Introduction
In colonial nations such as Canada, there have been increasing requirements for governments
to engage directly with Indigenous communities regarding their rights and interests
in natural resource management generally, with specific focus on the role of Indigenous
knowledge systems in harvest management decision-making (Tikina et al.
2010). Canadian courts have repeatedly focused on two factors with extremely important
consequences for the Nation-to-Nation relationships that exist between the Crown and
the Indigenous communities: (1) Indigenous rights must be reconciled with other government
responsibilities including justified infringements for the often ill-defined concept
of ‘conservation’ (Crawford and Morito 1997; Ayers 2005; Nadasdy 2005), and (2) the
‘honour of the Crown’ must be maintained when consulting Indigenous communities, especially
with regard to management decision-making about their natural resources (Morito 1999;
Slattery 2005). Given the legal necessities for a Eurocentric government to engage
in honorable and meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities about conservation
ethics and natural resource management, it remains to be seen how these Indigenous-Western
science cross-cultural consultations should be undertaken (Crawford et al.
2010). The trend to date has largely been the domination of Western Science over Indigenous
knowledge systems (in the sense described by Pentland 1995); circumstances in which
Indigenous knowledge holders might be requested to provide information to scientists/managers
who would evaluate it for reliability and utility before deciding whether to incorporate
in a science-based management program (McGregor 2004; Clark and Slocombe 2009; Lyver
et al.
2009). Some scholars have suggested that conflict caused by this kind of cultural
domination could be reduced if governments and Indigenous communities re-initiated
their discussions with an examination of similarities and differences in principles
regarding ‘conservation’ and ‘natural resource management’ (Ratner and Holen 2007;
Ebbin 2011; Watson et al.
2011). In this way, the communities could develop a structured and respectful dialogue
about wild harvest management in the spirit of reconciliation and productive collaboration.
There have been numerous attempts by Western scientists to reach internal consensus
on general principles for natural resource management (Holt and Talbot 1978; Christensen
et al.
1996; Mangel et al.
1996; Dale et al.
2000), habitat management (Lindenmayer and Nix 1993; Botsford et al.
2003; Naiman and Latterell 2005), harvest management (FSC 1996; Heissenbuttal 1996;
Lauck et al.
1998; Fowler 2003; FAO 2001; González-Laxe 2005; Utne 2006; Shelton and Sinclair 2008;
Francis et al.
2007; MSC 2010) and biodiversity/endangered species management (Walters 1991; Tilman
1999; Ebbin 2011).
Although the practice of ‘defining principles for resource management’ is not something
that Indigenous societies typically engage in, there have been many attempts to survey
and understand Indigenous values and social norms in this regard (Ratner and Holen
2007; Turner and Berkes 2006; Watson et al.
2011). For example, Alcorn (1993) offered a general treatise on the relationship between
Indigenous worldviews and the Western idea of ‘conservation.’ Berkes et al. (1998)
explored fundamental properties of ecosystem-like concepts in Indigenous cultures.
In the 2011 ‘Principles of Tsawalk,’ Umeek (E. Richard Atleo), a hereditary Nuu-Chah-Nulth
chief, discussed his culture’s principles of Recognition, Consent, and Continuity
and their important role in maintaining balance—in contrast to the global consequences
of Western ‘sustainable’ development. Prober et al. (2011) characterized the principles
of Australian Aboriginal ecological calendars and indicators and evaluated their possible
interaction with Western social-ecological systems for natural resource management.
Over the past decades, a growing body of community-based collaborative studies has
provided more depth and insight into the structure and function of traditional Indigenous
knowledge systems and their associated decision-making processes for harvest management
(e.g., Feit 1986; Brightman 1993; Horstman and Wightman 2001; Ayers 2005; Castleden
et al.
2009; Lyver et al.
2009; Moller et al.
2009; Bilbao et al.
2010). However, as Jones et al. (2010) caution, researchers must always be careful
to consider Indigenous community-based value systems as spatially and temporally local
expressions of their culture. Efforts to identify general Indigenous ‘principles’
of natural resource management must be tempered by conscious recognition that (1)
‘principles’ are social constructs which are deeply embedded in cultural and social
norms that are typically complex and subtle to the outsider (Houde 2007; Peloquin
and Berkes 2009), and (2) Indigenous cultures and worldviews are inherently more diverse
than the relatively homogenous standards of Western science (although see a provoking
challenge of this assumption about scientific homogeneity by Watson-Verran and Turnbull
1995).
