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

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

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

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

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