control of our lives and our land and resources.

We wanted institutions of public government; we wanted to create our own

territory. We wanted financial compensation, and we wanted the protection of our

language and culture and our hunting rights. It took a long time to close that

gap.”- John Amagoalik, known as the “father of Nunavut” for his 25 years of

negotiation with Canadian government (Anderson, 2009).

Though political sovereignty may be increasing through such instances as the creation of Nunavut

and the granting of Greenland Home Rule by Denmark in 1979, social equality may be harder to

obtain. Until cultural imperialism and stereotypes of aboriginality are quelled, political

representation may not be enough to protect Inuit culture from domineering western influence.

Though only one example, the history (and future) of bowhead whale hunting sheds light on some

of these stereotypes and how they have affected interactions between the Inuit and western whalers,

scientists and governments throughout history.

Conclusion

Though indigenous peoples had been whaling for approximately 2,000 years, commercial

whaling did not begin until the early 1600s and reached its peak in the mid 1800s (Stoett, 1997;

Freeman et al, 1998). Few regulations existed until the 1930’s, over 20 years after the collapse of

the bowhead commercial industry and the near extinction of the species (Stoett, 1997). Created in

1946 by 15 countries, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) currently regulates whaling of

all species worldwide and allows only a limited aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) hunt on

bowhead whales (Stoett, 1997). The moratorium on all commercial whaling, enacted in 1986,

protects all whale species, regardless of population size, from whaling – a stance which is currently

hotly debated within the IWC and denounced by countries in favor of allowing limited commercial

whaling (Stoett, 1997).

Commercial bowhead whaling in the Arctic resulted in drastic changes in Inuit culture due

to depletion of whale stocks and contact with western whalers. These impacts included the

introduction of firearms and alcohol, intermarrying between whalers and Inuit women, and the

Gerhart 38

introduction of missionaries and European morality (Bockstoce, 1986). Arguably the longest-lasting

impacts were the removal of whales and the shift to a wage-earning economy (Bockstoce, 1986).

Bowhead whales are still listed as endangered, which not only makes them harder for the Inuit to

find and kill, but brings much criticism from environmental groups (Stoett, 1997). Wage-earning

introduced a previously-unknown form of power in many Inuit communities and produced a

reliance of the Inuit on contact with westerners (Francis, 1984). Today, wage-based practices can

threaten the classification of a community as “aboriginal” for purposes of whaling quotas and other

cultural rights (Decker, 2006).

Climatic change could cause drastic changes in the Arctic environment such as increased sea

surface temperatures, decreased sea ice thickness and extent, and thawing of permafrost (IPCC,

2007; Lawrence et al, 2008; Parkinson and Cavalieri, 2008). These changes could negatively impact

the bowhead through increased shipping traffic (and increased shipping-related pollution), changes

in prey abundance and location, and loss of critical breeding or feeding habitat (Tynan and

DeMaster, 1997; Schell, 2000; Hovelsrud et al, 2008). The Inuit will be affected by changes in

availability of bowhead, and by changes in land conditions such as degradation of permafrost and

sea level rise, as well as increases in western presence via resource extraction and ecotourism

(USDC, 1977; Hall and Johnston, 1995; Lawrence et al, 2008; Sakakibara, 2009). The severity of

problems resulting from climate change in the Arctic will depend on many factors including the

speed of environmental changes and the adaptability of both the bowhead whales and the Inuit to

new conditions (Moore and Huntington, 2008; Sakakibara, 2009).

The history of bowhead whale hunting in the Arctic reveals a dissonance between western

and Inuit viewpoints on whaling and the importance of whales. Historically, this dichotomy resulted

in the near extermination of the whale in order to provide for western industrial and commercial

needs (Bockstoce, 1986). Today, western environmentalists stress complete protection of whale

populations without adequate regard for Inuit cultural needs and ecological sustainability. Currently,

Inuit communities do not have the political sovereignty or the social equality to adequately

represent their physical and cultural needs in the realm of global politics (Stoett, 1997; Freeman et

al, 1998) In order to protect endangered whale populations and preserve a vital component of the

Inuit culture, these two viewpoints must be reconciled. Without proper understanding and

cooperation, the world may not only lose a unique species that plays an important role in the Arctic

ecosystem, but may also lose a unique culture that is as important to protect as an endangered

species.

Gerhart 39

References Adams v Vance (1977) 570 F.2d 950; 11 ERC 1113, 187 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 8, Envtl. L. Rep. 20,160.