The goal of our investigation was to develop and demonstrate a process for engaging
with Indigenous communities to inquire about the structure and function of social
norms in their culture that could relate to Western ‘principles’ for natural, renewable
resource management. In order to achieve this goal, we worked in partnership with
a sponsoring Ojibway community on a case study to employ community-based, participatory
research methods with traditional people who were most familiar with social norms
for harvest management.
Methods
This research employed a case study approach with the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded
First Nation, hereafter referred to as Nawash, the home community of the first author.
A research proposal for this investigation was reviewed and approved by Nawash Band
Council, who appointed a male Elder to serve as Liaison, to ensure that the implementation
of methodologies was culturally appropriate for the community. The methods for this
research project were reviewed and approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics
Board.
Nawash and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, collectively referred to as the
Saugeen Ojibway Nation, share a series of distinctive treaties signed with the Crown
in the mid-1800s that are recognized among the most clearly proven rights of Canadian
First Nations (Blair 1997, 2000; Walters 1998). Their traditional territories (Fig. 1)
comprise a land area of 6,500 km2 extending from the Saugeen (Bruce) Peninsula into
southern Ontario, as well as numerous tributaries, and more than 500 km of shoreline
and 10,000 km2 of Lake Huron extending offshore into both the Main Basin and Georgian
Bay (Lytwyn 1992; Morito 1999). The Saugeen Ojibway Nation also have exclusive harvesting
rights in a 930 ha hunting reserve on the northern Saugeen Peninsula, as well as an
exclusive commercial fishing reserve negotiated with the Crown in Lake Huron extending
north from central Main Basin, around the Saugeen Peninsula and associated Fishing
Island, and east to the middle of southern Georgian Bay. The Nawash reserve itself
is approximately 64 km2 in land area, located at Neyaashiingaming; an Ojibway name
translating roughly to “point of land covered on three sides by water” commonly referred
to in English as Cape Croker (Borrows 1997; Keeshig-Tobias 1996). The on-reserve population
of Nawash is approximately 700 people, while the off-reserve population is approximately
1,500 people (Chippewas of Nawash Band Council Membership Office, Iris Ashkewe, pers.
comm. 2009).
Fig. 1
Traditional territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (collectively the Chippewas of
Nawash Unceded First Nation and Saugeen First Nation) in southern Ontario Canada and
Lake Huron/Georgian Bay of the Laurentian Great Lakes
A case study approach was used in this investigation because it provided the best
opportunity for in-depth exploration of the socially constructed nature of an Ojibway
knowledge system—especially the structure and function of fundamental principles used
in resource management (Nakashima 1993; Turner et al.
2000; Kendrick and Manseau 2008). Nawash was a natural choice for this case study
because (a) the community has a long history of interactions (both collaborative and
conflicted) with Western scientists/managers over numerous natural resource issues
(Borrows 1997; Akiwenzie and Roote 2004; Koenig 2005), and (b) Nawash sponsors the
second author’s biology faculty position at the University of Guelph, including responsibilities
to undertake research aimed at improving relations between Indigenous and Western
science knowledge systems.
Since time immemorial, the Nawash people have lived in their traditional territories
and participated in wild harvest management activities for sustenance, ceremony and
commerce (Lytwyn 1990; Johnston 1995; Borrows 1997; Blair 2000). Nawash harvests have
included a high diversity of wild food/medicinal plants, as well as fishes (including
lake whitefish, lake trout, lake sturgeon, herring), birds (including ducks, ruffed
grouse, geese), and mammals (including white-tailed deer, northern raccoon, black
squirrel, North American porcupine, snowshoe hare, eastern cottontail rabbit). Nawash
also has a long history of trapping American beaver, river otter, common muskrat,
pine marten and fisher for food and/or commerce. A complete list of English, Ojibway
and scientific names for these species can be found in Appendix 1.
To ensure that our research engaged knowledgeable community members, we used methods
proposed by Davis and Wagner (2003) and Sillitoe et al. (2005). First, a survey form
(Appendix 2) was distributed to each member of Nawash Council and the Liaison in Spring
2007, requesting them to help identify on-reserve Nawash community members who were
considered to be most knowledgeable about traditional Ojibway practices pertaining
to the harvesting of wild plants and animals. Knowledge holders were also identified
during interviews with other knowledge holders; this snowballing process is considered
to be especially important in highly embedded knowledge systems (Davis and Wagner
2003).
