A. Species
Scientific name: Delphinapterus leucas
Common name(s): Beluga whale
Global IUCN Red List Threat Status: Least Concern
B. Location of use
Geographic location(s):
- Nunavut
Country/Region: Canada / Nunavut Territory - Hudson Bay
C. Scale of assessment
Scale of assessment: Sub-national / Sub-region / Sub-State
Name/Details of location: Hudson Bay / Repulse Bay, Rankin Inlet, and Whale Cove
D. Timescale of use
Start Year: 2007
End Year: 2007
E. Information about the use
How is the wild species sourced?: Wild species sourced from its natural habitat
Type of use: Extractive
Practice of use: Targeted fishing harvesting/exploiting or collecting wild aquatic resources
Lethal or non-lethal: Lethal
Does this use involve take/extraction of: The whole entire organism
Purpose(s) of end use: Food and feed and Decorative and aesthetic
Motivation of use: Basic subsistence and Income generation from trade (individual/household/community)
Is this use legal or illegal?: Legal under national law
F. Information about the Users
Which stakeholder(s) does the record primarily focus on?: Local people
G. Information about the sustainability of use
Is there evidence that the use is having an impact on the target species?: Wild species sourced from its natural habitat
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from an ecological perspective been recorded?: Yes, considered unsustainable
Details of assessment carried out: Study cites survey by the committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
Brief summary on why the use has been assessed/judged to be sustainable or unsustainable: The study mentions that off the three beluga stocks hunted within Hudson Bay, the eastern Hudson Bay population has declined in the past and has not shown a recovery; it has been listed as endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), while still enduring hunting pressure. The 2007 beluga catch, was set to 180 whales, according to reported catch data.
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from an economic perspective been recorded?: Yes, considered unsustainable
Details of assessment carried out: this study
Brief summary on why the use has been assessed/judged to be sustainable or unsustainable: The study performed a detailed economic analysis and found that for the communities participating in each hunt, the average economic use value was negative (-$9399) for beluga. The corresponding per capita value estimate was -$1 for beluga. Including the effects of cost sharing with one other hunting activity in the model increased the economic use value to $266504 for beluga. Narwhals provide a higher value per whale, in addition to a higher per capita total economic value to the community, compared to belugas because resources are shared among fewer communities. However, the beluga hunt overall provides greater revenue because more belugas are harvested. Study Results indicate that the value of whales to communities is largely due to their food value.
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from a social perspective been recorded?: Yes, considered unsustainable
Details of assessment carried out: this study
Brief summary on why the use has been assessed/judged to be sustainable or unsustainable: Increasing human populations, combined with declines in marine mammal populations in Hudson Bay, reveal the although hunting is important to this region. it is likely unsustainable for Inuit society: the projected increase of community populations in Nunavut from 32416 in 2010 to 44581 in 2036 (Nunavut Bureau of Statistics, 2010) has the potential to increase [unsustainable] pressure on marine mammal stocks in the area. The study concludes that if the harvesting of whales is not possible in the future (because of biological limitations), the economic ramifications will affect not only Hudson Bay communities, but also those in other areas of Nunavut and Nunavik. The ban on trading narwhal products outside of Canada has likely affected Hudson Bay communities, yet this lost revenue appears small compared to the costs associated with hunting.
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from a human health perspective been recorded?: Yes, considered sustainable
Details of assessment carried out: this study
Brief summary on why the use has been assessed/judged to be sustainable or unsustainable: Not only does hunting provide a source of protein for people, but Inuit have also reported a lack of resistance to illness when not consuming muktaaq.
Has an assessment (or judgement) of sustainability of the use of the target species from an animal health/welfare perspective been recorded?: No, sustainability not determined
Recommendations provided in the record to maintain or enhance the sustainability of the use of the target species
While values in this study are derived from hunting, it would be possible to generate revenue through other avenues, such as whale watching. It was estimated that in 2003, more than 13 million people globally participated in whale watching, spending over $1.6 billion USD. Locations where tourism infrastructure already exists have the greatest potential for revenue from whale watching activities. More research is needed to identify the scope of these possibilities, including the potential desire of northern communities to participate. Polar bear hunting activities combine sport-based “trophy hunts” for non-Natives with traditional hunts, indicating that some communities may be willing to participate in multiple activities to generate revenue. In the case of the narwhal hunt, it is often implied that hunting activities are driven by potential profits from male narwhal tusks. However, for the communities specified in this model, males accounted for only 56% of catches (from Repulse Bay), indicating they were not the sole targets of the hunt, at least for the 2007 season.
Record source
Information about the record source: scientific_pub
Date of publication/issue/production: 2013-01-01T00:00:00+0000
Source Reference(s):
Date of record entry: 2022-12-02