Jacob Adams et al v Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State, et al., Appellants, No. 77-1960, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Anderson, Alun (2009) After the Ice: Life, Death and Geopollitics in the New Arctic, HarperCollins

Publishers, New York, NY Anonymous (2009) Status of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, published

by the International Whaling Commission, www.IWCoffice.org Bockstoce, J.R. (1986) Whales, Ice and Men: The History of Whaling in the Western Arctic,

Seattle, WA; University of Washington Press Bogoslovskaya, L.S. (2003) The Bowhead Whale Off Chukotka: Integration of Scientific and

Traditional Knowledge, In: Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic, McCartney, A.P. (editor), Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press, Edmonton. Studies in Whaling Series, No. 6, H.D.G. Maschner and K.L. Reedy-Mashcner (series eds).

Burek, K.A., F.M.D. Gulland, T.M. O’Hara (2008) Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Marine

Mammal Health, Ecological Applications 18(2):S126-S134 Cassell, M.S. (2003), Eskimo Laborers: John Kelly’s Commercial Shore Whaling Station, In:

Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic, McCartney, A.P. (editor), Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press, Edmonton. Studies in Whaling Series, No. 6, H.D.G. Maschner and K.L. Reedy-Mashcner (series eds).

Chiropolos, M.L. (1994) Inupiat Subsistence and the Bowhead Whale: Can Indigenous Hunting

Cultures Coexist with Endangered Animal Species? Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 5:213-234

Decker, A. (2006) Save the Whales – Save the Whalers – Wait, Just Save the International Whaling

Commission: A Fresh Look at the Controversy Surrounding Cultural Claims to the Whale Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 16:253-282

Dixon, J.C. (2004) Environment and environmental change in the western Arctic and Subarctic:

Implications for whaling, In: Indigenous Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic, McCartney, A.P. (editor), Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press, Edmonton. Studies in Whaling Series, No. 6, H.D.G. Maschner and K.L. Reedy-Mashcner (series eds).

Evans, P.G.H., J.A. Raga (2001) Marine Mammals: Biology and Conservation, Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY Francis, D. (1984), Arctic Chase: A History of Whaling in Canada’s North, Breakwater Books, Ltd

Gerhart 40

Freeman, M.M., L. Bogoslovskaya, R. A. Caulfield, I. Egede, I.I. Kupnik, M.G. Stevenson, (1998) Inuit, Whaling, and Sustainability, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA

Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner (2004) Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological

Conservation and Restoration, Ecology and Society, 9(3):1-18 Geraci, J.R. (1990) Physiologic and toxic effects on cetaceans , In: Sea Mammals and Oil:

Confronting the Risks, Geraci, J.R., St. Aubin, D.J. (eds), Academic Press, Inc, San Diego, CA Gillespie, A. (2001) Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling: A Critique of the Inter-Relationship Between

International Law and the International Whaling Commission, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 12:77-139

Goodman, D. (1996). Proceedings 11 th. International Symposium on Peoples and Cultures of the

North. Hokkaido Museum of Northern Peoples. Abashiri, Japan. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Government of Canada

Hall, C.M., M.E. Johnston (1995) Pole to Pole: Tourism issues, impacts and the search for a

management regime in polar regions, In: Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, C.M.Hall, M.E. Johnston (eds), John Wiley and Sons Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex, England

Hinch, T.D. (1995) Aboriginal people in the tourism economy of Canada’s Northwest Territories,

In: Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, C.M.Hall and M.E. Johnston (eds), John Wiley and Sons Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex, England

Hovelsrud, G.K., M. McKenna, H.P. Huntington (2008) Marine Mammal Harvests and Other

Interactions with Humans, Ecological Applications 18(2):S135-S147 IPCC (2007), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

IWC (2009), Official website for the International Whaling Commission, www.IWCoffice.org IWC (2010a), IWC Chair and Vice-Chair offer new way to conserve whales and manage whaling.

April 22, 2010 press release IWC (2010b), Proposed consensus decision to improve the conservation of whales from the chair

and vice chair of the commission, International Whaling Commission 62nd Annual Meeting, Agenda Item 3 of the Small Working Group on the Future of the IWC

Jackson, C.I. (2003) The Arctic Whaling Journals of William Scoresby the Younger: Volume I: The

Voyages of 1811-1813, Published by the Hakluyt Society, London, UK Johnston, M.E. (1995) Patterns and issues in Arctic and sub-Arctic tourism, In: Polar Tourism:

Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, C.M.Hall and M.E. Johnston (eds), John Wiley and Sons Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex, England

Gerhart 41

Johnston, M.E., D. Madunic (1995) Waste disposal and the wilderness in the Yukon Territory,

Canada, In: Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, C.M.Hall and M.E. Johnston (eds), John Wiley and Sons Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex, England

Larson, M.A. (2003) Festival and tradition: The whaling festival at Point Hope, , In: Indigenous

Ways to the Present: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic, McCartney, A.P. (editor), Canadian Circumpolar Institute Press, Edmonton. Studies in Whaling Series, No. 6, H.D.G. Maschner and K.L. Reedy-Mashcner (series eds).