The interviewer made frequent preliminary visits (approximately bi-weekly) to the
community throughout the winter and spring of 2007 in order to encourage a general
sense of familiarity with the project and the investigators (Smith 1999). Formal introductions
to knowledge holders were made by the Liaison prior to any request for an interview.
During these introductions the Liaison identified the interviewer as a Nawash band
member who had grown up off-reserve, and discussed the context and purpose of the
research project with knowledge holders. Every effort was made to ensure that community
members felt like research partners engaged in a relationship of trust (Santiago-Rivera
et al.
1998; Smith 1999; Schnarch 2004); this trust was particularly important since participants
were asked to share knowledge and beliefs that were potentially intimate (Brant Castellano
2004).
During the course of research, the primary author frequently participated in a variety
of harvest-based activities including medicinal and food plant collecting, fishing,
hunting, and trapping. These activities were initiated by the Liaison, and were designed
to create an array of situation-based learning experiences for the primary author.
These experiences provided the primary author with an opportunity to directly experience
Ojibway harvesting, and created a shared sense of experience which was frequently
drawn upon during knowledge holder interviews.
We employed a semi-structured interview technique during Initial and Follow-up phases
of the study, to create an informal and conversational atmosphere that facilitated
flexible and open-ended discussion (Grenier 1998). Initial interview questions were
general in nature, and designed to elicit discussion about traditional wild harvest/management.
Follow-up interviews were designed to extend discussion specifically on harvest/management
principles that had been collectively identified by knowledge holders during the Initial
interviews. Interview guides with predetermined but open-ended questions (Appendix
3) were provided to knowledge holders at the beginning of each interview, and were
used to keep discussions focused, yet open to unanticipated knowledge (Huntington
1998; Sillitoe et al.
2005). Knowledge holders were asked if they had a preference regarding interview recording
method (digital voice recorder-default, hand-written notes), and all subsequent discussions
were recorded in a consistent manner, and then transcribed in full.
The digital knowledge base software program NVivo Version 7.0.247.0 SP2 (Copyright
QSR International Pty. Ltd. 1999–2006) was used to organize, code, and interpret transcribed
data derived from both Initial and Follow-up interviews. Depending on the specific
context of a knowledge holder discussion, nodes were created for phrases-sentences-passages
that made some reference to knowledge systems, natural history, practices or principles
related to wild harvest and/or management. For the purpose of this study, ‘principles’
were defined as general concepts that are held to be true by the community members;
concepts that could be either causal principles in the sense of explanations of cause-effect
mechanisms (i.e. Western science ‘hypotheses’) regarding the states of nature, or
moral principles in the sense of guiding factors formulated as general rules of conduct
that promote the satisfaction of particular values (Crawford and Morito 1997).
Results
Eight knowledge holders were first identified by Nawash Council/Liaison; the snowballing
technique with knowledge holders also identified most of these persons, as well as
an additional two knowledge holders, for a total of ten knowledge holders interviewed
in this study. This group of knowledge holders included seven men and three women,
ranging in age from 37 to 95 years.
A total of 17.5 h of interviews were conducted with the Nawash knowledge holders during
the period from September 2007 to May 2008 (Table 1). Initial interviews were conducted
over 11.5 h with the complete set of ten knowledge holders, ranging in duration from
0.75 to 1.50 h (1.15 ± 0.29, mean ± s.d.). Six of the knowledge holders preferred
hand-written interview notes, while the remaining four expressed no preference and
were recorded using a digital voice recorder. Follow-up interviews were conducted
over 6.0 h with six of the ten knowledge holders, ranging in duration from 0.50 to
1.75 h (1.00 ± 0.52). Sadly, three knowledge holders passed away during the 10 month
interview period of this study. There did not seem to be an appropriate time to re-engage
with the other outstanding knowledge holder.
Table 1
Summary of semi-structured interview recording method and duration with ten traditional
Knowledge Holders from the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation
Knowledge Holder
Initial Interviews
Follow-Up Interviews
Recording method
Duration (hr)
Recording method
Duration (hr)
A
DVR
1.50
DVR
1.50
B
HWN
0.75
C
HWN
1.25
D
HWN
1.00
HWN
0.75
E
HWN
1.25
F
HWN
1.50
HWN
1.00
G
HWN
1.00
H
DVR
0.75
DVR
0.50
I
DVR
1.50
DVR
1.75
J
DVR
1.00
DVR
0.50
Total
11.50
6.00
A total of 154 references to moral or causal principles of harvest/management were
made by the knowledge holders during the Initial interviews. After closely examining
the context within which individual knowledge holders had made these references, it
seemed clear to us that there were repeated instances of five distinct principles.
