Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:34:47.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Traditional and modern sources of income in the Lancaster Sound region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Heather Myers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Northern Canadian natives wish to continue their traditional lifestyle by hunting, fishing and trapping. These feelings have, for example, been expressed at the recent Lancaster Sound Regional Study workshops by the native residents of Grise Fiord, Resolute, Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet, in spite of pressure by government and industry for the Inuit to take up wage-earning employment. In comparison with the cash benefits of industrial employment the value of the native or traditional economy is often underestimated. Domestically-used meat and materials cannot be valued in a formal or cash economy and tend to be discounted in planning analyses (Usher, 1980).

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 21 , Issue 130 , January 1982 , pp. 11 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bannikov, A. G. 1970. Arctic Fox in the USSR: biological premises of productivity. In: Fuller, W. A. and Kevan, P. G. eds. Productivity and conservation in northern circumpolar lands. Proceedings of a conference… Edmonton, Alberta, 15–17 October 1969. Morges, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, p 121–30.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. H.and others. 1977. Possible effects of the Arctic Islands Pipeline on living resource use. Preliminary report, 1977. Canada. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. ESCOM Reports, No AI-02.Google Scholar
Brochu, M. 1971. A preliminary study of the establishment of equalization prices for the pelts of fur-bearing animals in New-Quebec. Musk-Ox, No 9, p 42–52.Google Scholar
Brody, H. 1976. Inuit land-use in north Baffin Island and northern Foxe Basin. In: Freeman, M. M. R.anothers, eds. Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project, Vol 1. Land use and occupancy. A report prepared under contract with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Ottawa, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, p 153–72.Google Scholar
Bruemmer, F. 1968. Eskimos of Grise Fiord. Canadian Geographical Journal, Vol 77, No 2, p 65–71.Google Scholar
Friesen, B. F. and Nelson, J. G. 1978. An overview of the economic potential of wildlife and fish resources in the Canadian Arctic. In: Keith, R. F. and Wright, J. B.eds. Northern transitions. Vol 2. Second National Workshop on People, Resources and Environment North of 60. Ottawa, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, p 163–80.Google Scholar
Harper, K. 1980. An overview of socio-economic conditions. In: Harper, K. and McClean, G. G.Socio-economic characteristics and conservation interests of the Lancaster Sound region. Ottawa, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, p 17–113. (Lancaster Sound Regional Study. Background Report No 3.)Google Scholar
Inglis, J. T. 1980. Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife. In:Loch, J. and Ingus, J. T.Selected biological characteristics of the Lancaster Sound region. Ottawa, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, p 23–25. (Lancaster Sound Regional Study. Background Report No 2.)Google Scholar
Kirtland, R. R. 1981. Musk-oxen help villages. The Globe and Mail,16 March, 1981, p 24.Google Scholar
Loch, J. 1981. Marine life. In: Loch, J. and Inglis, J. T.Selected biological characteristics of the Lancaster Sound region. Ottawa, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, p 1–21. (Lancaster Sound Regional Study. Background Report No 2.)Google Scholar
Martin, C. [1978]. Keewatin profile. [Yellowknife], Department of Information, Government of the Northwest Territories.Google Scholar
Müller-Wllle, L. 1978. Cost analysis of modern hunting among the Inuit of the central Canadian Arctic. Polar Geography, Vol 2, No 2, p 10O–14.Google Scholar
Myers, H. 1981. The use of biological resources by certain Arctic and sub-Arctic peoples. Cambridge, Scott Polar Research Institute. (Unpublished MPhil thesis.)Google Scholar
Riewe, R. 1977. The utilization of wildlife in the Jones Sound region by the Grise Fiord Inuit. In: Bliss, L. C.ed. Truelove Lowland, Devon Island, Canada: a High Arctic ecosystem. Edmonton, University of Alberta Press, p 623–44.Google Scholar
Smith, P. A. and Jonkel, C. J. 1975. Resume of the trade in Polar Bear hides in Canada, 1973–74. Canadian Wildlife Service. Progress Notes, No 48.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 1978. Canada year book. Ottawa, Ministry of Supply and Services.Google Scholar
Taunton, G. F. and Fenton, R. W. 1977. Background information on the resource harvesting economy in the Polar Gas Study region, Northwest Territories, 1976. Winnipeg, Inter Group Consulting Economists Ltd.Google Scholar
Tener, J. S. [1965]. Musk-oxen in Canada: a biological and taxonomic review. Ottawa, Canadian Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
The Inuvik Drum. 1981. 41 000 lbs of musk-oxen harvested. Tkelnuvik Drum,13 May 1981, p 3.Google Scholar
Treude, E. 1977. Pond Inlet, northern Baffin Island: the structure of an Eskimo resource area. Polar Geography, Vol 1, No 2, p 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usher, P. J. 1976. Evaluating country food in the northern native economy. Arctic, Vol 29, No 2, p 105–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usher, P. J. 1978. Renewable resource development in northern Canada. In Keith, R. F. and Wright, J. B.eds. Northern transitions. Vol 2. Second National Workshop on People, Resources and Environment North of 60°. Ottawa, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, p 154–62.Google Scholar
Usher, P. J. 1980. A northern perspective on the informal economy. Ottawa, The Vanier Institute of the Family.Google Scholar
World Wildlife Fund (Canada). 1981. US ‘sting’ nets five tons of walrus ivory. Working for Wildlife, Vol 2, No 6, p 8.Google Scholar