Lawrence, D.M., A.G. Slater, R.A. Tomas, M.M. Holland, C. Deser (2008) Accelerated Arctic land

warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss, Geophysical Research Letters, 35:L11506

Lindsay, R.W., J. Zhang (2006) The thinning of Arctic sea ice, 1988-2003: Have we passed a

tipping point? Journal of Climate 18: 4879-4894 Marsh, J., S. Staple (1995) Cruise tourism in the Canadian Arctic and its implications, In: Polar

Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, C.M.Hall and M.E. Johnston (eds), John Wiley and Sons Publishing, Chichester, West Sussex, England

Matthews, L.H. (1968), The Whale, New York, Simon and Schuster Mason, M. (1977) The bowhead whale controversy: Background and aftermath of Adams v Vance,

Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2:363-388 Moore, G.W.K. (2006) Reduction in seasonal sea ice concentration surrounding southern Baffin

Island 1979-2004, Geophysical Research Letters 33:L20501 Moore, S.E., H.P. Huntington (2008) Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change: Impacts and

Resilience, Ecological Applications 18(2):S157-S165 Neff, J.M. (1990) Composition and fate of petroleum and spill-treating agents in the marine

environment, In: Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks, Geraci, J.R., St. Aubin, D.J. (eds), Academic Press, Inc, San Diego, CA

Paine, R.T. (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability, The American Naturalist,

103(929): 91-93 Parkinson, C.L., D.J. Cavalieri (2008) Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979-2006, Journal of

Geophysical Research 113:C07003 Ragen, T.J., H.P. Huntington, G.K. Hovelsrud (2008) Conservation of Arctic Marine Mammals

Faced with Climate Change, Ecological Applications 18(2):S166-S174 Sakakibara, C. (2008) “Our home is drowning”: Iñupiat storytelling and climate change in Point

Hope, Alaska, Geographical Review 98(4):456-475

Gerhart 42

Sakakibara, C. (2009) “No whale, no music”: Iñupiaq drumming and global warming Polar Record 45(235):289-303

Sapir, E., M. Swadesh, A. Thomas, J. Thomas, F. Williams (2003) The Whaling Indians: Legendary

Hunters; West Coast Legends and Stories: Sapir-Thomas Nootka Texts Vol 9, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ganiteau, Quebec, Canada

Schell, D.M. (2000) Declining carrying capacity in the Bering Sea: Isotopic evidence from whale

baleen, Limnology and Oceanography 45(2):459-462 Serreze, M.C., M.M. Holland, J. Stroeve (2007) Perspectives on the Arctic’s shrinking sea-ice

cover, Science 315:1533-1536 Shoemaker, N. (2005) Whalemeat in American History, Environmental History 10:269-294 Simmonds, M.P., S.J. Isaac (2007), The impacts of climate change on marine mammals: Early signs

of significant problems, Oryx 41(1):19-26 Smith, G. (1983) The International Whaling Commission: An Analysis of the Past and Reflections

on the Future, Natural Resources Law, 16:543-567 Stirling, I., C. L. Parkinson (2006) Possible effects of climate warming on selected populations of

polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59:261–275. Stoett, P.J (1997), The International Politics of Whaling, Vancouver, British Columbia, University

of British Columbia Press Stoeve, J., M.M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, M. Serreze (2007) Arctic sea ice decline: Faster

than forecast, Geophysical Research Letters 34: L09501 Turner, E. (1993) American Eskimos Celebrate the Whale: Structural Dichotomies and Spirit

Identities among the Inupiat of Alaska, The Drama Review, 37(1):98-114 Tynan, C.T., D.P. DeMaster (1997) Observations and Predictions of Arctic Climatic Change:

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals Arctic 50(4):308-322 United States Department of Commerce (USDC) (1977), Final Environmental Impact Statement:

International Whaling Commission’s Deletion of Native Exemption for the Subsistence Harvest of Bowhead Whales; Vol 1: Summary and Text; Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Fisheries Management, Rockville, MD

Vinnikov, K.Y., A. Robock, R.J. Stouffer, J.E. Walsh, C.L. Parkinson, D.J. Cavalieri, J.F.B.

Mitchell, D. Garrett, V.F. Zakharov (1999) Global warming and northern hemisphere sea ice extent, Science 286(5446):1934-1937

Wohlforth, C. (2004) The Whale and the Supercomputer: On the Northern Front of Climate

Change, North Point Press, New York, NY

Gerhart 43

Wursig, B. (1990) Cetaceans and oil: Ecological perspectives, In: Sea Mammals and Oil:

Confronting the Risks, Geraci, J.R., St. Aubin, D.J. (eds), Academic Press, Inc, San Diego, CA