Table 2 presents the name and a selection of quotation/paraphrase text from different
knowledge holders that we considered to be representative of the five identified principles.
Table 2
Selected descriptions of wild harvest/management principles identified from interviews
with traditional Knowledge Holders from the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation
Principle name (Type)
Principle descriptions (Knowledge Holder Code)
SEASONS (Moral and Causal)
• “The life of our people, they were guided by the seasons so that there were only
certain activities conducted in each season, like the fall season was harvest time,
the spring time was new life, and so because there was new life there, especially
young being born and so forth, they wouldn’t bother with those creatures because those
creatures are being renewed and they’re newborn so to make sure that they are going
to be sustainable, you never kill a deer that’s carrying her young, things like that.”
(J)
• “At certain times we knew that we don’t go hunting because of the reproduction,
because you have to let wildlife and fish reproduce.” (E)
• “In the fall we had whitefish. We also had them in the summer (whitefish); they’d
come to shore. They spawned in June. That was seasonal.” (G)
NEEDS (Moral and Causal)
• We were always told not to take more than you need. You don’t go out and fill up
ten freezers. You always looked ahead and say I know that I am going to be giving
some away. (E)
• We used common sense in deciding how much to take, for example, you don’t destroy
what you eat and you only take what you can use, share or cure. (F)
• “Just because the fish is there you didn’t fish to the extreme where you caught
more than you could actually use.” (H)
THANKS (Moral)
• Everyone gives thanks in their own way, its part of the culture. (C)
• “You’d leave tobacco where you killed the animal or some other token that you had
with you but it was mostly tobacco. It meant that you were thanking Mother Nature
for the provision of food and then you are also giving thanks for that animal giving
its life for your existence, that’s what it meant.” (A)
• “Grandma used to put tobacco down when they got sweet flag.” (D)
WASTING (Moral and Causal)
• “We were always told what you kill you eat because it was given to you for food
and it was there for a purpose so we didn’t waste.” (A)
• It comes back to you because it haunts you, because now, you’ve left that animal
out there to rot. You’ve left that thing out there to rot, and that’s what haunts
you, you shouldn’t have done that. You shouldn’t have, if you weren’t going to use
it, why kill it. Let it be, it has a right to live too, just like anything else has
a right to live. A bird has a right to live, and trees have a right.” (A)
• “You were obligated not to waste in some fashion. Because if you wasted, it was
always thought that it was less for the next time around or the next person in line.”
(H)
• “I know even parts of the fish, like take the sucker for example… it had a lot of
bones but we used to take the bones out and make fish pie out of it. And then there
was sucker heads that were used to make fish soup. Every part of the heads was consumed
and all the bones that were left were the jaw and the facial bones. Even the eyes
were floating around in the soup. I remember my parents really liked sucker head soup.
Even the eggs were good to eat too, the sucker eggs.” (J)
SHARING (Moral)
• Always share if you get fish or animals. (D)
• “I remember I got four moose that one year. Far too many eh. A few of us went and
we got four moose. So I spent all day cutting it up and just called the people, come
and get moose, come and get moose.” (I)
• “Most of them I think used to hunt for their family and then if there was any extra
it was given out to the community or the Elders that would like some but didn’t have
a chance to get any.” (H)
• “ The community used to be a food bank. You never used to have to go to the community
to get your 2 bags of groceries. It would be on the porch secretly, or sometimes people
would go around the community and collect what people could spare for others they
knew to be in need.” (Liaison)
The principle of SEASONally based harvesting implies that harvesters adhere to SEASONal
cues that alert Ojibway people of the temporal availability of particular resources.
For example, the first warm rains in the spring might bring to the Ojibway mind images
of the first wild leeks or wild mushrooms emerging from forest soils, just as the
appearance of fireflies in late May or early June may serve to remind the Ojibway
that the wild strawberries are ripe and the birch bark is ready to be harvested (Liaison,
pers. comm. 2007). The SEASONS also serve to remind Ojibway people as to the appropriateness
of harvesting particular resources at particular times within each season (Knowledge
Holder J). For example, Ojibway people do not hunt for deer and other mammals when
females may be carrying or nurturing young, however, they know that when the leaves
begin to turn in the fall that they can safely hunt for deer without endangering the
newly born (Driben et al.
1997). The SEASONS principle was classified as moral due to the consideration of appropriateness
of harvesting in-season, however this principle was also classified as causal since
some of the knowledge holders linked season-based harvesting to underlying biological
or ecological cycles of harvested species.
The NEEDS principle described harvesters’ effort in relation to the abundance or availability
of the target plant or animal species. It was important that a harvester not succumb
to temptation in cases where they had the opportunity and the means to harvest more
than what was required to satisfy current needs of their family/community. In this
study, the NEEDS principle was also classified as both moral and causal, in this case
because some of the knowledge holders linked harvester restraint to the ability of
the supporting populations of harvested plants/animals to regenerate for continued
existence, and the prospect of sustained future harvests. Several Nawash knowledge
holders expressed the need for caution in determining how much to harvest in contemporary
situations, because recently created or improved technologies such as refrigeration
and dehydration enable harvesters to accumulate far beyond their immediate needs.
The THANKS principle was described by knowledge holders who stressed the moral imperative
for harvesters to consciously and actively express gratitude for their good fortune
in receiving desired plants/animals. This gratitude could be directed to the Creator
and/or the organism that gave its life to the harvester. Gratitude could be expressed
in various ways, however many of the knowledge holders stressed the importance of
expressing gratitude in traditional Anishnaabe manners, especially those involving
the respectful offering of tobacco (Hallowell 1960).
The WASTING principle focused on the abhorrence of disrespecting the plants/animals
that had offered their lives to the harvester. Specifically, it was the harvester’s
moral obligation to make maximum use of the gift that had been received, rather than
taking only premium organisms that had been killed, or using only premium parts of
the organism’s body. This principle was also classified as causal, because some of
the knowledge holders linked the effects of not WASTING with the idea that such a
strategy would reduce harm to the supporting population, and thus increase the opportunity
of future harvests.
The SHARING principle reflected the expectation that harvesters would provide some
or all of their harvests to members of their extended family, other members of the
community, or anyone who was in need of such provisions. The SHARING principle was
strongly related to the idea that the harvested plants/animals do not ‘belong’ to
the harvester, but rather give themselves to the people so they may also survive and
flourish.
Table 3 presents frequencies at which the ten knowledge holders referenced the five
identified principles during Initial interviews. The principles are organized horizontally
in decreasing frequency across knowledge holders, while the alphabetic codes of specific
knowledge holders are organized vertically in decreasing frequency across total number
of principle references. The cumulative number of references made by all knowledge
holders to each of the five identified principle ranged from 29 to 34 with a mean
of 30.8 (±2.2 s.d.). The total number of references to principles made by individual
knowledge holders during an individual interview ranged from 7 to 26, with a mean
of 15.4 (±7.0 s.d.). For each knowledge holder, the number of references per principle
ranged from 0 to 8 with a mean of 3.1 (±2.0 s.d.). It is interesting to note that
6 of 10 knowledge holders made reference to all five of the identified principles;
the remaining knowledge holders (B, I, G and D) still made reference to most of the
principles, despite making the fewest references of all knowledge holders in the group.
Table 3
Frequency of references to five identified principles of wild harvest/management made
during Initial interviews with traditional Knowledge Holders from the Chippewas of
Nawash Unceded First Nation
Knowledge Holder
Principles
SEASONS
NEEDS
THANKS
WASTING
SHARING
Subtotal
Percent
J
8
6
4
5
3
26
16.9
A
6
4
7
4
3
24
15.6
H
5
5
3
5
5
23
14.9
F
3
5
5
2
3
18
11.7
C
5
4
2
4
1
16
10.4
E
1
1
5
1
4
12
7.8
B
2
2
1
5
0
10
6.5
I
2
2
0
1
5
10
6.5
G
2
0
2
2
2
8
5.2
D
0
3
1
0
3
7
4.5
Subtotal
34
32
30
29
29
154
Percent
22.1
20.8
19.5
18.8
18.8
100.0
Bold numbers are summary statistics, rather than test statistics
Discussion
In this study, we identified five major principles about traditional Ojibway harvest/management
expressed by ten Nawash knowledge holders over 17.5 h of semi-structured interviews.
While we believe this small sample can provide insight into the structure and function
of Indigenous knowledge systems, we are under no illusions that the sample is representative
of the traditional principles that exist within Nawash or Ojibway culture. The principles
that we identified in this study reflect only what the knowledge holders chose to
share with us at the time and in the specific context of the interviews. We explicitly
recognize that it can be very difficult for these concepts to remain intact through
the processes of cultural and language translation; as Ingold and Kurtilla (2000)
caution, the lack of Indigenous articulation of ‘principles’ under these kinds of
interview conditions does not necessarily mean the concepts did not exist. In the
future, community-based research focusing on principles of resource management should
employ some means of detecting an asymptote in the number of new principles identified
during interviews, similar to the sampling designs used by ecologists to estimate
the number of undiscovered species in an ecosystem (e.g., Chao et al.
2009).
The abundance and distribution of principles expressed by Nawash knowledge holders
were remarkably consistent. Most interviewees made relatively equal references to
most (if not all) of the five identified principles, suggesting that these principles
derive from a general set of values that permeate through the traditional community.
Despite incidental comments from community members about traditional people with specialized
knowledge, we did not find causal or moral principles that were specific to certain
individuals or particular kinds of harvesting. It could be that more specialized principles
require additional detail in the semi-structured interview format, including greater
focus on particular kinds of harvesting or management situations (e.g., seining whitefish,
trapping beaver, shooting grouse).
We were also interested to note that all five of the identified principles could be
considered moral precepts; two of which were classified as solely moral (THANKS, SHARING),
while three were classified as having both moral and causal characteristics (SEASONS,
NEEDS, WASTING). The causal linkages identified by knowledge holders (i.e., harvesting
season-ecological cycle, harvester restraint-population regeneration, maximum utility-minimum
demand) were typically implied during conversations, rather than explicitly defined
in linear cause-effect relationships. For example, while some knowledge holders expressed
serious concern that killing pregnant deer during winter could have a strongly negative
effect on the abundance of deer in the future, they did not make reference to specific
concepts akin to population growth rates, density-dependence, or compensatory mortality.
There are at least two possible explanations for the general lack of specific cause-effect
principles about natural processes in this study. As described above, the limited
breadth and depth of discussions may simply not have provided sufficient opportunity
to trigger discussions about the processes underlying wild harvest and management
practices. We suspect that causal principles may have emerged as a stronger topic
of discussion if the interview sample had included a traditional person whose livelihood
was still heavily dependent on their own intensive harvesting of wild plants and animals
in the territory. However, it is also possible that, as suggested by Peloquin and
Berkes (2009), traditional Ojibway knowledge of causal mechanisms does not take the
form of abstract mental representations that could be recognized in this study as
‘causal principles’ in the Western cultural sense. From Feit’s (1987) perspective,
Cree hunters say that trends in the condition of harvested animal populations are
signs of the quality/quantity of future harvests; however the traditional Cree are
not scientists—they phrase their knowledge and predictions in a culturally distinctive
system of concepts and values. Obviously the ramifications of such epistemological
arguments are profound, and require active participation in the debate by members
of the Indigenous knowledge systems in question (Davis and Ruddle 2010).
The natural resource management principles identified in this study are highly consistent
with the descriptions of principles previously reported for Ojibway communities (e.g.,
Warren 1885; Hallowell 1955, 1960; Overholt and Callicott 1982; Borrows 1997; Driben
et al.
1997) and for other Indigenous knowledge systems in Canada and throughout the world
(e.g., Turner et al.
2000; Colding and Folke 2001; Turner and Berkes 2006; Metallic 2008).
The SEASONS principle has been reported in other Ojibway communities where harvesters
avoid hunting for deer or other wildlife species when females could be carrying or
nurturing young; hunting can resume without endangering young-of-the-year when the
leaves begin to turn in the fall (Driben et al.
1997). Scheduling harvesting activities relative to critical life history periods
of harvested organisms is practiced in many Indigenous societies (Colding and Folke
2001). Sami people in northern Finland intensively organize their migratory and harvesting
efforts with annual seasonal fluctuations in temperature, precipitation and daylight
hours—and the associated seasonal patterns in the distribution and abundance of the
plants and animals upon which they rely (Bjørklund 1990; Ingold and Kurtilla 2000).
Lyver et al. (2009) discussed alternate possible explanations for Māori principles
regarding post-breeding harvests of kereru and titi, including coincidence of favorable
circumstances and deliberate conservation planning. Prober et al. (2011) described
ecological calendars and seasonal knowledge of Australian Aboriginal communities to
predict environmental conditions, distribution and abundance patterns, migration pathways,
and effectiveness of harvesting tactics. Recently there has been increased focus on
Indigenous season-based principles, especially with regard to the enormous potential
of global climate change to disrupt traditional capabilities to live off the land
(Turner and Clifton 2009; Green and Raygorodetsky 2010).
The NEEDS principle is also prevalent in other Ojibway and Indigenous communities
(Borrows 1997; Driben et al.
1997; Knudtson and Suzuki 1992). Over-killing, which can be understood as killing
beyond immediate needs, is harshly criticized in other Ojibway and Cree Nations (Driben
et al.
1997). Brightman (2007) discussed the importance of this principle in the Cree stories
of Wiisahkiicaah who taught the people about the ‘wages of gluttony.’ In Mi’kmaq culture,
the principle of netukulimk serves the same kind of constraining function when harvesters
find themselves in a rich environment that could provide more than their needs (Barsh
and Youngblood Henderson 2003). Similarly, Zavaleta (1999) reported complex and species-specific
restraint practices among Yup’ik waterfowl hunters in Alaska.
The THANKS principle is well known and deeply rooted in Ojibway natural resource harvesting
and management as an important means of acknowledging relationships to the beings
that sustain individuals in their daily life (Densmore 1928). Acknowledging these
relationships in Ojibway culture can be as simple as leaving tobacco or offering a
few words of thanks—something that directly reminds the harvester and consumer that
all humans are connected to, and sustained by, the natural world (Johnston 1976; Metallic
2008). Māori offer THANKS to acknowledge the unity between all aspects of creation,
as well as the specific energy that radiates from life (Marsden and Henare 1992).
Many other Indigenous societies also give THANKS to spirit beings before and/or after
harvesting activities (Knudtson and Suzuki 1992; Turner and Berkes 2006). In many
Indigenous cultures, knowledge systems are grounded in reciprocal and spiritual relationships
with plants, animals and the environment; there are strong social forces regarding
the right ways and wrong ways of interacting with these spirits that sustain the community
in more than physical ways (Tanner 1979; Feit 1986; 1987; Menzies and Butler 2006).
McClellan (1975) identified the belief among the Tutchone and Kaska people of southern
Yukon that appropriate respect for the animals is a precondition for continued success
in the hunt. Brightman (1993) and Feit (1994) described the complex of Cree principles
of respect and reciprocity for harvested animals, including the “same respect you
give yourself” expressed variously as singing to the animals, verbal petition, quick
killing to minimize suffering, ritual sacrifice and offerings. Berkes (1999) refers
to a reciprocity ‘ethic’—a state of mutual respect and exchange, in which all life
exists on the same level, including humans. Within the terms of this ethic, humans
are able to take plant or animal life for food because the organism gives itself to
the human—the human reciprocates by respecting and honoring the organism.
The idea of WASTING a harvest is particularly unfavorable in Ojibway and other Indigenous
communities with beliefs that plants, animals and other elements of creation possess
their own spirits and have a right to live that is equal to that of humans (Driben
et al.
1997; Turner and Berkes 2006). Brightman (1987) described the strong avoidance of
wasting among traditional Algonquins in the Hudson Bay region; Tanner (2007) discussed
the broader, spiritual and religious worldview within which Innu have concerns about
wasting nutshimiu-natukun (‘country medicine’). This anti-WASTING principle is expressed
in many different ways, but often takes the form of maximizing utility from as many
parts of the harvested organisms as possible, with moral sanctions for those who take
only ‘premium’ organisms or parts of organisms (Menzies and Butler 2006). Zavaleta
(1999) noted that Indigenous hunters who practice waste avoidance reduce the likelihood
of hunger when food is scarce, and also minimize the number of harvested animals necessary
to meet the needs of hunter and community.
In Ojibway culture, the SHARING principle is based on the fundamental fact that no
person in the community is permitted to claim ownership over a particular resource,
thereby denying the use of this resource by others (Johnston 1976). Indigenous Nations
generally identify with common resources that are shared in a manner that maintains
and strengthen relationships within families, communities and territories (Metallic
2008). Perhaps the most well-known examples of the SHARING principle is evidenced
in the practice of potlatch festivals/ceremonies in which Indigenous communities of
the Pacific Northwest of America promote inter-dependence through the redistribution
of natural resources (Knudtson and Suzuki 1992; Ayers 2005).
As investigators, we must constantly be mindful that these Indigenous ‘principles’
do not exist in isolation, but are embedded within the geographic and cultural and
social conditions of community life. Consider, for example, the set of ethics and
values presented by the Council of the Haida Nation to explain their worldview: Yahguudang
(Respect), Giid tll’juus (Balance), Gina waadluxan gud ad kwaagiida (Interdependence),
Isda ad diigii isda (Reciprocity), Gina k’aadang.nga gii uu tl’ k’anguudang (Wise
Counsel), ‘Laa guu ga kanhllns (Responsibility) (Jones et al. 2010). Likewise, the
work of Feit (1986, 1994) and Brightman (1993) with Cree communities reveals a profoundly
interwoven and inter-dependent complex of spirituality, causality, reciprocity, and
morality in the ‘principles’ of traditional hunters. Consider Brightman’s (1993) description
of the ‘grateful prey:’
“The event of killing an animal is not represented as an accident or a contest but
as the result of a deliberate decision of the animal or another being to permit the
killing to occur. The dream events that Crees say prefigure successful kills are sometimes
talked about as signs that this permission has been given. In waking experience, the
decision finds culmination when the animal enters a trap or exhibits its body to the
hunter for a killing shot. Since the soul survives the killing to be reborn or regenerated,
the animal does not fear or resent the death. The animals’ motivations for participating
in these events of killing are figured both in the idioms of love and of interest.
Animals may “pity” the hunters who have need of their flesh, and especially is their
benevolence evoked when the hunter complies with the conventional objectifications
of “respect,” treating the carcass, meat, and bones in the correct fashion. Conversely,
ritual omission or blasphemy angers the animals, who then withhold themselves. But
the role of the hunter-eater is not that of passive recipient only, and the animals
themselves stand to gain from the exchange. Having received the gift of the animal’s
body, the hunter reciprocates. Animal souls are conceived to participate as honored
guests at feasts where food, speeches, music, tobacco, and manufactured goods are
generously given over to them. Hunter and prey are thus successively subject and object
in an endless cycle of reciprocities. Ultimately, the roles of human and animal are
complementary, for each gives life to the other. The treatment of the remains not
only objectifies respect but is said to restore the animal to a living condition.”
(Brightman 1993, p.187)
Clearly, within traditional Indigenous knowledge systems much of the so-called objective
knowledge—including what Western people call causal principles—are framed within a
moral and spiritual context. This context may seem to be very different from the detached
and abstract causal principles that drive the Western science knowledge system, until
we peel back the layers to find the implicit and deep morals that also exist within
Western science (Castleden et al.
2009; Buijs 2009). Within this moral context, Atleo (2011) challenges us to consider
the question “How much can humans know about reality?” The social structure of Indigenous
and Western knowledge systems requires the indirect and direct action of values; these
values affect the questions that are posed, the manner that investigations are designed
and approved, and the manner that scientific discoveries become applied (Allchin 1999).
The multi-faceted relationship between science and ethics is especially important
as it relates to the standards of ethical conduct within science—honesty, carefulness,
openness, freedom, and credit (Resnick 1998). Rollin (2006) explored the ideological
agnosticism that many scientists subscribe to, with special reference to problems
caused when ethical issues in science are ignored. While the vast majority of scientists
will never have to confront major ethical or moral dilemmas associated with their
research (e.g., Teller 1998), there is an emerging recognition among scientists that
they have a profoundly reciprocal relationship with morality (Harris 2010). If western
scientists were prepared to engage directly on moral issues—starting with their own
beliefs and values—they would be much better prepared to recognize the intertwining
causal and moral principles that exist within Indigenous knowledge systems (Ingold
2000; Morito 2002).
Given the modern legal requirement for meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities
regarding natural resource harvest/management, it is difficult to imagine that such
consultation could begin anywhere except by going back to the beginning—with Indigenous
and Western science communities re-introducing themselves as people, their worldviews,
and their knowledge systems. It is reasonable to expect that causal and/or moral principles
would emerge naturally among the substantive points of discussion between Indigenous
and Western science knowledge systems (Ratner and Holen 2007). If the local knowledge
holders from both cultures recognize similarities in their principles, then these
principles could be codified in more formal agreements and protocols between the parties.
If the local knowledge holders recognize differences in their principles, then the
parties would have to discuss how these differences can be respected and accommodated.
Is it possible to develop a framework for cross-cultural discussion that would enable
Indigenous and Western science knowledge holders to engage meaningfully with each
other’s set of beliefs, practices and values? Was Callicott (1991) correct when he
claimed that all systems of resource management are practical expressions of underlying
principles? If so, then we think that Indigenous and Western science knowledge holders
are obliged to actively search for these principles, and to make sure that they communicate
them effectively to each other. If not, then Indigenous and Western science knowledge
holders will have to keep searching for other bridges that will enable meaningful
and reciprocal consultation on natural resource management issues. Either way, it
seems clear to us that there could be much more to discuss in principle than either
community might have originally expected.